text:
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
{ Many observations with such as hard X-rays (HXRs), $\gamma$-rays, and microwaves have revealed that a solar flare is one of the strongest particle accelerator in our solar system. Electrons that are accelerated to several tens of keV to MeV radiate HXRs at footpoints of flare loops \citep[e.g.,][]{1994PhDT.......335S,2003ApJ...595L.103K,2009ApJ...697..843M}, and sometimes above the top of a soft X-ray loop \citep{1994Natur.371..495M,1995PASJ...47..677M}. They are also observed via microwaves in the gigahertz band. These emissions have been used to understand the properties of accelerated electrons \citep[e.g.,][]{1983Natur.305..292N,1988ApJ...324.1118K,2000ApJ...545.1116S,2001ApJ...557..880K,2002ApJ...576..505W,2008ApJ...673..598M}. Recently, accelerated ions have been studied by the $\gamma$-ray observations of the {\it Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager} \citep[{\it RHESSI};][]{2003ApJ...595L..69L,2006ApJ...644L..93H}.}

In addition to these observations of accelerated particles at flare sites, escaping particles from the Sun into interplanetary space, the so-called solar energetic particles (SEPs), and resulting radio bursts are observed in association with flares \citep[e.g.,][]{1982ApJ...253..949L,1985SoPh..100..537L,1998ApJ...503..435E,1999SSRv...90..413R,1999ApJ...519..864K,2007ApJ...663L.109K,2009ApJ...691..806K}.
\cite{2007ApJ...663L.109K,2009ApJ...691..806K} have reported detailed examinations of the relationship of electrons between at the flare site and in interplanetary space, by using {\it RHESSI} and {\it WIND} observations.
On the other hand, escaping electrons are often observed with no corresponding flare activity \citep[e.g.,][]{1980ApJ...236L..97P,2003GeoRL..30m..30G,2007ApJ...657..567M,2010ApJ...708L..95E}. This indicates that small-scale particle accelerations frequently take place in the corona.

{ Based on the magnetic reconnection scenario \citep{1995ApJ...451L..83S}, many authors have proposed models to explain the particle acceleration in solar flares. The particle acceleration in and near the reconnection region has been well discussed. For example, \cite{1996ApJ...462..997L} has studied the DC electric field acceleration in reconnecting current sheets. \cite{2001JGR...10625979H} have discussed the nonadiabatic acceleration in the vicinity of the reconnection region at which the gyro radius is comparable to the curvature radius of the magnetic field line. Fermi acceleration by the contraction of magnetic islands has been studied by \cite{2006Natur.443..553D}.}
{ In addition to the acceleration near the reconnection region, stochastic acceleration mechanisms in the reconnection downstream region have been proposed by e.g., \cite{1996ApJ...461..445M} (fast-mode magnetohydrodynamic waves) and \cite{1998ApJ...495L..67T} (oblique shocks), although necessary high-frequency waves for the particle scattering is poorly known in the solar circumstance.}

{The models greatly contribute to the understanding of how particles are accelerated to observed energies. For the complete understanding of many observed features, however, we should take into account the particle transport and dissipation processes as well as the acceleration in a realistic environment of the solar corona. This is because observed quantities do not necessarily reflect the particle distribution just at the acceleration site, but are the convolution of all of these processes \citep{1998ApJ...502..455A}}.

\cite{1997ApJ...485..859S} have proposed a model called ``collapsing trap'', in which the particle acceleration, transport, and dissipation naturally follow from the shrinkage of magnetic loops driven by reconnection.

These processes are almost adiabatic in the trap, because the particle gyro scale ($\sim 10^{-9} \; {\rm s} \; {\rm and} \sim 10^{0} \; {\rm cm}$ for electrons) is much smaller than the flare scale ($\sim 10^{2} \; {\rm s} \; {\rm and} \sim 10^{9} \; {\rm cm}$) due to very strong magnetic fields in the corona.
The adiabatic acceleration may take place everywhere in the trap, which diminishes a serious problem that the number of accelerated particles required for observed HXR intensities is comparable to the number in a whole flare region \citep{1974IAUS...57..105K,1997JGR...10214631M}.
{ The mechanism can be regarded as the subsequent acceleration process that occurs after the acceleration near the reconnection region, and as the co-existing process with the acceleration in the downstream region.}
It is noteworthy to note that the model is very similar to the ``dipolarization'' associated with substorms in the terrestrial magnetosphere.

In the collapsing trap, particles can adiabatically gain energy from convection electric fields ${\vect E} = -{\vect v} \times {\vect B}$ through $\nabla B$ and inertia drift motions.
\cite{2004A&A...419.1159K} have studied the electron distribution function in the shrinking loop, with considering only the acceleration due to the $\nabla B$ drift (the betatron acceleration).
\cite{2004ApJ...608..554A} has analytically considered the electron transport and the resulting impulsive HXR emissions in the loop.
 \cite{2005ApJ...635..636G} have presented a rigorous treatment of the adiabatic motion of a single particle in the loop, by numerically solving guiding-center equations of motion.
\cite{2006ApJ...647.1472K} have performed a guiding-center test particle simulation in a cusp-shaped loop obtained from a magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulation.
However, a complete modeling of the evolution of the adiabatic particle distribution in a flare region has not been studied yet.

The correlation between the intensity of HXRs and the strength of convection electric fields has been reported by e.g., \cite{2002ApJ...565.1335Q} and \cite{2003ApJ...586..624A,2004ApJ...611..557A}.
Recently, \cite{2008ApJ...672L..69L} have observed the correlation between the hardness of the HXR spectrum and the strength of convection electric fields along flare ribbons. These observations indicate that the electric field greatly influences the distribution of electrons during their travel in the corona. The adiabatic model with actual coronal parameters can be tested through a direct comparison with these observations, because the model simultaneously describes particle acceleration, transport, and dissipation processes in a very wide area of the corona where particles are strongly magnetized.

To understand the particle acceleration, transport, and dissipation processes in solar flares, we theoretically study the evolution of the particle distribution based on the numerical simulation. For this purpose, we newly develop a comprehensive model based on the drift-kinetic theory, in which the evolution of the particle distribution function is described by means of a numerical simulation of the drift-kinetic Vlasov equation. The simulation can be performed with actual coronal parameters, allowing us to directly compare it with observations. In {\S}~\ref{sec:models} we describe equations of particles and electromagnetic fields in our model.
Simulation results are shown in {\S}~\ref{sec:calculation-results}.
The simulation identifies two dominant mechanisms of electron acceleration; the betatron acceleration at the top of closed loops and the inertia drift acceleration in open magnetic field lines. We discuss the results in {\S} \ref{sec:discussion}, and then conclude the paper in {\S} \ref{sec:conclusion-1}.

\section{Models}\label{sec:models}
The evolution of a collisionless plasma is fully described with the Vlasov equation in six-dimensional phase space (three dimensions in the configuration and velocity spaces). The equation describes the full kinetics of the particle transport along and across magnetic field lines, acceleration by electric fields, and the gyromotion, thus can resolve the inertia and gyro scales of particles.
When the typical scale of interest is much larger than the gyro scale, it is rather convenient for focusing on the macroscopic distribution of particles to adopt a guiding-center equation (drift kinetics) than the full kinetic equation.
In this paper we treat the drift-kinetic Vlasov equation to study the time evolution of the particle distribution function following a macroscopic change of ambient fields.
\subsection{Basic Equations}\label{sec:basic-equations}
We begin with the relativistic guiding-center equations of motion \citep{1963RvGSP...1..283N},
\begin{eqnarray}
\dif{\vect r}{t} &=& {\vect v} = \frac{u_{\parallel}}{\gamma} {\vect b} + {\vect v}_{d}, \label{eq1}\\
\dif{u_{\parallel}}{t} &=& \gamma {\vect v}_{E} \cdot \dif{\vect b}{t} - \frac{M}{\gamma} \pdif{B}{s} + \frac{e}{m_0} E_{\parallel}, \label{eq2} \\
\dif{M}{t} &=& 0,\label{eq:1}\\
{\vect v}_{d} &=& {\vect v}_{E} +
\frac{MB}{\gamma \omega_0} {\vect b} \times \nabla \ln B +
\frac{1}{\omega_0}{\vect b} \times \left(u_{\parallel} \dif{\vect b}{t} + \gamma \dif{{\vect v}_{E}}{t}\right) \label{eq3},
\end{eqnarray}
where $({\vect r}, {\vect v})$ is the guiding-center position and velocity of an individual particle, ${\vect v}_{d}$ is the drift velocity perpendicular to the magnetic field line, $e$ and $m_0$ are the charge and rest mass of a particle,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& {\vect b} = \frac{\vect B}{B}, \;\;\; {\vect v}_{E} = c \frac{{\vect E}}{B} \times {\vect b}, \;\;\; E_{\parallel} = {\vect E} \cdot {\vect b}, \nonumber \\
&& {\vect u} = \gamma {\vect v}, \;\;\; u_{\parallel} = {\vect u} \cdot {\vect b}, \;\;\; {\vect u}_{\perp}  = {\vect u} - u_{\parallel}{\vect b}, \nonumber \\
&& \gamma = \@ifnextchar[{\mart@@}{\mart@}{\left(u/c\right)^2+1}, \;\;\; \omega_0 = \frac{eB}{m_0 c}, \;\;\; M=\frac{u_{\perp}^2}{2 B}, \nonumber \\
&& \dif{}{t} = \pdif{}{t} + \frac{u_{\parallel}}{\gamma}\pdif{}{s}+\left({\vect v}_{E} \cdot \nabla\right), \;\;\;  \pdif{}{s} = {\vect b} \cdot \nabla \nonumber,
\end{eqnarray}
and $v_{d}$ is assumed to be much slower than the speed of light $c$.
In the drift-kinetic theory, dependent variables are reduced to $({\vect r},u_{\parallel},M)$ by the assumption of gyrotropy. In addition, $M$ is no longer a variable because of the conservation of the magnetic moment (eq. (\ref{eq:1})).

