text:
SCOTUS - what YOU need to know
ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
http://www.ahrp.org and http://ahrp.blogspot.com
Supreme Court Inc. is one of the most insightful, illuminating articles that I have read about how the Big Business penetrated the U.S. Supreme Court through effective legal and lobbying maneuvers orchestrated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
During the term ended last June, "The chamber's litigation center filed
briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them - the highest percentage
of victories in the center's 30-year history."
Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University and author of "The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America," sheds light on behind the scene maneuvers that have transformed the Supreme Court from its historical role--issuing opinions in areas of free speech, racial and gender equality, and other issues that reflected or consolidated a social consensus. Today, the Court is the unabashed influential ally of American Big Business -- without regard for the harmful economic, health, and life safety consequences borne by ordinary American citizens.
"Though the current Supreme Court has a well-earned reputation for divisiveness, it has been surprisingly united in cases affecting business
interests. Of the 30 business cases last term, 22 were decided unanimously,
or with only one or two dissenting votes."
Professor Rosen notes that ever since John Roberts was appointed chief
justice in 2005, the court has become even more receptive to business
concerns. Forty percent of the cases the court heard last term involved
business interests, up from around 30 percent in recent years. While the
Rehnquist Court heard less than one antitrust decision a year, on average,
between 1988 and 2003, the Roberts Court has heard seven in its first two
terms - and all of them were decided in favor of the corporate defendants.
What's particularly troubling is that no one on the Court even remotely
brings the American consumer-citizen's perspective or interest. The lens
through which Supreme Court justices view economic issues is decidedly from an elitist prosperous class perspective-no matter which party they may be
affiliated with. Indeed, the litigation head of the Chamber of Commerce
takes pride in pointing out that several of the most important decisions
were written by liberal justices. In opinions last term, Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter each went out of his or her way to question the use of lawsuits to challenge corporate wrongdoing - thereby
echoing conservatives who have inveighed against product liability suits as
"regulation by litigation."
Although the court is currently accepting less than 2% of the 10,000
petitions it receives each year, the Chamber of Commerce's petitions between
2004 and 2007 were granted at a rate of 26%. "And persuading the Supreme
Court to hear a case is more than half the battle: Richard Lazarus, a law
professor at Georgetown who also represents environmental clients before the
court, recently ran the numbers and found that the court reverses the lower
court in 65% of the cases it agrees to hear; and when the petitioner is
represented by the elite Supreme Court advocates routinely hired by the
chamber, the success rate rises to 75%."
This is a must read article!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html
Supreme Court Inc.
The headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, located across from
Lafayette Park in Washington, is a limestone structure that looks almost as
majestic as the Supreme Court. The similarity is no coincidence: both
buildings were designed by the same architect, Cass Gilbert. Lately,
however, the affinities between the court and the chamber, a lavishly
financed business-advocacy organization, seem to be more than just
architectural. The Supreme Court term that ended last June was, by all
measures, exceptionally good for American business. The chamber's litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them - the highest percentage of victories in the center's 30-year history. The current term, which ends this summer, has also been shaping up nicely for business interests.
I visited the chamber recently to talk with Robin Conrad, who heads the
litigation effort, about her recent triumphs. Conrad, an appealing,
soft-spoken woman, lives with her family on a horse farm in Maryland, where she rides with a fox-chasing club called the Howard County-Iron Bridge
Hounds. Her office, playfully adorned by action figures of women like Xena
the Warrior Princess and Hillary Rodham Clinton, has one of the most
impressive views in Washington. "You can see the White House through the
trees," she said as we peered through a window overlooking the park. "In the old days, you could actually see people bathing in the fountain. Homeless people."
Conrad was in an understandably cheerful mood. Though the current Supreme
Court has a well-earned reputation for divisiveness, it has been
surprisingly united in cases affecting business interests. Of the 30
business cases last term, 22 were decided unanimously, or with only one or
two dissenting votes. Conrad said she was especially pleased that several of the most important decisions were written by liberal justices, speaking for liberal and conservative colleagues alike. In opinions last term, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter each went out of his or her way to question the use of lawsuits to challenge corporate wrongdoing - a strategy championed by progressive groups like Public Citizen but routinely denounced by conservatives as "regulation by litigation." Conrad reeled off some of her favorite moments:
"Justice Ginsburg talked about how 'private-securities fraud actions, if not adequately contained, can be employed abusively.'
Justice Breyer had a wonderful quote about how Congress was trying to 'weed
out unmeritorious securities lawsuits.' Justice Souter talked about how the
threat of litigation 'will push cost-conscious defendants to settle.' "
Examples like these point to an ideological sea change on the Supreme Court. A generation ago, progressive and consumer groups petitioning the court could count on favorable majority opinions written by justices who viewed big business with skepticism - or even outright prejudice. An economic populist like William O. Douglas, the former New Deal crusader who served on the court from 1939 to 1975, once unapologetically announced that he was
"ready to bend the law in favor of the environment and against the corporations."
Today, however, there are no economic populists on the court, even on the
liberal wing. And ever since John Roberts was appointed chief justice in
2005, the court has seemed only more receptive to business concerns. Forty
percent of the cases the court heard last term involved business interests, up from around 30 percent in recent years. While the Rehnquist Court heard less than one antitrust decision a year, on average, between 1988 and 2003, the Roberts Court has heard seven in its first two terms - and all of them were decided in favor of the corporate defendants.
Business cases at the Supreme Court typically receive less attention than
cases concerning issues like affirmative action, abortion or the death
penalty. The disputes tend to be harder to follow: the legal arguments are
more technical, the underlying stories less emotional. But these cases -
which include shareholder suits, antitrust challenges to corporate mergers,
patent disputes and efforts to reduce punitive-damage awards and prevent
product-liability suits - are no less important. They involve billions of
dollars, have huge consequences for the economy and can have a greater
effect on people's daily lives than the often symbolic battles of the
culture wars. In the current Supreme Court term, the justices have already
blocked a liability suit against Medtronic, the manufacturer of a heart
catheter, and rejected a type of shareholder suit that includes a claim
against Enron. In the coming months, the court will decide whether to reduce the largest punitive-damage award in American history, which resulted from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989.
What should we make of the Supreme Court's transformation? Throughout its
history, the court has tended to issue opinions, in areas from free speech
to gender equality, that reflect or consolidate a social consensus. With
their pro-business jurisprudence, the justices may be capturing an emerging spirit of agreement among liberal and conservative elites about the value of free markets. Among the professional classes, many Democrats and
Republicans, whatever their other disagreements, have come to share a
relatively laissez-faire, technocratic vision of the economy and are
suspicious of excessive regulation and reflexive efforts to vilify big
business. Judges, lawyers and law professors (such as myself) drilled in
cost-benefit analysis over the past three decades, are no exception. It
should come as little surprise that John Roberts and Stephen Breyer, both of whom studied the economic analysis of law at Harvard, have similar instincts in business cases.
This elite consensus, however, is not necessarily shared by the country as a whole. If anything, America may be entering something of a populist moment. If you combine the groups of Americans in a recent Pew survey who lean toward some strain of economic populism - from disaffected and conservative Democrats to traditional liberals to social and big-government conservatives - at least two-thirds of all voters arguably feel sympathy for government intervention in the economy. Could it be, then, that the court is reflecting an elite consensus while contravening the sentiments of most Americans? Only history will ultimately make this clear. One thing, however, is certain already: the transformation of the court was no accident. It represents the culmination of a carefully planned, behind-the-scenes campaign over several decades to change not only the courts but also the country's political culture.
The origins of the business community's campaign to transform the Supreme
Court can be traced back precisely to Aug. 23, 1971. That was the day when
Lewis F. Powell Jr., a corporate lawyer in Richmond, Va., wrote a memo to
his friend Eugene B. Snydor, then the head of the education committee of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In the memo, Powell expressed his concern that the American economic system was "under broad attack." He identified several aggressors: the New Left, the liberal media, rebellious students on college campuses and, most important, Ralph Nader. Earlier that year, Nader founded Public Citizen to advocate for consumer rights, bring antitrust actions when the Justice Department did not and sue federal agencies when they failed to adopt health and safety regulations.
Powell claimed that this attack on the economic system was "quite new in the history of America." Ever since 1937, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to pack a conservative Supreme Court with more progressive justices, the court had largely deferred to federal and state economic regulations. And by the '60s, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren had embraced a form of economic populism, often favoring the interests of small business over big business, even at the expense of consumers. But what Powell saw in the work of Nader and others was altogether more extreme: a radical campaign that was "broadly based and consistently pursued."
To counter the growing influence of public-interest litigation groups like
Public Citizen, Powell urged the Chamber of Commerce to begin a multifront
lobbying campaign on behalf of business interests, including hiring top
business lawyers to bring cases before the Supreme Court. "The judiciary,"
Powell predicted, "may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change." Two months after he wrote the memo, Powell was appointed by Richard Nixon to the Supreme Court. And six years later, in 1977, after steadily expanding its lobbying efforts, the chamber established the National Chamber Litigation Center to file cases and briefs on behalf of business interests in federal and state courts.
Today, the Chamber of Commerce is an imposing lobbying force. To fulfill its mission of serving "the unified interests of American business," it collects membership dues from more than three million businesses and related organizations; last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the chamber spent more than $21 million lobbying the White House, Congress and regulatory agencies on legal matters. But its battle against the forces of Naderism got off to a slow start. In 1983, when Robin Conrad arrived at the chamber, the Supreme Court was handing Nader and his allies significant victories. That year, for example, the court held that President Reagan's secretary of transportation, Andrew L. Lewis Jr., acted capriciously when he repealed a regulation, inspired by Nader's advocacy, that required automakers to install passive restraints like air bags. In 1986, the chamber supported a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's aerial surveillance of a Dow Chemical plant. The chamber's side lost, 5-4.
