text:
> Palestinian Solidarity
Many of the Center's historic victories have established major legal precedents – from Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, which opened U.S. courts for victims of serious human rights violations from anywhere in the world to Rasul v. Bush, which established the right of Guantánamo detainees to challenge their detention.
Wiwa et al v. Royal Dutch Petroleum et al.
Three lawsuits filed on behalf of relatives of murdered activists who were fighting for human rights and environmental justice in Nigeria. The lawsuits are brought against the Royal Dutch Petroleum...
Al-Quraishi, et al. v. Nakhla and L-3 Services
Al Quraishi v. Nakhla and L-3 Services challenged corporate impunity for torture and other war crimes at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq.
Saleh, et al. v. Titan, et al.
A challenge to corporate impunity for torture at Abu Ghraib prison.
CCR v. Obama (formerly CCR v. Bush)
A case challenging warrantless surveillance by the NSA
United States v. Mehanna (Amicus)
CCR filed an amicus ("friend of the court") brief in a criminal case on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in support of the reversal of Defendant-Appellant Tarek Mehanna's...
Arar v. Ashcroft et al
Challenging the rendition to torture in Syria of Canadian citizen Maher Arar by U.S. government officials. [Past Case]
Hamer v. Campbell
Hamer v. Campell is a civil rights case which Fannie Lou Hamer brought against Cecil Campbell, the circuit clerk of Mississippi, for denying her and other Black people the right to register and vote...
Color of Change v. Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation
In July 2016, Color of Change (COC) and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request seeking information from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)...
Orian et al. v. FIDH et al.
A lawsuit brought to chill FIDH's public statements on an issue of public interest. California-based Global Horizons, Inc. and its president, Mordechai Orian, sued FIDH and others for libel and...
Detention Watch Network (DWN) v. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
FOIA request seeking information on controversial immigration detention bed quotas.
Go to Active Cases
Guantanamo (22) Apply Guantanamo filter
(-) Remove Palestinian Solidarity filter Palestinian Solidarity
Torture, War Crimes, & Militarism (43) Apply Torture, War Crimes, & Militarism filter


Heidi Shedlock is a South African, Durban based artist and educator who paints from her studio in Durban North. She was born in 1974 and grew up in a very creative family of talented crafters and makers. She spent many years involved in education before deciding to give up full time teaching and put all her energy and focus back into producing her own work.
In 2013, after participating in numerous group exhibitions, she began a daily painting project called Paintings in the post. She produced 568 consecutive days of little postcard size studies and this resulted in a solo exhibition called '365 days of paint'. Paintings from this collection have travelled all over the world to private and corporate collections. She continues to do the occasional little small study as she feels these keep her artist eye trained and her skills of observation focused, both critical skills to the artist.
Her most recent floral series deals with flowers in a painterly, serendipitous style, where the essence of the flowers and the emotions they evoke are given preference to mere replication. For this reason she rarely paints the vase, vessel or container that holds the blooms. The interest is in the mark making, the emotions and the viewer's reaction to the blooms.
Why flowers you may ask? Flowers were a repeated theme throughout the postcard painting series. Their significance in our daily lives is immeasurable, as expressions of emotions that are often too complicated to express in words. We use flowers to celebrate life, death, marriage, birth, apology and appreciation. We use them to celebrate the somber and the joyful and have adapted them into something decorative, an ode to beauty. The semiotics of flowers can be traced through to ancient times. The simple bloom has become a metaphor for the abstract and a symbol of reproduction, birth, life, death, decay and rebirth. Flowers are a celebration of life and a way of expressing our most vulnerable reactions to it. Through flowers we can express that which we find hard or complicated to say.