Since observable quantities are the energy and pitch-angle distribution of accelerated particles in the case of solar flares, we convert the variables $(u_{\parallel},M)$ into $(\gamma,\mu)$, where $\mu = \left({\vect v} \cdot {\vect b}\right)/v$ is the pitch-angle cosine of a particle.
 Their time derivatives are written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\dif{\gamma}{t} &=& \omega_0 \frac{{\vect v}_{d} \cdot {\vect E}}{c B} + \frac{MB}{\gamma c^2} \pdif{\ln B}{t},\label{eq4}\\
\dif{\mu}{t} &=& \dif{}{t}\left(\frac{u_{\parallel}}{u}\right) = \frac{1}{c \@ifnextchar[{\mart@@}{\mart@}{\gamma^2-1}} \dif{u_{\parallel}}{t} - \frac{\mu \gamma}{\gamma^2 - 1} \dif{\gamma}{t},\label{eq5}
\end{eqnarray}
where we assume $E_{\parallel} = 0$. Using equations (\ref{eq2}) and (\ref{eq3}), equations (\ref{eq4}) and (\ref{eq5}) are rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\dif{\gamma}{t} = &\@ifnextchar[{\mart@@}{\mart@}{\gamma^2-1}& \left[ \frac{\left(1-\mu^2\right) \@ifnextchar[{\mart@@}{\mart@}{\gamma^2-1}}{2 \gamma} \left(\pdif{}{t} + {\vect v}_{E} \cdot \nabla \right) \ln B \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. + \mu \frac{{\vect v}_{E}}{c} \cdot \left(\pdif{}{t} + \frac{\mu c \@ifnextchar[{\mart@@}{\mart@}{\gamma^2-1}}{\gamma} \pdif{}{s} + {\vect v}_{E} \cdot \nabla \right) {\vect b} \right],\label{eq6}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\dif{\mu}{t} = &\left(1-\mu^2\right)& \left[ -\frac{\mu}{2} \left(\pdif{}{t} + {\vect v}_{E} \cdot \nabla \right) \ln B \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. + \frac{\gamma}{\@ifnextchar[{\mart@@}{\mart@}{\gamma^2-1}}\frac{{\vect v}_{E}}{c} \cdot \left(\pdif{}{t} + \frac{\mu c \@ifnextchar[{\mart@@}{\mart@}{\gamma^2-1}}{\gamma} \pdif{}{s} + {\vect v}_{E} \cdot \nabla \right) {\vect b} \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. - \frac{1}{2}\frac{c \@ifnextchar[{\mart@@}{\mart@}{\gamma^2-1}}{\gamma} \pdif{\ln B}{s} \right].\label{eq7}
\end{eqnarray}
The first term of the equations represents the betatron ($\nabla B$ drift) force, and the second term is the inertia drift { (general form of the curvature drift in the presence of electric fields)} force, respectively. The third term of equation (\ref{eq7}) is the magnetic mirror force.
The polarization drift ($d{\vect v}_E / dt$ in eq. (\ref{eq3})) is negligible by the assumption $v_E/c \ll 1$.

The time derivative of the position (eq. (\ref{eq1})) is expressed by the parallel and perpendicular drift motions to the magnetic field line. The drift motion consists of the ${\vect E} \times {\vect B}$ drift ${\vect v}_{E}$, $\nabla B$ drift, inertia drift, and polarization drift (eq. (\ref{eq3})).
We estimate these drift velocities in a typical coronal condition.
The ${\vect E} \times {\vect B}$ drift is a motion of fluid described by MHD, up to an {\Alfven} velocity $\sim 2000 \; {\rm km \; s^{-1}}$.
The $\nabla B$ and inertia drifts are $\sim \left(r_{g}/L\right)v$, where $r_{g} \sim 10^{0} \; {\rm cm}$ is the gyroradius and $L \sim 10^{9} \; {\rm cm}$ is the characteristic scale of magnetic fields. These are much slower than the {\Alfven} velocity. The polarization drift is further slower than these drifts.
 Therefore equation (\ref{eq1}) can be well approximated into
\begin{eqnarray}
\dif{\vect r}{t} &=& \frac{\mu c \@ifnextchar[{\mart@@}{\mart@}{\gamma^2-1}}{\gamma} {\vect b} + {\vect v}_{E}.\label{eq:2}
\end{eqnarray}
Equations (\ref{eq6}) - (\ref{eq:2}) describe the motion of a particle with the guiding-center variables $({\vect r},\gamma,\mu)$.

{ We define the particle distribution function $f({\bf r},\gamma,\mu) = dN/ \left(d{\vect r} d\gamma d\mu \right)$, where $dN$ is the number of particles with $(\gamma,\mu)$, and $d{\vect r} d\gamma d\mu$ is the volume element in the phase space. Its time evolution is described by the following continuity equation of the phase space density \citep[the drift-kinetic Vlasov equation; e.g.,][]{1984PhyS...29..141W,2005ipp..book.....G},
\begin{eqnarray}
\pdif{f}{t}+\nabla \cdot \left(\dif{\vect r}{t}f\right) + \pdif{}{\mu}\left(\dif{\mu}{t} f\right) + \pdif{}{\gamma}\left(\dif{\gamma}{t} f\right) = 0.\label{eq:3}
\end{eqnarray}
.}

\subsection{Electromagnetic Fields}\label{sec:electr-fields}
Equation (\ref{eq:3}) traces the orbit of the particle distribution function in ambient fields. For the determination of the fields, we employ the analytic model of two-dimensional magnetic fields of the flare proposed by \cite{1995SoPh..159..275L}. Their model is a superposition of potential and horizontal fields to impose an X-type neutral line at $(x,z) = (0,a)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
A_y(x,z) &=& \left[\frac{z+d}{x^2+\left(z+d\right)^2} + \frac{z}{\left(a+d\right)^2}\right],\label{eq:4}\\
B_x(x,z) &=& -\pdif{A_y}{z} = -\left[\frac{x^2-\left(z+d\right)^2}{\left\{x^2+\left(z+d\right)^2\right\}^2} + \frac{1}{\left(a+d\right)^2}\right],\label{eq:5}\\
B_z(x,z) &=& \pdif{A_y}{x} = -\frac{2x\left(z+d\right)}{\left\{x^2+\left(z+d\right)^2\right\}^2},\label{eq:8}
\end{eqnarray}
where $d$ is the depth of a dipole moment. The $x$- and $z$-axes correspond to the tangential and normal directions relative to the solar surface, and the $y$-axis is along the neutral line, respectively. Note that the above formulae are slightly different from the original ones, because we take the origin at the surface whereas \citeauthor{1995SoPh..159..275L} took it at the neutral line.

We introduce an $x$-position of the footpoint of the magnetic separatrix $x_{f}$, which is magnetically connected to the neutral line. The relation $A_y(0,a)=A_y(x_f,0)$ yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{a}{d}&=&\left(\frac{x_f}{d}+\@ifnextchar[{\mart@@}{\mart@}{\left(\frac{x_f}{d}\right)^2+1}\right)\frac{x_f}{d}. \label{eq:6}
\end{eqnarray}
We further introduce an aspect ratio of the magnetic field configuration $R = a/x_f$, which yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{x_f}{d} = \frac{R^2-1}{2R}.\label{eq:10}
\end{eqnarray}
The geometry of the magnetic field is expressed as a function of $R$, which is treated as one of our simulation parameters. Observationally, \cite{1996ApJ...470.1198A,1996ApJ...468..398A} have statistically estimated the ratio between the height of the acceleration site and the half length of the footpoint distance from a time-of-flight analysis to HXR data, giving $1.7 \pm 0.4$. The magnetic field configuration with $R=1.7$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig:linmodel}.

The flare evolution can be characterized by the temporal change of the magnetic field configuration. Flares frequently show a separating motion of ribbons in wavelengths sensitive to the chromosphere such as H$\alpha$ \citep[e.g.,][]{2002ApJ...565.1335Q,2003ApJ...586..624A,2004ApJ...611..557A,2009ApJ...697..843M}.
 Based on the magnetic reconnection model, it is interpreted as a chromospheric counterpart of the rising motion of the neutral line. \cite{1992PASJ...44L..63T} reported a growth of a cusp-shaped loop, increasing its height with time. To include the evolution in our simulation, we change the footpoint position of the magnetic separatrix with time. The time derivative (apparent velocity) of the footpoint position is given as a Gaussian profile,
\begin{eqnarray}
\dif{x_{f}}{t} = v_{p} \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{t-t_{p}}{\tau}\right)^{2}\right].\label{eq:11}
\end{eqnarray}
From equations (\ref{eq:6}) and (\ref{eq:10}), $a$ and $R$ also change with time.

The temporal change of magnetic fields induces electric fields. Since the electrostatic potential can be assumed to be zero in the two-dimensional system, the $y$-component of the electric field is determined from the Faraday's law,
\begin{eqnarray}
E_y &=& -\frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial A_{y}}{\partial t} = -\frac{1}{c} \frac{d x_{f}}{dt}\pdif{a}{x_f}\pdif{A_y}{a} \nonumber \\
&=& \left[\frac{2x_f}{d}+\frac{2 \left(x_f/d\right)^2+1}{\@ifnextchar[{\mart@@}{\mart@}{\left(x_f/d\right)^2+1}}\right] \frac{2z}{\left(a+d\right)^3} \frac{1}{c} \frac{d x_{f}}{dt},\label{eq:12}
\end{eqnarray}
and other components are zero.
The model electric field is a linear function of $z$, taking zero at the surface. This means that the magnetic field lines at the surface are stationary.
Since the electric field is proportional to $dx_f/dt$, the strength grows till $t = t_p$ (we call the period as the rising phase), and then is reduced (the declining phase).

\subsection{Simulation Setup}\label{sec:init-bound-cond}
Using the listed equations, we numerically solve the drift-kinetic Vlasov equation (\ref{eq:3}). Since we assume two-dimensionality in the configuration space, the equation is reduced to a four-dimensional compressive advection equation. To solve it, we adopt the R-CIP-CSL2 scheme with operator splitting technique \citep{2001JCoPh.174..171N}, which simultaneously solves the integrated values of $f$ as well as $f$ itself to keep ``subgrid'' information and to satisfy mass conservation.

Simulation parameters are $d=1.5 \times 10^{9} \; {\rm cm}$ and $ R(t=0) = 1.7$.
Considering that the position of flare ribbons corresponds to the root of the magnetic separatrix, we set the parameters in equation (\ref{eq:11}) based on observations. { \cite{2002ApJ...565.1335Q} have observed the apparent motion of flare kernels seen in the H$\alpha$ line. The velocity reaches several ten to 100 ${\rm km \; s^{-1}}$ within a time scale of $\sim 10$ s (see Figs. 5 and 6 in their paper). Referring to the first spike in Figure 5(b) of \citeauthor{2002ApJ...565.1335Q}, we set}
 $v_{p} = 60 \; {\rm km \; s^{-1}}$, $\tau = 1.77 \; {\rm s}$, and $t_{p} = 5.0 \; {\rm s}$.
The simulation runs till $t=10$ s. Length $(x,z,a,x_{f})$ is normalized to $d$.