But eventually, things began to change. The chamber started winning cases in part by refining its strategy. With Conrad's help, the chamber's Supreme Court litigation program began to offer practice moot-court arguments for
lawyers scheduled to argue important cases. The chamber also began hiring
the most-respected Democratic and Republican Supreme Court advocates to
persuade the court to hear more business cases. Although many of the
businesses that belong to the Chamber of Commerce have their own in-house
lawyers, they would have the chamber file "friend of the court" briefs on
their behalf. The chamber would decide which of the many cases brought to
its attention were in the long-term strategic interest of American business and then hire the leading business lawyers to write supporting briefs or
argue the case.
Until the mid-'80s, there wasn't an organized group of law firms that
specialized in arguing business cases before the Supreme Court. But in 1985, Rex Lee, the solicitor general under Reagan, left the government to start a Supreme Court appellate practice at the firm Sidley Austin. Lee's goal was to offer business clients the same level of expert representation before the Supreme Court that the solicitor general's office provides to federal agencies. Lee's success prompted other law firms to hire former Supreme Court clerks and former members of the solicitor general's office to start business practices. The Chamber of Commerce, for its part, began to coordinate the strategy of these lawyers in the most important business
At times, the strategic calculations can be quite personal. Because Supreme Court clerks have tremendous influence in making recommendations about what cases the court should hear, Conrad told me, having well-known former clerks involved in submitting a brief can be especially important. "When Justice O'Connor was on the bench and we knew her vote was very important, we had a case where the opposition had her favorite clerk on the brief, so we retained her next-favorite clerk," she said with a laugh. "We won."
In our conversation, Conrad was especially enthusiastic about Maureen
Mahoney, a former clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist and one of the top
Supreme Court litigators who coordinate strategy with the chamber. When
Mahoney agreed in 2005 to represent an appeal by the disgraced accounting
firm Arthur Andersen, which was convicted in 2002 of obstructing justice by shredding documents related to the audit of Enron, few people thought the
Supreme Court would take the case. "The climate was very anti-Enron,"
Mahoney told me, "and it was viewed as a doomed petition."
Mahoney rehearsed her Supreme Court argument in a moot court sponsored by
the chamber. ("She was absolutely dazzling," Conrad recalls.) On April 27,
2005, Mahoney stood calmly before the justices and delivered one of the best oral arguments I've ever seen at the Supreme Court. She argued that because Arthur Andersen's accountants had followed a standard document-destruction procedure before receiving the government's subpoena, they couldn't be guilty of a crime; they weren't aware what they were doing was criminal. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed and reversed the conviction, 9-0.
The Arthur Andersen case is a good example of how significantly the Supreme Court has changed its attitude about cases involving securities fraud - and business cases more generally - from the Warren to the Roberts era. In a
case in 1964, the court ruled that aggrieved investors and consumers could
file private lawsuits to enforce the securities laws, even in cases in which Congress hadn't explicitly created a right to sue. In the mid-1990s,
however, Congress substantially cut back on these citizen suits, and the
court today has shown little patience for them. Mahoney says she sees her
victory in the Arthur Andersen case as significant because it applied the
same principle in criminal cases involving corporate wrongdoing that the
court had already been recognizing in civil cases: namely,
"refusing to create greater damage remedies or criminal penalties than Congress has explicitly specified." She describes the case as "a very important win for business."
This term, the Supreme Court has continued to cut back on consumer suits. In a ruling in January, the court refused to allow a shareholder suit against the suppliers to Charter Communications, one of the country's largest cable companies. The suppliers were alleged to have "aided and abetted" Charter's efforts to inflate its earnings, but the court held that Charter's investors had to show that they had relied on the deceptive acts committed by the suppliers before the suit could proceed. A week later, the court invoked the same principle when it refused to hear an appeal in a case related to Enron, in which investors are trying to recover $40 billion from Wall Street banks that they claim aided and abetted Enron's fraud. As a result, the shareholder suit against the banks may be dead.
In addition to litigating cases before the court, the Chamber of Commerce
also lobbies Congress and the White House in an effort to change the
composition of the court itself. (Unlike many other government officials,
the justices themselves are not, of course, subject to direct corporate
lobbying.) The chamber's efforts in this area were inspired by Robert Bork's thwarted nomination to the court in 1987. Business groups were enthusiastic about Bork - not because of his conservative social views but because of his skepticism of vigorous antitrust enforcement.
"In reaction to the Bork nomination, it struck us that we didn't even have a process in place to be a player,"
Conrad said.
So the chamber set up a formal process for endorsing candidates after their nominations. The process was designed to be bipartisan; and the chamber has encouraged Democratic as well as Republican presidents to appoint justices.
Nominees are evaluated solely through the prism of their views about
business. "We're very surgical in our analysis," Conrad said.
After the election of Bill Clinton, for example, the chamber endorsed Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, who in addition to her pioneering achievements as the head
of the women's rights project at the A.C.L.U. had specialized, as a law
professor, in the procedural rules in complex civil cases and was
comfortable with the finer points of business litigation. The chamber was
especially enthusiastic about Clinton's second nominee, Stephen Breyer, who made his name building a bipartisan consensus for airline deregulation as a special counsel on the judiciary committee; and who, as a Harvard Law
professor, advocated an influential and moderate view on antitrust
During Breyer's confirmation hearings his sharpest critic was Ralph Nader,
who testified that his pro-business rulings were "extraordinarily
one-sided." Another critic, Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio, said that the fact that the chamber was the first organization to endorse Breyer indicated that "large corporations are very pleased with this nomination" and "the fact that Ralph Nader is opposed to it indicated that the average American has a reason to have some concern." The chamber's imprimatur helped reassure Republicans about Breyer, and he was confirmed with a vote of 87 to 9. "Frankly, we didn't feel like we had anyone on the court since Justice Powell who truly understood business issues," Conrad told me. "Justice Breyer came close to that."
The Breyer and Ginsburg nominations also came at a time when liberal as well as conservative judges and academics were gravitating in increasing numbers to an economic approach to the law, originally developed at the University of Chicago. The law-and-economics movement sought to evaluate the efficiency of legal rules based on their costs and benefits for society as a whole. Although originally conservative in its orientation, the movement also attracted prominent moderate and liberal scholars and judges like Breyer, who before his nomination wrote two books on regulation, arguing that government health-and-safety spending is distorted by sensational media reports of disasters that affect relatively few citizens.
Since joining the Supreme Court, Breyer has also been an intellectual leader in antitrust and patent disputes, which often pit business against business, rather than business against consumers. In those cases, many liberal scholars sympathetic to economic analysis have applauded the court for favoring competition rather than existing competitors, innovation rather than particular innovators. "The court deserves credit for trying to rationalize a totally irrational patent system, benefiting smaller new
competitors rather than existing big ones," says Lawrence Lessig, an
intellectual-property scholar at Stanford.
Clinton's nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer may have been welcomed by the
chamber, but with the election of George W. Bush, the chamber faced a
dilemma. Ever since the Reagan administration, there had been a divide on
the right wing of the court between pragmatic free-market conservatives, who tended to favor business interests, and ideological states-rights
conservatives. In some business cases, these two strands of conservatism
diverged, leading the most staunch states-rights conservatives on the court, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, to rule against business interests. Scalia and Thomas were reluctant to second-guess large punitive-damage verdicts by state juries, for example, or to hold that federally regulated cigarette manufacturers could not be sued in state court. As a result, under Conrad's leadership, the chamber began a vigorous campaign to urge the Bush administration to appoint pro-business conservatives.
When it came time to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor, the candidate most enthusiastically supported by
states-rights conservatives, Judge Michael Luttig, had a record on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that some corporate interests feared might make him unpredictable in business cases. ("One of my constant refrains is that being conservative doesn't necessarily mean being pro-business," Conrad told me.) The chamber and other business groups enthusiastically supported John Roberts, who had been hired by the chamber to write briefs in two Supreme Court cases in 2001 and 2002. At the time of Roberts's nomination, Thomas Goldstein, a prominent Supreme Court litigator, described him as "the go-to lawyer for the business community," adding "of all the candidates, he is the one they knew best." When Roberts was nominated, business groups lobbied senators as part of the campaign for his confirmation.
The business community was also enthusiastic about Samuel Alito, whose
15-year record as an appellate judge showed a consistent skepticism of
claims against large corporations. Ted Frank of the American Enterprise
Institute predicted at the time of the nomination that if Alito replaced
O'Connor, he and Roberts would bring about a rise in business cases before
the Supreme Court. Frank's prediction was soon vindicated.
"There wasn't a great deal of interest in classic business cases in the last few years of the Rehnquist Court," Carter Phillips, a partner at Sidley Austin and a leading Supreme Court business advocate, told me. In 2004, Judge Richard Posner, a founder of the law-and-economics movement, argued that the Rehnquist Court's emphasis on headline-grabbing constitutional cases had politicized it, and called on the court to hear more business cases. The Roberts court has unambiguously answered the call. As Phillips told me, Roberts "is more interested in those issues and understands them better than his predecessor did."
Exactly how successful has the Chamber of Commerce been at the Supreme
Court? Although the court is currently accepting less than 2 percent of the 10,000 petitions it receives each year, the Chamber of Commerce's petitions between 2004 and 2007 were granted at a rate of 26 percent, according to Scotusblog. And persuading the Supreme Court to hear a case is more than half the battle: Richard Lazarus, a law professor at Georgetown who also represents environmental clients before the court, recently ran the numbers and found that the court reverses the lower court in 65 percent of the cases it agrees to hear; and when the petitioner is represented by the elite Supreme Court advocates routinely hired by the chamber, the success rate rises to 75 percent.
