Evaluation of the diagnostic potential of a novel field immunomagnetic separation-immunochromatographic lateral flow assay to detect Mycobacterium bovis cells in European badger (Meles meles) faeces

The European badger (Meles meles) is a natural reservoir for Mycobacterium bovis, the causative agent of Bovine Tuberculosis, and has consequently been implicated in transmission of the disease to cattle. This study describes application of a novel M. bovis-specific immunochromatographic (lateral flow) assay in combination with immunomagnetic separation (IMS-LFD), to test badger faeces samples. In total, 441 faeces samples from badgers of unknown disease status collected from latrines at 110 badger setts throughout Northern Ireland (NI) and 100 faeces samples from badgers of known infection status from Great Britain (GB) were tested. Faeces (approx. 1g) was homogenised in 9 ml phosphate buffered saline, filtered (70 µm), and then 6-8 ml subjected to the IMS-LFD test. Residual clarified faecal homogenates were subjected to automated IMS followed by MGIT™ liquid culture (AIMS-MGIT™ culture) and qPCR (AIMS-qPCR). Evidence for the presence of M. bovis was obtained for 78 (18%), 61 (14%) and 140 (32%) of 441 NI badger faeces samples, and 10 (10%), 41 (41%) and 56 (56%) of 100 GB badger faeces samples, by IMS-LFD, AIMS-MGIT culture and AIMS-qPCR tests, respectively. The IMS-LFD test was less sensitive than AIMS-qPCR for detection of M. bovis and was, therefore, detecting badgers shedding high numbers of M. bovis in their faeces only. However, these ‘super shedders’ may be primarily responsible for the spread of Bovine Tuberculosis so are, therefore, an important target. This non-invasive test could form the basis of a field surveillance tool to indicate infected badger groups which are actively spreading M. bovis.

Bird diversity and environmental gradients in Britain:a test of the species-energy hypothesis

1. We tested the species diversity-energy hypothesis using the British bird fauna. This predicts that temperature patterns should match diversity patterns. We also tested the hypothesis that the mechanism operates directly through effects of temperature on thermoregulatory loads; this further predicts that seasonal changes in temperature cause matching changes in patterns of diversity, and that species' body mass is influential.

2. We defined four assemblages using migration status (residents or visitors) and season (summer or winter distribution). Records of species' presence/absence in a total of 2362, 10 x 10-km, quadrats covering most of Britain were used, together with a wide selection of habitat, topographic and seasonal climatic data.

3. We fitted a logistic regression model to each species' distribution using the environmental data. We then combined these individual species models mathematically to form a diversity model. Analysis of this composite model revealed that summer temperature was the factor most strongly associated with diversity.

4. Although the species-energy hypothesis was supported, the direct mechanism, predicting an important role for body mass and matching seasonal patterns of change between diversity and temperature, was not supported.

5. However, summer temperature is the best overall explanation for bird diversity patterns in Britain. It is a better predictor of winter diversity than winter temperature. Winter diversity is predicted more precisely from environmental factors than summer diversity.

6. Climate change is likely to influence the diversity of different areas to different extents; for resident species, low diversity areas may respond more strongly as climate change progresses. For winter visitors, higher diversity areas may respond more strongly, while summer visitors are approximately neutral.

HRM and the employment of older workers: Germany and Britain compared

This study examines Human Resource Management (HRM) policies and practices towards older workers in Britain and Germany. While it is widely suggested that older workers have to be better integrated into the labour market, youth-centric HRM is still prevalent. However, HRM is shaped by multiple and contradictory pressures from the international and national institutional environments. We test this dynamic by analysing two national surveys, the German firm panel (IAB)1 and the British Workplace and Employment Relations Survey (WERS).2 Our findings suggest that the institutional environment shapes HR policies and practices distinctively in both countries. We find that age discrimination at the workplace is more prevalent in Germany than in Britain, which can be explained by divergent institutional patterns. As a result, we argue that although both countries will have to continue fostering an age-neutral HR approach, this has to take country-specific institutional peculiarities into account.