We limit a calculation domain of the configuration space to the area below the dash-dotted line in Figure \ref{fig:linmodel}, in which the ${\vect E} \times {\vect B}$ drift velocity calculated with equations (\ref{eq:5}), (\ref{eq:8}), and (\ref{eq:12}) does not exceed a typical {\Alfven} velocity in the corona $(\sim 2000 \; {\rm km \; s^{-1}})$. In other word, our model can not properly describe the electric field around the neutral line, where the ${\vect E} \times {\vect B}$ drift velocity is calculated to be an unrealistic value.
Figure \ref{fig:linmodel_vel} shows an example of the ${\vect E} \times {\vect B}$ drift velocity field distribution within the simulation domain.

Initially, 3 keV isotropic electrons are uniformly distributed in the configuration space.
{ We will discuss the assumption of the relatively high initial temperature in \S~\ref{sec:discussion}.}
The initial uniform distribution is reasonable, because the hydrostatic scale height is much longer than the size of the simulation domain.
At $x=x_{\rm max}$ and $z=z_{\rm max}$ we impose the open boundary condition where incoming fluxes are assumed while outgoing fluxes are perfectly lost. The incoming flux is fixed to the initial distribution. We also impose another open boundary condition at $z=0$, where a cold dense plasma is fixed to exclude the possibility of hot electrons originating below the surface.
 The boundary condition at $x=0$ is symmetric: $f(x,z,\gamma,\mu) = f(-x,z,\gamma,-\mu)$.
We note that the initial uniform and isotropic distribution is not a steady state solution in our model, because of the different boundary conditions at $z=z_{\rm max}$ (hot tenuous plasma) and $z=0$ (cold dense plasma).

We use $64\times96$ cells in $(x,z)$ space, and $64\times64$ cells in $(\gamma,\mu)$ space. A domain of $\gamma$ is 1.01-1.20, corresponding to 0.511-102.2 keV electrons. The grids in $\gamma$ space are logarithmically spaced.

\section{Simulation Results and Interpretation}\label{sec:calculation-results}
Several snapshots of our simulation results are in Figure \ref{fig:xzimgs}, in which the spatial distributions of the number of 20 keV and 50 keV omnidirectional electrons at $t = 5$ s and 10 s are presented.
In both energies the electron number increases significantly around the top of closed loops.
The altitude of the peak position of the electron number decreases with time, due to the shrinkage of the loops.
The distributions in the loops diffuse along the magnetic field lines. The spatial diffusion is more prominent for lower energy electrons.
Because of the boundary condition at $z=0$, the number of electrons decreases at the bottom area.

\subsection{Electron Distribution in Closed Loops}\label{sec:electr-distr-clos}
As seen in Figure \ref{fig:xzimgs}, a strong acceleration takes place around the loop top, at which the fastest ${\vect E} \times {\vect B}$ drift velocity is observed (see Fig. \ref{fig:linmodel_vel}). The velocity space distribution is of help to understand the mechanism around there. Figure \ref{fig:psd_lt} shows the velocity space distribution function taken at the loop top $(x,z)=(0,0.7)$ at $t=10$ s. The horizontal and vertical axes correspond to the velocity parallel and perpendicular to the magnetic field line.

The distribution significantly deviates from the initial, isotropic Maxwell distribution.
It shows the loss-cone distribution with a loss-cone angle (white lines) defined as $\alpha = \sin^{-1} \@ifnextchar[{\mart@@}{\mart@}{{B(x,z)}/{B(x_{FP},0)}}$,
where $x_{FP}$ is the $x$-position at the footpoint of a specific field line determined from $A_{y}(x_{FP},0) = A_{y}(x,z).$
The distribution also shows a strong enhancement of the number of electrons perpendicular to the field line.
The perpendicular enhancement is energy dependent; the distribution is more anisotropic for higher energy electrons. This means that high energy electrons are produced by the acceleration perpendicular to the field line, that is, the betatron ($\nabla B$ drift) acceleration.
Since the electron pitch angle becomes close to 90 degrees by the betatron acceleration, accelerated electrons are further confined and energized at the loop top with time.

By taking the second-order momentum of the distribution function, we estimate the average energies (temperatures) parallel and perpendicular to the magnetic field line as
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{\parallel}(x,z,t) &=& \inty{1}{\infty} d\gamma \inty{-1}{1} d\mu \frac{u_{\parallel}^2}{\gamma} f,\label{eq:16}\\
T_{\perp}(x,z,t) &=& \frac{1}{2} \inty{1}{\infty} d\gamma \inty{-1}{1} d\mu \frac{u_{\perp}^2}{\gamma} f,\label{eq:14}
\end{eqnarray}
where $u_{\parallel}^2 = \mu^2 \left(\gamma^2-1\right)$ and $u_{\perp}^2 = \left(1-\mu^2\right) \left(\gamma^2-1\right)$.
The spatial distributions of the parallel and perpendicular temperatures at $t = 5$ s and 10 s are shown in Figure \ref{fig:temp_dist}. Around the loop top, we can see a slight decrease of the parallel temperature and a strong increase of the perpendicular temperature relative to an initial temperature 3 keV.
The decrease of the parallel temperature is due to the loss of electrons inside the loss cone.
The perpendicular temperature reaches a maximum $\sim 15$ keV at $(x,z) = (0,0.7)$ at $t = 10$ s.
The acceleration increases the perpendicular temperature by a factor of 5 relative to the initial.

On the other hand, the rate of the betatron acceleration for electrons with $\mu = 0$ is easily obtained from the conservation of the magnetic moment (eq. (\ref{eq:1})),
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\epsilon_2}{\epsilon_1} = \frac{B_2}{B_1},\label{eq:25}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon = \gamma-1 (\ll 1)$ is the kinetic energy.
 Since the loop at $(x,z)=(0,0.7)$ at $t = 10$ s is convected from the initial position $(x,z)=(0,0.89)$ by the ${\vect E} \times {\vect B}$ drift, a compression ratio at the loop top is
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{B(t=10 \; {\rm s})}{B(t=0 \; {\rm s})} \sim \frac{0.0935}{0.0156} = 6,\label{eq:15}
\end{eqnarray}
which is larger than the estimated increase rate of the perpendicular temperature. This is because the betatron acceleration less works for electrons with smaller pitch angles. They are accelerated rather parallel to the magnetic field line through the inertia drift.

To consider the acceleration due to the inertia drift in the closed loop, it is convenient to introduce the longitudinal adiabatic invariant, $u_{\parallel} L = {\rm constant}$.
Here $L$ is the travel length of electrons measured along the field line,
\begin{eqnarray}
L &=& 2 \inty{\rm loop-top}{\rm mirror} ds = 2 \inty{0}{x_{\rm mirror}} \@ifnextchar[{\mart@@}{\mart@}{1+\left(B_{z}/B_{x}\right)^2}dx, \label{eq:26}
\end{eqnarray}
where $x_{\rm mirror}$ is the $x$-position at the mirror point. For electrons with the pitch angle close enough to the loss-cone angle, $x_{\rm mirror} = x_{FP}$.
The inertia drift acceleration in the loop is expressed as the increase of the parallel energy due to the decrease of the length of the shrinking loop. The rate of the inertia drift acceleration is
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\epsilon_2}{\epsilon_1} = \left(\frac{L_1}{L_2}\right)^2.\label{eq:27}
\end{eqnarray}
By numerically calculating the length of the loop that is initially at $(x,z) = (0,0.89)$ (the same loop as in eq. (\ref{eq:15})), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\frac{L(t=0 \; {\rm s})}{L(t=10 \; {\rm s})}\right)^2 \sim \left(\frac{1.076}{0.943}\right)^2 = 1.3.\label{eq:28}
\end{eqnarray}
Electrons that experience the inertia drift acceleration escape from the loop top and their distribution diffuses along the field line.
This yields the perpendicular temperature that is not as much as expected from the field compression (eq. (\ref{eq:15})).
Nonetheless, the resulting velocity space distribution is enhanced perpendicular to the field line (Fig. \ref{fig:psd_lt}), because the rate of the perpendicular acceleration $\sim 6$ is larger than the parallel $\sim 1.3$.
{This is the general feature of acceleration with conserving both the magnetic moment and longitudinal invariant.}

\subsection{Electron Distribution in Open Field lines}\label{sec:electr-distr-open}
In the previous section, we discussed the acceleration taking place in the closed loop. It is interesting to discuss whether the acceleration occurs also in open field lines.
Figure \ref{fig:psd_sp} shows the electron pitch-angle distribution in the open field line near the magnetic separatrix at $(x,z) = (0.14,0.87)$ at $t = 5$ s. The positive (negative) value of the pitch-angle cosine corresponds to the sunward (antisunward) direction.

The pitch-angle distribution is different between sunward and antisunward directions. For sunward ($\mu > 0$) the distribution is almost isotropic, because isotropic electrons are continuously injected from the upper boundary. For antisunward ($\mu < 0$), on the other hand, the distribution deviates from an isotropic distribution. We see lack of electrons with $\mu \sim -1$, also due to the boundary condition. Since we impose the lower boundary condition as almost vacuum for high energy electrons, the antisunward electrons are composed by those that are injected from the upper boundary (with $\mu > 0$) and then are reflected (change the sign of $\mu$) by the magnetic mirror force.
Injected electrons with $\mu \sim 1$ can not be reflected, and are lost at the lower boundary. Therefore electrons with $\mu \sim -1$ are not found along open field lines.

We find a slight enhancement of the number of electrons with $\mu \sim -0.95$ and decrease with $-0.8 \lsim \mu < 0$, compared to those with $\mu > 0$.
This is an evidence of the parallel acceleration to the magnetic field line due to the inertia drift: Electrons are accelerated antisunward along the curved line by the centrifugal force.
 This mechanism has been proposed for the generation of energetic particles in the planetary magnetosphere \cite[e.g.,][]{1996JGR...10117409D,2005AnGeo..23.3389D}, and in quasi-perpendicular shocks \citep{2007ApJ...661..190A}.

According to \cite{2007ApJ...661..190A}, we discuss the resulting pitch-angle distribution of this acceleration. In the rest frame, electrons gain energy from convection electric fields through the inertia drift.
It is convenient to transform the frame into the so-called de Hoffmann-Teller frame moving with $\vect{v}_{E}$ relative to the rest frame, in which the electric field vanishes and hence electrons do not gain energy from convection electric fields.
In this frame, however, magnetic mirror points move relative to electrons when a magnetic field line has curvature. The velocity of the mirror point measured in the de Hoffmann-Teller frame is
\begin{eqnarray}
\vect{v}_{\rm mirror} = - \vect{v}_{E} \tan \theta,\label{eq:17}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta$ is an angle of the magnetic field line between the departure and mirror points of an electron. When $\vect{v}_{E}$ is sunward in the rest frame, the mirror point moves antisunward in the de Hoffmann-Teller frame. Sunward electrons experience a head-on reflection with the mirror points, which increases the electron parallel velocity by $2 v_{\rm mirror}$ and changes the direction.

