text:
Scientists have long advanced the claim that the human brain is the storage place for memories and the source of human thinking. But such claims are speech customs of scientists rather than things they have proven. There are numerous reasons for doubting such claims. One big reason is that the proteins in synapses have an average lifetime of only a few weeks, which is only a thousandth of the length of time (50 years or more) that humans can store memories. Another reason is that neurons and synapses are way too noisy to explain very accurate human memory recall, such as when a Hamlet actor flawlessly recites 1476 lines. Another general reason can be stated as follows: the human brain is too slow to account for very fast thinking and very fast memory retrieval.
Consider the question of memory retrieval. Given a prompt such as a person's name or a very short description of a person, topic or event, humans can accurately retrieve detailed information about such a topic in one or two seconds. We see this ability constantly displayed on the long-running television series Jeopardy. On that show, contestants will be given a short prompt such as "This opera by Rossini had a disastrous premier," and within a second after hearing that, a contestant may click a buzzer and then a second later give an answer mentioning The Barber of Seville. Similarly, you can play with a well-educated person a game you can call "Who Was I?" You just pick random names of actual people from the arts or history, and require the person to identify the person within about two seconds. Very frequently a person will succeed. We can imagine a session of such a game, occurring in only ten seconds:
John: Marconi.
Mary: Invented the radio.
John: Magellan.
Mary: First to sail around the globe.
John: Peter Falk.
Mary: A TV actor.
We can also imagine a visual version of this game, in which you identify random pictures of any of 1000 famous people. The answers would often be just as quick.
The question is: how could a brain possibly achieve retrieval and recognition so quickly? Let us suppose that the information about some person is stored in some particular group of neurons somewhere in the brain. Finding that exact tiny storage location would be like finding a needle in a haystack, or like finding just the right index card in a swimming pool full of index cards. It would also be like opening the door of some vast library with a million volumes and instantly finding the exact volume you were looking for.
There are certain design features that a system can have that will allow for very rapid retrieval of information. One of these features is an indexing system. An indexing system requires a position notation system, in which the exact position of some piece of information can be recorded. An ordinary textbook has both of these things. The position notation system is the page numbering system. The indexing system is the index at the back of the book. But the brain has neither of these features. There is nothing in the brain like a position notation system by which the exact position of some tiny group of neurons can be identified. The brain has no neuron numbers, and a brain has no coordinate system similar to street names in a city or Cartesian coordinates in a grid. Lacking any such position notation system, the brain has no indexing system (something that requires a position notation system).
So how is it that humans are able to recall things instantly? It seems that the brain has nothing like the speed features that would make such a thing possible. You can't get around such a difficulty by claiming that each memory is stored everywhere in the brain. There would be two versions of such an idea. The first would be that each memory is entirely stored in every little spot of the brain. That makes no more sense than the idea of a library in which each page contains the information in every page of every book. The second version of the idea would be that each memory is broken up and scattered across the brain. But such an idea actually worsens the problem of explaining memory retrieval, as it would only be harder to retrieve a memory if it is scattered all over your brain rather than in a single little spot of your brain.
We also cannot get around this navigation problem by imagining that when you are asked a question, your brain scans all of its stored information. That doesn't correspond to what happens in our minds. For example, if someone asks me, "Who was Teddy Roosevelt," my mind goes instantly to my memories of Teddy Roosevelt, and I don't experience little flashes of knowledge about countless other people, as if my brain were scanning all of its memories.
When we consider the issue of decoding encoded information, we have an additional strong reason for thinking that the brain is way too slow to account for instantaneous recall of learned information. In order for knowledge to be stored in a brain, it would have to be encoded or translated into some type of neural state. Then, when the memory is recalled, this information would have to be decoded: it would have to be translated from some stored neural state into a thought held in the mind. This requirement is the most gigantic difficulty for any claim that brains store memories. Although they typically maintain that memories are encoded and decoded in the brain, no neuroscientist has ever specified a detailed theory of how such encoding and decoding could work. Besides the huge difficulty that such a system of encoding and decoding would require a kind of "miracle of design" we would never expect for a brain to ever have naturally acquired (something a million times more complicated than the genetic code), there is the difficulty that the decoding would take quite a bit of time, a length of time greater than the time it takes to recall something.
So suppose I have some memory of who George Patton was, stored in my brain as some kind of synapse or neural states, after that information had somehow been translated into synapse or neural states using some encoding scheme. Then when someone asks, "Who was George Patton?" I would have to not only find this stored memory in my brain (like finding a needle in a haystack), but also translate these synapse or neural states back into an idea, so I could instantly answer, "The general in charge of the Third Army in World War II." The time required for the decoding of the stored information would be an additional reason why instantaneous recall could never be happening if you were reading information stored in your brain. The decoding of neurally stored memories would presumably require protein synthesis, but the synthesis of proteins requires minutes of time.
There is another reason for doubting that the brain is fast enough to account for human mental activity. The reason is that the transmission of signals in a brain is way, way too slow to account for the very rapid speed of human thought and human memory retrieval.
Information travels about in a modern computer at a speed thousands of time faster than nerve signals travel in the human brain. If you type in "speed of brain signals" into the Google search engine, you will see in large letters the number 286 miles per hour, which is a speed of 128 meters per second. This is one of many examples of dubious information which sometimes pops up in a large font at the top of the Google search results. The particular number in question is an estimate made by an anonymous person who quotes no sources, and one who merely claims that brain signals "can" travel at such a speed, not that such a speed is the average speed of brain signals. There is a huge difference between the average speed at which some distance will be traveled and the maximum speed that part of that distance can be traveled (for example, while you may briefly drive at 40 miles per hour while traveling through Los Angeles, your average speed will be much, much less because of traffic lights).
A more common figure you will often see quoted is that nerve signals can travel in the human brain at a rate of about 100 meters per second. But that is the maximum speed at which such a nerve signal can travel, when a nerve signal is traveling across what is called a myelinated axon. Below we see a diagram of a neuron. The axons are the tube-like parts in the diagram below.
The less sophisticated diagram below makes it clear that axons make up only part of the length that brain signals must travel.
There are two types of axons: myelinated axons and non-myelinated axons (myelinated axons having a sheath-like covering shown in blue in the diagram above). According to this article, non-myelinated axons transmit nerve signals at a slower speed of only .5-2 meters per second (roughly one meter per second). Near the end of this article is a table of measured speed of nerve signals traveling across axons in different animals; and in that table we see a variety of speeds varying between .3 meters per second (only about a foot per second) and about 100 meters per second.
But from the mere fact that nerve signals can travel across myelinated axons at a maximum speed of about 100 meters per second, we are not at all entitled to conclude that nerve signals typically travel from one region of the brain to another at 100 meters per second. For nerve signals must also travel across dendrites and synapses, which we can see in the diagrams above. It turns out that nerve signal transmission is much slower across dendrites and synapses than across axons. To give an analogy, the axons are like a road on which you can travel fast, and the dendrites and synapses are like traffic lights or stop signs that slow down your speed.
According to neuroscientist Nikolaos C Aggelopoulos, there is an estimate of 0.5 meters per second for the speed of nerve transmission across dendrites (see here for a similar estimate). That is a speed 200 times slower than the nerve transmission speed commonly quoted for myelinated axons. According to Bratislav D. Stefanovic, MD, the conduction speed across dendrites is between .1 and 15 meters per second. Such a speed bump seems more important when we consider a quote by UCLA neurophysicist Mayank Mehta: "Dendrites make up more than 90 percent of neural tissue." Given such a percentage, and such a conduction speed across dendrites, it would seem that the average transmission speed of a brain must be only a small fraction of the 100 meter-per-second transmission in axons.
Besides this "speed bump" of the slower nerve transmission speed across dendrites, there is another "speed bump": the slower nerve transmission speed across synapses (which you can see in the top "close up" circle of the first diagram above). There are two types of synapses: chemical synapses and electrical synapses. The parts of the brain allegedly involved in thought and memory have almost entirely chemical synapses. (The sources here and here and here and here and here refer to electrical synapses as "rare." The neurosurgeon Jeffrey Schweitzer refers here to electrical synapses as "rare." The paper here tells us on page 401 that electrical synapses -- also called gap junctions -- have only "been described very rarely" in the neocortex of the brain. This paper says that electrical synapses are a "small minority of synapses in the brain.")
We know of a reason why transmission of a nerve signal across chemical synapses should be relatively sluggish. When a nerve signal comes to the head of a chemical synapse, it can no longer travel across the synapse electrically. It must travel by neurotransmitter molecules diffusing across the gap of the synapse. This is much, much slower than what goes on in an axon.
Diagram of a synapse
There is a scientific term used for the delay caused when a nerve signal travels across a synapse. The delay is called the synaptic delay. According to this 1965 scientific paper, most synaptic delays are about .5 milliseconds, but there are also quite a few as long as 2 to 4 milliseconds. A more recent (and probably more reliable) estimate was made in a 2000 paper studying the prefrontal monkey cortex. That paper says, "the synaptic delay, estimated from the y-axis intercepts of the linear regressions, was 2.29" milliseconds. It is very important to realize that this synaptic delay is not the total delay caused by a nerve signal as it passes across different synapses. The synaptic delay is the delay caused each and every time that the nerve signal passes across a synapse.
Such a delay may not seem like too much of a speed bump. But consider just how many such "synaptic delays" would have to occur for, say, a brain signal to travel from one region of the brain to another. It has been estimated that the brain contains 100 trillion synapses (a neuron may have thousands of them). So it would seem that for a neural signal to travel from one part of the brain to another part of the brain that is a distance away only 5% or 10% of the length of the brain, that such a signal would have to endure many thousands of such "synaptic delays" requiring a total of quite a few seconds of time.
An average male human brain has about 1300 cubic centimeters. Let's try to calculate the minimum number of synapses that would have to be sequentially traversed in order for a neural signal to travel through a volume of only 1 cubic centimeter (.39 of an inch).
If there are 100 trillion synapses in a brain of 1300 cubic centimeters, then the number of synapses in this volume of 1 cubic centimeter would be roughly 100 trillion divided by 1300, which gives 77 billion. (This page gives an estimate of 418 billion synapses per cubic centimeter, but notes that estimates of synapse density vary; so let's just stick with the smaller number.)
It would be a big mistake to assume that a neural signal would have to sequentially traverse all those 77 billion synapses. To traverse the shortest path across this area, the signal would have to merely pass through a number of synapses that is roughly the cube root of the total number of synapses in this volume (the number that you would have to multiply by itself three times to get the total number of synapses in this volume). Similarly, if we imagine a ball with 64 equally spaced connected nodes, including nodes in the center, something rather like the ball shown below, then it is clear that the shortest path between any one node at the outer edge of the ball to another node on the opposite end of the ball would require that you traverse a number of nodes that is at least the cube root of 64, which is 4.
So to roughly compute the shortest series of synapses that would have to be traversed for a brain signal to travel though this 1 cubic centimeter volume, we can take the cube root of 77 billion (the number that multiplied by itself three different times equals 77 billion). The cube root of 77 billion is 4254. So it seems that to traverse the shortest path through a volume of 1 cubic centimeter containing 77 billion synapses, traveling a distance of about 1 cubic centimeter, a neural signal would have to pass sequentially through a path containing at least 4000 different synapses (along with other neural elements such as dendrites).
To calculate how long this traversal would take across a 1 cubic centimeter region of the brain, considering only the dominant delay factor of synaptic delays, we can simply multiply this number of 4000 by the synaptic delay (the time needed for the signal to cross a single synaptic gap). Using the smallest estimate of the synaptic delay (an estimate from 1965 of about .5 millisecond), and ignoring the more recent year 2000 estimate of 2.29 milliseconds for the synaptic delay, this gives us a total time of 4000 multiplied by .5 millisecond. This gives us a total time of two seconds (2000 milliseconds) for how long it would take a nerve signal to travel across one cubic centimeter of brain tissue. The velocity of nerve signal speed we get from this calculation is a speed of less than 1 centimeter per second (it's actually a speed of a half a centimeter per second).
Take careful note that this speed is more than 10,000 times slower than the "100 meters per second" figure that is given by some experts when they are asked about how fast a brain signal travels. Such an expert answer is very misleading, because it only calculates the fastest speed that a nerve signal can travel inside the brain, while it is traveling through the fastest tiny parts of the brain (myelinated axons), not the average speed of such a brain signal as it passes through different types of brain tissue and many different synapses. It turns out that because of the "speed bump' of synaptic delays, the average speed of a nerve signal traveling though the brain should be about 20,000 times slower than "100 meters per second" -- a slowpoke speed of about a half of a centimeter per second. That's half the maximum speed at which a snail can move. If I had used the year 2000 estimate of the synaptic delay (2.29 milliseconds), I would have got a speed estimate for brain signals that is only about .125 centimeters per second, which is one eighth the speed of a moving snail.
