In January of 2010, actor Kiefer Sutherland went on national TV wearing a dress. He described that appearance as his "most humiliating moment" ever.
Sutherland apologized for embarrassing his family and friends with the outfit, and also described his embarrassment at buying the dress earlier that day.
Ironically, Sutherland's shame was produced by his earlier pride– pride in his assumed football expertise. Then, as a matter of honor, he had to dishonor himself and his family by following through with his bet. Did he realize how his pride in his so-called knowledge would make him look a fool and bring shame to others?
Sometimes, what we do out of pride not only ends in our shame, but the shame of others. Those things can be relatively benign, as Sutherland's actions were, but they can also be more serious.
This concept helps us approach 1 Corinthians 11.
In 1 Corinthians, 1-3, Paul corrects the Corinthian church members' misplaced pride in their various teachers. In chapters 1-3, he also shatters their very concept of wisdom, and highlights that their wrong views come from pride and are regenerated by pride. He teaches them about true humility in chapter 4. He corrects their wrong proud views of toleration of sin in Chapter 5. He corrects their prideful ways of settling disputes in chapter 6. He corrects their prideful views of sexual liberty in chapter 6. He corrects their pride both in asceticism and indulgent views of marriage and male/female relations in chapter 7. He corrects their prideful selfish views that might cause others to sin in chapter 8. He corrects their selfish view of their own rights in chapter 9. He corrects their prideful and selfish attitudes towards all they do in chapter 10, in which he reminds them to look both towards Christ and others in all that they do.
1 Cor. 10:32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
1Cor. 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
1Cor. 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
This passage continues on the point of pride, and it is quite likely that missing that will result in us missing the point!
Indeed, there are few passages of Scripture that have been used by so many in so many ways as a source of God-dishonoring pride as this.
And that misses his very point, not only here, but in the entire book of 1 Corinthians.
Many believers get so caught up in looking for the practical application of what Paul is saying here that we miss his whole point.
Clearly, the point of Paul is not for this to become a point of contention.
Here are some things we need to remember at the outset of examining this passage and the issue it raises.
First, the issue of headwear, hair length, or whatever should not be over-emphasized, and it is very possible to do so.
Many people see in this passage an urgency, a stridency, a firmness that, frankly, compared to the rest of 1 Corinthians, is simply not here. Paul does not call anyone a sinner, although he has had no reluctance to do so in the rest of the letter (see 1 Cor. 6:18, 8:12). He does not in 1 Cor. 11 call for anyone to be put out of the church, although he was quick to do so elsewhere (see 1 Cor. 5:2). He does not call to turn anyone over to Satan (as he did 1 Cor. 5:5). He does not say that anyone is bringing judgment upon himself, although he shows no reluctance to do so elsewhere (see 1 Cor. 11:29, 11:34). He does not even say that anyone's prayers will not be heard, or claim that anyone is violating a commandment!
Yet, people in the church, whatever their understanding of the passage, adopt the view that their position is the "more spiritual" or the "more enlightened." Some then go so far as to claim that one's spiritual maturity or submission to God in their lives can be gauged by this issue. That is contrary to what Paul teaches later in this very letter (1 Cor. 13), and what all of Scripture proclaims. Christ Himself said that "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35) Jesus did not mention this issue as a test of being a disciple, and yet we who claim to be His disciples can be tempted to make it so.
Pride is always a sin, and pride in one's viewpoint is always an enemy of love.
Secondly, some people are simply inconsistent when they approach 1 Cor. 11:1-16.
Many people see in this passage a universal practice that is for all churches, and declare emphatically that it cannot be discussing something cultural or specific to the people and time to whom the letter is written. Others, with equal certainty, claim that there is no doubt that this is only cultural, and that such a conclusion should be clear to all. Those of either view, if they hold the view too firmly, are in danger of displaying what can only be called a prideful inconsistency.
I point out that danger not to accuse, but to warn.
At least some of the people who make the claim that this passage refers to some universal wearing of head garments by women will also, with equal surety, apparently set aside other Scriptures with which they are not as comfortable (or to which they do not wish to be as conformable). They may declare such verses as 1 Corinthians 14:39 , which says "earnestly desire to prophesy and do not forbid speaking in tongues," as "not applicable to today," or "something only for the people in Corinth." Paul makes the statement in 1 Cor. 14 even though he has just explained how tongues might be abused. Yet, the admonition not to forbid speaking in tongues is understood to belong to things which are "for a specific time and place." Whether that is right or not is secondary to the fact that, when it comes to 1 Corinthians 11, many of the same readers will overlook the lack of specifics and the several other features of the text and declare that it is plainly universal, while other verses are only "for a specific time and place." This is inconsistency in interpretation, and is made even more perplexing when the more emphatic and unqualified statement by Paul is interpreted as being the more expendable to the passage of time.
And, at least some of the people who understand 1 Cor. 11:1-16 as referring to a cultural symbol of position, will also, with equal surety, reject the idea that other passages of Scripture may be also be cultural.
Thirdly, some people come to this text and forget it is a letter.
They forget that there is in the passage itself (as in the entire letter) reference to things Paul has told the Corinthians that we simply do not know. You see, Paul and the Corinthians would have known.
We cannot forget that this is a letter between people that know quite a bit about each other that we do not know. It makes references to things that Paul assumes the Corinthians knew but that we, 2000 years later, do not.
There are other cases of this in the Bible.
When Paul tells Timothy in 1 Tim. 5:23 to stop drinking water and to start drinking wine for his stomach's sake, we assume that such advice comes from knowledge of the circumstances of Timothy. It is not necessarily applicable to us– we don't stop drinking water ourselves, neither do we stop using Tums and Pepto-Bismol in exchange for drinking wine. It might involve a principle we should consider (wine may be medicinal, and is certainly not sinful in itself).
In Ephesians 4:28 and 1 Thessalonians 4:11, Paul tells people to work with their hands. Does that mean that those of us who don't use our hands in our work, but who manage or teach or the like should seek different employment? In both cases, there was a particular problem that is being addressed that we can read between the lines (dishonesty in Ephesus and laziness in Thessalonica), but that might not always be easy to discover by reading the text.
When he wrote 1 Corinthians 11, Paul had before him the letter that the Corinthians wrote to him. He also had the experience of 18 months that he had spent with them teaching them various things and setting up their various practices. If we want to know what constitutes a covering, we have one option– look elsewhere in Scripture for what Paul and they would have understood.
When Paul talks about a man not covering his head (literally, "having down head" or "having down from his head") and a woman having her head covered, just what does he mean? Did he mean that a man cannot have a toupee? Did he mean that a woman must wear a veil? Can a praying male soldier wear a helmet? Can a woman wear a ribbon or a tiny piece of veil that does not hide anything, but is on her head, and covers part of it?
Or, was the whole point of this passage from the Apostle Paul something other than physical garments, fabrics, or notions?
Why? Because 1 Corinthians this is a letter written by Paul to people he knew. What is more, he lived in their town and with them for at least 18 months (according to Acts 18:11), so he knew both them and their city quite well. In addition, Paul is writing 1 Corinthians in specific response to specific questions and issued that the Corinthians raised in a letter that they had written to them.
Paul knew what he meant when he wrote about a woman's head being covered. He knew the Corinthians would know. However, we are not (exactly) Corinthians of the first century.
To figure out what WE should do to obey this passage, we need to bridge the gap of years, languages, and worlds to figure out what Paul was saying to his readers.
All writing (including 1 Corinthians) has a context. We must enter into that context to understand the writing.
Generally, the most important context for understanding a difficult passage in the Bible is the Bible itself.
One principle to apply in interpretation is to examine the immediate Biblical context. That is, by examining the surrounding passages of Scripture, we might see if terms or ideas are used in the immediate context that aid in our understanding. This we did a bit of in Part 1, and there is not much in 1 Corinthians, beyond a general pattern of correction, that can be brought to bear on this passage. Now, the fact that Paul is sort of slapping the Corinthians around for things they are messing up is helpful, but not so much if we want to understand the particulars of men not having their heads covered and women having their heads covered. That sort of language is just not used or alluded to elsewhere in the first letter to the Corinthians.
Another principle to follow when you come to a place like this is to examine the broader Biblical context. That is, we might see what other Scripture says.
Here, we might get a little more mileage. The book of Acts tells us (in Chapter 18) a lot about the church in Corinth. It tells us that there were Jews who joined the church early on, but also gentiles. Regarding hair length, which is mentioned in our passage, Acts tells us that Paul probably grew long hair as part of a vow when he was with the church (he cut it off after he left- Acts 18:18). There is not much help about head coverings specifically though.
Where else in Scripture are the heads of men or women mentioned? What do those passages say about headwear or hair?
All believers are to metaphorically put on Christ and the helmet of salvation, but those are pictures and not literal garments or hair styles.
However, there are some pretty clear and specific descriptions of what women are to wear in the New Testament Scriptures.
It is interesting that in both these places women are told how to adorn themselves and what to wear. Do you notice that BOTH of them say not to have a fancy hairstyle? We will leave aside the admonition not to wear jewelry of any kind or dressy clothes (although that is in both passages as well).
The mention of hairstyles in these passages is potentially important for an understanding of 1 Corinthians 11 for one big reason. If all women in all churches were wearing something that COVERED their hair (as might be concluded in 1 Cor. 11), why would the arrangement of the hair underneath be a concern for both Paul and Peter as they were writing for the benefit of the Church as a whole years after 1 Corinthians was written?