The changes of the electron pitch angle and speed by the reflection are written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu' &=& - \left(\frac{\mu v + 2v_{\rm mirror}}{v'}\right), \;\;\; {\rm (if \; \mu > 0)},\label{eq:18}\\
(v')^2 &=& \left(\mu' v'\right)^2 + (1-\mu^2)v^2,\label{eq:21}
\end{eqnarray}
where variables with (without) a prime are measured after (before) the reflection. The second term of equation (\ref{eq:21}) is the square of the perpendicular velocity, which remains constant throughout the reflection. The resulting antisunward electron distribution $f'$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
f'(1+\epsilon',\mu') = f_{\rm sunward}(1+\epsilon,\mu), \;\;\; {\rm (if \; \mu' < 0)}, \label{eq:23}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon = \gamma-1 \simeq (v/c)^2/2$.
Note that the sunward electron distribution $f_{\rm sunward}$ is independent of $\mu$, $f_{\rm sunward}(1+\epsilon,\mu) = f_{\rm sunward}(1+\epsilon)$, because it is an almost isotropic Maxwellian.
With equations (\ref{eq:18}) and (\ref{eq:21}), equation (\ref{eq:23}) results in
\begin{eqnarray}
f'(1+\epsilon',\mu') = f_{\rm sunward}(1+\epsilon'+4\mu' \@ifnextchar[{\mart@@}{\mart@}{\epsilon' \epsilon_{\rm mirror}}+4\epsilon_{\rm mirror}),\label{eq:19}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon_{\rm mirror} = (v_{\rm mirror}/c)^2/2$.

To determine $\epsilon_{\rm mirror}$, we suppose that an electron with $\mu_0 (> 0)$ is initially at $\vect{S}$, moves sunward, and then is reflected at $\vect{R}$. The position of the mirror point is determined from the conservation of the magnetic moment,
\begin{eqnarray}
B(\vect{R}) = \frac{B(\vect{S})}{1-\cos \mu_0^2},\label{eq:20}
\end{eqnarray}
which depends on the electron initial condition.
The velocity of the mirror point (eq. (\ref{eq:17})) depends on the electron initial condition as well as the field configuration, which is evaluated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\vect{v}_{\rm mirror} = - \vect{v}_{E}(\vect{S}) \tan \left[ \cos^{-1} \left\{ \vect{b}(\vect{S}) \cdot \vect{b}(\vect{R})\right\}\right].\label{eq:22}
\end{eqnarray}
We need to determine the mirror point of electrons with different pitch angles, to calculate equation (\ref{eq:19}) with (\ref{eq:22}).

Using equations (\ref{eq6}) - (\ref{eq:2}), we trace the position of electrons backward in time. Electrons are set at $(x,z) = (0.14,0.87)$ at $t = 5$ s, same as employed in Figure \ref{fig:psd_sp}. Determining the mirror points from this test particle simulation, we obtain $\tan \theta$ as a function of the electron initial pitch angle in Figure \ref{fig:tant}. The velocity of the mirror point certainly depends on the electron initial pitch angle.
Using this result, we can calculate the analytic solution of the electron distribution (eq. (\ref{eq:19})), which is presented in Figure \ref{fig:psd_sp_ana}. The solution shows an enhancement of the number of electrons with $\mu \sim -0.95$, similar to the simulation (Fig. \ref{fig:psd_sp}). This confirms that the simulation result is certainly interpreted as the above process.

\subsection{Electron Escape from the Sun}\label{sec:electron-escape}
The accelerated electrons due to the inertia drift propagate antisunward along open field lines, reach the upper boundary, and finally escape from the simulation domain.
It is important to consider the number of these escaping electrons and their time evolution.
Figure \ref{fig:open_tim} shows the time evolution of the spatial distribution of the number of 20 keV antisunward electrons.
This figure emphasizes the gradient in open field lines (right-half area), to focus on the escaping electrons.

During the rising phase ($t = $ 1 - 5 s) the number of antisunward electrons decreases (identified as upward-shifting contours), meaning that the number of escaping electrons increases due to the growth of the electric field.
The decrease of the electron number is more significant at the higher area, because the electric field is a monotonically increasing function of $z$.
During the declining phase ($t = $ 5 - 9 s) the number of electrons recovers (identified as downward-shifting contours), because the electric field is reduced while constant electron fluxes are continuously injected from the upper boundary.
The electron distribution at $t = $ 9 s is almost same as at $t = $ 1 s, because the electric field distribution is close.

The inertia drift acceleration takes place in a whole area of open field lines, especially near the magnetic separatrix (e.g., Fig. \ref{fig:psd_sp}).
We estimate the number of escaping electrons as
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\rm escape}(\gamma,t) = -\int \!\!\! \int dxdz \left[\frac{1}{A(t)}\inty{-1}{0}f(t)d\mu - \frac{1}{A(10 \; {\rm s})}\inty{-1}{0}f(10 \; {\rm s})d\mu \right],\label{eq:24}
\end{eqnarray}
where $A(t)$ is the time-varying area of open field lines in the simulation domain, and the integration over the configuration space is implemented only in the area of open field lines. Here we use $f(10 \; {\rm s})$ as a reference, not the initial distribution $f(0 \; {\rm s})$, because the initial distribution is not a steady state solution in our model (see \S~\ref{sec:init-bound-cond}).
Figure \ref{fig:escape_profile} shows the time profile of the number of 20 keV escaping electrons.
The solid line is obtained from the usual simulation result. The dashed line is from the result with the apparent velocity of the footpoint $v_p = 30 \; {\rm km \; s^{-1}}$, which is a half relative to the usual.

The time profile of the escaping electrons is similar to that of the apparent velocity of the footpoint, and thus the electric field (eqs. (\ref{eq:11}) and (\ref{eq:12})). This is understood as follows. A travel time of the escaping electrons in open field lines  is $\lsim 1$ s, which is much faster than the time scale of the temporal change of the electric field.
The accelerated electrons instantaneously reach the upper boundary and escape without being influenced by the temporal change of the electric field.
Therefore the escaping electrons should directly reflect the instantaneous configuration of the electric field.

The maximum number of the 20 keV escaping electrons is $\sim 1 \%$ of the initial.
We confirm the similar percentage at maximum in 10 - 50 keV.
For electrons below 10 keV, the number is slightly small, $\sim 0.3 \%$.
Comparing the solid and dashed lines, it is found that the number of the escaping electrons is proportional to the electric field strength.
As discussed, the rate of the inertia drift acceleration is simply proportional to the electric field ($v_{\rm mirror} \propto v_{E} \propto E$) so that it is expected that the number of escaping electrons correlates with the electric field.

\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
The drift-kinetic simulation has identified two dominant mechanisms of electron acceleration in solar flares. One is the betatron acceleration at the top of closed loops, which enhances the electron velocity perpendicular to the magnetic field line. The other is the inertia drift acceleration in open magnetic field lines, which produces antisunward electrons. The resulting velocity space distribution significantly deviates from an isotropic distribution.

The betatron acceleration yields more confinement of higher energy electrons at the loop top, { as previously mentioned in the collapsing trap model \citep[][]{1997ApJ...485..859S,2004A&A...419.1159K,2006ApJ...647.1472K} }.
They can be a candidate for radiating loop-top nonthermal emissions such as ``above-the-loop-top'' HXR sources \citep{1994Natur.371..495M,1995PASJ...47..677M} and microwaves \citep[e.g.,][]{2001ApJ...557..880K,2002ApJ...576..505W,2002ApJ...580L.185M,2009ApJ...696..136H}. \cite{2008ApJ...673..598M} have found that the distribution of electrons is enhanced perpendicular to the field line when they are injected into a loop, from both observations of the 2003 May 29 flare and a numerical modeling of the electron transport with the {Fokker-Planck} equation.
This result can be interpreted that the betatron acceleration is the most dominant mechanism for the electron energization in the flare.

The betatron acceleration at the loop top is quite reasonable to radiate loop-top nonthermal emissions. However, it is widely known that the most of HXR emissions are from footpoints of the loop. This indicates a large amount of electrons precipitating there. In the model almost all of electrons are trapped in the loop. One of the reasons for this discrepancy is that the model has not taken into account the pitch-angle scattering.
 The pitch-angle scattering leads electrons into the loss cone, and significantly increases the rate of the precipitation.
Many authors have argued the effect of the pitch-angle scattering of electrons by the Coulomb collisions with ambient plasma \citep{1976MNRAS.176...15M,1998ApJ...502..468A,1999ApJ...517..977A,2008ApJ...673..598M}. Another agency for the scattering is plasma waves.
In particular, we suggest whistler waves as a possible candidate, because the perpendicular temperature anisotropy at the loop top in the simulation (Fig. \ref{fig:temp_dist}) is unstable for the whistler wave growth.
The enhancements of the pitch-angle scattering by the interaction with whistler waves might efficiently work on the precipitation and subsequent HXR emissions at footpoints, similar to the precipitation of radiation belt electrons and diffuse auroral emissions at the Earth. We plan further simulations with including the pitch-angle scattering as diffusion terms in equation (\ref{eq:3}).

The number of escaping electrons produced by the inertia drift acceleration has been estimated up to $\sim 1$ \% of the background (Fig. \ref{fig:escape_profile}). The escaping electrons have been observed in association with flares, and their number is estimated to $\sim 0.1 - 1$ \% of the observed HXR-emitting electrons precipitating into the chromosphere \citep[e.g.,][]{1974SSRv...16..189L,2007ApJ...663L.109K}.
The observed number of escaping electron is expected to be less than $\sim 1$ \% of the background, because the observed number of HXR-emitting electrons should be less than the background.
Therefore our estimation from the simulation can account for observations.
The inertia drift acceleration takes place in a whole area of open field lines and contributes this high efficiency, as long as curved magnetic field lines keeps moving.
{It is noted that the observation can be understood without a complex phenomenon such as magnetic reconnection for the acceleration.}

Because of its ubiquity, we suggest the inertia drift acceleration as a possible mechanism for producing escaping electrons that are not always associated with flares \cite[e.g.,][]{1980ApJ...236L..97P,2003GeoRL..30m..30G,2007ApJ...657..567M,2010ApJ...708L..95E}.
 \cite{2007ApJ...657..567M} have reported the so-called ``micro type-III'' radio bursts. Micro type-III radio bursts, characterized by short-lived, continuous, and weak emissions, are thought to be an evidence of the ubiquitous electron acceleration in the solar corona. They have found that the micro type-III radio bursts are observed when the active regions bordering on coronal holes appear. It may suggest that parent electrons are accelerated near the boundary and then escape into interplanetary space. We have shown that antisunward electrons are produced especially near the magnetic separatrix, which qualitatively supports the observational results of \cite{2007ApJ...657..567M}.