This calculation is of the utmost relevance to the question of whether the brain is fast enough to account for extremely rapid human thinking and instantaneous memory retrieval. Based on what I have discussed, it seems that signal transmission across regions of the brain should be very slow -- way too slow to account for very fast thinking and instantaneous recall and recognition.
Many a human can calculate as fast as he or she can recall. For example, the Guinness world record web site tells us, "Scott Flansburg of Phoenix, Arizona, USA, correctly added a randomly selected two-digit number (38) to itself 36 times in 15 seconds without the use of a calculator on 27 April 2000 on the set of Guinness World Records in Wembley, UK." Such speed cannot be explained as the activity of a brain in which signals literally move at a less than a snail's pace.
To give another example, In 2004 Alexis Lemaire was able to calculate in his head the 13th root of this number:
85,877,066,894,718,045, 602,549,144,850,158,599,202,771,247,748,960,878,023,151, 390,314,284,284,465,842,798,373,290,242,826,571,823,153, 045,030,300,932,591,615,405,929,429,773,640,895,967,991,430,381,763,526,613,357,308,674,592,650,724,521,841,103,664,923,661,204,223
In only 77 seconds, according to the BBC, Lemaire was able to state that it is the number 2396232838850303 which when multiplied by itself 13 times equals the number above. Here we have calculation speed far beyond anything that could be possible if calculation is done by a brain in which signals travel at less than a snail's pace.
In this matter it seems our neuroscientists have acted as if they were afraid to put two and two together. They have measured the speed of brain signal transmission in axons, dendrites and synapses. But I find a curious avoidance in neuroscience literature of the basic topic of the average time it should take a signal to travel across one region of the brain to another. It's like our neuroscientists are afraid to do the math which might lead them to the conclusion that signals cannot travel from one random brain region to another nearby region at a rate of more than an inch a second. For if they were to do such math, their claim that brains are the source of our thinking and recall would be debunked.
Echoing part of what I have said here, a textbook says "the cumulative synaptic delay may exceed the propagation time along the axons." But why aren't scientists more explicit, by telling us that this cumulative synaptic delay will actually exceed the propagation time along the axons by a factor of more than 1000, leading to "snail's pace" brain signals? Another source vaguely tells us that "cumulative synaptic delay would affect the speed of information processing at every level of cognitive complexity" without mentioning what a crippling effect this would be if our brains were doing thinking and recall.
I may note whenever a neuroscientist answers a question such as "how fast do brain signals travel" by mentioning only the fastest rate at which a brain signal can travel through the fastest little parts of the brain (through a myelinated axon), such as neuroscientists typically do, such an answer is either deceptive or very clumsy. It's like answering the question "how fast can you travel across Manhattan" by citing the maximum speed limit on any Manhattan cross-street such as 42nd Street, without considering all the delays caused by traffic lights. Synaptic delays are comparable to traffic light delays, and they are a factor that must be calculated when realistically considering how fast a brain signal typically travels inside the brain.
It is interesting that both this 1979 scientific paper and this 2008 scientific paper estimate the number of synapses in the human cortex as being about a billion per cubic millimeter, which equals a trillion per cubic centimeter. This is 10+ times greater than the 77 billion per cubic centimeter figure I was using above. The more synapses, the more speed bumps, and the slower the brain signal. If I had done the brain speed calculation specifically for cortex tissue (the supposed center of higher thought), the calculation would have come up with a brain signal speed very much slower than the half a centimeter per second result that was reached.
To sum up, we have several gigantic reasons for thinking that brains must be too slow to account for instantaneous recall:
(1) Finding the exact little spot where a memory was stored would be like finding a needle in a haystack, given the lack of any indexing system or position coordinate system in the brain.
(2) Decoding stored memories from encoded neural states would take additional time that would make neural memory recall much less than instantaneous.
(3) The "snail's pace" speed of brain signals (greatly slowed by synaptic delays) would prevent an instantaneous recall of memories and stored information such as humans often have.
The slowness of the brain is one of many neuroscience reasons for believing that the brain cannot be the storage place of our memories, and cannot be the source of our thinking and consciousness. Human mentality must be primarily a psychic or spiritual or non-biological reality rather than a neural reality.
I can imagine various ways in which a person could try to rebut some of the argumentation in this post, Someone could simply say that we know that signals must travel very fast in a brain, because humans are able to recall things instantly or recognize things instantly. But we do not at all know that recognition or recall are actually effects produced by the brain, and we have good reasons for doubting that they are (such as the short lifetimes of synapse proteins and the fact that the high noise levels in brains and synapses is incompatible with the fact that humans such as Hamlet actors can flawlessly recall very large bodies of memorized information). So we cannot use the speed of recognition or recall to deduce the speed of brain signals.
Another way you could try to rebut this post would be to cite some expert who estimated how fast signals move about in a brain. But further analysis would generally show that such an estimate was not derived from a calculation of all the low-level factors (such as synaptic delay) affecting the speed of brain signals, but was simply a calculation based on the assumption that brains must pass about signals at the speed at which humans recognize or recall things or respond to things. We cannot use such circular reasoning or "begging the question" when considering this matter. The only intelligent way to calculate the speed of a brain signal is to do a calculation based on low-level things (such as synaptic delays) that we definitely know, rather than starting out making grand assumptions about the mind and brain that are unproven and actually discredited by the very low-level facts (such as the length of synaptic delays) that should be examined.
Although neuroscientists typically claim that synapses are where memories are stored in the brain, there are four ways in which the characteristics of synapses are telling us that thinking and memory is not brain-caused:
(1) Synapses show no signs of having stored information, and their main structural feature (the disorganized little blob or bag that is the synaptic knob or head) seems like pretty much the last type of structure we'd expect to see in something storing information for decades.
(2) Synapses are unstable units undergoing spontaneous remodeling, and synapses consist of proteins with average lifetimes of only a few weeks, only a thousandth of the maximum length of time that humans store memories.
(3) Synapses are very noisy, so noisy that one expert tells us that a signal passing through a synapse "makes it across the synapse with a probability like one half, or even less," making synapses unsuitable as reliable transmitters of memory information that humans such as Wagnerian tenors can recall abundantly with 100% accuracy. Given such noise levels, which would seem to have the effect of rapidly extinguishing brain signals, there would seem to be good reason for suspecting that it is effectively impossible for brain signals to travel more than a centimeter or an inch without vanishing or becoming mere tiny traces of their original strength.
(4) The most common type of synapse is slow, and although the synaptic delay in a single synapse is only about a millisecond, when we calculate the cumulative synaptic delay we find that brain signals must be slower than a snail's pace, way too slow to explain instantaneous recall and fast thinking.
In fact, if some designer of the human body had specifically designed something to tell us (by its characteristics) that our brains cannot be the source of our fast thinking and instantaneous memory, it's rather hard to imagine anything that would do a better job of telling us that than our signal-slowing, very noisy, unstable synapses. Our synapses are telling us (by their characteristics) that thinking and memory is not brain-caused, but our neuroscientists (trapped in ideological enclaves of dogma and reigning speech customs) aren't listening to what our synapses are telling us.
Postscript: I may note that you do not get a much faster estimate for the speed of brain signals if you calculate the speed from one neuron to the nearest neuron, rather than the speed through a cubic centimeter. The speed is the same snail's pace I have calculated, because the signal will always have to pass through synapses that are the dominant slowing factor.
There is an entirely different method you could use to calculate the speed of signals inside the brain, using not estimates of the number of synapses per cubic centimeter, but instead the average distance between neurons. This paper mentions an average distance of about 26 micrometers between neurons in a rat cortex, and it says, "we believe that the parameter of 26 µm [micrometers] average distance between neurons is also a valid assumption in the human brain." I assume that by "average distance between neurons" this source means the average distance between two adjacent neurons. Below are some calculation figures that we get if we use this average distance figure, and we use a synaptic delay estimate that is about the average of the .5 millisecond and 2.29 millisecond estimates quoted above.
Average distance between neurons in micrometers 26
This distance in centimeters 0.0026
Synaptic delay in milliseconds 1
Time needed to cross distance above (in seconds), considering only the synaptic delay .001
Total distance that could be traversed by a brain signal in a second 1000*0.0026 centimeter=2.6 centimeter
Signal speed between adjacent neurons in centimeters per second 2.6
Using this method, we get a result in the same ballpark as the result calculated by my first method. The first method found that brain signals travel at a rate of about .5 centimeters per second, and this method finds that brain signals travel at about 2.6 centimeters per second, which is about an inch per second. Either way, this speed is way too slow to account for instantaneous recall and very rapid thinking.
A most-realistic estimate of brain signal speed would also take into account two other factors ignored in the calculations above (and also ignored by neuroscientists when discussing the speed of brain signals):
(1) The noise in synapses, and the fact that in the cortex, signal transmission across synapses is highly unreliable. A scientific paper says, "In the cortex, individual synapses seem to be extremely unreliable: the probability of transmitter release in response to a single action potential can be as low as 0.1 or lower." Considered over a large section of brain tissue, this unreliability would be equivalent to a big additional slowing factor, and might well lead to speed estimates much lower than I have made here.
(2) Synaptic fatigue, a temporary inability of the head or vesicle of a synapse to send a signal, because of a depletion of neurotransmitters. Referring to synaptic fatigue, one paper states the following:
By contrast, following neurotransmission, synaptic vesicle membranes are internalized within seconds, and the recycled synaptic vesicles can be reloaded with neurotransmitter within 1–2 minutes.
This paper mentions a much shorter "timescale of vesicle recovery" of 800 milliseconds, but even that would be a large slowing factor, making it all the more unlikely that brain signals inside the cortex can regularly travel about at much more than about a centimeter per second.
There are two other factors I didn't mention in my original post, both tending to further slow the speed of a signal from one end of the brain to another:
(1) Tortuosity: the fact that a shortest path between two different brain areas is typically a sinuous, snake-like path rather than a straight line (tortuosity is the technical term for such a thing).
(2) Folding of cerebral tissue: the surface area of cerebral tissue is much larger than you might think by looking at the top of a head; and a brain signal can't travel a straight line between these folds.
So below is a list of all of the factors that must be considered when considering the true speed of signals between two opposite areas of the brain:
(1) The speed of transmission through dendrites, which can be 200 or more times slower than the "100 meters per second" estimate based on transmission through axons.
(2) Synaptic delays, which end up being a huge slowing factor because so many synapses must be traversed.
(3) Synaptic unreliability or noise, the fact that a signal is often transmitted with only between 10% to 50% likelihood, a factor that is typically ignored but which has a huge impact on effective speed.
(4) Synaptic fatigue, the fact that a synapse will so often need a rest period after firing, a period that can be more than a minute.
(5) Tortuosity, the fact that nerve signals must travel through sinuous paths that are not straight lines.
(6) Folding of cortex tissue, a further slowing factor.
Every one of these factors is ignored by 95% of discussions of brain signal speed in the popular press.
A 2011 LiveScience.com article is entitled "Speed of Brain Cell Chatter Clocked for the First Time." Buried within the article is a fact that corroborates what I have said in this post. The article discusses an experiment in which scientists clocked signal speed in mouse brains, by tagging neurotransmitters with a fluorescent protein. The article reports, "On average, it takes about five seconds for the cells to collect up the neurotransmitters and this timeframe didn't vary much between a cell's different synapses." This is the only speed figure given by the article. Since the article was talking about a mouse brain (no larger than about two centimeters across), this is exactly the "snail's pace" signal transmission rate that I have claimed in this post, a pace of roughly one centimeter per second.
A 2020 paper was entitled "Kilohertz two-photon fluorescence microscopy imaging of neural 2 activity in vivo." It used some fancy new technology to clock the speed of brain signals in a living mouse. Supplementary Figure 5 of the paper refers to a calcium propagating speed of about 25 microns per second, which is a very slow speed of only 0.0025 centimeters per second. If human brain signals travel at such a speed, the brain must be thousands of times too slow to account for instant recall.
The paper here clocks the speed of seizures in zebrafish, and finds them to be a maximum of 10.5 millimeters per second, a speed of 1.05 centimeters per second. This is almost exactly the same as estimate I give in the visual above: the rough estimate of only 1 centimeter per second for brain signals. The paper here lists a speed of only about 1 millimeter per second for seizures in the human brain, saying, "Seizures propagate slowly to connected areas with speeds on the order of 1 mm/s." There is no reason to think that some hypothetical brain signals involved in thinking would occur much faster than seizures.
Labels: brain signal speed, memory recall


