Search results

The Twentieth Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health, Sir Arthur MacNalty, for the year 1938, begins with a review of the nature of progress and the application of the conception to questions of health. Life in primitive society is not so healthy as is sometimes supposed, and the true condition is cloaked by the law of survival of the fittest. Civilisation has its cost; certain diseases follow in its train, e.g., tuberculosis. Besides the “new humanity” of the eighteenth century improvements in public health began to appear, and the population increased rapidly. Then came the progress of the Industrial Revolution, accompanied by new problems, especially in the domain of health. It can be concluded, however, that the growth of the health services, and the proof of their effectiveness as shown by the improvement of the nation's vital statistics, is real evidence of progress. In 1938 there was a rise of 10,647 births over the number registered in 1937, representing a birth rate of 15·1 per 1,000 living—a slight improvement on the rate of 14·9 for 1937. It is 0·7 above the rate for 1933, which was the lowest recorded. The infant mortality rate is 53 per 1,000 births as against 58 for 1937, and is now the lowest on record. The deaths in 1938 were 478,829, as compared with 509,574 in 1937, a decrease of 30,745. The five principal killing diseases remain the same as for many years past and occur in the same order, viz.:— (1) Diseases of the heart and circulatory system; (2) cancer—malignant disease; (3) bronchitis, pneumonia and other respiratory diseases; (4) diseases of the nervous system; (5) all forms of tuberculosis. If, however, the diseases are re‐arranged to show the principal killing diseases operating during the years of working life—15–65—then tuberculosis takes the third place instead of the fifth, and diseases of the nervous system occupy the fifth place.

Addresses three separate initiatives: South Yorkshire Further Education Consortium (SYFEC); e‐skills4industry – a partnership between Lewisham College and Deloitte; and Cascade and information and communication technology (ICT) training for schools. The initiatives, however, share two important characteristics. First, they are all initiatives which have been recognised within the National Training Awards (NTA) programme organised by UK Skills and supported by the UK Government's Department for Education and Skills (DfES). Second, each of the initiatives, albeit in different ways, looks at the utilisation of information and communication technology (ICT) in different aspects of education and training. The three winning accounts featured here offer useful insight into how the further and higher education sectors, in partnership with industry, are responding to some of the challenges and opportunities that have arisen as the use of information technology (IT) becomes common place in people's working (and learning) lives.

One of Her Britannic Majesty's Ministers hanging about outside the Council Chamber while it is deliberated within whether or not Britain is to be admitted to the not so Common Market must present a picture never‐to‐be‐forgotten. Public officers, of course, are accus‐tomed to this when attending selection interviews for appointments, but such experiences invariably make us feel a little like “poor relations.” The controversy of whether we are “in” or “out” then is settled—and we must be under no delusions—for a very long time. As we see it, the French want the densely populated area of Western Europe as an agricultural market for themselves alone. They appeared to be willing to let Denmark in, but they have no intention of letting Britain in to bring the vast Commonwealth agricultural exports with them, via the back door, so to speak. That is the position now and even when “all the kings depart”, it will not change.

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.

EVERY OTHER MONTH the Institute of Directors writes to a representative section of its membership, 200 in all. They are asked their opinion of the economy in general and how the immediate future looks to them.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Term. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

“Beyond the Nature/Society Divide: Learning to Think about a Mountain” was published in 1995 (Freudenburg, Frickel, & Gramling, 1995) just as environmental sociology was entering into its first internal philosophical debate, waged between materialists and social constructionists. Today the debate has moved beyond the article’s relatively modest arguments, but the work continues to be cited and earn critical attention for its contributions to that earlier conversation. This remembrance essay recalls the article’s publication history, begun in 1992, leading to its eventual publication in Sociological Forum and offers philosophical, sociological, and personal reflections on that process.

This paper presents an overview of what we have learned about the state of academic freedom in the public schools. It includes a rationale for the place of academic freedom in social studies classrooms, a perspective on the court system as recourse for teachers, and a call for action to protect our freedoms by alternative means. Based on a National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) presentation by American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyer Fritz Mulhauser, the paper provides a thematic summary of case law and precedent as they stand at present, including speech outside of school, classroom materials and content, classroom discussion, and expression through dress. Finally, the paper offers suggestions of how to exercise academic freedom successfully in the classroom.

The utterly un-nostalgic person is probably a non-existent being. At both a personal and collective level, we explore how nostalgia is experienced and in demand during times of transition, disjuncture, conflict and uncertainty. This chapter explores the emotion of nostalgia and connects it specifically to the current corona pandemic – the challenges of lockdowns and social distancing measures on interaction, feelings of loneliness and a generalised sense of uncertainty and despair, and also a rise of nostalgia as a possible response to these challenges. The predominant view of nostalgia put forth in this chapter is that nostalgia has the capacity to provide a great deal of benefit (meaning, hope, direction and purpose) to individuals, groups, institutions and societies at large. Indeed, nostalgia can be a tranquil feeling in a fearful world. We relate nostalgia to studies and experiences from the pandemic period and speculate on how the so-called ‘corona crisis’ may impact feelings of nostalgia in the post-pandemic world – perhaps even a nostalgia and longing for the pandemic period itself.

If the corona pandemic has in fact sparked a new (or renewed) interest in nostalgia in contemporary society due to the corona pandemic, it may indeed prove to be a positive thing, particularly if it makes it easier for people to deal with current feelings of adversity and anxiety. We suggest the nostalgia mood that is generated and perpetuated by the continuing twists and turns of the corona pandemic may – in the short and long run – prove useful in coping with and giving meaning to the problems and perplexing circumstances of life, rather than being a regressive phenomenon. Perhaps, something good may, in the end, grow from something bad?

The content of this paper is adapted from two studies of contested takeover bids. These studies, and this paper, are attempts to add to the limited research conducted in the UK into the share price performance of companies involved in mergers and acquisitions. Research directed specifically at defended takeover bids is even more limited and only one piece of research (Holl and Taffler, 1988) to date has addressed this particular topic in the UK.