{ In \S~\ref{sec:electron-escape} we have discussed that the time profile of the escaping electrons by the inertia drift acceleration reflects that of the electric field, because the travel time of the electrons is faster than the time scale of the temporal change of the electric field. As long as satisfying the condition, it is expected that the time scale of the escaping electrons becomes shorter following more rapid change of the electric field than we have employed ($\tau = 1.77 \; {\rm s}$). It may explain type-III radio bursts that have an elemental time scale shorter than $\sim 1$ s, while other mechanisms may also contribute to the acceleration. The escaping electrons may further be accelerated at a higher altitude, for example, the vicinity of the reconnection region and the possible turbulent region. The inertia drift acceleration can contribute to supply electrons to the higher corona and the interplanetary space where the secondary acceleration may occur.}

\cite{2009ApJ...697..843M} have reported that the electron distribution in the loop is enhanced parallel to the field line in the 2006 December 13 flare. They have argued that the distribution could be formed, if the inertia drift acceleration efficiently takes place. Such a distribution has not been formed in our model. In the drift-kinetic model, the betatron and inertia drift accelerations take place simultaneously; the former enhances the velocity distribution in the perpendicular direction while the latter in the parallel.
The resulting distribution is determined by combination of these accelerations.
We have found in \S \ref{sec:electr-distr-clos} that the rate of the betatron acceleration $\sim 6$ is more efficient than that of the inertia drift $\sim 1.3$ in the closed loop of the model magnetic field.
However, it may be expected that the inertia drift acceleration overcomes the betatron in different field configurations, and it is possible that the resulting electron distribution is enhanced rather parallel to the field line.

Let us simply consider the relationship between the magnetic field configuration of the loop and the distribution of accelerated particles.
Suppose that the magnetic field strength at the loop top is proportional to its altitude, $B \propto z^{-\xi}$. When the magnetic field is compressed by a factor of $R_c$, the altitude decreases by a factor of $R_c^{1/\xi}$. We assume that the travel length of particles along the field line $L$ is proportional to the altitude. From equations (\ref{eq:25}) and (\ref{eq:27}), we describe the increase of the perpendicular and parallel energies through the compression as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
 \epsilon_{\perp}/\epsilon_{\perp,0} = R_c,\\
 \epsilon_{\parallel}/\epsilon_{\parallel,0} = R_c^{2/\xi}.\\
\end{array}
\right.\label{eq:29}
\end{eqnarray}
It is found that particles are accelerated perpendicular rather than parallel to the magnetic field line when $\xi > 2$.
Figure \ref{fig:b_height} shows the local index $\xi$ of the model magnetic field at the apex of loops ($x=0$). The index is much larger than 2 at the higher altitude where electrons are more accelerated by stronger electric fields (Fig. \ref{fig:xzimgs}). This is consistent with the perpendicular enhancement of the electron distribution function around the loop top, shown in Figure \ref{fig:psd_lt}.
Meanwhile, we propose from equation (\ref{eq:29}) that it may be possible to enhance the particle distribution parallel to the field line when the loop configuration meets $0 < \xi < 2$.
To verify this hypothesis, we should perform simulations with various field models, e.g., MHD simulation results \citep{2006ApJ...647.1472K}, and realistic fields extrapolated from {\it Hinode} observations \citep{2008ASPC..397..110I,2008AGUFMSH52A..06K}.
Toward the understanding of particle acceleration in solar flares through both the observations and simulations, it is critically important to study the relationship between a variety of magnetic field configurations and the resulting particle phase space distribution.

{ Due to the numerical limitation, we have performed the simulation with a relatively high initial temperature 3 keV. Although the acceleration efficiency is dependent on the temperature, it does not mean that the pre-acceleration is necessary for the proposed acceleration mechanisms. In fact, we have also performed the simulation with an initial temperature 1.5 keV, and obtain similar results. This is to be expected, because the adiabatic betatron acceleration takes place similarly regardless of the particle energy. For the inertia drift acceleration, the particle velocity should be faster than the mirror point velocity to be reflected. Electrons can easily meet this condition. Therefore the acceleration takes place even for electrons with the temperature lower than we have employed in this study.}

{ Let us discuss the effect of the three-dimensionality of ambient fields, for example, the shear motion and/or guiding magnetic fields. In the three-dimensional system, the fields may evolve so as to generate field-aligned currents. The career of the current should be electrons, because of their high mobility. If electrons are inhibited to move along the field line by such as the magnetic mirror force and the pressure gradient (acting as a resistivity), parallel electric fields will be generated and accelerate electrons, to carry the current required from the field evolution \citep[e.g.,][]{1995PASJ...47..691T}. As a result, their distribution will be significantly modified from the two-dimensional system, particularly in the parallel direction. The concept of the current-voltage relation has been utilized especially for the auroral particle acceleration along the magnetic field line at the Earth \citep{1973P&SS...21..741K}. For the electron acceleration in the three-dimensional system, it may be essential to consider the parallel electric field and the electrostatic potential.}

\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion-1}
Based on the drift-kinetic theory, we have developed a comprehensive model for particle acceleration and transport in solar flares. Using this model, we have simulated the time evolution of the electron distribution in a flaring region. There are two dominant mechanisms of electron acceleration.
The betatron acceleration takes place at the top of closed loops. It can be a generation mechanism of electrons that radiate loop-top nonthermal emissions. The phase space distribution of accelerated particles in the loop strongly depends on the magnetic field configuration.
The inertia drift acceleration also takes place in open magnetic field lines, producing escaping electrons from the Sun. The number of escaping electrons estimated from the simulation can account for the observed number of flare-associated escaping electrons.
The inertia drift acceleration is caused by a motion of curved field lines, which is not necessarily driven by magnetic reconnection.
In this sense, we propose the acceleration in this study as a mechanism for producing escaping electrons that are not always associated with flares.

\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank to K. Kusano, T. Yokoyama, T. Amano, A. Morioka, and M. J. Aschwanden for fruitful discussions and comments. We also thank to anonymous referee for valuable comments to improve our manuscript.
T. M. is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) \#21740135 and partly by the Grant-in-Aid for Creative Scientific Research of MEXT/Japan, the Basic Study of Space Weather Predication. This work is a part of the GEMSIS (Geospace Environment Modeling System for Integrated Studies) project of Solar-Terrestrial Environment Laboratory, Nagoya University.
\end{acknowledgements}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


James Murdoch is desperately clinging onto his powerful role as Chairman of BSkyB -- a major international news broadcaster. But shareholders are talking about voting him out. We can tip the balance by calling every shareholder and urging them to vote out the Murdoch mafia once and for all.
Despite overseeing bribery, hacking and blatant bullying of politicians, James Murdoch is about to be confirmed as chairman of the international broadcaster BSkyB -- unless we come together to fire the Murdoch mafia from this important news outlet.
The Murdoch's already tried to buy complete control of BSkyB, but our outcry forced them to abandon their bid, -- rocking the Murdoch's control over their entire empire.Now BSkyB shareholders are talking about kicking James out for good. If we all take action before the vote on November 29th we can tip them over the edge.
A brand new tool allows each of us to email our public pension funds and investment funds or individual shareholders asking them to vote against James Murdoch at the BSkyB annual general meeting. Don't have a fund? The tool also gives you a shareholder to contact as a concerned citizen. We have just seven days to build a wave of opposition against the Murdoch stranglehold on our media.
BSkyB is an important international broadcaster, distributing television news in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Many of us hold stock in BSkyB without knowing it -- our pension and investment funds make choices about where our money goes without consulting us. But if we use this brand new tool developed by Avaaz we can demand our funds vote against James Murdoch and free BSkyB from the Murdoch mafia.
We now know that News International has engaged in phone hacking and bribery on an industrial scale. This is the company that James leads -- and yet James has not accepted responsibility for hacking a murdered schoolgirl's phone, and then having the young daughter of the family's lawyer followed in an attempt to intimidate all involved.
It is scandalous, but James is determined to maintain his control over BSkyB -- it is a key part of his personal fiefdom within the Murdoch mafia empire, and crucial to the family's succession plans. But investors in BSkyB are on the fence and considering their options and organised public opposition can sway the crucial votes by demonstrating the corporate risk that James represents.
A few weeks ago, massive public pressure caused over 30% of News Corp shareholders to vote against James Murdoch -- rocking the centerpiece of the Murdoch empire. And last week, Australian members defeated an attempt by BSkyB to rob a $223 million contract from the country's public broadcaster. Now we have the chance to hit the company right at the top by demonstrating overwhelming public and shareholder opposition to James Murdoch, and saving our democracy from the Murdoch mafia while we still can.
Join us this Tuesday, as Avaaz members in London greet BSkyB shareholders at their annual general meeting with a giant Murdoch-head puppet, banners and t-shirts, voicing our objection to the reckless way the company has been run.
James Murdoch is coming to London this Tuesday for what may be his last annual meeting as head of BSkyB. Murdoch is up to his neck in scandal and he has become an embarrassment for his company -- we can help convince shareholders to do the right thing and fire James from BSkyB!
Where: The Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre at Broad Sanctuary, London SW1P3EE, United Kingdom.
Click here to RSVP to join Avaaz members at 9am this Tuesday at The Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre and help BSkyB fire the Murdoch mafia.
Big BSkyB investors have finally had enough -- they are accusing Murdoch of running the company as his own personal fiefdom, using his unchecked power to break laws and risking the future of his wide network of media outlets. UK leaders say the empire headed up by Rupert Murdoch and his sons has "entered the criminal underworld" -- including hacking murdered children's phones, paying off police, destroying evidence of crimes, and threatening politicians. These actions have cast suspicion over the entire organization.
As Avaaz members, we take action online when we join campaigns, but the Avaaz movement doesn't stop there. We achieve victory after victory by bringing massive popular support of online petitions directly to decision makers with deliveries, ads, press stunts and banners. This week, Avaaz members around the world are counting on us to be bold and show Murdoch that we won't stand for his behavior.
Please, help spread the word. Take a moment to forward this to your networks in London.


