Search results21 – 30 of 76
To explore the connections between sport, sustainability and international development through critical understandings of the place of the environment within the Sport for…
To explore the connections between sport, sustainability and international development through critical understandings of the place of the environment within the Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) sector. The chapter explores both the forces (historical, social, political, economic) and actors (the UN, IOC) that help to explain the current and increasing connections between sport and sustainable development, before assessing the current state of SDP through three themes: the place of environmentalism in development, sustainable development in/through sport and the trend towards ecological modernization in the sporting sector and beyond.
The chapter synthesizes existing literature from sport, sustainability and international development to provide historical, contemporary and future-oriented assessments of sport and sustainable development.
By framing the sustainability of sport and SDP in terms of the contestability of its political formations, such as ecological modernization, the chapter considers and discusses (potentially) sustainable futures, particularly those informed by the implications of recognizing a New Climatic Regime.
The chapter argues for a number of future areas of study that may push the boundaries of existing research in the area.
The chapter provides one of the first introductions of the idea of a New Climatic Regime within the context of sport and the SDP sector, and argues that within such a political frame, sport cannot exist separately from the environment. As a result, the chapter advances the argument that the SDP sector should now consider itself to be part of the environment, rather than steward of or over it.
THE Fifty‐First Conference of the Library Association takes place in the most modern type of British town. Blackpool is a typical growth of the past fifty years or so, rising from the greater value placed upon the recreations of the people in recent decades. It has the name of the pleasure city of the north, a huge caravansary into which the large industrial cities empty themselves at the holiday seasons. But Blackpool is more than that; it is a town with a vibrating local life of its own; it has its intellectual side even if the casual visitor does not always see it as readily as he does the attractions of the front. A week can be spent profitably there even by the mere intellectualist.
The rearing of food animals by intensive factory methods has received a great deal of publicity in recent months. This has induced the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to set up a technical committee to examine the conditions in which livestock are raised and kept under systems of intensive husbandry, and to advise if standards should be set in the interests of their welfare. He announced this in Parliament on April 20 and hoped soon to name the chairman and other members of the committee. The committee will quickly note that most criticism has been directed at what many regard as inhumane methods, most of this coming from the heart rather than the head. Battery hens, fooled by changing periods of electric light, have increased their laying and since the broiler industry exploded into the food market only a few years ago, the small seasonal trade has become an all‐the‐year round trade of 100 million birds, a prodigious output that is still rising. This mass production of white meat had already made similar strides in the U.S.A. and a few continental countries a few years previously. Its commercial success, however, is undoubtedly due to the economics of the trade; that it is possible to sell poultry of relatively small size and uniform quality as cheap, or even cheaper, than butchers' meat. All this tends to encourage the application of the same intensive methods of production in the meat trade. Anything that can increase the amount of first‐class animal protein in a world rapidly growing short of it and at lower prices merits more than a sentimental appraisal.
The decision of the Wolverhampton Stipendiary in the case of “Skim‐milk Cheese” is, at any rate, clearly put. It is a trial case, and, like most trial cases, the reasons for the judgment have to be based upon first principles of common‐sense, occasionally aided, but more often complicated, by already existing laws, which apply more or less to the case under discussion. The weak point in this particular case is the law which has just come into force, in which cheese is defined as the substance “usually known as cheese” by the public and any others interested in cheese. This reliance upon the popular fancy reads almost like our Government's war policy and “the man in the street,” and is a shining example of a trustful belief in the average common‐sense. Unfortunately, the general public have no direct voice in a police court, and so the “usually known as cheese” phrase is translated according to the fancy and taste of the officials and defending solicitors who may happen to be concerned with any particular case. Not having the general public to consult, the officials in this case had a war of dictionaries which would have gladdened the heart of Dr. JOHNSON; and the outcome of much travail was the following definition: cheese is “ coagulated milk or curd pressed into a solid mass.” So far so good, but immediately a second definition question cropped up—namely, What is “milk?”—and it is at this point that the mistake occurred. There is no legal definition of new milk, but it has been decided, and is accepted without dispute, that the single word “milk” means an article of well‐recognised general properties, and which has a lower limit of composition below which it ceases to be correctly described by the one word “milk,” and has to be called “skim‐milk,” “separated milk,” “ milk and water,” or other distinguishing names. The lower limits of fat and solids‐not‐fat are recognised universally by reputable public analysts, but there has been no upper limit of fat fixed. Therefore, by the very definition quoted by the stipendiary, an article made from “skim‐milk” is not cheese, for “skim‐milk” is not “milk.” The argument that Stilton cheese is not cheese because there is too much fat would not hold, for there is no legal upper limit for fat; but if it did hold, it does not matter, for it can be, and is, sold as “Stilton” cheese, without any hardship to anyone. The last suggestion made by the stipendiary would, if carried out, afford some protection to the general public against their being cheated when they buy cheese. This suggestion is that the Board of Agriculture, who by the Act of 1899 have the legal power, should determine a lower limit of fat which can be present in cheese made from milk; but, as we have repeatedly pointed out, it is by the adoption of the Control system that such questions can alone be settled to the advantage of the producer of genuine articles and to that of the public.
