The Five College Radio Astronomical Observatory (FCRAO) was a radio astronomy observatory located on a peninsula in the Quabbin Reservoir.  It was sited in the town of New Salem, Massachusetts on land that was originally part of Prescott, Massachusetts.  It was founded in 1969 by the Five College Astronomy Department (University of Massachusetts Amherst (UMass), Amherst College, Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College and Smith College).  From its inception, the observatory has emphasized research, the development of technology and the training of students—both graduate and undergraduate.

The initial FCRAO telescope was a customized low-frequency antenna to search for pulsars in the galaxy. The development of instrumentation within the FCRAO labs contributed to the discovery of the binary pulsar system PSR B1913+16 by Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, for which they received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics.  It was replaced by a 14-meter radome-enclosed millimeter-wave telescope in 1976.

Decommissioning

After UMass Amherst devoted its time, energy, and funding to the Large Millimeter Telescope (LMT) in Mexico from approximately 2005, FCRAO was described as being the then–"current platform", with the LMT referred to as its "future platform".  On July 21, 2011, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority announced that the telescope and the associated control building were removed from the site.

See also

 List of astronomical observatories
 List of radio telescopes

References

External links
 FCRAO Home Page

Astronomical observatories in Massachusetts
Radio telescopes
University of Massachusetts Amherst buildings

Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory


Ackhampstead (literally 'oak homestead' in Old English) or 'The Moor' was an ancient township (or chapelry) in the Chiltern Hills, south of Lane End.

Until 1844 it was a detached part of Oxfordshire in the parish of Lewknor, part of a division of the parish known as Lewknor Uphill consisting of three detached parts.  It was transferred to Buckinghamshire by the Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844. By the mid-nineteenth century the population of the community was negligible.  The Bishop of Oxford demolished its medieval chapel and replaced it with a new church at Cadmore End.  In 1885 the division of Lewknor Uphill was dismembered.  Ackhampstead was transferred to the parish of Great Marlow for ecclesiastical purposes, and became part of the civil parish of Great Marlow in 1895.

In 1934 the western end, including Moor Farm, became part of the civil parish of Fingest, renamed Fingest and Lane End in 1937, and is now in Lane End parish.  The greater part, including the site of the chapel and Moor Wood, remains in Great Marlow parish. A detailed history of Ackhampstead was compiled by Dr Gordon Wyatt in 1969 for the Frieth Village Society.

References

External links

Vision of Britain: Boundary map of Lewknor Uphill

Hamlets in Buckinghamshire
Deserted medieval villages in Buckinghamshire

Ackhampstead


{{DISPLAYTITLE:MPP+}}

MPP+ (1-methyl-4-phenylpyridinium) is a positively charged organic molecule with the chemical formula C12H12N+. It is a neurotoxin that acts by interfering with oxidative phosphorylation in mitochondria by inhibiting complex I, leading to the depletion of ATP and eventual cell death.

MPP+ arises in the body as the toxic metabolite of the closely related compound MPTP. MPTP is converted in the brain into MPP+ by the enzyme MAO-B, ultimately causing parkinsonism in primates by killing certain dopamine-producing neurons in the substantia nigra. The ability for MPP+ to induce Parkinson's disease has made it an important compound in Parkinson's research since this property was discovered in 1983.

The chloride salt of MPP+ found use in the 1970s as an herbicide under the trade name cyperquat. Though no longer in use as an herbicide, cyperquat's closely related structural analog paraquat still finds widespread usage, raising some safety concerns.

History
MPP+ has been known since at least the 1920s, with a synthesis of the compound being published in a German chemistry journal in 1923. Its neurotoxic effects, however, were not known until much later, with the first paper definitively identifying MPP+ as a Parkinson's-inducing poison being published in 1983. This paper followed a string of poisonings that took place in San Jose, California in 1982 in which users of an illicitly synthesized analog of meperidine were presenting to hospital emergency rooms with symptoms of Parkinson's. Since most of the patients were young and otherwise healthy and Parkinson's disease tends to afflict people at a much older age, researchers at the hospital began to scrutinize the illicitly synthesized opiates that the patients had ingested. The researchers discovered that the opiates were tainted with MPTP, which is the biological precursor to the neurotoxic MPP+. The MPTP was present in the illicitly synthesized meperidine analog as an impurity, which had a precedent in a 1976 case involving a chemistry graduate student synthesizing meperidine and injecting the resulting product into himself. The student came down with symptoms of Parkinson's disease, and his synthesized product was found to be heavily contaminated with MPTP.

The discovery that MPP+ could reliably and irreversibly induce Parkinson's disease in mammals reignited interest in Parkinson's research, which had previously been dormant for decades. Following the revelation, MPP+ and MPTP sold out in virtually all chemical catalogs, reappearing months later with a 100-fold price increase.