This 12 month contemporary and stylish calendar, highlights 13 of Theo's favorite Instagram photos from 2015. Timeless design, professionally printed on 130 lb high quality, classic felt press paper, size 11x14.
Get it just in time for the Holidays.


text:
Nexus of knowledge
Building will foster collaborative research in engineering, physical sciences and computing
by Tom Vasich, UCI | July 9, 2018
The $120 million Interdisciplinary Science & Engineering Building – shown here in an architectural rendering – will accommodate more than 50 faculty members and hundreds of students. UCI Design & Construction Services
A new vision for large-scale, collaborative research focused on addressing today's complex issues came into focus July 16 with a groundbreaking ceremony for the Interdisciplinary Science & Engineering Building.
Supported by a transformative $30 million gift from the Samueli Foundation, coupled with $50 million in state funds and $40 million in UCI funds, the innovative facility will be located near the Physical Sciences Lecture Hall, off East Peltason Drive and South Circle View Drive.
Slated to be one of the largest interdisciplinary research buildings west of the Rocky Mountains, it will bring together faculty, students and staff from UCI's Henry Samueli School of Engineering, School of Physical Sciences and Donald Bren School of Information & Computer Sciences. They'll be able to undertake transdisciplinary projects in line with two major themes: biomedicine for human health, and energy use and the environment.
"The overarching vision with this exciting facility is to provide spaces that foster the convergent integration of knowledge, tools, techniques and, most importantly, modes of thinking from faculty, students and staff across these disciplines," said Pramod Khargonekar, vice chancellor of research at UCI. "Co-locating faculty and students from three schools in the same building is a major next step as we build on our rich tradition of interdisciplinary research."
Construction of the $120 million edifice with 113,000 assignable square feet of room is scheduled to be completed by fall 2020. It will accommodate more than 50 faculty members – including high-profile new hires – and hundreds of students.
A commitment to finding solutions
The campus strategic plan focuses on "growth that makes a difference," and this requires collaborative research across a multitude of disciplines, aligning with UCI's fertile STEM ecosystem.
Besides expanding the scope of campus research and student education, the Interdisciplinary Science & Engineering Building will enhance UCI's ability to find solutions to complex global and regional problems.
Potential ideas include developing chemical and material sensors to better diagnose and treat cancers; using big data, environmental engineering and organic chemistry to improve water supply or solar energy; testing driverless vehicles; and having cybersecurity coders and mathematicians collaborate on military or medical challenges.
The engineering school will oversee about half the space, the physical sciences school about a third, and the ICS school about a sixth – with graduate students from all three working together in laboratories, offices and meeting rooms.
UCI, others see agriculture as major source of increase in atmospheric nitrous oxide
Royal Society of Chemistry recognizes William Evans
Earth system scientists to conduct sky-high and ocean-deep research, thanks to NASA award
UCI researchers win $2 million NIH grant to develop biologic implant for spinal facet joints
The Henry Samueli School of Engineering
http://engineering.uci.edu
Donald Bren School of Information & Computer Sciences
http://www.ics.uci.edu
https://ps.uci.edu/
convergent science

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


We all encounter situations in which our imagination and creativity run dry, and there seems to be no way to reanimate them. One solution is to simply wait and hope that inspiration comes when it comes. However, it is too passive an approach; there're some better ways to try to get it back.
There is nothing that boosts you in a certain direction better than being surrounded by like-minded people. Thus, if you want to be more creative, you should go out of your way to get in touch with people who are already creative, who share your views on importance of creativity, who are eager to try something new and are interested in your achievements. And vice versa, keep away from those who ridicule you and try to divert your efforts from your creative work – even if they do it in what they consider to be your best interests.
Breaking the cycle of habitual activities, be it a completely new thing to do or just a different way of performing the old tasks, can really be a breath of fresh air. You may not realize how much of your behavior is dictated by habits ingrained through multiple repetitions but has little to do with what you really want or need. When it comes to doing something, try to look at it from a different perspective and ask yourself: can I do it differently? Even a little bit?
Freewriting is a creativity boosting technique specifically designed to be available to anyone and at any time you need it. It requires you to simply sit down and start writing – no matter what about, without any particular goal in mind. Some set a word or page count to reach in one sitting, but even this isn't necessary – all you have to do is start putting your thoughts on paper. If your work has something to do with writing it is twice as beneficial – freewriting teaches you not to be afraid of a blank page and bravely plunge into a new writing assignment.
One of the common problems many creative workers encounter is inability to begin a job. It is natural – your brain tries to prepare everything, make itself comfortable, eliminate the element of randomness. It wants to know beforehand what it is going to do. However, when you are unable to build a clear-cut plan, it may become a hurdle – so never mind it, simply start with your task. If you have to write an article, open a new document and begin writing something on the topic, and who cares if it turns out awful – you can always change something later on! By starting you will eliminate the mental block that prevents you from writing. The same goes for any other type of creative activity – by starting you make it easier for yourself to go on.
Don't think that these tricks are too simple and primitive to have any real effect; human brain works in mysterious ways and often reacts to cues you don't consciously notice – so why not make use of it?


text:
Lobbying times
Family offices successfully lobbied to change the Dodd-Frank Act. Is this the start of an effective family office lobbying movement? CampdenFB reports.
Article | 18 June, 2012 09:02 AM | By Paul Golden
©Press Association
When the first details of the Dodd-Frank Act were revealed in the US, shivers ran up the spines of many in family offices. The new regulations were designed to impose stricter guidelines on the banking sector in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, and to force hedge funds and private equity firms to release more information about their activities.
But the new regulations threatened to apply to all "private wealth managers", a definition that many worried would also drag in family offices, which since the 1940s have been exempt from regulatory oversight. Any change, especially a heavy-handed one, could endanger wealth built up over generations.
What could the members of this fragmented and relatively small sector – there are only about 2,000 family offices in the world – do? The answer was simple: lobby. Two groups in particular went to Capitol Hill to talk to, "educate", and persuade legislators to retain the exemption for family offices – the Boston-based CCC Alliance and the Private Investor Coalition.
"The family office community in the US presented a united front in its opposition to investment adviser registration reform," says David Guin, a partner at New York law firm Withers Bergman. And it worked. One of the leaders of the lobbying effort was Jake Seher of Washington DC law firm Venable, which worked with the PIC. He says the main thrust of the effort was to educate lawmakers about the unintended consequences of their actions.
"Initiatives – whether regulatory or tax, intentional or not – can have a profound impact on a family office's mission," he says. "Educating decision-makers takes time, resources and a dedicated effort." The effort was a success. "These lobbying efforts achieved a far better definition of family office than that originally proposed by the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission]," says Guin.
The success with Dodd-Frank has encouraged family offices to build closer links with legislators, especially encouraging politicians to recognise "the impact wealthy families have in their local communities, from being leading employers to leading philanthropists", says Seher. Family offices now recognise the value of coordinating their efforts and communicating their views. The PIC, says Seher, is now recognised in Washington as the voice for family offices and is involved with influencing the forthcoming changes to the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission's regulations and "seeking a solution" that will not damage family offices. Tax reform, which is expected to be addressed after the November elections, also affects family offices and the new lobby is expected to be involved in shaping that legislation so that it doesn't unfairly penalise them.
From a standing start, then, family offices have made an impact on legislation in the US. Is that a sign that family offices elsewhere ought to form associations to lobby, and ensure that legislation recognises their needs? After all, a number of family offices already team up and share investment information. For example, last year six family offices from Europe, North America and Australia set up a new initiative, called the Wigmore Association, to share investment resources and research. And Charles Lowenhaupt, chairman and chief executive of Lowenhaupt Global Advisors and co-founder of the Institute for Wealth Management Standards, says that over the past 20 years family offices have begun talking to each other far more and that organisations such as Campden Media and the Institute for Private Investors have encouraged and facilitated this.
Should and could it go further? Should there be, for want of a better word, a union to fight the family office corner? There is certainly a need. Yogesh Dewan, chief executive of Hassium Asset Management, says: "Many UK-based family offices find it frustrating dealing with the FSA [the Financial Services Authority, the main UK regulator headed by Adair Turner, pictured] because of its lack of understanding of what they do. This type of structure is growing and the FSA needs to categorise the sector and recognise what it does."
However, at the moment family offices doubt their own power. "They don't feel they can influence regulation," Dewan says. "In any case, regulators are more focused on asset managers, private equity, hedge funds and banks, and don't seem too concerned about the activities of family offices, particularly single family offices." But that could change if the current atmosphere of regulating the financial sector continues.
One reason that European family offices have so far not grouped together is that they currently operate under national regulatory regimes. But that might change. Pressure on tax havens will only grow as politicians look for ways to fill the national coffers across Europe. "Demand for enhanced information sharing comes not just from the US," says Sarah Cormack, a partner in the London office of Withers. "Even those jurisdictions that were selected historically because of the privacy they could offer now carry with them an increased compliance burden." Family offices often look for regimes with a "lower key" approach to regulation, as Cormack puts it, not only to minimise the amount of information they have to share, but also because regulation is usually designed for commercial enterprises and the requirements can be onerous and wasteful for family investments. But if such low-key regimes become rarer, family offices might well find that they can profit from engaging more with lawmakers.
This is starting to happen. François Mollat du Jourdin, president of the European Network of Family Offices and secretary general of the French Family Office Association, says that in northern Europe there is a move to bring family offices into the regulatory framework. "There are steps being taken in countries such as Luxembourg to define a family office," he says. "This is a good exercise but there is still a lack of consistency across Europe." Similar moves are also afoot in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Numerous business networks for family offices already exist in Europe, although they are not always entirely successful. Guin thinks concerns about confidentiality often limit the extent of the discussions that take place at various forums throughout the US and Europe. "It is often the case that the most relevant information is shared on a more informal basis and through a network of relationships rather than via any more formal group or organisation," he says.
While he agrees that family office networks are improving, Mollat du Jourdin is not convinced that any of the networks established to date have really been successful. However, he thinks this will have to change soon as family offices find that they have to engage with policymakers. "I am sure there will be other networks created and that one will eventually succeed because we need this type of platform," he says, although he thinks this could take years.
John Duncan of asset management firm Kozusko Harris Duncan has advised more than 100 family offices over the last 20 years. He says that family offices still have a reactive rather than active approach to policy issues, "although it is ironic that wealthy families are often associated with financial institutions that have significant lobbying efforts. Family offices are not out there trying to create new laws but rather to amend existing laws". He adds that family offices will have to decide whether they are willing to trade some of their anonymity for the visibility that comes with lobbying. He doubts whether lobbying organisations are viable because "there would be sufficient consensus". However, he adds: "These families will identify the best structures and tactics to achieve their goals and while lobbying has not been a weapon at their disposal in the past, they will use it if they feel it is worth it."
Not everybody is convinced, though, that family offices have learned their lesson from Dodd-Frank. Lowenhaupt is sceptical that lobbying from the PIC and CCC was actually all that successful in changing the legislation. "The front was not united and was of limited success," he says. "It is often said that the final regulations are better than those initially proposed and that may be so, but no single family office can operate [properly] without registration with the SEC." So far there are no "visible efforts" to deal with new tax regulations that are coming in and will affect family offices. He thinks that the furore around Dodd- Frank has prompted single family offices to become "lower on the radar".
Lowenhaupt also says that family offices now seem to believe they cannot influence governments or regulators and they do not seem to have understood that they are competing with the powerful banking industry, with its huge lobbying machinery and political action committees. So far, he says, "there has been no effort by family offices to fund a similar effort to counteract the banks". "If family offices want to have influence," Lowenhaupt says, "they definitely need a voice in Washington and elsewhere."
Seher disagrees and says the success of PIC's lobbying efforts shows that the collective efforts of family offices can influence policymakers. "We are making a difference, and the will and the momentum will continue."
First published in CampdenFO, Issue 14
(In the last picture, SEC's headquarters in Washington DC)
Related terms: Family Office, FB News, Family Business, family office
How family investors are putting their wealth to work against global challenges
Why the Cayman Islands is a preferred jurisdiction for family offices
A deep dive into deep tech
Chinese wealthy turn to family offices for next generation succession planning
Career trajectories to the top: Where does the ideal family office leader come from?
Relative Solutions
Lombard International Assurance SA


Sell My House Fast Atlanta - We buy houses Atlanta - Home Pride Properties, Inc.
We buy houses in Atlanta and around GA. Let us make a fair all-cash offer on your house.
Need To Sell Your Atlanta House Fast?
We can buy your GA house. Contact us today!


