text:
Menston Village Wharfedale
Alternative Menston village website. Lovely place, lovely people. Yorkshire naturally
Menston Parish map
Menston Business Association
St John's churchyard, Menston
Medical/Care
Schools/pre-school
Menston Parish Council
Menston Parish Council – Agenda, meeting 26 September
Menston Parish Council Planning Committee – meeting 26 September
Menston snow photos by Karl Hockless (1)
Monochrome Menston; a village walk 1
Menston village – less usual views
Menston village Jubilee – Menston Hall 'Big Lunch'
Tag Archives: Wharfedale
Computers aren't that clever when it comes to flooding
Posted on April 27, 2016 | 1 comment
Emeritus Professor David Rhodes CBE FRS FREng
Professor David Rhodes told a packed house at the Kirklands Community Centre on Tuesday evening (more than 100 present) that Bradford MDC had given planning permission for housing developments on Derry Hill and Bingley Road on the basis of false information.
The problem is that the computer model used by BMDC, and other local authorities, grossly underestimates the volume of water involved in the kind of weather events experienced in Menston recently. In the case of the January 2008 floods the volume of water was underestimated by an order of magnitude; in a later event the volume of water was about six times that predicted by the computer model. A member of the audience who seemed to have some knowledge of computer modelling seemed to confirm this, saying: "The computer model is inevitably wrong because it is working without sufficient data".
Professor Rhodes said he had been able to estimate the approximate volume of water involved by estimating depth etc and speed of water coming down into Menston from video clips taken by members of the Menston Action Group. This made good sense from Prof Rhodes's explanation.
100,000 cubic metres of water
Based on Prof Rhodes's observation not only was diverting the water coming down the slopes into Menston impractical because of the volume and flow rates involved, but to store the water from the January 2008 event would have required a holding tank with a capacity of 100,000 cubic metres. Apart from cost, to have such a quantity stored above Menston would be extremely dangerous.
Prof Rhodes told the audience that the estimates used by flood risk authorities, like BMDC, were wrong because they accounted only for rain water falling on the ground, but the actual volume involved was far higher because of water coming out of the ground. In this situation, had the houses been built on the proposed sites in Menston, water would have been coming up under the houses causing a great deal of damage. It is no wonder that another expert, giving evidence to BMDC, when asked if he would buy a house on one of these sites, said absolutely not.
Victorian engineers had an answer
In earlier times, ground water had been pumped out into reservoirs. Victorian engineers did it to supply water to the former hospital at Highroyds; later a similar system was used to supply water to Menston residents. Both these systems were abandoned so now the ground water was available to flood Menston.
Prof Rhodes's novel solution
Professor Rhodes said he had a solution. Basically this would involve horizontally boring deep in the ground where water accumulates and having permeable pipes there into which the water could drain, these flowing out into existing water courses which could handle the continuous flow involved. He suggested that this solution would cost only tens of thousands of pounds. What is more, he said that such a system of horizontal pipes could encircle Ilkley Moor to alleviate wider flooding problems, though this would cost tens of millions.
Posted in Bradford Council, Greenfield sites, Menston, Menston Action Group, Menston groups, Planning and development, Uncategorized, Wharfedale
Tagged Bradford Metropolitan District Council, Flooding, Greenfield sites, Menston, Menston Action Group, Menston flooding, Menston website, Prof David Rhodes, Wharfedale
Hunt for Menston & Burley young writers
The hunt for young poets and short story writers in Menston and Burley begins on Monday 18 April when our local writers' club, which celebrated its first year of existence recently by adopting the name 'Writing on the Wharfe', opens a competition to find talented young writers living in the two neighbouring villages. The aim is to announce 'Menston & Burley Young Poet of the Year' and 'Menston and Burley Young Short Story Writer of the Year' at the Menston Summer Fair on Saturday 2 July.
Youngsters between 6 and 17 years old have until a closing date of 4 June to submit a poem of up to 30 lines, or a short story of up to 1,500 words (there are no minimum lengths). Names of the writers will be removed before submission to a panel of judges who will award first, second and third places in four age categories in each of two classes of writing – poetry and short stories. The four age categories are 6-8 years, 9-11 years, 12 – 15 years, 16-17 years. A 'Young Writer of the Year' will be chosen in each class – poetry and short stories – from the first places in each of the four age categories.
The names of the two young writers of the year will be announced at the Menston Summer Fair, when certificates for first, second and third places in each age category will be presented. Awarded entries in each of the eight categories will be displayed at the Fair and the two 'Young Writers of the Year' will be given the opportunity to read their submissions to visitors to the fair; if they do not wish to do so they will be read by a member of the writers' club.
All the awarded submissions will be published on this website.
Details of the competition will be displayed on village notice boards and made available to schools attended by pupils living in Menston and Burley. Entry forms are available for downloading on this website – click the Writing on the Wharfe logo in the right column to go the the club page, then click the link to download the entry form. Printed entry forms will be available at libraries in the two villages, where entries typed on paper can be left. However, submission by email is preferred, the email address to which they should be sent being writingonthewharfe@gmail.com.
The Writing on the Wharfe club members meet fortnightly on Saturdays, usually at the Menstone Club in Menston (1pm) but occasionally at other venues (see under the 'Events' menu), especially when the weather is good. Members at the moment include purely amateur writers from poets to singer songwriters but also professionals including working and retired journalists and a radio producer. Ages range from mid 20s to over 80.
New members are welcome; there are no membership fees. For more information contact founder of the club, Ruxandra Busoiu, email rbusoiu@yahoo.co.uk.
Posted in Events, Menston groups, Menston young people, Menston Youth, Uncategorized
Tagged Burley-in-Wharfedale, Menston, Menston events, Menston Summer Fair, Menston website, poetry competitions, poets, short story competitions, short story writers, The Menstone club, Wharfedale, Writers Club, writing competitions, Writing on the Wharfe
Competition to find Menston/Burley 'Young Writers'; flooding solutions; High Royds memorial garden development; St John's graveyard open afternoon
Samuel Moore playing flamenco at a recent meeting of Writing on the Wharfe
Now one year old, the writers' club which meets regularly at the Menstone club has adopted a new name to reflect its local base – Writing on the Wharfe – and will, within the next week, announce a competition to name 'Young Menston & Burley Poet of the Year' and 'Young Menston & Burley Short Story Writer of the Year'. The competition will be open to young writers – six to 17 years old in various age categories, living in either Menston or Burley in Wharfedale (ie, living in post codes LS29 6xx or LS29 7xx. The two chosen young writers of the year, and winners in each age category (6-8, 9-11, 12-15, 16-17), will be announced at the Menston Summer Fair on 2 July at Menston Primary School.
Full details will be published on this site, posters will be displayed in Menston and Burley and schools, primary and high, attended by students living in Menston and Burley will receive information within the next week or so. Watch this site.
The competition will open for entries on Monday 18 April and close for entries on Saturday 4 June.
Members of the Writing on the Wharfe club were treated to a short recital of flamenco guitar music and brief explanations of some flamenco styles by local guitarist and tutor Samuel Moore at the most recent meeting and will be making a group visit to the forthcoming Leeds Flamenco Festival in May.
A way to reduce flooding in Menston and elsewhere?
Emeritus Prof David Rhodes
A novel solution to reduce flooding will be presented at a public meeting, by local campaigner Emeritus Professor David Rhodes CBE, FRS, FR Eng, at the Kirklands Community Centre on Tuesday evening, 7.30pm, 26 April. The meeting, organised by Menston Parish Council, is open to all. Professor Rhodes has, of course, given expert evidence at local enquiries and meetings on housing development in Menston and at a court hearings instigated by the Menston Action Group.
Open day at St John's Churchyard
There will be an open afternoon at St John's Parish Church churchyard on 1 May, with lots of activities including some for children. See the entry under 'Events'.
High Royds memorial garden meeting
Posted in Events, General information, Menston, Menston Action Group, Menston groups, Menston young people, Menston Youth, Planning and development, Uncategorized
Tagged community, Flooding, Kirklands Community Centre, Menston, Menston Action Group, Menston events, Menston flooding, Menston Parish Council, Menston Primary School, Menston website, The Menstone club, Wharfedale, Writers Club, Writing on the Wharfe
Startup for eggs2iPads, dog walking, "hooligans", support children with cancer – Candlelighters event, tree planting in the park
The weekly eggs2iPads sessions, at which our teenage team of 'teachers' introduce the older generation to the mysteries of iPads and other tablets, internet and anything else they would like to know, began again on 10th March after a winter break. See more below.
(Click any of the pictures below to see them larger as a slide show).
One of the new 'teachers', Kezia
Two new 'recruits', 'teacher' Josh with a new student
Emmot, so far our youngest 'teacher, explains'
Young entrepreneur dog walker, support children with cancer, "hooligans" and tree planting
Kelly, of Over the Hills dog walking, with Orla after a long, wet walk on the Chevin
Flying scooter ace Miles in Menston park
MIB gang planting trees in the park
Poster for the Candlelighters event at the Menstone club in April
Another young Menston entrepreneur has set up a business – dog walking
Kelly Shaw loves to be outside and says she doesn't mind any weather if she's dressed appropriately. In February she left Primary School teaching and set up her business, dog walking, from her home on Derry Hill. The business is called Over the Hills Dog Walking. As the business name suggests, Kelly uses the hills, fields and moors of the wonderful countryside around Menston to give her charges a full hour walk. Kelly also offers limited accommodation for dogs in her own home. You can contact her on Menston number 510782 or mobile 0788 405 3985.
Acrobatic scooter aces in the park; not "hooligans"
It's a pity so many teenagers are labelled 'hooligans' because of the behaviour of a small number. Protesting that it's not so, Menston teenager Miles posted an excellent video on Facebook protesting that enjoying doing acrobatics on scooters did not make him and his friends hooligans. During a chat and photo session at the 'skate park' in Menston Park, with the idea of doing a story about him on this website, Miles said he was a keen photographer and has chosen to do GCSE in photography this year.
He's hoping for some better Spring and Summer weather so he can visit the skate park rather more frequently as he finds it a welcome break from 'swotting' for GCSE. When the weather's bad he has to go to inside parks in Leeds or Halifax. Miles makes a lot of videos, one a week as it seems to be his major hobby. You can see one showing some of his acrobatics in Menston park at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKxr65DEVO4
Tree planting in Menston park
The hard working team from Menston in Bloom, which keeps our village 'blooming beautiful' and gets us prizes, was out on Saturday morning planting trees in the park. The team have regular working sessions in gardens and planters which they maintain across the village and could always do with some more help. Some of the sessions are at times when some younger helpers could join them. If you can join in at some future sessions email Gemma Kelmanson at gem22min@icloud.com.
Support children with cancer at event at the Menstone club
Many charities are now finding the Menstone club in Farnley Road a great place to hold a charity event and an increasing number of village groups are using this wonderful community facility for meetings – among them the eggs2iPads sessions of the Menston Community Association, the Writers Club and the quarterly meetings of scout leaders. It's a warm, comfortable, friendly place with free WiFi and, apart from meetings, it's a great place to drop in for a tea or coffee at very reasonable prices, or something stronger from the bar including a good range of beers on draft. And it has some great events, including the monthly Fun Quiz and the Open Acoustic Mike nights, as well as things for children like an Easter egg hunt (coming up). You do not have to be a member to use it (though if you go regularly the member discount will probably make it worth the small membership fee). It's open from 11.30 in the morning, is licensed to serve alcohol till 11pm (but licensed to 11.30pm for you to drink it).
The latest charity event to be arranged at the club is to support children with cancer, and their parents, through the wonderful charity Candlelighters. It's on Friday 8 April and being organised by Michelle Pattison, whose eight year old son Owen was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia just before Christmas 2014. For over 18s only, the event will cater for 100 guests so give Michelle a call soon to get a ticket, on 0754 401 7433. It looks as though it'll be a great night, see the poster above.
It's a pity to hear that someone tried to have this event stopped. Fortunately they didn't succeed.
Eggs2iPads
Following a winter break the eggs2iPads sessions at the Menstone club was off to a great start on 10 March with 16 "students", including two new 'enrollers', and eight teenage 'teachers', including three new ones (see pictures above). Although this Menston Community Association project was begun to help tackle potentially elderly isolation by showing elderly people how to communicate with distant family and friends using internet on a tablet, it has now become much more and our elderly students say that they value one of its unique aspects, the weekly get together with the young people, just as much as what they learn about getting on internet (or all sorts of other possibilities on iPads and other tablets, including games, photography, etc).
Sessions are on Thursdays between 5pm and 6pm at the Menstone, except during school holidays. There are no charges, new 'students' (and new 'teachers') are welcome, and we can offer a lift to those who need it. Contact Roger by email – menston.village.wharfedale@gmail.com – or Jane Pratt of Menston Cares, tel 876945, for more information.
Posted in Events, General information, Menston, Menston businesses, Menston charities, Menston Community Association, Menston groups, Menston in Bloom, Menston young people, Menston Youth, Uncategorized, Wharfedale
Tagged Candlelighters, community, dog walking, Menston, Menston businesses, Menston Cares, Menston charities, Menston Community Association, Menston events, Menston in Bloom, Menston Park, Menston website, Menstone teenagers, Scooters, The Menstone club, Wharfedale
Dementia friendly Menston? eggs2iPads break. Light up Menston. Monthly magazine stops
Although the events listing on this site has been kept pretty much up to date, as far as possible when information has been sent in (or things heard on the village grapevine), posts have been erratic, due principally to health problems. Hopefully posts will now become a little more regular. Remember, to ensure your event is listed under the Events menu (and the 'Imminent events' list in the right column – this can take a while to appear after updating Events) email title, date, start/finish times, contact info, and ticket price if any, to menston.village.wharfedale@gmail.com. This has become even more important due to the suspension of publication of 'It's the business' (see below).
How can we make Menston more dementia friendly?
Dementia Friendly Menston ideas were recorded on this Christmas tree
About 35 people met at Kirklands on Tuesday afternoon to learn more about dementia and to begin a process of making Menston more 'dementia friendly'. They learned a lot about dementia from specialist Dr Elizabeth Milwain (eg, symptoms which are just normal signs of old age and those which are early signs of a dementing condition) and then, in a couple of workshops, noted activities already found in the village then suggested what might be done in the future. If you could not get to the meeting but would like to be involved contact Jane Pratt at Menston Cares (876945) or Allyson Hargreaves (870528).
Let's light up Menston for Christmas
The paucity of Christmas lights in Menston, compared with neighbours Burley, has been a cause for complaint for years. However, such lights are extremely costly. Now there is a suggestion that our village could become much more festive if every householder lit up their own house in some way. To give even more incentive, estate agents Ribston Pippin and the Solo delicatessen have got together to offer a hamper for the best decorated house. There are now posters around the village giving more information. More information on some Christmas events under Events.
eggs2iPads project takes a winter break
Many of the elderly 'students' in the eggs2iPads project, which has been meeting weekly at the Menstone club with a team of teenage 'teachers' helping them to get on line using an iPad or other tablet, have said they do not like to leave home in the dark during winter months, even if they are accompanied or transport is provided. It has been decided that in this situation there will be a a winter break in the sessions after this week's meeting, to be resumed in March next year. Some of the young 'teachers' are from St Mary's high school, which has been recently been involved in a broadly similar project, but for school pupils, in South Africa (see below).
Bambisanani takes iPads to S Africa
The Bambisanani Partnership, which links St. Mary's School, Menston and Mnyakanya School in South Africa, has recently provided twelve hours of training for South African teachers to be able to use tablets to enhance teaching and learning across the curriculum at Mnyakanya High School.
The computer giant Intel contributed to the training costs and thirty more tablets, provided by the Bambisanani Partnership, will arrive or have arrived at the school for students to use in lessons.
Chairman of the Bambisanani Partnership, David Geldart, who recently retired as an Assistant Head at the school, said: "This initial training and the tablets are a starting point for us. More training and hardware will hopefully follow but our goal is to establish full internet connectivity at Mnyakanya".
Publication of monthly magazine suspended
The free monthly magazine which has been delivered to most households in Menston for the past several months, 'It's the business', will not now be published "until at the earliest March 2016" we have been told. The magazine not only had a Menston events listing under the heading 'Community News', compiled by the author of this site, but also a specific Menston page. These for the December edition were already done but unfortunately will not now appear. This site cannot match the information reaching most houses in Menston but apart from trying to ensure the Events listing here is even more complete and up-to-date consideration will be given to how this information can now be more effectively made available to those who do not have access to internet.
Posted in Menston, Menston schools, St Mary's Menston, Uncategorized, Wharfedale
Tagged Bradford Metropolitan District Council, community, Menston, Menston volunteers, Menston website, Mnyakanya School, St Mary's Menston, The Menstone club, Wharfedale
History in the making as the Court of Appeal supports MAG on Derry Hill; St Mary's Menston Bambisanani concert well worth a visit
Another historical milestone has been reached by the Menston Action Group (MAG), on behalf of all residents, in opposing inappropriate development in the village when the Court of Appeal allowed a MAG challenge concerning development on Derry Hill to go to Judicial Review. Full story below.
Concert at St Mary's Menston on Friday well worth a visit
St Mary's Menston's now annual concert to support its South African Bambisanani project is this coming Friday (24th April) and very well worth a visit. Last year's concert was superb and many of the same artists, including the Leeds Youth Jazz & Rock Orchestra in which several St Mary's students play, are featured. This orchestra will transport you back to the 'big band' era then take you on a journey to the rock & roll age. On the other hand, there will be some wonderful singing, both solo and choral, and the fun of a ukulele band.
Places can be reserved by calling in at St Mary's, Pupils' Reception, between 1.30pm and 2.00pm or turn up on the night. Tickets are £5 (£3 concessions).
Both MAG's objections to Derry Hill development supported by Court of Appeal
Following Bradford Council's approval of a scheme from Barratt Homes to develop 176 houses on fields off Derry Hill, Menston, the Menston Action Group challenged the decision in the Leeds Administrative Court and were given permission to go to Judicial Review on one of the two grounds on which they challenged the approval: the validity of the procedure adopted by Bradford Council when making their decision.
However, MAG were refused permission to proceed with their primary ground, which is based upon a much wider issue of whether the condition and sustainable drainage principles required Barratt to put forward a drainage scheme that addressed potential improvement of flooding issues around the Derry Hill site, including a nearby electricity substation that is prone to flooding.
Now, the Rt Hon Lord Justice Sullivan, sitting in the Court of Appeal, has decided to allow the Judicial Review of the proposed development at the Derry Hill site in Menston to proceed on all grounds of challenge.
Alistair Kennedy, who is leading the team of solicitors from Schofield Sweeney, acting for MAG, said: "This is a fantastic result for MAG and the residents of Menston, who are desperately worried that the proposed development at Derry Hill will make flooding in Menston much worse. MAG also have very serious concerns about ongoing flooding of the electricity substation adjacent to the Derry Hill site and have raised health and safety concerns. For the Court of Appeal to acknowledge the wider importance of this challenge and give MAG the opportunity to bring all of their concerns before a full hearing of the Administrative Court is very encouraging".
This is a historical decision which has far wider ramifications for other communities throughout the UK fighting inappropriate development.
Of course Barratt and Bradford Council have brought out the big guns to oppose MAG; it is a great pity that it is necessary to go to very costly litigation to oppose such development, especially when a referendum in the village produced such resounding opposition to the scheme but, although local residents raised over £100,000 to fight the Bradford Council decisions, now more money is required although Schofield Sweeney have done much work without charge.
Contributions to the fighting fund, payable to 'Menston Action Group', may be sent to or left at:
3 Albany Row, Main Street
4 West Winds (off Moor Lane)
39 Hawksworth Drive
2 Red House Gardens
Small Print, Main Street
More information and the Press Release issued by Schofield Sweeney on the Court of Appeal decision will be posted on the MAG website.
Posted in Events, Greenfield sites, Menston, Menston Action Group, Menston groups, Menston schools, Planning and development, St Mary's Menston, Uncategorized, Wharfedale
Tagged Bambisanani, Derry Hill, Flooding, Greenfield sites, Leeds Youth Jazz and Rock Orchestra, Menston, Menston Action Group, Menston events, Menston flooding, Menston website, Schofield Sweeney, St Mary's Menston, Wharfedale
Wet but determined – Menston/Guiseley green belt protectors march. Strictly, come dancing in Menston
Around 100 protesters, including the Chairman of the Menston Action Group (MAG) and a peacefully protesting contingent of dogs, gathered at the Menston/Guiseley boundary on the A65 in pouring rain on Sunday lunch time to bring to people's attention the loss of Green Fields, the potential merging of Menston and Guiseley to be part of a Bradford/Leeds urban sprawl, and the lack of facilities to cope with yet more houses, if Ings Fields on the boundary are developed, . Passing motorists were invited to "hoot in you love green belt" and around half of passing cars did just that with gusto. After gathering where the Mire Beck crosses the road the bedraggled but cheerful and determined crowd walked up to Ings Lane, down to the proposed entrance into the housing development planned for Ings Fields, then back into Menston via the bridle path beyond St Mary's school. Pictures, and more about the protest from yesterday's post, below.
Strictly dancing – Tuesdays Kirklands
Ballroom dancing has joined the ballet classes at Menston's Kirlands Community Centre on Tuesday evening, beginning of 14 April. Ballet classes for grade 4 to intermediate are well established from 6.00 to 7.15pm, turning out award winning dancers; most recently three students at the Menston classes being chosen to dance with English Youth Ballet in Giselle at St. George's Hall, Bradford, in June.
The 'Strictly' classes are being brought to Kirklands by Sandra Beaumont, former UK champion and championship adjudicator. The new classes will cover Ballroom and Latin at 7.30pm, then Rock & Roll at 8.30pm, each Tuesday . There are some Tuesdays when Kirklands is not available for the dancing so consult the 'Events' listing to see if they have been arranged in another location.
PROTEST WALK TO SHOW LEEDS WHERE THE REAL MENSTON/GUISELEY BOUNDARY IS (click any picture to see larger as a slide show; text from post on 10 April)
Protesters beginning to gather on the A65 Menston/Guiseley boundary
Three reasons to stop development, quite apart from destruction of Green Belt
The youngest protester?
Young protesters with their green belt messages
The walkers turning into Ings Lane on which the entrance to a development of Ings Field is proposed
The walkers on Ings Lane approaching the proposed development site on Green Belt land
Part of Ings Field seen from behind the BP station on the A65
Part of Ings Field seen from Ings Lane; the Menston/Guiseley boundary defined by Mire Beck along the back of houses in Moorland Crescent, is at the back of the field
If the Ings fields between Menston and Guiseley are developed then Menston and Guiseley will have merged!
Menston and Guiseley Greenbelt Protection Group had a day of action rally, walking the site under threat, which is just off the A65, behind the BP petrol station.
The rally was organised together with WARD (Wharfedale & Airedale Review Development). On this day Community Voice on Planning prepared a National day of action to protest at the loss of greenbelt between settlements which is leading to urban sprawl and a reduction in social standards across the nation.
We in Menston are one of many unique (and we are unique, aren't we?) communities which are threatened with becoming just part of an urban sprawl.
One of the major factors for preserving Green Belt according to Government guidelines is to maintain the distinctiveness of named settlements by keeping the greenbelt buffer between them. Building on the Ing fields, apart from the fact they are Green Belt, will effectively join the two settlements. If they are built on they are gone for good!
The walk was intended to show Leeds where the real Menston/Guiseley boundary is and should be preserved as a slice of green between the two settlements.
Recently Menston village was represented at the Inspectors examination in public of the Bradford Core Strategy for housing over the coming 15 years and much angst was raised by many communities around Bradford over the planning rules which state that Local Planning Authorities should be seen to cooperate over the development of their core strategies where these impact on neighbouring authorities. Those present could see the results of no such cooperation as sites are coming forwards for development across both sides of Menston that will result in the settlements of Guiseley and Menston becoming a single sprawl.
We may be forced to, once more, become victims of circumstances if the green space between Menston and Guiseley is further eroded and do remember that at the moment, this comes at the end of many years of heavy developments, where no additional communications or social infrastructure have been put in place.
The settlement boundaries between Menston and Guiseley need to be highlighted as Leeds' planners have included Moorland Crescent and Bradford Road, Menston, in the major settlement extending from Guiseley, thus making the Ings Fields look like wonderful infill to them! This is a political boundary not a settlement or geographic boundary. The settlement boundary runs along the back gardens of Moorland Crescent Menston following Mire Beck.
The walk was organised by Liz Kirkpatrick at mandggpg@gmail.com, phone 01943 875640.
Posted in Events, Greenfield sites, Menston, Menston Action Group, Menston groups, Menston traffic, Planning and development, Uncategorized, Wharfedale
Tagged Bradford Theatre Arts, Greenfield sites, Kirklands Community Centre, Menston, Menston Action Group, Menston events, Menston traffic, Menston website, WARD (Wharfedale and Airedale Review Development), Wharfedale
If you are not a Wordpress blogger enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Your email address will not be public.
Menston based writers' club at Ilkley Literature Festival
Best ever Menston Show? Final post on this site?
Raymond exposed! Kirsty transforms the Menston deli with some blanc magic. Menston dancers at F1
Imminent Events - details under 'Events' menu
Writers Club – click image
THE BATTLE FOR MENSTON
MENSTON ACTION GROUP
Archives Select Month September 2018 September 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013
Categories Select Category Bradford Council Dining Events Fitness General information Greenfield sites grumpytyke MBA Menston Menston Action Group Menston Business Association Menston businesses Menston charities Menston churches Menston clubs Menston Community Association Menston groups Menston in Bloom Menston Parish Council Menston Preschool Menston Primary School Menston schools Menston Show Menston Summer Fair Menston traffic Menston young people Menston Youth Philip Davies MP Planning and development Shopping St Mary's Menston Uncategorized Village Information Centre website news Wharefedale Wharfedale