The Marquess of Londonderry: Aristocracy, Power and Politics in Britain and Ireland

The decline and fall of the British aristocracy looked headlong and irreversible in the twentieth century yet many grandees tried to preserve their power, wealth and influence by every means - and with some success. There is no better example than the Seventh Marquess of Londonderry whose life from 1878 to 1949 spanned and mirrored the period. The Londonderrys had enjoyed immense wealth in land and minerals in Britain and Ireland for centuries, played leading roles in Parliament and the state, and in an earlier time the Seventh Marquess would have continued in the family tradition of patrician prominence. Drawing upon original state and family papers, N.C. Fleming places the Londonderrys in the context of the history and the political theory of aristocracy and shows the constant struggle - not without success - against marginalisation. The theme runs through Londonderry's career as Conservative MP, on the Irish Viceroy's Council, as a junior minister in Lloyd Geroge's coalition, at the Air Ministry with Trenchard - the 'father of the RAF' - and in the National Government. Perhaps an element of desperation entered in his private business ventures and with contacts with the far Right - all in sharp contrast to past family achievement.

'Incorrigibly Plural’: New Histories of Ulster and Northern Ireland’

Review article of Carson’s Army: The Ulster Volunteer Force, 1910–22. By Timothy Bowman. Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2007. 256 pp. ISBN 0719073715, £55. A History of the Northern Ireland Labour Party: Democratic Socialism and Sectarianism. By Aaron Edwards. Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2009. xiii + 240 pp. ISBN 0719078741, £60. Catholic Belfast and Nationalist Ireland in the Era of Joe Devlin 1871–1934. By A.C. Hepburn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008. xix +307 pp. ISBN 019929884X, £55. The Big House in the North of Ireland: Land, Power and Social Elites, 1878–1960. By Olwen Purdue. University College Dublin Press, Dublin, 2009. xv + 297 pp. ISBN 978-1-906359-25-6, £24.

The Falkland Islands War of 1982: a legal, diplomatic and strategic evaluation

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

The law of the sea: the United States, Canada and the deep seabed

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

Correspondence between the American and British Plentipotentiaries relative to the commercial convention concluded on the 3rd of July, 1815.--

January 16, 1816.

Important state papers : declaration of war, Washington, June 18, 4 o'clock, P.M.

Message to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States / James Madison -- Report : the Committee on Foreign relations, to whom was referred the message of the President of the United States of the 1st of June, 1812 -- An Act, declaring war between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories -- Address of the Senate to the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Letter from the Secretary of State to Mr. Monroe, on the subject of the attack on the Chesapeake : the correspondence of Mr. Monroe with the British Government ; and also Mr. Madison's correspondence with Mr. Rose on the same subject. --

March 23, 1808. Printed by order of the House of Representatives.

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting copies of a letter from the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the Secretary of State, with the answer of the latter.--

January 6, 1814. Ordered to lie on the table.