Faced with these daunting numbers, the progressive antagonists of big
business are understandably feeling beleaguered and outgunned. "The fight
before the court is generally not an even one," said David Vladeck, who once worked for the Public Citizen Litigation Group and now teaches law at
Georgetown. "There's us on one side, with a brief or two, and industry on
the other side, with a well-coordinated campaign of 10 or 12 briefs, with
each one written by a member of the elite Supreme Court bar that address an issue in enormous depth." He added, ruefully, "You admire their handiwork,
but it's frustrating as hell to deal with."
To gauge the degree of the frustration, I recently paid a visit to Ralph
Nader, a few weeks before he announced his most recent campaign for
president of the United States. It was a surprise to find that his office,
the Center for Study of Responsive Law, shares an address in a grand
building with the Carnegie Institution for Science. But the office itself,
reassuringly, is buried on the ground floor, where Nader received me at a
conference table surrounded by file cabinets stuffed with faded back issues of Mother Jones and The Nation.
Nader was uncontrite about his 2000 run against Al Gore - which is often
credited with helping George W. Bush win the presidency - and he insisted
that because Clinton appointed justices like Breyer, Gore would have done
the same. "Breyer hasn't been worse than I feared, because I had real
concern when he was nominated," Nader told me. He conceded that, like
Breyer, Democratic justices appointed by President John Kerry would
presumably have been better on civil rights and liberties than John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Nevertheless, he disparaged Breyer as a "deregulation
quasi-ideologue" who was able to weave a "tapestry of illusion" in his
arguments by dealing in abstractions.
The main casualty of the 2000 run, Nader said, is that he is no longer
collaborating with America's trial lawyers. They would ordinarily be his
natural allies in representing consumer interests, but they donated heavily to Gore's campaign. After 2000, the trial lawyers "have been vitriolic,"
Nader explained. He blames them for not using their money to help counteract the influence of the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups before the federal courts. In part as a result of their stinginess, he said, his colleagues at Public Citizen are underfinanced and worn down. "There were some lawyers who left Public Citizen because they got tired of losing," he said.
"Everyone is desperately trying to hold on to whatever issues are left, and then they become demoralized and discouraged."
Thirty years after the Chamber of Commerce founded its litigation center to counteract his influence, Nader all but conceded defeat in the battle for
the Supreme Court. With the decline of economic populism in Congress, the
weakening of trade unions and the rise of globalization, the political
climate, he lamented, was passing him by. "I recall a comment by Eugene
Debs," Nader said, looking at me intensely. "He said: The American people
live in a country where they can have almost anything they want. And my
regret is that it seems that they don't want much of anything at all."
Nader chuckled quietly and shook his head. "I say ditto."
If there is an anti-Nader - a crusading lawyer passionately devoted to the
pro-business cause - it is Theodore Olson. One of the most influential
Supreme Court advocates and a former solicitor general under President
George W. Bush, Olson is best known for his winning argument before the
Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore in 2000. But Olson has devoted most of his
energies in private practice to changing the legal and political climate for America more than anyone else is responsible for transforming the approach to one of the most important legal concerns of the American business community: punitive damages awarded to the victims of corporate negligence.
Punitive damages - money awarded by civil juries on top of any awarded for
actual harm that victims have suffered - are designed to penalize especially egregious acts of corporate misconduct resulting from malice or greed, and to deter similar wrongdoing in the future. In the 19th century, courts generally demanded a clear assignment of fault in cases where victims sued for injuries caused by malfunctioning products. It was hard for plaintiffs to recover in personal-injury cases unless the corporation was obviously at fault. But in the 20th century, in liability cases involving a rapidly expanding class of potentially dangerous products like cars, drugs and medical devices, courts increasingly applied a standard of "strict liability," which held that manufacturers should pay whether or not they were directly at fault.
The animating idea was that manufacturers were in the best position to
prevent accidents by improving their products with better design and
testing. They and their insurance companies (rather than society as a whole) would shoulder the costs of accidents, thus giving them an incentive to make their products safer. Encouraged by Ralph Nader's book, "Unsafe at Any Speed," published in 1965, courts began to see car accidents as predictable events that better car design could have prevented. In 1968, for example, a federal court held that car manufacturers could be sued for failing to make cars safe enough for drivers to survive crashes, even if the driver was at fault for the crash.
A series of well-publicized awards in the 1980s and '90s culminated in the
largest punitive damage award in American history the $5 billion levied
against Exxon after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. This was hardly
typical: the median punitive award actually fell to $50,000 in 2001 from
$63,000 in 1992. Nevertheless, critics like Olson claimed that
multimillion-dollar punitive-damage verdicts were threatening the health of
the economy. They resolved to fight back on several fronts. In his first
Supreme Court argument, in 1986, Olson set out the broad contours of his
argument: for most of English and American history, private litigants were
entitled to be compensated for whatever damages they suffered, including
pain and suffering, but any public wrongs like the failure of American
business to make cars safer by adopting air bags should be addressed by
legislation or regulation, not by the courts.
Olson decided that his clients deserved not just a lawyer who could argue a case but a lawyer who could change the political culture. "You had to attack it in a broad-scale way in the legislatures, in the arena of public opinion and in the courts," he told me recently. "I felt the business community had to approach this in a holistic way." He set out, in lectures and op-ed pieces, to publicize especially egregious examples. The poster child for punitive-damage abuse, widely derided in TV and radio ads paid for by the business community, was a New Mexico grandmother who, in 1994, was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages when she scalded herself with hot McDonald's coffee. Consumer advocates countered that she had originally asked for $20,000 for medical expenses, which McDonald's refused to pay, and the award appeared to have the effect of persuading McDonald's to serve its coffee at a safer temperature. Nonetheless, the campaign to vilify
plaintiffs' lawyers has been effective enough that the American Association of Trial Lawyers recently changed its name to the fuzzier American
Association for Justice.
The business community made other inroads against punitive damages.
Corporations financed campaigns against pro-punitive-damage state judges who had been elected with the assistance of large contributions from plaintiffs' lawyers. The business community also helped persuade more than 30 states to either impose caps on punitive-damage awards or direct substantial portions of the awards to be paid into special state funds. In 1996, it helped persuade the Republican Congress, led by Newt Gingrich, to pass legislation that would cap punitive-damage awards in product-liability cases in every state court in the ountry. But in 1996, President Clinton, with what must have been perverse pleasure, vetoed the bill on the grounds that it violated principles of federalism and states rights to which conservatives claimed to be devoted.
Thwarted by Clinton, and unable to persuade Congress to override the veto,
opponents of punitive damages turned their attention back to the Supreme
Court, looking for a victory they were unable to win in the political arena. Here, they were remarkably successful. As late as 1991, the court had refused to impose limits on a large punitive-damage award. But in a case in 1996, the court held for the first time that punitive-damage awards had to be proportional to the actual damage incurred by the plaintiff. The case involved a man who said he was deceived by BMW when it sold him a supposedly "new" car that was, in fact, used and had received a $300 touch-up job. The court, in a 5-4 opinion, overturned a $2 million punitive-damage award as "grossly excessive." In 2003, the court clarified what it meant: a single-digit ratio between punitive damages and compensatory damages was likely to be acceptable.
Last year, the business community watched with anticipation as Roberts and
Alito revealed their views about punitive damages. The case involved the
estate of a heavy smoker who sued Philip Morris for deceitfully distributing a "poisonous and addictive substance." A jury had awarded the estate $821,000 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages - a ratio of about 100 to 1. In a 5-4 opinion written by Breyer, the court held that it was unconstitutional for a jury to use punitive damages to punish a company for its conduct toward similarly affected individuals who are not party to the lawsuit.
This spring, the court will decide the Exxon Valdez punitive-damage case,
which many consider the culmination of the business community's decades-long campaign against punitive damages. In 1989, the Exxon Valdez tanker, whose captain had a history of alcoholism, ran into a reef and punctured the hull; 11 million gallons of oil leaked onto the coastline of Prince William Sound. A jury handed down a $5 billion punitive-damage award.
After the verdict, Exxon began providing money for academic research to
support its claim that the award for damages was excessive. It financed some of the country's most prominent scholars on both sides of the political spectrum, including the Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago. (Sunstein says he accepted only travel grants, not research support, from Exxon; and Kahneman stresses that the financing had no influence on the substance of his work.) In a 2002 book, "Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide," Sunstein studied hundreds of mock-jury deliberations and concluded that jurors are unpredictable and often irrational in punitive-damage cases. Jury deliberations, he found, increase the unpredictability, as well as the dollar amount of the final awards. Sunstein concluded that a system of civil fines determined by experts, rather than punitive damages determined by juries, might be more sensible. When Exxon appealed the $5 billion verdict in 2006, it was reduced by an appellate court to $2.5 billion. The reduced verdict is once again being challenged as excessive.
Walter Dellinger, the lawyer now arguing Exxon's case before the Supreme
Court, is no Republican activist. Like Sunstein, he is one of the most
respected Democratic constitutional scholars, as well as a former acting
solicitor general for President Clinton. Last month, in his argument before the court, Dellinger argued that because Exxon has already paid $3.4 billion in fines, cleanup costs and compensation connected with the Exxon Valdez spill, and because it didn't act out of malice or greed in failing to monitor the alcoholic captain, additional punitive damages would serve no "public purpose."
During the argument, Breyer noted that the $2.5 billion punitive damage
award represents a less than 10-to-1 ratio between punitive damages and
compensatory damages, which is in the single-digit range that the Supreme
Court has considered acceptable in the past. But Breyer also seemed
concerned at other points that punitive-damage awards have not been routine in maritime cases like this one, and that the award might create "a new
world for the shipping industry." Alito, who owns Exxon Mobil stock, did not participate, and because a tie would affirm the $2.5 billion punitive-damage award, the plaintiffs who are opposing Exxon need only four votes to prevail. But whether Dellinger gets five votes, a significant triumph is already behind him: he persuaded the court to take the case in the first place.