text:
Q: Scrapy returns only first result I'm trying to scrape data from gelbeseiten.de (yellow pages in germany)
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
import scrapy
  from scrapy.spiders import CrawlSpider
  from scrapy.http import Request
  from scrapy.selector import Selector
  from scrapy.http import HtmlResponse

class GelbeseitenSpider(scrapy.Spider):
  name = "gelbeseiten"
  allowed_domains = ["http://www.gelbeseiten.de"]
  start_urls = ['http://www.gelbeseiten.de/zoohandlungen/s1/alphabetisch']

  def parse(self, response):
    for adress in response.css('article'):
      #Strasse
      strasse = adress.xpath('//span[@itemprop="streetAddress"]//text()').extract_first()

      #Name
      name = adress.xpath('//span[@itemprop="name"]//text()').extract_first()

      #PLZ
      plz = adress.xpath('//span[@itemprop="postalCode"]//text()').extract_first()

      #Stadt
      stadt = adress.xpath('//span[@itemprop="addressLocality"]//text()').extract_first()

      yield {
        'name': name,
        'strasse': strasse,
        'plz': plz,
        'stadt': stadt,
      }

As the result i get 15 sets with always the same address but i think it should be 15 different addresses.
I appreciate any help.

A: You use absolute xpath expressions:
adress.xpath('//span[@itemprop="streetAddress"]//text()')
while should use relative to address (note leading dot in expression):
adress.xpath('.//span[@itemprop="streetAddress"]//text()')

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


« What Makes a Good Leader?
The furniture fidgets got me last week for the first time in six months, and the reality of transition has become too obvious for me to ignore. I am moving out of a full-time-student-with-work-on-the-side world into a full-time-employee-with-workshops-on-the-side world.
I find myself resisting and embracing the change.
Hours and hours. Those hours that were once spent pouring my soul over self-reflective papers and research studies have now become hours that I resist learning to make new use of, especially on those evenings when I sit in my room watching television for hours. How did I embrace a 4-hour outlet mall trip with friends last week? When I was in school, I could not last more than thirty minutes of being in a store with friends without feeling guilt for wasting precious homework time.
Stress and commitments. Three years of studying in a Masters program gave me plenty of stress to push me to cut back on other life commitments such as church involvement, social events and friendships, and oftentimes the self-care that I needed. Each year of school stress made me wish I had fewer and fewer commitments, and I longed for the day when I would have a "manageable" amount of stress. Here I am on the other side of graduate school stress, and I find myself resisting the idea of having any gaps in my schedule. Instead, I am embracing new commitments, reconnecting with friends, and packing my schedule with all the social time that I think I missed out on over the past year. Is this self-care or setting myself up for the amount of stress that I have grown accustomed to having in my life? I think it could be both.
Money and budgeting. As I was a child and family therapist intern, I could not wait to have a full-time job so that I could get paid for the work I put in and set up a budget for myself. I grew tired of living from month to month, depending on loans and my parents' financial support. Here I am, with a job set up for full-time employment, and I am resisting the idea of having an income because that means it is time to start paying off debt and be more responsible with the money I earn. At the same time, I embrace and am excited about full-time employment because that means I am paid for my labor and I will soon have the means to support my parents.
This is why I got the furniture fidgets.
Transitions in life have a way of pushing and pulling me to be who God created me to be. The push comes with inevitable life changes, and the pull comes with character refinement. As I become aware of the ways I am resisting the inevitable life changes that lie ahead, I am challenged to embrace the character refinement that can happen throughout the change. So, to resist and embrace is the paradox in which I find myself living these days. And that is completely OK.
How do you sit with the paradox of resistance and embrace that comes with transitions in life?
Liz Chang resides in Seattle, WA and works for Navos as a substance abuse prevention & intervention specialist at a local middle school, and as a child and family therapist. She graduated from Seattle Pacific University with a Masters of Science degree in Marriage and Family Therapy, and is working towards certification as a Chemical Dependency Professional. She enjoys spending quality time with friends, making music, playing basketball, sunshine with a cool breeze, and mint chocolate chip ice cream.
Hey, Liz! Congratulations on your graduation. Are you still in Seattle? All the best as you take the step into a new journey in life! May God bless you and make you a blessing to others.