ALONG with self-congratulation and relief, the fall of the Soviet Union has stimulated an abundance of postmortems on communism and its place in the twentieth century. Though communism in its classic form may be extinct, we sometimes seem to be fighting it almost as fiercely today as we did when it threatened us.
Near the end of his life François Furet (1927-1997), one of the best historians of the French Revolution, turned his formidable intellect to the study of communism. In The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century, his last book, Furet presents the Soviet experience as an illusion -- one that retained a fascination and an allegiance in the West far beyond the time when its essence should have been clear. Furet, like many other French intellectuals embued with a leftist activism and an ideological passion dating from the French revolutions of 1789, 1848, and 1871, turned for a time to communism. He was a member of the French Communist Party from 1949 to 1956. Although his text is not in the first person, it provides an implicit chronicle of his own illusion, and disillusion.
It was an illusion on several counts. First, for Furet, communism was based on an ultimately false linear philosophical view of history as Reason, in which a superior phase of historical development -- socialism -- was scientifically bound to follow "bourgeois" (Furet's term) liberal capitalism. The Passing of an Illusion is brilliant, and one would be hard pressed to find better writing of history than the first chapter, which traces the roots of modern political thinking back to the nineteenth century. The liberal bourgeois quest for competitive individualism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries did not appeal to those who valued social and economic equality, or to those seeking a sense of community that transcended the isolation of the individual. The conflict between individual and collective rights still motivates politics today, and Furet believed that these limits to the bourgeois ideal would provide breeding grounds for fascism and communism, both of which had egalitarian and collectivist appeal.
Second, the geopolitical accident of its alliance with the Western democracies against Hitler created a wartime illusion of the Soviet Union as a democracy. The universal revulsion for the Nazis enabled the Communists for many years to enjoy a reputation for anti-fascism and thereby evade close scrutiny or objective evaluation by Western intellectuals, who yearned for social justice, were made uncomfortable by capitalist materialism, and felt moral outrage against fascism.
Furet is particularly eloquent about what he considers to be communism's ill-deserved image as fascism's opposite; he believes that the two were identical in every significant way. Both were born of the violence of the First World War, when millions of men, betrayed by their leaders, were embittered by the sacrifice forced upon them and angry at the war's pointlessness. Trench warfare brought the masses to the fore of European history, in a setting of violence, extremist passion, and anger. It was soldiers, Furet believed, who overthrew the Russian czar, eased Lenin's takeover, and made up the angry membership of fascist parties elsewhere. Fascism and communism were both mass movements (which Furet tends to dislike) that became one-man dictatorships.
Yet Furet may draw some criticism when he closely links Communist and fascist regimes. There is sharp debate about this today among historians, and many of them are uncomfortable putting communism and fascism into the same category. Clearly, both Hitler's and Stalin's regimes sought to exercise total control over their populations and deprive people of the possibility to organize or even exist outside the officially prescribed forms and institutions. Recent research shows, however, that much as they may have wanted to, the Stalinists were never able to build the coldly efficient machine of Orwell's 1984; much of the Stalinist system worked as the Russian government had worked in 1884. Clumsy implementation of vague plans wreaked havoc with attempts to pursue policies. Moscow had little information about what was really happening in the far-flung provinces, where regional satraps used distance and poor communications to insulate themselves from Moscow's control and build their own power. There was not even a telephone line to the Soviet Far East until the eve of World War II. Research in newly available Soviet archives has also documented widespread Stalin-era dissent, passive and active resistance, strikes, and even full-scale peasant revolts of a kind and scale that Hitler never faced.
What's more, Nazi Germany and the USSR had radically different social and economic systems. Hitler, despite his populist rhetoric, largely preserved and defended private property, the market economy, and existing elites. Stalin utterly destroyed capitalism and physically annihilated the social and economic elites. Although both regimes used terror, they used it differently, against different targets. Hitler's terror was designed to be finite and to exterminate particular ethnic groups (Jews and Gypsies, for example). Stalin's terror mainly sought to turn social groups such as peasants and businessmen into a slave labor force that would be a permanent part of the Soviet economy. During the Cold War, when the USSR supplanted Nazi Germany as the enemy of the West, journalists and political scientists began to associate the two regimes. Furet could dig up only a few observers who tried to make an analogy between the two dictatorships before 1945.
LESS concerned with the subtleties of illusion, Stéphane Courtois and some of his co-authors are eager to associate Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in a different way. The Black Book of Communism, an 800-page collection of essays about the human toll exacted by Communist regimes in the twentieth century, reaches a much simpler conclusion: the Germans and the Russians were merely terrible criminals who were members of a huge Communist gang. Examining the records of repression in the USSR, Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Latin America, Africa, and Afghanistan, Courtois et al. arrive at a figure of 100 million deaths attributable to Communist regimes, as compared with 25 million attributable to the Nazis. In his essay Courtois makes the point that the Soviet terror was greater than the Nazis' and also, because it was systematic and genocidal, violated the Nuremberg Laws and the "unwritten code of the natural laws of humanity." The actions of Communist Parties thus qualify communism, like the Nazi Party, as a "criminal organization."
No sane person can rise to the defense of mass terror. The moral point has been clear for decades, although some may be troubled that Courtois relates the problem to ignoring the ideals of "Judeo-Christian civilization," which has no monopoly on morality. To frame our understanding of these events as numerical counts attributable to particular ideologies is even more problematic.
Courtois writes that he is not trying to present a "macabre comparative system for crunching numbers, some kind of grand total that doubles the horror." Yet there is a lot of arithmetic in his presentation, and one gets the impression that he is including every possible death just to run up the score. That impression troubled his distinguished co-authors; Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin sparked a scandal in Paris when they publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois's opinions about the scale of Communist terror, asserting that his introduction was more a diatribe than a balanced scholarly treatment. They felt that he was obsessed with attributing a body count of 100 million to communism, and like several other scholars, they rejected his equation of Soviet repression with Nazi genocide. Werth, a well-regarded French specialist on the Soviet Union whose sections in the Black Book on the Soviet Communists are sober and damning, told Le Monde, "Death camps did not exist in the Soviet Union."
Stalin's camps were different from Hitler's. Tens of thousands of prisoners were released every year upon completion of their sentences. We now know that before World War II more inmates escaped annually from the Soviet camps than died there. Research shows that Stalin's camps and deportations, unlike their Nazi extermination counterparts, were planned components of the Soviet economy, designed to provide a stable slave-labor supply and to populate forbidding territories forcibly with involuntary settlers. Rations and medical care were substandard, but were often not dramatically better elsewhere in Stalin's Soviet Union and were not designed to hasten the inmates' deaths, although they certainly did so. Similarly, the overwhelming weight of opinion among scholars working in the new archives (including Courtois's co-editor Werth) is that the terrible famine of the 1930s was the result of Stalinist bungling and rigidity rather than some genocidal plan.
Are deaths from a famine caused by the stupidity and incompetence of the regime (such deaths account for more than half of Courtois's 100 million) to be equated with the deliberate gassing of Jews? Courtois's arithmetic is too simple. A huge number of the fatalities attributed here to Communist regimes fall into a kind of catchall category called "excess deaths": premature demises, over and above the expected mortality rate of the population, that resulted directly or indirectly from government policy. Those executed, exiled to Siberia, or forced into gulag camps where nutrition and living conditions were poor could fall into this category. But so could many others, and "excess deaths" are not the same as intentional deaths.
Such arithmetical history sacrifices historical accuracy by lumping different events into the same category. Jerry Hough, of Duke University, has suggested just how ambiguous such calculations can be. Using the dramatically rising death rates in Russia in the 1990s, and with perhaps a bit of tongue in cheek, Hough calculated that 1.5 million "extra deaths" occurred in Russia in just the first four years of Yeltsin's tenure -- a total that, Hough points out, is "considerably larger than the number Stalin killed in the Great Purge" of the 1930s. The real problem with the books under review is a facile categorization in order to fix blame or make political points. It would be more polemical than accurate to equate famine deaths, victims of police terror, and deaths in Nazi gas chambers with the plight of Russians unable to buy food and health care today. One could place many of the century's deaths in any of several categories, according to the political point one wanted to make. Should we blame premature deaths in Russia today on the legacy of communism or on the failed policies of reformers? For how many deaths under Stalin should we blame communism? Stalin's personal paranoia? Backwardness or ignorance? We might do better to try to understand these grisly statistics in their contexts, rather than positing large polemical categories and then filling them up with bodies. Good history is about balanced interpretation and is usually more complicated than categorization or blame.
attributes all these deaths to an ideology: Marxist-Leninist communism. Courtois's introduction and Martin Malia's foreword posit a single world Communist movement in the twentieth century within a "Leninist matrix" with a single "genetic code." Thus ideologies can be blamed for deaths, and all the terror in this case belongs to just one.
WAS there a single "communism" in this century? After Marx's First International association of Communists came three more Internationals. Each of them bitterly denounced its predecessors as the bearers of a false ideology. Regimes calling themselves Communist installed a bewildering variety of economic and social systems and constantly attacked one another for all kinds of ideological deviations; one party's Marxist-Leninist faith was another's vile heresy. They rarely acted as allies and frequently fought one another on the battlefield. The USSR and China fought steadily along the Amur River. Communist Vietnam invaded Communist Kampuchea, and then Communist China attacked Communist Vietnam.
Historically speaking, what did Stalin's disciplined, urban-based industrializing system have in common with Mao Zedong's reliance on the rural peasantry and the wild Cultural Revolution? Did the fanatical Mao and the pragmatic Deng Xiaoping share a genetic code? Pol Pot, who massacred his countrymen in Cambodia, had more in common with the anti-Communist Idi Amin than with the Communist Fidel Castro. The impulses and historical conditions giving rise to these regimes in various countries were vastly different. Even their terrors were dissimilar: Chinese and Vietnamese repression stressed re-education; the Khmer Rouge massacred categories of people; Stalin permanently transplanted real and imagined enemies. The only thing linking the Communist regimes was that each constantly attested that it was Marxist-Leninist -- and that other Communist regimes were not. After all, Ethiopian colonels and Yemeni bandits used to claim that they were Leninists too, and nothing was easier than calling one's country a "people's republic."
IF we want to categorize the unprecedented violence and terror of the past century, we could just as well use templates that have less to do with left-wing or right-wing isms. Backward countries driven to modernize quickly were (and are) often scenes of repression and sickening mass killing, whether they were self-proclaimed Communists or not. In addition to modernization, one could use religion, nationalism, economic competition, or the technology of war to group the century's deaths. If we want to play this scorecard game with isms, we could post a huge number of deaths to the account of capitalist and nationalist competition, starting with imperialism and two world wars and ending with excess deaths in Yeltsin's democratic Russia.
can be seen as a testament to the Western intellectual view of communism, and it might seem unfair to criticize Furet for the weakness of his coverage of Russian history. But in presenting the Western view Furet feels obliged to provide a good bit of that history. In the process he rejects several decades of historical research on the Soviet Union -- as does Courtois -- and insists on views that were current decades ago. These days the weight of historical and archival evidence is against both authors: they depict the 1917 October Revolution as a mere coup rather than the social upheaval that historians study today. To them the famine of 1932-1933 was simply a planned Ukrainian genocide, although today most see it as a policy blunder that affected millions belonging to other nationalities. Yes, at the end of World War II, Stalin incarcerated returning Soviet prisoners of war, but now we know that most of them were released quickly after routine processing in temporary camps.
Furet writes that the "beginning of the end" for the Soviet regime was Nikita Khrushchev's anti-Stalin secret speech of 1956, which "overturned the universal status of the Communist idea." For Furet and other intellectuals, this was truly a crack in the ideological façade of the Soviet Union (Furet himself broke with communism that year), and the rest of Soviet history resolves itself into steady decomposition. Ideas matter intensely for Furet, and from the limited point of view of ideology he is right. The break with Stalinism did in fact disorient and begin to disillusion Western Communist intellectuals. French former Communists often date their own defection and the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union together, and argue about who left the Party at the most correct time, thus confounding Soviet history with their own. Furet's view ignores the fact that the USSR existed for another thirty-five years after 1956 -- more years than Stalin ruled. Economically and technologically these were actually among the best years for the long-suffering Soviet people.
Similarly, Furet's book in particular proposes an old-fashioned kind of personalized history that encompasses not only the play of ideas but also the deeds of famous people. Absent here is any real consideration of society or economics or the roles of masses of people, except as categories manipulated by leading personalities. Perhaps because of his lack of expertise in modern history, Furet has written a kind of nineteenth-century version of great men making history. I doubt that many modern historians would agree that Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini "took power by breaking weak regimes with the superior force of their wills." Surely more than that was involved.
Yes, French intellectuals were disappointed by the Soviet Union. But many others were not, and not everyone is concerned solely with ideas, ideologies, and great men. It is instructive to remember that only nine months before Yeltsin dissolved the USSR, an overwhelming majority of Soviet voters, in a referendum, were in favor of maintaining the union. For a surprising number of people today in the former Soviet Union, the terror does not wholly negate achievements such as universal literacy, one of the best technological-education systems in the world, the first man in space, free education and health care, and security in old age. Maybe these social gains, too, were an illusion, but we risk another kind of illusion by not including the few but important pluses with the mountains of minuses. The West need not be generous in its victory over communism, but we might be more balanced in our obituaries.
FURET sees communism as a kind of flash in the pan of modern history. When the illusion passed, he writes, it left virtually no traces and no enduring legacy. This is preposterous. Admittedly, besides its moral failure, communism failed in its crusade to convert the whole world and in the end succeeded in lastingly converting no significant part of it. But communism's impact was and still is enormous. In addition to provoking significant changes in capitalist economies, such as vastly increased military spending and the growth of a military-industrial complex, the USSR's existence changed Western social development in fundamental ways.
Labor reform in the West in the past century came about under the threat of a radicalized international labor movement protected and supported by the USSR. President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was in part meant to steal the thunder of radicals who looked to Moscow and therefore could not be ignored. Social goals that are commonplace today, including women's rights and racial integration, were planks of the Communist Party platform long before mainstream American parties took them seriously. It was Communists who first went to the American South and began organizing African-Americans and poor whites around issues of social justice. The more politically acceptable young people who followed them in the sixties are heroes today. On the international scene the Soviet Union provided support for Nelson Mandela and other reformers. Communism made life difficult for Western establishments, and it is doubtful that reforms would have come when they did if the USSR had not existed. Communists always rejected reform in favor of revolution. Ironically, however, the existence of the Soviet Union helped the capitalist West reform itself and avoid the bloody revolutions of the East. Twentieth-century communism was no passing illusion; its legacies are everywhere.
Why are we seeing books like these now, when communism is gone and there are no more dragons to slay? Their authors tell us that there have been no "probing examinations" of Communist horrors, and that communism has to date received no "fair and just" assessment. This comes as a surprise, given that the field of Soviet studies in the West before the late 1970s did little more than detail Soviet crimes. Most writing about the Soviet Union then was about totalitarian terror, and Soviet specialists provided us with a full menu of Communist atrocities. One could read about these horrors in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's masterly Gulag Archipelago decades ago. And it has been seven years since I and others published the actual figures on Soviet gulag inmates and executions from the KGB archives of the notorious gulag system. From 1921 to Stalin's death, in 1953, around 800,000 people were sentenced to death and shot, 85 percent of them in the years of the Great Terror of 1937-1938. From 1934 to Stalin's death, more than a million perished in the gulag camps. A few years ago these figures were confirmed by KGB archivists and published in the Yeltsin Administration's official gazetteer. No, the books under review are not responses to any failure to study these questions. A more cogent justification for these works lies in their presentation of factual material from newly available archives. In particular, Werth's chapters on the Soviet Union provide a wealth of historical details. It is unfortunate that they are presented more as polemic than as balanced, carefully analyzed history.
Such books, which use obsolete concepts to tell part of a story, are less about history than about politics. French tradition does not favor objective history for history's sake. Every history book in France is immediately understood as its author's political declaration. Because the French Communist Party is still a force in politics, historical books about communism inevitably become today's polemics. Courtois himself has said, "In France, history is politics." But Furet's erudition and the Courtois team's 800 pages of single-minded fine print are unlikely to produce a similar impact in the United States, where much more has been known of Soviet crimes and where the Communist Party has never been part of the respectable intellectual establishment.
J. Arch Getty is a professor of history at the University of California at Los Angeles. His most recent book is (2000).
The Atlantic Monthly; March 2000; The Future Did Not Work - 00.03; Volume 285, No. 3; page 113-116.
is a professor of history at the University of California at Los Angeles. His most recent book is (2000).


