Search results

Today's CEOs are appropriately skeptical of estimates provided by the firm's staff and outside consultants about the results alternative policy recommendations will have on the price of their firm's stock. One reason for such skepticism is first‐hand experience with those short‐term price swings that seem unrelated to the fundamental, longer term factors affecting the proper value of the firm. If the market is efficient, and if price is set by forecasts of a longer term stream of cash receipts, how can the firm's stock (relative to the S&P 500) be so volatile? And if the stock is volatile in the short run, how can the various claims for shareholder value policies be reliable for the longer run?

At a meeting of the Stepney Borough Council on June 20th the Public Health Committee submitted the following report by the Medical Officer of Health detailing the proceedings which have been instituted against a certain milk‐vendor during the past eight years, and illustrating the difficulties which are experienced in obtaining convictions for adulteration of milk in consequence of the provisions of the “warranty clause” of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts.

A piece of frequently given informal advice to those starting in the world of research is to ‘pick a topic you'll be able to stick with for three or four years’ – and often that's the end of it. This chapter suggests that we should understand the importance of confronting the ‘affective gap’ in how research is currently conceived. It does so by considering how usually we do not engage with the issues underlying this ‘sticking with’ and what allows us to sustain our attention and effort across the years of a research project. Through a case study of my own confrontation with the question of how I chose and changed my own PhD research topic, this chapter introduces the idea of affective research through an exploration of the concept of affect and its relevance to research. The first part of this chapter explores affect through a brief overview of four different scholarly literatures, to provide an initial framework and some clarity for what is often an opaque subject. This is then grounded through an affective engagement with the issue of choosing a research topic and how this affects our research. It concludes with a brief overview of the other chapters in the volume.

This is the age of research. What was once a highly selective privilege in just a few professions that could be counted on one's fingers has since the last war become a feature of every conceivable branch of science and trade, to which millions in money are devoted. The connection often seems remote, if not a little spurious. Perhaps it may be due to the enormous emphasis on the teaching of science and technology in recent years, but we see what Sir William Dale calls “these turnspits of modern science” ready to undertake, and various official bodies to finance by grants, research into almost anything. The amount spent, for example, on cancer research through the years and all over the world, which incidentally has produced very little in the way of real advancement towards a cure, must be phenomenal, but it is now probably dwarfed by the colossal sums available for trade and market research. We even see research by opposing groups, one endeavouring to prove, the other to refute some particular hypothesis. Much of it appears to lack realism or to be of any great practical value and at too high a theoretical level, including masses of statistics, without which the younger generation of scientists appears to think research valueless, if not impossible.

British business schools The British Business Schools appeal has exceeded its original £3m target by some £1½m. Announcing this at a recent press conference, Lord Nelson of Stafford, Chairman of the Appeal Committee of the Foundation for Management Education, said that £4,600,000 has been subscribed in four months by British industry and commerce for the two schools. The appeal launched in June achieved its minimum target of £3m by September in what is believed to be a record time for such a broadly based appeal. He hoped that the final figures would raise the total to £5m through a large number of smaller but equally vital subscriptions.