The figures contained in these regulations were not intended, either literally or by implication, to be taken as standards for milk. A milk which contains less than 8·5 per cent. of solids‐not‐fat is not necessarily adulterated—one that contains 8·5 per cent. or more is not necessarily genuine. All that the regulations do is to move the onus of proof. In the case of the prosecution of a vendor of milk for a sample which contained 8·5 or more of solids‐not‐fat the Local Authority would have to prove that the sample was adulterated, in the case of a prosecution for a sample which contained less than 8·5 per cent. of solids‐not‐fat, the defendant, in order to escape conviction, would have to prove the milk to be genuine. The weight which has been given to this limit of 8·5 per cent. of solids‐not‐fat has varied considerably. There are those who appear to consider that it is almost an absolute minimum, and that any milk which contains less than this amount is almost certainly watered, whilst others attach little importance to this figure. It may be desirable to interpolate at this point the figures which have been obtained recently on the samples taken in the County of Lancaster. Since the beginning of the year 1930, 5,959 samples of milk have been examined, of this number 121, or 2·0 per cent., have contained less than 8·5 per cent. of solids‐not‐fat. By means of some of the methods which are described below each of these deficient samples has been examined for the presence of added water, and it has been found that 102 contained added water, whilst 19 were naturally poor. It follows, then, as far as these samples are concerned, that in the case of herds of cows, only 0·3 per cent. give milk containing less than 8·5 per cent. of solids‐not‐fat. From this it must of necessity follow that the limit of 8·5 is at least a very good sorting test. In fact it is far more likely to fail to detect slightly adulterated milks (containing, say, from 1 to 5 per cent. of added water) than it is to describe milks as adulterated which are in reality genuine but poor. Dr. J. F. Tocher, who holds the position of Public Analyst to many of the Scottish Counties, and who is a very outspoken critic of the methods adopted for the determination of added water, has written on this subject to a considerable extent. The following statement, which was made by him in his 1925 Report, has been brought to my notice § with the suggestion that it should be referred to in this report. Dr. Tocher writes:—“The general conclusion from these results is that it is quite unsound on the part of analysts to express a definite opinion that water has been added to milk, when a sample has been found to be below 8·5 per cent. in solids‐in‐fat.” If such a statement as this merely means that a milk is not necessarily watered if the percentage of solids‐not‐fat is below 8·5 it is, of course, not only correct, but absolutely unassailable; in fact, it is merely putting the limit of the Regulations into other words. To those, however, who are familiar with Dr. Tocher's other writings, it may appear that there is something more than this behind the words used. On many occasions in the past Dr. Tocher has stated categorically that it is not possible to prove by chemical or physical examination that a milk is or is not watered, and that all that an analyst can say is that the milk is below the limit, and leave the interpretation of the fact to others, the final evidence being obtained from those who have handled the milk. Apart from the fact that it is not usual to give undue weight to evidence obtained from a defendant it would be quite impossible to rely entirely on this source, for the reasons given in the following paragraph.
IT is with peculiar pleasure that I find myself once more engaged in University Extension work under the presidency of Lord Goschen. Until your well‐remembered tenure of the Chancellorship of the Exchequer drew you from active service with us, my lord, you presided for many years over the London Society for the Extension of University Teaching, and therefore, over myself as a humble member of the Council. I trust you have as pleasant memories of us, as obedient and diligent workers, as we have of you as an energetic and enthusiastic chairman. Many changes have come since then. The London Society is a thing of the past, absorbed into my own University, which itself has changed almost beyond recognition. One of the members in your time is now a Bishop, another rules South Africa, you, yourself, no longer sway the House of Commons. If we still existed and had now to hold a sub‐committee in the chamber of our colleague Milner, we should have to travel many hundreds of miles instead of walking round to Duke Street, St. James's, as you will remember we did in those old days.
The purpose of this paper is to examine travellers' experiences with public houses in Colonial Victoria, to determine how the hospitality industry in the colony was…
The purpose of this paper is to examine travellers' experiences with public houses in Colonial Victoria, to determine how the hospitality industry in the colony was transformed from primitive hospitality provision to sophisticated, well managed hotels in a relatively short time.
The article reviews public records, newspapers of the period, eye‐witness accounts and key texts to chart the development of the hospitality industry in Colonial Victoria and to demonstrate how primitive inns became modern hotels within the space of three decades.
This paper highlights how the discovery of gold in 1851 prompted an unprecedented influx of travellers whose expectations of hospitality provision led to the transformation of existing hostelries from crude and primitive inns to modern, sophisticated hotels.
The research is confined to Colonial Victoria and therefore, not necessarily a reflection of the colonies in general or general trends in hospitality provision at that time.
Tracing the roots of hospitality provision and the traditions of hospitality management can provide a greater understanding of modern hospitality practice. As O'Gorman argues “[…] with historical literature contributing to informing industry practices today and tomorrow: awareness of the past always helps to guide the future”.
This paper adds to the body of knowledge in relation to the roots and evolution of commercial hospitality.
Under the auspices of the “People's League of Health,” Professor F. E. Dixon, F.R.S., delivered an address before the Medical Society of London on March 25th. It was, he said, obvious that organic foodstuffs were liable to bacterial decomposition. Something must be done to prevent certain foodstuffs from putrefying. The methods were sterilisation, destroying the micro‐organisms by heat or by preventing their growth by chemical substances. None of the chemical substances prevented the growth of the micro‐organisms which caused food poisoning. Putrefaction, in a sense, was the safety‐valve which indicated the condition of the food, and if they used preservatives they allowed the malignant organisms to grow. In Great Britain they had a Committee which sat in 1901, but nothing was done until 1912, when the Ministry forbade the use of preservatives in milk. France, Germany, the United States, and Sweden had absolutely forbidden the use of boric acid except in certain cases, and all countries had forbidden sulphites in meat. These, if sprayed on meat, masked incipient putrefaction and brought back the bright red colour. The United States allowed the use of benzoic acid, under certain conditions which had to be reported.