"Inception: Beginning a New Conversation about Communication Pedagogy a" by Deanna P. Dannels, Ann Darling et al.
Drawing on past pedagogical and scholarly lines of inquiry, this article advances—in a dialogic form—several questions for future research and practice in areas of communication, teaching, and learning. The dialogic form of this article offers a metamessage, inviting colleagues to consider creative approaches to inquiry and collaboration in the 21st century. The ideas and questions presented in this essay serve to push the field beyond disciplinary silos, advance research and pedagogy about teaching and learning, and offer thought-provoking insight into what scholars and practitioners who explore communication, teaching, and learning can contribute to those inside and outside of our discipline.
Communication Education, 2014, Volume 63, Issue 4, 366-382.
Dannels, Deanna P.; Darling, Ann; Fassett, Deanna L.; Kerssen-Griep, Jeff; Lane, Derek; Mottet, Timothy P.; Nainby, Keith; and Sellnow, Deanna, "Inception: Beginning a New Conversation about Communication Pedagogy and Scholarship" (2014). Communication Studies Faculty Publications and Presentations. 5.


text:
Canada's 'Free' Parental Leave Is One Reason I Don't Live There
August 30, 2019 By Ilya Shapiro
Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., just unveiled the first bipartisan legislative proposal for federal subsidies for families after childbirth, which would "help working families now by funding paid parental leave or infant care expenses through advancing the Child Tax Credit."
The proposal is similar to bills introduced by other members of Congress — Republican Sens. Joni Ernst of Iowa, Mike Lee of Utah, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Marco Rubio of Florida, as well as Republican Reps. Dan Crenshaw of Texas and Ann Wagner of Missouri — that would allow new parents to tap up to three months of Social Security payments after the arrival of a child. (Full disclosure: These bills are modeled after a white paper written by my wife, Kristin Shapiro, a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum.)
Cue the leftist hysteria. Hours after the Cassidy-Sinema bill dropped, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., attacked the bill as "another proposal that would force working families to borrow from their own futures." The United States, progressives say, is the only developed country that doesn't subsidize parents' care for newborns. Well, I'm a citizen of both Canada and the United States, and the fact that Canada "gives" its citizens parental leave is one reason (apart from the weather) that I don't live there.
The Burden of Employment Insurance
Canada provides paid leave through its "Employment Insurance," which also supports workers during unemployment, illness, and family caregiving. I get why some of its southern neighbors envy this socialist nirvana. Who wouldn't want to go on the dole at those times, eh?
But Employment Insurance costs working families dearly. If my family moved to Canada, my wife and I would pay nearly US$125,000 in added payroll taxes during our lives to fund the program. (You can find all tax calculations below — and I translated the loonies into greenbacks.*) That's a lot of Canadian bacon! We'd technically split this amount with our employers, but any economist will tell you an employer payroll tax is really part of the employee's tax burden.
As a higher-income household, we're not a sympathetic case. But because Canada's payroll tax — like most payroll taxes — is regressive, it costs lower-income families a greater share of earnings. A family in which each spouse makes $35,000 per year, for example, would pay nearly $110,000 in added taxes, even though its household income is substantially less than ours. Notably, a whopping 8.4 percent of that, or about $9,000, won't even go toward benefits (which they may never use), but instead is eaten up by administrative costs.
An Imbalance of Benefits
Even worse, the families most in need are the least likely to benefit. Two recent studies show that while 75-85 percent of higher-income mothers receive newborn care subsidies, only about 45 percent of lower-income mothers do. As one of the studies' authors put it, Canada's "distribution of benefits is unbalanced and aids the social reproduction of higher-income families."
Canada's hefty payroll taxes also depress employment, stifling growth and opportunity. Maybe that's why, despite Americans' frequent threats to move to Canada, very few actually do. For every American who moves to Canada, more than two Canadians move here. Indeed, a million Canadians (out of 37 million) have joined me in moving south of the border.
So as you consider various parental leave proposals, take a word of advice from this Canuck expatriate: America doesn't need to be like other countries.
*Tax Calculations
Basics: Canada imposes 1.62 percent payroll tax on the worker and 2.268 percent payroll tax on the employer to fund Employment Insurance, for a combined total of 3.888 percent payroll tax. The tax maxes out at C$53,100.
Calculation for us (assuming we both work 40 years and that we pay the max tax each year): The max tax is C$860.22 on the worker and C$1,204.31 on the employer, for a combined total payroll tax max of C$2,059.73 per worker per year. C$2,064.53 x 2 people x 40 years = C$165,162.40. This converts to about US$124,000, depending on exchange rate.
Calculation for a family in which each parent makes $35,000: $70k/yr x .03888 tax x 40 years = $108,864.
Ilya Shapiro is a senior contributor to The Federalist and author of the new, "Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court." He is director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. Follow him on Twitter, @ishapiro.
Photo CBS This Morning/YouTube
Bill Cassidy Canada Child Tax Credit childbirth employees Employment Insurance family leave insurance Kyrsten Sinema legislation maternity leave parental leave payroll tax Social Security taxes
Democrats Slam Trump's Payroll Tax Cut For 'Raiding' Entitlements While Raiding Entitlements
On payroll taxes and protecting entitlement benefits for seniors, a look at their record shows that Democrats have little ground to stand on.
In Coronavirus Spending Bill, Democrats Push Massive Tax Cut For The Rich
The Democrat proposal would give an average tax cut of $33,000 to the top 1 percent of income earners, says a Brookings Institution estimate.
Viral Video Of Teen Discovering Taxes Is A Moment More Americans Need To Experience
While it's amusing to watch 18-year-old Jojo learn the cold truth about taxes, his experience reminds us how much the government takes from our hard work.
Permanent Pro-Growth Tax Policy Is The Key To Economic Recovery
American businesses need a tax code that provides the certainty and stability required by entrepreneurs and job creators to keep the economy strong.
COVID-19 Stock Dive Illuminates Another Way Democrats' Tax Plan Would Boost The Rich
The struggling stock market reveals a major flaw in Democrats' tax plan that could become law if Joe Biden wins the presidency: Mark to Market taxation of capital gains.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Printing a list of IF conditions I have a number of Prolog conditions like this:
if has(X,Y)
     then need(X,Z).