Synthesis

Laboratory

MPP+ can be readily synthesized in the laboratory, with Zhang and colleagues publishing a representative synthesis in 2017. The synthesis involves reacting 4-phenylpyridine with methyl iodide in acetonitrile solvent at reflux for 24 hours. An inert atmosphere is used to ensure a quantitative yield. The product is formed as the iodide salt, and the reaction proceeds via an SN2 pathway. The industrial synthesis of MPP+ for sale as the herbicide cyperquat used methyl chloride as the source of the methyl group.

Biological
MPP+ is produced in vivo from the precursor MPTP. The process involves two successive oxidations of the molecule by monoamine oxidase B to form the final MPP+ product. This metabolic process occurs predominantly in astrocytes in the brain.

Mechanism of toxicity
MPP+ exhibits its toxicity mainly by promoting the formation of reactive free radicals in the mitochondria of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra. MPP+ can siphon electrons from the mitochondrial electron transport chain at complex I and be reduced, in the process forming radical reactive oxygen species which go on to cause further, generalized cellular damage. In addition, the overall inhibition of the electron transport chain eventually leads to stunted ATP production and eventual death of the dopaminergic neurons, which ultimately displays itself clinically as symptoms of Parkinson's disease.

MPP+ also displays toxicity by inhibiting the synthesis of catecholamines, reducing levels of dopamine and cardiac norepinephrine, and inactivating tyrosine hydroxylase.

The mechanism of uptake of MPP+ is important to its toxicity. MPP+ injected as an aqueous solution into the bloodstream causes no symptoms of Parkinsonism in test subjects, since the highly charged molecule is unable to diffuse through the blood-brain barrier. Furthermore, MPP+ shows little toxicity to cells other than dopaminergic neurons, suggesting that these neurons have a unique process by which they can uptake the molecule, since, being charged, MPP+ cannot readily diffuse across the lipid bilayer that composes cellular membranes.

Unlike MPP+, its common biological precursor MPTP is a lipid-soluble molecule that diffuses readily across the blood-brain barrier. MPTP itself is not cytotoxic, however, and must be metabolized to MPP+ by MAO-B to show any signs of toxicity. The oxidation of MPTP to MPP+ is a process that can be catalyzed only by MAO-B, and cells that express other forms of MAO do not show any MPP+ production. Studies in which MAO-B was selectively inhibited showed that MPTP had no toxic effect, further cementing the crucial role of MAO-B in MPTP and MPP+ toxicity.

Studies in rats and mice show that various compounds, including nobiletin, a flavonoid found in citrus, can rescue dopaminergic neurons from degeneration caused by treatment with MPP+. The specific mechanism of protection, however, remains unknown.

Uses

In scientific research
MPP+ and its precursor MPTP are widely used in animal models of Parkinson's disease to irreversibly induce the disease. Excellent selectivity and dose control can be achieved by injecting the compound directly into cell types of interest. Most modern studies use rats as a model system, and much research is directed at identifying compounds that can attenuate or reverse the effects of MPP+. Commonly studied compounds include various MAO inhibitors and general antioxidants. While some of these compounds are quite effective at stopping the neurotoxic effects of MPP+, further research is needed to establish their potential efficacy in treating clinical Parkinson's.

The revelation that MPP+ causes the death of dopaminergic neurons and ultimately induces symptoms of Parkinson's disease was crucial in establishing the lack of dopamine as central to Parkinson's disease. Levodopa or L-DOPA came into common use as an anti-Parkinson's medication thanks to the results brought about by research using MPP+. Further medications are in trial to treat the progression of the disease itself as well as the motor and non-motor symptoms associated with Parkinson's, with MPP+ still being widely used in early trials to test efficacy.

As a pesticide

MPP+, sold as the chloride salt under the brand name cyperquat, was used briefly in the 1970s as an herbicide to protect crops against nutsedge, a member of the cyperus genus of plants. MPP+ as a salt has much lower acute toxicity than its precursor MPTP due to the inability of the former to pass through the blood-brain barrier and ultimately access the only cells that will permit its uptake, the dopaminergic neurons. While cyperquat is no longer used as an herbicide, a closely related compound named paraquat is. Given the structural similarities, some have raised concerns about paraquat's active use as an herbicide for those handling it. However, studies have shown paraquat to be far less neurotoxic than MPP+, since paraquat does not bind to complex I in the mitochondrial electron transport chain, and thus its toxic effects cannot be realized.

Safety
MPP+ is commonly sold as the water-soluble iodide salt and is a white-to-beige powder. Specific toxicological data on the compound is somewhat lacking, but one MSDS quotes an LD50 of 29 mg/kg via an intraperitoneal route and 22.3 mg/kg via a subcutaneous route of exposure. Both values come from a mouse model system.

MPP+ encountered in the salt form is far less toxic by ingestion, inhalation, and skin exposure than its biological precursor MPTP, due to the inability of MPP+ to cross the blood-brain barrier and freely diffuse across cellular membranes.