It seems reasonable to at least admit the possibility from these two passages that, whatever Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 11, it did not include something that would hide the hair. Either it was not a hat or scarf, or, if it was, it was something that women in places other than Corinth did not normally wear..
There is another aspect of the "context" of other Scriptural passages on wearing things on heads or on hair styles that should not be overlooked.
Nowhere else in the New Testament are women or men told literally what to wear or not wear when they are praying or declaring the things of God (prophesying). When we are told to wear or put on something in the New Testament, it is always metaphorical. For example, we are told to put on the armor of light (Romans 13:12), the Lord Jesus (Romans 13:14), the new self (Ephesians 4:24), the armor of God (Ephesians 6:11-15), compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, love (Colossians 3:12-14), the breastplate of faith and love (1 Thessalonians 5:8).
In the Old Testament, the priests were commanded to wear turbans, but that would itself be the exact opposite of what Paul is saying, since he told the men not to have their heads covered in the way women were told to. If women were to wear coverings like the Old Testament priests, then they would be serving as priests while the men were not. However, we are told that we are all priests to God in the New Covenant (see 1 Peter 2:5, 1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:6).
At some point, if our examination of other Scriptures does not yield a clear confirmation of what exactly having a covered head entails, or if that examination raises other questions that are not answered by our passage, then we might want to get some outside help. We might want to ask "what evidence outside the Bible is there for what Paul and the Corinthians would have understood as covering?" As soon as we do that, we are saying that to understand this passage we must understand a different culture.
Now, there is nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. We will gain more insight into truth that way, I think, than by declining to ask what was going on there at the time. Indeed, throughout the book of 1 Corinthians, understanding requires that we do that very thing. To understand chapter 7, it helps if we understand the historical cultural and legal aspects of marital practices, betrothals, etc. in Corinth. To understand chapter 8, it helps if we understand the kinds of things that went on in idol worship in those days in Corinth.
Knowing these things helps us to understand really and fully what God's word says– they do not keep us from understanding!
Once we do this, however, we may discover that the world that they lived in is so different from ours that we can no longer do things that they did in the same way that they did them. We may discover that the reasons for doing things the way they did them no longer exist.
In other words, we may discover that there is a cultural difference that will require us to adopt a practically different practice to fulfill the principle of what the people of 2000 years ago were called upon to do.
For example, we might not take the Lord's Supper out of a common cup or by breaking a single loaf of bread or using actual wine.
We do not think it necessary to baptize people in rivers or on the same day as they confess faith in Christ.
We do not greet one another with kisses, although the Bible says to in Romans 16:16, 1 Cor. 16:20, 2 Cor. 13:12, 1 Thes. 5:26, 1 Peter 5:14, and Jesus says that his host should have kissed him in Luke 7:45.
We don't wash one another's feet although Jesus commanded his disciples to do so in John 13 (and remember the Great Commission is a commandment to the disciples to teach all that He commanded). This is despite the explicit command that a disciple wash the feet of others in 1 Tim. 5:10. Why? Because we don't live in a world in which animal dung accumulates in the street and gets between our toes.
We don't lift our hands when we pray, although 1 Tim. 2:8 says to do so and Exodus 17, Lev. 9, Neh. 8, Psalm 28, Psalm 63, Psalm 119, Psalm 141, and more.
In all these things, though, the principle remains.
The application may depend on who and where we are, and what life is like in our times.
If you doubt that the different culture and environment of Corinth in 55 AD might be important in understanding this passage, let me just say this. In first century Corinth, if a man walked around the streets wearing the dress that Keifer Sutherland wore on The Late Show with David Letterman in January 2010 to pay off a bet, it would not be the "most humiliating moment" of his life, as it was for Mr. Sutherland. Indeed, that Corinthian fellow would have probably attracted absolutely no attention, except for complements about how nice, clean and colorful his garments looked. Men and women alike wore what we would describe as "dresses" then. It is not so now.
What is the Cultural/Historical Context of 1 Corinthians 11?
Remember, Corinth was the "sin city" of the first century Roman Empire. Temple prostitution and all sorts of pagan worship rituals were common. In many religious ceremonies, the rules and decorum of daily life would be jettisoned so that some perverse practice could be adopted in the name of religion, or so that some tendency to sin could actually be encouraged.
The word in that passage for "all things" is pasin in the Greek, from the word pan, which means "all." This word choice means that nothing is excluded or excepted. By His position in creation (Col. 1:16), by virtue of the truth that all things were made FOR Him, and by His activity in sustaining all things (Col. 1:17), Christ has the right to be preeminent over EVERYTHING.
The word for "preeminence" is the Greek word proteuon, which is a verb that means to "hold the first place", or "to be the priority of." Christ is the priority, then of all creation. He is and must be of first importance.
By rights, then, Christ should be the most important thing, the priority, not only of the church (as in Col. 1:18) but of all of creation, including His creatures.
Unless otherwise cited, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.


Oak Hills Park, in June.
NORWALK, Conn. – The Oak Hills Park Authority has worked out a deal to restructure its loan agreement with the City.
"We have crafted something that would allow Oak Hills to move forward and not have to come back to the City while recognizing the fact that a lot of the issues creating the current situation were issues that happened 15-18 years ago, and it really was a difficult situation for them to continue to operate under those conditions," Mayor Harry Rilling said at Monday's Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET) meeting.
The BET went on to unanimously approve the restructuring – which replaces yearly loan payments by the Authority with a percentage of its intake, and lowers the interest rate to zero. The arrangement also authorizes a $83,000 "reimbursement" to the Authority for its expenses in upgrading restaurant equipment.
The loan restructuring will now go to the Common Council for approval. Council President Tom Livingston (D-District E) and Finance Committee Chairman Greg Burnett (D-At Large) helped craft the deal, through consultation with Council members via emails and phone calls, Rilling said, so he expects that it will be approved.
The Authority has long attributed its financial problems to the payments on a $2.2 million loan from the City issued in 2005 to fund improvements at the park, the construction of the restaurant building and cart paths. The debt has been restructured three times. A restructuring in 2015 reduced payments from $290,000 to $160,000; payments dropped again when the loan was restructured to include the "irrigation that had 10 years remaining," former OHPA member Joe Tamburri said in September.
"The Authority has a balance of just under $2 million to pay," then-OHPA Chairman Jerry Crowley said in 2017. The Authority made only the interest portion of its payment in September 2017, paying $52,000 instead of $131,000, and has not made any payments since.
Construction on the course, funded by a $1.5 million state grant, lowered golf course revenue three years ago as the course was down to nine holes and it was noisy, then there were two years of bad weather, Controller Mark Gartner said Monday.
"We went from almost 40,000 rounds to this year we had 34,000-35,000 rounds. So, our cash inflows were heavily reduced… it's kind of a storm of just constantly decreasing revenues while increasing outflow," he said.
The Authority evicted restauranteurs Amar Haouri and Vincent LaForte a year ago. Their new tenant was not paying rent, OHPA Chairman Bill Waters said in June. A new lease has been negotiated with that same tenant, to pay $4,000 a month from July to the end of the season, and then either a Request for Proposals will be issued or the current tenant, if doing well, will negotiate based on his intake, Waters said Monday.
The Authority spent $93,000 on new equipment for the restaurant. The BET approved a resolution to repay the Authority $83,000, based on the Authority's cash flow needs, as described by Gartner.
The Authority "will be completely tapped out" on its $200,000 line of credit by Friday, Gartner said. The BET's $83,000 appropriation will get it through the winter. The revolving line of credit can be renewed by the Authority in November if it's been paid in full for at least 30 days.
If the Common Council approves the new deal, the Authority would make monthly payments on its loan, equal to $2 per round of golf. This payment would go up by five cents per round in every fiscal year afterwards.
Payments would not begin until July 1, 2020. In addition, the Authority would make an annual payment of 1 percent of its audited annual gross golf revenue, but would not be required to use its line of credit to do so. The interest rate would be dropped to zero, retroactive to Fiscal Year 17.
BET member Troy Jellerette asked why the payments would begin next year.
Burnett, sitting in the audience, answered that thinking shifted from an initial idea to have the Authority start making minimal payments when it paid off its line of credit.
BET member James Frayer peppered Waters and Gartner with questions, asking what happens if the number of rounds doesn't increase, and instead continues to drop.
He chuckled when Frayer mentioned climate change, and Frayer asked what would happen to the agreement if rounds declined.
Some expenses are tied to the amount of play, so that would mitigate the issue somewhat, but it's possible that it might take longer to pay off the loan, he said.
A potential deal with the Authority was first reported by NancyOnNorwalk in June. The proposal was not on the agenda for Monday's BET meeting.
What a scam! What is 100% of nothing? That's right! Zero! That's what the Taxpayers will get. Turn Oakhill into a park and call it a day.
I do some work at Oak Hills and I play golf there and from what I have been hearing the park authority is the one who drove the discussions. They do not get the credit they deserve. I applaud them for sticking to their guns and getting a better deal. The course is beautiful and the park offers more than ever before. If the city never built that building Oak Hills would be in much better shape.
@ Roger, Let's get the facts straight at one point this building for years was generating over 100k a year rent for the course. This Authority who you praise decided to take over a good portion for a golf shop that was not needed and now how much do they collect in rent 0 because of the smaller size. Our family and friends had many private functions their through the years and even my high school had our 50th reunion at Oak Hills all while mingling in with golfers. Roger it's not the building it's the people you work for that caused this dilemma!