Is there any way in which I could write a command to list all of these?
Thanks in advance.

A: That's not even close to valid prolog syntax. Here is a great website you can use to learn the basics of Prolog.
There are many other resources available online which you can find by a Google search (free ebooks, sample codes, etc). Also, there's a book called Programming in Prolog by William F. Clocksin which I strongly recommend.

A: Is this what the original questioner meant ?
has(student, ambiguousquestion).

need(student, studymore).
need(student, doresearch).
need(student, reprasequestion).
need(student, helpustohelpyou).

?- has(X,Y), findall(Z, need(X,Z), Res), write(Res).
[studymore,doresearch,reprasequestion,helpustohelpyou]
X = student,
Y = ambiguousquestion,
Res = [studymore, doresearch, reprasequestion, helpustohelpyou].

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


My Lead System Pro launched in 2008 and was co founded by Norbert Orlewicz and Todd Schlomer. It is an mlm company, and like all mlm programs you will have the opportunity to pitch for people to join in on the My Lead System Pro for financial gains. The owners claim that you will not get rejected by individuals you try to promote this to. They advise that the system will teach you to look at yourself like a professional in order to attract sales. From my years of experience in online marketing I can tell you that earning an income is not easy, and for most it usually takes time and patience.
The My Lead System promotes itself as a lead generation for any online business you may have, but it is primarily forcused on other multi level marketing companies. The MY lead system pro claims you can make money with little effort as its engines drives leads to your primary business.
They advertise their program as the fastest way to build your chosen MLM business and earn money along the way by enticing others to pay for entry and monthly fees of the MY Lead System Pro. The best option may be to target other individuals in your mlm business that may be struggling to join in on the My Lead System Pro.
Membership packages for the My Lead System Pro is detailed in the image below.
With the three packages offered you will not get much out of the basic which is priced at $49 a month. The My Lead System Pro encourages members to join at the professional package for $149 a month or jump into premium if you can afford $299 a month.
The My Lead System has 3 main products that they entice their members to promote.
2.The product is also the My Lead System Pro in itself. Simply by referring members to join the My Lead System Pro will earn you an income. Getting others to join can result in a residual income, or what they term continuity revenue. Unlike other mlm companies that I have joined in the past, you still have to pay monthly fees even after getting others to join which takes away from the money you make.
3. High Ticket Items that will require a lot of work to sell in order to earn the advertised $1,000 profit from each sale. It will take an experienced online marketer to make money with this.
The My Lead System actually offers good support if you pay the premium membership at $299 monthly. You will be able to get live support and contact more experienced members if you have any questions or need help.
In being involved with World Ventures in the past, I can state that mlm opportunites is not meant for the majority of people to be successful. When I was a part of World Ventures I attended a seminar, and a speaker at the seminar said the percentage of people that are successful in World Ventures is around 20 percent if I remember correctly as it may be lower. It depends on what mlm you join, but the percentage of those who have success is even lower than that when talking about mlms collectively.
The My Lead System Pro is unique due to it being an mlm business that mainly focus on building an MLM business you are already involved in. There is certainly some professional graphics that were created and decent training with nice lead capture pages (landing pages). While they have certain products you can sell, if you're promoting and selling products (with no residual income, one-time sales) you're not promoting your primary business.
With mlm opportunities you must rely heavily on recruiting others to join for financial gains. The prices to join in on some of these mlm opportunities is ridiculous and not the average person will be able to afford joining such programs. Good luck trying to get people to dish out $149 a month or the even higher rate at $299 for the My Lead System Pro.
If you want to build a passive income I would recommend you click here for my review of Wealthy Affiliates, an MLM without the Facebook stalking, 3-way calls, and autoship. Welcome to the future, network marketing, it's about time. Wealthy Affiliate is an affiliate opportunity for people who want some solid digital marketing training, and they've even got a free trial option.
I do not even categorize Wealthy Affiliates as an mlm opportunity because it teaches everything you need to know in regards to making money through online marketing. Despite my best efforts into being a successful World Ventures representative, I do not like the fact that your success depends on other people. I would like to know that if I work hard and with time and patience I would eventually get the results I expect. I lost over a thousand dollars paying initial fees along with monthlys to World Ventures. If the people you sign up struggle and fall out it also effects your earnings.
From experience, if you are struggling with an mlm business you are involved in it would be wise to get out instead of investing and potentially losing more money than you may have already lost.
I hope this review of the My Lead System Pro has answered any questions you may have had in regards to the program. If you have ever joined My Lead System Pro, feel free to share your experience in the comment section below.


text:
Q: How to use angularjs directive into directive I have a directive.This directive handles drag and drop of child element. The list of the child elements will be generated by the directive from an given array of data. To render each Element I'd like to give the directive a render. At this time I use a fiter. But I think that is not a job for a filter. Is there a way to use an other directive for it?
directive:
module.directive('dndSortable', ['$filter', '$log',
function ($filter, $log) {
    return {
        restrict: 'A',
        scope: {
            dndValues: '=',
            dndRenderFilter: '@'
        },
        link: function (scope, element) {
            angular.forEach(dndValues, function(value){
                //my first idea was to use a fiter this will create a element
                //but I think thats not the function of fiters
                //maybe there is a way to use a directive here
                var dndElement = $filter(scope.dndRenderFilter)(value);
                // ... add event handling for dnd to the dndElement
            });
        }
    }
}]);

filter:
module.filter('mySortListRenderFilter', function () {
    return function (imageValue) {
        var img,
            prefix = 'http://prefix/url';
        if (!angular.isUndefined(imageValue) || !imageValue.hasOwnProperty('scr')) {
            img = angular.element('<img>');
            img.attr('src', prefix + imageValue.src);
            img.addClass('teaser-gallery-image');
        }
        return img;