There is no specific antidote to MPP+ poisoning. Clinicians are advised to treat exposure symptomatically.

References

Herbicides
Neurotoxins
Pyridinium compounds

MPP+


William Plumer (1736–1822) was a British politician who served 54 years in the House of Commons between 1763 and 1822.

Life
Plumer was the son of William Plumer and his wife Elizabeth Byde, daughter of Thomas Byde of Ware Park, and was born on 24 May 1736. He was admitted at Pembroke College, Cambridge in 1752.

Plumer was returned unopposed as Member of Parliament for Lewes at a by-election in February 1763. The Duke of Newcastle had supported his stand at Lewes because he was considered a strong candidate, and wished him to stand there at the following election. However, Plumer wanted to stand at his home seat at Hertfordshire. He succeeded his father to Blakesware and Gilston Park, Hertfordshire on 12 December 1767 and the Duke eventually agreed to release him from a commitment to stand at Lewes.

Plumer was popular in Hertfordshire; his position there was strong and he was returned for Hertfordshire without opposition at the 1768 general election. There were contested elections in 1774 and 1784, and each time he headed the poll by a large majority. In 1780 he was again returned unopposed.

The English Chronicle wrote in 1781:

William Plumer is one of the most opulent country gentlemen in the kingdom. Beside possessing the most extensive property of any gentleman in this county, his additional estates in Essex, Middlesex, and Suffolk, make up a clear income of fifteen thousand pounds per annum ... In his parliamentary character he has been uniform in his opposition to all the measures of the present Administration; and though no speaker, is one of the most constant attendants upon his legislative duty, and suffers no question to pass without that substantial indication of his political talents, a direct negative to the minister. His activity out of the House is not less conspicuous than his honest zeal within it ... His character, as a private individual, is of that kind that totally exempts him from the smallest imputation of being under the direction of any improper motive in the enthusiasm of his public exertions. His fortune raises him above the influence of pecuniary temptation, and the pitiful ambition of titular importance constitutes no part of his foibles. Having little to wish, therefore, and nothing to fear, he is governed by no consideration but his own conviction, and without any pretensions to the estimation of one of the first politicians in the kingdom is, beyond, all doubt, one of the sincerest.

Plumer headed the poll again in the 1790 general election. He topped the poll again in the 1796 and 1802 general elections and was returned unopposed in 1806. However he was in poor health and retired at the 1807 general election on a plea of 'advancing age'. Then he missed his participation in Parliament and at the age of 76, he accepted the seat of Higham Ferrers from his friend Earl Fitzwilliam and was returned in the 1812 general election. By 1815 he was deaf and suffering from rheumatism and gout, and it was said he never stayed in the House after six o'clock. He was too ill to attend early in 1816 and considered retiring but went to Higham Ferrers for his re-election in the 1818 general election.

Plumer died on 15 January 1822, without issue.

Family
Plumer married as his first wife Frances Dorothy Carey daughter of Lucius Cary, 7th Viscount Falkland on 12 July 1760. She died in December 1761.

He remarried to Jane Hamilton, daughter of Hon. and Rev. George Hamilton on 9 August 1791. After his death, she married, as her third husband, Robert Ward, MP, who adopted the name Plumer and moved into Gilston Park.

References

1736 births
1822 deaths
Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for Hertfordshire
Alumni of Pembroke College, Cambridge
British MPs 1761–1768
British MPs 1768–1774
British MPs 1774–1780
British MPs 1780–1784
British MPs 1784–1790
British MPs 1790–1796
Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for English constituencies
UK MPs 1801–1802
UK MPs 1802–1806
UK MPs 1807–1812
UK MPs 1812–1818
UK MPs 1818–1820
UK MPs 1820–1826

William Plumer (1736–1822)


Lucia and Leo Krim, aged 6 and 2 respectively, were murdered in the late afternoon of October 25, 2012, at the La Rochelle apartment building on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in New York City. The children's part-time caretaker, Yoselyn Ortega, was convicted of stabbing the children to death with kitchen knives while their mother Marina Krim and three-year-old sister Nessie were a few blocks away at a swimming lesson. Upon returning home, their mother and sister found Lucia and Leo dead in a bathtub at the family apartment. Ortega then began stabbing herself repeatedly in the neck and throat. She survived the self-inflicted wounds.

On February 22, 2018, twelve jurors were chosen for Ortega's trial, and opening statements began March 1 in Manhattan Supreme Court. On April 18, 2018, Ortega was found guilty of first-degree murder and second-degree murder. Ortega was sentenced on May 14, 2018, to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Background
The children lived with their parents, Marina and Kevin Krim, in New York City. Lucia was known as "Lulu." The family moved there from San Francisco in 2010. Kevin Krim was a digital content executive at the television network CNBC. Marina Krim, a former kindergarten teacher, was a stay-at-home mother, art teacher, and blogger who chronicled the children's lives.