@Sandra, the problem is the building needed to generate $300k a year to be economically worthy of constructing it in the first place. The course is in great shape in spite of this financial albatross. This restructuring is a long time overdue. The mindset that this should not have any support would also have us close all the beaches and parks city wide. Is that who we want to be?
Lets have more "restructurings" to help subsidize Golfers from Norwalk and surrounding Towns. It's the way City Hall does business. City taxpayers are always happy to pay more taxes to help support Golfers. It's a Norwalk tradition.
I thought having a bar was going to solve all of the restaurant's problems and it would be able to survive on it's own two feet?
@Byran I'm in no way insinuating that we should close Oak Hills. You state it's in great shape but why is that ? because they're spending money they don't have! now a $200,000 line of credit plus another $83,000 from us the tax payers! Can you justify the moving of the pro shop up to the restaurant? Isn't $100,000 rent better than 0? Norwalk needed a catering facility which was paying them a fair rent all while servicing the golfers and the public alike. This self centered group has made it a private country club on the taxpayers back. They will never pay this interest FREE loan off because of their overspending habits but keep convincing the financial mavens in the city to just keep kicking the can down the road!
Hmm how can this not be on the agenda? Back room deals ? Is the Authority running the place or do they hire people to run it?
For the amount of work that the volunteers put into this, they could work another job and afford to join any area country club. Good ideas for better management should come forth from the process. Get involved, give your resume to your local party or the mayor with a letter of intent. We need more dedicated volunteers and fewer keyboard warriors.
Oh Sandra, Sandra, Sandra how little you know.
How does the $200k LOC factor into this? The city has nothing to do with that. Oak Hills had to go get that on their own. And where is there proof that the building generated $100k in rent? The original vendor bailed when he couldn't make a go of it and the next two jokers had to keep asking for rent reductions until deciding to stop paying rent and squatted for months.
I applaud this authority for finally sticking up for the park. As the Mayor said in the article, "the City while recognizing the fact that a lot of the issues creating the current situation were issues that happened 15-18 years ago, and it really was a difficult situation for them (Oak Hills) to continue to operate under those conditions".
Oak Hills will survive in spite of an uneducated public who don't really get involved to solve anything in this city. We only complain and let others do the work.
Well, well, well, here we are again with the OHPA asking for a handout from the taxpayers of Norwalk and the restructuring of a defunct loan. @Roger, the $200k line of credit does factor into this because the OHPA has made $0 in obligation payments to the Norwalk Taxpayers over the last 2 years and is still $200k in the hole! What part of that do you not understand?
$0 in payments toward the loan that paid for the construction of the restaurant and still in the red with their financials so this means the Restaurant or "Albatross" as @Bryan calls it does not factor into the equation at all! They made no payments towards the loan and collected no rent, it's like it wasn't even there, so how can you blame the building? And yes, go back and look at what the OHPA was collecting in rent for the first 5+ years on the building it was right around $100k per year, now $0 because the building was made smaller and the new "welcome center" greets the golfers better. I would much rather not be greeted as well and have my taxes not go up! It's called overspending!!
Can you imagine if every department of the City of Norwalk was to have free reign of their spending as the OHPA does? They would not have to go through the purchasing ordinance procedures just like the OHPA does not, purchase the BEST of everything just like the OHPA does, pay the employees anything they wanted to which the OHPA also does and then ask for funds when they ran out which the OHPA has done numerous times in the last 10 years! Actually our taxes would probably be only slightly higher then the ridiculous amounts they are now!
IT'S TIME OUR CITY OFFICIALS WAKE UP ABOUT OAK HILLS AND PUT THE PARK BACK UNDER THE CITY OPERATIONS at least the spending will be controlled. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH time to abolish the OHPA. How can anyone possibly think they are doing a good job? I guess they may be doing a lot of pointless work, but what good is it when they will start the golf season probably a quarter of a million dollars + in debt AND NEVER BE ABLE TO PAY THE TAXPAYERS BACK FOR THEIR GOLFING FUN.
I want to know *TWO* things.
2) Which of the commissioners are going to make *ME* whole for their arrogance, hubris and gross mismanagement?
Also if any of my fellow Norwalkers wants to join me in a class action suit against OHPA, City Hall's high taxes, & the idiots in government, who were and are still responsible for this and other insults, please like and share this with everyone.
Hmmm, Bill . . . I don't get it.
You make it sound like the OHPA is a City Department. It is not.
Parks and Rec ran the course at one time long ago and they drove it into the ground. That's why the authority was formed. It just wasn't set up with the proper financial foundation at the start.
You make it sound like taxpayer money is supporting the course. It is not. The $83k they are getting is for saving a city building that was about to be destroyed last year in an auction of every asset in the (city) building. That $83k came out of their LOC. They are simply being reimbursed for saving, what would have been a WHOLE lot more to replace.
And, furthermore, there is no Bill McFarland in the city tax records. Who are you really?
The Oak Hills Golf Authority has received millions of dollars in taxpayers' loans that have been turned into grants. In addition, recently it received a 1.5-million-dollar grant for taxpayers to cover its capital costs.
"Golf courses around America continue to close." http://www.golfadvisor.com/articles/10-warning-signs-your-favorite-golf-course-might-be-closing But not here in Norwalk thanks to special interest politics.
"According to one study by the golf industry group Pellucid Corp., the number of regular golfers fell from 30 to 20.9 million between 2002 and 2016. Ratings are down, equipment sales are lagging, and the number of rounds played annually has fallen." https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/06/the-next-housing-battleground-dead-golf-courses/561896/ Nevertheless, here in Norwalk thanks to special interest politics tax payers keep paying so golfers keep playing.
"And there are so many troubling questions to ask. Even in the best of times, are golf courses the kind of thing taxpayers should be subsidizing? And what about the privately owned, (and taxpaying), courses? Should the government be competing with them directly? What more essential city services suffer when more money has to be diverted to prop up a public golf course? And finally, are public courses really a boost to the middle class when the price of playing the sport is still quite high wherever you decide to play?" https://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/10/municipal-golf-courses-still-squeezing-taxpayers.html But these questions are not being asked by our local wannabee electeds because they figure most taxpayers aren't paying attention while the Oak Hills Park Authority acting as a lobby for golfers is nipping at their heels every day.
In 1967 the State purchased the land in what is now Oak Hills Park and granted it to the city "for conservation, recreational and open space purposes" with the stipulation that the land "not be conveyed to any use other than recreational or conservation purposes." Then a 1999 master plan for Oak Hills called for "wider uses for the park." Indeed, years ago it was recognized that if there is one thing Norwalk sorely lacked it was a public park near the heart of its city – a park like Wavenly Park in New Canaan. In Wavenly there are ball fields, picnic areas, jogging trails, platform tennis courts, a swimming pool, picnic areas, a dog park and even a practice area for golfers. In Oak Hills there is a sign that says: "No biking, walking, jogging." ¬¬What happened to our park? It turned into a taxpayer subsidized money losing environmentally destructive 18-hole-golf course.
The OHPA lobbied hard to get the city to tear down the restaurant that was already in the park and construct the one that is there now on the grounds that it would end up enabling it to cover its cost of operating and maintaining the golf course.
Yes, mismanagement and a decline in the number of people who play golf.
Yes, putting the pro-shop in the restaurant building might have made the pro happy but it clearly will do nothing to help the OHPA find a restauranteur willing to lease the building for enough to cover the difference between the cost of operating and maintaining the golf course and user fees charged to golfers.
@ Bryan Meek and Paul Passarelli @Mitch Adis. "PUT THE PARK BACK UNDER THE CITY OPERATIONS." "Turn Oak Hills into a park and call it a day." Right on!
The Authority was set up by GOLFER friends of the Norwalk politicians who didn't like the way the golf course looked, wasn't in tip top shape like their own private country club, and they thought they could do a better job then the Parks and Rec Department, similar to your statement of "drove it into the ground".
Although revenues from the users pay for operations and no taxpayer dollars are used in the daily operations, how about the $2M+ dollars that the TAXPAYERS OF NORWALK loaned (now gave) to the OHPA? or the $1.5M in State of CT money used to make the golf course better (instead of using it for infrastructure) by the STATE OF CT TAXPAYERS?
So Roger, is taxpayer money being used to support Oak Hills Golf Course? I would still say YES, at least until ALL the funds borrowed (given) to the OHPA are paid back to the taxpayers.. Is the OHPA a department of the City of Norwalk? I would still say YES to that also.
As far as the Parks and Rec Department running the park into the ground, they used the funds from the golfers who utilized it to operate it and no more, you may not have liked the way it looked but it didn't run in the red as it is run now. The park was operated within its means.
And, I am William J McFarland who has lived in Norwalk many years, just because I choose to have the deed of my house in my wifes name doesn't mean I don't pay a lot of taxes to the City of Norwalk and the State of Connecticut BOTH who have used my money to make Oak Hills Golf Course better for the GOLFERS of Norwalk and the surrounding areas. But, I am glad to see that my points have obviously made it through to you as you took the time to look me up on the City records!
You still don't get it Billy Boy. The $2M+ dollar loan that the city gave Oak Hills is STILL getting paid back to the city. It is just the interest that will be forgiven. Taxpayers break even.
As for the $1.5M state grant, it could NOT be used on anything that was not specifically outlined in the approved 2014 Master Plan. And it did not just go into the golf course. It created open space in the Great Lawn and refurbished the Fountain Garden and the walking trails. I'll bet you don't even know that there is also Tennis at Oak Hills.