Ted Olson and the Chamber of Commerce aren't only trying to persuade the
Supreme Court to cut back on large punitive-damage awards; they're also
arguing that consumers injured by dangerous or defective medical devices and drugs in some cases shouldn't be able to file product-liability suits at all. Because there is no national product-liability law that allows federal suits for personal injuries, consumers who are injured by, say, defective heart valves or artificial hips have to sue in state courts under state tort law. By asking the Supreme Court to prevent injured consumers from suing in state court, the business community, supported by the Bush administration, is trying to ensure that these consumers often have no legal remedy for their injuries. And the Supreme Court has been increasingly sympathetic to the business community's arguments.
In a Supreme Court case Olson argued in December, he stood before the
justices and argued that the manufacturers of defective medical devices -
like heart valves, breast implants and defibrillators - should be immune
from personal-liability suits because the federal Food and Drug
Administration had approved the devices before they were marketed and the
manufacturers had complied with all federal requirements. The case involved
Charles Riegel, who had an angioplasty in 1996 during which the catheter
used to dilate his coronary artery burst. Riegel, who needed advanced life
support and emergency bypass surgery, eventually sued the manufacturer of
the catheter, Medtronic. The company is colloquially referred to in the
business community as "the pre-emption company" because of its practice of
arguing that the Food and Drug Administration's "premarket approval" of its products pre-empts product-liability suits in state courts.......xxxxxx
cutxxxx
See entire article at:
FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
Labels: books of note, corporatocracy, Enron, Exxon Valdex, Federalist Society, Ralph Nadar, SCOTUS, US Chamber of Commerce


text:
RSF Social Finance Makes a New Loan to Eureka Recycling
@RSFSocFinance makes new loan to Eureka Recycling: demonstrating that waste is preventable, not inevitable http://bit.ly/Md4IHv
Wednesday, February 19, 2014 - 11:35am
NEWSROOM: RSF Social Finance
CAMPAIGN: Financing Announcements
SAN FRANCISCO, February 19, 2014 /3BL Media/ - RSF Social Finance (RSF) is pleased to announce a new loan to Eureka Recycling, a non-profit recycler specializing in zero-waste. RSF financing will be used to purchase new recycling equipment which will help the company transform its operations, reducing operating costs and improving service to its clients.
Based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Eureka Recycling provides curbside recycling services to the Twin Cities of Saint Paul/Minneapolis and the metro area. Eureka Recycling is one of the largest non-profit recyclers in the United States and is a leader in demonstrating the best waste reduction and recycling practices not only for the Twin Cities metro area, but for the nation.
Eureka Recycling puts into practice a model of resource management rather than waste management, a model that assumes waste is preventable, not inevitable. As a mission-driven non-profit organization, Eureka Recycling looks beyond the bottom line to provide the best practices for recycling and consider the optimum balance of cost, personal convenience, and environmental benefit.
"We are not like many traditional non-profit environmental organizations because we have a large operation in which we manifest our mission each day," says Tim Brownell, CEO of Eureka Recycling. "We believe that it is most powerful to advocate from a place in which we have rolled-up our sleeves to do the work and know that what we are of others is doable and will get the job done."
All of Eureka Recycling's efforts are designed to help individuals, organizations, and communities understand the significance of zero-waste and to achieve their own zero-waste goals. This includes activities beyond recycling such as encouraging reuse through the Twin Cities Free Market, a web-based program that connects community members to share durable goods that might otherwise end up in the landfill; composting services for restaurants, grocery stores, and other food businesses; and education and advocacy programs to promote community responsibility for waste-reduction.
"Eureka is much more than a recycling company," says Mike Gabriel, lending manager at RSF. "This organization has deep roots in the community. And, with the breadth of services they provide, they're really helping to build a vibrant and resilient local economy in the St. Paul area."
The support and financing from RSF will also allow Eureka Recycling to launch their 'Zero-Waste Lab,' an education tool, feedback loop, and measurement device for governments, corporations, and communities. "Now that zero-waste efforts are becoming more mainstream, there are many claims regarding policies, collection and processing designs, and packaging changes that are supposed to reduce or eliminate the growing waste stream," explains Bryan Ukena, Business Development Director at Eureka Recycling. "Eureka's Zero Waste Lab will actually help to distinguish those that are just talk from those that show true results."
About RSF Social Finance
Located in San Francisco, CA, RSF Social Finance (RSF) is a financial services organization dedicated to transforming the way the world works with money. Since 1984, the organization has made over $275 million in loans and $100 million in grants to non-profit and for-profit social enterprises working in the areas of Food & Agriculture, Education & the Arts, and Ecological Stewardship. RSF's lending capital comes primarily from 1,500 individuals who have invested $1,000 or more in the organization's Social Investment Fund. Investors earn a competitive return on their money comparable to a certificate of deposit while their funds are deployed to leading social enterprises. To learn more, visit www.rsfsocialfinance.org
About Eureka Recycling
Based in Saint Paul, Eureka Recycling is one of the largest non-profit recyclers in the United States and the only organization in Minnesota that specializes in zero-waste. Eureka Recycling provides curbside recycling services to Saint Paul's homes and apartments with a mission to demonstrate that waste is preventable, not inevitable. In addition, Eureka Recycling is a leader in waste reduction education, programs, and advocacy. To learn more, visit www.eurekarecycling.org
Mike Gabriel, Lending Manager
mike.gabriel@rsfsocialfinance.org
Jillian McCoy, Communications Manager
jillian.mccoy@rsfsocialfinance.org
CATEGORY: Sustainable Finance & Socially Responsible Investment
More From RSF Social Finance
Benefits of a Biodynamic Education
Monday, February 8, 2016 - 9:05am
Loan Broadens Access to Certified Biodynamic Compost
RSF Social Finance Fellows Follow-up: Nakul Kadaba
Tuesday, January 19, 2016 - 10:15am
Videos from RSF Social Finance
Safe, Ethical, and Transparent Fashion
How are You Transforming the Way Your Community Works with Money?
RSF Social Finance Monthly -- March 2011

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Home › Re-Published › Pieces
Re-Published, Review	 July 25, 2010 12 COMMENTS Jesse
4.5 stars, Contemporary, JMS Books, Shawn Lane
Title: Pieces
Author: Shawn Lane
Publisher: JMS Books
Genre: Contemporary M/M
Length: Novella (19K, 86 PDF pages)
Summary Review: An old love becomes a new love for Patrick, after coping with tragedy and loss.
Patrick Donovan has spent the last three anniversaries of his lover's suicide getting drunk at Josh Stevens' bar. It's at the bar he feels closest to Andrew, the man he misses, as well as to the man he has truly loved since high school, Josh, his dead lover's cousin.
Troubled by Patrick's annual visits to the bar, Josh encourages the man to put the pieces of his broken life back together and move on from his grief. Though it's clear to Josh that Patrick yearns to move on with him, he wants no part of it. He's avoided long-term relationships and knows the last thing he should do is get involved with Patrick, especially when he believes the man's shattered heart still belongs to Andrew.
But Josh changes his mind once Patrick takes his advice and begins dating other guys. Despite his fear of committment and becoming a substitute for Andrew, Josh can no longer ignore his growing feelings for Patrick. Will he be able to let the man go, or will he eventually surrender to the notion that Patrick is perfect for him after all?
Patrick just didn't seem to be able to get over the suicide of his lover Andrew. They had been friends since high school and then lovers later, and when Andrew took his own life Patrick fell apart. This year, as was his practice, he showed up at the bar owned by Josh and Eddie, Andrew's cousins who were also old friends. In fact Josh was more than an old friend, he was Patrick's first lover, a one night stand in high school and the only man he had ever loved, but it was the old story of a love that was spurned. As he sat in the bar getting more intoxicated by the minute Josh realized that it was time to either call him a cab or take him home. He took him home. Things didn't go quite as either planned once they arrived at Patrick's apartment as Patrick made one more try to get Josh back into his life and into his bed but he was too drunk to complete the seduction even though Josh was willing.
The next day when he showed up for his car he was embarrassed but determined to have it out with Josh once and for all, to find out where matters stood between them. When they did meet Josh suggested that he needed psychiatric help to move on, and in addition a new man in his life wouldn't hurt rather than obsessessing over someone he couldn't have i.e. Josh. To Josh's surprise Patrick took his advice and showed up at the bar a few days later with a date, and that's when things got interesting and Josh made his move.
Usually I try to stay away from books that are angst filled and this one certainly fit that description. Patrick was trying to get over his grief after his lover's suicide and if that's not an angst ridden plot I don't know what is. However, because I like Shawn Lane's writing I thought I would take a chance and I was happy that I did. The author managed not to wallow too much except in one scene where the angst was almost too much for me, but I won't describe it since I think that the readers should experience it for themselves. The scene may have been necessary to suit the sombre tone of the book and also to put to rest Andrew's ghost, but I thought it was a tiny bit over the top. However, you might disagree. In any event, the story was engrossing and I liked how Patrick and Josh worked out their relationship issues and identified why things went wrong all those years ago.
The characters were well drawn and it was great that not everyone was gay in this book (sometimes a trademark of this author), in other words it was not an OK homo world, and it was a nice touch to introduce Eddie's wife into the mix as well as Patrick's colleague from work who was straight. I did find it somewhat unbelievable that Patrick had not had sex in 3 years even though he felt some measure of guilt over Andrew's suicide; that's a long time to be celibate for a young man in his twenties. Also, while I didn't get to know Josh as much as I would have liked because the story is told mostly from Patrick's perspective, I thought that his character was written realistically, especially in the last third of the book. Oh, the sex was intense and hot, another trademark of this author. 🙂
If you like a love triangle that is filled with angst, where one of the characters is deceased but very much alive through everyone's memories, then you will enjoy Pieces. I think Shawn Lane did a very good job on a very difficult theme that is a departure for her, and I can see her growth as a writer since her first book that I read. I definitely recommend this book even if, like me, angst is not your forte. Pieces is available from Amber Allure.