Discovery of killings
On October 25, 2012, at about 5:35 pm, Marina Krim returned with her 3-year-old daughter, Nessie, from the girls' swimming lesson at a nearby YMCA to her apartment in a 10-story doorman building at 57 West 75th Street and Columbus Avenue on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

The 36-year-old mother returned to the apartment earlier than scheduled because Ortega had failed to show up at Lulu's ballet lesson where they had agreed to meet. She entered the apartment but, as it was dark and quiet, found no one. After returning to the lobby and consulting with the doorman, who had seen Ortega and the children return to the apartment shortly before, Marina and her daughter Nessie returned to the family apartment. In the bathroom, she discovered her motionless two-year-old son, Leo Krim, and six-year-old daughter, Lucia "Lulu" Krim. They were clothed; each had multiple stab wounds and were in a bathtub, filled with blood.

After seeing Marina Krim discover what had happened to her children, Yoselyn "Josie" Ortega, their caregiver of two years who was on the floor next to the bathtub, slashed her own wrists and began to violently stab herself in the neck and throat with a kitchen knife.

This scene was also witnessed by the apartment building's superintendent and his 10-year-old son. The bodies of the two children were removed from the building on a single stretcher. Kevin Krim, 37 years old at the time, learned of the events that night from police at John F. Kennedy Airport upon returning from a business trip to San Francisco.

Ortega told police investigators Lucia, who suffered defensive wounds, had fought back when she was attacked. She said 2-year-old Leo was sleeping when the attack started.

Nanny
Ortega, a naturalized U.S. citizen for 10 years at the time, was originally from Santiago de los Caballeros in the Dominican Republic, and was 50 years old at the time she murdered the Krim children. She was living on Riverside Drive in Manhattan's Hamilton Heights neighborhood with her 17-year-old son Jesus, her sister, and her niece.

In interviews with the New York City Police Department (NYPD), Ortega who was paid $18 an hour claimed she was upset that her employer, Marina Krim, responded to her inquiry about needing more hours (due to money troubles) by suggesting she could do housework. The NYPD and friends of the nanny said she indicated that she was upset because the Krims would not pay her more money. However, family and friends who knew the Krims, as well as Ortega's own family, said that Ortega was close to the children and was treated very well by the Krims. The Krims paid for her plane tickets to see her family in the Dominican Republic and, on one occasion, accompanied her on vacation there.

Ortega survived her self-inflicted wounds, and was later deemed by two New York State psychiatrists mentally competent to stand trial. She was incarcerated at a New York City psychiatric hospital without bail while she prepared for her trial with a private attorney contracted by NY State to serve as Ortega's public defender.

Trial
In November 2012, Ortega was indicted on two counts of first-degree murder. Over the next five years, prior to trial, Ortega made approximately 90 court appearances. In April 2016, Judge Gregory Carro made a plea offer to Ortega over the objection of the prosecution (who said the only appropriate sentence would be life without parole) of 30-years-to-life-in-prison, the minimum sentence for the two murder counts, in exchange for her guilty pleas. Ortega rejected the offer.

On February 22, 2018, 12 jurors were chosen for Ortega's trial as Judge Carro presided, and opening statements were scheduled for March 1 in Manhattan Supreme Court. The trial was expected to last four months, but ended after less than two. Ortega faced the possibility of life in prison. She pleaded not guilty to murder, and pursued a "psychiatric defense". Her lawyers argued that Ortega was mentally ill and should therefore not be held responsible for her acts, while the prosecutors argued that she was sound-minded and was in fact responsible.

Ortega was found guilty of first-degree murder and second-degree murder on April 18, 2018. On May 14, 2018, she was sentenced to life in prison without parole. In his ruling, Judge Carro said Ortega was "pure evil", blaming Ortega and her family for not seeking medical treatment for Ortega's depression and anxiety, and for hiding her condition from the Krims.

Lulu & Leo Fund
The Krims subsequently set up the Lulu & Leo Fund, a non-profit charity that provides creative education programs for disadvantaged children, under an initiative called Choose Creativity. The Krim family posts photos and memories of their children on the Lulu & Leo Fund public Facebook page, including fundraising events and photos of art made by their children. In 2014, the Fund served 2,300 children. Since the killing of their two children, the Krims had two more children, Felix and Linus, who made cameos in a video related to the fund.

Lulu & Leo's Law
The New York State Assembly and State Senate passed Lulu & Leo's Law in June 2018; New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo signed it into law in August 2018. It is the first of its kind in the country, making it a crime to knowingly and materially misrepresent the qualifications of a person applying for work as a child caregiver.

