Search results

This study is a meditation of the master's program “Globalization and Education” at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. It contributes an evaluation of the function of bravery in academic discourse. Safety and bravery refer to the complexity of educational space in higher education: to interactions in the classroom, the institutional context, and social imaginaries of Western modernity. While civility and respect are essential, and potential causes of pain should be acknowledged, the control of conduct can never fully guarantee safety. The chapter proposes replacing the classroom with a research community. It would no longer excessively focus on the relationship between a teacher and students, but the subject matter. The commitment becomes more symmetrical, and, therefore, a research community creates a brave space.

This chapter introduces the purpose and structure of this edited volume, including why safe spaces are needed in educational settings, how to think about what makes a space safe for different individuals or groups, and aspects to consider in creating and maintaining safe spaces. It describes the two broad sections, the first of which comprises chapters that introduce the problem, context, need for safe spaces (Chapter 2), the broad conceptual frames supporting them (Chapter 3), and detail and deconstruct examples of various safe spaces created in diverse educational settings (Chapter 4). Chapters in Section II include aspects of the conceptual foundations and details about the purpose, development, and implementation processes, and outcomes of various efforts to create and/or maintain a safe space for education.

The purpose of this paper is to assess whether firefighters display different decision‐making biases: either a liberal bias to accepting information as true or a conservative bias to rejecting information, with the former carrying risk of “false alarm” errors and the latter of “misses”.

Situation awareness (SA) and decision‐making biases were examined in Fire and Rescue (FRS) “table‐top” and Breathing Apparatus (BA) training exercises. The former involved showing 50 operational FRS personnel a powerpoint presentation representing the drive‐to, views and information related to the incident. The BA study involved 16 operational FRS personnel entering a smoke‐filled training building in a search‐and‐rescue exercise. True/False answers to statements about the incidents were analysed by a signal‐detection‐type tool (QASA) to give measures of SA and bias.

In both studies, there were two groups showing different bias patterns (either conservative with risk of “miss” errors, or liberal with risk of “false alarms”) (p≤0.001), but not different SA (p>0.05).

Future work will involve more realistic training exercises and explore the consistency of individual bias tendencies over different contexts.

Risk in fireground decision making may be minimised by increasing awareness of individual tendencies to either conservative or liberal bias patterns and the associated risk of respectively making “miss” or “false alarm” errors.

The results may help to minimise fireground risk.

This is the first evidence to show firefighter decision bias in two different exercises.

Markowitz’s mean‐variance approach is used to identify the returns to vertical investment in the pork industry. In addition to previous efforts, this paper considers not only returns to stock ownership, but uses operating return on investment in pork slaughter and hog production to evaluate the impacts of vertical investment within the industry segment. Results suggest there are indeed diversification incentives for vertical investment in the pork industry. However, results do differ for vertical direct investment versus investment through stock ownership.