Through the Red Door
At Piper's Point
View all posts by Jesse	→
I live in Canada and I love big dogs, music, movies, reading and sports – especially baseball
http://gaybook.reviews
Anke July 27, 2010 at 2:03 AM
I won this book a few days ago and I finished it yesterday. I enjoyed it very much. It was in fact a bit different than the other books from this author and for me the angst theme wasn't such a big issue.
Wave July 27, 2010 at 3:31 AM
I'm so happy that you enjoyed Pieces and, like I said in the review, it was a departure for Shawn – more introspective – although she did manage to have another lawyer as a protagonist. 🙂
Unlike most readers, I don't enjoy books that are too heavy on angst because I find that a lot of authors go overboard in this area. However, many readers are fans of angst so I'm definitely in the minority. 😉
TT Kove July 26, 2010 at 2:09 PM
Glad to hear you think I'll like it, Wave. 😉 I generally like this author, even if sometimes there might be to much sex for me. *lol* But then most m/m books have to much sex for me these days.
Maybe this one will have less, considering the theme… *g*
Anyway, it's on my TBR list, and I can't wait to read it. 😉
I really think you'll enjoy it.
I sent you a rec. for another book by email. 🙂
TT Kove July 26, 2010 at 12:15 PM
Good review, Wave.
I do agree with you on the not-having-sex-for-three-years. It is a big eye roll indeed. *lol*
Still looking forward to reading this book though, besides that fact. 😉
T.T.
I really think you will enjoy Pieces. It's a more introspective book than I'm used to from this author, which is a good thing. Yes, the 3 years celibate thing I think was to make a point but that didn't work for me. However, other than this one small 'blemish' I really enjoyed the book.
Hi Lily
I think you enjoy angst more than I do so this would be right up your street. 🙂 The 3 years for such a young guy had me doing the eye roll, but other than that it was quite a good read even for someone like me who doesn't really like a lot of angst.
Lily July 26, 2010 at 12:00 AM
I've got this one on my wishlist. Looking forward to it, angst and all.
But I do agree about the 3 years, sounds like a long time to me. Great review! 🙂
Aliens July 25, 2010 at 12:46 PM
I forgot about the not being in love part 😉
Maybe guilt is a strong enough thing to stop a guy from having sex.
Hi Aliens
>>Maybe guilt is a strong enough thing to stop a guy from having sex.< < As usual I asked my peanut gallery of gay experts 🙂 about this and they thought it was very unlikely for a young gay man in his twenties to abandon sex for 3 years, even if he felt guilty that his lover had taken his own life. Maybe a year but not 3. Also when you add in the "not in love" part, it seems to stretch credibility.
Wave July 25, 2010 at 12:32 PM
Thanks Aliens.
As for the reason for my comment:
Patrick is in his twenties, he's a gay man and typically young gay men have more sex than straight men – two dicks in play and all that – according to my gay friends. Even if he were grieving over Andrew, according to the plot he was never in love with him, (this is not a spoiler since it's in the blurb), so it would seem reasonable that after a while he would move on and at least seek physical relief from someone else since Josh was out of the picture during those 3 years. Those were my reasons for the comment. 🙂
Great review Wave!
I just have one question for you about "I did find it somewhat unbelievable that Patrick had not had sex in 3 years".
Why is it unbelievable for you that he wouldn't have sex in 3 years?
Leave a Reply to Wave	Cancel reply
A Taste of Honey (Ariel's Review)
The Buchanan Letters
Dirty Angel (PrinCkhera's Review)
Forever Moore (Lili's Quickie Review)
Father of the Groom (Susan's Review)
Saint Returns (Thresl Chronicles #6)
Sole Support
An Uncommon Whore (An Uncommon Whore #1)
Humbug by Joanna Chambers
18% Gray
Best Vacation that Never Was
The Guilty Werewolf
2.5 stars Holidays 4.5 stars Historical Recommended Read Audiobook Contemporary Romance New Adult Shifters Second Chance Hurt/Comfort/Healing Murder/Mystery Fantasy Dreamspinner Press Friends to Lovers Paranormal 4 stars MLR Press Novella Erotica Bisexual Riptide Publishing Suspense Self Published 3 stars Mystery Danger Mystery/Suspense Carina Press 5+ stars Gay Book Promotions Military 3.5 stars Age Gap BDSM Werewolves Science Fiction Giveaway Young Adult Excerpt Dirty Talk MMM Ménage Romance Friday Guys 2 stars Paranormal Romance 5 stars Beautiful Men Out of Print Contemporary
Power Play (Belen's Review)
His Fairy Godfather
Red Dirt Heart (Audio Review)
These Oceans Between You and Me (PIU's Review)
Texas Pride


1977 was an interesting time for horror. Things were all over the board, really. Suspiria came out and made the more mystical giallo splash. The Hills Have Eyes introduced crazy, hill-people mutants. Then you had the more tame stylings of Audrey Rose and a more story based tale.
Blue Sunshine is another piece of the 1977 horror pie, but more dystopian, anti-drug, science fiction madness. But, while on the surface it has a rather "TV movie of the week" feel, I'm going to go ahead and call it a giallo film. I was watching it and it screamed giallo for me.
We open on a bunch of old friends having a party, like many giallo films do. It's a great way to shake out the dice roll of characters you'll be dealing with. From there, two players get pulled after one of the friends gets his hair pulled revealing that he's lost much of his hair. He runs off into the night and Jerry Zipkin (played by the rather haunting and creepy Zalman King) goes off to find him while his girlfriend Alicia goes off with some of the other friends to look in town. Sadly, while Jerry is out in the woods searching for his bald friend, the bald and very insane friend is back killing the ladies who stayed behind. He has freakish strength and an insane bloodlust. Jerry arrives too late to save the women, but runs off in search of the killer. They fight on a freeway and the bald killer is struck by a truck.
Jerry runs off and is now the lead suspect in the murders. He contacts his girlfriend Alicia and the two of them start hunting for the truth.
Jerry - a man running out of time as the police search for him, looks for clues and investigates as he tries to clear his name. Alicia is a fantastic helper as she feeds him info and tries to keep the police off his scent. As Jerry dives deeper and deeper in, he reveals that the baldness and the psychotic behaviors are the results of taking an acid-like drug called BLUE SUNSHINE. As he gets closer and closer to the source, he gets closer and closer to being the next victim of these bald madmen.
Blue Sunshine is an odd little film either way and well worth a watch - gialli or no. It has some really off the wall scenes and setups that I really enjoyed. The bald people with dark eyes was a fun little hook and seeing the crazed killer in the beginning sets things up for some great tension moments later. You know what happens when these folks go bald, so when characters start to complain about headaches and their hair starts falling out, they turn into ticking time bombs and you wonder who might get caught in the blast.
Zalman King is SO intense! He has these great personal space issues in the film where he just gets WAY too close to people with this odd look on his face. If I were a cop and I saw this behavior, I might think he was the murder for sure. That being said, he really does carry the film on his shoulders as he runs his investigation and he turns in a hell-of-a performance. R.I.P., Mr. King.
Jeff Lieberman wrote and directed and there are some fun set pieces here. He wrote and directed Squirm after this one. The story makes sense as well, for the most part. The sad thing is, they kinda end on a wrap-up word card at the end. It does the trick, but it would have been nice to have an actual wrap up with a doctor or scientist explaining what we just saw and the implications.


Today was an unexpectedly wonderful day. Not because I didn't think I'd have a grand time: I was spending it with my friend Stork, whom I've known for over twenty years. That part was a given. As was having Sam around up at Stork's house for a huge meal.
It was a day that invented itself. And how often does that happen? Or maybe better said, how often do you realize that the Good of a good day emerges all on its own? Oh, you can plan, you can stage, but after all the conscious attempts, all you can do is hope that your clunky throw had good aim.
There's nothing I can call out from the day to corroborate my story, no anecdotes to prop up a storied stage. I'm just left with a mellow and infusion of positivity and a comfort in the acute pacing of my days of late.
Previous Previous post: Kindle! Kindler! Kindling?


We meet here to talk about education, technology, our practice and the contexts we work in. You can come too. Check the schedule, show up and go to the chatroom.
What would a K-12 MOOC have in it? What connections would it nurture? Would teachers codesign it with students? Do they exist?
From Carla Arena: " I'm always interested in how we motivate educators to overcome their initial barriers to change. I've had some clues from this past decade working with very inspiring educators, but we can always learn from others and their own strategies."
Stay Tuned to our I Have a Question#3 Event Page for details and discussions about our next show.
How can instruction and assessment (not accreditation) "live as one" within an online course.
Best ways to approach/handle teenage smart-phone use/addiction <nervous-thumbs syndrome> :) in the classroom?
How Can We Motivate Participation and Feedback in Online Learning?


text:
Could life insurance go up in smoke for some vapers?
LONDON/NEW YORK — Global reinsurers are stepping up their warnings to life insurer clients about the potential risks of vaping, putting pressure on underwriters to charge certain vapers higher rates than smokers, or even exclude them altogether.
U.S. authorities said last month that there had been 47 deaths this year from a lung illness tied to vaping. The health concerns about vaping have grown despite evidence showing e-cigarettes help smokers to quit, and has led to bans in some countries including India and Brazil.
Reinsurers insure the insurers, and often have large research arms which help their clients by modeling risk. They give broad advice to insurers, rather than specific policy or pricing recommendations, but can potentially refuse to provide reinsurance or can raise premiums if their guidance is ignored.
Most insurers have long treated smokers and vapers the same, meaning they can pay close to double the premiums of non-smokers or non-vapers. But three major reinsurers have provided updated advice on vaping in the past three months, with new warnings, while others are considering their approach.
The new warnings focus on young vapers and the vaping of liquids containing marijuana ingredient THC, which is legal and prevalent in some U.S. states and has been linked to lung illnesses in the country.