Kevin Krim said in the bill signing announcement, "We hired the woman who murdered our children based on a deliberate set of lies. Thanks to Governor Cuomo's support and the hard work of sponsors Assemblyman Otis, Senator Lanza and their co-sponsor, there is now a strong deterrent to that kind of deception."

In popular culture
French-Moroccan writer Leïla Slimani wrote a novel inspired by the killing of the Krim children. The original French title was Chanson Douce; in the UK the title was Lullaby, and in the U.S. The Perfect Nanny. It was well received in France, where it won the prestigious Prix Goncourt in 2016, but it did not achieve similar success in the United States.

See also

 Death of Kristie Fischer
 Louise Woodward case, concerning an au pair convicted in 1997 of the involuntary manslaughter of an eight-month-old boy in her care.

References

External links

 Lulu + Leo Fund website
 Choose Creativity website
 Lulu + Leo Fund Facebook
 Leo + Leo Fund: Choose Creativity on Instagram

2010s in Manhattan
2012 crimes in New York (state)
2012 in New York City
2012 murders in the United States
Crimes in Manhattan
Deaths by person in New York City
Murder in New York City
Nannies
October 2012 events in the United States
Upper West Side
Violence against children
October 2012 crimes in the United States
Deaths by stabbing in New York (state)
Child murder in the United States
Male murder victims
Female murder victims
Incidents of violence against boys
Incidents of violence against girls

Murder of the Krim siblings


John Eastin Van Maanen (born 1943) is an American organizational theorist, Professor of Organization Studies at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and best known for his contributions to qualitative studies in management and to organizational ethnography.

His studies included longitudinal researches of policemen, fishermen, Disneyland operators, and London detectives. His publications include also methodological studies on writing organizational ethnographies and on power relations in workplace.  His Tales of the Field on Writing Ethnography (University of Chicago Press, 1988) became a classic reading in many doctoral programs in management around the world. He also recently commented on "On the Run", by Alice Goffman. His other contributions include studies of high tech industries.

Selected publications
Books, a selection:
 Van Maanen, John. Breaking in: A consideration of organizational socialization. Defense Technical Information Center, 1972.
 Van Maanen, John Eastin, and Edgar Henry Schein. Toward a theory of organizational socialization. 1977.
 Van Maanen, John, and Stephen R. Barley. Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. No. TR-ONR-10. ALFRED P SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT CAMBRIDGE MA, 1982.
 Maanen, John Van. Qualitative methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage 1983.
 Van Maanen, John. Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. University of Chicago Press, 2011.

References

1943 births
Living people
American business theorists
American sociologists
Postmodern theory
MIT Sloan School of Management faculty

John Van Maanen


('Croesus') is an opera seria in 3 acts with music by Antonio Sacchini, set to an Italian libretto by Gioacchino Pizzi after Book I of the Histories by Herodotos. The opera was first performed on 4 November 1765 at the Teatro San Carlo in Naples. The libretto was a popular one that had been first set by Niccolò Jommelli (Rome, 1757).

Creso was the most widely performed of Sacchini's opera serias, and much of the music displays the transition that the aria form of opera seria was undergoing. The standard aria dal segno form is interlaced with examples of abbreviated rondo form (ABAB) and through-composed ternary arias. Some of the music suggests themes from the works of the widely influential Tommaso Traetta.

Roles

References

Opera seria
Operas by Antonio Sacchini
1765 operas
Italian-language operas
Operas

Creso (Sacchini)


Limited voting (also known as partial block voting) is a voting system in which electors have fewer votes than there are positions available.  The positions are awarded to the candidates who receive the most votes absolutely.  In the special case in which the voter may vote for only one candidate and there are two or more posts, this system is called the single non-transferable vote or sometimes the strictly limited vote.

Example
The town of Voterville elects three representatives to the local legislature.  At the election, the ballot paper appears thus:

The voter has only two votes, which they have cast for Brian and Beryl Blue. They cannot cast a third although there are three seats being contested.  Each vote counts as one towards the total for the candidate voted for.

Practice and issues
Limited Voting frequently enables minority groupings to gain representation – unlike first past the post or bloc voting systems. But it is not guaranteed to do this, since the effectiveness of a sectional vote may be altered depending on the number of candidates fielded and the manner in which votes are cast for parties.

For example, in Voterville 54% of electors support the Blue Party while 46% support the Red Party.  Assuming an even distribution of support across the town, the Blue Party would win all three seats with either bloc voting or first past the post, and the Red Party would win no representation.

With limited voting the Red Party would usually win one seat.

However, it is still possible for one party to win all three seats or for the least popular of two parties to win more seats than the other.

It is possible for the Blue Party, even if it is the most popular party, to win only one of the available seats if it attempts to win all three and overreaches itself.  Since they have nearly 60% of the vote, they may be tempted to try to win all three seats.  To do this, they need only to field three candidates. The Red Party, aware of their relative weakness, choose only to contest two and thus to concentrate their vote.