    };
});

html:
<div
    dndSortable
    dnd-values="mySortableList"
    dnd-render-filter="mySortListRenderFilter">
</div>


text:
2012 NFL DRAFT: DEFENSIVE ENDS
A position-by-position look at prospects in this year's NFL Draft. This entry: Defensive Ends.
INDIANAPOLIS –Melvin Ingram is not your typical defensive end.
Dating back to his days as a point guard in high school, Ingram has grown into one of the most athletic prospects in this year's NFL Draft.
Whether it is his standing back flips or the fact that he was on the South Carolina 'hands' team this past season, the versatile Ingram has found his way onto the field in a variety of ways for the Gamecocks.
"I feel like playing so many roles helped me maximize my potential because I feel my coach gave me the opportunity to show my athletic ability in every way," Ingram said.
Ingram arrived at South Carolina as a linebacker back in 2007, and he played that position during his freshman season. He appeared in all 12 games that first year, but he suffered a broken foot just prior to the Gamecocks spring game following the season.
The injury did seem to faze Ingram. He sat out all of the 2008 season while rehabilitating. After briefly getting a look at fullback, he switched to his current position – defensive end.
"It wasn't real difficult because injuries are a part of life, a part of football," Ingram said. "It was just something I had to deal with, something I had to overcome."
At defensive end, Ingram burst onto the scene during his junior season when he recorded nine sacks, a total achieved with only one starting assignment. The sack total ranked third in the SEC and tied the second-highest seasonal total in school history.
"Just coming in, being in a situation where somebody was in front of me," Ingram said of not starting his junior year. "I had to play my role on the team. I did whatever the team needed me to do. At that point in time, it wasn't for me to be a starter."
The starting role for Ingram came in his final season in Columbia as he helped the Gamecocks to the most wins in school history, along with a first-ever Top Ten finish.
Ingram became just the third consensus All-American at South Carolina, and he was first-team All-SEC. The team captain started 12 of 13 games and had 48 tackles, 15 for losses, and 10 sacks. The sack total tied the school seasonal mark, and he had three touchdowns. Two of his scores came at Georgia when he had a five-yard fumble return and a 68-yard burst on a fake punt. The performance made him just the third Gamecock since 2006 with an offensive and defensive touchdown in the same game.
The versatile performer also ran 19 yards on a fake punt against The Citadel, and he had 11 tackles, 3.5 sacks and an interception against Auburn. For his career, Ingram started 14 of 52 games and had 109 tackles, 71 solo, 30.5 stops for losses and 21.5 sacks.
Along with getting a player that has seen time at both linebacker and defensive end in perhaps the nation's top conference, Ingram mentioned other intangibles that he will bring to the team that drafts him.
"They're going to get a hard worker, a passionate player of football, a leader, vocal and leading by example," Ingram said.
Since his days as a high school 'scoring' point guard, Ingram has added about 40 pounds to his 6-2, 276-pound frame.
The ability to handle the position change after the adversity of suffering a season-ending injury proved to be the difference for the future pro.
"It just showed me how valuable football was," Ingram said of the year off. "Football has always been my life but being without it for a year just made me appreciate it a lot more, even though I appreciated it a lot already."
LOOKING AT THE 2012 NFL DRAFT'S DEFENSIVE ENDS
THE LAST FIVE
The last five defensive ends drafted by the Colts:
2010: Jerry Hughes, first round, TCU
2008: Marcus Howard, fifth round, Georgia
2007: Keyunta Dawson, seventh round, Texas Tech
2005: Jonathan Welsh, fifth round, Wisconsin
2003: Robert Mathis, fifth round, Alabama A&M
THIS YEAR'S DRAFT
An alphabetical list of defensive ends expected to be selected in the 2012 NFL Draft (*-denotes underclassman):
Frank Alexander, Oklahoma
Jake Bequette, Arkansas
Andre Branch, Clemson
Vince Brown, Northwestern
Quinton Coples, North Carolina
Jack Crawford, Penn State
Vinny Curry, Marshall
Melvin Ingram, South Carolina
Cam Johnson, Virginia
Note: The content in this story and in the series of draft-eligible players that appears on Colts.com in no way reflects the position of the Indianapolis Colts.
Catch The Entire Second Season Of 'With The Next Pick' Saturday On CBS4
With the Indianapolis Colts about to embark on training camp, get a refresher on the team's action in the 2020 NFL Draft, as CBS4/WTTV is airing the second season of Colts Productions' "With The Next Pick" Saturday at 7 p.m. ET.
Through The Scout's Eye: Jordan Glasgow
Kevin Rogers, the Colts' director of pro personnel, and general manager Chris Ballard discuss what they saw in linebacker Jordan Glasgow, the Colts' sixth-round (213th-overall) pick in this year's NFL Draft.
Through The Scout's Eye: Dezmon Patmon
Matt Terpening, the Colts' assistant director of college scouting, discusses what he saw in wide receiver Dezmon Patmon, the Colts' sixth-round (212th-overall) pick in this year's NFL Draft.
Through The Scout's Eye: Isaiah Rodgers
Mike Derice, an area scout for the Indianapolis Colts who focuses on the Northeast region, discusses what he saw in cornerback Isaiah Rodgers, the Colts' sixth-round (211th-overall) pick in this year's NFL Draft.
Through The Scout's Eye: Rob Windsor
Mike Derice, an area scout for the Indianapolis Colts who focuses on the Northeast region, discusses what he saw in defensive tackle Rob Windsor, the Colts' sixth-round (193rd-overall) pick in this year's NFL Draft.
Through The Scout's Eye: Danny Pinter
Kevin Rogers, the Colts' director of pro personnel, discusses what he saw in guard Danny Pinter, the Colts' fifth-round (149th-overall) pick in this year's NFL Draft.
Through The Scout's Eye: Jacob Eason
Chris McGaha, an area scout for the Indianapolis Colts who focuses on the West Coast, as well as Matt Terpening, the Colts' assistant director of college scouting, and general manager Chris Ballard discuss what they saw in quarterback Jacob Eason, the Colts' fourth-round (122nd-overall) pick in this year's NFL Draft.
Through The Scout's Eye: Julian Blackmon
Chris McGaha, an area scout for the Indianapolis Colts who focuses on the West Coast, as well as Matt Terpening, the Colts' assistant director of college scouting, discuss what they saw in safety Julian Blackmon, the Colts' third-round (85th-overall) pick in this year's NFL Draft.
Through The Scout's Eye: Jonathan Taylor
Kevin Rogers, the Colts' director of pro personnel, as well as general manager Chris Ballard discuss what they saw in running back Jonathan Taylor, the Colts' second-round (41st-overall) pick in this year's NFL Draft.
Through The Scout's Eye: Michael Pittman Jr.
Chris McGaha, an area scout for the Indianapolis Colts who focuses on the West Coast, as well as Matt Terpening, the Colts' assistant director of college scouting, and general manager Chris Ballard discuss what they saw in wide receiver Michael Pittman Jr., the Colts' second-round (34th-overall) pick in this year's NFL Draft.
Nick Sirianni 1-on-1: On Philip Rivers, Draft Picks, Mack-Taylor Combo
Indianapolis Colts offensive coordinator Nick Sirianni recently sat down for a Colts.com 1-on-1 interview. What are his thoughts on new quarterback Philip Rivers, what he took away from the 2020 NFL Draft and the Marlon Mack-Jonathan Taylor combination at running back?
Matt Eberflus 1-on-1: On DeForest Buckner, Xavier Rhodes, Draft Class Evaluations
Indianapolis Colts defensive coordinator Matt Eberflus recently sat down for a Colts.com 1-on-1 interview. What are his thoughts on all the newest additions to the Indy defense in 2020, including DeForest Buckner, Xavier Rhodes and all four defensive picks from the 2020 NFL Draft?


Blue X3 Watering Can - iwantdis.
$52 - The X3 watering can is as simple and enjoyable as seeing that first outward poke of a seed or flower. It's named after the clean construction at the heart of its shape: just three simple bends in one hollow pipe.


text:
Şubat 27, 2022 editör 0 yorum infertility in women, IVF Treatment, menstrual pain, symptomps of inferility, treatment of female infertility
Infertility is defined as the absence of pregnancy within a year despite having regular intercourse. Infertility in women is a condition in which the ability to conceive and reproduce is impaired or limited. Infertility is a health problem seen in an average of twenty-five percent of couples. Increasing age, especially in women, prevents having children. For this reason, it is recommended that couples over the age of 35 consult a doctor in cases where pregnancy does not occur despite regular sexual intercourse.
What Are the Symptoms of Infertility in Women?
Infertility symptoms in women sometimes do not show any symptoms, and many women may realize that they have infertility symptoms.
The first of these is menstrual irregularities and ovulation irregularities that occur at this point.
In general, the symptoms of infertility in women are as follows;
Severe menstrual pain and heavy bleeding
Milk formation in the breasts against not being pregnant
Absence or sudden cessation of menstruation
Excess weight or weakness
Excessive hair growth and acne problems caused by hormonal disorders
Infertility Treatment in Women
In the treatment of infertility, it is aimed for people to have a baby. For this purpose, fertility tests are performed and the causes that prevent baby formation are diagnosed and treatment is applied. Testing begins with a physical examination, including a medical history as well as a pelvic exam. Your doctor wants to know about your ovulation periods. A number of tests are done to measure hormone levels. The uterus and ovaries are examined with ultrasound, and the uterus and fallopian tubes are examined with the help of an X-ray test. The most important known causes of infertility in women are ovulation problems and obstruction of the fallopian tubes. However, some women's test results are clear and the cause is unknown.
In the treatment of female infertility, certain medications and hormones may be given to normalize hormone levels. If the cause of fertility is blocked fallopian tubes, surgical operations are the preferred operation to remove the obstructions in the tubes. IVF treatment is a form of treatment offered mostly for women whose two tubes are blocked. This treatment method is a method frequently used by couples who cannot have children due to various reasons.
onedio.com
← When is genetic examination necessary in IVF treatment?
How should a successful IVF treatment be planned? →
Giving patients a realistic understanding of IVF success rates
Aralık 8, 2021 Aralık 8, 2021 editör 0
COVID-19 Vaccination Does Not Impact Fertility, Study Says
Ocak 24, 2022 editör 0
What Research Says About How Gluten May Be Impacting Your Fertility
Şubat 28, 2022 editör 0


text:
Silicaten zijn zouten of esters van kiezelzuur (H4SiO4). De zouten bevatten alle het tetraëdrische SiO44−-ion (of een afgeleide daarvan, met een of meer waterstofatomen). Silicaten worden als grondstof gebruikt bij de bereiding van glas. De silicaten van natrium en calcium worden waterglas genoemd en vinden toepassingen in de techniek.

