Lakehead 2021-2022 Programs & Faculties Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences Graduate Programs Health Sciences Graduate Programs University Regulations
Health Sciences Graduate Programs
II Registration
(a) A student proceeding to a degree or diploma must register by the dates established unless permission is granted by the Dean of the Faculty to delay registration.
(b) With the approval of the chair/director of the department/school concerned and the Dean of the Faculty, a student may, within two weeks of the beginning of classes, change registration from one program to another.
(c) all students must consult with academic advisors prior to registration to discuss and have their courses of studies approved.
(d) With the approval of the chair/director of the department/school concerned and the Dean of the Faculty, a change in registration in a course is permitted in accordance with the dates published in the academic schedule.
(e) With the approval of the chair/director of the department/school concerned and the Dean of the Faculty, a student may withdraw voluntarily, with good standing, within the deadline dates as published in the Academic Schedule under the Final Date for Course Withdrawal.
(f) A student on campus must have successfully completed all courses of the first year before registering for any course in the third year and all courses of the second year before registering in the fourth year.
(g) A student who wishes to carry more than the normal number of courses prescribed for a year or for a single term may do so only with the permission of the Chair or Director of the student's program of study and permission of the Dean of the Faculty, and only if at least a B overall average in the previous academic year has been attained.
(h) A student who has maintained at least a "B" average in the last five (5) courses, may take three (3) courses in the combined Spring and Summer Terms. This constitutes the equivalent of a full-time program.
No more than two courses may be taken during the Spring Term.
No more than two courses may be taken during the Summer Term, combining day and evening classes.
III Programs of Study
(a) A student's program must be approved by the chair/director of the department/school and shall be drawn from the courses listed in the calendar for the program in which he/she registers.
(b) Under special circumstances, timetable permitting, exemptions or substitutions may be granted. Applications must be made to the chair/director of the department/school concerned.
VI Reappraisal and Academic Appeals
See the Senate Policy Regarding Reappraisal and Academic Appeals published on the Lakehead University website:
https://www.lakeheadu.ca/about/policies-procedures/policies
XI Computer Users
Students are responsible for acquainting themselves with the regulations respecting use of University computers. The regulations set forth the rights and obligations of computer users with respect to access, confidentiality and nature of use. A copy of the "Code of Computer Conduct" may be obtained from the Director of Communications Technology Resource Centre.
VII Special Examinations
(a) The privilege of writing special examinations is limited to any undergraduate student who has:
(i) Failed the course but attained a grade of at least 40% in each course for which a special examination is requested OR
(ii) Passed the course but failed to attain the minimum grade required in the course or
(iii) Passed the course but failed to attain the required cumulative average to carry on with his/her program.
For further details concerning special examinations see academic regulations for individual faculties (or schools) in Business Administration; Education; Engineering; Natural Resources Management; Health and Behavioural Sciences (Gerontology, Kinesiology, Nursing, and Social Work); Science and Environmental Studies; and Social Sciences and Humanities (Outdoor Recreation, Parks and Tourism).
(b) Any student who has failed to complete laboratory work, or Practice Teaching, is ineligible for special examinations.
(c) A student eligible to write special examinations may write a maximum of two full course equivalents while registered in any one program. (e.g For diploma program, HBScF degree program, HB Comm/B Admin degree program, etc. Note: Double degree programs such as BA/BEd, BSc/BEd, BA/HBOR, BSc/HBOR, etc. are considered as one program as are the BA or HBA and BSc or HBSc degree programs. Students who change programs from BA to HBA, HBA to BA, BSc to HBSc or HBSc to BSc, etc. are limited to a maximum of two full course equivalents special examinations).
(d) Normally only one special examination may be written in each course, but in exceptional circumstances permission may be given to write a special examination in a course for the second time. Applications should be sent to the Registrar and will be referred to the appropriate Dean and Department/School for consideration.
(e) A student who finds it impossible to write special examinations at Lakehead University may make arrangements, subject to the approval of the Registrar, to write at another centre. Such arrangements should be made before the deadline date as published in the Academic Schedule of Dates in the Special Examinations section under the Final Date to Apply for Special Exams.
(f) Deadline Dates:
(i) Special examinations for full year courses or for winter term courses shall be written in June.
Special examinations for fall term courses shall be written in January.
Special examinations for courses taken during either the spring or summer term shall be written in August.
Dates for special examinations are published in the Academic Schedule of Dates.
(ii) Applications to write special examinations must be filed at the Office of the Registrar by the deadline dates as published in the Academic Schedule of Dates. These applications must be accompanied by the prescribed fee, which is not refundable.
(g) In the calculation of the revised final grade, the grade obtained on a special examination is treated in exactly the same manner as the grade of the original final examination.
(h) The final letter grade and the revised letter grade will appear on the student's record. The revised final grade shall be counted in any subsequent assessment of standing. Taking a special examination shall not count as an attempt for purposes of Regulation V (h) Repeating Courses. Engineering Degree students please note that any passing Special Examination mark shall carry the letter grade of "D" for application to Faculty of Engineering Academic Regulation #6.
V Standing
(a) The relative weight of term work, laboratory work, term tests, and final examinations, as well as eligibility rules for incomplete standing, shall be determined by the instructor and the department concerned. This information must be given to the students by the instructor at the beginning of the course. For courses that include a peer evaluation component, the maximum weight of the peer evaluation component will not exceed 15% of the final grade unless otherwise approved by the head of the academic unit and the Dean.
(b) "D" is the minimum passing grade in all courses, but a higher standard is required in certain areas of concentration. Details of these requirements are clearly stated under the appropriate faculties, departments and schools.
(c) Letter grades signify the following standings:
A+ 90 to 100%
A 1st class standing 80 to 89%
B 70 to 79%
C 60 to 69%
D 50 to 59%
E Failed 40 to 49%
F Failed 1 to 39%
F Academic Dishonesty 0
The minimum grade that can be assigned for any reason other than academic dishonesty shall be 1%.
In the computation of a First Class Standing average, in addition to having attained a minimum overall average of A in the transfer credit courses, students who have completed credits at another institution must have completed a minimum of 2/3 of the courses used in the calculation of the First Class Standing average at Lakehead University.
(d) Aegrotat Standing
Aegrotat Standing confers credit for a course based on an estimated final grade. Aegrotat Standing will be assigned by the instructor only under exceptional circumstances where he/she considers that credit should be given for the course and where there is no other opportunity for the student to complete the normal course requirements.
If the instructor chooses to make such a recommendation, it must be approved by the Chair/Director of the department/school concerned and the Dean of the Faculty. The recommendation with supporting documentation will be forwarded to the Registrar who will enter a designation "AEG" on the student's record.
No estimated mark may be used in determining the granting of awards.
(e) Incomplete Standing  An incomplete grade may, at the discretion of the instructor and in consultation with the student, be assigned to a course when the instructor considers that for a valid reason the student has not yet completed all the requirements of the course. In such cases, when a percentage grade would normally be assigned to the course, the instructor must also assign a grade for work completed to that point, expressed as a portion of the entire course mark. Courses graded on a Pass/Fail basis will be assigned an INC. Incomplete grades will not be included in the calculation of the student's average.
(f) The instructor is obliged to set the due date for the additional work in order to permit submission of the revised grade to the Registrar's Office by the dates listed below:
Undergraduate Courses Graduate Courses
Fall term grades March 1st June 1st (or May 1st if student plans to convocate in Spring)
Winter/Full year July 1st September 1st
Spring September 1st N/A
Summer November 1st January 1st (or October 1st if student plans to convocate in Fall)
To clear an incomplete grade the student must complete the outstanding work and a Change of Grade form from the instructor must be received in the Registrar's Office by the appropriate above date. Grades that are not cleared by the appropriate above date will be converted to the numeric grade assigned and at that point will be included in the student's average. Pass/Fail courses with an INC will be converted to F.
(g) Failure, No Withdrawal (FNW) - A student who remains registered in a course but submits or performs no work required for grading will receive a final course grade of Failure, No Withdrawal (FNW). A grade of "FNW" will have no numerical value that could affect a student's average, but for academic regulation purposes the student will be deemed to have failed the course to which it is assigned.
(h) Repeating Courses - A student is permitted to repeat a course only twice. All attempts will appear on the student's transcript. Only the last attempt will be included in the average, unless specified otherwise in the Faculty Regulations. Students do not have the option of choosing which attempt will be included.
VIII Deficiency
(a) An honours student who has not met the requirement of a B average in his/her major subject may be permitted, with the approval of the department or departments concerned, to proceed on probation into the succeeding year of his/her program or the next two academic terms of the program in the case of programs that do not follow the academic year format. Should he/she fail to obtain the required average a second time, he/she must transfer to another program. In the event that a student has completed the third or fourth year of an honours program, he/she may apply for a Bachelor's degree if the standing is sufficiently high.
(b) A student having a deficiency of no more than one full course (or its equivalent) of his/her year's work after special examinations, will be permitted to register for the succeeding year of his/her program or the next two academic terms of the program in the case of programs that do not follow the academic format provided that an equivalent amount of the succeeding year's work is deferred.
(c) All faculties limit the number of course failures within a year or a total program, and specify the circumstances in which a student may be readmitted to the faculty. For details concerning course failures and readmission see academic regulations for individual faculties (or schools) in Business Administration; Education; Engineering; Natural Resources Management; Health and Behavioural Sciences (Gerontology, Kinesiology, Nursing, and Social Work); Science and Environmental Studies; and Social Sciences and Humanities (Outdoor Recreation, Parks and Tourism).
(d) A student is required to attend the courses of instruction and the examinations in all subjects prescribed. A student whose attendance at lectures and laboratories is deemed to be unsatisfactory by the Senate may have his registration in that course cancelled at any time.
(e) The Senate may, at any time, ask any student whose work is unsatisfactory to withdraw from the University.