Assuming 100,000 electors in the town casting two votes each, the results might thus be:

By fielding three candidates the Blue Party hopelessly split their vote, despite having a clear majority in the town.

As can be seen from this example, limited voting does not always produce proportional representation.

Another way in which the system may fail to achieve fair representation is if the largest party is very well organised and can arrange the distribution of its supporters' vote for maximum advantage.

In Spain, where limited voting was used for most elections until 1936 (and it's still used today for the Senate) this practice was known as ir al copo (from the verb copar, 'to fulfill'). In both 1977 and 1979 Spanish general elections, the Union of the Democratic Centre won all three seats on the constituency of Gran Canaria.

Another historical example of this was the 1880 election for the three members of parliament for the English city of Birmingham. Electors could cast up to two votes.
Liberal candidate filled all three seats leaving the Conservatives without representation. This is despite the Liberal vote being split among three candidates.
Thus the Limited Vote did not produce mixed representation. The Conservative party may have had only about 15,000 supporters and the Liberal candidates may have had support from about 31,000 so the unfairness of the result is not as stark as it seems from seeing 29,000 Conservative votes disregarded. But due to Limited Voting, it could have been that Conservative candidates received one vote from 29,000 voters and Liberal candidates received at least one vote from all 47,000 voters. Judging the fairness of elections results (and perceiving the portion of voters who saw their choice elected) is much easier when each voter has just one vote.

Total votes cast  = 94,635.

Estimated number of voters who voted = 47,318 (or more)

Eligible electors = 63,398

Turn-out = 74.6 percent

 Note: Turnout is based on estimated number of voters who voted, calculated by dividing votes cast by two. To the extent that electors did not use both their possible votes (and thus more voted than the number of votes cast divided by two), turnout will be underestimated.

Charles Seymour in Electoral Reform in England and Wales explained the reaction of the Liberals of Birmingham after the limited vote was enacted.

The Liberals of Birmingham realized that if they were to retain the third seat, their vote must be divided economically between the three candidates.
To prevent waste of votes, an organization must be built up which could control absolutely the choice of the elector; and each elector must vote invariably as he was told. The success of the Birmingham organization, which soon became known as the Caucus was unbroken and no Conservative candidate was returned. It was copied in many other constituencies and inaugurated a new era in the development of party electoral machinery, the effect of which upon the representative system has been profound.

Under single voting in 3-seat district (such as Single non-transferable voting), with the same (likely) voting behavior -- 31,000 Liberal voters and 15,000 Conservative voters -- it seems likely that the Conservatives would have filled one seat if they had run just one candidate. If the Conservative party ran two candidates, it is likely Liberals would win all three seats as under Limited voting.

History and current use
Historic
In Argentina for the Chamber of Deputies elections, between 1912 and 1948, and between 1958 and 1962.
In Spain for general, provincial and local elections until 1936.
In Portugal for legislative elections between 1911 and 1919.
Between 1867 and 1885 in the UK for some House of Commons constituencies.
In Italy at the end of the nineteenth century.
In Japan during the US-led Allied occupation in the first post-war election in 1946 permitting two votes per voter in districts with ten or fewer representatives and three votes in districts with more than ten representatives.
In Estonia, for the Congress of Estonia election in 1990.
In Canada in Ontario provincial elections in 1896 and 1900 to elect Toronto MLAs.

Current
In Spain since the restoration of democracy (the end of governance by General Franco) to elect senators from/for the mainland (three votes per voter for four seats per province).
In the US to elect most municipal offices in Connecticut, many county commissions in Pennsylvania, and some in other states. It has been adopted to resolve voting rights cases in more than 20 municipalities in Alabama and North Carolina, as detailed in Arrington and Ingalls' 1998 article "The limited vote alternative to affirmative districting" (Political Geography, Volume 17, Number 6, Aug 1998, pp. 701–728). In 2009 a federal judge ordered its use for school board elections in Euclid, Ohio.
In Gibraltar (10 votes per voter for all 17 seats).

'Fixed Ratio' or closed-list version of Limited Vote

The electoral system whereby two seats are assigned to the leading party-list and one seat to the second-placed party-list normally has the same result as limited vote with two votes per voter for three seats. It is used for the Senate of Argentina and 96 out of 128 seats for the Senate of Mexico, as well as the Senate of Bolivia until 2005. A similar system was used for the Bolivian Constituent Assembly elections of 2 July 2006.

See also
 Cumulative voting
 Plurality-at-large voting

References

External links
 A Handbook of Electoral System Design from International IDEA
 Electoral Design Reference Materials from the ACE Project

Semi-proportional electoral systems

Limited voting


Inspection in  manufacturing is conducting inspection during the production process. This approach of inspection helps to control the quality of products by helping to fix the sources of defects immediately after they are detected, and it is useful for any factory that wants to improve productivity, reduce defect rates, and reduce re-work and waste.