De esters zijn verbindingen met als algemene formule Si(OR)4.

Silicaten in de mineralogie
Silicaten vormen een belangrijke groep mineralen, die alle opgebouwd zijn uit SiO4-tetraëders. Ze vormen bijna 95% van de aardkorst en bestaan in tal van variëteiten:
 ferromagnetische silicaten, zoals chlorieten, serpentijnen, amfibolen, pyroxenen, olivijnen en granaten;
 aluminosilicaten, waarbij aluminium vervangen kan worden door silicium: veldspaten, zeolieten en mica's;
 aluminiumsilicaten: toermalijnen en granaten.

Indeling van de silicaten
De silicaten worden verder ingedeeld op basis van de polymerisatiegraad van het silicaat-ion in de volgende groepen:
 nesosilicaten (enkelvoudige tetraëders) - [SiO4]4−, bijvoorbeeld olivijn;
 sorosilicaten (dubbele tetraëders) - [Si2O7]6−, bijvoorbeeld epidoot;
 cyclosilicaten (ringen) - [SinO3n]2n−, bijvoorbeeld de toermalijngroep;
 inosilicaten met enkele ketens - [SinO3n]2n−, bijvoorbeeld de pyroxeengroep;
 inosilicaten met dubbele keten - [Si4nO11n]6n−, bijvoorbeeld de amfiboolgroep;
 fylosilicaten (bladen) - [Si2nO5n]2n−, bijvoorbeeld de mica's en de kleimineralen;
 tectosilicaten (driedimensionaal raamwerk) - [AlxSiyO2(x+y)]x−, bijvoorbeeld kwarts, veldspaten en zeolieten.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Order McDelivery
Chicken McNuggets® & Selects®
Wraps & Salads
Saver Menu®
Happy Meal®
Milkshakes & Cold Drinks
Main meals under 400kcal
Breakfast under 400kcal
My McDonald's app
MyMcDonald's Rewards
McDelivery
{{fullRlData.locateLabel}}
{{data.title}}*
{{data.description}}*
{{data.linkText}} {{data.linkText}}
McDonald's UK Modern Slavery Statement 2020
At McDonald's, we take seriously our responsibility to respect and promote human rights and to act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the human rights of others and address any impacts on human rights if they occur. We are committed to respecting human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our Human Rights Policy ("Policy") is also guided by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the International Bill of Human Rights, and the principles set out in the International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
We strive to foster safe, inclusive and respectful workplaces wherever we do business and respect the fundamental rights of McDonald's employees, which are: freedom from slavery and child labour; freedom to associate or not associate and collectively bargain; equal opportunity for everyone; a safe and healthy workplace; and freedom from discrimination and harassment. Where McDonald's may impact the human rights of particularly vulnerable groups, such as migrant labourers, indigenous peoples, women, or children, we are also guided by other international standards that elaborate on their rights.
This statement is published in accordance with the UK Modern Slavery Act. It outlines the approach we take to prevent modern slavery in our business and supply chains associated with the United Kingdom.
McDonald's Restaurants Limited ("McDonald's UK", "Company," "we" or "our") published its first Modern Slavery statement in 2017. We continue to build our knowledge of the risks of modern slavery and the areas of our business that could face some of these challenges. We work across our business and supply chain to put the right practices in place to prevent and respond to any potential risks.
Modern slavery is unacceptable within our business and supply chains. We have a responsibility to respect the rights of people who work for the Company, and to do business with franchisees, suppliers and business partners that respect human rights for their respective employees. We recognise there is no single solution to human rights issues, which is why it is critical that we engage with all of these stakeholders to build awareness and understanding.
Our business, structure and supply chains
We are proud to have run our business in the UK for over 45 years, having opened our first restaurant in Woolwich in 1974. We are a franchised business and today, we and our franchisees operate over 1,300 restaurants in all corners of the UK and employ over 130,000 people. Alongside the restaurants, we have a head office function based across four offices in regions across the country, with our main UK office in East Finchley, London.
Approximately 10% of McDonald's restaurants in the UK are owned and operated by the Company with around 90% owned and operated by franchisees. McDonald's UK has created over 2 million local jobs in the past 45 years and spent over £35 billion with UK businesses and contributed over £54 billion to the UK economy. Alongside this, and with our partnerships we collectively hold with national and local groups to support the causes that matter to local communities, we are passionate about contributing to the areas in which we operate.
McDonald's Corporation is the world's leading global foodservice retailer, serving 69 million people every day. McDonald's Corporation and McDonald's UK (together, "McDonald's") harnesses the power of our franchisees, suppliers and employees working together toward our purpose to feed and foster communities. Franchisees bring the spirit of entrepreneurship and commitment to communities; suppliers are dedicated to highest levels of quality and safety; and McDonald's Corporation facilitates learning and sharing across more than 39,000 McDonald's restaurants.
Our supply chains
McDonald's has a complex global supply chain with thousands of direct suppliers who employ over a million people in more than 100 countries.
Suppliers are a critical component of McDonald's business. We build long-term relationships with our supplier partners and are proud that many of them have worked with us for decades. These long-term relationships enable us to have open and honest conversations and to share best practices.
We know that a large part of the success of the McDonald's system lies in our trusted relationships with our supplier partners. We expect all suppliers, regardless of the cultural, social and economic context, to meet our expectations of fundamental rights for all people. This means treating their employees with fairness, respect and dignity, and following practices that protect health and safety for the people working in their facilities.
Specifically, in the UK, we are proud to support the UK farming community, who supply us with quality ingredients, and we seek to source locally wherever possible.
All of the ingredients on our menu are sourced from approved supplier partners who have to adhere to our high quality standards, which are independently audited. In addition, many of our supply chains are vertically integrated, meaning that our supplier partners will often have control and oversight of every step of the supply chain.
In 2012, McDonald's UK established Farm Forward, our long-term sustainability programme to support British and Irish farming. Through Farm Forward we aim to help farmers run thriving businesses by investing in programmes and research to develop skills and knowledge, raise standards of animal welfare and make environmental improvements. Every year as part of our Progressive Young Farmers programme up to nine university students spend 12 months getting to know every part of our supply chain, usually during their placement year. They follow our products from the farms who supply us, through to our restaurants and get the opportunity to work with a number of different suppliers, farmers and stakeholders around the country. As part of their induction, they receive comprehensive training to prepare them to operate safely in and understand the risks associated with the workplace.
McDonald's Flagship Farmers programme harnesses the knowledge and experiences of forward-thinking farmers, producers and growers who are passionate about sustainability and sharing the best practices they use to supply our ingredients. By inspiring, engaging and collaborating with other farmers, individual producers can help drive positive change. Applying field-proven best practices is one way in which we believe farmers can address critical challenges, including employee welfare and economic resilience, make positive contributions to nature and ensure long-term viability.
McDonald's by the Numbers
· 1,353 restaurants
· 130,000+ employees
· 200 franchisees
· 38,000 restaurants
· 100+ countries
· 17 International Operated Markets
· >80 Developmental License Markets
McDonald's UK supports the goals of the Modern Slavery Act and takes seriously its responsibility to act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the human rights of others and address any impact on human rights if they occur.
We conduct our activities in a manner that respects human rights as set out in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and we are committed to ethical recruitment in our employment practices as a component of our overall human rights approach. We prohibit direct or indirect fees or costs being charged to those seeking employment with or who are employed by the Company for the services directly related to recruitment for temporary or permanent job placement, unless legally permissible and within the legal limit. This includes where we may use private recruitment services or where we perform recruitment activities directly. Even where such fees or costs are legally permissible and within the legal limit, our policies and practices are designed to ensure that no one is indebted to the Company or to a recruiter in a manner that prohibits the individual from freely leaving their employment.
We do not retain an employee's identity document such as passports or work permits, as a condition of employment for longer than 24 hours and only do so for legitimate administrative reasons, including for immigration checks. McDonald's UK provides any agreements, whether oral or in writing, in a language understood by the person agreeing to be employed and expects that any recruiter, labour broker or employment agent will do the same and will be responsible for ensuring that the agreement is understood by the person agreeing to be employed.
Our franchise network is comprised of separate legal entities, but we work hard to ensure that there are no modern slavery or human trafficking issues in their businesses. We provide our franchisees with guidance on recruitment practices and a People Review is carried out by either McDonald's UK or the franchisee themselves as part of our Restaurant Operations Improvement Process (ROIP). The ROIP is a comprehensive assessment of our franchised restaurants to ensure guidance, including on modern slavery practices, is being followed as intended.
We frequently audit our suppliers to ensure their employment practices are suitable and in line with our own employment standards. We do this with a particular focus on construction labour and delivery drivers and riders at our third-party operators. Our restaurant staff are told to report any concerning or suspicious behavior that may suggest a third party is a potential victim of, or engaging in, modern slavery.
In 2018, McDonald's published a global Human Rights Policy, which reinforces McDonald's commitment to respect and promote human rights. The Policy was developed with input from expert third parties and is guided by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the International Bill of Human Rights, and the principles set out in the International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Where McDonald's may impact the human rights of particularly vulnerable groups, we are also guided by other international standards that elaborate on their rights. This Policy applies to McDonald's Corporation and its majority-owned subsidiaries around the world. McDonald's Chief Global Impact Officer, in partnership with the Chief People Officer, is ultimately responsible for our corporate human rights efforts, while the Public Policy & Strategy Committee of the Board of Directors also has oversight of human capital management matters affecting the Company.
A commitment to respect human rights is also set out in McDonald's Standards of Business Conduct, which apply to all employees of the Company. We strive to foster safe, inclusive, and respectful workplaces wherever we do business and respect the fundamental rights of McDonald's employees. McDonald's staff are trained annually on the Standards of Business Conduct and are required to certify their understanding of and commitment to upholding the Standards.
Employees may raise human rights issues, or report potential or actual human rights issues through a number of reporting channels, including contacting Human Resources or the Global Compliance Office. Reports received by the Global Compliance Office of alleged violations of the Standards of Business Conduct or other McDonald's policies by McDonald's employees are reviewed and addressed as appropriate.
We continue to work with external stakeholders to actively review our approach and global policies related to protecting human rights, to give greater transparency and clarity on our commitments and ensure they remain aligned with internationally recognised standards.
Assessing and Mitigating Risk in our Supply Chain
Supplier Code of Conduct & Supply Workplace Accountability Programme
The Supplier Code of Conduct ("Code") applies to McDonald's suppliers globally. It sets out our expectations for suppliers on critical topics including human rights, workplace environment, business integrity and environmental management. We expect supplier self-managed excellence in these four areas through the implementation of their own management systems.
McDonald's provides a Supplier Workplace Standards and Guidance Document to assist suppliers in meeting the standards. McDonald's launched the first Supplier Code of Conduct in 1993 and has evolved and strengthened it over time to reflect updated international human rights standards, consultations with external experts, a human rights gap analysis, and dialogue with suppliers.
McDonald's expects all suppliers to meet the standards, and ensure that their facilities meet the standards, and promote the principles outlined in the Code. We also expect our suppliers to hold their own supply chain, including subcontractors and third-party labour agencies, to the same standards contained in the Supplier Code of Conduct. Fundamental to the Code is the expectation of ethical employment practices by suppliers and their supply chain, including subcontractors and third-party labour agencies. The Code prohibits any form of slave, forced, bonded, indentured or involuntary prison labour. Suppliers and third-party labour agencies are prohibited from retaining employees' government-issued identification, passports or work permits as a condition of employment.