If you want to complain about something, why don't you question the $61M the city has sitting in a "rainy day" fund. Releasing some of that could help your taxes.
Paul would love to see a class action suit,so tired of my hard earned $$$$ going to oak hills,wall street failure and the mayors new reorganization gimmick.
how do we get together with you???
I have to disagree Roger Dodger, you are the one who really doesn't get it. the $2M taxpayer dollars will never be paid back because the OHPA will NEVER have enough funds. And even if somehow miraculously they do begin pay it back its amortized over what like 45 years on items like an irrigation system who's lifespan if probably no more then 25 years? And what happens when some major capital expenditure happens prior to that like a new multi million dollar irrigation system? I'm sure you Roger will be driving the OHPA members personally down to City Hall to ask(beg)for more taxpayer funds!
As far as the so called "master plan" am I incorrect in saying it was the OHPA who hired the firm to do the master plan and worked with that company as to what they thought should be in there? if not then whoever did the master plan without including any infrastructure improvements should be out of business by now. Wasn't it Total Driving Range Solutions? funny I can't seem to find there website anymore.
Okay Roger now go ahead and tell me I'm wrong…I can do this all day to keep this in the headlines.
Myška, my wife, and I figure on attending the Common Council's meeting (tomorrow, Wednesday, February 13, 7:30 at City Hall) to weigh in on the plan to restructure the loan agreement with the OHPA.
Our hope is that you and others will join us to oppose again restructuring the OHPA's loans and to oppose the lack of transparency regarding how the decision was made to do so. A key question that needs to be addressed is: What is the reason the public has not been given the opportunity to weigh in on the issue before it is being brought up for a vote?
Apparently, our elected officials engaged in back door negotiations with the OHPA over an extended period of time. That is not the way our elected representatives should behave. And the fact that they did so is shameful. Again, it is a classic case of reprehensible special interest politics.
At the meeting we'll happily provide our contact information to anyone who wants to join the effort to turn Oak Hills into what it was originally intended to be: a public park that serves the interest of all the taxpayers of Norwalk and not just a special interest group of golfers represented by the OHPA.
A good solution for the future I've thought about for years is reducing Oak Hills from 18 to 9 holes as many other municipalities around the country are doing (see link below), which drastically cuts maintenance costs including mowing, fertilizer and pesticide use, and water usage in half, and actually may draw in more golfers as fewer golfers have the time or money anymore for a 4-hour commitment for 18 holes. If you want to play 18 holes you just go around twice.
By cutting maintenance costs in half, OHPA can finally sustain themselves independent of taxpayers, and the other 9 holes can become nature trails and birdwatching platforms in restored upland meadows for endangered ground-nesting songbirds, encouraging nature education from local schools. If public demand justifies it, maybe even a new grass soccer field or two, and/or a motocross bike course.
Oops, I meant to say a "mountain bike" course, not motocross, in my last comment, as just one of the recreational options that can easily fit on the real estate of the 9 holes in a conversion from 18 holes to 9 holes. As in non-motorized.
Motocross would be too loud for the Oak Hills neighborhood! And this would be in addition to restored habitat for birdwatching and nature trails that would still make up the majority of the leftover land, in my suggested sustainability plan for Oak Hills.
Mike the man of expertise on all things – how many rounds did you play in 2018? Do you have a USGA handicap? Just asking questions.
Thanks everyone !!!!! You woke Paul Cantor up !!!
Yes indeed. Anyone want to help out with local journalism?
Millennials don't play golf. At least not nearly much as boomers did.
@Patrick Cooper, thank you for recognizing my talent, although I'm not an expert on everything as you so kindly suggested, because no one knows as much as our president!
Since you asked, I don't golf, unless you include mini-golf which I love to do every chance I get. The Calf Pasture course is a real challenge, especially after a couple of beers!
But I was trained in golf course design as part of my 4-year education at Rutgers when I got my Bachelor of Landscape Architecture ( now licensed in CT, NY, and NJ.) Golf course design is a big part of our profession. However, the last thing I want to do on my day off is walk around another manicured landscape, or in other words a classic busman's holiday.
And theres plenty more where that came from if you need a deeper dive into the subject.
Instead of turning Oaks into a 9 hole golf course, you'd be better off packing every last square inch of it with more cheaply built apartments. Mountain bikes are already welcome at Cranbury Park. Should we turn half of the beach into a shooting range?


Sophie Fuller and I are currently working on a digital humanities project, Sounding the Salon, which explores the Victorian musical and literary salon through recorded recreations, manuscript scans, and essays. Through audience perspectives captured via the social media of today (e.g., Tweets), the site also creates an archive of salon experiences today. This website is currently under construction.
Sounding Tennyson, another publicly-available digital resource, presents the first recordings and publications of Emily Tennyson's piano/vocal settings of Alfred Tennyson's poem, "Break, Break, Break," multiple musical and textual drafts, and commentary. In future, the site will expand to present all twenty-four Emily Tennyson musical settings of her husband's poems.
Past projects include being featured in voice-over and on camera in The Birth of British Music: Mendelssohn – The Prophet, a production of BBC Two Television, using materials from my published research. Other interviewees were Poet Laureate Andrew Motion, noted musicologist John Deathridge (King's College, London), and Riccardo Chailly (Music Director, Leipzig Gewandhaus - i.e., Mendelssohn's successor). The four-part series, which also included segments on Purcell, Handel and Haydn, was presented by Charles Hazlewood and produced by Francesca Kemp. To date, the program has aired in May 2009, July 2010 and May 2017 in prime viewing slots on BBC Two, BBC 2 Wales, BBC HD, and BBC Four. You can view it here.
Writer and presenter, The Essay, "Unsung Heroines of Classical Music: Mary Gladstone," BBC Radio 3. Produced by Simon Richardson. Aired 10:45-11:00 pm, 5 March 2015. Click here for the podcast.
Talk at the British Academy. "Gladstone, Music and Liberalism." Part of the month-long exploration of, "With great power: political leaders, popular legacies." 16 June 2016. Click here for the audio recording.
The Annual Gladstone Lecture. "Coals of Fire and The Lover's Tale: The Gladstones and the Tennysons." Gladstone's Library, Hawarden, Wales. 5/11.
Lecture/recital at the Royal Academy of Music. "The 'paradise of pedants': The English Musical Renaissance and Progressive Composers in Fin-de-Siècle Fiction." Music and Performance in Nineteenth-Century Britain endowed series. Royal Academy of Music, London. 11/04.
"Wagner in his Armchair, George Eliot on the Sofa, and Mary Gladstone's Political Response to Daniel Deronda." Inaugural English Department Colloquium on Opera & Fiction. University of St Andrews. 5/13.
"Triangulated Criticism, Song, and Daniel Deronda." Song Seminar (interdisciplinary). Faculty of English, University of Cambridge. 3/17.
"Aesthetic Criticism, Lived Liberalism and Daniel Deronda." Victorian Literature Graduate Seminar. Faculty of English, University of Oxford. 11/15.
"Hearing Tennyson." 19th Century Graduate Seminar, Faculty of English, University of Cambridge. 2/14.
"Triangulated Listening: Wagner, George Eliot and Gladstonian Liberalism." Music Department Colloquium, University of Nottingham. 12/13.
"'One heard the words, and one heard the latent music': Tennyson's and Wagner's salon readings." Music Department Research Seminar. University of Southampton. 10/11.
"George Eliot and the Prima Donna's 'Script'." Musicology Colloquium. Northwestern University School of Music. 1/08.
"Webs, Waves, and Weaves: 19th-Century British Poetry and Music as Mutually Constituted." 19th Century and Beyond British Cultural Studies Working Group. English Department. University of California, Berkeley. 2/04.
"Brontë's Villette and the Concert Hall as a Site of Social Discord." Music Department Colloquium. Yale University. 2/03.
The exemplar for Sounding the Salon presents the recreated salon from March 1873, performed the original space (Prime Minister Gladstone's music room, now home to the British Academy).
BBC - The Birth of British Music: Mendelssohn — The Prophet.


When setting up your company, you are likely thinking of what you should name your company, outgoing expenses, growth and protecting your assets. Equally as important, however, is deciding how you will manage your business through either a company constitution or the replaceable rules. We set out below this aspect of starting up your business.
A company constitution is a document that prescribes a company's internal management system and sets out the relationship between the company and each shareholder, director and other officers of the company. Strictly speaking, there are no rules you need to follow when arranging the internal management of your company. The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act), however, contains the replaceable rules, and a company can rely on these or their constitution to govern internal management.
Type of Company: What type of business structure is your company? Most commonly, Australian companies are a Pty Ltd with at least one shareholder with a limited number of shares.
Shares: Has your company issued different types of shares that attract specific conditions? For example, the company may have issued Ordinary Shares, A Preference Shares and B Preference Shares which all hold different voting rights at meetings, rights to dividends and also to the repayment of the shareholder's investment on the winding up of a company.
Share Certificates: How will your company issue share certificates and other matters dealing with the share certificates?
Transfers of Shares: How will your company transfer shares?
Dividends: How and when will the company pay dividends to shareholders?
Meetings of the Directors of the Board: How will you call a meeting of directors? How many directors do you need present for a valid meeting and other matters (also known as a quorum)? How will you deal with proxy matters, cancelling meetings and what is the chairperson's role?
Weight of Votes at Meetings: What are the terms of the issued shares?