I've gotten used to the thick, white cobwebs that form lacy patterns under the windows on the exterior of The Cool House. They appear sometime in late July or early August and are a pretty gingerbread decoration for the rest of the summer. Then winter comes, they are gone and I forget all about them. I've never seen the spider responsible; the ones I usually see spin straightforward Charlotte's Web-type gossamer circles.
This morning I was shocked to find this spider INSIDE the house; it had a plume of white billowing behind it, a horizontal will-o'-the-wisp that I could clearly see. It reminded me of the vapor trail of an aircraft against a cloudless blue sky - except the pristine sky had been replaced by a slightly grubby baseboard.
Sounds delightful, doesn't it? So I'm respectfully keeping my distance until someone can assure me the spider is safe to handle... or until a knight arrives in a full suit of shining armour and disposes of it for me. Either. Or.
Ick! I would keep my distance, too! And maybe stay outside... but that's just me!
It's just one spider. I'm not an eco-criminal, and protect most spiders around here, but get the vacuum cleaner hose and do away with this guy. Necrotic flesh? Really, you don't want that.
One of my friends husband's was bit by a brown recluse. It got really really bad... to where he had a hug hole in the back of his neck. Gross.
I have been seeing lots of spiders in my house lately too; luckily they are brown recluses.
The slightly grey knight, armed with an extra-long piece of toilet paper, did battle and vanquish said spider. And bonus, cleaned grubby baseboard: My hero!


text:
ACCEPTED

#### According to
Index Fungorum

#### Published in
Observ. mycol. (Lipsiae) 2: 71 (1800)

#### Original name
Onygena equina var. equina (Willd.) Pers.

### Remarks
null

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


In the first phase of the study we have gathered information and evidence from a range of sources about the transition period for newly qualified nurses (NQN's). We have conducted a rapid evidence assessment of the literature on this topic to assess the evidence in relation to approaches used to enhance transition and retention. This has included randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, surveys and qualitative studies. We will be sharing our findings from this review in 2019. We have also conducted interviews with a number of different people to better understand the key factors impacting on the transition of NQN's. This has included final year student nurses, newly qualified nurses, clinical leaders and academics. These interviews are ongoing but we will be sharing some of the highlights early in 2019 via our blogs.
The second phase is now underway and we are using evidence from Phase 1 to work with our Advisory Group, partners and wider networks to inform the development of our "transition toolkit" to assist universities, NQN's and employers to support successful transition.
In the final phase of the study, we will be evaluating the toolkit to see if it helps NQN's and employers during the transition period and improves the number of nurses who are retained.


Revenue of carriers' networks was CNY 57.1 bn (-10.5% YoY), beating market expectation. The USD 1 bn fine paid to the US government for sanction violations, stalling business caused by the US chip supply ban and an impairment charge for long-term equity investment in Nubia (amounting to CNY 1.09 bn) triggered a decrease of CNY 6.98 bn in ZTE's net profit attributable to shareholders (NPAS).
Copyright©Hithink RoyalFlush Information Network Co.,Ltd.


text:
Mayor of the City perform his duties with the assistance of the City.
The organizational structure of the City Council formed faculties, lectures and independent jobs and organizational units with a different name.
Since January 1999. Rudzki City Hall carries out the tasks of the district. Today, this building has a modern computer network supports 160-thousand inhabitants, and its 70. Birthdays - September 1998 - received a new design. Modernization of office continues.
August 31, 1999 r. Officially opened in Pavilion B of the Municipal Office. Together with the adjoining property of the West Bank was a very graceful architectural block. Pavilion B falls Department of Civil Affairs, Office of Civil Status and Passport Office. There is also a marriage hall. In this way the inhabitants of Ruda Slaska, better and more comfortable may have to deal there.
It should be emphasized that the building is not only pretty but also friendly for the disabled. Wheelchair ramp was built, installed an elevator and a spacious adequately equipped toilets on each floor. Elevator is equipped with buttons that recognize the blind. Color interior is maintained in the key of chłodnopastelowej, which gives the interior gravity and at the same time gives the impression of spaciousness.
From 23 October 1997, working. rudaslaska. com / default. aspx? docId = 128 "target =" _self "> Citizens Service Bureau. In one place, on the ground floor of the Office, you can find information about how to settle all issues and on procedures. The Office is also supported people with disabilities. In this way, many residents made not only information about how to settle its case, but it may also fill in at the request of an individual case, and some of these applications can be made immediately without having to go to the relevant faculty.
papel - twarz (gruba) "taki papel"