Manuscript of James Cummings- August 28, 1860

Transcript (spelling and grammar retained): Chippawa [Chippewa] 28th August 1860 My Dear Sir I duly received your very kind letter of the 24th [June] asking me to communicate such facts of general interest connected with my career during the War with the United States. I have no objection to afford you such information as came under my own observation; nevertheless I do so, with the understanding, I have no desire to be my own trumpeter. With respect to your circular wherein you state you have been for several years collecting materials for a History of the late War between the United States & Great Britain, for which you are now gathering further materials to add to your collection, concerning the Second War for Independence. I am rather at a loss to know, what is meant by the second war; If you allude to the petty Rebellion, it could not be called a War, Those that caused the outbreak were very soon put down, by the Loyal people of the Province without the aid of Regular Troops being satisfied with the Independence they enjoyed. With respect to the several questions names in your circular: To the 1st I would say, this locality is made memorable by the battle of Chippawa [Chippewa] which took place about a mile above the village on the ground I pointed out to you, when I had the pleasure of seeing you a few days ago, with Mr Porter of the Niagara Falls, of which I believe you took sketches at the time. 2nd I have no historical documents of any value; so many years having gone past, the most of my old papers have either been lost or destroyed, I however came across two letters, one dated Queenston 9th July 1812 from Lt. Col. Nicholl Quarter Master General of Militia, the other from Lt. Col Myers Deputy Quarter Master General of the Regular Army date Fort George 23rd same month, directed to me in the hand writing of each of those officers as Deputy Quarter Master General of Militia, which letters I shall be obliged you would return at as early a day possible, as I wish to place them with tome others in the case, I have had made to hold the cocked hat & feather I wore during that eventful period, which I am sorry I did not exhibit when you was at my house; with reference to it I now enclose a letter from Lt. Col. Clark, residing at Port Dalhousie he was Captain & Adjutant of Militia in the War of 1812__ I send the letter in proof of the cock’d hat it is a lengthy one, but you may find time to turn over it, as I shall also place it in the hat case__ 3rd Where are [but] [for] traditionary [sic] witnesses residing in this vicinity – Col Clark above named Mr Merritt of St. Catharines, & Mr Kerby of Brantford are the only ones I now recollect, who could offord [sic] you any statistical information. 4th I have no pictorial sketches of any Military Movements or fortifications. As regards my own career, which you appear [ ? ] of knowing__ I was first a Lieutenant in a volunteer flank company stationed on the river side opposite [Navy] Island not far from the battle ground of Chippawa [Chippewa], I got promotion as Lieutenant of Cavalry before I got my Cavalry dress completed in three days more, I was called by General Brock to Fort George, was appointed Deputy Quarter Master General of Militia with the rank of Captain s the accompanying letters will show. I was at the battle of Stony Creek, several skirmishes at the Cross Roads, when the American army [ ? ] Fort George, at the taking of Col. Boerstler at the Beaver Dam, & had the honor of receiving Colonel Chapens sword at the surrender, who commanded a company of volunteer Horse Men was at the taking of 15 regulars & two officers at Fort Schlosser—was with Col. Bishop at the taking of Black Rock, near him when he fell, three men of the 8th Reg. more killed in the Boat I was in – I was at Chippawa battle, and the last, not the least in Lundy’s lane battle, which the Americans call the battle of Bridge [Waters]. I had forgot; there was another small affair at Corks Mill where I was. I could write a little history of events, but have not the time to do so. If what I have stated will be of any service for the purpose you require I shall feel happy. The history of the late War was published at Toronto in the Anglo American Magazine. Did you ever see it, I have the Books, there were however several errors which came under my notice, which I could have corrected. If my time would permit I could give you a more detailed statement of events. I trust however you may succeed with your publication , and I shall be most happy to hear from you at all times—I related many little occurances verbally to you when here, which I thought not necessary to repeat again as you would have a perfect recollection of them. Be pleased to return the letters for the purpose I require them. I am My Dear Sir Your respectful friend James Cummings

Correspondence between the American and British Plentipotentiaries relative to the commercial convention concluded on the 3rd of July, 1815

January 16, 1816. Printed by order of the House of Representatives. 14th Congress, 1st Session, 1815-1816. House. At head of title: [27].

Important state papers : declaration of war, Washington, June 18, 4 o'clock, P.M

Message to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States / James Madison -- Report : the Committee on Foreign relations, to whom was referred the message of the President of the United States of the 1st of June, 1812 -- An Act, declaring war between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories -- Address of the Senate to the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Letter from the Secretary of State to Mr. Monroe, on the subject of the attack on the Chesapeake : the correspondence of Mr. Monroe with the British Government; and also Mr. Madison's correspondence with Mr. Rose on the same subject

March 23, 1808. Printed by order of the House of Representatives.