The Supplier Code of Conduct is the cornerstone of the global Supplier Workplace Accountability ("SWA") programme, which aims to help suppliers understand McDonald's expectations, verify compliance with our expectations and work toward continuous improvement. At the end of 2020, we had over 4,000 facilities participating in the SWA programme across 98 countries, with 96 active facilities managed by McDonald's UK. The programme audits many different types of facilities and products, such as food, packaging, uniforms and Happy Meal Toys.
The SWA programme is built on a model of continuous improvement and education. It includes guidance to suppliers on complying with our standards, including our expectation that our suppliers hold their own supply chains to the same high standards. We provide suppliers with training to understand the SWA requirements and how to comply with our standards. Suppliers can also choose to undergo online training to understand the expectations of SWA. Suppliers are required to complete a rigorous self-assessment questionnaire that appraises the supplier's current practices and management systems. After completing the self-assessment questionnaire, suppliers receive a report indicating areas of opportunity.
The SWA programme also includes on-site announced and unannounced audits conducted by third-party auditing firms to assess compliance with the Code. McDonald's works with third-party auditing firms that have expert knowledge, local insight and an understanding of local languages and cultures. On-site audits are physical inspections of the facility and include visits to housing
and cafeterias for workers. Auditors also conduct private worker interviews and review facility records and business practices to assess compliance with the Code. Despite COVID restrictions, 41 on-site audits took place for facilities managed by McDonald's UK in 2020.
Modern slavery risks are addressed specifically as part of the audit, including a review of ethical recruitment practices to verify that workers are employed under voluntary conditions and have freedom of movement. This includes verification that workers are not charged illegal fees as a condition of employment; worker contracts are in local language and signed by the worker; and that suppliers do not retain workers' government-issued identification, passports or work permits.
Understanding and managing risk
An important element of the global human rights due diligence approach is understanding global and national human rights risks and using this information to support the Supplier Workplace Accountability programme. In addition to the audits described above, McDonald's assesses the potential human rights risks of our supply chains, including modern slavery risks, using desk-based research, supply chain mapping, and stakeholder engagement.
One key indicator of risk is the country of origin from which products or raw materials are sourced for the McDonald's system. Country-level human rights risk analyses are used to help inform the audit cycles for suppliers. Facilities situated in countries that are considered to be at high risk require more regular on-site audits, regardless of the outcome of previous audits.
Additionally, in 2018 McDonald's engaged an external provider to conduct a human rights impact assessment ("HRIA") at the farm-level. The assessment enabled us to identify that, of the commodities we source, palm oil, tea, coffee and timber present the greatest risk of exposure to human rights concerns, with occupational health and safety, migrant workers, and decent working time identified as the highest risk areas. In addition to the farm-level commodity assessment, the HRIA also included a stakeholder consultation with key non-governmental organisations to understand how industry experts view the human rights risks associated with the production of the various commodities, as well as their observations on how the risks can best be mitigated.
The HRIA findings, and the corresponding recommendations, help us strengthen human rights management frameworks to better identify, assess, prevent, mitigate and remediate salient human rights issues. For example, as we update our sustainable sourcing policies for specific commodities, we consider these recommendations in informing our human rights due diligence requirements for suppliers. We also use the HRIA findings to raise awareness of human rights risks among our supply chain staff who procure products for the McDonald's system and have taken steps to strengthen risk management procedures and improvement plans.
By identifying the most salient human rights issues within these supply chains, we aim to strengthen our risk management procedures, develop appropriate improvement plans, and increase awareness of these issues within our business. In the spirit of ongoing collaboration, McDonald's also shared the information from the HRIA with other brands that purchase similar commodities, and we are exploring further ways to work with the wider industry.
We want to ensure that our sustainable sourcing programmes drive lasting, meaningful outcomes on critical issues for people, animals, the environment and our business. McDonald's approaches sustainable sourcing through the lens of the three "E"s—ethical practices, environmental sustainability and long-term economic viability— and we've identified seven priority impact areas to support them. Although our long-term goal is to source all of our food and packaging sustainability, we have focused on six priority products (Beef, Chicken (soy in feed), Coffee, Fibre/Packaging, Fish & Seafood, Palm Oil) that were identified through independent analysis by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) as the products that carry the greatest sustainability impacts and where we have the most potential to create positive change. Part of our sustainable sourcing for these six priority products requires our suppliers to purchase sustainably certified products where such certifications exist. As part of the certification process, several of the certification bodies audit for social compliance at the farm-level.
Effective action
Since the SWA programme began, McDonald's has provided optional training for suppliers and engaged with thousands of suppliers and facilities. Over time, suppliers have taken on increased ownership over compliance processes—there are nine supplier-led compliance and reporting programmes—and we have been pleased to see an improvement in compliance overall.
Where non-compliance is identified through an on-site audit, suppliers work with a third-party audit firm to complete a corrective and preventative action plan to address the non-compliance. The plan must provide specific time frames within which corrective action will be taken, root causes analysed, and policies and procedures updated. In addition, the plan must be designed to avoid recurrence of the non-compliance and establish specific accountability. In instances of significant non-compliance, suppliers are subject to a follow-up audit to ensure that the non-compliances have been properly addressed.
The SWA programme is designed to support suppliers in meeting our standards. However, there are circumstances under which McDonald's will remove a supplier from the supply chain to address instances of significant non-compliance with the Supplier Code of Conduct.
In addition to training, auditing, and other aspects of the SWA programme, McDonald's requires that suppliers provide their own internal reporting mechanisms to ensure their employees have a confidential, safe, and timely way to report workplace concerns without the fear of retaliation. The Code stipulates that suppliers create internal grievance mechanisms and programmes for handling reports of workplace grievances, including anonymous reports. The Supplier Guidance Document provides a step-by-step best practice process to help suppliers establish an effective grievance mechanism, guided by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
In addition, McDonald's Business Integrity Line and an email address are open to third parties, including suppliers and their employees, to raise concerns with breaches of the Code.
Training on modern slavery and human rights
To help employees understand human rights, we made training for staff on the Human Rights Policy available in 2019. Available in 15 languages, the training has a section on forced labour that identifies particularly vulnerable groups and outlines McDonald's commitments surrounding ethical recruitment. McDonald's UK employees are also trained regularly on the Standards of Business Conduct and are required to annually certify their understanding of and commitment to upholding the Standards. McDonald's Corporation's senior leadership has also received in-person training in partnership with an external human rights consultancy.
Given their important role in working with suppliers, McDonald's UK supply chain procurement employees undergo in-person and webinar trainings on supporting suppliers in meeting their expectations under the Supplier Code of Conduct and SWA programme. In 2020, McDonald's developed two new online training modules for procurement employees to enhance their understanding of human rights issues in global supply chains.
For suppliers, the global SWA programme includes an online training platform where they can access materials that provide guidance on preventing modern slavery. Training modules include: Ensuring Eligibility to Work, Protecting the Rights of Migrant Labour, and Implementing Grievance Mechanisms. For example, the Migrant Labour training aims to educate suppliers on the risks related to modern slavery when sourcing migrant labour and some key actions they can take to ensure they are protecting the rights of migrant workers in their facilities.
McDonald's also offers optional live training sessions for suppliers with external human rights and supply chain experts. The company has partnered with other brands and external consultancies across the industry to develop and train suppliers. For instance, McDonald's teamed up with other AIM-PROGRESS brands to train suppliers on the importance of responsible sourcing. Through this coalition, suppliers around the world received training on critical human rights issues, including:
• Training on forced and child labour, wages and working hours, health and safety for suppliers in Brazil in 2019.
• Sessions on health and safety, forced labour, working hours and social insurance for Chinese suppliers in 2018.
• Training suppliers in Malaysia on forced labour, grievance mechanisms, and managing migrant labour in 2017.
Partnering to improve standards and identify emerging issues
McDonald's is committed to engaging with stakeholders to continue to advance our approach to human rights.
McDonald's Corporation engages with stakeholders in our system in a variety of ways. For example, within our company, McDonald's employees provide feedback through multiple reporting mechanisms, including via people managers, human resources and through participation in surveys. Within our supply chain, external monitoring firms conduct on-site audits of supplier facilities through the SWA programme (including on-site interviews); and, at farm, through the McCafé Sustainability Improvement Platform ("SIP"), we collaborate with coffee producers to design and implement programmes and deliver optional tools and resources that aim to address needs specific to farming communities and improve the performance of the farms. The McCafé SIP programme also includes needs assessments at the farm-level.
McDonald's Corporation seeks feedback from human rights experts and advocates. In 2019, McDonald's convened a multi-stakeholder roundtable of human rights experts and advocates on the sidelines of the UN Forum on Business and Human Rights. The group included stakeholders from civil society, academia, the public sector, peer companies and international organisations. The group received an update on McDonald's supply chain human rights activities and provided feedback and advice on how to advance the SWA programme.
We believe that real, systemic change throughout the supply chain requires partnership with industry. That's why McDonald's joined the ICTI Care Programme for Happy Meals toys in 2016, bringing together industry partners to support a sustainable supply chain for the toy and entertainment industry. To ensure our supplier programme addresses emerging human rights issues and risks, we also participate in initiatives such as AIM-PROGRESS, a business initiative focused on responsible sourcing, and Business for Social Responsibility's Human Rights Working Group (HRWG), which supports implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in a shared-learning forum of more than 40 companies.
We know that there is no single solution to the challenges of modern slavery and human trafficking, and we must therefore continue to learn and understand the associated risks and warning signs. By working across all elements of our business and supply chain, we can continue to build our knowledge of these issues and take steps to improve our collective awareness. We will engage these different elements of our organisation, as well as expert third parties, to identify areas for improvement.
Statement approval
This statement is made pursuant to section 54(1) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and constitutes our slavery and human trafficking statement for the financial year ending 31 December 2020. The Board of McDonald's Restaurants Limited approved this statement on 29 June 2021.
Paul Pomroy
Chief Executive Officer, McDonald's UK
Please select a location below:
{{location.formattedAddress}}
New Sites Page
Newsroom Page
Franchising Page
© 2017 - 2022 McDonald's. All Rights Reserved.
Leaving McDonald's Web Site
Just letting you know that you're leaving the McDonald's UK website now. We're not responsible for the policies and practices of other companies, so we always recommend that you have a look at the privacy policy and other policies of any website you visit, as they might be different from ours.


