Search results1 – 10 of over 171000
Armstrong, Whitworth Aircraft, Ltd., Coventry.—Aircraft, Reconditioning of: Supermarine Aviation Works (Vickers), Ltd., Woolston. Aircraft, Spares: Blackburn Aeroplane &…
Armstrong, Whitworth Aircraft, Ltd., Coventry.—Aircraft, Reconditioning of: Supermarine Aviation Works (Vickers), Ltd., Woolston. Aircraft, Spares: Blackburn Aeroplane & Motor Co., Ltd., Brough; Westland Aircraft Works, Yeovil.—Bitumen: Asiatic Petroleum Co., Ltd., London, E.C.—Blocks, Terminal: Oliver Pell Control, Ltd., London, S.E.—Brushes: C. H. Leng & Sons, Birmingham.—Camera Spares: Thornton Pickard Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Altrincham.—Canvas Duck: Jas. Stott, Ltd., Oldham.—Coats, Great: L. Silberston & Sons, London, E.—Cylinders: Walter Kidde Co., Ltd., Hanwell.—Dopes and Identification Colours: Nobel Chemical Finishes, Ltd., Slough.—Engines, Aero, Reconditioning and Spares: Bristol Aeroplane Co., Ltd., Filton.—Engines, Aero, Spares, Repair of: D. Napier & Son, Ltd., London, W.—Engines, Aero, Spares: Rolls‐Royce, Ltd., Derby.—Glycerine: D. Thorn & Co., Ltd., Pendleton.—Landplane: De Havilland Aircraft Co., Ltd., Edgware.—Lay‐out of Moorings and Mark Buoys: Thos. Round & Sons, Scarborough.—Limousines, Humber, Pullman: Rootes, Ltd., Coventry.—Locomotive, Diesel: F. C. Hibbard & Co., Ltd., London, N.W.—Magnetos: British Thomson‐Houston Co., Ltd., Coventry; Rotax, Ltd., London, N.W.—Mahogany: M. A. Morris, London, N.—Nippers: Wynn Timmins & Co., Ltd., Birmingham.—Pantaloons: L. Silberston & Sons, London, E.—Plugs and Sockets: Vickers (Aviation), Ltd., Weybridge.—Pumps, Fuelling: Zwicky, Ltd., Slough.—Thermometers, Radiator: Negretti & Zambra, London, E.C —Transmitters: Standard Telephones and Cables, Ltd., London, N.W.—Trays for Racks: Hobbies, Ltd., Dereham.—Valves W/T: Edison Swan Electric Co.,Ltd., London, W.C.—Waistcoats, Life Saving: Robinson & Cleaver, Ltd., London, W.
This chapter analyses the attitude of local government to combating ethnic inequalities in Great Britain and France. With cities often seen as the ‘machines of…
This chapter analyses the attitude of local government to combating ethnic inequalities in Great Britain and France. With cities often seen as the ‘machines of integration’ and the integration of immigrants happening at the local level, this study looks at the everyday practice in London and Paris.
The response of London to the difficulties of mass migration in the 1950s was initially slow and it took major race riots in the 1970s for significant political change to be made. Boroughs such as Lewisham in South East London responded with policies that reflected their local situation including the formation of the first UK Race Equality Council to give the migrant population a political voice. Although this was a small step, its impact can be seen today with 37% of the council’s workforce coming from a black and minority ethnic (BAME) background.
The attitude of Paris and its Arrondissements shows us another kind of strategy. Its districts follow the multicultural strategy adopted by City hall in 2001, organised around three fields of action: anti-discrimination, citizenship and access to rights and valuing cultures of origin, in the context of extremely strict immigration laws. Examples of positive actions include establishing the advisory body of the city council composed of foreigners, the introduction of courses to learn the French language, special cafes for elderly immigrants, local councillors becoming godparents to illegal immigrants or renovation of the residences of immigrants.
This comparison allows us to see the possible differences in dealing with the same phenomenon, as well as identifying the key factors of its success, which in both cities is predominantly due to the political persuasion of city leaders.
In 1999, the national health service (NHS) was made responsible for the commissioning of prison health care. Mental health inreach teams (MHIT) were set up to mirror…
In 1999, the national health service (NHS) was made responsible for the commissioning of prison health care. Mental health inreach teams (MHIT) were set up to mirror community mental health teams and provide secondary care to prisoners diagnosed with severe and enduring mental illnesses (SEMI). Since then, the provision of mental health care to prisoners without a diagnosis of a SEMI has been variable. A rapid review of NHS health care in prisons conducted by Public Health England (PHE) (2016) highlighted the need for provision to be more integrated and meet the needs of prisoners without a diagnosis of a SEMI. In response, an integrated mental health and substance misuse service was implemented within her majesty’s prison/young offenders institution Pentonville. This study aims to evaluate its impact and share lessons learned.
Routinely collected and anonymised data were reviewed for prisoners referred between 1 May 2018 and 31 December 2019. Data are presented on the quantity of referrals over time, and the type of support offered. Chi-square goodness of fit tests was conducted to determine whether the prisoners referred to the service were representative of the wider prison population in terms of age and ethnicity.
Referrals showed a general pattern of increase over time and were representative of the wider prison population in terms of age and ethnicity, indicating equitable access. Lessons learned are discussed. Demand for therapeutic and substance misuse services was higher than that for SEMIs. Notable was the high quantity of referrals which provides further evidence for the disparity between high need and limited provision within prison settings, particularly for therapeutic interventions.
To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first service evaluation of a recently implemented integrated and holistic model of prison mental health care in line with recommendations from PHE (2016).
The English banking system before the Panic of 1825, apart from the Bank of England, which maintained a monopoly of joint-stock banking, was one of private partnerships…
The English banking system before the Panic of 1825, apart from the Bank of England, which maintained a monopoly of joint-stock banking, was one of private partnerships both in London and in the provinces, most of which were independent unit banks. Since remittance was the principal function of country banks at this time close ties in the form of correspondent relations developed between country banks and London agents, similar to the structure prevailing in the United States later in the nineteenth century between New York and interior banks. Although efficient in the transfer of funds across space, these networks also proved to be quite efficient in the transmission of financial pressures during panics.