text:
Playing house – the case of Hosebay
United Kingdom December 20 2012
"The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 is on the face of it a statute about houses, not commercial buildings"
The first line of the Supreme Court's decision in the cases of Day v Hosebay Limited and Howard de Walden Estates Limited v Lexgorge Limited 3 sets the tone in a judgment which reinforced the original purpose of the 1967 Act. The majority of the 15 page judgment comprises an analysis of the history of the Act and a review of the existing precedents. Looking at the specific circumstances of the cases before them, their Lordships took just four paragraphs to explain why commercial tenants, such as the applicants in these two cases, should not enjoy the benefits of the statutory enfranchisement regime. Whilst welcomed as a "victory for common sense" (particularly by the owners of historic London estates), the Supreme Court's decision dealt with two buildings in exclusively commercial use, meaning that other questions about the meaning of "house" for the purpose of the 1967 Act were not addressed, and some uncertainties remain.
The history and purpose of enfranchisement legislation
The LRA 1967 was brought into force to resolve a perceived inequality between the holders of long residential leases and their landlords. In a problem felt most acutely in London, freeholders of large estates had an unfettered ability to charge high premiums in return for the grant of residential leases which – by their very nature – were depreciating assets that would eventually expire, leaving the tenant with no option but to buy a new lease. The Act empowered tenants of houses to either acquire a lease extension or buy the freehold as of right, in return for a premium calculated under a statutory formula.
As originally enacted, the LRA 1967 required the tenant to have lived in the house for a requisite period of years before being able to exercise the right to enfranchise. Many of the qualifying criteria have since been relaxed or abandoned. There had been concern that the residence requirement was unfairly restricting the number of tenants of flats able to extend their leases under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The legislature's response, by way of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, was to remove altogether the residence requirement for both flats and (under the 1967 Act) houses. In the latter case, the intention was to bring tenants of houses in line with tenants of flats, and to ensure a right to enfranchise was available to leaseholders who own their house leases through companies (which, by their very nature, cannot "reside").
That amendment to the 1967 Act led to what Lord Neuberger recognised in his Court of Appeal judgment in the present cases as an unintended and undesirable consequence: a rash of enfranchisement claims by corporate leaseholders who could satisfy the ownership criterion and – notwithstanding that their interest in the subject property was purely commercial – show that, on a literal interpretation of the definition of "house" under section 2, the subject property satisfied the last remaining criterion of being a "house".
Section 2(1) defines a "house" as:
"including any building designed or adapted for living in and reasonably so called, notwithstanding that the building ... was or is not solely designed or adapted for living in..."
The applications by both Hosebay and Lexgorge exemplified that unintended consequence, but Lord Neuberger, in the Court of Appeal, considered that on a strict reading of section 2 he was required to find that in both cases the buildings qualified as "houses". 29, 31 and 39 Rosary Gardens in South Kensington (the subject of the Hosebay case) had been built as separate houses in the late Victorian era but, at the date of the application, had been converted for use as short-term accommodation in self-contained rooms, each of which had self-catering facilities (probably in an historic breach of the user covenant under the lease). In a literal sense, they had been adapted "for living in". The Lexgorge property at 48 Queen Anne Street, Marylebone, was a single terraced house from the early 18th Century, whose four main floors above the basement were being used as offices at the date of the 1967 Act application.
Premises made suitable for commercial uses were not intended to fall within section 2
In overturning the Court of Appeal decision in both cases, the Supreme Court was led by what was, without doubt, the original purpose of the 1967 Act. The legislature in the 1960s was looking to empower residential tenants, rather than allow corporate leaseholders to seize valuable freeholds from their landlords. Business occupiers already had a statutory right to renew their leases, pursuant to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The Supreme Court held that, "the court should avoid as far as possible an interpretation which has the effect of conferring rights going beyond those which Parliament intended".
In relation to the properties at Rosary Gardens and Queen Anne Street, the Supreme Court was able to determine with relative ease that the commercial tenants should not be entitled to exercise rights under the 1967 Act on the following basis:
The test under section 2 of the 1967 Act is twofold. If a building is not a house "reasonably so called" there is no need to enquire as to the original design or most recent adaptation of the building.
Buildings which are wholly used as offices are not houses "reasonably so called" under the second part of the test. To reach an alternative conclusion would be contrary to the purpose of the original legislation.
"Living in" means, for the purpose of the first part of the test, something more settled and permanent than simply "staying in". Self-catering short-term accommodation or hotels are not houses within the meaning of section 2.
The decisions in Hosebay and Lexgorge have brought welcome clarification as to how the 1967 Act should operate and, in particular, how the definition of "house" under section 2 should be read. Many freeholders, especially the owners of the large, historic London estates, will have breathed a sigh of relief.
Across the country, huge numbers of leasehold properties which were historically designed as houses have subsequently been adapted and used as commercial premises. Had the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's interpretation of section 2, it would have opened the door to a huge number of similar claims and to freeholders being dispossessed by commercial tenants. Leases which pre-date the 2002 changes are unlikely to have contained specific safeguards against enfranchisement by corporate tenants because the possibility had previously seemed remote. More recently, freeholders have had to be cautious about granting commercial leases of 21 years or more. For example by limiting the extent of the demise or the duration of the term and imposing complete prohibitions on residential user. Even then, they have been unsure as to whether their tenants might still have the right to enfranchise. The issue has now been settled, at least in part.
Remaining uncertainty and room for debate
One should not assume, however, that the Supreme Court had the chance in Hosebay and Lexgorge to dispose of all uncertainties surrounding the definition of a "house" within the meaning of section 2 of the 1967 Act.
The Lexgorge property was used in its entirety (save for the basement) as offices, whilst the Hosebay property was used exclusively for the commercial business of short-term accommodation. The Supreme Court was lauded for reaching a common-sense conclusion: that a building used wholly for commercial purposes, notwithstanding that it might in another context be described as a house, cannot be a house "reasonably so called". But what of a building which contains an office on the ground floor, but accommodation above? The Supreme Court did not have to consider those facts, but the law as it stands recognises that as a matter of principle a building of mixed use might reasonably be called a house.
The first part of the section 2 test is then brought into play, and one must consider the original design and subsequent adaptation of the building for "living in". Whilst the Supreme Court had an opportunity to express a view as to how that test should be applied, the judgment of the House of Lords in Tandon v Trustees of Spurgeons Homes 4 (which Lord Carnwath said in the present cases was "not without difficulty") remains the leading authority in that respect, and one must still consider the outcome of another House of Lords case, Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties Limited 5, which was concerned exclusively with the first part of the section 2 test.
Although in the Lexgorge case the Supreme Court decided that (not being a house "reasonably so called") there was no need to look at the narrow factual issues of the building's design or adaptation, they were nevertheless able to shed light on how the first part of the test should be read, and we can draw the following from the judgment:
External and internal physical characteristics and appearance are not to be given determinative weight when deciding whether a building has been designed or adapted for living in, within the meaning of the 1967 Act.
"Adapted" means little more than "made suitable". An adaptation for living in does not have to be evidenced by structural alterations. When a building has been used for a particular purpose for a settled period of time, it will usually follow that the building has been "made suitable for" that purpose.
As opined by Lord Neuberger in the Court of Appeal: where a building has been designed for living in, but has subsequently been adapted for a different purpose, it will only be a building "designed or adapted for living in" within the meaning of section 2 if its most recent adaptation was for the purpose of living in.
In Tandon, one of the key factors in determining whether the tenant should be able to exercise the right to enfranchise was that a substantial part of the building (in that case just 25%) was in residential, rather than commercial, use. That was held to be sufficient to make the building a house within the meaning of section 2. Will that be true in every case? A more appropriate conclusion is that the percentage of the space devoted to residential use, together with other factors including appearance and physical characteristics and (to a lesser extent) the user covenants in the lease, will together form a nexus of fact from which the courts must form their own view as to whether the property comes within the intended scope of the enfranchisement legislation. In the present cases, the Supreme Court has, at the very least, clarified that neither appearance, nor the terms of the lease, will be an overriding, determinative factor in deciding whether a building has been designed or adapted for living in. However, that also means there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all answer to that part of the test.
The Supreme Court has closed the door to opportunistic enfranchisement by commercial tenants, which would have been contrary to the spirit of the Act. In so doing, they have reaffirmed the original purpose of the legislation and, to the extent permitted by the facts of the two cases before them, explained how the definition of "a house" should be read to give effect to that original purpose. However, there are plenty of leasehold properties in England and Wales which do not easily fall within the same categories as 29, 31 and 39 Rosary Gardens and 48 Queen Anne Street, and defining a property "designed or adapted for living in" remains problematic in the real world. Hosebay and Lexgorge will not be the last word on interpretation of section 2. In the meantime, freeholders who wish to protect their interests against enfranchisement should continue to take all safeguards they can (such as limiting the demise, or the duration of the term and the permitted user) in order to avoid having to wrestle with the uncertainties which remain.
An earlier version of this article was published in Estates Gazette on 3 November 2012.
To view all formatting for this article (eg, tables, footnotes), please access the original here.
Hogan Lovells - Tim Reid
Court of Appeal of England & Wales
Read all about it - agency worker had right to be informed about vacancies, not to apply for them *
HM Treasury consults on UK regulatory approach to cryptoassets and stablecoins *
The effect of the Brexit Deal on data protection *
Important changes to DAC6 regime in the UK: impact on bank lending transactions *
Important changes to DAC6 regime in the UK *
Legal Delivery, Support & Partners
"Lexology is a valuable, trustworthy and informative source for domestic and International legal developments within a business related framework. The newsfeeds deliver high quality summaries from leading experts in a user-friendly format. Keep up the good work, it's most appreciated!."