Well, let's compare them side by side. One cup of cooked long grained unenriched white rice (195 grams in weight) provides about 205 calories, 4.25 grams of protein, 0.44 grams of fat, 44.5 grams of carbohydrate, 0.6 grams of fiber and very small amounts of the B vitamins and other nutrients like iron, zinc and calcium (for instance, 16 milligrams calcium, 0.32 milligrams iron, 0.77 milligrams zinc).
In contrast, one cup of cooked long grained brown rice (195 grams in weight) provides almost the same amount of calories and carbohydrate, and only a very tiny bit more of protein, B vitamins and other nutrients (e.g., 5.03 grams of protein, 20 milligrams calcium, 0.82 milligrams iron, 1.23 milligrams zinc). The real difference? That same cup of brown rice provides six times the fiber content (3.5 grams) and slightly more fat content (1.76 grams) but this is comprised of a greater proportion of the healthy monounsaturated fatty acids (0.6 grams) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (0.6 grams).
What I have found personally though, is that eating brown rice is more helpful than white rice when trying to control blood sugar levels, especially when one has diabetes or gestational diabetes. This is likely because the glycemic index of brown rice is just 50, compared to that of white rice being 89, for a 150 gram portion. This is equivalent to brown rice having a glycemic load per serving of 16 compared to the glycemic load per serving of white rice being 43. The glycemic index is one method of categorization which helps to indicate how quickly the carbohydrates are broken down by the body and the glucose is released into the bloodstream. For reference, glucose (a form of simple carbohydrate) is very easily absorbed in the body and has a glycemic index of 100.
Brown rice does appear to be slightly more nutrient dense compared to white rice, with one of the key benefits being an increased fiber content. However, you can make up for the fiber by consuming other whole grain products and foods such as bread, whole wheat pasta, bran flakes, old fashioned oatmeal and beans . Nowadays, it is even possible to buy whole wheat bread with as much as 5 grams of fiber per slice! So don't worry if you're not consuming brown rice with its higher arsenic content. However, it may be worthwhile investigating if switching to brown rice from white rice has a positive impact on your blood sugar levels, if you are having diabetes or gestational diabetes.
USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/. Accessed August 29, 2015.
I agree the only real difference is the glycemic index and if this doesn't affect you- eat whichever you like the taste of!
Thanks for your comment, and glad we agree! Yes, if one chooses brown rice, just be sure to check which country/region it is cultivated, and use the 'excess' water cooking method to reduce its final arsenic content.