Since the incident at Westminster Abbey last Christmas, Scottish nationalistic pride, or self‐consciousness, has been widely advertised. In many respects the existence of that attitude of mind does no harm to His Majesty's subjects in England and Wales. But now a genuine grievance against the Scots—which has existed for some years, though few people have been aware of it—has at last received publicity. It arises from the fact that several of the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, do not apply to Scotland—doubtless because the Scots had represented that they would be unacceptable. Among those provisions was Section 101, which incorporated with the Act the whole body of regulations, including those relating to preservatives in food, which had been made in pursuance of the Public Health Acts. Similar Regulations, it is true, do apply in Scotland, but a breach of them is an offence, not under the Act of 1938, but under the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act of 1928, which is wholly repealed so far as England and Wales are concerned. Recently the Corporation of Blackburn persuaded the local justices to convict a company, registered and trading in Scotland, of an offence against the Act of 1938 on the ground that boric acid had been found in biscuits manufactured by the company in Scotland and sold to a Blackburn retailer. The Scottish company was not prosecuted by the Blackburn Corporation but was brought in under s. 83(1) by a previous defendant. Counsel for the defence took the points that a Scottish firm cannot be haled before an English Court in respect of an alleged offence which, if it was committed at all (which was disputed), was committed in Scotland, where the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, is not in force. Incidentally it may be observed that the presence of boric acid in the biscuits was due to the use of margarine containing not more than the permitted percentage of the preservative. The magistrates chose to convict the Scottish company as the person to whose act or default a contravention of the provisions of the English Act was due. On appeal to the Divisional Court, the conviction has now been annulled, primarily on the ground that the Blackburn bench had no jurisdiction to hear a summons against the Scottish company. Section 83, like many other sections of the Act of 1938, does not apply to Scotland, except with respect to prosecutions under the Orders made by the Minister of Food under. Defence Regulations—for example, the various Food Standards Orders and the Labelling of Food Order. (See particularly Regulation 7(3) of the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943, and Article 15(c) of the Labelling of Food Order, 1946.) Still, if Scotsmen insist on not being subject to the English food laws as a whole, it would be unreasonable for them to expect that those who sell food in England and Wales should be willing to be deprived of the safeguards which the Act of 1938 confers on innocent dealers who have been let down by their suppliers. The Scots may find that English retailers of food will boycott Scottish products. Provided always that nothing in this Article shall be deemed to apply to the sale or purchase for human consumption in England or Wales of the article of food distilled in Scotland and commonly known as Scotch or Scottish Whisky, if the food is so described in an invoice or on a label bearing the name and address of the distiller. The point of which proviso is to show that I am not such a nitwit as to think that anything that I write will deter or discourage any Englishman from acquiring a bottle of Scotch if he knows where and how he can get it.

An interesting report has been submitted to the Brighton Watch Committee by Mr. T. J. Metcalfe, Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures. In his report Mr. Metcalfe observes that the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, which controls trading methods in connection with the sale of most articles of food, does not require that jams, marmalades, syrups or honey should be sold by weight and manufacturers and packers, with few exceptions, have not hitherto applied any weight statement to their prepacked products. Trading has generally been in standard sizes, referred to as “1's” and “2's,” and although most members of the public have understood that packs contain 1‐lb. or 2‐lb. net, no offence can be proved to have been committed when the seller makes no purportation of weight at the time of sale. The introduction of rationing has caused your Inspectors, in association with the Enforcement Officers of the Food Control Committee, to inquire more fully into the position which has developed. A purchaser is entitled to receive from the retailer with whom he is registered a maximum quantity of 2 ozs. of preserves per week. If the retailer, following the established practice, cancels eight ration coupons, hands over a jar of preserve and charges the maximum permitted price per pound, then there would appear to be prima facie evidence of a representation of weight of 1lb. Any deficiency would apparently constitute an offence by the retailer. As, however, the retailer could prove that he purchased the pack in the condition in which he sold it, that the manufacturer or packer should know the implications of the Rationing Order and the Sale of Food Act, and that the packer would strongly object to a retailer interfering with any prepacked preserve or syrup in such manner as might imperil the quality or brand repute of the product, it would appear that the retailer has an adequate defence. He could not, however, rely on a warranty, it not being the custom of the trade to mark a statement of weight on the jars, nor to insert a sufficient warranty in invoices. While the Board of Trade, under powers conferred by Section 9 (1) of the Act of 1926, can make a regulation bringing preserves within the First Schedule to the Act and thus requiring them to be sold only by net weight, this has never been done because manufacturers and packers have emphasised that there are practical difficulties, in my opinion not insurmountable, in guaranteeing the net weight content of a commodity packed gross in containers which may vary appreciably in tare weight. We have recently had evidence of deficiencies of ⅜ oz. and ¾ oz. in jars of golden syrup sold against eight ration coupons and for which the maximum permitted price per pound has been charged. The packers admit the possibility of such deficiencies and, while stating that they are doing their best to give 1lb. net weight they claim that no offence was committed against the Price Control Order in the case of the pack found to be ⅜ oz. short because the value of the shortage was not one farthing, nor was an offence committed against the Sale of Food Act because the deficiency in a single pack sold at the one time was inconsiderable. But the cumulative effect of such a deficiency in thousands of sales must be considerable and the loss to the purchasing public, in an article of food of which they receive so small a ration, is one of some gravity. In taking any legal proceedings for short weight under Section I of the Sale of Food Act, 1926, the Inspector is under an obligation to prove (a) that the deficiency was a considerable one, or (b) that inconsiderable deficiencies existed in a reasonable number of articles of the same kind sold or held for sale at the same time. It would be most undesirable for the Inspector, in seeking to establish proof of short weight, to interfere with, say, a dozen jars of preserves or syrups, having regard to the present supply position. It should not have to be necessary for the Inspector to have to rely on Section I standing alone. If the Board of Trade made a regulation under Section 9 (1) requiring such articles of food to be sold by net weight only, then the manufacturer or packer would need to guarantee the accuracy of weight content and he, I submit, is the person best able to ensure it.