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


"Tonight I'm a special guest at the first queer Lindy Hop class ever offered in Rome, Italy. People who know me know how much I love Italy and Italian culture, but in a country with no formal LGBTQ rights on the books, this is a special night for lindy hop and for my community. I'm so happy to see this happening! I would love to see a stronger LGBTQ presence in the swing dance community in general, and classes like this are a great way to start. You don't have to be gay to attend a queer dance class, allies and anyone can come... it's just a great way for our community to connect. (Also I got this red t-shirt!!)"


Boğaziçi University alumni and friends gathered at a BU hosted cocktail reception in Boston, renewing old friendships and forging new ones. Held at the MIT Sloan School of Management Faculty Lounge on Wednesday, May 27, the get-together was organized by the Global Outreach Program with the invaluable help of former BU student Özge Karanfil, who is currently a PhD candidate at Sloan. "As an alum, I was very excited to help organize our get-together at MIT" said Ms. Karanfil.
As part of its growing outreach efforts to reestablish, strengthen and steward its relationships with both alumni and friends in North America, Boğaziçi University conquered New York City again this past April! Not only did it have its first U.S.-based fundraising gala but also hosted its first panel, adding a milestone academic component to the gatherings the University first started organizing in New York City last year as part of its 150th anniversary celebrations.
Beginning in the spring of 2014, Boğaziçi University began its collaboration with The George Washington University and Al Akhawayn University to produce a series of interconnected events drawing on the humanities in different national and cultural contexts. These collaborations are designed to highlight the value and celebrate the contributions of the humanities to society around the globe. Each institution has appointed a Faculty Advisory Council to participate in colloquiums focused on different topics in the humanities. The first of these was hosted by The George Washington University in March 2014.
On Monday, October 13, 2014, Boğaziçi University and the U.S.-based Foreign Policy Association co-sponsored a conference on "Higher Education and Globalization". A highly respected organization, the Foreign Policy Association has for over 96 years worked to foster informed opinion about global issues.
As part of its 150th anniversary festivities, Boğaziçi University moved its sesquicentennial celebrations to New York City in April of 2014. Kicked off on April 21st with President Gülay Barbarosoğlu's ringing of the NASDAQ OMX Stock Market's closing bell and concluded with the April 26th 150th Year Gala Dinner at the University Club, these festivities were aimed not only at celebrating a 150 year legacy but also at bringing together as many members as possible of the Boğaziçi community living in North America. Organized by the Office of International Relations Global Outreach Program in cooperation with the Office of the Rector and the University's Foundation, BUVAK, these activities were part of a series of events designed to increase Boğaziçi's presence in North America, further strengthening its ties with its alumni and the larger community.