text:
HUDSONET AL . v. UNITED STATES
HUDSON ET AL . v. UNITED STATES(1997)
Argued: October 8, 1997Decided: December 10, 1997
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) imposed monetary penalties and occupational debarment on petitioners for violating 12 U. S. C. §§84(a)(1) and 375b by causing two banks in which they were officials to make certain loans in a manner that unlawfully allowed petitioner Hudson to receive the loans' benefit. When the Government later criminally indicted petitioners for essentially the same conduct, they moved to dismiss under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court ultimately dismissed the indictments, but the Court of Appeals reversed, relying on United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 448 -449.
Held: The Double Jeopardy Clause is not a bar to petitioners' later criminal prosecution because the OCC administrative proceedings were civil, not criminal. Pp. 4-12.
(a) The Clause protects only against the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense. See, e.g., Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 . Halper deviated from this Court's longstanding double jeopardy doctrine in two key respects. First, it bypassed the traditional threshold question whether the legislature intended the particular successive punishment to be "civil" or "criminal" in nature, see, e.g., United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 248 , focusing instead on whether the sanction was so grossly disproportionate to the harm caused as to constitute "punishment." The Court thereby elevated to dispositive status one of the factors listed in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168 -169, for determining whether a statute intended to be civil was so punitive as to transform it into a criminal penalty, even though Kennedy itself emphasized that no one factor should be considered controlling, id., at 169. Second, Halper "assess[ed] the character of the actual sanctions imposed," 490 U.S., at 447 , rather than, as Kennedy demanded, evaluating the "statute on its face" to determine whether it provided for what amounted to a criminal sanction, 372 U.S., at 169 . Such deviations were ill considered. Halper' s test has proved unworkable, creating confusion by attempting to distinguish between "punitive" and "nonpunitive" penalties. Moreover, some of the ills at which it was directed are addressed by other constitutional provisions. Thus, this Court largely disavows Halper 's method of analysis and reaffirms the previous rule exemplified in Ward. Pp. 4-9.
(b) Applying traditional principles to the facts, it is clear that petitioners' criminal prosecution would not violate double jeopardy. The money penalties statutes' express designation of their sanctions as "civil," see §§93(b)(1) and 504(a), and the fact that the authority to issue debarment orders is conferred upon the "appropriate Federal banking agenc[ies]," see §§1818(e)(1)-(3), establish that Congress intended these sanctions to be civil in nature. Moreover, there is little evidence-much less the "clearest proof" this Court requires, see Ward , 448 U.S., at 249 -to suggest that the sanctions were so punitive in form and effect as to render them criminal despite Congress' contrary intent, see United States v. Ursery, 518 U. S. ___, ___. Neither sanction has historically been viewed as punishment, Helvering, supra, at 399, and n. 2, 400, and neither involves an affirmative disability or restraint, see Flaming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 617 . Neither comes into play "only" on a finding of scienter, Kennedy, 372 U.S., at 168 , since penalties may be assessed under §§93(b) and 504, and debarment imposed under §1818(e)(1)(C)(ii), without regard to the violator's willfulness. That the conduct for which OCC sanctions are imposed may also be criminal, see ibid., is insufficient to render the sanctions criminally punitive, Ursery, supra, at ___, particularly in the double jeopardy context, see United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 704 . Finally, although the imposition of both sanctions will deter others from emulating petitioners' conduct, see Kennedy, supra, at 168, the mere presence of this traditional goal of criminal punishment is insufficient to render a sanction criminal, as deterrence "may serve civil as well as criminal goals," e.g., Ursery , supra, at ___. Pp. 9-11.
92 F. 3d 1026, affirmed.
REHNQUIST , C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR , SCALIA , KENNEDY , and THOMAS , JJ., joined. SCALIA , J., filed a concurring opinion, in which THOMAS , J., joined. STEVENS , J., and SOUTER , J., filed opinions concurring in the judgment. BREYER , J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GINSBURG , J., joined.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
JOHN HUDSON, LARRY BARESEL, AND JACK BUT- LER RACKLEY, PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
[December 10, 1997]
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the
Court.
The Government administratively imposed monetary penalties and occupational debarment on petitioners for violation of federal banking statutes, and later criminally indicted them for essentially the same conduct. We hold that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment is not a bar to the later criminal prosecution because the administrative proceedings were civil, not criminal. Our reasons for so holding in large part disavow the method of analysis used in United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 448 (1989), and reaffirm the previously established rule exemplified in United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 248 -249 (1980).
During the early and mid-1980's, petitioner John Hudson was the chairman and controlling shareholder of the First National Bank of Tipton (Tipton) and the First Na tional Bank of Hammon (Hammon). 1
During the same period, petitioner Jack Rackley was president of Tipton and a member of the board of directors of Hammon, and petitioner Larry Baresel was a member of the board of directors of both Tipton and Hammon.
An examination of Tipton and Hammon led the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to conclude that petitioners had used their bank positions to arrange a series of loans to third parties, in violation of various federal banking statutes and regulations. According to the OCC, those loans, while nominally made to third parties, were in reality made to Hudson in order to enable him to redeem bank stock that he had pledged as collateral on defaulted loans.
On February 13, 1989, OCC issued a "Notice of Assessment of Civil Money Penalty." The notice alleged that petitioners had violated 12 U. S. C. §§84(a)(1) and 375b (1982) and 12 CFR §§31.2(b) and 215.4(b) (1986) by causing the banks with which they were associated to make loans to nominee borrowers in a manner that unlawfully allowed Hudson to receive the benefit of the loans. App. to Pet. for Cert. 89a. The notice also alleged that the illegal loans resulted in losses to Tipton and Hammon of almost $900,000 and contributed to the failure of those banks. Id. , at 97a. However, the notice contained no allegation of any harm to the Government as a result of petitioners' conduct. "After taking into account the size of the financial resources and the good faith of [petitioners], the gravity of the violations, the history of previous violations and other matters as justice may require, as required by 12 U. S. C. §§93(b)(2) and 504(b)," OCC assessed penalties of $100,000 against Hudson and $50,000 each against both Rackley and Baresel. Id. , at 89a. On August 31, 1989, OCC also issued a "Notice of Intention to Prohibit Further Participation" against each petitioner. Id. , at 99a. These notices, which were premised on the identical allegations that formed the basis for the previous notices, informed petitioners that OCC intended to bar them from further participation in the conduct of "any insured depository institution." Id. , at 100a.
In October 1989, petitioners resolved the OCC proceedings against them by each entering into a "Stipulation and Consent Order." These consent orders provided that Hudson, Baresel, and Rackley would pay assessments of $16,500, $15,000, and $12,500 respectively. Id. , at 130a, 140a, 135a. In addition, each petitioner agreed not to "participate in any manner" in the affairs of any banking institution without the written authorization of the OCC and all other relevant regulatory agencies. 2
Id. , at 131a, 141a, 136a.
In August 1992, petitioners were indicted in the Western District of Oklahoma in a 22-count indictment on charges of conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 371 misapplication of bank funds, §§656 and 2, and making false bank entries, §1005. 3
The violations charged in the indictment rested on the same lending transactions that formed the basis for the prior administrative actions brought by OCC. Petitioners moved to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, but the District Court denied the motions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's holding on the nonparticipation sanction issue, but vacated and remanded to the District Court on the money sanction issue. 14 F. 3d 536 (CA10 1994). The District Court on remand granted petitioners' motion to dismiss the indictments. This time the Government appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. 92 F. 3d 1026 (CA10 1996). That court held, following Halper , that the actual fines imposed by the Government were not so grossly disproportional to the proven damages to the Government as to render the sanctions "punishment" for double jeopardy purposes. We granted certiorari, 520 U. S. ___ (1997), because of concerns about the wide variety of novel double jeopardy claims spawned in the wake of Halper . 4
We now affirm, but for different reasons.
The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no "person [shall] be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." We have long recognized that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the imposition of any additional sanction that could, "'in common parlance,'" be described as punishment. United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 549 (1943) (quoting Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 13, 19 (1852)). The Clause protects only against the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense, Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938); see also Hess , 317 U.S., at 548549 ("Only" "criminal punishment" "subject[s] the defendant to 'jeopardy' within the constitutional meaning"); Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 528 (1975) ("In the constitutional sense, jeopardy describes the risk that is traditionally associated with a criminal prosecution"), and then only when such occurs in successive proceedings, see Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 366 (1983).
Whether a particular punishment is criminal or civil is, at least initially, a matter of statutory construction. Helvering , supra , at 399. A court must first ask whether the legislature, "in establishing the penalizing mechanism, indicated either expressly or impliedly a preference for one label or the other." Ward , 448 U.S., at 248 . Even in those cases where the legislature "has indicated an intention to establish a civil penalty, we have inquired further whether the statutory scheme was so punitive either in purpose or effect," id. , at 248-249, as to "transfor[m] what was clearly intended as a civil remedy into a criminal penalty," Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 148, 154 (1956).
In making this latter determination, the factors listed in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168 -169 (1963), provide useful guideposts, including: (1) "[w]hether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint"; (2) "whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment"; (3) "hether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter "; (4) "whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment-retribution and deterrence"; (5) "whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime"; (6) "whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it"; and (7) "whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned." It is important to note, however, that "these factors must be considered in relation to the statute on its face," id. at 169, and "only the clearest proof" will suffice to override legislative intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty, Ward , supra , at 249 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our opinion in United States v. Halper marked the first time we applied the Double Jeopardy Clause to a sanction without first determining that it was criminal in nature. In that case, Irwin Halper was convicted of, inter alia , violating the criminal false claims statute, 18 U.S.C. § 287 based on his submission of 65 inflated Medicare claims each of which overcharged the Government by $9. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and fined $5,000. The Government then brought an action against Halper under the civil False Claims Act, 31 U. S. C. §§ 3729-3731 (1982 ed., Supp. II). The remedial provisions of the False Claims Act provided that a violation of the Act rendered one "liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of $2,000, an amount equal to 2 times the amount of damages the Government sustains because of the act of that person, and costs of the civil action." Id. , §3729. Given Halper's 65 separate violations of the Act, he appeared to be liable for a penalty of $130,000, despite the fact he actually defrauded the Government of less than $600. However, the District Court concluded that a penalty of this magnitude would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause in light of Halper's previous criminal conviction. While explicitly recognizing that the statutory damages provision of the Act "was not itself a criminal punishment," the District Court nonetheless concluded that application of the full penalty to Halper would constitute a second "punishment" in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. 490 U.S., at 438 -439.
On direct appeal, this Court affirmed. As the Halper Court saw it, the imposition of "punishment" of any kind was subject to double jeopardy constraints, and whether a sanction constituted "punishment" depended primarily on whether it served the traditional "goals of punishment," namely "retribution and deterrence." Id. , at 448. Any sanction that was so "overwhelmingly disproportionate" to the injury caused that it could not "fairly be said solely to serve [the] remedial purpose" of compensating the government for its loss, was thought to be explainable only as "serving either retributive or deterrent purposes." See id. , at 448-449 (emphasis added).
The analysis applied by the Halper Court deviated from our traditional double jeopardy doctrine in two key respects. First, the Halper Court bypassed the threshold question: whether the successive punishment at issue is a "criminal" punishment. Instead, it focused on whether the sanction, regardless of whether it was civil or criminal, was so grossly disproportionate to the harm caused as to constitute "punishment." In so doing, the Court elevated a single Kennedy factor-whether the sanction appeared excessive in relation to its nonpunitive purposes-to dispositive status. But as we emphasized in Kennedy itself, no one factor should be considered controlling as they "may often point in differing directions." 372 U.S., at 169 . The second significant departure in Halper was the Court's decision to "asses[s] the character of the actual sanctions imposed," 490 U.S., at 447 , rather than, as Kennedy demanded, evaluating the "statute on its face" to determine whether it provided for what amounted to a criminal sanction, 372 U.S., at 169 .
We believe that Halper 's deviation from longstanding double jeopardy principles was ill considered. 5
As subse- quent cases have demonstrated, Halper 's test for determining whether a particular sanction is "punitive," and thus subject to the strictures of the Double Jeopardy Clause, has proved unworkable. We have since recognized that all civil penalties have some deterrent effect. See Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767, 777 , n. 14 (1994); United States v. Ursery , 518 U. S. ___, ___, n. 2 (1996) (slip op., at 16-17, n. 2). 6
If a sanction must be "solely" remedial ( i.e ., entirely nondeterrent) to avoid implicating the Double Jeopardy Clause, then no civil penalties are beyond the scope of the Clause. Under Halper 's method of analysis, a court must also look at the "sanction actually imposed" to determine whether the Double Jeopardy Clause is implicated. Thus, it will not be possible to determine whether the Double Jeopardy Clause is violated until a defendant has proceeded through a trial to judgment. But in those cases where the civil proceeding follows the criminal proceeding, this approach flies in the face of the notion that the Double Jeopardy Clause forbids the government from even " attempting a second time to punish criminally." Helvering , 303 U.S., at 399 (emphasis added).
Finally, it should be noted that some of the ills at which Halper was directed are addressed by other constitutional provisions. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses already protect individuals from sanctions which are downright irrational. Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (1955). The Eighth Amendment protects against excessive civil fines, including forfeitures. Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993); Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993). The additional protection afforded by extending double jeopardy protections to proceedings heretofore thought to be civil is more than offset by the confusion created by attempting to distinguish between "punitive" and "nonpunitive" penalties.
Applying traditional double jeopardy principles to the facts of this case, it is clear that the criminal prosecution of these petitioners would not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. It is evident that Congress intended the OCC money penalties and debarment sanctions imposed for violations of 12 U. S. C. §§84 and 375b to be civil in nature. As for the money penalties, both 12 U. S. C. §§93(b)(1) and 504(a), which authorize the imposition of monetary penalties for violations of §§84 and 375b respectively, expressly provide that such penalties are "civil." While the provision authorizing debarment contains no language explicitly denominating the sanction as civil, we think it significant that the authority to issue debarment orders is conferred upon the "appropriate Federal banking agenc[ies]." §§1818(e)(1)-(3). That such authority was conferred upon administrative agencies is prima facie evidence that Congress intended to provide for a civil sanction. See Helvering , supra , at 402; United States v. Spector, 343 U.S. 169, 178 (1952) (Jackson, J., dissenting) ("Administrative determinations of liability to deportation have been sustained as constitutional only by considering them to be exclusively civil in nature, with no criminal consequences or connotations"); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 235 (1896) (holding that quintessential criminal punishments may be imposed only "by a judicial trial").
Turning to the second stage of the Ward test, we find that there is little evidence, much less the clearest proof that we require, suggesting that either OCC money penalties or debarment sanctions are "so punitive in form and effect as to render them criminal despite Congress' intent to the contrary." Ursery , supra , at ___ (slip op., at 22). First, neither money penalties nor debarment have historically been viewed as punishment. We have long recognized that "revocation of a privilege voluntarily granted," such as a debarment, "is characteristically free of the punitive criminal element." Helvering , 303 U.S., at 399 , and n. 2. Similarly, "the payment of fixed or variable sums of money [is a] sanction which ha[s] been recognized as enforcable by civil proceedings since the original revenue law of 1789." Id. , at 400.
Second, the sanctions imposed do not involve an "affirmative disability or restraint," as that term is normally understood. While petitioners have been prohibited from further participating in the banking industry, this is "certainly nothing approaching the 'infamous punishment' of imprisonment." Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 617 (1960). Third, neither sanction comes into play "only" on a finding of scienter. The provisions under which the money penalties were imposed, 12 U. S. C. §§93(b) and 504, allow for the assessment of a penalty against any person "who violates" any of the underlying banking statutes, without regard to the violator's state of mind. "Good faith" is considered by OCC in determining the amount of the penalty to be imposed, §93(b)(2), but a penalty can be imposed even in the absence of bad faith. The fact that petitioners' "good faith" was considered in determining the amount of the penalty to be imposed in this case is irrelevant, as we look only to "the statute on its face" to determine whether a penalty is criminal in nature. Kennedy , 372 U.S., at 169 . Similarly, while debarment may be imposed for a "willful" disregard "for the safety or soundness of [an] insured depository institution," willfulness is not a prerequisite to debarment; it is sufficient that the disregard for the safety and soundness of the institution was "continuing." 12 U.S.C. § 1818(e)(1)(C)(ii).
Fourth, the conduct for which OCC sanctions are imposed may also be criminal (and in this case formed the basis for petitioners' indictments). This fact is insufficient to render the money penalties and debarment sanctions criminally punitive, Ursery , 518 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 24-25), particularly in the double jeopardy context, see United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 704 (1993) (rejecting "same-conduct" test for double jeopardy purposes).
Finally, we recognize that the imposition of both money penalties and debarment sanctions will deter others from emulating petitioners' conduct, a traditional goal of criminal punishment. But the mere presence of this purpose is insufficient to render a sanction criminal, as deterrence "may serve civil as well as criminal goals." Ursery , supra , at ___ (slip op., at 24); see also Bennis v. Michigan , 516 U.S. 442, 452 (1996) ("[F]orfeiture . . . serves a deterrent purpose distinct from any punitive purpose"). For example, the sanctions at issue here, while intended to deter future wrongdoing, also serve to promote the stability of the banking industry. To hold that the mere presence of a deterrent purpose renders such sanctions "criminal" for double jeopardy purposes would severely undermine the Government's ability to engage in effective regulation of institutions such as banks.
In sum, there simply is very little showing, to say nothing of the "clearest proof" required by Ward , that OCC money penalties and debarment sanctions are criminal. The Double Jeopardy Clause is therefore no obstacle to their trial on the pending indictments, and it may proceed.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is accordingly Affirmed.