XII Timely Feedback
Lakehead University recognizes that it is important to provide timely and constructive feedback on all academic work. For all courses, at least 25% (for one term courses) and 30% (for two term courses) of the final grade shall be provided to students prior to the last day to withdraw without academic penalty for the course.
Exceptions to the graded feedback include theses, dissertations, pass/fail courses, directed reading courses, seminar courses, independent research study courses, and performance courses, along with condensed (less than 12 weeks) courses including but not limited to spring and summer courses. All other exceptions must be approved by the Dean. Exceptions granted should be included on the course outline.
IV Examinations
The Senate constitutes the examining body for all University examinations.
Students who do not comply with the examination regulations are subject to disciplinary action under the Student Code of Conduct - Non-Academic.
(a) The organization of examinations scheduled during the published examination periods as per the Academic Calendar, including awareness of examination regulations for students, posting of the Examination Timetable online, and releasing of final grades is the responsibility of Enrolment Services – Academic Advising, Records & Registration (hereafter referred to as Enrolment Services).
(b) Enrolment Services shall appoint a Chief Invigilator for examinations administered in the C.J. Sanders Fieldhouse examination room. The Chief Invigilator is responsible for the administration of the examinations and the enforcement of examination regulations. The course instructor (or designate) will also be present. For examinations held outside of the C.J. Sanders Fieldhouse, the course instructor (or his/her designate) will serve as the Invigilator for that particular examination.
(c) For each published examination period, an Examination Timetable will be posted online. It will be posted by mid-October for December examinations, and by early February for April examinations. Any changes in the Timetable that become necessary after the Timetable has been posted will be modified online.
(d) Students are responsible to verify the day, time and location of their scheduled examination. Students are required to attend all examinations that are prescribed in any courses in which they are registered.
(e) Students shall not be required to write three examinations on one day.
Students Registered with Student Accessibility Services
Students registered with Student Accessibility Services who require examination accommodations may be required to write their examination outside of the regular Examination Timetable in order to meet their accommodation needs. Students will be notified through their Lakehead email account of their examination date and time.
Students Requesting Creed and Religious Accommodations
A student who is unable to write a final examination for Creed-based or Religious holidays, leaves, and ritual observations must submit a Creed and Religious Accommodation Agreement (Final Exams) to Enrolment Services no later than three (3) weeks prior to the first day of the start of the final examination period for that term. Enrolment Services, in conjunction with the instructor, will schedule an alternative exam date within the examination period for that term.
(f) Most Lakehead University examinations are three (3) hours in length but this may vary. The Examination Timetable will notate the time length of the examination.
Exam Procedures for Students:
(g) Students will be admitted to the examination room no more than 10 minutes before the examination is scheduled to commence. Students are not permitted to begin the examination, or attempt to review the examination in any way, until instructed to do so by the Invigilator.
(h) Bags, purses, cases and any other belongings must be inaccessible to students during the exam. The Invigilator will assign a designated area where these items can be placed. The University is not responsible for personal property brought into or left in the examination room. Students are advised not to bring these items with them to the examination.
(i) Coats and hats cannot be worn during the examination. These items must be placed in the designated area. Traditional/religious dress wear is acceptable.
(j) No student may enter the examination after the first hour of the allowed examination time. When entering the examination location after the official start time of the examination, the student must notify the Invigilator or Instructor/Designate.
(k) Students shall start writing and cease writing their examination as instructed by the Invigilator.
(l) Students must present, and place, their Lakehead University Student I.D. card on the desk and sign the attendance sheet when presented to them. Students without their Lakehead University Student I.D. will not be permitted to write the examination and will be asked to leave the examination room until the Lakehead University Student I.D. is presented. Students will only be permitted back into the examination room, with their Lakehead University Student I.D., within the first hour of the allowed examination time.
(m) Students are responsible for bringing all supplies required to complete the examination.
(n) Any form of communication with other students during the examination, such as speaking, waving, hand gestures, and so on, is not permitted.
o) Unless specifically stated on the examination paper, or previously approved by the Instructor or Invigilator concerned, books, notes, headphones, calculators, or any other electronic listening and/or viewing devices (including but not limited to cell phones, tablets, watches or any other device with data capabilities, and similar), must be left in the designated area. These items are not permitted at the examination location.
(p) Food and drink are not permitted into the examination room. Only water in clear, unlabelled bottles will be permitted.
(q) Students must remain seated during the examination. If an extra booklet, question, or request to use the washroom arises, students must raise their hand to seek the attention of the Instructor/Designate or Invigilator. The only time a student is permitted to leave his/her seat and/or examination room is when he/she is finished the examination. Students must request to use the washroom during the examination. Only upon approval by the Instructor/Designate or Invigilator, may the student use the washroom facilities.
(r) No student may leave the examination before the end of the first hour of the allowed examination time, even if finished the examination. Before leaving the room the student must immediately, hand in his/her examination to the Instructor/Designate before collecting his/her belongings. Students who are still writing their examination within the last 15 minutes prior to the end of the examination are not permitted to leave the examination room. At the end of the examination, students must remain seated until the exam materials have been collected by the Instructor/Designate and permission by the Invigilator to leave the examination room has been granted.
(s) At the conclusion of an examination, students shall leave with the least distraction to the students still working. Students will not congregate outside the examination room.
(t) Students are responsible for ensuring that the examination paper, along with all papers/booklets and any unused booklets, are submitted to the Instructor/Designate by the end of the examination period.
Examination Cancellation Contingency Plan
The President, or delegate, will decide, in consultation with the Associate Vice-Provost Enrolment & Registrar, or delegate, whether to proceed with or to postpone examinations should extreme weather conditions or any other general emergency which occurs when scheduled examinations are in session.
If the decision is made to postpone examinations, the postponement will apply to all examinations scheduled for a particular day, or part, thereof.
In anticipation of the need of such action, each Examination Timetable will list a contingency date on which any, or all, postponed examinations would be written at the same hour and location as originally scheduled. The date chosen will be the earliest possible date, other than a statutory holiday, following the last day of regularly scheduled examinations.
Should an examination be rescheduled, students are expected to attend on the rescheduled date. This date must be treated like other examination dates and be kept free of personal conflicts such as travel arrangements, work commitments, and so on.
Missed Examinations Due to Illness or Other Extenuating Circumstances
Occasionally, students encounter circumstances beyond their control where they may not be able to write a final examination for reasons such as serious illness or death of an immediate family member.
In cases where a student misses a formal examination due to an incapacitating illness, the student must have the Certificate of Illness or Incapacitation completed by a Medical Professional and submit the completed form to Enrolment Services no later than three (3) working days after the date of the original final examination. The Certificate of Illness or Incapacitation must be dated as seen by the Medical Professional no later than one (1) working day after the examination.
In other exceptional circumstances, official supporting documentation must be provided (e.g. copy of a death certificate or letter from the funeral home).
Accommodation shall be granted only when the documentation indicates that the onset, duration and severity of the illness or other circumstances are such that the student could not have reasonably been expected to complete the examination on the scheduled date.
Upon receipt of the Certificate of Illness or Incapacitation or other supporting documentation, Enrolment Services will notify the Instructor who will arrange for the student to write the missed examination. The final grade will be submitted to Enrolment Services as soon as possible after the rescheduled examination has been written.
Students will not be given another opportunity to write the examination if it is missed a second time. In some cases, when extraordinary circumstances beyond a student’s control prevent him/her from completing the rescheduled examination, a student may be eligible to petition Enrolment Services to explain the circumstances.
Certificates from Student Health & Counselling (Thunder Bay campus) will be accepted within three (3) working days after the examination.
I General Regulations
(a) Any changes in regulations become effective as approved by the Senate except as indicated in General Regulation 1(c) and (d) below and in the related Graduate Studies regulation of this Calendar. Enquiries regarding regulations should be directed to the Registrar of the University.
(b) Every student in the University is bound by the general regulations listed here and any additional requirements approved by Senate. Students with concerns about final course marks and other academic decisions are to follow the steps outlined in the Academic Appeals Policy. The Senate Academic Appeal Committee acts as the final appeal for students in all cases concerning academic grievances, except those pursued under the auspices of the Student Code of Conduct - Non-Academic.
(c) An undergraduate student proceeding to a degree, diploma, or certificate is governed by the academic regulations and program requirements of the Faculty, School, and Department offering the program which are in effect at the time of the student's initial registration in that program, except when a course ceases to be offered and has to be replaced by an alternative or alternatives, or the Faculty decided that some or all students in the program must adhere to subsequent, Senate-approved program changes, or the Faculty decides to order or permit a substitution or substitutions for a required course. The Dean of the Faculty offering the program will immediately inform the Registrar of such exceptions. These exceptions will be allowed only on grounds of benefit to students or of necessity.
(d)Dean's and President's Lists
A Dean's List
To be eligible to be on a Deans' List, students must:
(i) be pursuing an undergraduate degree;
(ii) have achieved a term average of 80-89% based on courses taken in the Fall/Winter term as a full-time student;
(iii) meet the approval of the Dean
To be eligible to be on the President's List, students must:
(ii) have achieved a 90% or higher term average based on courses taken in the Fall/Winter term as a full-time student;
(iii) meet the approval of the Dean and President
Students pursuing their undergraduate degrees on a part-time basis will be considered for the Deans' List and President's List at the end of the Fall/Winter term in which they will proceed to the next year level. Students should refer to the "Year Level Increments" outlined for their program.
(e) An undergraduate student will progress from one year level to the next based on the number of successfully completed courses. See Faculty Regulations for specific breakdowns.
(f) An undergraduate student not registered for two or more consecutive years must re-apply to enter a program of study and will be governed by the academic regulations and program requirements in effect at the time of readmission with the provisions of University Regulation 1(c) above applying mutatis mutandis. Exceptions to this regulation are for undergraduate students registered in the Faculties of Business Administration, Education, Engineering, Natural Resources Management, and the Schools of Nursing and Social Work, where students are required to re-apply after one year of non-registration and will be governed by the academic regulations and program requirements in effect at the time of readmission.
