There are many parks, gardens and open spaces in the city. The city centre park is Beacon Park which hosts a range of community events and activities throughout the year. Also in the city centre are two lakes, Minster Pool and Stowe Pool. The Garden of Remembrance, a memorial garden laid out in 1920 after World War I, is located on Bird Street. Many other parks are located on the outskirts of the city: these include Brownsfield Park, Darnford Park, Shortbutts Park, Stychbrook Park, Saddlers Wood and Christian Fields.[26]
There are two public sports and leisure facilities in the city. Friary Grange Leisure Centre in the north-west of the city offers racket sports, a swimming pool, and sports hall and fitness gym. King Edward VI Leisure Centre in the south of the city offers racket sports, a sports hall and an artificial turf pitch.
Lichfield Library and Record Office is located on the corner of St John Street and The Friary. The building also includes an adult education centre and a small art gallery. The current building became the library in 1989 after it moved from Lichfield Free Library and Museum on Bird Street.
The city is served by the Samuel Johnson Community Hospital located on Trent Valley Road. This hospital replaced the now demolished Victoria Hospital in 2006.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Week News Abstract For SFP Series in 10GTEK :Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53. Its mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences, and possible options for adapting to these consequences or mitigating the effects.[3] It is chaired by Rajendra K. Pachauri.
Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) to writing and reviewing reports, which are reviewed by representatives from all the governments, with summaries for policy makers being subject to line-by-line approval by all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[4]
The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[3] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change. Implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature.[5] Membership of the IPCC is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP.[6] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.[7] The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was shared, in two equal parts, between the IPCC and Al Gore.[8]
Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) to writing and reviewing reports, which are reviewed by representatives from all the governments, with summaries for policy makers being subject to line-by-line approval by all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[4]
The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[3] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change. Implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature.[5] Membership of the IPCC is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP.[6] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.[7] The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was shared, in two equal parts, between the IPCC and Al Gore.[8]
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Week News Abstract For SFP Series in 10GTEK:Hague and Geneva Conventions
Specifically, Chapter II of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention covered the treatment of prisoners of war in detail. These were further expanded in the Third Geneva Convention of 1929, and its revision of 1949.
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give their name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).
However, nations vary in their dedication to following these laws, and historically the treatment of POWs has varied greatly. During the 20th century, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were notorious for atrocities against prisoners during World War II. The German military used the Soviet Union's refusal to sign the Geneva Convention as a reason for not providing the necessities of life to Russian POWs; and the Soviets similarly killed Axis prisoners or used them as slave labor. North Korean and North and South[18] Vietnamese forces routinely killed or mistreated prisoners taken during those conflicts.
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give their name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).
However, nations vary in their dedication to following these laws, and historically the treatment of POWs has varied greatly. During the 20th century, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were notorious for atrocities against prisoners during World War II. The German military used the Soviet Union's refusal to sign the Geneva Convention as a reason for not providing the necessities of life to Russian POWs; and the Soviets similarly killed Axis prisoners or used them as slave labor. North Korean and North and South[18] Vietnamese forces routinely killed or mistreated prisoners taken during those conflicts.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Week News Abstract For SFP Series in 10GTEK:Ashton Keynes
Ashton Keynes is a village and civil parish in Wiltshire, England, near the border with Gloucestershire, about 6 miles south of Cirencester and 4 miles north of Cricklade. According to the 2001 census the parish had a population of 1,420. The village lies within the Cotswold Water Park and is situated on the River Thames about 7 miles from its source near Kemble (Thames Head). In the late 1980s a large Romano-British settlement was excavated on the edge of the village, in advance of extensive gravel extraction.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Week News Abstract For SFP Series in 10GTEK:Normalizing middle-ear pressures
When rapid ambient pressure increase occurs as in diving or aircraft descent, this pressure tends to hold the Eustachian tubes closed, preventing pressure equalization across the ear drum, with painful results.[3][4][5] To avoid this painful situation, divers, caisson workers and aircrew attempt to open the Eustachian tubes by swallowing, which tends to open the tubes, allowing the ear to equalize itself.