The Attorney‐General has informed the House of Commons that good progress has been made with the preparation of a Bill for consolidating the Food and Drugs Acts. Such a measure is badly needed—for a variety of reasons. First, there are the wholesale amendments made already by the Food and Drugs (Milk, Dairies and Artificial Cream) Act, 1950. Then there is the intensified muddle of the powers and duties of several Government Departments—namely, the Ministries of Food, of Health, of Agriculture and of Housing and Local Government. Further, much of the emergency legislation now in force—including some Food Standard Orders made under temporary powers—cries aloud to be made permanent. And, in addition, various doubtful questions under the existing law might well be resolved. In theory, consolidation Bills are not expected to bring about substantial amendments if these deal with matters of controversy. In practice, such amendments are sometimes made. This was the case when the Food and Drugs Bill of 1938—which was meant to be a consolidating statute—was before the Joint Select Committee of Lords and Commons. For example, a great change was then made, in the teeth of strong opposition, concerning the qualifications of a local authority to become a Food and Drugs Authority. It will not be surprising if the new Bill alters the existing law with respect to the powers of such Authorities to enforce statutory provisions of their own volition—without having to receive the formal consent of a Ministry. In the matter of food standards, while some may be included in an Act of Parliament, many others must obviously continue to be dealt with by statutory instruments. However much the Government may wish to abolish food rationing and control, it is clear that meat, bacon, butter and cheese must for some time remain rationed—and that some Department must continue to have powers to restrict and regulate the sale and composition of foods in short supply, as circumstances may from time to time render such regulation necessary and variable in its scope. Examples which will occur to everyone are sausages and other products containing meat; cream; ice‐cream and other products containing cream; eggs and articles containing them; with the ever‐present possibility of further control of milk and its products at certain seasons of the year. Among the doubtful points to be cleared up is one concerning the definition of meat. “ Meat ” in various statutes has widely different meanings. Recently, the Divisional Court has decided that in the Transport Act, 1947, which has a definition that “meat” means carcases (etc.) of animals, the definition does not cover fish. The Lord Chief Justice was careful to indicate that the Court was not deciding that “whalemeat” was outside the scope of the definition, and added that in the Transport Act “meat” might perhaps include rabbits, poultry and game. There are various decisions on record under other statutes. Thus meat was held in 1905 to be “ any kind of solid food”. In 1915, a Court held that ice‐cream may be meat, and in 1916 another Court ruled that ice‐cream is not meat. Still another difficult question presents itself under S. 14 of the Food and Drugs Act 1938, which requires the registration of premises under for the preparation or manufacture of potted, pickled or preserved food intended for sale, and lays down that “the preparation of meat or fish by any process of cooking shall be deemed to be the preservation thereof ”. Who can say whether for the purpose of this Section bacon is meat? A shopkeeper may find himself in possession of ham or bacon which shows signs of losing its sweetness. So he decides to boil it and sell it as cooked, in order to avoid waste of good food. Is it an offence if his premises are not registered under the Section? I have my own view on this, but do not express it because the whole thing is so doubtful and open to argument. Analysts' fees may perhaps come under consideration. If a private purchaser requires the public analyst to provide a certificate concerning an article said to contain various proportions of several vitamins, must the maximum fee remain at one guinea, as laid down in S. 69 (3) of the Food and Drugs Act? This can hardly be justified, in view of the recent announcement in the “ London Gazette ” that the fee of the Government Chemist for analysing referred samples under the Act is now raised to four guineas. There is hardly any limit to the amount of tidying‐up which might with advantage be tackled in a Food and Drugs Consolidation Bill.

My Lord, in this case, if you brush away—as I invite you to brush away—all the irrelevancies introduced by my friend, Mr. Hume‐Williams, I submit to you with confidence that this case is reasonably clear; but the elaborate argument he has delivered requires me, I am afraid, to repeat what I said in opening, that the only way to approach a case of this kind is to look at the Section of the Statute, and to see what the Section of the Statute was intended to prohibit. I am not going to trouble you with the earlier cases decided under the Food and Drugs Act. I know there have been decisions by the Divisional Court, but they cannot be looked to because the Act under which these proceedings were taken was avowedly intended to meet the difficulties that had arisen in the administration of the earlier Acts. The purpose of the Act is absolutely clear, especially in regard to Section 3, but let me remind you again that this Act contains several different offences, provided with appropriate defences, and guarded by certain specific conditions.