(g)(i) Letter of Permission - A student may be permitted to take course(s) at an accredited university for credit towards a Lakehead University degree/diploma only if pre-authorized and approved to do so through a Letter of Permission. Students must apply for a Letter of Permission through Enrolment Services before applying for admission to the host university.
A Letter of Permission may be granted if the student is in good academic standing (eligible to continue) according to the regulations of the Faculty/Program in which the student is enroled alongside the University Regulations at the time of the Letter of Permission request.
A Letter of Permission, if granted, will not exceed more than 5 full course equivalents for undergraduate students, 1 full course equivalent for Master's students or 0.5 full course equivalent for Doctoral or Graduate Diploma students. For students with advanced standing credit, the number of course equivalents approved may be lower.
Students in their final year of study must also have approval by the Chair/Director of their program and the Faculty Dean.
Upon approval of a Letter of Permission, students must complete the course(s) during the term(s) specified in the Letter of Permission. Changes will require a revised Letter of Permission from Enrolment Services. Upon completion of the course(s), students are required to send an official transcript from the host institution directly to Lakehead University-Enrolment Services. If course(s) are taken in a student's graduating year, the transcript is to be received by May 1st for spring graduation and by October 1st for fall graduation.
Transfer credit will be granted for course(s) successfully completed with an equivalent grade of 60% or above for undergraduate courses and 70% or above for graduate courses unless otherwise specified in the Letter of Permission. A student's record will annotated with "TCR" (Transfer Credit) for the equivalent Lakehead University course. Grades received external to Lakehead University will not be included in average calculations.
External course failures will be annotated with "TCF" (Transfer Credit Failure) for the equivalent Lakehead University course. Failure to provide an official transcript or documentation of withdrawal within one month of the Letter of Permission term end date will result in a grade of "TCF" for the equivalent Lakehead University course and will count as a course attempt.
(ii) Letter of Permission  International Exchange - Students interested in taking courses abroad should contact Lakehead University International for information on Exchange opportunities and the application process. Students who have been approved will be provided with a Letter of a Permission International Exchange listing approved courses. A student may be permitted to take course(s) at an accredited university for credit towards a Lakehead University degree/diploma only if pre-authorized and approved to do so.
A letter of permission International Exchange may be granted if:
-the course is not a duplication of any other course/course material already completed at Lakehead
- the student is in good academic standing (eligible to continue) according to the regulations of the Faculty/Program in which the student is enrolled alongside the University Regulations at the time of the Letter of Permission International Exchange request;
A Letter of Permission International Exchange, if granted, will not exceed more than 5 full course equivalents for undergraduate students, 1 full course equivalent for Master's students or 0.5 full course equivalent for Doctoral or Graduate Diploma students. For students with advanced standing credit, the number of course equivalents approved may be lower. Students in their final year of study must also have approval by the Chair/Director of their program and the Faculty Dean. Upon approval of a Letter of Permission International Exchange, students must complete the course(s) during the term(s) specified in the Letter of Permission International Exchange. Changes will require a revised Letter of Permission International Exchange from Enrolment Services. Upon completion of the course(s), Lakehead International will request that an official transcript from the host institution be sent to Lakehead University- Enrolment Services. If course(s) are taken in a student's graduating year, the transcript is to be received by May 1st for spring graduation and by October 1st for fall graduation. Transfer credit will be granted for course(s) successfully completed with an equivalent grade of 60% or above for undergraduate courses and 70% or above for graduate courses unless otherwise specified in the Letter of Permission International Exchange. A student's record will be annotated with "TCR" (Transfer Credit) for the equivalent Lakehead University course. Grades received external to Lakehead University will not be included in average calculations. External course failures will be annotated with "TCF" (Transfer Credit Failure) for the equivalent Lakehead University course. Failure to provide an official transcript or documentation of withdrawal within one month of the Letter of Permission International Exchange term end date will result in a grade of "TCF" for the equivalent Lakehead University course and will count as a course attempt.
(h) A student who wishes to graduate in the current academic year must complete an application form and pay the prescribed fee at the time of registration. A student who does not complete an application form for a degree or diploma shall not be included in the graduation list. The deadlines for such applications are noted in the Graduation dates of the Academic Schedule.
(i) (i) A Lakehead University student, who may wish to qualify for a second Bachelor's Degree in a Faculty other than that in which he/she graduated, must do the equivalent of at least one additional full academic year's work and satisfy all the requirements of the second degree.
(ii) A Lakehead University student concurrently pursuing a double degree program (e.g., BScN/BA) must consult with the appropriate Deans, for program counselling, at least one full academic year prior to expected graduation.
(j) Formal mid-year examinations will be given in all first year courses except with the written permission of the Dean.
(k) A student may not count among his/her electives more than two full course equivalents at the first year level beyond those stipulated in the normal first year requirements.
(l) A student may not take a first year course in the final year of the program or the final two academic terms of the program in the case of programs that do not follow the academic year format, except with the written approval of the Dean of the Faculty.
(m) An honours program which satisfies the requirements for an honours degree in one discipline and also satisfies the major requirements of a second discipline will be called an Honours degree in the first discipline with a Major Concentration in the second discipline. (see Admissions, Program Patterns)
(n) Courses that are cross-calendared can only be counted towards one of the respective majors or one minor.
IX Academic Misconduct
Refer to the Senate policy regarding Student Code of Conduct - Academic Integrity here.
X Withdrawal
(a) Withdrawal from a Course without Academic Penalty
Students may withdraw from a course with no academic penalty up to the Final Date to Withdaw (Drop) deadline. A course dropped by the deadline will not show on the student’s academic record. Withdrawing from a course may have financial penalties.
Students are required to withdraw from a course using myInfo. Discontinuing attendance, notifying an instructor, or other means do not constitute official withdrawal from a course.
Withdrawals will not be permitted after the withdrawal deadline date. Students will receive a mark based on the work completed and the mark will count towards the student’s average except in the circumstances in Regulation V (g) Failure, No Withdrawal.
(b) Late Withdrawal:
Students who do not drop the course by the Final date to Withdraw (Drop) deadline may have the option to Late Withdrawal from a course. A Late Withdrawal will remain on the student’s transcript showing as “W” (withdrawn). No credit will be retained and they will not be included in the student’s average or considered an attempt. A Late Withdrawal will be allowed only once in a course.
Removal of the W notation is not permitted and no refund of tuition fees shall be provided for courses dropped through the late withdrawal option. Students are stronly encouraged to seek academic advice from their Program Chair/Faculty Advisor prior to initiating the Late Withdrawal process.
Students in the Faculty of Law must follow the process set out in the Faculty Regulations.
Please seek advice from Student Central as well as your Faculty Advisor to learn mpre about these options, impacts on your progression into the next year, as well as future goals you may have related to employment, graduate studies, transferring to another institution, professional accreditations.
1. Self-Late Withdrawal: Students may Self-Late Withdrawal for up to a total of 3 FCE over the course of their studies at Lakehead up to the final day of the class.
The Self-Late withdrawal option does not apply for the following: Graduate level courses, students in a Master’s or PhD program taking an undergraduate course, practica/internships/co-op or other experiential learning placements, exchange or courses taken at another institution, or students undergoing an academic misconduct investigation.
2. Petition for Late Withdrawal: Once a student has 3 FCE Late Withdrawals or should a student wish to be considered for withdrawal after the last day of classes, a Petition will need to be submitted for consideration to Enrolment Services. A Petition for Late Withdrawal is not automatic. Petitions must be submitted, along with supporting documentation demonstrating exceptional circumstances to support the request, within two months of the release of the final grades.
The Petition for Late withdrawal option does not apply for the following: students that have graduated from the university, exchange or courses taken at another institution, students undergoing an academic misconduct investigation or students requiring a retroactive accommodation.
(c) Withdrawal from the University:
Undergraduate Students:
An undergraduate who wish to withdraw voluntarily from the University after they have registered for their courses must withdraw from their courses as per the X Withdrawal Regulations (a) and (b).
An undergraduate student not registered for two or more consecutive years must re-apply to enter a program of study and will be governed by the academic regulations and program requirements in effect at the time of readmission with the provisions of I General Regulations 1 (c).
Exceptions to this regulation are for undergraduate students registered in the Faculties of Business Administration, Education, Engineering, Natural Resources Management, and the Schools of Nursing and Social Work, where students are required to re-apply after one year of non-registration and will be governed by the academic regulations and program requirements in effect at the time of readmission. Students in the Faculty of Law must refer to the Faculty Regulations.
Graduate Students:
Graduate students who wish to withdraw voluntarily from the University are to refer to the Faculty of Graduate Studies Regulations.


in Analysis Criminal Justice System Opinion Rule of Law
Is bail a right or a privilege?
byAjay Kumar
in Analysis, Criminal Justice System, Opinion, Rule of Law
If there is no clarity as to the law on bail, the fundamental rights turn meaningless in their application as far as personal liberty is concerned, writes AJAY KUMAR.
LEGAL certainty is a legal philosophical concept wherein in order for a society to claim to have the rule of law, those subject to the law must be able to go about their affairs with an element of certainty as to the legal position. This certainty proves to be a bedrock against arbitrary conduct, as the conduct of the State in response to a situation of fact is already pre-determined by the law, and therefore those subject to the law may be able to make certain predictions as to legal outcomes while going about their affairs.
The purposiveness of the law is reflected in this means wherein the law fulfils its purpose when a particular law is applied to a certain set of facts resulting in a specific outcome. This ties into the broader ideas of justice. These principles were outlined by German legal scholar Gustav Radbruch whose contentious Radbruch Formula I will draw from in order to analyse what I think has been a general and fundamental breakdown in the rule of law in relation to India.