The shift in the reinsurance and insurance sector represents a further blow to the vaping industry, which markets its products as healthier alternatives to smoking.
Hannover RE, which already advised life insurers to treat vapers like smokers, has asked them to be particularly cautious about insuring people aged under 25 following the "epidemic" of lung injuries in the United States, said Nico van Zyl, the reinsurer's U.S. medical director.
The question of whether to offer coverage to this higher risk group should be a consideration for life insurers, he said.
French reinsurer SCOR said in a paper on Oct. 24 that e-cigarettes contain nicotine which may have toxic effects, including on brain development in teenagers and young adults.
SCOR recommends life insurers treat vaping like smoking, and exclude individuals who use vaping products considered by U.S. authorities likely to cause lung issues – namely, those containing THC (tetrahydrocannabinol).
Swiss Re also treats vapers like smokers. In addition, Global Chief Medical Officer John Schoonbee said the reinsurer has told insurers in recent months to make extra checks on whether vapers are using cannabis products.
AMERICAN WARNING
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has urged people not to use e-cigarettes containing THC, some of which contain vitamin E acetate, a "chemical of concern" among people with the vaping-associated lung injury EVALI.
Stephen Cooley, Chief Medical Underwriter at PartnerRe Life & Health, said more research on the long-term effects of vaping was needed and that life insurance rates for vapers would be the same as smoker rates "at best."
Munich Re and Gen Re said they were monitoring the recent developments in EVALI.
Proponents of vaping as a tool to stop smoking say the insurers' and reinsurers' approach is harsh.
"Getting insurance is really expensive for people who have taken steps to quit tobacco," said Simon Manthorpe, CEO of British vaping product manufacturer Vapemate.
Vaping in Britain and elsewhere in Europe is more heavily regulated than in the United States. Vapes containing THC or cannabis oil of any kind are banned in Britain, and Public Health England says vaping is at least 95% safer than smoking.
VAPING SWITCH
Twelve of 13 life insurers contacted by Reuters in Europe, South Africa and the United States said they already treated vaping like smoking.
Most have taken this stance for years, but a handful have recently made the switch to treating vapers like smokers: U.S. insurer Prudential Financial made the change in October, while the Irish subsidiaries of Aviva and Zurich have switched in the past year.
Zurich in Ireland said its new approach followed consultation with reinsurers.
Explaining their caution on vaping, Britain's Aviva and South Africa's Discovery said there was a lack of objective evidence of the long-term effects. Justin Harper, head of protection marketing at British insurer LV=, highlighted recent evidence indicating that vaping damages the lungs.
Harper said a 20-year policy for a 35-year old offering 100,000 pounds ($128,300) of life cover and 100,000 pounds of critical illness cover would cost 11.89 pounds a month for a non-smoker/non-vaper, and 20.56 pounds for a smoker/vaper.
The life insurers told Reuters they were not treating young vapers differently, though Zurich said it was monitoring statistics on increased deaths or illness among this age group.
One exception among the life insurers in its vaping view is Reviti, a new insurer owned by cigarette and e-cigarette firm Philip Morris. It is offering a discount of up to 15% for vapers in Britain. Customers who quit tobacco and nicotine altogether get a discount of up to 50%.
($1 = 0.7794 pounds)
(Additional reporting by Maya Nikolaeva in Paris, Emma Rumney in Johannesburg and Kate Kelland in London; Editing by Pravin Char)
Craig Kielburger: Time to tackle generational warfare and "OK Boomer" What to do in the Rockies this winter… if you don't...


Linmag works with the most powerful rail milling machine which is available on the world market. The MG31 has a total of 6 milling units and 2 grinding units. Gapless quality control through the built-up on train measurement instruments is a particularly appreciated service. The high material removals and the fast feedrate make rail service by the MG31 to a unique method. After enrollment, the machine can be operated by the customer as an in-house solution or as a turnkey solution.


Myodetox performance center, 13R Polson St.
Myodetox Performance Center opened in October 2015 and is Toronto's premier group exercise and functional training facility.
Located in the Toronto Port Lands, an area in the east end of Downtown Toronto with easy accessibility and free parking.
Our flagship location has great waterfront access and is less than a ten-minute walk from the landmark Distillery District.
Myodetox Performance Center (MPC) boasts a highly skilled team of coaches and therapists, and we offer the best in Group Performance Classes, Personal Training, Physiotherapy, Chiropractic, and Massage.
Our gym offers more than 3,500 sq ft of open gym space to host fitness classes, a private personal training area, and an innovative manual therapy clinic. The facility is also equipped with his and her change rooms, showers and lockers.
MPC mirrors the characteristics of this industrial neighborhood. With rustic beams and exposed brick, our gym is a fitness haven that boasts a unique vibe, the best in music and a community-first belief.
If you have any additional questions, leave us a note and we'll make sure to get back to you.


Welcome to the Wigan Freecycle group!
Membership is free, and everything posted must be FREE, legal and appropriate for all ages. To view the items being given away or sought in Wigan, you must be a member of the local group.
If you are already a member, you may use the "Post" tab on the top right of this page to make your post to the local group. Thanks so much and have fun!


Adrian Brudan has manifested his interest for the discipline of Performance Management while he was still within the international learning environment of the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark. Further on, he dedicated the following years to intense research, KPI documentation and implementation of multiple Performance Management initiatives, within The KPI Institute. Presently, Adrian is the General Manager of The KPI Institute EMEA. As an educator, Adrian contributed to the design of The KPI Institute's core educational programs, which he has been successfully delivering for several years now, in multiple international settings across the globe.
Adrian Brudan, Director of Research Programs at The KPI Institute, delivered a one day workshop as part of the Strategy Leaders Forum, which took place in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, on the 13th – 17th of April 2014.
The second day of the Balanced Scorecard Forum 2011 was dedicated to the Masterclass facilitated by Dr. David Norton si Dr. Robert Kaplan. They covered topics such as the use of the Balanced Scorecard in practice, the strategy execution system, the role of the Office of Strategy management, the importance of developing internal capabilities for strategy execution and the role of leaders in the change management process.
A model is a simplified representation of the world. According with The American Heritage Dictionary (2001), a model can have multiple significations, one of the most used being "a schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon, that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further study of its characteristics".


Amid all of the news last week regarding the discovery by Kepler of two Earth-sized planets orbiting another star, there was another similar find which hadn't received as much attention. There were two more Earth-sized planets also just discovered by Kepler orbiting a different star. In this case, however, the star is an old and dying one, and has passed its red giant phase where it expands enormously, destroying (or at least barbecuing) any nearby planets in the process before becoming just an exposed core of its former self. The paper was just published in the journal Nature.
The two planets, KOI 55.01 and KOI 55.02, orbit the star KOI 55, a subdwarf B star, which is the leftover core of a red giant star. Both planets have very tight orbits close to the star, so they were probably engulfed during the red giant phase but managed to survive (albeit "deep-fried"). They are estimated to have radii of 0.76 and 0.87 that of Earth, the smallest known exoplanets found so far orbiting an active star.
Two tiny modulations in the pulsations of the star were found, which further analysis indicated could only come from planets passing in front of the star (from our viewpoint) every 5.76 and 8.23 hours.
Our own Sun awaits a similar fate billions of years from now and is expected to swallow Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars during its expansion phase. "When our sun swells up to become a red giant, it will engulf the Earth," said Green. "If a tiny planet like the Earth spends 1 billion years in an environment like that, it will just evaporate. Only planets with masses very much larger than the Earth, like Jupiter or Saturn, could possibly survive." The discovery should help scientists to better understand the destiny of planetary systems including our own.
This finding is important in that it not only confirms that Earth-size planets are out there, and are probably common, but that they and other planets (of a wide variety so far) are being found orbiting different types of stars, from newly born ones, to middle-age ones and even dying stars (or dead in the case of pulsars). They are a natural product of star formation which of course has implications in the search for life elsewhere.
The abstract of the paper is here, but downloading the full article requires a single-article payment of $32.00 US or a subscription to Nature.
Whoawhoawhoa…. can that actually happen?
It is the 2nd time this has been observed (if indeed this is) IIRC.
Remember the exoplanet that orbits a star that originated in a dwarf galaxy outside the Milky Way? It too was a survivor of a similar deep-fry interaction resulting in a subdwarf B star with no companion star as the usual culprit.
But now we have another pathway that indirectly should predict the frequency of exoplanets. Neat!
The start is that these stars loose the hydrogen envelope at a too early stage, basically exposing deeper and therefor hotter parts. And to this part i suspect you are correct that orbiting close planets may aswell aid in this process, by basically slingshooting the hydrogen layer out of the system.
Many are also deficit in helium, but not all. Im not certain i understand the process here since exposing underlying layers seems to mean a more helium-dominant layer. But perhaps it is part of some dredge-up process or something other.
Lose, guys, LOSE! Loose is an adjective, or your grip on the english language. Lose is what I did with my cool when I read the third instance of "loose"! Tongue in cheek and all in the spirit of harmony and goodwill.
I'm surprised too – I would have expecting the planet to spiral inwards in the same way (and for the same reasons) as an object might fall to Earth if its orbit takes it into Earth's atmosphere.
I can only imagine that the stellar pressure (the same thing that keeps a star from collapsing ever inward) keeps the planet 'bouyant', so that it can continue to orbit within the star's envelope. Maybe its orbit migrates a little. I don't know. Certainly I would like to know more.
As the star is swelling, the planet(s) keeps the orbit relaively clean by gravitational interaction, meaning slowly the very loose hydrogen is slingshot (well, not exactly that dramatic, more like gently sent) out of the system. This does decrease the planets orbit, but as the processes are so slow it simply keeps migrating slowly inwards, while continuing to keeping its orbit 'clean' Some of the material slingshot might not even leave the system, its just 'pushed' into a wider disc.