JUSTICE SCALIA , with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, concurring.
I wholly agree with the Court's conclusion that Halper 's test for whether a sanction is "punitive" was ill-considered and unworkable. Ante , at 7-8. Indeed, it was the absurdity of trying to force the Halper analysis upon the Montana tax scheme at issue in Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767 (1994), that prompted me to focus on the prior question of whether the Double Jeopardy Clause even contains a multiple-punishments prong. See id. , at 802-803. That evaluation led me to the conclusion that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits successive prosecution, not successive punishment, and that we should therefore "put the Halper genie back in the bottle." Id. , at 803-805. Today's opinion uses a somewhat different bottle than I would, returning the law to its state immediately prior to Halper -which acknowledged a constitutional prohibition of multiple punishments but required successive criminal prosecutions. So long as that requirement is maintained, our multiple punishments jurisprudence essentially duplicates what I believe to be the correct double-jeopardy law, and will be as harmless in the future as it was pre- Halper . Accordingly, I am pleased to concur.
JUSTICE STEVENS , concurring in the judgment.
The maxim that "hard cases make bad law" may also apply to easy cases. As I shall explain, this case could easily be decided by the straightforward application of well-established precedent. Neither such a disposition, nor anything in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, would require a reexamination of the central holding in United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989), or of the language used in that unanimous opinion. Any proper concern about the danger that that opinion might be interpreted too expansively would be more appropriately addressed in a case that was either incorrectly decided or that at least raised a close or difficult question. In my judgment it is most unwise to use this case as a vehicle for the substitution of a rather open-ended attempt to define the concept of punishment for the portions of the opinion in Halper that trouble the Court. Accordingly, while I have no hesitation about concurring in the Court's judgment, I do not join its opinion.
As is evident from the first sentence of the Court's opinion, this is an extremely easy case. It has been settled since the decision in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), that the Double Jeopardy Clause is not implicated simply because a criminal charge involves "essentially the same conduct" for which a defendant has previously been punished. See, e.g., United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 , 704 (1993); Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292, 297 (1996). Unless a second proceeding involves the "same offense" as the first, there is no double jeopardy. The two proceedings at issue here involved different offenses that were not even arguably the same under Blockburger.
Under Blockburger 's "same-elements" test, two provisions are not the "same offense" if each contains an element not included in the other. Dixon , 509 U.S., at 696 . The penalties imposed on the petitioners in 1989 were based on violations of 12 U. S. C. §§84(a)(1) and 375b (1982) and 12 CFR §§31.2(b) and 215.4(b) (1986). Each of these provisions required proof that extensions of credit exceeding certain limits were made, 1
but did not require proof of an intent to defraud or the making of any false entries in bank records. The 1992 indictment charged violations of 18 U. S. C. §§371, 656, and 1005 and alleged a conspiracy to willfully misapply bank funds and to make false banking entries, as well as the making of such entries; none of those charges required proof that any lending limit had been exceeded.
Thus, I think it would be difficult to find a case raising a double jeopardy claim that would be any easier to decide than this one. 2
The Court not only ignores the most obvious and straightforward basis for affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals; it also has nothing to say about that Court's explanation of why the reasoning in our opinion in United States v. Halper supported a rejection of petitioners' double jeopardy claim. Instead of granting certiorari to consider a possible error in the Court of Appeals' reasoning or its judgment, the Court candidly acknowledges that it was motivated by "concerns about the wide variety of novel double jeopardy claims spawned in the wake of Halper. " Ante , at 4.
The Court's opinion seriously exaggerates the significance of those concerns. Its list of cases illustrating the problem cites seven cases decided in the last two years. Ante , at 4, n. 4. In every one of those cases, however, the Court of Appeals rejected the double jeopardy claim. The only ruling by any court favorable to any of these "novel" claims was a preliminary injunction entered by a District Court postponing implementation of New Jersey's novel, controversial "Megan's Law." E. B. v. Poritz , 914 F. Supp. 85 (NJ 1996), reversed, E. B. v. Verniero , 119 F. 3d 1077 (CA3 1997). Thus, the cases cited by the Court surely do not indicate any need to revisit Halper .
The Court also claims that two practical flaws in the Halper opinion warrant a prompt adjustment in our double jeopardy jurisprudence. First, the Court asserts that Halper 's test is unworkable because it permits only successive sanctions that are "solely" remedial. Ante , at 8. Though portions of Halper were consistent with such a reading, the express statement of its holding was much narrower. 3
Of greater importance, the Court has since clarified this very point:
"Whether a particular sanction 'cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial purpose' is an inquiry radically different from that we have traditionally employed in order to determine whether, as a categorical matter, a civil sanction is subject to the Double Jeopardy Clause. Yet nowhere in Halper does the Court purport to make such a sweeping change in the law, instead emphasizing repeatedly the narrow scope of its decision."
United States v. Ursery , 518 U. S. ___, ___ (1996) (slip op., at 17, n. 2).
Having just recently emphasized Halper 's narrow rule in Ursery , it is quite odd for the Court now to suggest that its overbreadth has created some sort of judicial emergency.
Second, the Court expresses the concern that when a civil proceeding follows a criminal punishment, Halper would require a court to wait until judgment is imposed in the successive proceeding before deciding whether the latter sanction violates double jeopardy. Ante , at 8-9. That concern is wholly absent in this case, however, because the criminal indictment followed administrative sanctions. There can be no doubt that any fine or sentence imposed on the criminal counts would be "punishment." If the indictment charged the same offense for which punishment had already been imposed, the prosecution itself would be barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause no matter how minor the criminal sanction sought in the second proceeding.
Thus, the concerns that the Court identifies merely emphasize the accuracy of the comment in Halper itself that it announced "a rule for the rare case . . . where a fixedpenalty provision subjects a prolific but small-gauge offender to a sanction overwhelmingly disproportionate to the damages he has caused." 490 U. S. , at 449.
Despite my disagreement with the Court's decision to use this case as a rather lame excuse for writing a gratuitous essay about punishment, I do agree with its reaffirmation of the central holding of Halper and Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767 (1994). Both of those cases held that sanctions imposed in civil proceedings constituted "punishment" barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. 4
Those holdings reconfirmed the settled proposition that the Government cannot use the "civil" label to escape entirely the Double Jeopardy Clause's command, as we have recognized for at least six decades. See United States v. La Franca, 282 U.S. 568, 574 -575 (1931); Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 398 -399 (1938). That proposition is extremely important because the States and the Federal Government have an enormous array of civil ad- ministrative sanctions at their disposal that are capable of being used to punish persons repeatedly for the same offense, violating the bedrock double jeopardy principle of finality. "The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity . . . ." Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187 (1957). However the Court chooses to recalibrate the meaning of punishment for double jeopardy purposes, our doctrine still limits multiple sanctions of the rare sort contemplated by Halper .
Today, as it did in Halper itself , the Court relies on the sort of multi-factor approach to the definition of punishment that we used in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168 -169 (1963), to identify situations in which a civil sanction is punitive. Whether the Court's reformulation of Halper 's test will actually affect the outcome of any cases remains to be seen. Perhaps it will not, since the Court recommends consideration of whether a sanction's " 'operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment-retribution and deterrence,' " and " 'whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative [nonpunitive] purpose assigned.' " Ante , at 5-6 (quoting Kennedy , 372 U.S., at 168 -169). Those factors look awfully similar to the reasoning in Halper , and while we are told that they are never by themselves dispositive, ante , at 7, they should be capable of tipping the balance in extreme cases. The danger in changing approaches midstream, rather than refining our established approach on an incremental basis, is that the Government and lower courts may be unduly influenced by the Court's new attitude, rather than its specific prescribed test.
It is, of course, entirely appropriate for the Court to perform a lawmaking function as a necessary incident to its Article III responsibility for the decision of "Cases" and "Controversies." In my judgment, however, a desire to reshape the law does not provide a legitimate basis for issuing what amounts to little more than an advisory opinion that, at best, will have the precedential value of pure dictum and may in time unduly restrict the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause. "It is not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case." Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283, 295 (1905); see also Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 345 -348 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Accordingly, while I concur in the judgment of affirmance, I do not join the Court's opinion.
JUSTICE SOUTER , concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the Court's judgment and with much of its opinion. As the Court notes, ante, at 8, we have already recognized that Halper 's statements of standards for identifying what is criminally punitive under the Fifth Amendment needed revision, United States v. Ursery , 518 U. S. __, ___, n. 2 (1996) (slip op., at 16, n. 2), and there is obvious sense in employing common criteria to point up the criminal nature of a statute for purposes of both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. See United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms , 465 U.S. 354, 362 -366 (1984); United States v. Ward , 448 U.S. 242, 248 -249 (1980); Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez , 372 U.S. 144, 168 -169 (1963); see also Ward , supra , at 254 ("[I]t would be quite anomalous to hold that [the statute] created a criminal penalty for the purposes of the Self-Incrimination Clause but a civil penalty for other purposes").
Applying the Court's Kennedy-Ward criteria leads me directly to the conclusion of JUSTICE STEVENS 's concurring opinion. The fifth criterion calls for a court to determine whether "the behavior to which [the penalty] applies is already a crime." Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez , supra , at 168-169. The efficient starting point for identifying consti tutionally relevant "behavior," when considering an objection to a successive prosecution, is simply to apply the same-elements test as originally stated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). See United States v. Dixon , 509 U.S. 688 (1993). When application of Blockburger under Kennedy-Ward shows that a successive prosecution is permissible even on the assumption that each penalty is criminal, the issue is necessarily settled. Such is the case here, as JUSTICE STEVENS explains. See ante , at 2 (STEVENS , J., concurring in judgment). Applying the Kennedy-Ward criteria, therefore, I would stop just where JUSTICE STEVENS stops.
My acceptance of the Kennedy-Ward analytical scheme is subject to caveats, however. As the Court points out, under Ward, once it is understood that a legislature intended a penalty to be treated as civil in character, that penalty may be held criminal for Fifth Amendment purposes (and, for like reasons, under the Sixth Amendment) only on the "clearest proof" of its essentially criminal proportions. While there are good and historically grounded reasons for using that phrase to impose a substantial burden on anyone claiming that an apparently civil penalty is in truth criminal, what may be clear enough to be "clearest" is necessarily dependent on context, as indicated by the cases relied on as authority for adopting the standard in Ward. Flemming v. Nestor , 363 U.S. 603 (1960), used the quoted language to describe the burden of persuasion necessary to demonstrate a criminal and punitive purpose unsupported by "objective manifestations" of legislative intent. Id., at 617. Rex Trailer Co . v. United States , 350 U.S. 148, 154 (1956), cited as secondary authority, required a defendant to show that a "measure of recovery" was "unreasonable or excessive" before "what was clearly intended as a civil remedy [would be treated as] a criminal penalty." One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States , 409 U.S. 232, 237 (1972), cited Rex Trailer for that stan dard and relied on the case as exemplifying a provision for liquidated damages as distinct from criminal penalty. I read the requisite "clearest proof" of criminal character, then, to be a function of the strength of the countervailing indications of civil nature (including the presumption of constitutionality enjoyed by an ostensibly civil statute making no provision for the safeguards guaranteed to criminal defendants. See Flemming, supra, at 617).
I add the further caution, to be wary of reading the "clearest proof" requirement as a guarantee that such a demonstration is likely to be as rare in the future as it has been in the past. See United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 449 (1989) ("What we announce now is a rule for the rare case"). We have noted elsewhere the expanding use of ostensibly civil forfeitures and penalties under the exigencies of the current drug problems, see Ursery , supra, at ____ (slip op., at 4) (STEVENS , J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) ("In recent years, both Congress and the state legislatures have armed their law enforcement authorities with new powers to forfeit property that vastly exceeded their traditional tools"); United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property , 510 U.S. 43, 81 -82 (1993) (THOMAS , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), a development doubtless spurred by the increasingly inviting prospect of its profit to the Government. See id., at 56, n. 2 (opinion of the Court) (describing the government's financial stake in drug forfeiture); see also id., at 56 (citing Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957, 979 , n. 9 (1991) (opinion of SCALIA , J.) for the proposition that "it makes sense to scrutinize governmental action more closely when the State stands to benefit"). Hence, on the infrequency of "clearest proof," history may not be repetitive.
[ Footnote 1 ] Tipton and Hammon are two very small towns in western Oklahoma.
[ Footnote 2 ] The Consent Orders also contained language providing that they did not constitute "a waiver of any right, power, or authority of any other representatives of the United States, or agencies thereof, to bring other actions deemed appropriate." App. to Pet. for Cert. 133a, 143a, 138a. The Court of Appeals ultimately held that this provision was not a waiver of petitioners' double jeopardy claim. 14 F. 3d 536, 539 (CA10 1996).
[ Footnote 3 ] Only petitioner Rackley was indicted for making false bank entries in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1005.
[ Footnote 4 ] E.g. Zukas v. Hinson , 1997 WL 623648 (CA11, Oct 21, 1997) (challenge to FAA revocation of a commercial pilot's license as violative of double jeopardy); E. B. v. Verniero , 119 F. 3d 1077 (CA3 1997) (challenge to "Megan's Law" as violative of double jeopardy); Jones v. Securities & Exchange Comm'n , 115 F. 3d 1173 (CA4 1997) (challenge to SEC debarment proceeding as violative of double jeopardy); United States v. Rice , 109 F. 3d 151 (CA3 1997) (challenge to criminal drug prosecution following general military discharge for same conduct as violative of double jeopardy); United States v. Hatfield , 108 F. 3d 67 (CA4 1997) (challenge to criminal fraud prosecution as foreclosed by previous debarment from government contracting); Taylor v. Cisneros , 102 F. 3d 1334 (CA3 1996) (challenge to eviction from federally subsidized housing based on guilty plea to possession of drug paraphernalia as violative of double jeopardy); United States v. Galan , 82 F. 3d 639 (CA5) (challenge to prosecution for prison escape following prison disciplinary proceeding as violative of double jeopardy), cert. denied, 519 U. S. ___ (1996).
[ Footnote 5 ] In his concurrence, JUSTICE STEVENS criticizes us for reexamining our Halper opinion rather than deciding the case on what he believes is the narrower Blockburger grounds. But the question upon which we granted certiorari in this case is "whether the imposition upon petitioners of monetary fines as in personam civil penalties by the Department of the Treasury, together with other sanctions, is 'punishment' for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause." Pet. for Cert. i. It is this question, and not the Blockburger issue, upon which there is a conflict among the Courts of Appeals. Indeed, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in this case did not even pass upon the Blockburger question, finding it unnecessary to do so. 92 F. 3d, at 1028, n. 3.
[ Footnote 6 ] In Kurth Ranch , we held that the presence of a deterrent purpose or effect is not dispositive of the double jeopardy question. 511 U.S., at 781 . Rather, we applied a Kennedy -like test, see 511 U.S., at 780 -783, before concluding that Montana's dangerous drug tax was "the functional equivalent of a successive criminal prosecution." Similarly, in Ursery , we rejected the notion that civil in rem forfeitures violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. 518 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1). We upheld such forfeitures, relying on the historical support for the notion that such forfeitures are civil and thus do not implicate double jeopardy. Id. , at ___ (slip op., at 24-25).
[ Footnote 1 ] Title 12 U. S. §84(a)(1) prohibits total loans and extensions of credit by a national banking association to any one borrower from exceeding 15 percent of the bank's unimpaired capital and surplus. 12 U.S.C. § 375b and 12 CFR §§31.2(b) and 215.4(b) (1986) impose similar lending limits on loans to bank officers and other insiders.
[ Footnote 2 ] Petitioners challenge this conclusion by relying on dicta from Kansas v. Hendricks , 521 U. S. ___, ___ (1997). There, after rejecting a double jeopardy challenge to Kansas' Sexually Violent Predator Act, the Court added: "The Blockburger test, however, simply does not apply outside of the successive prosecution context." Id. , at ___ (slip op., at 23). This statement, pure dictum, was unsupported by any authority and contradicts the earlier ruling in United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 704 -705 (1993), that the Blockburger analysis applies to claims of successive punishment as well as successive prosecution. See also id. , at 745-746 (SOUTER, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (explaining why the Blockburger test applies in the multiple punishments context). I cannot imagine a good reason why Blockburger should not apply here.
[ Footnote 3 ] "We . . . hold that under the Double Jeopardy Clause a defendant who already has been punished in a criminal prosecution may not be subjected to an additional civil sanction to the extent that the second sanction may not fairly be characterized as remedial, but only as a deterrent or retribution." United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 448449 (1989).
[ Footnote 4 ] Other recent double jeopardy decisions have also recognized that double jeopardy protection is not limited to multiple prosecutions. See United States v. Ursery , 518 U. S. ___, ___ (1996) (slip op., at 4); Kansas v. Hendricks , 521 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 22). Otherwise, it would have been totally unnecessary to determine whether the civil forfeitures in Ursery and the involuntary civil commitment in Hendricks imposed "punishment" for double jeopardy purposes, for neither sanction was implemented via criminal proceedings.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Hans Rollmann is a writer, editor, and broadcaster based in Canada. An award-winning journalist, he's a reporter/editor with the online media publication The Independent (TheIndependent.ca) and Program Director at community radio station CHMR-FM. He adores travel, writing, and Portuguese cheese. He abhors vacuums, stir-fries and brussels sprouts. He's ambivalent on broccoli and the Oxford comma. He can be reached by email at hansnf [at-sies] gmail [dot-sies] com or on Twitter @hansnf.
Why must I tote around a book the size of a '90s-era laptop computer, carried in a bag slung over aching shoulders and twisted back, while my friends in Japan can enjoy the same book slipped near weightlessly into their pants pocket?
Quite literally: when Throbbing Gristle took to the recording studio their 'label', Industrial Records, would give birth to an entire genre of music.
Sergey and Marina Dyachenko's Vita Nostra is a mysterious Ukrainian sci-fi / fantasy / fairy tale whose unsettling questions will linger.
Why Does Natsume Sōseki Still Resonate with Readers?
Literary scholar John Nathan's biography of Natsume Sōseki puts his great accomplishments -- and many shortcomings -- in superb literary and historical context.
There is something very wrong with how Steig Larsson's legacy has been handled by authors, publishers, and filmmakers.
Hayao Miyazaki's Films Help Us See Ourselves "with Eyes Unclouded"
Japanese Studies scholar Susan Napier's Miyazakiworld reveals an animation auteur with an urgent message to convey about our future -- and ourselves.