Positive impact
Reduces end-line defects
Saves time and efforts of final inspection
Helps to fix the problems at the outset, and prevents common mistakes being made repeatedly
Helps to ensure quality of the products of a production line

See also
 Quality control
 Good manufacturing practice

References
Daizhong Su, Qingbin Zhang and Shifan Zhu. (2009). In-line inspection.

Industrial engineering

Inspection in manufacturing


A viral video is a video that becomes popular through a viral process of Internet sharing, typically through video sharing websites such as YouTube as well as social media and email. For a video to be shareable or spreadable, it must focus on the social logics and cultural practices that have enabled and popularized these new platforms.

Viral videos may be serious, and some are deeply emotional, but many more are centered on entertainment and humorous content. Notable early examples include televised comedy sketches, such as The Lonely Islands "Lazy Sunday" and "Dick in a Box", Numa Numa videos, The Evolution of Dance, Chocolate Rain on YouTube; and web-only productions such as I Got a Crush... on Obama. Some eyewitness events have also been caught on video and have "gone viral" such as the Battle at Kruger.

One commentator called the Kony 2012 video the most viral video in history (about 34,000,000 views in three days and 100,000,000 views in six days), but "Gangnam Style" (2012) received one billion views in five months and was the most viewed video on YouTube from 2012 until "Despacito" (2017).

History
Videos were shared long before YouTube or even the Internet by word-of-mouth, film festivals, VHS tapes, and even to fill time gaps during the early days of cable. Perhaps the earliest was Reefer Madness, a 1936 "educational" film that circulated under several different titles. It was rediscovered by Keith Stroup, founder of NORML, who circulated prints of the film around college film festivals in the 1970s. The company who produced the prints, New Line Cinema, was so successful they began producing their own films. The most controversial was perhaps a clip from a newscast from Portland, Oregon in November 1970. In the clip, the disposal of a beached whale carcass by dynamite is documented, including the horrific aftermath of falling mist and chunks since the exclusion zone was not big enough. The exploding whale story obtained urban legend status in the Northwest and gained new interest in 1990 after Dave Barry wrote a humorous column about the event, leading to copies being distributed over bulletin board systems around 1994.

The "humorous home movie" genre dates back at least to 1963, when the TV series "Your Funny, Funny Films" debuted. The series showcased amusing film clips, mostly shot on 8mm equipment by amateurs. The idea was revived in 1989 with America's Funniest Home Videos, a series described by an ABC executive as a one-time "reality-based filler special" that was inspired by a segment of a Japanese variety show, Fun With Ken and Kaito Chan, borrowing clips from various Japanese home video shows as well. Now the longest-running primetime entertainment show in the history of ABC, the show's format includes showing clips of home videos sent in to the show's committee, and then the clips are voted on by a live filmed audience, with the winners awarded a monetary prize.

During the internet's public infancy, the 1996 Seinfeld episode "The Little Kicks" addresses the distribution of a viral video through non-online, non-broadcast means.  It concludes with the citizens of New York City having individually witnessed Elaine's terrible dancing via a bootleg copy of a feature film, establishing that the dancing footage had effectively gone viral.

Viral videos began circulating as animated GIFs small enough to be uploaded to websites over dial-up Internet access or through email as attachments in the early 1990s. Videos were also spread on message boards, P2P file sharing sites, and even coverage from mainstream news networks on television. Two of the most successful viral videos of the early internet era were "The Spirit of Christmas" and "Dancing Baby". "The Spirit of Christmas" surfaced in 1995, spread through bootleg copies on VHS and on the internet, as well as an AVI file on the PlayStation game disc for Tiger Woods 99, later leading to a recall. The popularity of the videos led to the creation of the television series South Park after it was picked up by Comedy Central. "Dancing Baby", a 3D-rendered dancing baby video made in 1996 by the creators of Character Studio for 3D Studio MAX, became something of a mid-late 1990s cultural icon in part due to its exposure on worldwide commercials, editorials about Character Studio, and the popular television series Ally McBeal. The video may have first spread when Ron Lussier, the animator who cleaned up the raw animation, began passing the video around his workplace, LucasArts.

Later distribution of viral videos on the internet before YouTube, which was created in 2005 and bought by Google in 2006, were mostly through websites dedicated to hosting humorous content, such as Newgrounds and YTMND, although message boards such as eBaum's World and Something Awful were also instrumental. Notably, some content creators hosted their content on their own websites, such as Joel Veitch's site for his band Rather Good, which hosted quirky Flash videos for the band's songs; the most popular was "We Like the Moon", whose viral popularity on the internet prompted Quiznos to parody the song for a commercial. The most famous self-hosted home of viral videos is perhaps Homestar Runner, launched in 2000 and still running. The introduction of social media such as Facebook and Twitter has created even more avenues for videos to go viral. More recently, there has been a surge in viral videos on video sharing sites such as YouTube, partially because of the availability of affordable digital cameras. Beginning in December 2015, YouTube introduced a "trending" tab to alert users to viral videos using an algorithm based on comments, views, "external references", and even location. The feature reportedly does not use viewing history to serve up related content, and the content may be curated by YouTube.