During the red-giant phase (or during the pre-red-giant phase) the outer layers are extremely loosely bound, and even a gentle effect will remove it. This means that the loss in angular momentum of the planet is relatively small.
Since this would be a balanced process, with the planets migrating gradually inwards until there is no more material expelled, the process can end up in two ways.
1. Planets incorporated with the bulk of the star.
2. Planets stops migrating somewhere before, likely the migration stops or is reduced at the point where helium fusion is initiated in the core, because at that point the star will shrink overall. I am pretty convinced a jupiter would loose the atmosphere in this process, leaving only its core – but in this particular case the remaining planets are even less massive. Neptunes migrating inwards perhaps.
I am very unsure of the more exact requirements on the part of the planets, but overall I believe this can be a working process. A planet too small would not be able to keep the orbit clean, and would end up spiralling inwards within the atmosphere as you indicated, but it would then also not be able to help expelling the hydrogen atmosphere of the star.
Earthlike planets could survive in this manner.
But: This could also be the remaining cores of Neptunian-like planets that lost the atmosphere in this hot encounter.
You can download supplementary information from the Nature website. Although it's a tough read (and I'm no expert), it's clear that these planets *don't* transit. As far as I can tell, they are detecting the changing brightness due to the changing phases of the planets as they go round their star.
As well as being the smallest measured exoplanets (PSR 1257 12 b is almost certainly less massive but its radius is unknown), they also have the shortest periods for (reasonably) ordinary planets – only the 'diamond' planet PSR 1719-14 b has a shorter period. In many ways this is a much more interesting discovery than Kepler-20.
– This is, IIRC, the 2nd time this has been observed. The former exo-galactic exoplanet HIP-13044b seen way back was a similar star + deep fry planet. Former, since it was observed in the Milky Way, but inside a remnant star stream from a torn asunder dwarf galaxy in the process of absorption by MW.
However our astronomical societies do not realize the theory of space mirror mystery, the progress of space study has no future. The theory of space mirror mystery is based on simple logical effects and has no complication. It clearly appears that from earth point we are able to see the real space objects in deep space within 150 million kilometers only; that means, nothing is real beyond 150 million kilometers and what is real beyond that does not appear to us but unlimited reflection in space mirrors we observing a boundless universe and using giant telescope like Hubble and others, our space organizations are giving us complicated theory step by step what have no base or reality except imaginary.
Previous PostPrevious Why Do We Live in Three Dimensions?


So last weekend on Easter Sunday, after the hunt and lots of chocolate we decided we needed to get out in the fresh air so heading into the city for a bit of fun. As you can probably tell I am feeling a lot better, 6 week posts c-seciton and my energy levels are back up and so are out mini adventures and its also given me time to really test drive our new stroller The Cosatto Giggle 2.
With Mr A we struggled to find a stroller that worked for all of us, we wanted something nippy, easy to control with one hand, that folds down quickly and doesn't make you want to cry every time it takes you 10 frustrating minutes to unfold again and luckily I can say the Giggle has changed our perspective on strollers as it's so easy to use as well as being super stylish and it collapses and folds in literally seconds so no more frustrated faces here.
Best of all is Mr G is so very comfy in it that he often falls of straight to sleep, allowing for myself to have a bit more time with Mr A. We decided to head off to Bute Park to have a proper run around and to let Mr A enjoy the nature inspired adventure course which involves lots of jumping, rope walking and what not, as well of course as some tree climbing fun. As you can probably tell he is very much into his camo at the moment and this weekend he wanted to be a park ranger, a role he takes pretty seriously.
It's very exciting seeing the change and dynamic in our family and days like this when all three of us get to go out and enjoy the simple things I wouldn't change for the world. The one thing I love about Cardiff is that we can blend city life and outdoor fun together seamlessly with the help of Bute Park and the Taff trail running through the heart of the city. It's also helped when things are made easier like having a decent stroller or sling as well as being organised with spare clothes and snacks because you never know when you are going to need them, either way life is always changing and all I know is these three boys keep me on my toes.
Looks great! I love that pic of G fast asleep, sooooo cute!
Oh that looks super smart! Your jumping photo is so cool, I managed it with 5 kids the other day but never done it with me!
Love that stroller - what a fun print. Cosatto is a gorgeous brand. I used to love picnics at Bute Park when I was a uni student in Cardiff. Happy memories!
Laura you are looking amazing!
The Giggle looks fab, Mr G looks so cosy in it.
This is a fab post, it's so cute to see Mr A marching around the park being a Park Ranger. The adventure trail sounds like a great place for little ones to burn off some energy, and who could go to the park without climbing a tree? Mr G looks like he enjoys getting some fresh air from the safety of that lovely stroller too. Thanks for linking up with Country Kids.


Hiring the hall is under a contract which includes all these terms and conditions. The booking contract, which is sent to each hirer invites the hirer to confirm their agreement. Please make sure you read these terms and conditions.
For the purposes of these conditions, the term HIRER shall mean an individual hirer or, where the hirer is an organisation, its authorised representative.
The COMMITTEE shall mean the Cerne Abbas Village Hall Management Committee.
The Hall shall mean the whole building or any part of it agreed for hire in the hiring agreement.
All applications for hiring the Hall are to be in writing on the form provided and forwarded on completion to the Booking Secretary. The person by whom the application is signed shall be considered the HIRER. The HIRER shall be personally responsible for complying with these conditions and with the associated Village Hall Operating Guidance. The HIRER is to ensure that the application accurately reflects the total period of hire, including any time deemed necessary by the HIRER in preparing the Hall for an event and clearing up afterwards.
Use of the kitchen and its equipment is included in the stated hire charges.
The HIRER is expected to leave the Hall, including the kitchen/dining room clean and tidy. The COMMITTEE may make an extra charge for the use of the cleaner where they deem that this is necessary. A wheelie bin is provided outside the hall for rubbish that cannot be disposed of for re-cycling. The HIRER should arrange to remove material that can be re-cycled, for example cardboard and bottles, after an event. The local authority makes a charge for bags left outside the wheelie bin and the COMMITTEE reserves the right to pass this onto the HIRER if the COMMITTEE considers the number of bags left behind is excessive.
The Hall holds a Premises Licence under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, as amended by the Mandatory Licensing Conditions Order 2010. In general, it permits licensable activities in the Hall between the hours of 0900 and 2359 daily. The HIRER shall observe the permitted licensable activities. A copy of the Hall Premises Licence and Mandatory Licensing Conditions Order 2010 may be viewed if required and the HIRER shall be deemed to have had notice of the permitted licensable activities. If the HIRER wishes to operate an event outside these licenced activities the HIRER may, with the prior agreement of the COMMITTEE, apply for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) for the event from West Dorset District Council (WDDC). If a TEN is approved by WDDC, the HIRER must inform the Booking Secretary of the details. The Conditions of Hire for the Hall will continue to apply for the period of a TEN.
The HIRER shall not use the Hall for any purposes other than that described in the hiring agreement.
The HIRER shall only use that part of the Hall and its facilities for which they have booked and paid.
In the event that the HIRER cancels a booked hiring, the COMMITTEE may require a Cancellation charge in addition to any deposit forfeited. The amount of this charge will be determined by the COMMITTEE having regard to the particular circumstances and the period of notice.
The COMMITTEE reserves the right to cancel a hiring in the event of the Hall being required for use as a Polling Station for a Parliamentary or Local Government election or by-election, in which case the HIRER shall be entitled to a refund of any deposit already paid.
The COMMITTEE reserves the right to put an immediate stop to any entertainment or meeting which in their opinion is in breach of the conditions of hire.
The COMMITTEE reserves the right to amend the conditions of hire at any time and will give one month's notice of any such amendment.
The Cerne Abbas Village Hall is the "Controller", for the purposes of the General Data Protection Regulations, of the personal data you provide to us.
What personal data is held and for what purposes?
For village hall committee members, including trustees, the only personal data that will be held is their name and email address. It will be held only for the legitimate interest in the management of the village hall. For hirers of the hall, the only personal data that will be held is that contained in correspondence to make and confirm a booking, and for accounting purposes.
How will the data be stored and held, for how long, and who accesses it?
All data will be held securely electronically and will only be used for the stated purposes above. It will not be passed onto to anyone else without an individual's express permission. Data will only be held for as long as necessary to meet the stated purposes.
You have the right to request from us access to, and rectification or erasure of, any of your personal data that we hold and also to request restriction of our use of that data. You also have the right to complain about how we have handled your personal data. If you wish to make such a request or raise a complaint please contact us via the contact details set out below. If you are not satisfied with our response or believe we are processing your data contrary to the law, you can raise the matter with the Information Commissioner's Office.
The HIRER is to inform the COMMITTEE if it is proposed that alcoholic drinks are to be available at the event. No retail sale of alcohol may be undertaken by the HIRER except with the permission of the COMMITTEE, the arrangements to be discussed and agreed by the COMMITTEE. The HIRER may be required by the COMMITTEE to apply for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) from West Dorset District Council Licencing Authority.
Only the HIRER is permitted to provide alcohol for the event, as agreed with the COMMITTEE. The HIRER is not to allow the provision of alcohol to be provided from any other source. No individuals are to be allowed to bring their own alcohol to the Hall.
The HIRER is to ensure that, where alcohol is available, it is not served to anyone under the age of eighteen. Any breach of this regulation will result in forfeiture of the full deposit. In particular, as required by the Mandatory Conditions Order 2010, the COMMITTEE operates an age verification policy. This policy requires that the HIRER as the 'responsible person' must take certain measures as detailed in these Conditions to prevent the serving of alcohol to anyone under the age of eighteen.
Guidance on the conditions concerning alcohol in the Hall, as required by the Licensing Act 2003 and amended by the Mandatory Licensing Conditions Order 2010, is available on request.