If you have any questions about the ASTRID information page below please contact us.
The large superyacht ASTRID is a sailing yacht. This 42 m (138 ft) luxury yacht was produced by Greg Van Leeuwen in 1924. ASTRID was formerly called Wuta. She is a classic twin masted brig. Superyacht ASTRID is a striking yacht that is able to sleep a total of 24 guests on board and has around 8 professional crew. The balanced superyacht was envisaged with naval architects Greg Van Leeuwen.
The yacht's general design work came from Greg Van Leeuwen. The professional naval architect drawings are a products of Greg Van Leeuwen. Created by Greg Van Leeuwen this yacht was built in the country of the Netherlands. She was successfully launched in Den Haag in 1924 before being handed over to the owner. Her core hull was built out of iron. The sailing yacht main superstructure is fabricated for the most part with steelandwood. The measurement of the luxury yacht on deck is 32.92 (108 ft). With a width of 6.71 m / 22 feet ASTRID has moderate room. She has a reasonably shallow draught of 2.59m (8.5ft). She had refit improvement and changes carried out by 2000.
The yacht harnesses the power of a single reliable SCANIA diesel engine(s) and can manage a dignified speed of 10 knots. The engine of the ship gives 344 horse power (or 253 kilowatts). Her total HP is 344 HP and her total Kilowatts are 253. ASTRID is propelled by a single screw propeller.
The generous luxury yacht S/Y ASTRID can sleep as many as 24 passengers and 8 professional crew.
Giving the combined power of 344 HP /253 KW.
Her deck material is predominantly a soraya-steel deck.
The luxury yacht ASTRID displayed on this page is merely informational and she is not necessarily available for yacht charter or for sale, nor is she represented or marketed in anyway by CharterWorld. This web page and the superyacht information contained herein is not contractual. All yacht specifications and informations are displayed in good faith but CharterWorld does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the current accuracy, completeness, validity, or usefulness of any superyacht information and/or images displayed. All boat information is subject to change without prior notice and may not be current.