Blue Apron review – is it worth it??
Hey there busy friends! I know you have lots going on, and I do too, so I'm sure you're looking for time-saving tips and shortcuts. I just met with a group of moms last night for our summer book study, and the consensus was that we just can't get it all done! (book spoiler: you don't need more time, you need more Jesus ;-)) All that aside, though, exploring practical helps is definitely worth it. Here's my lowdown on the Blue Apron meal service – you decide if it's for you or not.
Who/what: Blue Apron is a meal delivery service that provides a box of pre-measured natural, farm-fresh (not organic) produce and pantry items for three meals.
When/where: Weekly, if you like, or skip a week or two and jump back in when you're ready! It comes right to your front doorstep in a medium size box (for two person portion) and nice big freezer packs that can be saved. The box will be fine to sit outside/inside a couple of hours if you are away, but I wouldn't let it sit all day.
Why: You want to have home-cooked meals and quality family time, but the meal planning, prep and grocery shopping takes more time than you have.
Now I'll give you a little free-form blurb on what I LOVED, liked, and didn't like so much, and my final verdict on if we will continue this service. We both loved the gourmet taste of the meals – totally worth the price to get such amazing meals almost every time, and we both agreed it was tastier and cheaper than going out. Who doesn't love getting real mail!? I especially like mail that helps me avoid shopping, because even though P is a better shopping passenger than a few months ago, with two naps still some days, it can be hard to get out. Finding time to plan meals can be tricky too, although there's several apps that help! (More on Mealboard.com another time.) I loved getting a box of yummy fresh food in the mail. That excitement never wore off, and it was such a relief to know the planning, prep, and shopping were all done for me!
What I LIKED: the packaging for what they call 'meal knick knacks' was cute, which involved tiny bottles and packages of pantry items that were pre-measured for that particular recipe. Think, speciality oils, vinegars, créme fraîche, and other goodies that I would never buy otherwise (or buy and only use a small amount, thus wasting much of it.) I also liked the meal inserts with helpful cooking tips, such as how to wash cast iron, the pollen crisis, or instructions on flash cooking green beans. It was always relevant and very interesting, leaving me feeling like a more experienced cook. Nice touch, Blue Apron!
What I DIDN'T LIKE: The meals are time-consuming, more time than I would prefer, though not more than I would expect for a gourmet meal. When I say gourmet, I must add that I would still consider these easy/intermediate meals, and you don't need any special cooking knowledge or paraphernalia to bring the yumminess to your table.It's not difficult to skip meals, and they send you reminders that your meal is coming, however you have to stay on top of it because I just forgot to skip one and am getting some things this week we may not like! (You get to choose from a few meals each week, as to which you'd prefer to receive.) Blue Apron has added some quick/easy meals each week, so I was able to use those near the end of our trial period. I also didn't like the cost. As I said previously, when you consider that these meals are easily gourmet-quality meals, and I learned so much (and made my husband a very happy man) while using this service, they are more expensive than I would pay on a regular basis.
Final verdict: We did end up deactivating my account recently, and I would say the main reason was the cost and time involved. If you love cooking, but not the shopping, and you have plenty of expendable income, than I would say go for it! But at $59/week for only three meals and most meals taking at least 30-45 minutes, I'm happy to get back to my Instant Pot and spending less on my total grocery and household budget.
What about you? Have you tried a meal service that you like? Please share in the comments!
I love Emily Freeman's 'What We Learned' Link Up and I'm excited to reflect on what I've learned! Writing is a good way for me to reflect on these things, so thanks for coming along!
Boys will be boys – I have come to love hearing my husband and son playing together. There is a special bond there, that I don't have with my little Sweet P, and it's fabulous. I'm learning that it's a relationship to honor, even if it's messy, loud, or different. What things don't you understand? Can we give them honor even if we don't understand? I'm learning. And so thankful.
Life is in the details – So often I'm waiting for the next big thing to get revved up about, something to lead, encourage, something bigger than me. But I'm reminded that the call of the Gospel reaches into even, and especially, the small everyday details. The washed dishes, wiping messy hands, washing underwear, and picking up one more toy all draw me back to Christ, if I allow them to. I don't need to go looking for the next big thing to be involved in, whether work, ministry, or otherwise. I'm called to my now. That is where God is with me. The great I AM.
It's not about the food – We've enjoyed hosting family and friends over the past few weeks, and I'm reminded again that people don't come for the food and finesse – those things will get done, and can be fun to fuss over – but not at the expense of relationship. This past month we enjoyed dinners, lunch time chats, and time with my mom (Grammy) and I'm so grateful God reminded me to rest, relax and enjoy.
I have to take care of myself – and it's not selfish – Life as a wife and mom has slowed in some ways, and picked up the pace in others. The middle-of-the-night waking is not as frequent, but I have a much more energetic little guy now! I'm finding more quality time with my husband than when he was working second shift, but this is often found over things we do to serve others – and that's great! Just different. In all this, I have to constantly remind myself to take little breaks. Nap time is great for that – even if it's just 20 minutes to read something, paint my nails, or take a quick shower before I need to get chores done. These little self-care moments remind me of my worth as a child of God – more on that in the next point.
Scripture memory changes me – This past month I was invited by a new friend to memorize Scripture. I actually said HELP! and she invited me to join her :). This is not an easy thing for me, although 15 years ago I was quite adept at memorizing body parts and cell structures! Having accountability to memorize, and even just writing the bimonthly verse (that's right, only two a month) on my kitchen whiteboard, has changed my thinking tremendously and I've experienced growth in areas where I never thought I would overcome sin. Philippians 4:8 is on my board now; over and over I am reminded of my worth as God's child by the first phrase – thinking on whatever is TRUE. I am His child, no matter what thoughts the enemy throws my way.
What about you? What have you been learning lately?
Mother's Day can bring all sorts of feelings, and they are not always pleasant. Maybe you want to be a mom and haven't gotten there yet. Perhaps your spouse is not as invested as you'd hope or he/she is nowhere to be seen. You might be missing your mama, or an 'out of the box' child could be causing you pain. There's a myriad of reasons you might ache on this weekend for moms, and I am no stranger to those feelings. I ached for a lot of years, waiting to get the 'mom' title. Sure, we moms love being moms most days, but this world is far from perfect, even on the best days. Do you resent the idea that you 'should' have babies but don't want to? I've been there too. What are you longing for today? I'll share part of my story, in hopes that it would encourage you on this good, and sometimes, hard day.
We got married later in life, and then we waited for the 'right time' to have babies – definitely not an easy road, with a lot of longing and wrestling and discouragement. I actually didn't desire marriage and babies as a young woman. But God had good plans for those seasons, changing my heart and preparing me to serve as a wife and mom. The many difficulties, including a miscarriage, led to sadness that gave way to despair some days. And my heart changed, really wanting marriage, and quickly after marriage, longing for children. Would I always carry sadness in my heart? Maybe you are waiting too. Or perhaps you have children, but in some way, your heart still aches. A difficult adoption, struggles with parenting, or financial concerns might tinge your joy in mothering too. The list is long. If so, my heart goes out to you. Waiting for a good thing is not easy. It's not easy when the unknown looms long and hope goes knocking on someone else's door, happy moms living the life you crave. Or even worse, you hear women complaining about what you would be delighted to enjoy.
I get it. The question 'why' is hard to resist, despite the fact that God IS good, and all His plans for us are good and loving. That doesn't mean we will get answers, and the hard fact is that God doesn't owe us answers. I had to really wrestle with His goodness and sovereignty on my path to motherhood. How could a good God deny the gift of motherhood for so long? Could I live a joyful life even if this gift was not granted? Some days I wondered. But in the midst of it all, a contentment and joy apart from motherhood grew and developed, something that was not dependent on whether God gave us children. A deep sense of God's goodness, and the knowledge that He can be trusted, was hard won but so satisfying. It's in these hard times that our faith must grow, lest we fall to bitterness. The latter was not something I wanted, so I persevered and fought for joy. Many stood with me and finally the day came when I held our dear son in my arms. But your story might still carry an ache, and to be perfectly honest – ours certainly carries them. What about you? Are you a working mom longing for more quality time? Are you struggling with postpartum depression or anxiety? Month upon month of fertility treatments? Waiting for marriage? All these and more can make the journey feel unbearable.
How can we find joy when our hearts ache? For all of us, we must find our hope in the Gospel. There is a sweetness with Jesus that cannot be found but through trials. He alone is our greatest joy, and I pray you will persevere and rest in that love. I found so much comfort in knowing that Christ suffered too, and frequently found myself in deep fellowship with Him and His sufferings. That connection is not found in holding a child, but only in knowing God and letting Him hold you. God the Father mourned as His Son suffered, too. Life is not free from suffering, even as believers in Jesus Christ, even when we receive the good gift of being a mama.