The Hall is insured for legal liability for accidental injury to third parties or for damage to their property arising from use by the HIRER of the Hall where the COMMITTEE is deemed to be at fault and the use of the Hall by the HIRER is for non-commercial purposes. The HIRER is specifically advised that this insurance does not cover accident to or loss of property of the HIRER or third parties resulting from causes not under the control of the COMMITTEE. The HIRER should consider whether other insurance is necessary and in any case must ensure that any commercial organisation engaged by them (for example, a caterer) or any person or persons or organisations providing services or facilities or equipment to the hirer has suitable public liability cover.
The fact that the Committee or its servants recommends any third party to the hirer does not mean that the Committee in any way endorses or guarantees the competence or performance of the third party and the Committee is not responsible for any loss or damage suffered by the hirer arising as a result of any action or lack of action by the third party or of any equipment supplied by the third party.
If the HIRER is a commercial enterprise or government body it is mandatory that the HIRER has both public and employee liability cover covering their activities as the HIRER.
ANY HIRER who for the period of hire is engaged in active or contact sports, time trials, endurance trials, model aircraft flying, bouncy castles, etc. is advised that they must provide proof of adequate cover to the COMMITTEE prior to the event taking place.
In all of the conditions under the sub heading "Insurance" no verbal or written statement, action, lack of action or any apparent waiver by any of the COMMITTEE members can override these conditions and requirements and the onus is on the HIRER to ensure compliance.
The HIRER shall indemnify the COMMITTEE for the cost of repair of any damage done to any part of the Hall and surrounding grounds or the contents of the buildings which may occur during the period of the hiring as a result of the hiring.
The HIRER shall, if selling goods in the Hall, comply with the Fair Trading Laws and any code of practice used connection with such sales. The HIRER shall be responsible for any risks associated with their goods whilst in the Hall.
The HIRER must ensure that the national laws relating to smoking in public places are enforced and the HIRER will be liable for any infringement during the period of hiring. In particular, THE HIRER SHALL ENSURE THAT A STRICT NO SMOKING POLICY INSIDE THE HALL IS ENFORCED. Any smoking outside and in the immediate vicinity of the Hall is to be controlled by the HIRER, having regard to pollution and fire risks, and any smoking debris cleared away by the HIRER on completion of the period of the hiring. Smoking debris bins are provided outside the front entrance and patio areas of the Hall.
The HIRER shall be responsible for ensuring that emergency exits are kept clear of obstructions. Car parking spaces for the disabled are available immediately adjacent to the main entrance to the Hall. Otherwise, the approach to the main entrance should be kept clear for emergency vehicles.
The HIRER shall be responsible for the necessary actions to be taken in the event of fire, including calling the Emergency Services as appropriate to the emergency. A telephone is sited in the Entrance Lobby for use in an emergency. If evacuation is necessary, the public mustering point is in the Cerne Valley Parish Council car park opposite the hall and is clearly marked.
The HIRER shall also be aware of the location of the fire equipment supplied. The COMMITTEE on its part shall brief the HIRER on the location of fire equipment and ensure that all emergency exits and fire equipment are clearly marked in accordance with the latest requirements of the Fire Service and the Licensing Authority. A plan of emergency exits and the location of fire equipment will be prominently displayed in the Entrance Lobby, as will a procedure for Actions in the Event of an Emergency.
INFLATABLE BALLOONS. The COMMITTEE does not wish to spoil children's fun when given a gas filled inflatable balloon, but if released they may rise up to the main hall ceiling. The ceiling fittings include overhead lighting units and heater panels. There is therefore a potential fire hazard and retrieving a balloon may require assembling tower scaffolding. Parents are earnestly requested to ensure that gas filled inflatable balloons are securely attached to the children to prevent a balloon's inadvertent release. At the discretion of the COMMITTEE, the HIRER may be charged extra for any costs involved in retrieving balloons.
The maximum occupancy of rooms within the Hall is as allowed by the Local Authority and the HIRER undertakes that these limits shall not be exceeded. These limits are quoted where appropriate on this website.
The HIRER shall, during the period of the hiring, be responsible for the supervision of the premises, the fabric and the contents, their care, safety from damage however slight, or change of any sort, and the behaviour of all persons using the premises whatever their capacity, including proper supervision of car parking arrangements.
The HIRER is to ensure that car parking does not create a nuisance to the residents immediate to the Hall or cause any obstruction to the roads. Two car parking spaces for the disabled are available immediately adjacent to the main entrance to the Hall. The approach to these and the path at the side are to be kept clear of all other vehicles. The remaining areas are free to use, but considerate parking will obviously maximise the number of cars that can be fitted in. The Cerne Valley Parish Council car park is immediately across the lane from the Hall. It can take 40 cars and should be used in preference. The COMMITTEE cannot be held liable for any loss or damage to cars.
The HIRER is to ensure that music of any sort is played only inside the Hall. The volume of any music is to be kept at a reasonable level to avoid public nuisance, having particular regard to the welfare of neighbouring residents in the village.
The HIRER shall ensure that the minimum of noise is made on arrival and departure at the Hall.
THE HIRER shall ensure that any activities for children under eight years of age comply with the provisions of The Children Act of 1989 and that only fit and proper persons have access to the children.
The HIRER shall abide by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) when any films are shown. If any 'adult entertainment' is to take place, the HIRER is to ensure that this does not take place in front of minors.
The HIRER is to ensure that, where alcohol is available, it is not to be served to children under the age of eighteen. The requirements of The Licensing Act 2003 as amended by the Mandatory Licensing Conditions Order 2010 are to be applied strictly.
The Hall is fully DDA compliant.
The Hall is equipped with basic crockery, cutlery and wine and water glasses for up to 120 place settings. The HIRER is advised to confirm with the COMMITTEE what is available and to make their own arrangements to supplement this as they consider necessary.
The Hall is equipped with sixteen lightweight rectangular tables (6 feet by 3 feet) and fourteen lightweight square tables (3 feet by 3 feet). There are also two hundred upholstered chairs, plus ten with arms.
The Hall is equipped with modern audio-visual equipment and has broadband connection. Details of this equipment and its capabilities are available on request. The Hall is also provided with a sound loop system and a sound surround system. Fixed and remote microphones are available. Use of equipment is included in the hire charges and the HIRER will be briefed in its use at the time of hire.
The Hall is fitted with an intruder alarm connected to the Police. The HIRER may be provided by the COMMITTEE with a key to the main door of the Hall and an alarm fob for the period of the hire and their operation explained. Alternatively, other arrangements for opening and closing may be made with the agreement of the COMMITTEE. Other doors to the outside of the Hall may be opened by prior arrangement with the COMMITTEE. Loss of a key and/or alarm fob is to be reported to the COMMITTEE immediately. The HIRER will be liable for a charge for the replacement of each key and alarm fob lost.
The Hall employs a cleaning firm and a caretaker. Full use of the kitchen and hire of the complete Hall for major events will include a charge to cover the additional services required of these employees. If the requirements of the HIRER are stated prior to an event, the caretaker will assist in arranging these if requested to do so.
The HIRER shall ensure that no bolts, nails, tacks, screws, bits, pins, Sellotape or other like materials are driven or fixed into any part of the Hall, nor shall any placards or any other articles be fixed thereto without the previous permission of the COMMITTEE. A wooden rail has been provided around the main hall for hanging decorations across the room.
The HIRER shall be aware of the location of first aid kits. The general first aid kit and a burns aid kit are located in the kitchen. Please note that these kits do not contain drugs.
The HIRER must report all accidents involving injury to a member of the Management Committee and complete the relevant section in the Hall's Accident Book, kept in the kitchen, as soon as possible. Any failure of equipment, either that belonging to the hall or brought in by the HIRER, must also be reported as soon as possible. Certain types of accident or injury may have to be reported on a special form to the local authority. The COMMITTEE will give assistance in completing this form.
The HIRER shall be aware of the caution to be exercised when moving furniture and equipment.
The HIRER shall be aware of the caution to be exercised in using the stage. Further, any event involving the use of scenery or costumes or the like must be fireproofed and may be subject to inspection in this respect by the local Fire Authorities if required by the COMMITTEE.
The HIRER shall take responsibility for the responsible and legal disposal of any rubbish accumulating from activities during the period of hire. A refuse trolley bin is sited outside the Hall, but must not be used for glass bottles. These bottles are to be removed by the HIRER. Any confetti or similar materials used at events are to be bio-degradable.
The HIRER shall ensure that no flags, emblems or any other decorations are displayed outside any part of the Hall without the previous permission of the COMMITTEE. Proposals for any internal decoration of the Hall for an event are to be agreed with the COMMITTEE prior to the event.
Confirm with the COMMITTEE when access to the Hall is required.
Let the COMMITTEE know of any requirements for equipment. For routine events, such as meetings, the caretaker will normally arrange the setting up of tables and chairs and their clearing away, according to the requirements of the HIRER. However, the COMMITTEE may make an extra charge for the use of the caretaker where these requirements are deemed by the COMMITTEE to be more complicated and time consuming.
Inform the COMMITTEE if use is required of any part of the audio-visual equipment. The COMMITTEE will arrange for the HIRER to be properly briefed in its use. Instructions in its use are provided.
Brief those for whom they are responsible of the fire and emergency arrangements and ensure these are carried out in the event of an emergency.
The cooker and all other kitchen appliances, including the Hot Water Urn, are OFF and kettles and other portable appliances disconnected from mains sockets. The exceptions are the refrigerators which should be left ON.
If, on completion of a hiring period, the outgoing HIRER finds that an incoming HIRER is waiting to commence their period of hire in the Hall or any part of it in succession, the outgoing HIRER is to ensure that the incoming HIRER is ready and prepared to assume responsibility for the Hall. The last HIRER using the hall at any time shall be responsible for the Actions on Completion of Hire as described above.
Return to: Home Page, Booking Enquiry Form, Availability Calendar, Booking & Charges.