With our premium Image Gallery widget, you can import and display just about any image on your start page. It's a great way to personalize your pages. Other useful applications are saving your whiteboard sessions, handwritten notes or screenshots.
Here's everything you need to know about this widget.
Click the Add icon in the top right corner.
Click the bottom option Widget and select the Premium tab. Now you will see our available Premium widgets. They are all marked with a red heart.
Click the option Image Gallery.
Add the image or images you want to import and display.
Confirm your changes by clicking the Confirm button (Checkmark icon).
You can add as many Image Gallery widgets to your page as you'd like.
You are free to add any image, as long as they are no bigger than 20 MB. When you upload your picture to our servers, they will be compressed and cached. This way your images will render just as fast as Bookmark or other widgets. You can only add one picture at a time.
The allowed file types are JPEG, GIF, PNG, BMP, ICO, PDF, SVG, TIFF.
You can add images with any aspect ratio, but the widget will display your pictures best when all uploaded images are oriented in either landscape mode (wider than tall) or portrait mode (taller than wide).
Click the Downward arrow in the top right corner of your widget to start adding new images.
Activate the Edit mode to change the name of your widget, copy the widget to another page or move it. Enter our Settings pane or delete the entire widget (careful: there's no recovery possible).
The final option allows you to access the Help section (this very article).
There are two ways to change the title of your Image Gallery widget: double-click the title of the widget or change it from the Settings pane.
In this pane, you can also decide to show your images in a slideshow and at which interval. If you choose to disable this function, you can switch to another image by clicking the arrows that appear when you hover over the picture.
Here, you can also change the icon by uploading your own or selecting one from our database. Click Done to save your changes.
The Advanced tab of your Settings pane allows you to tailor the appearance of your widget to the images you've uploaded.
We recommend you to choose the Aspect ratio most similar to your images. There are several options: Square, TV (4:3), A4 paper, 35mm film (3:2), Golden ratio, HD (16:9).
Another option is the orientation of your widget: Landscape or Portrait.
If you want to crop your images to the dimensions of your preferred aspect ratio, this is also possible.
Change the color of your Image Gallery widget. Set the transparency to blend into the background. Apply these settings to all widgets on your page.
This premium widget is only available for Premium members. Upgrade now!
Why choose start.me premium (PRO)?