Directors: How are directors appointed and removed? What is the maximum number of directors in the company? How are alternate directors appointed and what is their role?
Company Documents: What is the process and requirements for documenting the minutes of meetings as well as resolutions?
Conflicts of Interests: How will the company address situations where a conflict arises between a director's personal interest and acting in the best interests of the company?
The Powers and Duties of Directors: This includes their ability to bind the company and execute documents.
Company Secretary: If the company chooses to appoint a company secretary, what is their role and duties?
Indemnities: What indemnities will the company give to directors and other officers, including employees?
Shareholders Loans: How will the company issue loans to third parties?
Evident from the above list, there are many areas to consider when setting up the rules to govern your business. It is always best practice to have a reference already in place for the management of your company rather than trying deal with these administrative issues as and when they arise. It provides clarity and certainty to the company, the shareholders, the directors and officers.
Your company can only decide to adopt its constitution by way of a special resolution requiring the agreement of a 75% majority of the votes cast. As the manner in which a business is run is an important consideration, a special resolution is necessary to change or adopt a constitution.
You should also consider the replaceable rules, set out in section 141 of the Act. Your company will be deemed to have adopted these rules if not explicitly excluded by the company constitution. There are 39 provisions in the Act setting out the replaceable rules. Importantly, if your constitution does not address a particular replaceable rule, the rule as defined in the Act will apply to your company, irrespective of whether you intended this or not.
When starting a company, you should give appropriate attention to your business' internal management. This is especially true when considering how the replaceable rules can impact your business – whether or not you knew they existed. If you have any questions about corporate governance or adopting a constitution, get in touch with our commercial lawyers on 1300 544 755.


A few days ago, I posted a short article titled "UFO-Spin in the UK" in which I questioned British journalism professor Dr. David Clarke's opinion on the significance of recent UFO document releases by his government. Clarke believes that this voluntary action is indicative of a policy of complete candor regarding UFOs on the part of the Ministry of Defence (MoD). I begged to differ, noting that at least one highly-sensitive case—involving a UFO hovering near a nuclear weapons storage facility at the American-run RAF Bentwaters airbase, in December 1980—has yet to be acknowledged by the British government.
In other words, the MoD's closure of its UFO Desk does not necessarily rule-out the possibility that other, more secretive government groups—whether military or non-military—have been involved in national security-related UFO investigations in the U.K. If this is indeed the case, documents relating to those inquiries remain classified.
While my UFO-Spin article only addressed the December 1980 UFO incident at an American nuclear weapons facility on British soil, and a second one in the nearby forest, two key witnesses have stated that the ensuing investigation involved both American and British government operatives. Surely those British agents wrote things down. Where are the notes, memoranda and reports relating to their inquiry? They certainly weren't among the documents released by the MoD's UFO Desk.
Predictably, Dr. Clarke rejected my critique entirely and continues to believe that all, or nearly all, of his government's UFO documents have now been released to the public.
Nevertheless, according to the former Deputy Base Commander at RAF Bentwaters, now-retired USAF Col. Charles I. Halt, a disc-shaped UFO apparently hovered near the base's nuclear Weapons Storage Area (WSA) and reportedly directed laser-like beams of light down into it.
Halt is also on record as saying that various American and British intelligence organizations later conducted a low-profile but diligent inquiry into the incidents at Bentwaters. I emphasize: No document relating to that investigation, from either government, has ever been declassified. It remains unclear whether Dr. Clarke is merely unaware of this important statement by the former Deputy Base Commander or has simply chosen to ignore it because it does not conform with his skeptical interpretation of the case and/or his belief that no British inquiry took place.
DC: … [ Hastings ] says that "I have naively taken the British Government at its word" that no documentation exists concerning a UFO/nuclear-related incident at Rendlesham … If anyone is guilty of being "naïve" then it is Hastings . He says that Col Halt "is on record" as saying he saw a disc-shaped UFO hovering near the WSA. But when did Col Halt go on record to this effect? What Hastings does not mention is that Halt actually made this claim decades later.
This is completely wrong, Dr. Clarke. As noted in my last post ("Hastings' Response to Clarke—Part One") Col. Halt first publicly mentioned the UFO's presence at the Weapons Storage Area in 1991, the very year he retired from the U.S. Air Force and, therefore, the first real opportunity he had to speak openly about the 1980 incident to the media.
So, despite Halt's candid revelation in 1991, on a nationally-televised program, Dr. Clarke incorrectly asserts that Halt first mentioned the incident at the WSA only "decades later." Gee, I wonder what else Clarke has gotten wrong in his, ahem, authoritative summary of the facts?
DC: [Halt's] original report to the British Ministry of Defence, dated 13 January 1981, makes absolutely no mention of a disc-shaped UFO or any mention of an incident in the Weapons Storage Area.
Halt's very reasonable explanation for this appears below, in answer to one of the specific questions you've posed. As you will see, Halt was intentionally being somewhat vague about the whole affair, fearing that his reporting something as controversial as a UFO sighting would not be "career-enhancing." He was hoping that the MoD would handle the matter, thereby getting him off the hook, so to speak.
DC: By Halt's own account—not mine—this one page report is the single and only document he ever sent to the Ministry of Defence.
So what? The question at hand is whether or not the British government still has classified files relating to the case. Halt unequivocally states that he was later told of a low-profile but rigorous investigation of the incident, conducted by both U.S. and British intelligence personnel. Even though he was not personally involved in that inquiry—and was not, therefore, required to send reports to anyone, American or British—the fact that such an investigation took place means that reports would have been generated. At the risk of being redundant, no such reports have ever been made public by the Ministry of Defence (or, for that matter, the U.S. Department of Defense).
DC: Also by his own account, not mine, he expected a follow-up from the MoD and never received one. These facts are confirmed by the British Base Commander, Don Moreland, and by Halt's own commanding officer, Col Ted Conrad.
Once again, according to Halt, he eventually learned that groups other than the Security Police unit—including the USAF Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI)—had quickly undertaken an investigation of the UFO incursions at Bentwaters and Rendlesham Forest . Once that development occurred, Halt was no longer "in the loop" for information about the inquiry, which explains his not being contacted by anyone in authority.
If this seems illogical—given Halt's central involvement in some of the key UFO events at Bentwaters—I can only say that a number of former USAF ICBM squadron members, interviewed by myself over the years, report similar occurrences: Intelligence or counter-intelligence personnel quickly take over the investigations of UFO incursions at nuclear missile sites and freeze-out everyone else who had been involved, even those at the command level.
Although Col. Halt was never interviewed, various Security Policemen at Bentwaters were, including Staff Sgt. Jim Penniston, who reports having actually touched a metallic, triangular-shaped craft as it sat on the ground in the woods. That event occurred during the wee hours of December 26th, two nights prior to Halt's own foray into Rendlesham Forest.
In an August 18, 2010 email to Halt, Penniston wrote, "As you are most likely aware by now, AFOSI was directing everything. I don't know if the Command element kept you informed on that. But I am convinced the AFOSI did keep [Major Malcolm] Zickler informed, on a limited need-to-know basis, as [he was] the Chief of Security Police … Everything was so compartmentalized. If they wanted secrecy [imposed on a given aspect of the case] they merely said it was classified and no further conversation was allowed, even with other witnesses or men within my chain [of command]."
No record of Penniston's debriefing has ever been declassified. Significantly, Penniston recalls that two members of the MoD's Air Staff secretariat DS8 were also in attendance for the session. Referring to the MoD's recent document releases, Dr. Clarke has noted that, "four of the eight files [made public in May 2008] originate with the MoD Air Staff secretariats DS8 and [its successor] Sec(AS)."7 That may be so, but none of them related to Penniston's debriefing. So, did the two DS8 guys present just sit on their hands during the interrogation, taking no notes, writing no reports for their superiors? This seems very unlikely.
DC: These are Halt's own words. If he did not write any follow-up account, and never received a response from the MoD—who we know did not interview Halt or his men—then it is quite reasonable to conclude that no further documents exist other than those already released into the public domain.
Clarke is very selective in his choice of "Halt's own words" when attempting to support his skeptical position. For example, he completely rejects or ignores the many statements Col. Halt has made about the UFO appearing at the WSA. Regardless, Halt's notarized affidavit about the incident is now a matter of record.
And, as previously noted, contrary to Clarke's claim that MoD "did not interview Halt or his men", former Security Policeman Jim Penniston says that MoD personnel were indeed present for his debriefing at Bentwaters. While their role may have been passive—leaving the questioning to two USAF officers who were not introduced and whom Penniston did not recognize—the mere presence of persons working for DS8 hints at an interest in the events in Rendlesham Forest not reflected in the files declassified by the MoD's UFO Desk.
DC: Conspiracy theories are no replacement for hard facts.
Clarke's use of the phrase "conspiracy theories" is designed to denigrate the actually very reasonable idea that the U.S. military might choose to cover-up a dramatic incursion by an unknown, vastly-superior aerial craft at one of its nuclear weapons sites, and that the British military might be involved in the secrecy surrounding the event as well. This is not conspiratorial, Dr. Clarke, just sensible military policy.
DC: The Halt memo was unclassified. None of the papers on the case were ever secret or top secret. There is not a shred of evidence that any such paperwork exists either at MoD or at the Department of Defence in the US.
This is confirmed by Halt's boss, Col Ted Conrad, who carried out a brief on-the-spot investigation at the time and concluded—after discussing the events with Gen Gordon Williams—there was no hard evidence to support Halt's story.