God has not walked out on me as I've struggled, and neither have the people who love me. Be kind to your aching soul, but remember to celebrate what God has given. Acknowledge any pain, reach out to others who may be longing too, even if you are not. There is healing on the other side. And there is a Healer. Though our desires may not be met on this earth, our hearts will be held by the One who knows us and calls us by name.
Last week on a walk with Little P, our garbage man was joyfully bustling about his work, and I casually said, 'Good morning! How are you?' (not expecting a response, really!) Much to my surprise, he looked me in the eye and said 'I'm tired'! I wasn't ready for that, so I just observed his hard work and joyful attitude, and went on my way. I thought about this as we walked towards the park, and just as we rounded the bend, a big fancy truck zoomed past, almost pushing us off the roadside. I was shocked. Clearly, they had no time for a baby and mom enjoying the day – much more important things to be done – and yet my garbage man took the time to give me a happy, honest reply and relay his humanness. The morning was a beautiful one, low humidity, and a gentle sun that peeked behind a few clouds – thoughtfully blessing us with warmth. The trees are green and beautiful lately, and blooms were everywhere. The tulips and spring flowers bobbed cheerfully in the breeze, and my sweet boy babbled happily at the birds, flowers and puppies we saw along the way. He is full of wonder at the smallest things, and picking dandelions in our yard is his new favorite activity, as well as being outside as often as possible.
What about us? Are we forgetting that each day holds joy, wonder and contentment in small and profound ways? How can we acknowledge our vulnerabilities to each other? What simple joys are we missing as we rush through life? Just some thoughts and prompts to focus your thoughts on this morning…. Truly, we can learn a lot from the joy and contentment of babies and people of every worldly status. Jesus certainly thought so and His life is alive in us. Lean in, friends. There is joy and wonder to be found in your busy, stressful day – let's be on the lookout for those treasures.
Saturday, 5:00 am. Woke to the sound of my baby's cries and remember that he still takes a bottle early in the morning – I should get up and do that. I go to the bathroom, return to our room, try to ignore his cries, and I am reminded that this phase won't last much longer. I tiptoe to his room next door, and bring the bottle, comfort and cuddles that won't last forever. As I tuck him back in, I hear the birds chirping, beckoning me to sneak out and watch the sunrise – something I haven't done in a very long time. I tie on my running shoes, and open the door to a world of wonder – trees blooming, birds chirping happily, sun just beginning to wake up. So too, my soul comes alive as I remember how God invites us into His presence if we but listen. I've been trying to listen more closely. And it's hard, but good. I'm turning from the noise, temptations, and distractions, to see what good things God might be waiting to give just around the corner.
7:00 am. I make a family recipe – Pfannkuchen – and listen to waking and rustling upstairs. Baby babble, happy laughter and tickles, chasing and throwing on the bed…My home is waking up, and I am ready to serve. I'm not always awake at this point, but today feels different. God has been whispering and calling to my heart, and it doesn't feel as hard to repent from bitterness that has settled in over weeks and months.
9:00 am. Walk with my guys around the neighborhood. These walks are both good and hard, as are most things. Conversations bring connection and also conflict, but I find that God's earlier preparation of my heart to look for what He has done, and not grasp for what He hasn't yet, has softened me and brings sweet connection with the ones I love.
11 am. Dishes washed, and my heart has been washed too. I'm alive to God and though the battles still crouch at the door (Genesis 4:7), I'm more in tune with God and what is truly real.
What about you? Are you awake to the work of God in your life? I'm finding that small steps early on prepare my body, mind and soul to rest in Him all day. Our Warrior King has won the victory over all sin, flesh and evil. Will we walk in that? Put on those shoes. The birds are chirping and He's waiting to open the door for you too!
Looking for the first step to a healthy body?
Hello friends! Some thoughts rolling around in my head, and again it is connected to what I am reading and learning, to where God has us. The weather is turning (at least for this past week!) and I am wondering if it will stay or we'll go back to winter. Do you ever feel that way in your wellness journey? That roller coaster of success and then disappointment? I do. Having a baby is a wonderful thing, but it certainly takes a toll on your body and I'm not quite back to where I'd like to be. Life can be like that too. We go through a hard season, and it can be easy to get stuck in a mindset of discouragement, rather than looking ahead to what God can do.
I'm realizing, again, that my hope is not fully focused on Christ, and that is what leads to this discouragement and lack of hopefulness. A fit body comes from having a fit soul! We cannot put our hope in these earthly things, like wellness and health, or in our circumstances being how we would prefer. It's a back and forth, up and down ride, that God does not intend for us. He longs for our souls to be anchored in truth. When we fix our eyes completely on Christ, setting our hope in His unchanging character and our eternal hope in heaven, life is steady and fixed on the Rock, even if circumstances are not. It's hard in this self-help, get-all-you-can-get world that we live in. Life is full of distractions from the narrow way, but God's way is always the best way for deep, lasting hope.
And so, I'm turning back to Christ for my ultimate fulfillment, even as I continue to eat well and exercise, care for my soul, and look forward to a new and hopeful season. Life might go how I hope, and it may not. But my soul is becoming more and more anchored in the One who alone can bring the fullness of joy I crave. What about you? Can you take a moment to consider where your hope lies? What outcomes are you working towards? Do they lead you to Christ and His kingdom? Do they lead you to eternal joy and hope in this life and the one to come? Exercise, nutrition, and a good life are not wrong in and of themselves. God desires good things for us. But more than that, He wants the best things for us, and we must be careful to focus on the best – seeking His kingdom rather than our own.
We're all waiting for the cold and snow to blow away and spring to come in its place. This, too, is what our family has waited for, for quite a while. It has been just like this winter, a back and forth of hope and discouragement – maybe it is going to be winter? No, it's going to be 50 degrees out! No, it's actually winter. 🙂 But God has opened the door to a new season of ministry together, and we couldn't be more excited. True, there are other emotions swirling, as we pinch ourselves and wonder if it's really true. The prayers we've all been praying have been answered! As I reflect on where God is taking us, I've been thinking, too, of the Gospel.
I tend to fall in the 'do this and you'll get this' mindset, as my natural mode of default, if I am not careful to run to Christ and His Word. It's a dangerous place, this formulaic approach to life that ultimately brings death and not life. I'm finding it sneak up as we enter this new season, both in ministry and parenting. First let me say, we did not 'do all the right things' for God to open up this door, or give us a sweet little boy. I have to keep reminding myself of that. Suffering well honors God, but it does not guarantee His blessing. There are no guarantees. So I've been reminded as we move forward that there will still be challenges, ups and downs, and hard days. A blessing does not mean the struggles of life go away completely. Nor does it mean we have 'figured life out'.
That is what the Gospel reminds us – to celebrate the good, but also rejoice during the hard (James 1). Celebration is good and right. We celebrate this new ministry opportunity, after years of prayer for the right door to open. We celebrate our sweet little P, after waiting, loss, and struggle. And we go back to the Lord and thank Him for what He did not have to give. But had He not given these gifts, the Gospel reminds us that we can still celebrate. It is a painful grace to walk hand in hand with God, through the painful spots, and find Him faithful. For those lessons of grace, I am ever grateful. I often struggled with jealously as others 'moved on' to buying houses, having babies, and living out their calling with joy. But a quote from this book reminds me that we can, in a sense, be jealous of those who have not been blessed with the gifts we have. Theirs is the joy of walking with Christ in His sufferings. The eternal hope that has been forged into our souls during this season is a great gift. So too, do I see this as I study 1 Peter. We are called to suffer for good; we are told we as believers we will suffer, and not to be surprised by this.
I'm also starting to see this a + b = c mentality sneak into my parenting. When I rejoice for having parented well, or despair when P disobeys, my heart is convicted that the salvation of his soul, and decision to live in obedience to God or not, is not ultimately in my hands. It is God that saves, not my good efforts at parenting. Yours either. This book is reminding me that Gospel-centered thinking must undergird all we do, not legalistic thinking and parenting. I'm entering into a phase where my sweet boy is developing his own opinions and requires direction and correction. This is requiring new grace for me, and for him. We are both covered by the grace found in the Gospel, and God disciplines me, even as I learn to correct Him in grace-filled, Gospel-centered ways.
All this being said, we are beyond grateful to be moving from a very hard, hard season of multiple trials, to one we anticipate will bring much joy and delight, as we serve this body of believers and grow together. We are praising the Giver of good gifts, who knows exactly what we need and when. Thanking God for many of you, too, who have fought for us in the dark times. What a Great God we serve!