Gentle mixed ability yoga with good relaxation and refreshing breathing routines, some useful thinking about how to be happy and avoid stress, fully qualified yoga teacher and adult tutor of fine art. We are looking for new members.
The Japanese Garden, reflects the harmony of nature and inner peace of man. It is the place for relaxation and reflection. The Meditation centre offers you the opportunity to find spiritual joy and own true self awareness through simple meditation.
ReflexologyAromatherapyBelly Dance classesYogaEastern TherapiesHenna Available for workshops, parties or individual treatments. Please see website for more information.


text:
Meanwhile, Tampa's best stadium financing option is in jeopardy.
By Daniel Russell@d_russ Jan 24, 2014, 11:01am EST
Share All sharing options for: Possible Rays stadium location developing Channelside
Douglas Jones-US PRESSWIRE
The Braves recently announced a new stadium on the back of location woes. The majority of the fanbase lived too far north, they said, and there was no decent route of public transportation. Down in Florida, every Rays fan nodded their head vigorously.
These are the same factors that have plagued the Rays' attendance numbers.
One way or another, the Rays will soon play in a new stadium.
Back in 2011, our forefathers submitted a DRaysBay Stadium Proposal that began with a suggested location on the west side of the river, facing downtown. That location is currently the Julian B. Lane Waterfront Park, north of the University of Tampa and south of I-275.
The Riverfront, the view, the ideal placement of the sun, and the opportunity to have our own boats chasing Longorian homeruns as they splash down into the water.
Many of us here are still partial to this location, but it may not be the most ideal, as the Tampa business and political communities may be zeroing in on a different location.
Channelside Property
A big name in the Tampa business community is the owner of the Lightning, Jeffrey Vinik. After investing heavily into the Tampa Bay Times Forum, and famous for his giveaways of a large check to a community hero at each Lightning home game.
He is also the majority owner and chairman of the Arena Football League's Tampa Bay Storm, a minority owner in the Fenway Sports Group -- which has interests in Major League Baseball and owns a minor league complex in Ft. Myers -- and he sits on the board of directors for the English Premier League team Liverpool.
Vinik recently moved his hedge fund's operations to the Suntrust Building while it was still in operation, and has been involved in plans to build another hotel on the west side of the Forum -- including requesting a re-zone of the building height allowances and expanding roadways -- but that hasn't been his only activity Channelside.
A group from Colorado has been slowly purchasing the land surrounding Channelside for a long time now, and this has not gone unnoticed, thanks to savvy reporting by news outlets at the Tampa Bay Times and Tampa Tribune. That group is called Gold Crown Management, a portfolio run by a Denver businessman who helped construct the Colorado Rockies' stadium.
Not all of these purchases have been made through the same company, but it would appear that each of these controlling groups are subsidiaries of Gold Crown Management, and run by a man named Michael Baker, the son of Raymond Baker. The latter is a partner with Gold Crown, a senior advisor to a sport stadium developer called the Romani Group, and chairman for the Denver Metropolitan Major League Baseball Stadium District, which owns Coors Field.
Are you tracking with me?
Vinik and this Colorado ownership group have teamed together to purchase at least 21 acres stretching from Florida Avenue to Meridian Avenue, north east of the Times Forum. One of the most significant chunks was purchased last November for $3M.
The areas being purchased fall within these red lines:
The appearance of this land might be just a bunch of parking lots, but there seems to be intent to do something far grander. The other key parcel of land, and the only one currently occupied, belongs to the ConAgra flour mill, who are already on the record as willing to sell.
Vinik has also shown an interest in buying the struggling Channelside Bay Plaza shopping center beside the Florida Aquarium.
Financing and TIF Money
So why this land in particular? The issue is financing on the part of the city of Tampa.
Others with a more keen knowledge of the stadium saga have already suggested that a new stadium would require between $100-150M from the city of its new location. These funds would most likely come from what is called TIF money, or Tax Incremental Financing.
As things stand, the city of Tampa already has $100M of TIF money on stand by, which can only be spent inside was has been designated the "Downtown Core":
You might notice this does not currently include the Julian B. Lane Waterfront Park, our desired location.
$100M is a large sum of money to leave in the on deck circle, and some sharp criticism was raised in this morning's Tampa Tribune regarding those funds. Many believe that money should be delegated to non-profit organizations immediately, as they currently have no true purpose.
Another threat to that sum: The city council will also meet on Feb 13th to reassess the viability of the "Downtown Core" as the appropriate use of these funds.
This is a formative time for the hopes of a new stadium in downtown Tampa, including many other factors:
- The city of St. Petersburg recently elected Rick Kriseman, who believes the Rays should be allowed to look elsewhere for a new stadium location
- Rays VP Michael Kalt, who led stadium negotiations, recently left the team and moved back to New York City for family reasons.
- The clock is ticking for development plans regarding the site at and around Tropicana Field
- The Florida State Fairgrounds have moved on, and are no longer considered a possible stadium location
- The minor league Tampa Yankees are no longer moving, removing the land adjacent to Raymond James Stadium as a possible location
- Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn is on the record declaring St. Petersburg to be a failed business model for baseball
- There is currently no language in the contract to allow the team to leave the contract, which will need to be re-written. In fact, the "use-agreement" states this would create "incalculable" damage to the city of St. Petersburg.
The City of Tampa has been hoarding $100M in funding in hopes of stadium use, but nonprofits want it, and so does the rest of the county. Over next month, that money could get spent or re-zoned away from downtown.
Current zoning for the funds doesn't include the Riverwalk location from the DRaysBay proposal in 2011, but does include all that land Vinik and the Colorado group has been buying over the last three years. The Tampa city council meets mid-February to discuss all this further.
There are many and more hurdles that need jumped for the Rays to find their next stadium, but as things stand, this particular location along the Selmon Expressway is sneakily becoming a location with the fewest roadblocks.
Is Logan Forsythe another Sean Rodriguez?
Jake Odorizzi speaks