Col Conrad was present on base whilst the incidents described by Halt were taking place and remained unconvinced that anything of defence concern took place. He has said, in writing, that "no written report was sent forward from Bentwaters to USAF higher headquarters." Halt's own report to MoD did not ask the British to take any action either, which explains why none was forthcoming.
As noted earlier, during his 1991 on-camera statement for Unsolved Mysteries, Halt mentioned that his former boss, Col. Conrad, watched one of the UFOs directing beams of light down into various areas of the Bentwaters base, while standing on the front lawn at his home in nearby RAF Woodbridge. The fact that Conrad himself has never publicly admitted his own sighting probably had to do with the subsequent appearance of American and British intelligence agents at Bentwaters and the ensuing cover-up of the events there. The fact that Clarke takes Conrad at his word, when the colonel denied that any UFO-related reports had been sent to USAF higher headquarters, only demonstrates the professor's naïveté about all of this.
Will someone reading this please forward Halt's challenge to both Col. Conrad and Gen. Williams? Their almost-guaranteed non-responses will speak volumes.
As noted in my last post, Col. Halt will participate in a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. on September 27th, during which he will again assert his knowledge of the UFO-related incident at the Bentwaters WSA. If he is not telling the truth, this event would be the perfect opportunity for Conrad and/or Williams to confront him, before an assembly of newspaper and television reporters.
DC: So who do we believe? Is Col Conrad lying? Or should we simply believe everything Col Halt says without questioning?
Good question, Dr. Clarke. Conrad now has an upcoming, high-profile public gathering at which he can defend his version of events, in front of Col. Halt and the media. As they say, the ball is in your court, Col. Conrad.
DC: UFOlogists like Hastings will choose the latter option. They then turn around and accuse journalists of naively accepting what the authorities tell us without question. How ironic that statement is.
Hastings says journalists "never get it." But anyone who appreciates even the most basic rules of investigative inquiry will know that primary documents—as the Halt memo is—are far more revealing than statements made 20–30 years after the events they purport to describe, filtered through the distortions of media, spin and UFOlogical legend-making.
Twenty or thirty years? As previously noted, the key witness statements were on record by 1991, less than 11 years later. Dr. Clarke's apparent ignorance of that fact changes nothing. Moreover, yet again, Clarke automatically assumes that all of the documents relating to the Bentwaters case have been declassified. (Which is how this debate began.) However, Col. Halt and Sgt. Penniston each state that agents from both American and British intelligence groups were on the base shortly after the events in the forest and at the WSA, conducting an investigation. Are Halt and Penniston lying, Dr. Clarke? Or, perhaps, those British agents never wrote anything down, never reported their findings to their superiors. Is that it?
DC: … I notice from Robert Hastings biography that he is qualified as a photographer and a lab technician. He has no track record or training in investigative questioning, as is evident from his rambling and unfocused account of the events at Rendlesham. If he had any idea of how to ask critical questions then he might not have naively taken Col Halt's statements at face value.
While I have had no formal training, per se, in investigative questioning, I have nevertheless interviewed hundreds of former or retired U.S. military personnel over the past 37 years, regarding their nukes-related UFO experiences. The statements of over a hundred of those persons appear in my book UFOs and Nukes which has been widely praised for its painstakingly thorough, documentated, objective approach. Persons such as former NASA astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell and renowned physicist Hal Puthoff have variously referred to it as "stunning" and "a major breaktrhough." Moreover, the quality of my research has resulted in my being invited to speak at over 500 U.S. colleges and universities, including Stanford, since 1981.
I will simply add that Dr. Clarke's supposed expertise in investigative techniques has nevertheless resulted in his overlooking or misstating a number of key facts, failing to follow-up with key witnesses, and making poor and unfounded assumptions based on incomplete information or information provided by persons who had something to hide. Moreover, throughout his "investigation" of the case, his own anti-UFO biases have remained intact, despite his claims of objectivity on the topic. In short, his alleged abilities in investigative questioning have not saved him from thoroughly misrepresenting the case in public.
(1) Why did [Halt] wait for 2 weeks to make an official report of the incident to the British MoD if he felt there was a genuine threat to the WSA?
(2) If the incident was so important and significant why did he give incorrect dates for both events in his memo to the MoD?
Because Halt initially expected the British military to conduct an investigation into the incident, he waited a few days before writing his memo, reconstructing the UFO incidents from memory, and inadvertently misstating the dates on which they had occurred. He explained the situation to me in a September 21, 2009 email: "The report was delayed because no other member of the senior staff wanted anything to do with the incident. It was brought to the 3rd Air Force Commander's attention only to have him say it happened off-base so it was a British affair. Reporting a UFO usually ended one's military career. I was just lucky that the incident didn't become public until after I was selected for Colonel and the incident pretty much stayed in England."
Halt continued, "I was told by [Commander of the 81st Tactical Fighter Wing] Colonel Gordon Williams to get with [the British Base Commander at Bentwaters] Squadron Leader Don Moreland and see what he wanted as far as a report. Moreland was in Wales on holiday so I had to wait almost two weeks. Hence, the delayed report and the typos on the dates. In fact, Moreland had trouble getting anyone in the Ministry of Defence to tell him what they wanted. That's why I wrote the memo the way I did."
DC: (3) Why did he fail to mention or highlight the alleged incidents in the WSA in the text of his memo to the MOD?
In an August 10, 2010 email to me, Halt wrote: "I put limited details in the memo as I expected a quick British response and investigation. I did not want to put in print 'the Weapons Storage Area' or the word 'UFO'. I just wanted out of the whole thing, as I knew it would tar me for life and I would have to deal with the fringe element and critics like Clarke. When I got the call [in 1983] that 3rd AF had a copy of the memo, and was going to release it, I told the Acting 3rd AF Commander (a personal friend) to burn it [because], if they released it, their and my life would never be the same. How true it turned out to be."
DC: (4) Why, after pursuing UFOs around the forest for several hours, did he fail to persuade either his superior officer Col Conrad or the RAF to take his reports seriously enough to launch air defence aircraft to investigate further?
As Halt further explains in his August 10, 2010 email, "The [Bentwaters] Command post was involved every step of the way. I even asked [the RAF's] Eastern Radar, our [air traffic control] tower and the Heathrow Tower to scan for unknowns. It wasn't my place to request airborne investigation."
Halt then goes on to say, "No senior officer wanted to be associated with this in any way and that included the 3rd AF Commander [General Robert Bazley] … His words were 'It happened off the base so it's a British problem.'"
In other words, the lack of response, at least initially, was apparently due to the fact that the officers involved had the same fears as Halt—that their military careers would be adversely affected if their names were linked with a "UFO" incident.
Moreover, as I explained in my book, UFOs and Nukes, in a chapter on the Bentwaters WSA case, titled "Beams of Light", the two USAF air traffic controllers at the base's tower did indeed track a high-speed, unknown target—and one of them even saw the "basketball-shaped" object out the window—but they decided not to report either the tracking or the sighting to their commanders, due to the same fear Col. Halt had about being associated with something as kooky as a UFO event. The entire chapter has been posted here.
In any case, despite the reluctance of almost everyone involved with the UFO incident to discuss it, eventually, somehow, the gravity of the situation became apparent and—as Col. Halt and Sgt. Penniston have previously stated—members of the U.S. and British intelligence services appeared at the base and conducted a low-profile but diligent inquiry.
Neither he nor any of the other UFO spin-doctors have addressed or even attempted to answer any of the key questions raised by Ridpath's investigation which began in 1983.
In the posted synopsis of his "effective" investigation, at the URL above, Ridpath makes this statement: "UFO hunters will continue to believe that an alien spaceship landed in Rendlesham Forest that night. But I know that the first sighting coincided with the burn-up in the atmosphere of an exceptionally bright meteor, and that the airmen who saw the flashing UFO between the pine trees were looking straight at the Orford Ness lighthouse."
First, Mr. Ridpath, multiple witnesses to the first sighting, including Jim Penniston, have reported a UFO presence in the woods that lasted for hours, not seconds, specifically describing a landed, metallic, triangular-shaped craft that eventually ascended through an opening in the trees, at high velocity, as it left. In short, the bright meteor theory simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Hell, it doesn't even stand up to a quick glance at the facts!
Furthermore, Col. Halt has this to say about the lighthouse theory: "The lighthouse was visible the whole time [that we were observing the unidentified light through the trees] … it was readily apparent, and it was 30 to 40 degrees off to our right …"
Regarding the first incident, involving Penniston, Ridpath mentions that "indentations in the ground and marks on the trees were found in a clearing [the following day]. Local police and a forester identified these as rabbit scrapings and cuts made by foresters." In reality, Mr. Ridpath, plaster casts of those indentations—made shortly after the incident by Penniston himself, well before the police and the forester arrived at the site—verify that the impressions in the ground had been made by three hemispherical-shaped objects, presumably landing gear, positioned in an equilateral triangular-configuration. Penniston and Halt each possess one of the casts and have displayed them on various television programs over the years. The whereabouts of the third cast is unknown.
In his synopsis of the case, Ridpath further claims that "Col. Halt reported seeing star-like objects that twinkled and hovered for hours, like stars. The brightest of these, which appeared to send down beams of light, was in the direction of Sirius, the brightest star in the sky."