text:
Axford, Bate and Oldham and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2011-115
Complainants
Graeme Axford
Kristopher Bate
Mark Oldham
Investigator Special: Jesus the Cold Case
Television New Zealand Ltd
Free-to-air TV Code: Controversial Issues - Viewpoints
Free-to-air TV Code: Accuracy
Free-to-air TV Code: Fairness
Free-to-air TV Code: Discrimination and Denigration
Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989
Investigator Special: Jesus the Cold Case – documentary maker, Bryan Bruce, gave his perspective on the life and death of Jesus – consulted various experts – challenged traditional Christian view as encapsulated in the gospels – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards
Standard 4 (controversial issues) – issues canvassed in the programme were matters of historical interest as opposed to controversial issues of public importance – authorial documentary approached from perspective of Mr Bruce – viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of the commonly accepted view of the gospels – not upheld
Standard 5 (accuracy) – reasonable viewers would have understood that the programme consisted of Mr Bruce's comment and opinion based on his personal research – viewers would not have been misled – given subject matter of documentary the Authority is not in a position to make definitive findings on points of fact – not upheld
Standard 6 (fairness) – programme not unfair to Christian Church as an organisation – not upheld
Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – programme did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community – not upheld
[1] A documentary titled Investigator Special: Jesus the Cold Case was broadcast on TV One at 8.30pm on Sunday 24 July 2011. The documentary maker, Bryan Bruce, gave his perspective on the life and death of Jesus, travelling across three continents and consulting various experts including those in the fields of archaeology and forensic anatomy, and examining the traditional Christian view, as encapsulated in the New Testament gospels. He introduced the documentary as follows:
Two thousand years ago, Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in Jerusalem. The question is, why? According to the gospels it was because his fellow Jews found him guilty of blasphemy, so they had him executed by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. But I'm not sure that's how it happened. So I've decided to do my own investigation. I'm Bryan Bruce. I'm the cold case investigator and I want to know who killed Jesus and why.
[2] Graeme Axford, Kristopher Bate and Mark Oldham made formal complaints to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the documentary breached the controversial issues standard because Mr Bruce "cherry-picked" his experts and failed to present a reasonable range of views in the context of the programme. In addition, Mr Bate and Mr Oldham argued that the documentary was inaccurate and misleading and encouraged discrimination and denigration against Christians. Mr Bate considered that it was unfair to the subject matter under discussion and therefore to Christianity, Christians and the Christian Church.
[3] The issue is whether the programme breached Standards 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.
What was the nature of the programme?
[5] On this occasion, Bryan Bruce examined events in the life and death of Jesus, a historical figure, and in doing so he expressed ideas and opinions which challenged the validity of the traditional version of events as encapsulated in the New Testament gospels, and thus indirectly, the beliefs of those who engage in religious practices based on the Bible. For example, Mr Bruce raised the following key questions during the course of the documentary:
Who killed Jesus and why?
Are the gospels reliable sources of information?
Are they consistent within themselves?
Is there any corroborating evidence from sources external to the gospels from the period, or
from archaeology?
Is any eyewitness testimony available?
Where does the evidence lead us with regard to what really happened in the life and death of
Jesus?
[6] In investigating these questions, Mr Bruce travelled to Israel and made personal observations, interviewed various experts and archaeologists, reviewed historical texts and the work of 19th century scholars and applied his own logic and analysis before reaching his conclusions. In summary, Mr Bruce contended that the gospels were not "eyewitness testimony" on the life and death of Jesus and therefore may be unreliable, and that the early Christians rewrote the crucifixion story to make it appear that the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death. In expressing these ideas, the programme followed the well-established style of The Investigator series, which is authorial in nature and approached from the perspective of Mr Bruce. It was clearly a presentation of his opinions based on his personal research, on a topic which, on this occasion, is itself a matter of opinion and belief based on an interpretation of historical events which occurred some 2000 years ago.
[7] With the nature of the programme in mind, we now turn to consider the standards raised by the complainants, weighed against the broadcaster's, Mr Bruce's, and the audience's right to freedom of expression.
Did the programme breach broadcasting standards, taking into account the right to freedom of expression?
[8] At the outset, we recognise the right to freedom of expression which is guaranteed by section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990, and acknowledge the importance of the values underlying that right. The right to free expression includes the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. In the broadcasting standards context, the broadcaster has the right to impart such information, while the audience has a corresponding right to receive it. Any restriction on the right to freedom of expression must be prescribed by law, reasonable, and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society (section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990).
[9] In our view, the type of speech engaged on this occasion amounted to intellectual opinion on an historical and religious topic, which we consider is of high value in our democratic, tolerant and largely secular society. The right to comment on and to challenge different ideas and beliefs, including religious beliefs, is important because it contributes to the advancement of knowledge and self-fulfilment of the speaker, which are core values underpinning the right to freedom of expression.1 While we acknowledge that religion is a sensitive topic capable of evoking strong views and emotions, we do not consider that this factor alone justifies the provision of greater protection, compared to that afforded to other forms of speech, for example in the political or scientific spheres.
[10] Taking into account the nature of the programme, the topic under discussion and the high value of the speech engaged on this occasion, we consider that a strong justification is required to restrict the broadcaster's right to impart such information and the audience's right to receive it.
[11] With these principles in mind, we proceed to consider the broadcasting standards alleged to have been breached. While we acknowledge the extensive and detailed submissions put forward by the complainants with regard to each of the standards raised, on this occasion, we consider that it is appropriate to assess the Investigator Special: Jesus the Cold Case in its entirety, as opposed to categorising it according to the specific points raised in the complaints. We take this more general approach due to the unique nature of the programme, which in our view, directly affects the relevance of the broadcasting standards, in that it determines how it would have been interpreted by the average viewer.
Standard 4 (controversial issues)
[12] Standard 4 (controversial issues) states that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs and factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.
[13] The complainants' concerns under Standard 4 relate primarily to Mr Bruce's choice of experts, whom they described as a "particular breed of liberals" with extreme viewpoints. In their view, he failed to present alternative significant perspectives on the reliability of the gospel accounts of the life and death of Jesus.
[14] We note that the Authority has previously described the objective of Standard 4 in the following terms:2
... the balance standard exists to ensure that competing arguments are presented to enable a viewer to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion. The standard only applies to programmes which discuss "controversial issues of public importance", and therefore this objective is of vital importance in a free and democratic society.
[15] In our view, while Mr Bruce's opinions on the matters discussed in the documentary – for example, who killed Jesus and the reliability of the gospels – could be considered controversial and of concern to some members of the New Zealand public, we do not consider that those issues in and of themselves amount to controversial issues of public importance as envisaged by the standard. Rather, we consider that these are issues of historical interest that cannot legitimately be described as having "topical currency" or being of "public importance" in contemporary everyday life. The programme simply allowed one person to advance an alternative viewpoint on events that occurred some 2000 years ago, and left viewers to draw their own conclusions on the validity of that perspective.
[16] We do not consider that viewers were likely to be deceived or misinformed by the omission of alternative significant viewpoints, as argued by the complainants. Not least because the documentary was clearly authorial in nature, approached from the perspective of Mr Bruce, but also because the traditional view of the gospels is widely known and commonly accepted in our society, so viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of that perspective. In this respect, we note Mr Bruce explicitly commented that:
The broadcast of my 90-minute alternative view of Easter events needs to be seen in the context of what must amount to hundreds of hours of broadcast of what, for want of a better word, may be described as the traditional gospel story.
[17] On this basis, we consider that the programme actually advanced the social objectives underlying Standard 4, in that it offered, and encouraged viewers to think about, an alternative theory, while still enabling them to arrive at their own conclusions based on what they already knew about the gospel stories.
[18] Further, we consider that Mr Bruce's approach in examining and dismissing the gospel accounts of events in the life and death of Jesus, meant that the traditional perspective was acknowledged to some extent in the programme, so viewers would have been broadly aware of the existence of opposing views.
[19] For these reasons, and taking into account the principles outlined above at paragraphs [8] to [10], we decline to uphold the complaints that the programme breached Standard 4.
Standard 5 (accuracy)
[20] Standard 5 (accuracy) states that broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming is accurate in relation to all material points of fact, and does not mislead.
[21] Mr Bate and Mr Oldham argued that the broadcast as a whole was inaccurate and misleading because the tone and style of the documentary created an impression of impartiality and expertise. In addition, they referred to several specific statements about the gospels and events surrounding Jesus' crucifixion and death, which in their view were inaccurate.
[22] Guideline 5a states that Standard 5 does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion. As noted above at paragraphs [5] to [6], we consider that the documentary was inherently presented as Mr Bruce's opinion and analysis based on his personal research. Mr Bruce clearly defined the scope of the programme in his introduction (see paragraph [1] above), and through his use of subjective language. The programme's title, Investigator, also suggested that it was one in which the presenter and his views would predominate.
[23] The objective of Standard 5 is to protect audiences from receiving misinformation and thereby being misled. We consider that reasonable viewers would have seen the programme for what it was – an authorial programme consisting of analysis, comment and opinion in which the presenter, Mr Bruce, set about his analysis of the facts, argued for the particular conclusions he had reached, and was selective in what was put forward in support of those arguments. We therefore disagree that viewers would have been misled.
[24] With regard to whether the programme was inaccurate, we agree with TVNZ that, given the subject matter of the documentary (that is, events which allegedly occurred more than 2000 years ago), we are not in a position to make any definitive findings on points of fact.
[25] We are satisfied that the harm alleged by the complainants in relation to Standard 5 did not outweigh the importance of the right to freedom of expression. We therefore decline to uphold the complaints that the programme breached Standard 5.
Standard 6 (fairness)
[26] Standard 6 (fairness) requires broadcasters to deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to in a programme.
[27] Mr Bate argued that, given the evidence that was available but not presented, the programme did not deal fairly with "the subject matter and was therefore unfair to the Christian faith, its historical roots, Christianity as a legitimate religion and therefore Christian people, as well as the Christian Church as a legitimate expression of the historical events surrounding the life, teaching, death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Jesus".
[28] We note that the fairness standard does not apply to a "subject matter", nor does it apply to a particular religion or faith. The purpose of the standard is to protect individuals and organisations from broadcasts which provide an unfairly negative representation of their character or conduct.3 While the programme referred to the Christian Church in an indirect and peripheral way, Mr Bruce did not make any judgement about the Church as an organisation, and we consider that, given the nature of the programme, viewers would not have been left with an unfairly negative impression of the Christian Church as it exists today.
[29] For these reasons, we decline to uphold Mr Bate's complaint under Standard 6.
Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration)
[30] Standard 7 protects against broadcasts which encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community. The Authority has consistently defined "denigration" as blackening the reputation of a class of people (see, for example, Mental Health Commission and CanWest RadioWorks4), and "discrimination" as encouraging the different treatment of the members of a particular group, to their detriment (for example, see Teoh and TVNZ5). It is also well-established that in light of the requirements of the Bill of Rights Act, a high level of invective is necessary for the Authority to conclude that a broadcast encourages denigration or discrimination in contravention of the standard (for example, McCartain and Angus and The Radio Network6).
[31] Mr Bate's and Mr Oldham's concerns under this standard relate to the final segment of the programme, in which Mr Bruce investigated events immediately preceding Jesus' crucifixion and death. He interviewed various experts and examined alleged inconsistencies in the gospel accounts of what occurred on the day in question, and on this basis, came to the conclusion that the early Christians rewrote the crucifixion story to make it appear the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death. Mr Bruce went on to suggest that blaming the Jews had led to a long history of anti-Semitism, and in particular, he asserted that the Holocaust was in part enabled by the beliefs that changes in the gospels had perpetuated for Christians.
[32] In this respect, the complainants argued that Mr Bruce endeavoured to connect the horrendous treatment and systematic killing of Jews in the Holocaust with the gospel accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus, which in their view, encouraged the denigration of, and discrimination against, Christians.
[33] In our view, Mr Bruce's assertion that the gospels resulted in Christian contempt for the Jewish people and in part enabled the systematic killing of Jews during World War II, was not intended as an attack against the Christian faith, and was not a suggestion that Christians were inferior or should be treated differently because of their religious beliefs. Rather, Mr Bruce was putting forward propositions which, while provocative, constituted his personal observation and opinion based on a theory that is widely known and supported by historical events.7
[34] Guideline 7a to Standard 7 states that the standard is not intended to prevent material that is an "expression of genuinely held opinion". As noted in paragraph [30] above, because democratic societies place a high value on this form of expression, there is a correspondingly high threshold for such material to be considered to have encouraged denigration or discrimination; it would have to move towards the realm of hate speech or vitriol before this threshold would be crossed. In our view, Mr Bruce expressed his opinions in a straightforward and matter-of-fact manner, without invective or disdain.
[35] Accordingly, we are satisfied that the broadcast did not reach the threshold necessary for encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, Christians as a section of the community. We therefore decline to uphold the Standard 7 complaints.
[36] As outlined above at paragraphs [8] to [10], we consider that it is a vital component of the right to freedom of expression that these types of programmes, which stimulate thought and discussion by presenting opinions which may be considered unorthodox or controversial, be allowed, and welcomed. Having weighed the importance of the speech on this occasion with the potential harm alleged by the complainants, and caused by allowing that speech, we have come to the conclusion that upholding the complaints would place an unreasonable and unjustified restriction on the broadcaster's, Mr Bruce's, and the audience's right to freedom of expression.
1 Graeme Axford's formal complaint (including PDF document written by Mark Keown)
– 2 August 2011
2 TVNZ's response to the complaint – 29 August 2011
3 Mr Axford's referral to the Authority – 4 September 2011
4 TVNZ's response to the Authority – 31 October 2011
1 Kristopher Bate's formal complaint – 1 August 2011
3 Mr Bate's referral to the Authority – 21 September 2011
4 TVNZ's response to the Authority – 11 November 2011
5 Mr Bate's final comment – 21 November 2011
6 TVNZ's final comment – 29 November 2011
7 Further comments from Mr Bate – 9 December 2011
1 Mark Oldham's formal complaint – 19 August 2011
2 TVNZ's response to the complaint – 9 September 2011
3 Mr Oldham's referral to the Authority – 5 October 2011
5 Mr Oldham's final comment – 21 November 2011
1 For a more detailed discussion of the different values underpinning freedom of expression see Moving from Self-Justification to Demonstrable Justification – the Bill of Rights and the Broadcasting Standards Authority (Claudia Geiringer and Steven Price, 2008).
2Catran and Others and Kool FM, Decision No. 2009-051
7In its decision, TVNZ referred to a number of texts which supported the theory of Christian persecution of Jews due to the belief the Jews killed Jesus.
20 December 2011 Clark and RadioWorks Ltd - 2011-158
New Zealand First Election Advertisement. Child stated, "My mum and dad are voting for New Zealand First. They say that Winston will give us a fair go." Not upheld (election programmes subject to other Codes; responsible programming).


SEGA Shop has just launched a sale with up to 70% off selected products, including exclusive SEGA Shop bundles (raglan T-shirt, cap, socks, keyring and magnets) worth £55 down to £19.99.
The site's run by Yellow Bulldog, which also has the Geekstore site and Numskull. I've ordered a shirt from here before - good quality, especially for the price. The wallets also last a good chunk of time, which is great because they're all of £4. £2 delivery under £50.
Looks like you can get %15 off too if you sign up for their news letter.
2 t-shirts - shipping cost £7!!!!!!!
Order cancelled, I don't actually need any more videogame based t-shirts.
2 t-shirts - shipping cost £7!!!!!!! Order cancelled, I don't actually …2 t-shirts - shipping cost £7!!!!!!! Order cancelled, I don't actually need any more videogame based t-shirts.
Oh wow, really? I only paid £2 for a similar packet size before!
both megadrive wallets, a megadrive keyring and cuflinks are £5 with £2 postage, not bad when a wallet is £5+ on amazon on it's own.