Merger of minds of judges in India
Legal certainty is internationally recognised as a fundamental principle on the basis of which the rule of law is built. In a traditional common law system, there are two minds that are at play when faced with a legal proposition: the assessors of fact (the jury) and the assessor of law (the judge), and it is the judge who determines which law applies. This law is then put to the jury, who have to determine if the factual elements that merit the application of this law are met, thereby returning a verdict both in civil and criminal cases.
In India, however, the system of jury trials for civil and criminal matters no longer exists except for certain specialised areas of law such as Parsi divorces. In India, the minds are merged into one mind, that is, the judge, who sits in judgment as both the assessor of fact as well as the assessor of law. This hybrid mind, however, is not someone who deals with cases in an inquisitorial manner but is the key player in a system of adversarial due process.
Such a merger of minds, without a shift from adversarial due process to an inquisitorial one, will often result in outcomes that become chaotic.
Let us deal with a simple example of excluded evidence. While the law does provide for strict rules on evidence, it is the same mind that decides what evidence ought to be excluded after hearing that evidence.
It will not be a stretch to say that it is quite plausible that a judge, while dealing with a case, would find it hard to sequester the excluded evidence mentally while applying their mind to determine if the evidence meets the threshold required for a particular verdict. The unclouded mind is something that the system aims for, but is something that it can seldom deliver. This results in judges having to make factual determinations at every stage in the process, including stages where factual determinations need not be made.
In this piece, I take the example of the law of bail. The law of bail has been in the limelight recently with certain high-profile cases emerging, bringing into sharp relief the question of whether the accused was or is entitled to bail pending trial.
Also read: Understanding why Aryan Khan got bail in the drugs-on-cruise case
How this hybrid mind distorts bail hearings
The concept of bail emerges as a corollary to the principle of the presumption of innocence, a principle that exists due to the logical inability to prove a negative. Unless there is a presumption to the contrary, an accused cannot be called upon to prove their own innocence. Only the prosecution may establish the guilt, and the question of guilt and innocence is left to determination at trial.
Under this orderly framework, the principles for the grant of bail must be limited to seeing what steps are necessary to ensure that the accused is present during trial and is unable to affect the prosecution’s evidence. In some senses, bail is analogous to the power of a civil court to take steps to preserve the subject matter of the dispute pending trial. But unlike interim reliefs in civil cases, bail is a fundamental right of every accused.
The criminal court is required to take steps to ensure that the accused is present during trial while retaining the right of the accused to be presumed to be innocent. Where the law presumes innocence, the criteria of bail, irrespective of the offence, must be limited to (a) whether the accused is a flight risk?, (b) whether the accused will be able to tamper with the prosecution’s evidence/investigation, and (c) whether the accused is in a position to provide sufficient surety/security to satisfy the criminal court that they will attend to the court at trial.
Instead, however, in India, bail now turns into a pre-trial factual determination where the prosecution often makes out a prima facie case. Judges, while passing such orders, make the caveat that their observations will not affect the determination at trial; however, this begs the question: why do judges need to make this determination in the first place?
This may perhaps be because the judge who is granting bail is often the same trial judge who will hear the evidence. The merger of minds results in a situation where the pre-trial evidence is not just taken cognisance of, but becomes an integral part of determining the outcome of bail. In such a scenario, can an accused truly think of bail as being a right rather than a privilege?
If bail is a right, an accused, innocent or otherwise should be able to expect bail as a matter of course if they are able to satisfy the court that the accused will be present at trial. There is no need to go into the prosecution’s evidence. However, even the Supreme Court, in its recent judgement on the guidelines for bail, has recognised that bail terms change for a category of heinous offences.
This, unfortunately, has resulted in the gravity of the allegation and the materials on record being a key element to the grant of bail. Under such a scenario, you may have a trial judge who makes one determination at the bail stage and a completely different determination at the trial stage. This is the same with the superior courts, who will hear applications for bail and do the same exercise, and then re-appreciate the evidence in an appeal.
The dictum that bail is the rule and jail is the exception doesn’t hold when evidence is considered for the purposes of bail. However, Indian law entrenches this as a part of its jurisprudence despite the existence of a Part III in her constitution that is the envy of the world.
This unfortunately results in the law of bail turning into a highly uncertain branch of law. Rather than consistent bail jurisprudence, the law ends up in a position where the law of bail is determined on a case-to-case basis due to the requirement that there be an appreciation of evidence at the bail stage itself. It leads to unsound outcomes like bail being granted in a habeas corpus case against a judicial order.
It also leads to unreasonable conditions being placed on the accused at times due to the prima facie factual determination made. For example, in some narcotics cases, the person accused of unlawful consumption may be required to undergo drug rehabilitation as a condition of bail, which effectively amounts to an admission as to the offence. The right to remain silent also takes a hit as the ‘cooperation’ of the accused with the investigation is also now a factor to determine bail.
Also read: How special statutes to imprison citizens lead to inconsistent judicial orders
The threat of uncertainty to rule of law
Bail is one glaring example of the lack of certainty available in the Indian legal system today, but I speak of bail because if there is no clarity as to the law of bail, the fundamental rights turn meaningless in their application as far as personal liberty is concerned. Certainty is the prime safeguard against arbitrary action, and it is the role of courts to reduce arbitrariness. If the law itself is applied in an arbitrary manner, it is safe to say that the rule of law has broken down in India.
If the rule of law has broken down in India, the legitimacy of the State to exercise the police power also breaks down, and India moves on the path of effective State failure.
The course of history needs to be arrested post haste to ensure that constitutional principles, which emerge from the rule of law, continue to survive.
(Ajay Kumar is an advocate practicing before the High Court at Bombay. The views expressed are personal.)
Tags: bailbail lawcriminal justice systemcriminal lawFundamental Rightsrule of lawSlider Post
byPrabhat Patnaik
The Leaflet Investigation
One year later: misuse of “love jihad” – 14 family members and peers arrested along with the accused secure bail
@AKlawyer
Ajay Kumar is an Advocate practicing at the High Court at Bombay. His practice areas include commercial civil disputes, white-collar criminal litigation, and arbitration.


Jim Dratfield’s Petography®
Website : http://www.petography.com
Facebook : JimDratfieldsPetography (1K)
Not all famous pet photographers have a massive online following. Some just do it because they love it, and they are incredible at what they do. Take Jim Dratfield’s Petography. Jim has been featured on ABC’s 20/20 and The View and was profiled in Town & Country and Oprah’s O. Magazine. His clientele includes Jennifer Aniston, Charlize Theron, Laura Dern, Billy Joel and Elton John. Not too shabby!
So how does he do it? “The most challenging thing about being an animal photographer is patience.Animals are very honest in the response to a camera and if eyes are the window to the soul well then an animal invites you to capture that essence,” Jim says. “But the most rewarding thing about being an animal photographer is capturing the relationship between human and animal. That bond is very profound and very strong.”
Jim tries to tell a story with his images and believes that is what people appreciate most about his work. His favorite photograph that he’s taken is called “The Soulful One.” “It is a simple portrait of a flat coated retriever, however the look in the eyes of the dog tell the story and I find it very touching,” he says.
Photo shoots are rarely dull, especially when you travel all around the US for them. He once did an outdoor photo session for Henry Kissinger. He arrived shirtless, and his pants kept falling down. “I had him making barking sounds to his dog Amelia. It was quite the sight,” laughs Dratfield.
As a pet photographer, you have to have a love of animals. Jim has a nine-year-old black lab named Sawyer, a four-year-old wired-haired pointing Griffon named Maeve, and a black rescue cat named Nico. He also contributes to many different animal charities. Over the years, Jim has had twelve books published by major publishers, such as Random House and Rizzoli.
His best tip on photographing pets? “The key to the shoot is patience, patience, patience. Animals will give you so very much, but you have to work on their terms and in their time.”


Viterbi Faculty Directory
Kendra Walther
Senior Lecturer of Information Technology
2004, Master's Degree, Computer Science, University of Maryland College Park
2000, Bachelor's Degree, Computer Science, Harvey Mudd College
Kendra Walther is a senior lecturer in the Information Technology Program. She began teaching Fall 2014 as a part-time lecturer and transitioned to full-time lecturer the following year. In 2018 she was promoted to Senior Lecturer of Information Technology. Kendra oversees the Programming Minor within ITP.
Kendra has her bachelor's degree in Computer Science from Harvey Mudd College, and a master's degree in Computer Science from University of Maryland, College Park. She has worked for the Aerospace Corporation and taught Computer Science at Cal State LA, St. Albans School, and Milwaukee School of Engineering. Kendra is passionate about teaching and is constantly trying to find more ways to help her students understand the principles of programming.
2021 ITP Information Technology Program Director’s Award for Faculty
2021 Viterbi Dean’s Award for Innovation in Teaching and Education
2020 CET Center for Excellence in Teaching Faculty Fellowship Institute
Associate Director of Program or Center, Associate Director for Academic Affairs of the ITP
Information Technology Program
RRB 219
Robert Glen Rapp Engineering Research Building
854 Downey Way, Los Angeles, CA 90089
USC Mail Code: 1456
kwalther@usc.edu
Return to Faculty Directory
University of Southern California | USC Viterbi School of Engineering | Privacy Notice | Smoke-Free Policy


Kingstone Schedules 2021 Fourth Quarter and Full Year Financial Results Conference Call
Kingstone Enters into New Reinsurance Treaties
KINGSTON, NY / ACCESSWIRE / January 12, 2022 / Kingstone Companies, Inc. (NASDAQ:KINS) (the 'Company' or 'Kingstone'), a Northeast regional property and casualty insurance holding company, announced today that it will hold its 2021 Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2021 financial results conference call for analysts and investors on Friday, March 11, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time. The earnings announcement is scheduled for release shortly after the stock markets close on Thursday, March 10th.