In 1934 the Milk Marketing Board came into being, and with it the “Milk in Schools Scheme.” and all its promises to provide millions of school children with milk “approved” by County Medical Officers. Much effort has been made on school milk in this county. Often it is found that the milk “approved” does not reach the schools, but other milk does, which has not been covered by the arrangements made by the county council with the Ministry of Agriculture's veterinary staff. This is usually discovered when a school sample is found tuberculous, and arising from the subsequent enquiry. The steps taken as practised in this county are: (a) The proposed producer and supplier is visited, and his methods and cows inspected. (b) A sample of the “bulk” milk is procured for cleanliness and disease tests (the test for tubercle bacilli takes six weeks—this is unfortunate, but it is the best our laboratories can do). (c) The supply to the school is “approved” and the veterinary surgeon of the Ministry is requested to clinically inspect the herd quarterly—(no authority exists to tuberculin test cows without permission of the owners). Visits to schools are made frequently and samples of milk are tested from time to time. Those schools situated in convenient areas in the county receive “pasteurised” milk, which, incidentally, does not always satisfy the requirements of law, despite the cry often heard that pasteurisation is the cure for all unsatisfactory milk. The supplier has to be relied upon to deliver the “approved” milk—if he does not, the control instigated is somewhat lost, except the milk he is actually delivering is tested about once in three months. As there are some 250 schools taking milk this work is considerable. What control is operative in other counties I cannot say, but it is felt that the control of milk supplied to children leaves very much to be desired. As previously stated, steps ought to be taken to direct, wherever possible, “tuberculin tested” milk into the schools. At present this milk is largely wasted. Suppliers to schools, in the main, are not desirous of the business, and decline it whenever possible. County councils are also active through their agricultural and advisory departments. Very useful work had been done in this direction, but such activity is non‐statutory, and the Dairy Instructors may only visit farms when help is requested. The scope of this work has been enhanced by the inclusion in the war agricultural departments of a milk production section. Thus a further staff has been created, which possesses new sampling officers to sample milk, after it has been sold and received at the collecting depots throughout the country. This staff, which at the moment is declared to be for war time only, probably supersede numerically all the peace time milk administrators. The reasons for setting up the war time staff is to prevent losses of milk due to bad production, and to increase production. It is obvious that if the peace time arrangements could be consolidated, and a bold administration proceeded with, to compel the producers and others to comply with the law on the subject, there would be no need for a new body, which probably will remain after peace comes. What is needed, and this has been the case for many years, is a real drive for clean, disease‐free milk. The position as outlined in this lengthy statement is not due to the present emergency. The muddle has been in operation throughout all the past. What is required, in my opinion, is modification of the legislation whereby all the administrative control of milk, other than marketing (which the Milk Marketing Board can manage), is brought under the control of a central authority. If county councils are to continue in the post‐war period I am of the opinion that this body should be that central authority. One department, possessing the necessary classes of full‐time officers, including a section for educational and advisory work, could effectively and uniformly administer the law, which would result in the clean, safe milk which England craves for. I think it would be too much to hope for, whereby the Ministry of Agriculture's veterinary staffs might be included once more on the county council staff. On second thoughts, it may be well that they remain where they are, provided the staffs are adequate to cover at regular intervals all the herds, with powers to tuberculin test, as well as to clinically examine, when necessary. It has never yet been made a penal offence to dispose of cows which react to the tuberculin test, consequently a producer may, and does, pass tuberculous cows on through the open market to other producers. Surely the sale of such animals should be prevented as a first step to stop the spread of infection, and some means found of gradually eliminating them by destruction. An arrangement could be made whereby the county council staff may work in close co‐operation with the Ministry's veterinary surgeons, mainly by indicating where tuberculous infection exists as a result of milk sampling. The Animal Health Divisions of the Ministry are established throughout the country, each serving a small group of counties with veterinary staffs housed in each county. Such a new beginning would obviate the necessity of “putting the cart before the horse,” which is really the trend of things as seen in the establishment of the National Milk Testing Scheme. This scheme will show that large quantities of milk has a poor keeping quality, because of the lack of inadequate inforcement of the law. I say get the law administered in the first place. I cannot close without touching on the subject of marketing. For years milk producers have not been paid enough for their product. I used to think that better payment would almost solve the dirty milk problem, because this would enable the farmer to pay a wage which would attract the labour of more suitably educated persons who would thereby respond to modern methods. Milking cows properly is not the job for the village idiot: it is highly skilled work. However, judging by the small number of producers who have taken advantage of the Designated scheme, whereby they receive extra payment, doubts arise as to whether better prices would of necessity improve the nature of production. It must be remembered that the law has required milk producers to provide a clean milk, but, because for one reason and another this has not been done, the legislature, by the introduction of the Designated Orders, recognised clean and dirty milk, extra payment being arranged to induce the production of clean milk to those who had hitherto not carried out their legal obligations. All milk should be of one grade, conforming to a bacteriological standard of purity, and eventually all cows should pass periodically the tuberculin test. It is very necessary, however, to pay producers a fair price, and enforcement of the law would thereby become easier. You will never have a pure milk supply by the continuance of a policy of tinkering and patching. The whole set‐up needs altering, and vested interests prevented from barring the way to progress. There are other diseases besides tuberculosis which need dealing with in the interests of agriculture generally, but it seems that tuberculosis is the one which is the most capable of transmitting serious disease to man, with the exception of contagious abortion. The recently introduced plan whereby, for the payment of a premium by the dairy farmer, a periodic clinical inspection of his cattle is undertaken is good as far as it goes, but it is only tinkering about with the few herds which to date have adopted the scheme. Already official samples of milk from such herds have been noted to be tuberculous. In view of the large sum of money which is apparently available, but which in one way or another is being largely wasted, why not embark upon a bold scheme of disease eradication by compulsory methods, instead of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries scheme of “attestation,” which again is voluntary.

IT was in February that we condemned the Finniston Report on the grounds that it had failed to tackle what was surely the first consideration: the definition of what an engineer is. Out of the dozens of recognised qualifications and the countless unqualified people who can and do call themselves engineers, albeit of one sort or another, it is surely impossible to set up one colossal Authority to control the lot, without that definition.

The prolonged army rule in the country has affected the policymaking procedure of the state. Specifically, defence and foreign policies of the country are normally decided by the armed forces of Pakistan as per their own priorities, which is against the norms of democratic culture and supremacy of the civilian rule.

The control of important decision-making process in the hands of the armed forces has generated an arms race in the subcontinent. The major portion of the national budget is being spent on the defence forces and other sectors such as education and health and social welfare are not getting their due share from the revenue of the country. The continued sense of insecurity and animosity with neighbour countries, especially India, has resulted in speeding the acquisition of sophisticated arms in the country.

This research discusses the effects of the military's role in the decision-making of the country and its impacts on the relations between India and Pakistan. The confidence building measures and peacemaking process in South Asia is dependent on the attitude of the military of both the countries.