"Star-like?" "In the direction of Sirius?" These are gross misrepresentations of Col. Halt's statements, Mr. Ridpath, and you probably know that. During his 1997 interview with journalist A.J.S. Rayl, Halt said, "[After leaving the woods, our search team] crossed the farmer's field past his house and across the road, stumbled through a small stream, and went out into a large plowed field. Somebody noticed several objects in the sky to the north—three objects clearly visible with multiple-colored lights on them. The objects appeared elliptical and then they turned full round, which I thought was quite interesting. All three doing that. They were stationary for awhile and then they started to move at high speed in sharp angular patterns as though they were doing a grid search."
Halt continued, "About that same time, somebody noticed a similar object [in the southern sky]. It was round—did not change shape—and at one point it appeared to come toward us at a very high speed. It stopped overhead and sent down a small pencil-like beam, sort of like a laser beam. It was an interesting beam in that it stayed—it was the same size all the way down the beam. It illuminated the ground about ten feet from us and we just stood there in awe wondering whether it was a signal, a warning, or what it was. We really didn't know. It clicked-off as though someone threw a switch, and the object receded, back up into the sky."
Halt concluded by saying, "Then it moved back toward Bentwaters, and continued to send down beams of light, at one point near the weapons storage facility. We knew that because we could hear the chatter on the [two-way] radio."
Clearly, Ridpath's claim that Halt had reported observing "star-like" objects that "hovered for hours" is completely inaccurate. Nevertheless, Dr. Clarke cites Ridpath's inquiry into the Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters case as definitive.
Ridpath's "investigation" has many other flaws but I will not address them here. The fact that Clarke wholeheartedly endorses it amply demonstrates his own ignorance of the facts or, perhaps more likely, his a priori rejection of those facts because they conflict with his own conclusions about the case.
a) I am convinced that a number of airmen at RAF Woodbridge, including Col Halt, underwent a real, extraordinary experience on the nights in question. It is possible for a human being to have "a real, extraordinary experience" without the source being of extraterrestrial or supernatural origin.
b) Some of these experiences can be accounted for by the usual explanations found—by long experience—as the source of many UFO sightings, i.e. space debris, celestial objects and misperceptions—both of man-made and natural phenomena. A few experiences remain unexplained. But unexplained does not mean "extraterrestrial."
The collective testimony of those involved in the incidents at Bentwaters and Rendlesham Forest rule out prosaic explanations, as any unbiased person familiar with the facts would conclude. While the identity of those presumably aboard the "disc-shaped" UFOs observed by Halt and his team remains an open question, the witnesses' descriptions strongly suggest, if not confirm, the presence of intelligently-controlled craft having vastly superior capabilities, as well as a purposeful interest in Bentwaters' nuclear weapons cache on the part of their pilots.
But maybe it wasn't ETs, Dr. Clarke. Maybe those darned Samoans beat the superpowers to the punch and created a fleet of vastly-superior, disc-shaped aerial craft to spy on the saber-rattling Commies and Capitalists during the Cold War era. Maybe that's the solution to the mystery, eh?
DC: c) All the known facts suggest that no further official documentation, of either UK or US origin, exists relating to this incident, either classified or unclassified. The UK government, at least, has said this on the public record. If they are lying then that lie will be exposed. However, I am 100% confident that no document exists or ever existed that concludes the Rendlesham incident was caused by an ET visitation to the UK.
This statement by Clarke amply demonstrates his unfamiliarity with—or outright rejection of—the testimony of Col. Halt and former SP Jim Penniston, both of whom report a British government presence at Bentwaters following the UFO incidents—a fact not reflected in the MoD's declassified UFO files.
Clarke also ignores the information I uncovered in 2008, during my interviews with former USAF Security Policemen who were working at the base's WSA during the period of UFO activity. Interestingly, I forwarded that information to Dr. Clarke in a 2009 email. One would think that a journalist who portrays himself as a something of a UFO expert would have attempted to independently verify my findings, given their dramatic implications. I would have made my sources' contact information available to Clarke, had he asked for it, but he did not.
Perhaps the testimony of new witnesses was of no interest to Clarke because that testimony did not fit in with his own assessment of the case. He will no doubt reply that such testimony, years after-the-fact, has no real value. Diligent investigators, in any field of inquiry, would disagree. At a minimum, the witnesses' memories—even if they had faded or become distorted over time—might provide a kernel or two of useful information which would permit the filing of new Freedom of Information requests. Those, in turn, might generate hitherto unknown data.
But, noooooo, Dr. Clarke has Col. Halt's 13 January 1981 memo and that's apparently all he needs to explain the December 1980 events at Bentwaters and Rendlesham Forest.
Can he define the nature of the government evidence he would be willing to accept as conclusive proof that there was no cover-up of an alien visitation at Rendlesham?
Notice how Dr. Clarke frames the question to fit his own biases? Might not that evidence, if it were actually released to the British public, confirm just the opposite?


text:
Benedict Cumberbatch Is Sent Back In Time For Sherlock Christmas Special Promo Image
By Michael Briers @briersytweets 4 years ago
Although BBC's critically-adorned detective series isn't exactly known for its quick turnarounds, fans clamouring for Season 4 of the network's Sherlock will have their collective appetites sated with this year's Christmas Special episode, which has today unveiled its first promotional image.
With Benedict Cumberbatch reprising his role as the world-famous sleuth, the shot also includes his partner-in-crime John Watson, played once again by Martin Freeman. Now, you may be asking why on Earth are the pair sporting period garb, but that's because the upcoming festive installment is set in an entirely different time period: Victorian London. It's a spinoff story of sorts that won't have any bearing on the core Sherlockian continuity, and executive producer Steven Moffatt offered up new details about what's in store for the resident of 221B Baker Street.
"The first few days we were just so excited because we saw our show with Benedict and Martin in the proper gear and his extraordinary sideburns and you think 'why didn't we always do this? Why did we make that silly mistake of updating it?'" Moffatt said. "But by the end we slightly missed the modern iteration. Maybe we'll just alternate them all. Mark [Gatiss] and I think we should do the 1940's propaganda German version."
Looking ahead, though, Moffat also went on to touch upon the status of the much-anticipated season 4. Not due to air until 2017, the next trio of episodes aren't set to enter production until close to the time, but that doesn't mean the creative team haven't been spitballing different ideas.
"We've got a clear idea of what we're going to do and it's going to be a clear shift in tone," Moffatt added of Season 4. "Yes, there's going to be some dark stuff coming but there always is. There always fun and jokes and detection and all that nonsense. It's dark in some ways – obviously it's great fun and a Sherlock Holmes romp and all that – but there's a sense of things coming back to bite you."
The Sherlock faithful will know all too well that the final episode of Season 3 ended on quite the cliffhanger, opening up a whole new can of worms for the sharp-suited pairing to decipher. BBC's upcoming Christmas Special may not reference that storyline, but we're excited to see Cumberbatch and Freeman back in action later this year nonetheless.
Source: Express
Tags: Sherlock

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT - The Saint Michael's College women's ice hockey team (3-11-0, 1-10-0 ECAC East) suffered a 7-0 shutout to the visiting University of Massachusetts Boston Beacons (7-6-0, 5-4-0 ECAC East) on Friday at Cairns Arena in South Burlington, VT. The game marked the second-to-last home contest for the Purple Knights, as they will play their next eight games on the road.
The Saint Michael's defense had a solid work ethic, as they continually denied the Beacons of many scoring opportunities. Freshman netminder Erin Stevens (Watertown, CT) stopped a Beacon's breakaway by senior Maria Nasta (Andover, MA) in the 13th minute of the game. With less than five minutes remaining in the first period, the Purple Knights found themselves in a dangerous position with a five-on-three penalty kill, at which time Beacons' sophomore defenseman Brittany Usmail (New Hartford, NY) found the back of the net for her first tally of the season on a puck from sophomore forward Sam Phillips (Scottsdale, AZ) and freshman forward Alli Greenberg (Stoughton, MA). UMass Boston followed up with a second goal just minutes later, as Nasta succeeded in scoring on Stevens, receiving help from junior blueliner Jazz Webber (Winslow, ME) and senior defenseman Sandy Parlato (Needham, MA). With thirty seconds remaining, Phillips put a puck over Stevens shoulder for her fourth goal of the year, banking it off the top bar for the third and final Beacons goal of the period. Earning assists for her effort were juniors Rachel Sousa (Woburn, MA) and Hannah Davis (Oakdale, MN).
The Beacons took the ice in the second frame and made it a four-goal game when senior forward Katelyn Corsino (Belmont, MA) scored her first goal season, assisted by junior forward Lauren Duran (Woburn, MA). Less than a minute later, UMass Boston tallied yet another goal, as freshman forward Allison Manzella (Framingham, MA) netted a puck for her second marker of the year from seniors Katelyn Pohlman (Newton, MA) and Katelyn Lajoie (Marlboro, MA). Saint Michael's had 12 shots on Beacons' sophomore netminder Leah Hallett (Rocky Hill, CT) in the second period but were unable to convert any to goals. Junior Alysia Goldman (Ballston Lakes, NY) replaced Stevens in goal, setting aside 16 of the Beacons shots.
For the third frame, the Beacons replaced Hallett in net with freshman Jami Cudmore (Balgonie, SK). Midway through the final period, the Purple Knights found a few scoring opportunities but were unable to sneak a puck past Cudmore and the Beacons' defense. Junior forward Kristen Smith (Beavercreek, OH) gave the Beacons their sixth goal with her second of the season, receiving the puck from junior forward Katie Kirwan (Centerville, MA) and Greenberg. Nasta tallied another point minutes later when her puck deflected off Goldman and into the goal for a short-handed score and her seventh tally of the year.