The Company also announced that Kingstone Insurance Company ('KICO'), its wholly owned subsidiary, finalized a new 30% personal lines quota share treaty for the period December 31, 2021 through December 31, 2022. Further, an additional layer was added to the existing Single Risk Excess of Loss treaty. 'The new treaties, when taken together, result in reductions to our catastrophe and single-risk retentions through June 30, 2022 to $7.4 million and $0.5 million from $10.0 million and $1.0 million, respectively. The quota share benefits us further by increasing our statutory surplus leading to a reduction in premium leverage going into 2022 and allowing for continued written premium growth,' said Meryl Golden, President of KICO.
The details of the conference call and webcast are as follows:
Date: Friday, March 11, 2022
Time: 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time
Access by conference call:
Domestic callers: 877-407-3105
International callers: 201-493-6794
Access by webcast:
The call will be simultaneously webcast over the internet and can be accessed via the following link fifteen minutes prior to the call:
Kingstone Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2021 Financial Results and Conference Call Webcast
The webcast will be archived and accessible for approximately 30 days.
About Kingstone Companies, Inc.
Kingstone is a northeast regional property and casualty insurance holding company whose principal operating subsidiary is Kingstone Insurance Company ('KICO'). KICO is a New York domiciled carrier writing business through retail and wholesale agents and brokers. KICO offers primarily personal lines insurance products in New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Kingstone is also licensed in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Maine.
Amanda M. Goldstein
Investor Relations Director
SOURCE: Kingstone Companies, Inc.
https://www.accesswire.com/682980/Kingstone-Schedules-2021-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-Financial-Results-Conference-Call


Initial reactions to the attacks in Norway showed a "clash of civilisations" exists, but not in the way many understood.
by Ahmed Moor
The Norwegian terrorist who murdered more than ninety innocent civilians - many of whom were teenagers - did not act alone. Or rather, he acted within a cultural and political context that legitimises his fearful and hate-infested worldview. It is now clear that Anders Behring Breivik was exposed to large amounts of right-wing propaganda. This tragedy underlines the urgency with which normal people around the world must combat fundamentalist nationalists and chauvinists wherever they may be. But it also demonstrates the extent to which reactionary bigotry has infected mainstream thought.
Many reacted to the news from Oslo with wide eyes and a pointed finger. The most animated reactionaries took to the pages of the New York Times comment section to issue sweeping proclamations about the Clash of Civilisations and something called "the cult of death". In many ways, readers were merely reinforcing the paper's woefully editorialised reportage. As Glenn Greenwald helpfully pointed out, the editors of the NYT - America's allegedly liberal newspaper - reserve the word "terrorist" solely for use in conjunction with the word "Muslim".
When news emerged that the perpetrator of the murders - the terrorist - was a man whose religion and skin pigmentation closely resembled those of the editors of the NYT, the story changed. The terrorist became a deranged "Christian extremist" whose tactics clearly mirrored "Al Qaeda's brutality and multiple attacks". In that way, the paper linked the terrorist with Muslims, despite his strong antipathy for them.
Blame for the Western media's panting pursuit of a non-existent Muslim triggerman quickly focused on the feckless, credulous, overeager and inept source of the NYT's journalistic failure. Will McCants - proclaimed by one of his acolytes to be at the top of a "list of five terrorism experts you can trust" - was quickly discredited. In his defence, he only sought to affirm the confirmation bias that he and the editors of the NYT suffer from. The meme that underpins their worldview goes something like this: "Muslims are bad. When bad things happen, Muslims are responsible." This is a mainstream view in the US today; it cuts across party lines.
Shaping both sides of the narrative
That the purported American left maintains this bigoted outlook is an indication of how successful the right has been at constructing the stage upon which public debate is conducted. Two main anti-Muslim talking points are now taken for granted in this country: First, all terrorists in the West are Muslims; second, we are in the midst of a global civilisational war. These are the dual planks upon which Uncle Sam squats in his Afghani outhouse.
Objective sources have done an excellent job of discrediting the first of the two claims that inform the 21st century American experience. The second point however - that we are engaged in a war of civilisations - is one that I agree with. But the combatants are not Islam and the West. Instead, the war is between the normal, sane people of the world and the right-wing zealots who see doom, destruction, hellfire and God's Will at every turn.
Anders Behring Breivik, Mohammed Atta and Baruch Goldstein are all cut from thesame rotten cloth. Anwar Al-Awlaki and Glenn Beck - the peddlers of the faith - all share the same core afflictions.
These men are insecure, violently inclined, and illiberal. The outside world scares them. They hate homosexuals and strong women. For them, difference is a source of insecurity. Their values are militarism, conformism, chauvinism and jingoism. Worst of all they seek to pressure us into compliance while they work frantically to destroy themselves - and the rest of us with them.
The war continues
All indications are that the hate-mongers - who are on the same side of this war, irrespective of religion - are winning in America. The unreflective, superficial, wan editors of the NYT are an indication of just how successful the right wing has been at eviscerating the left.
But not all liberals are created equal.
It is a credit to the Norwegian people that their prime minister did not respond to the terror attack with scorched-earth rhetoric or a carpet-bombing campaign. A real liberal with strong principles, he did not succumb to fear or vicious speculation.
Instead, he pledged to strengthen Norwegian democracy. This is what he said shortly after the terrorist attacks: "Our answer is more democracy, more openness to show that we will not be stopped by this kind of violence." His words illustrate the difference between a society that takes liberal principles as a foundation and one that treats them as an inconvenient luxury.
Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg's words make it clear where Norway stands on the global war on right-wing extremism. Where does the US stand?
Ahmed Moor is a Palestinian-American freelance journalist based in Cairo. He was born in the Gaza Strip, Palestine.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
At the crux of this disgusting incident is the fact that these islam-spawned "terrorist attacks" were all an inside job. They wanted us to hate muslims so they could be justified in carrying out their war work. Now that it has become a deep-seated, generally-accepted, POV that it was MUSLIMS who attacked our country (not, in fact, the true terrorists--which are our own government!) and has spawned unfounded hatred of a cultural group. Are we surprised by incidents such as that that has just happened in Norway? I'm not! And we'll never see an apology for the fueling of this hatred from the predominantly Jewish-controlled media and entertainment industry. This country is an effing laughing stock and the only people who aren't laughing yet are the ones with their heads buried in the Jersey effing Shore.


The Alzheimer’s Research UK Drug Discovery Alliance is a network of Drug Discovery Institutes embedded within the University of Cambridge, University of Oxford and University College London.
Each Institute will be made up of dedicated teams of drug discovery experts who will work with researchers across the UK and beyond, to fast-track promising academic science into treatments for people with dementia as quickly as possible.
Why is drug discovery for dementia so important?
There have been no new treatments licensed for Alzheimer’s since 2002 and many people with other causes of dementia have no specific treatments available to them. Alzheimer’s Research UK is determined to change this.
We fund pioneering research that is helping to tackle many fundamental questions about Alzheimer’s and other dementias. While there are still unanswered questions about the biology of the diseases that cause dementia, we have a stronger knowledge base than ever before. It is vital that we capitalise on these innovative ideas and discoveries and translate them quickly into potential new treatments for people with dementia.
The Drug Discovery Alliance will do just that – ensuring that breakthroughs by scientists go straight into the hands of drug discovery experts. Research and development into new drugs has historically been supported by the pharmaceutical industry but we believe that academic research offers innovation, creativity, fresh ideas and flexibility that has the power to re-ignite the search for new dementia treatments. Our Drug Discovery Institutes will ensure that researchers can explore promising new areas of biology and the best ideas are fed straight into the drug discovery pipeline.
What will the Drug Discovery Institutes do?
The Drug Discovery Institutes will support research through the critical early phases of drug discovery. The teams leading each Institute will look for key proteins, molecules or biological processes discovered by academic researchers in the host university and beyond. The expert drug discovery teams will test these targets to confirm they play an important role in the disease (target validation) and start to search for, or develop, compounds that could act on them to slow or stop the disease. These compounds, called ‘leads’, could be the new dementia drugs of tomorrow.
Once a lead shows beneficial effects in cell and animal models of the disease in the lab, there is a much higher chance it will work in people. If a lead makes it through these critical phases, the Drug Discovery Institutes will be looking to partner with other organisations to develop them further for testing in people.
46 million people across the globe are living with dementia and the impact is felt throughout society, but through research we will find answers to our greatest medical challenge. You can read more about how Alzheimer’s Research UK is defeating dementia, by visiting our main website www.alzheimersresearchuk.org
Alzheimer's Research UK
Find out more about the pioneering research the charity is funding across the UK.
Boosting the search for new dementia treatments
Read about the launch of the Drug Discovery Alliance .


Twitter: @bjmquinn
Email: brian.quinn@bc.edu
B.S.F.S., Georgetown University
M.P.P., Harvard University Kennedy School of Government
J.D., M.L.S., Stanford Law School
Spring 2022: Venture Capital Financing; Mergers & Acquisitions
Brian JM Quinn teaches Corporations, Corporate Counsel Seminar, Mergers & Acquisitions, as well as Deals: The Economic Structure of Transactions.
Prof. Quinn's research focuses on corporate law, mergers & acquisitions, the structuring of transactions, transactional law, and private ordering.
Prof. Quinn joined the law school from Stanford Law School where he was the Teaching Fellow for Corporate Governance & Practice. Prior to his position at Stanford, Prof. Quinn was in private practice with Cooley Godward in Palo Alto, where he represented public and private technology clients in merger and acquisitions transactions. Prof. Quinn also previously served as country coordinator for the Harvard University’s Institute for International Development, managing Harvard’s Vietnam-based teaching and research activities. Prof. Quinn got his start as a legislative aide to Senator Edward M. Kennedy working on health and education issues.