If this fails, then the Valsalva maneuver may be used. It should be noted this maneuver, when used as a tool to equalize middle ear pressure, carries with it the risk of auditory damage from over pressurization of the middle ear.[4][6][7][8] It is safer, if time permits, to attempt to open the Eustachian tubes by swallowing a few times, or yawning. The effectiveness of the "yawning" method can be improved with practice; some people are able to achieve release or opening by moving their jaw forward or forward and down, rather than straight down as in a classical yawn.[4] Opening can often be clearly heard by the practitioner, thus providing feedback that the maneuver was successful.
During swallowing or yawning, several muscles in the pharynx (throat) act to elevate the soft palate and open the throat. One of these muscles, the tensor veli palatini, also acts to open the eustachian tube. This is why swallowing or yawning is successful in equalizing middle ear pressure. Contrary to popular belief, the jaw does not pinch the tubes shut when it is closed. In fact, the eustachian tubes are not located close enough to the mandible to be pinched off. People often recommend chewing gum during ascent/descent in aircraft, because chewing gum increases the rate of salivation, and swallowing the excess saliva opens the eustachian tubes.
In a clinical setting the Valsalva maneuver will commonly be done either against a closed glottis, or against an external pressure measuring device, thus eliminating or minimizing the pressure on the Eustachian tubes. Straining or blowing against resistance as in blowing up balloons has a Valsalva effect and the fall in blood pressure can result in dizziness and even fainting.
If this fails, then the Valsalva maneuver may be used. It should be noted this maneuver, when used as a tool to equalize middle ear pressure, carries with it the risk of auditory damage from over pressurization of the middle ear.[4][6][7][8] It is safer, if time permits, to attempt to open the Eustachian tubes by swallowing a few times, or yawning. The effectiveness of the "yawning" method can be improved with practice; some people are able to achieve release or opening by moving their jaw forward or forward and down, rather than straight down as in a classical yawn.[4] Opening can often be clearly heard by the practitioner, thus providing feedback that the maneuver was successful.
During swallowing or yawning, several muscles in the pharynx (throat) act to elevate the soft palate and open the throat. One of these muscles, the tensor veli palatini, also acts to open the eustachian tube. This is why swallowing or yawning is successful in equalizing middle ear pressure. Contrary to popular belief, the jaw does not pinch the tubes shut when it is closed. In fact, the eustachian tubes are not located close enough to the mandible to be pinched off. People often recommend chewing gum during ascent/descent in aircraft, because chewing gum increases the rate of salivation, and swallowing the excess saliva opens the eustachian tubes.
In a clinical setting the Valsalva maneuver will commonly be done either against a closed glottis, or against an external pressure measuring device, thus eliminating or minimizing the pressure on the Eustachian tubes. Straining or blowing against resistance as in blowing up balloons has a Valsalva effect and the fall in blood pressure can result in dizziness and even fainting.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Week News Abstract For SFP Series in 10GTEK：Governors doubling as High Commissioners
The role of High Commissioner for Southern Africa was coupled with that of British Governor of the Cape Colony in the nineteenth century giving the colonial administrator in question responsibility both for administering British possessions and relating to neighbouring Boer settlements. The best known of these High Commissioners, Alfred Milner who was named to both positions in the 1890s, is considered responsible by some for igniting the Second Boer War.
Historically, in Southern Africa, the protectorates of Bechuanaland (now Botswana), Basutoland (now Lesotho) and Swaziland were administered as High Commission Territories by the Governor-General of South Africa was also the British High Commissioner for Bechuanaland, Basutoland, and Swaziland until the 1930s, with various local representatives, then by the British High Commissioner (from 1961 Ambassador) to South Africa, who was represented locally in each by a Resident Commissioner.