For the Beacons, Hallett saved 18 shots before being replaced by Cudmore in the third period, as she went on to make seven saves. Stevens set aside 17 shots for the Purple Knights in the first period, while Goldman finished the game with 25 saves.
Saint Michael's will play the first of their next eight road games at Nichols College on Friday, January 15. The puck will drop at 8:30 p.m. for the ECAC East contest. UMass Boston will be in action again on Tuesday, January 12 when it returns to Vermont to take on nationally-ranked number five Middlebury College at 4:00 p.m.
Material in this report courtesy of Saint Michael's College Sports Information.


THE TAKEAWAY: Sponsorships are about more than sticking logos on everything. Follow these 10 rules to ensure you find the right sponsor for your organisation.
(1) There's no such thing as free money.
(2) Sponsors don't have to love you.
(3) Look for a good fit.
Do your very best to gain sponsorship from companies, organisations or brands that seem a natural fit with your event or organisation. It's exhausting to have to be continuously trying to ram a square peg into a round hole.
(4) It's a job for a team.
Be sure your whole organisation understands why sponsorship is important to you and is prepared to treat your sponsors like marketing partners.
Sponsorships are about more than sticking logos on everything. While your sponsorship agreement might include use of logos, if that's all you've got to offer you can't really ask for all that much in return.
Don't count on starting your sponsorship search one day and getting it all under way the next. These things take time (sometimes a very long time). Allow plenty of time in your forward planning.
(7) Get it in writing.
Firm up all details of your arrangement in writing. That way no one is left in any doubt as to what has been agreed to.
It's better to get one or two big, meaningful sponsorships in place than lots of small ones. There's less clutter for them, and less sponsor management for you.
(9) Allow time for relationship building.
Don't ever think that once you've got the cheque your job is done. As with most things in fundraising, sponsorships are all about the relationship. You need to be in regular contact, you need to give thanks where it's due, and you need to ensure that you're always doing what you said you'd do.
Don't go off half-cocked – before you start searching for a sponsor, read a book or two (the help sheets on this website will give you a good start), start networking, and consider doing some training. The more you know, the better you'll be.


Popular MP3 player gets a swish new interface and improved Internet Radio features.
If you've ever found yourself flummoxed at meetings by high fallutin' hotshots impressing the boss with fancy words, or if your crossword solving skills are letting you down, MobiSystem's MSDict Concise Oxford English Dictionary and Thesaurus could prove a handy travelling companion.
Available in a host of OS flavours - including Palm, Windows Mobile, Windows Mobile, S60, S80 and Blackberry - the software bundle lets you stash away no less than 240,000 Words and Phrases and 365,000 alternative and opposite words on your smartphone.
We tested the program on the Palm Treo 650, with the 11 meg dictionaries installing to the SD card by default.
To save phone memory, we also used the excellent Power Run application to run the MS Dict Viewer off the card with no problems (you can also do this with launcher programs like LauncherX and ZLauncher).
The viewer can also read other MSDict databases, so users can add other reference books and access them through the same interface.
Firing up the program we were pleased to see that the interface for the viewer had improved considerably over earlier versions, with a drop down menu letting users customise the layout from a choice of five designs.
Using the program was simple enough - queries are typed into a text box with a list of matches and near-matches dynamically updating below.
Clicking on a result in the list produced colour coded definitions, pronunciations, derivatives, usage notes and etymologies of the word in the right hand column, with the option to add new words and notes.
Related words were usefully hyperlinked, with a wildcard filtration feature letting you track down words easily (and cheat at crosswords, of course).
Although the app was easy enough to use, the interface wasn't fully compatible with the Treo's controller, so we occasionally had to pull out the stylus for some tasks - a minor irritation for Treo users used to navigating programs with just the five way pad.
Minor quibbles aside, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary and Thesaurus has already become a permanent fixture on our smartphone and something we find ourselves consulting regularly - and it was great to have propah British English words listed too!


You have just found the one-stop resource for all electric bikes.
Terms & Conditions of sales and warranty for Powered Bicycles Ltd / HSC Motor Factors Ltd, herein after called 'The Company'. These terms and conditions shall apply to all orders accepted by Powered Bicycles. Any order accepted by Powered Bicycles is in all cases subject to the availability of the good(s) ordered and any agreed dates for the delivery of such good(s) shall be made in good faith but shall not be deemed to be of the essence of the contract. Any and all warranty repairs/claims require the goods to be returned to our premises for inspection and repair/replacement.
Any application lists, catalogues or advice provided by us as part of our sales service is as accurate as possible. In all instances it is the responsibility of the purchaser to assure himself that the goods supplied are suitable and correct for the application involved. We reserve the right to amend any product specification without notice.
The customer must inform Powered Bicycles in writing within 7 days of the date of delivery of any good damaged or lost in transit or otherwise and no claim for damaged or lost goods can be made by a customer against Powered Bicycles if such notification has not been made within the time aforementioned.
Powered Bicycles shall not be obliged to accept the return of any good(s) ordered by a customer. All orders that have been correctly supplied and returned as incorrectly ordered by the customer or no longer required shall be subject to a 30% minimum handling charge.
Goods ordered incorrectly by the customer must be returned in good condition, carriage paid, with the appropriate paperwork for inspection by Powered Bicycles. Refunds will only be considered for goods in an unused and as new condition, in original packaging, suitable for resale. We will not accept any goods delivered to us in damaged packaging. All returned goods should be sent registered delivery, with a delivery signature required.
All products are supplied and guaranteed in accordance with the manufacturer specifications. Should it be proved and admitted by the manufacturer to be defective due to material or structural defects, these goods will be replaced free of charge or credited in full at our discretion. We recommend that new bicycles be assembled by a qualified bicycle engineer, at no cost to the company.
Purchasing any product means accepting and agreeing to the Terms & Conditions of Powered Bicycles Ltd / HSC Motor Factors Ltd, hereafter called 'The Company'. Set out herein are our Terms & Conditions as supplied with each product purchased.
Delivery of an electric bike, scooter or any other product does not constitute a contract of on site maintenance. All repairs to be carried out under the warranty are to be delivered to our premises by the customer, at no expense to The Company, subject to our Returned Goods Policy. Warranty repairs will be undertaken during normal weekday opening hours. Monday to Friday.
Suitability of products must be determined before purchase. We will make every effort to establish product suitability prior to purchase. It is essential that we have your contact details in order that we can discuss product suitability/expectations prior to completion of Internet sales. Refunds will not be considered in any case on the basis of suitability alone. We are available to discuss product suitability/expectations during normal weekday opening hours, within the limitations of such a telephone call.
The Company, it's owners or employees will not be held responsible for personal injury, damage to property, injury to a third party as a result of any person using and operating any product purchased from The Company, no matter how it is used. It is the responsibility of the owner to check the product for serviceability.
Unless otherwise stated, warranty on new Electric Bicycles, Motor Kits and Electric Scooters is for a period of 12 months on frame and batteries, and 6 months on parts.
Lights, indicators, spokes, chains, gears, tyres, inner tubes, brake systems and brake lights are hereby excluded from the terms and conditions of this warranty.
Normal wear and tear; improper assembly; improper follow-up maintenance; improper installation of components; parts and accessories not originally intended for or compatible with the bicycle as originally sold; damage or failure due to accident, misuse, abuse, or neglect; heavy/excessive mud on or over electrics and electrical components; electric bicycles or scooters taken through deep water; any signs of water ingress in electric systems; labour charges for part replacement or changeover. User recommended weight limits must be adhered to. Use by riders over the recommended weight limits may cause damage to electrical components and will invalidate the warranty.
This warranty will be void in its entirety by any modification of the frame, fork, or components. This warranty is expressly limited to the repair or replacement of a defective item, and said repair or replacement is the sole remedy of the warranty. This warranty extends from the date of purchase, is offered only to the original owner, and is non transferable. This warranty applies only to goods purchased from The Company. The Company is not responsible for incidental or consequential damages or loss. Proof of purchase is required. A bicycle must be registered with The Company before a warranty claim may be processed. This warranty does not affect your statutory rights.
Definition of mistreatment / improper assembly / improper follow-up maintenance / improper installation of components / wear and tear / misuse / abuse or neglect shall be determined by the owners or employees of The Company within a reasonable time period after inspection and product testing. Testing will be carried out by the owners or employees of The Company.
It is the sole responsibility of the purchaser to ensure that use of the goods conforms to all current local laws and legislation. Details of UK legislation is available on our website.
Delivery of purchases will be available after funds have cleared and are in the bank account of Powered Bicycles Ltd / HSC Motor Factors Ltd. Refunds carry a 30% administration charge. Delivery and collection fees apply to all purchases. Goods to be collected, including warranty repairs are subject to collection fees, price for this to be agreed in advance and in agreement with The Company, its owners or employees.
It is necessary to follow the supplied product user guide recommendations regarding product use and user adjustments. Failure to do so will invalidate the warranty.


Installing Manifolds Connecting your gas cylinders safely to a manifold.
Cylinders are normally used individually or connected to a manifold by the customer. Manifold cylinder pallets are available for customers who require larger quantities of gas and have adequate handling facilities for off loading them. Never remove individual cylinders from manifold cylinder pallets - they are designed and supplied as units, and unauthorised removal of individual cylinders could give rise to a dangerous situation.
Any installations should be planned and executed by experts working according to regulations.