Prof. Quinn writes on corporate law, mergers & acquisitions, transaction structures and private ordering. His work has appeared in numerous journals including the UC Davis Law Review, University of Cincinnati Law Review, the Journal of Corporation Law, and the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law among others. Prof. Quinn is co-author of a leading M&A casebook, Mergers & Acquisitions: Law, Theory and Practice (West) with Prof. Steven D. Solomon and Prof. Claire Hill. Prof. Quinn is also author of a corporate law casebook, Corporations: Cases and Materials, 6th Ed.(Amazon).
Prof. Quinn is a regularly cited in the media for his legal analysis and commentary on current merger transaction deal developments. Prof. Quinn also blogs on legal developments in corporate governance and mergers & acquisitions at the M&A Law Prof Blog.
Prof. Quinn recently served three years as Associate Dean for Experiential Learning at BC Law.
Prof. Quinn received the 2011 Professor Emil Slizewski Award for Faculty Excellence and the Provost’s 2012 TWIN Award for the use of new technology in teaching. Prof. Quinn has received ATAB grants to support the development of online courses and experimentation with blended learning in the law school environment.
In addition, Prof. Quinn has written extensively on issues of legal reform in post-Socialist Asia, particularly Vietnam. Prof. Quinn, a fluent Vietnamese speaker, was the resident director for the Fulbright Economics Teaching Program in Ho Chi Minh City from 1994-2000. Until 2018, Prof. Quinn served as a founding board member for the Trust for University Innovation in Vietnam (TUIV). TUIV is a 501(c)(3) organization with a mission to improve institutional innovation in Vietnam’s system of higher education and the sponsoring entity for the Fulbright University of Vietnam, a new private non-profit liberal arts university in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.


(13 Oct 2021)
We are disappointed by the lack of detail provided by the Government regarding measures to improve access to dental care announced in Budget 2022. In the absence of specifics, yesterday’s announcement is nothing more than a veneer that does little to meaningfully address the crisis in oral health care.
There are now only 750 dentists treating medical card patients, which is less than half the number of DTSS contracts held by dentists up to two years ago. To put it in context, that is one dentist per 2,000 medical card patients. It means that there are now parts of the country where there is just one dentist covering an entire county or region.
Dentists want an entirely new scheme that reflects modern dental practice and care, one that allows vulnerable groups to access routine dental care in their community. We have never understood the rationale behind a scheme that restricts the number of preventative treatments allowed, such as fillings to save a tooth, while permitting an unlimited number of extractions.
In addition, we continue to have serious concerns regarding access to dental care for children due to the significant deterioration in the level of service provided through the public dental service. The budget has offered nothing to allay our concerns.
Over the past decade, there has been a 30% decline in the number of dentists in the public dental service, despite a 23% increase in the number of eligible under-16s due for assessment. There are now an estimated 100,000 children on waiting lists for a public dental appointment, and there is a six-year waiting list for orthodontic treatment.
Understaffing of the school screening system, coupled with cuts in service provision because of the Covid-19 pandemic, means that the number of children being seen for targeted check-ups is a fraction of what it should be. These missed assessments are unlikely to ever be recovered.
We do welcome the planned changes announced to the PRSI scheme, which will allow more young workers to access dental care. However, in terms of national oral health policy, our members remain deeply frustrated that they have been repeatedly denied meaningful engagement with the Department of Health, whether through representation in the development of policy or constructive engagement in its preparation.
Put starkly, without meaningful reform, existing schemes like the medical card are doomed to fail. An entirely new scheme is required, and we continue to call on the Government to engage with the Irish Dental Association on an alternative proposal for a more sustainable solution that ensures access to care for those who need it most.


by Teknogeeks May 28, 2021
We cannot imagine our lives without speakers today, can we? We wouldn’t be able to listen to our songs as, without the audio speakers, there won’t be a radio, and neither there would’ve been a television or a mobile phone. It is the most indispensable part of technology, which has revolutionized the better while remaining in the shadow. We take a look at how these incredible audio-emitting devices have gotten smaller and more delicate over the ages. But first, let us know what an Audio Speaker is.
Evolution Of Audio Speakers: What is an Audio Speaker?
By definition, an audio speaker is an electroacoustic transducer that converts an electrical audio signal into a corresponding sound. It converts electricity into a loud reverberation. The most common type of audio speaker is the dynamic speaker, which is used today as well. Invented by Edward W. Kellogg and Chester W. Rice in 1925, the speaker operated similarly to a dynamic microphone but instead did the opposite of converting sound to an electrical signal.
These speakers are found everywhere, from radios and computers to television and portable audio speakers. They are also larger sized versions used in concerts, theatres and public address sessions.
First application of Audio Speakers
Johann Philipp Reis installed the first electric audio speaker on his telephone in 1861. It helped in reproducing more precise tones and produce muffled speech as well. His Audio Speaker was later patented by Alexander Graham Bell as his own, the first electric loudspeaker capable of reproducing intelligible speech in 1876.
Johann Phillips Reis
Reis Telephone with the first audio speaker
The First Loudspeaker Invention
Ernst Siemens in 1877 revealed a more advanced version of a loudspeaker after Graham Bell patented a similar one in 1876. Siemens’ name was adopted as the SI unit of electrical conductance. Siemens went on to form a conglomerate company of his name, which is worth billions today.
Horace Short invented a sound amplifying mechanism using compressed air, which Record companies used in their record player systems.
ilj_61f390227b4b80.42165.18
Further innovations and tweaks.
Oliver Lodge, in 1898, made a system of moving coil drivers, for which Peter L. Jenson established a practical application. Still, the duo was denied patents, forbidding them to sell their invention to companies. Years later, in 1915, the team developed their company named Magnavox and became a successful venture.
In 1924, Edward Kellogg and Chester Rice created a ‘direct radiator’ that used moving coils. The creators were able to adjust the properties of the rings until they lowered the frequency at which the cone was able to replicate the noise.
Edward Kellogg and Chester Rice working on their Loudspeaker
Walter H. Schottky, during this period, developed the earliest Ribbon loudspeaker, which contained diodes. These Loudspeakers use electromagnets to power up coils and amplify the sound. The energy went through the rings into a secondary pair of connections to the driver in the system. Further development made the speakers have better sound amplification as they began to combine drivers.
By 1937, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer introduced the “Shearer Horn System for theaters” in the film industry, invented by James Bullough Lansing, Douglas Shearer, and John Kenneth Hilliard. This system was even mounted at the New York’s World Fair in 1939, designed by Rudy Bozak.
Finally, In 1943 The Duplex Driver came out, introduced by Altec. This driver enhanced the sound quality and performance immensely. Launched in the market in 1945 and was tested by the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences. Ten years later, it became the industry standard. Since then, it has evolved, increasing its strength and quality, and is used to date.
Evolution Of Mobiles
Audio Speakers Through the Ages.
Horn Loudspeaker
The Horn loudspeaker uses an acoustic horn to enhance the overall efficiency of the driving elements. It consists of a compression driver that produces sound waves with a small metal diaphragm vibrated with the help of an electromagnet—further attached to a horn helping conduct the sound waves out in the open air.
An Edison Standard Phonograph using horn loudspeaker.
The earliest form of Amplification didn’t require electricity for work. Many, including Thomas Edison, Magnavox, and Victrola, helped develop and advance horns from 1880 to the 1920s.
The primary issue with horns was they weren’t loud enough. Electrical Amplification was necessary for more audible sounds, enough for using it at significant public announcements. Horns remain collectable pieces of art.
The Electrodynamic Loudspeaker
This device uses an electromagnetic coil and a diaphragm to create sound. It happens to be the most common type of speaker used in today’s world.
This modern speaker has an electromagnet that turns electric signals of varying strength into coil movement. The copper wire made coils moves as the magnet receives power. The process is based on induction, as the coil connected to the cone diaphragm vibrates, allowing sound to be amplified.
It took more than 40 years to develop the requisite knowledge of acoustics and materials. Finally, E.W. Kellogg and C.W. Rice invented the Electrodynamic Loudspeaker by completing the vast labyrinth. The culminating work was based on how to shape the diaphragm and which components to use. The developments of vacuum tubes in the 1910s helped to complete the sophisticated job to control frequencies and regulate power and amplify sound.
Basic Timeline of The Evolution of Modern Speaker.
1861– Johann Philipp Reis was a professor in Germany, developed a simple electronic loudspeaker. The speaker reproduced subtle noise.
1876- Alexander Graham Bell developed a speaker based on Reis’ creation. The lack of knowledge about physics and material properties hurt Bell’s process to create a successful version of his product. Bell was unable to find out how to amplify sound over large distances, which was a vital component of audio systems.
1877- Werner Von Siemens developed a speaker who outlined his idea with the help of electromagnetic coils. He took the use of input signals of D.C. transients and Telegraphic Signals. Even though he couldn’t figure out how to amplify the sound, he theorized it to come true eventually in the future.
Siemens Loudspeaker
1877-1921- Inventors and engineers experimented with the idea of the electrodynamic speaker but could not avail clear sound. None could electrically amplify the signal to create loud sounds, and the industry continued to rely on advanced horns for amplification.
1921- E.W. Kellogg and C.W.Rice solved the ultimate problem, a sweet, crisp sound from their prototype. They created the first-ever loudspeaker. Several previous attempts to invent the loudspeaker only emitted muffled sounding audio. This muffled sound couldn’t compete with the established horns in the market, as sound would prefer clarity over unclear loud shrills. Kellogg and Rice could understand what sort of frequencies is requisite to create accurate audio sounds.
1925- E.W.Kellogg and C.W.Rice filed for patents, and after several years of further research, they perfected the prototype as the first commercial product, one of its kind called the Radiola Loudspeaker #104. The Audio speaker was only for the elite under the company name of RCA.
The first Modern Loudspeaker
Modernization of Audio Speakers
Dolby proposed a Surround Sound prototype for a Home Theatre System. This speaker system marked the dawn of the Digital and Experimental era, with digital audio systems replacing analogue systems.