The British Governor of the crown colony of the Straits Settlements, based in Singapore, doubled as High Commissioner of the Federated Malay States, and had authority over the Resident-General in Kuala Lumpur, who in turn was responsible for the various Residents appointed to the native rulers of the Malay states under British protection.
The British Western Pacific Territories were permanently governed as a group of minor insular colonial territories, under one single, not even full time, Western Pacific High Commissioner (1905–1953), an office attached first to the governorship of Fiji, and subsequently to that of the Solomon Islands, represented in each of the other islands units: by a Resident Commissioner, Consul (representative) or other official (on tiny Pitcairn a mere Chief Magistrate).
Currently, there is still one High Commissioner who also serves in an additional capacity as a Governor: the British High Commissioner to New Zealand serves ex officio as British colonial Governor of the Pitcairn Islands.
Historically, in Southern Africa, the protectorates of Bechuanaland (now Botswana), Basutoland (now Lesotho) and Swaziland were administered as High Commission Territories by the Governor-General of South Africa was also the British High Commissioner for Bechuanaland, Basutoland, and Swaziland until the 1930s, with various local representatives, then by the British High Commissioner (from 1961 Ambassador) to South Africa, who was represented locally in each by a Resident Commissioner.
The British Governor of the crown colony of the Straits Settlements, based in Singapore, doubled as High Commissioner of the Federated Malay States, and had authority over the Resident-General in Kuala Lumpur, who in turn was responsible for the various Residents appointed to the native rulers of the Malay states under British protection.
The British Western Pacific Territories were permanently governed as a group of minor insular colonial territories, under one single, not even full time, Western Pacific High Commissioner (1905–1953), an office attached first to the governorship of Fiji, and subsequently to that of the Solomon Islands, represented in each of the other islands units: by a Resident Commissioner, Consul (representative) or other official (on tiny Pitcairn a mere Chief Magistrate).
Currently, there is still one High Commissioner who also serves in an additional capacity as a Governor: the British High Commissioner to New Zealand serves ex officio as British colonial Governor of the Pitcairn Islands.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Complaint with the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights - Communication n° 266/2003:
On 9 January 2003, the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC) and the Southern Cameroons Peoples Organisation (SCAPO) filed a complaint with the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights against the Republic of Cameroun (registered as Communication n° 266/2003 Re: Kevin Ngwane Ngumne and Co., acting on their behalf and on behalf of SCNC/SCAPO and the Southern Cameroons versus the State of Cameroon). Among other allegations, the complainants alleged that the Republic of Cameroun is illegally occupying the territory of Southern Cameroons. The Complainants alleged that the Republic of Cameroon has violated Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7(1), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17(1), 19, 20, 21, 22, 23(1), 24 of the African Charter[2]. The SCNC and SCAPO ultimately seek the independence of the territory of Southern Cameroons[3]. In a decision reached at its 45th Ordinary Session on May 27, 2009[4], the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights found that the Republic of Cameroun has violated Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7(1), 10, 11, 19 and 26 of the Charter. The Human Rights Commission determined that Articles 12, 13, 17(1), 20, 21, 22, 23(1) and 24 have not been violated.
The Human Rights Commission further recognized that under the African Charter and broad international law, Southern Cameroons meets the definition of a "people" under international law "because they manifest numerous characteristics and affinities, which include a common history, linguistic tradition, territorial connection, and political outlook". The Human Rights Commission declared itself incompetent rationae temporis, to rule on allegations that occurred prior to 18 December 1989, date on which the African Charter came into force for the Respondent State (Republic of Cameroun). Hence, the Human Rights Commission declared itself incompetent to rule on the complainants' allegations with respect to events that occurred from the 1961 United Nations plebiscite to 1972 when the Federal and Union Constitutions were adopted to form the United Republic of Cameroon during which the Complainants claim the Respondent State (Republic of Cameroun) "...established its colonial rule there, complete with its structures, and its administrative, military and police personnel, applying a system and operating in a language alien to the Southern Cameroon." The Human Rights Commission stated, however that, if the Complainants can establish that any violation committed before 18 December 1989 continued thereafter, then the Commission shall have competence to examine it.