text:
Q: OAuth2 still asking for email & password values I'm moving my AdWords app from Client Login to OAuth2 authentication in preparation to migrate to v201306.
I've read the documentation and understand the concept of OAuth2 and have experimented successfully with a little Google+ login script.
I'm confused about how my app will use OAuth2 instead of Client Login.
In auth.ini I've replaced the Client Login's email and password with OAuth2's client_id and client_secret from the api console but I immediately receive a validation error asking for email and password values.
I was under the impression that the existence of client_id and client_secret would prompt the use of OAuth2 ?
As always any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
I'm using library: adwords_api_php_4.2.5 version: v201302
Many thanks

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Magellan brings you the RoadMate 5465T-LMB 5 in. GPS Device with Bluetooth and Free Lifetime Maps and Traffic Updates. This glass screen navigator has the ease of a multitouch interface. With Landmark Guidance you receive directions using landmarks as your guide versus street names, making it a more intuitive way to navigate. Junction View generates realistic images of freeway signs and arrows that guide you to the correct lane to make driving safer and less stressful. And SayWhere technology speaks the street names throughout the preloaded maps of the 50 United States, Canada and Puerto Rico.


text:
Queen Elizabeth and Duke of Edinburgh receive COVID-19 vaccine
Published on: January 10, 2021 14:06 (EAT)
Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh have received their COVID-19 vaccinations, a Buckingham Palace spokesperson said Saturday.
The inoculations were administered by a household doctor at Windsor Castle, a royal source said.
To prevent inaccuracies and further speculation, Her Majesty, who 94, decided that she would let it be known that she has had the vaccination, the source added. Her husband is 99 years old.
The couple's son, Prince Charles tested positive for coronavirus and went into isolation in March. The 72-year-old later said he was lucky to only experience mild symptoms, adding he'd "got away with it quite lightly."
Meanwhile, their grandson Prince William , second-in-line to the British throne, also tested positive for coronavirus earlier this year, UK media reported, though exactly when he contracted the virus is unclear.
The UK has recorded more than 3 million cases of Covid-19 and more than 80,000 deaths, according to figures from Johns Hopkins University on Saturday.
The UK reported 1,325 coronavirus-related fatalities on Friday — its highest ever daily increase in deaths.
Health officials face a [deadly start to 2021](https://cnn.com/2021/01/08/europe/europe-overwhelmed-coronavirus-variant-intl/index.html) as a new coronavirus variant, first detected in the UK, sweeps the nation.
In the capital, London's mayor declared a "major incident" on Friday, warning that hospitals in the city were close to being overrun.
"The situation in London is now critical with the spread of the virus out of control," Mayor Sadiq Khan said in a statement.
"The number of cases in London has increased rapidly with more than a third more patients being treated in our hospitals now compared to the peak of the pandemic last April.
"We are declaring a major incident because the threat this virus poses to our city is at crisis point," Khan added. "If we do not take immediate action now, our [National Health Service] could be overwhelmed and more people will die."
Bus plunges into Indian Ocean at Likoni ferry crossing in Mombasa
Sonko declares 10-year break from politics, to withdraw case challenging ouster


text:
package com.socialize.ui.actionbar;

/**
 * @author Jason Polites
 *
 */
public interface ActionBarButtonListener {

	/**
	 * Called when a button on the action bar is clicked.
	 * @param button
	 */
	public void onClick(ActionBarButton button);

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


There are needs and there are wants. A need is essential while a want is just a desire. Your place of residence, office and other places where the use of water is indispensible, needs an appropriate bore hole facility. Many Nigerians now acknowledge the fact that they should build their own water borehole and have steady access to purified water. However, there are some factors that needs to be settled between the contractor and clients. The cost of constructing borehole in Nigeria has been a major hindrance to the reception of this vital need by many individuals. Some claim the expenditure that goes into cost of borehole drilling in nigeria is enormous. But then, there is a factor that makes this claim on monetary demands of borehole construction relative.
The soil geology of the land in Warri on which the bore hole is to be constructed, plays a major part in the service cost of drilling the borehole. We are aware that our borehole drilling equipment is the best in the market in comparison to others being used by other borehole drillers. Building a water borehole on a land filled with rocks will ultimately attract a higher cost than one being drilled on a land with less hard and stony surfaces.
The cost of water borehole drilling equipment in Nigeria and around the world is no joke, and these equipment need to be serviced frequently to avoid damage and ensure our clients get the best borehole drilling service available. These and many more are among the factors that affect the cost of borehole drilling in Warri as there is no fixed cost. Basically, the quality of the land, topography and location determine the cost that will be estimated by the service provider and communicated to the client.
Now that you know the factors that effect The Cost of Drilling Borehole in Warri…What's Your Decision?
As they say, cheap things can't last. We do affordable, we don't do cheap as we ensure you get your money's worth. When it comes to cost in relation to Water Borehole Drillers, there are many benefits you'll enjoy by patronizing us. Our water borehole installations are modern and inexpensive when compared to what is obtainable in the market We offer you the best and standard water borehole drilling techniques to ensure your access to purified water, no matter the location and topography of your land. With Water Borehole Drillers Nigeria Company, you get value for your money. Call us now for the best water borehole construction service in Nigeria and we will proffer favorable plans that'll benefit you in relation to cost. Call 08039422997 or 08090111175 to get a fast quote today!