Digital Audio is a sound signal which is converted into digital form. The sound wave of the audio signal is encoded as numerical samples in a continuous sequence. Digital audio systems are used to manage compression, storage, processing and transmission components.
The Conversion of Audio signal to digital form allows for convenient manipulation, storage and transmission of an audio signal. Analog Audio degraded the originally recorded quality. Digital sound systems can produce countless copies of the same audio without any sound quality degradation with digital audio.
What are Audio Speakers like currently?
Gone are the days where we had to rack up big diaphragms in our drawing rooms to hear hushed audio. We don’t need to have big pockets to enjoy audio speakers, just for listening to that one show with hundred audio engineers amplifying it. They have become compact, cheaper, and crisper and made with lighter materials, immensely capable of being wirelessly accessible.
These speakers are now powered with prolific applications, two components combined into one, unlike the old separate amplifier and speaker. With Bluetooth and NFC coming into play, it’s all about giving the user the ultimate experience concerning sound quality and compatibility .
What’s in it for the Future?
Modern technology has given us the freedom one could never have imagined a century back. The Audio Speakers technology is advancing to offering even more flexibility with systems, developing more bijou. The growth is focused on the software and programming part of the system, allowing the user for greater control and superiority.
Technology never stops evolving; The speakers are continuing to improve reliability on wireless technology. Lighter component prototypes are constantly being tried to help with storage, shipping and setup time. The colossal cost reduction of new technologies allows the Billion-Dollar Speaker Market to thrive and make a profit. Further advancements all for to use this incredible creation on stages of future events.
Audio Speakers have come a long way since the first experimental idea in the 19th century. Its evolution over the ages is remarkable, from having to create mushy noises from mammoth diaphragms to the crispiest sound from tiny mobile phones. An engineering marvel which is overshadowed by fancy exteriors, yet remains the most critical component of majority devices.
Audio SpeakersEvolution Of Audio SpeakersSounds
ONEUI 4.0 Based on Android 12 – Best Features, Devices, And Release Date In India
Evolution of iMac: How All in One Apple...


Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway "The Omaha Road"
Share of the Chicago, Saint Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company, issued 13. December 1919
Reporting mark
CMO, CSt.PM&O
United States from St. Paul, Minnesota, Elroy, Wisconsin; Sioux City, Iowa
Dates of operation
West Wisconsin Railway, St. Paul and Sioux City Railway
Chicago and North Western Railway, Union Pacific Railroad
Track gauge
4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm)
1,616 miles (2,601 km)
The Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway or Omaha Road (reporting mark CMO) was a railroad in the U.S. states of Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and South Dakota. It was incorporated in 1880 as a consolidation of the Chicago, St. Paul and Minneapolis Railway and the North Wisconsin Railway.[1] The Chicago and North Western Railway (C&NW) gained control in 1882.[2] The C&NW leased the Omaha Road in 1957 and merged the company into itself in 1972.[3] Portions of the C. St. P. M. and O. are part of the Union Pacific Railroad network. This includes main lines from Wyeville, Wisconsin, to St. Paul, Minnesota, and St. Paul to Sioux City, Iowa.
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway (CStPM&O) 4-4-0 locomotive #278
1.1 St. Paul to Elroy
1.2 St. Paul to Sioux City
1.3 Creation
1.4 Chicago and North Western
1.5 Union Pacific
2 Disposition of lines
St. Paul to Elroy[edit]
The West Wisconsin Railway was authorized in 1876 to build from St. Paul, Minnesota through to reach the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad at Elroy, Wisconsin.[4] In 1878 the bankrupt West Wisconsin Railway was acquired by the Chicago, St. Paul and Minneapolis Railway.[4][5]
St. Paul to Sioux City[edit]
The Land Grant Act of Congress approved March 3, 1857, when Minnesota was still a Territory and not a state, conferred on the then called Southern Minnesota Railroad Company "lands, interests, rights, powers and privileges" for the proposed line of railroad from St. Paul via Mankato, Minnesota and other points named to the southern boundary of the state in the direction of the mouth of the Big Sioux river. The Minnesota Valley Railroad Company was organized in 1864 under an act of the Minnesota Legislature approved March 4, 1864. This granted to the new company the Southern Minnesota Railroad grant.[6]
In 1869 the Minnesota Valley Railroad constructed a bridge jointly with the Minnesota Central Railroad Company to cross the Mississippi between Mendota and St. Paul at Pickerel Lake. It was the predecessor of the current Omaha Road Bridge Number 15 at the same location. A freight house was constructed in St. Paul at the foot of Robert Street. The name of the company changed on April 7, 1869, to the St. Paul and Sioux City Railroad The railroad had reached Mankato at the bend of the Minnesota river, and exited the river valley to reach Lake Crystal, Minnesota.[6] By September 1872, the track was completed to Le Mars, Iowa, where it joined the Iowa Falls and Sioux City railroad, a predecessor of the Illinois Central Railroad.[7] On October 1, 1872, the railroad was in regular operation from St. Paul through to Sioux City.
Creation[edit]
The North Wisconsin Railway was merged along with Chicago, St. Paul and Minneapolis Railway to become the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway in 1880.[8] [5][9] The C. St. P. M. & O. then purchased the St. Paul and Sioux City in 1881.[5] The route was a bow shape between Le Mars, Iowa, to the Twin Cities, to Elroy, Wisconsin.
The Omaha would go on to acquire the Menomonie Railway, the Sault Ste Marie and Southwestern Railway, the Superior Short Line Railway, the Watonwan Valley Railway, the Des Moines Valley Railway, the Chippewa Valley and Northwestern Railway, and Eau Claire, Chippewa Falls, and Northeastern Railway.[10]
Chicago and North Western[edit]
In November 1883, control passed to the Chicago and North Western Railway Company.[10] At the end of 1956 C. St. P. M. & O. operated 1616 miles of road and 2396 miles of track; that year it reported 2115 million ton-miles of revenue freight and 65 million passenger-miles.
Union Pacific[edit]
Although the CMO had long been absorbed by the C&NW before that railroad was purchased by the Union Pacific, the UP still uses the CMO reporting mark on cars.[11]
Disposition of lines[edit]
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Close-Up of Generic 4-4-0 Locomotive Featured on Stock Certificate
The following main lines were part of the Omaha Road:[12]
Eastern Division: Elroy, Wisconsin (junction with C&NW towards Chicago) to Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota Now mostly part of the Union Pacific Railroad's Wyeville and Altoona Subdivisions
Northern Division: Northline (junction with Eastern Division towards Minneapolis-St. Paul) to Bayfield, Wisconsin Now abandoned
Eau Claire (Eastern Division) to Spooner, Wisconsin (Northern Division main line) Now abandoned between Spooner, Wi and Rice Lake, WI. Progressive Rail ownes the line from Cameron, WI south to Chippawa Falls, WI Between Spooner and Trego, Wisconsin is used by the Wisconsin Great Northern Railroad. Canadian National owns the line between Rice Lake, WI to Cameron, WI.
Trego, Wisconsin (Northern Division main line) to Duluth, Minnesota Now abandoned, known as the Wild Rivers Trail
St. Paul and Sioux City Division: Minneapolis-St. Paul to Sioux City, Iowa Now the Union Pacific Railroad's Mankato and Worthington Subdivisions
Org, Minnesota (SP&SC Division main line) to Mitchell, South Dakota It became the Minnesota Southern Railway east of Manley, now belongs to Ellis and Eastern Company. The Railroad has received funding to rebuild the line from Org, MN to Sioux Falls, SD [1].
Nebraska Division: Sioux City to Omaha, Nebraska Now abandoned
Chicago, St Paul,
Minneapolis & Omaha Railway
Ft. Calhoun
Tekamah
Dakota City
Railways portal
^ Interstate Commerce Commission, Valuation Docket No. 549: Chicago, Saint Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company, 1928
^ Mailer (2004), pp. 42, 45.
^ Chicago & North Western Historical Society, Chicago St. Paul Minneapolis & Omaha - A Capsule History Archived September 27, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
^ a b Yesterday and Today: A History of the Chicago and North Western Railway System. Winship Company, Printers. 1910. pp. 77–.
^ a b c Donald R. Jr. Durbin (December 2000). The Bigger They Are... Writers Showcase. ISBN 978-0-595-15521-7.
^ a b J W 1831-1917 Bishop (October 12, 2018). History of the St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad, 1864-188. Creative Media Partners, LLC. ISBN 978-0-342-66271-5.
^ Rudolph Daniels (2008). Sioux City Railroads. Arcadia Publishing. pp. 23–. ISBN 978-0-7385-5222-4.
^ Minnesota. Office of Railroad Commissioner (1879). Annual Report. pp. 1–.
^ George E. Warner; Charles M. Foote (1881). History of Ramsey County and the City of St. Paul: Including the Explorers and Pioneers of Minnesota. North Star Publishing Company. pp. 351–.
^ a b Poor's Manual of the Railroads of the United States. H.V. & H.W. Poor. 1917. pp. 37–.
^ Railway Equipment and Publication Co (October 13, 2018). The Official Railway Equipment Register, Vol. 33: Devoted to the Consideration of Topics of Interest to Railroad Officials, More Particularly Questions of Transportation Economies, Car Handling and Other Subjects of Especial Importance to the Transportati. Fb&c Limited. ISBN 978-1-396-78704-1.
^ P. F. Collier and Son, New World Atlas and Gazetteer, 1922: Chicago and North Western Railway
Mailer, Stan (2004). The Omaha Road: Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha. Mukilteo, Washington: Hundman Publishing. ISBN 0-945434-04-9. OL 8448884M.