The Human Rights Commission addressed the question, whether the people of Southern Cameroons are entitled to the right to self determination contextualizing the question by dealing, not with the 1961 UN Plebiscite, or the 1972 Unification, but rather the events of 1993 and 1994 on the constitutional demands vis-à-vis the claim for the right to self determination of the Southern Cameroonian people. The Human Rights Commission stated that to invoke Self Determination as prescribed by Article 20 of the African Charter, the Complainant must satisfy the Commission that the two conditions under Article 20(2), namely oppression and domination have been met. Based on events that occurred after December 18, 1989 the Human Rights Commission noted that the Complainants have not demonstrated if these conditions have been met to warrant invoking the right to self determination. The Human Rights Commission also noted that in their submission, the Respondent State (Republic of Cameroun) implicitly accepted that self determination may be exercisable by the Complainants on condition that they establish cases of massive violations of human rights, or denial of participation in public affairs.
The Human Rights Commission noted that autonomy within a sovereign state is acceptable, in the context of self government, confederacy, or federation, while preserving the territorial integrity of a State party, can be exercised under the African Charter.
The Human Rights Commission recommended that the Respondent State (Republic of Cameroun) should among other things enter into constructive dialogue with the Complainants, and in particular, SCNC and SCAPO to resolve the constitutional issues, as well as grievances.
The Human Rights Commission further recognized that under the African Charter and broad international law, Southern Cameroons meets the definition of a "people" under international law "because they manifest numerous characteristics and affinities, which include a common history, linguistic tradition, territorial connection, and political outlook". The Human Rights Commission declared itself incompetent rationae temporis, to rule on allegations that occurred prior to 18 December 1989, date on which the African Charter came into force for the Respondent State (Republic of Cameroun). Hence, the Human Rights Commission declared itself incompetent to rule on the complainants' allegations with respect to events that occurred from the 1961 United Nations plebiscite to 1972 when the Federal and Union Constitutions were adopted to form the United Republic of Cameroon during which the Complainants claim the Respondent State (Republic of Cameroun) "...established its colonial rule there, complete with its structures, and its administrative, military and police personnel, applying a system and operating in a language alien to the Southern Cameroon." The Human Rights Commission stated, however that, if the Complainants can establish that any violation committed before 18 December 1989 continued thereafter, then the Commission shall have competence to examine it.
The Human Rights Commission addressed the question, whether the people of Southern Cameroons are entitled to the right to self determination contextualizing the question by dealing, not with the 1961 UN Plebiscite, or the 1972 Unification, but rather the events of 1993 and 1994 on the constitutional demands vis-à-vis the claim for the right to self determination of the Southern Cameroonian people. The Human Rights Commission stated that to invoke Self Determination as prescribed by Article 20 of the African Charter, the Complainant must satisfy the Commission that the two conditions under Article 20(2), namely oppression and domination have been met. Based on events that occurred after December 18, 1989 the Human Rights Commission noted that the Complainants have not demonstrated if these conditions have been met to warrant invoking the right to self determination. The Human Rights Commission also noted that in their submission, the Respondent State (Republic of Cameroun) implicitly accepted that self determination may be exercisable by the Complainants on condition that they establish cases of massive violations of human rights, or denial of participation in public affairs.
The Human Rights Commission noted that autonomy within a sovereign state is acceptable, in the context of self government, confederacy, or federation, while preserving the territorial integrity of a State party, can be exercised under the African Charter.
The Human Rights Commission recommended that the Respondent State (Republic of Cameroun) should among other things enter into constructive dialogue with the Complainants, and in particular, SCNC and SCAPO to resolve the constitutional issues, as well as grievances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)