text:
Op-Ed: CC complaints from industry will fall on deaf ears
By Mary Kirby →
Certain airlines and inflight entertainment stakeholders are doubtlessly breathing a sigh of relief now that it has become apparent that the US Department of Transportation isn't exactly sprinting to bring closed captioning (CC) to IFE without doing some very methodical research. Even so, the industry would be wise to get its house in order tout suite.
The DOT supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) that addresses accessible IFE is broad in nature; for instance, it covers carrier-supplied medical oxygen, service animals, and accessible lavatories on single-aisle aircraft, in addition to seeking to ascertain whether providing accessible IFE to passengers with disabilities is technically and economically feasible. These issues were flagged as important in the preamble of the 2008 final Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) rule.
The DOT had intended to have a rulemaking in place before the end of 2011, but it is now eyeing a projected date of 25 August 2014 for the "end of comment period" for the SNPRM. Explaining the delay, the DOT cites the need for additional coordination for regulatory evaluation and the necessity for "additional research and data analysis". This need for more analysis has resulted in some exchanges between the DOT and a dedicated CC working group within the Airline Passenger Experience Association (APEX)'s Technology Committee.
In its January report detailing 'DOT Significant Rulemakings', the department provided the following schedule for its SNPRM:
Originally
To OST (Office of the Secretary of Transportation) 06/27/2011 02/03/2014
To OMB (Office of Management and Budget) 07/30/2011 03/17/2014
OMB Clearance 10/25/2011 06/16/2014
Publication Date 10/31/2011 06/26/2014
End of Comment Period 12/31/2011 08/25/2014
The DOT is not expected to make any rulemaking announcements in February (though one should "never say never", as they say). But it knows it can't sit on its hands, in part because it is under legislative pressure.
Last year, US Senator Tom Harkin introduced legislation to expand access to captioning and image narration in movie theaters and airplanes. Specifically, Harkins' bill would require airlines flying in and out of the US to provide closed captioning (CC), and, substantially, any connecting flights operated by US carriers' codeshare partners outside of the country.
Many people in the industry acknowledge that bringing CC to IFE is not a matter of "if" but "when". Indeed, it is expected to become ubiquitous in the next few years, and the industry will have to find a way of dealing with it (from a cost standpoint, a content standpoint and a technical standpoint).
Even so, behind the scenes, certain airlines and content service providers have expressed concerns. Some argue that they already provide a good mix of content with many languages and CC or subtitles wherever possible in order to accommodate as many "permutations" as possible (not my word). But as mentioned before, these arguments will fall on deaf ears.
Here are just some of their questions and concerns. Some are valid; others less so, in my opinion. But they speak to what's going on.
1) While most US-sourced content comes with CC, local movie and TV content in other countries usually does not come with CC. Is it a must that airlines have CC if they fly to the US?
2) In principle, an aircraft is deemed to be the space of the country where it is registered – can the DOT rule on any foreign aircraft? If airlines are not compliant, what is going to happen? The very big issue that is being missed here is that most airlines take content that is not produced in the US and is not subject to US law. This would effectively remove the possibility for airlines outside the US to use any local content, which is not created with closed captions – or if it does, they are not necessarily going to be in English, which is no doubt the expectation of the DOT.
3) The question all airlines will – or should ask – is what languages will captions be expected to be in, if they are flying to the US. Will there be an expectation that for example an Arabic original language program will have to have captions created in both Arabic and English before it can be shown on a flight going into the US?
4) Is it a must have for all content or is there a certain number which we have to guarantee? Generally a person cannot watch the entire content an IFE offers and not all content is offered in all languages, so how can DOT request CC for everything – even the ones who can hear don't get everything in their language.
5) What happens if a movie title doesn't have it? Do the airlines have to switch off the IFE when entering US airspace?
6) What happens with old systems, which cannot accommodate CC? Are they exempted and for how long?
7) If the DOT requests CC for everything (even old systems) and CC cannot be done as a dynamic file – passengers who are not hard of hearing will be annoyed with the constant appearing text i.e. on a 9 inch screen. How does DOT manage that? The airline could get claims by the normal passengers that they can hardly see the movie.
8) This is a very serious issue for the airlines and the entire industry. Many (or probably most) airlines are still flying older systems that are not capable at all to display CC. Don't think that the hardware vendors are going to re-engineer older systems to be able to accommodate.
Meanwhile, even though the DOT is moving slowly, it is moving surely. In 2006, the DOT reluctantly shelved a proposal to caption IFE after APEX – then known as WAEA – advised the department that IFE systems did not support Line 21, a closed caption standard for National Television System Committee (NTSC) TV broadcasts.
At that time, the DOT held the misconception that you could simply flip a switch for Line 21 on IFE systems. WAEA cited the industry's migration to MPEG-4 and offered a timeline by which the industry could realistically comply with the DOT's wishes.
With airlines generating massive quarterly profits, and technology on the ground advancing at break-neck speed, it's fair to say that the DOT, lawmakers and the traveling public will not accept excuses for long as to why a large amount of IFE content is not captioned.
Image credited to istock.com/ricochet64
American eyes Main Cabin Extra for US Airways
Op-Ed: When coach comfort is number one
Posted in:Comfort, Op-Ed, Safety
Tags#AvGeek, #paxex, Air transport, air travel, air traveller, airborne Internet, aircraft, aircraft cabin interior, aircraft cabin interiors, aircraft data, Aircraft Interiors International, aircraft manufacturer, aircraft manufacturing, aircraft seat, aircraft seats, aircraft wireless network, airframe, airframer, airline, Airline Crew, airline crew member, airline operation, airline operations inflight media, airline passenger, airline passenger experience, Airline Passengers, airline premium economy, airline route, airline routes, airline seat, airline seats, airliner, airlines, airport, airport facility, airports, ancillary revenue, APEX, aviation, aviation data, aviation supplier, aviation suppliers, avionics, AVOD, big data, business, business class, Business Class Seat, Business Seat, cabin, Cabin Class, cabin crew, cabin interiors, caption, Captions, carrier, carriers, CC, CC for IFE, civil air transport, Civil Aviation, closed captioning, closed captioning for IFE, coach, coach class, comfort, Commercial Air Transport, commercial air travel, commercial air traveler, commercial aircraft cabin, commercial aviation, comms, content, crew, crew member, data, deaf, Digital, Digital Age, DOT, economy, economy class, economy class seat, Economy Seat, Entertainment, first, first class, first class seat, First Seat, flier, flight, Flight Data, flights, flyer, flyier, flying, hard of hearing, hardware, IFC service, IFC system, IFE, IFE closed captioning, In-flight, In-flight connectivity, in-flight entertainment, In-flight Service., In-flight Wi-Fi, In-flight Wifi, in-seat IFE, in-seat monitor, in-seat screen, Inflight, inflight comfort, inflight communications, inflight connectivity, inflight content, inflight entertainment, inflight service, inflight Wi-Fi, Inflight Wifi, interior surface, interior surfaces, interiors, international air travel, International Travel, Jet, jetliner, jets, Long Haul Flight, long-haul air travel, long-haul travel, longhaul air travel, longhaul travel, Manufacturer, manufacturers, media, narrowbody, Narrowbody Aircraft, OEM, OEMs, on board, on-board service, Onboard, onboard communications, Onboard Entertainment, onboard Internet, onboard retail, onboard service, operator, Operators, passenger experience, Premium Economy Seat, Premium Economy Seats, route, routes, Runway Girl Network, Seat, seatback IFE, seatback monitor, Seatback Screen, seatmaker, seats, seats on board an aircraft, service, short-haul air travel, short-haul flight, short-haul travel, shorthaul air travel, shorthaul travel, Single Aisle Aircraft, streaming entertainment, streaming video, Supplier, Suppliers, System, tech, technology, traveler, traveling, traveller, Twin-aisle aircraft, twinjet, twinjets, W-IFE, Wi-Fi, widebody, Widebody Aircraft, wifi, wireless IFE, wireless network
About Mary Kirby
Founder, Editor and Publisher Mary Kirby has covered the aviation industry for over 20 years as both a journalist and an editor. After cutting her teeth at a weekly world airline newsletter, Mary joined Flightglobal in 1999 as a reporter for its real-time news site Air Transport Intelligence. She was promoted to Deputy Editor, Americas... Read More
View all posts by Mary Kirby →


text:
Q: Изменение параметров тега при подгрузке контента Имеется такой код:

$(document).on('click','.read-more',function(e){
    e.preventDefault();
    var id = $(this).data('id') || 0;
    // Вставляем полученный контент в HTML блок с id="content"

    $('#content')
    .append($('
')
    .load("https://baconipsum.com/api/?type=all-meat&sentences=1&start-with-lorem=1&format=html"));
    });

    Подробнее

Как изменить скрипт, что бы в параметре data-id значение при каждом нажатии на ссылку увеличивалось на 12

A: Все таки смог разобраться сам, вот код, может кому пригодится:

$(document).on('click','.read-more',function(e){
    e.preventDefault();
    var id = $(this).data('id') || 0;
    var data = parseInt($(".read-more").attr("data-id"), 10)+12;

    $('#content')
    .append($('
')
    .load("https://baconipsum.com/api/?type=all-meat&sentences=1&start-with-lorem=1&format=html"));
    });

    Подробнее