AS there is a traditional connection between literature and licensed premises, I may begin (though it be to my detriment) with a tavern reminiscence. Some years ago, at a highly decorous hour in the evening I got myself into a quiet corner of an old‐fashioned Hampstead house, having it in mind to turn over the pages of an advance copy of a new book in which I took a special interest. I suppose my pre‐occupation looked unsociable. Anyhow, it was remarked by a group of local tradesmen, substantial men all, and one a borough councillor. It was the borough councillor, I think, that checked me. “Well, Mr. C,” he boomed out,—it is a point of London public‐house etiquette, the origin of which would be worth investigation, that you must never take the liberty of addressing a gentleman by his surname but only by its initial—“Well, Mr. C, that must be a very interesting book. Something by old Edgar Wallace, eh?” “No,” I said, “I only wish it were,” and yielded up the book to his outstretched hand. He examined it with the curiosity of an unspoiled savage. “Nice lookin',” he murmured, “but not much in my line o' country, I should say.” Then at the sight of the title‐page he exploded. “Gawd, Mr. C, did you write all this?” I confessed that I had, and at once found myself the object of, I can't say the admiration of the group, but of their profoundest interest. The volume was passed round, fingered and frowned over and returned to me. A few seconds of embarrassed silence followed; but presently the borough councillor thrust his hands well into his trouser pockets, fixed his eyes upon the dim distance of the four‐ale bar, thoughtfully swayed backwards and forwards and spoke. “Well, I don't think I've ever read a book—not in all my life,” he said. His friends breathed something that was too slight to be called a sigh but was unmistakably an inchoate “hear, hear.” The matter then dropped. I stole humbly away, leaving them to continue their wrangle about Chelsea and the Arsenal (or it may have been Jimmy Wilde or the Lincolnshire—I cannot, as Mr. Belloc would say, be positive which).

The purpose of this paper is to provide a profile of the novelist Charles Dickens.

Several biographies and articles about the life of Charles Dickens were examined, to see if there was evidence that he experienced mental health problems.

While Dickens has been acclaimed for his ability to authentically portray the living conditions of the poor in the nineteenth-century Britain, there is comparatively little historical record of the fact that he may have experienced bipolar disorder. This paper suggests that he displayed many of the characteristic symptoms of bipolar.

The story of Dickens’ own childhood is an amazing example of personal resilience. It no doubt enhanced the quality of his writing, but it may also have “sown the seeds” of a later mental illness.

So much attention has been focused on the colourful characters from Dickens’ novels, but little on the problems of the man himself.

The story of Charles Dickens is as fascinating as any of the fictional characters he created, if not even more intriguing. His story confirms the link between writers, creativity and mood disorders.

Given the huge attention and worldwide acclaim paid to the books of Charles Dickens, which have inspired numerous films as well as musicals, it is surprising how little attention has been paid to the author himself and his struggles with mental illness.