Howdy, that you are seeing Awesome Cornelio Cappellini Furniture Precious Details To Obtain photograph which unfortunately is among the most most effective graphics from Cornelio Cappellini Furniture image gellery. Awesome Cornelio Cappellini Furniture Precious Details To Obtain graphic shall be a good mentor to suit your needs if you want to build a comfortable dwelling. Although many people who have virtually no idea, and can find an idea very easily by way of observing the following Awesome Cornelio Cappellini Furniture Precious Details To Obtain image. You will get refreshing ideas when learning Awesome Cornelio Cappellini Furniture Precious Details To Obtain photograph cautiously. Most of the important elements that you may reproduce definitely will transform the home is visually a lot more dazzling. Definitely another solution dwelling prefer in Awesome Cornelio Cappellini Furniture Precious Details To Obtain snapshot, you will get a great deal of reward from friends whom explore your property. When Awesome Cornelio Cappellini Furniture Precious Details To Obtain graphic witout a doubt shows, selecting the most appropriate lighting fixtures secures a necessary job. Awesome Cornelio Cappellini Furniture Precious Details To Obtain picture exhibited people to decide on fixtures that fit in a concept and the room or space.
You can aquire the following Awesome Cornelio Cappellini Furniture Precious Details To Obtain image quite simply, by way of the cursor this link, that lovely photo shall be your site. Along with if you need to add this approach Awesome Cornelio Cappellini Furniture Precious Details To Obtain pic with posted actually on September 25, 2017 at 9:15 am for a blog, you strongly highly recommend at all times to feature the source hyperlink. Up to now, 1 site visitors have looked at that Awesome Cornelio Cappellini Furniture Precious Details To Obtain picture containing 659 KB of size and 1920 x 1280 of dimension. Visiting a lot of these truth, Awesome Cornelio Cappellini Furniture Precious Details To Obtain graphic can be very great when wallpaper for ones i phone and personal computer. Find out other exciting ideas which include Awesome Cornelio Cappellini Furniture Precious Details To Obtain image in such a blog, just love.


Hertha Berlin welcome Schalke 04 to the Olympiastadion Berlin this afternoon in the German Bundesliga, and are favourites to come out on top to continue their 100% start to the new season, confining a struggling Schalke side to their third consecutive defeat from three.
Home side Hertha Berlin are currently fifth in the German Bundesliga with six points from their first two games, having beaten Freiburg at home in their opener, before seeing past Ingolstadt on the road. Hertha Berlin are in good shape ahead of today's clash with Schalke, and will fancy their chances given the poor form of the away side.
Visitors Schalke are 17th in the German Bundesliga without a point from their first two games. The away side haven't even managed to score a goal yet either, suffering defeats to Frankfurt and Bayern Munich without reply, and they're underdogs to get a result today too. Victory could see them move out of the drop zone, but Hertha are no slouches.
A win for the hosts could see them go second in the Bundesliga table depending on results, and William Hill are giving odds of 13/8 for Hertha Berlin to win against Schalke as a result.


I wrote another Python article that got published on RealPython a month or so back. As of now, the article has 1,478 views from 1,083 unique users with an average reading time of 2:50. That's pretty dang awesome!! I'm basically famous. In all seriousness though, it's really an honor to have people reading my stuff and I truly hope that it's helpful information to at least some of those people.
The article itself has some general information about code quality (what, why, when, etc.) and then some specific Python information about tools that are available.


text:
Adolphe d'Altena, Adolphe de Berg ou Adolphe de Cologne, né vers 1157 et mort le  à Neuss, fut archevêque de Cologne de 1193 à 1205 et à nouveau de 1212 à 1216. Il joue un rôle politique lors des luttes dynastiques entre les maisons de Hohenstaufen et Welf pour l'élection impériale.

Biographie
Il est le troisième fils du comte Eberhard  de Berg († 1180), comte d'Altena, et de son épouse Adélaïde d'Arnsberg. N'étant pas l'aîné, il se consacrerait à une vocation
religieuse : vers 1177, il est chanoine de la cathédrale de Cologne, doyen en 1183 et prévôt en 1191. Il est également à la tête du chapitre de Saint-Georges de Cologne et prévôt de la collégiale de Limbourg jusqu'en 1192.

Après la démission de son oncle Bruno III de Berg en 1193, il est élu archevêque de Cologne, sous le nom d'Adolphe . Le , il a reçu les ordres  en présence de Conrad  de Wittelsbach, cardinal et archevêque de Mayence.

En 1194, il accueille Aliénor d'Aquitaine et s'engage pour la libération de son fils Richard Cœur de Lion, roi d'Angleterre, qu'il reçoit avec solennité à Cologne. Il s'oppose aux plans de l'empereur Henri VI d'établir un empire héréditaire sous le règne des Hohenstaufen, et lors de la fête de Noël 1195 à Worms, il refuse de soutenir la candidature de Frédéric II, le jeune fils de l'empereur, comme roi des Romains, étape indispensable pour devenir empereur à la mort de son père.

En , il finit par accepter le choix des autres électeurs et jura fidélité entre les mains de Frédéric II à Boppard. Mais peu après, à la suite de la mort d'Henri VI le , prétextant que le candidat n'a pas été baptisé et que l'empereur a fait pression sur les électeurs, l'archevêque de Cologne déclare l'élection invalide.

Dans la lutte dynastique qui s'ensuit entre les Hohenstaufen et les Welf pour accéder au trône, Adolphe d'Altena couronne Otton de Brunswick roi des Romains le  à Aix-la-Chapelle. Le pape Innocent III, intéressé  par l'affaiblissement des Hohenstaufen et à briser leur pouvoir (notamment en Italie), confirme cette  élection.

Cependant, le , Adolphe couronne Philippe de Souabe qui a déjà été couronné roi de Germanie en 1198, dans la cathédrale de Mayence. Cette fois il reçoit la Regalia, qui comprend la couronne impériale. L'initiative ne plait guère à Innocent III qui excommunie l'archevêque le .

Le , Philippe de Souabe est assassiné. Le pape gracie alors l'ancien archevêque et le nomme évêque auxiliaire de l'archevêché de Cologne. Poste qu'il occupera jusqu'à la fin de ses jours, le .

Notes et références

Archevêque de Cologne
Décès en avril 1220
Décès à Neuss
Décès dans l'électorat de Cologne