Class I railroads of North America
AMTK
CN (GTC)
CP (DH, SOO)
CSXT
KCSM
AC&Y
ASAB
AT&N
AT&SF
A&WP
B&AR
CAR&NW
CB&Q
C&EI
C&IM
CNO&TP
C&NW
CPME
CRR
CSPM&O
C&W
C&WC
DL&W
DM&IR
D&RGW
DSS&A
DT&I
D&TSL
DW&P
EJ&E
FW&D
GB&W
G&F
GM&O
GS&F
KO&G
L&HR
L&N
L&NE
LS&I
MILW/CMStP&P
MN&S
M&STL
NC&STL
NKP/ NYC&StL
NYS&W
NO&NE
N&W
NYCN
NYO&W
P&LE
P&N
PRSL
P&WV
RDG
RF&P
QA&P
RI/CRIP
SD&AE
SLSF
SLSFTX
SOO/MStP&SSM
SP&S
T&NO
TP&W
AB&A
AB&C
A&STL
BA&P
BC&A
BR&P
BSL&W
CA&C
CCC&STL
C&E
C&G
CH&D
CINN
CI&S
CI&W
CL&N
CM&PS
CNNE
CP&STL
CPVT
CRI&G
CR&NW
CVRR
DGH&M
D&IR
DM&N
DNW&P
D&SL
EP&SW
E&TH
F&CC
FJ&G
FS&W
FW&RG
GC&SF
GH&SA
GM&N
GR&I
G&SI
HE&WT
H&TC
KCM&O
KCM&OTX
LA&SL
LE&W
LS&MS
MD&V
M&I
M&NA
M&O
NCRY
NJ&NY
NOT&M
NYP&N
OCAA
OR&L
OWRN
PB&W
PCC&STL
P&E
PRDG
P&SF
PS&N
SA&AP
SB&NY
SD&A
SFP&P
S&IE
SJ&GI
SLB&M
SLIM&S
SOUMS
SSWTX
T&BV
T&FS
T&N
T&OC
TSTL&W
U&D
VS&P
WJ&S
W&LE
Y&MV
Railroads in italics meet the revenue specifications for Class I status, but are not technically Class I railroads due to being passenger-only railroads with no freight component.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chicago,_St._Paul,_Minneapolis_and_Omaha_Railway&oldid=1063696403"
Former Class I railroads in the United States
Predecessors of the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
Defunct Iowa railroads
Defunct Minnesota railroads
Defunct Nebraska railroads
Defunct South Dakota railroads
Defunct Wisconsin railroads
Railway companies established in 1880
Railway companies disestablished in 1972
American companies established in 1880
Use American English from December 2018
Use mdy dates from April 2012


Home /RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Ignore red flags of revenge over Iran… now is time to keep calm and carry on
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Ignore red flags of revenge over Iran… now is time to keep calm and carry on
As news broke that Iran‘s top general had been fast-tracked through departures at Baghdad Airport by an American drone strike, the heart sank.
Not that the vaporisation of a bloodthirsty Islamist psychopath responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent people should be anything other than a cause for celebration.
It’s just that I could have predicted what would follow. And I’m not talking about the ritual sabre-rattling, wailing and gnashing of teeth from Tehran.
No, it’s the tedious, knee-jerk condemnation from Iran’s useful idiots here in Britain that is so depressing.
As news broke that Iran’s top general (pictured) had been fast-tracked through departures at Baghdad Airport by an American drone strike, the heart sank
Naturally, O.J. Corbyn was first out of the blocks with one of his boilerplate anti-American diatribes. And his terrorist-loving sidekick McDonnell took to the streets five minutes later with the usual suspects from the Stop The War rabble.
Of course he did. McDonnell and Corbyn have never met an enemy of Britain they didn’t like.
Frankly, who cares what either of Labour’s losers thinks about anything any more? They’re history, but they just don’t know when to leave the stage.
Given five minutes’ notice of the drone strike, I could have told you precisely how it would be received.
Donald Trump would be accused of trying to start World War III, violating international law and deliberately escalating tensions in the Middle East. Meanwhile, TV coverage would concentrate on the grieving rent-a-mobs vowing retaliation. How many times have we seen assorted Iranian ‘lawmakers’ chanting ‘Death to America’ over the past 40 years?
Naturally, O.J. Corbyn (left) was first out of the blocks with one of his boilerplate anti-American diatribes. And his terrorist-loving sidekick McDonnell (right) took to the streets five minutes later with the usual suspects from the Stop The War rabble
One of the funniest things on Sky News yesterday was the detailed analysis of the crowd at the funeral march in Tehran. We were told we should especially look out for red flags among the sea of flags being raised. Never mind the black-and-white banners, these were the Shia ‘Red Flags of Revenge’.
Aaargh! Beware the Red Flags of Revenge!
The fact that they had been unfurled meant Iran now had to strike back. As if they weren’t going to, anyway.
Iran doesn’t so much strike back as strike first. For at least four decades, Tehran has been pursuing an unrelenting campaign of terror, particularly against American targets, much of it orchestrated by Qassem Soleimani until that American missile finally caught up with him on Friday.
Yet after paying lip-service to the fact that Soleimani wasn’t exactly Iran’s answer to the saintly Mother Teresa of Calcutta, a conga-line of ‘experts’ was wheeled out to explain why killing him was a threat to world peace.
Donald Trump (pictured) would be accused of trying to start World War III, violating international law and deliberately escalating tensions in the Middle East
Somehow, though, Iran’s regional expansionism, sponsorship of terrorist organisations and responsibility for countless murders as far afield as Indonesia and Buenos Aires keeps getting put on the back-burner.
The narrative is always about American aggression, just as Israel is always blamed for ‘perpetuating the cycle of violence’ every time it reacts — proportionately — to thousands of rockets being fired at its civilian population by Iran’s proxy terror groups in Palestine.
Trump is accused of violating Iraq’s sovereignty by taking out Soleimani in Baghdad. But what was the Iranian-inspired attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad last week if not a violation of sovereignty? And what the hell was Soleimani doing there in Iraq in the first place?
Trump is already being warned that destroying ‘cultural sites’ in Iran will amount to a war crime. Why flatten an ancient mosque, rather than a nuclear enrichment plant or a terrorist training camp?
This kind of nonsense is right up there with the constant warnings during the Iraq War about the dangers of violating ‘holy cities’ and disturbing the sanctity of ‘Friday prayers’.
Soleimani’s body was returned to Iran on Sunday. People are seen carrying his casket upon arrival at Ahvaz International Airport in Tehran. The casket was greeted by chants of ‘Death to America’ as Iran issued new threats of retaliation
Turned out just about every city, town or hamlet in the Middle East qualifies as ‘holy’.
I can remembering wondering at the time why we never describe Canterbury or Winchester as ‘holy cities’ or talk about Christians taking part in ‘Sunday prayers’. It’s just another manifestation of the cultural cringe which promotes all other faiths and beliefs above our own.
We are also told the President’s recklessness will drag Britain into war with Iran, as if the mad mullahs don’t hate us enough already. In the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, nearly 200 British troops were killed by roadside bombs and munitions supplied by Iran.
And how many people now remember the taking of Royal Navy hostages in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway in 2007? They were paraded on Iranian TV in a deliberate attempt to humiliate Britain.
Coincidentally, we have just learned of the death of special forces hero Tom MacDonald, who took part in the SAS operation to rescue hostages taken by Islamist terrorists loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini during the Iranian Embassy siege in London in 1980. That’s a poignant reminder of just how long Iran has been exporting terror beyond its borders.
It came after an Iranian mob invaded the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding more than 50 hostages for 444 days. More recently, Iranian-backed jihadis attacked the U.S Embassy in Benghazi, killing the ambassador.
But the abject failure of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to punish Iran for the Benghazi atrocity only emboldened the bloodthirsty Iranian regime still further. Obama even tried to appease the Iranians with billions of dollars for a non-proliferation deal Tehran never had any intention of honouring.
It’s fair to say, though, that if Obama had ordered a drone attack on Soleimani, he’d have been hailed as a hero, striking an historic and measured blow for peace and stability.
Most of the antagonism levelled at America’s action in taking out Soleimani has been motivated by pure, visceral hatred of Trump, both here and in the U.S. He’s been monstered for not telling the British government in advance of the attack. So much for the so-called special relationship, eh?
Yet given the leaking last year of our former Washington Ambassador Kim Darroch’s confidential cables containing withering criticism of the President, who can blame him for not trusting the usual diplomatic channels?
For all we know, Trump called Boris at his holiday hideaway on Mustique. They do have telephones in the Caribbean.
As regular readers are aware, this column doesn’t do honeymoon periods. But I won’t join in the criticism of Boris for not cutting his holiday short.
For a start, he deserved a break after the travails and eventual triumphs of the past few months.
Anyway, what was he supposed to do? My fear was that Boris would channel his inner Churchill complex and turn up in a siren suit and a homburg, puffing on a large cigar and pushing toy tanks round a sandpit in the Cabinet war rooms.
After all, Blair, Brown, Call Me Dave and even Mrs May would have been unable to resist such an opportunity for grandstanding.
Yet Boris, wisely, stuck to his sun-lounger, poured himself another rum punch and monitored events from the pool side, while trusting his ministers, aides and generals back in London to do their jobs.
Never mind how much point-scoring politicians and TV producers desperate to fill their rolling news schedules might protest. This was grown-up government.
Boris has given his full support to Trump, and reassured the Europeans, while refusing to over-react and maintaining a commendable spirit of independence.
Nobody really knows what is going to happen next. My best guess is that Trump will have seriously rattled Tehran. The mullahs now know they can no longer attack U.S. targets with impunity.
Yes, there will probably be some kind of retaliation met by further retribution from the U.S, but it’s not the beginning of World War III. And even if it is, Boris has made a decent start worthy of his hero.
Keep Calm and Carry On.
The Army has blown a few million quid on yet another fatuous advert attempting to persuade millennials to enlist. Here’s a better idea: bring back conscription. Snowflakes, your country really does need you!