Qualification

There are several ways to gauge whether a video has "gone viral". The statistic perhaps most mentioned is number of views, and as sharing has become easier, the threshold requirement of sheer number of views has increased. YouTube personality Kevin Nalty (known as Nalts) recalls on his blog: "A few years ago, a video could be considered 'viral' if it hit a million views", but says as of 2011, only "if it gets more than 5 million views in a 3–7-day period" can it be considered "viral". To compare, 2004's Numa Numa received two million hits on Newgrounds in its first three months (a figure explained in a 2015 article as "a staggering number for the time").

Nalts also posits three other considerations: buzz, parody, and longevity, which are more complex ways of judging a viral video's views. Buzz addresses the heart of the issue; the more a video is shared, the more discussion the video creates both online and offline. What he emphasizes is notable is that the more buzz a video gets, the more views it gets. A study on viral videos by Carnegie Mellon University found that the popularity of the uploader affected whether a video would become viral, and having the video shared by a popular source such as a celebrity or a news channel also increases buzz. It is also part of the algorithm YouTube uses to predict popular videos. Parodies, spoofs and spin-offs often indicate a popular video, with long-popular video view counts given with original video view counts as well as additional view counts given for the parodies. Longevity indicates if a video has remained part of the Zeitgeist.

Reasons for popularity
Due to their societal impact and marketability, viral videos attract attention in both advertising and academia, which try to account for the reason viral videos are spread and what will make a video go viral. Several theories exist.

A viral video's longevity often relies on a hook which draws the audience to watch it. The hook, often a memorable phrase or moment, is able to become a part of the viral video culture after being shown repeatedly. The hooks, or key signifiers, are not able to be predicted before the videos become viral. The early view pattern of a viral video can be used to forecast its peak day in future. Notable examples include "All your base are belong to us", based on the poorly translated video game Zero Wing, which was first distributed in 2000 as a GIF animation and became popular for the grammatically incorrect hook of its title, and Don Hertzfeldt's 2000 Academy Awards Best Animated Short Film nomination "Rejected" with the quotable hooks "I am a banana" and "My spoon is too big!" Another early video was the Flash animation "The End of the World", created by Jason Windsor and uploaded to Albino Blacksheep in 2003, with quotable hooks such as "but I'm le tired" and "WTF, mates?"

Rosanna Guadagno, a social psychologist at the University of Texas at Dallas, found in a study that people preferred to share a funny video rather than one of a man treating his own spider bite, and overall they were more likely to share any video that evoked an intense emotional response. Two professors at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania also found that uplifting stories were more likely to be shared on the New York Times' web site than disheartening ones.

Others postulate that sharing is driven by ego in order to build up an online persona for oneself. Chartbeat, a company that measures online traffic, compiled data comparing the amount of time spent reading an article and the number of times it was shared and found that people often post articles on Twitter they haven't even read.

Categories by subject

Band and music promotion

Many independent musicians, as well as large companies such as Universal Music Group, use YouTube to promote videos. Six of the 10 most viral YouTube videos of 2015 were rooted in music.

One such video, the "Free Hugs Campaign" with accompanying music by the Sick Puppies, was one of the winners of the 2006 YouTube Awards. However, the awards received criticism over the voting process and accused of bias. However, the main character of the video, Juan Mann, received positive recognition after being interviewed on Australian news programs and appearing on The Oprah Winfrey Show.

Education

Viral videos continue to increase in popularity as teaching and instructive aids. In March 2007, an elementary school teacher, Jason Smith, created TeacherTube, a website for sharing educational videos with other teachers. The site now features over 54,000 videos. Some college curricula are now using viral videos in the classroom as well. As of 2009, Northwestern University offers a course called "YouTubing 101". The course invites students to produce their own viral videos, focusing on marketing techniques and advertising strategies.

Customer complaints
"United Breaks Guitars", by the Canadian folk rock music group Sons of Maxwell, is an example of how viral videos can be used by consumers to pressure companies to settle complaints. Another example is Brian Finkelstein's video complaint to Comcast, 2006. Finkelstein recorded a video of a Comcast technician sleeping on his couch. The technician had come to repair Brian's modem but had to call Comcast's central office and fell asleep after being placed on hold waiting for Comcast.

Cyberbullying
The Canadian high school student known as Star Wars Kid was subjected to significant harassment and ostracizing after the viral success of his video (first uploaded to the Internet on the evening of 14 April 2003). His family accepted a financial settlement after suing the individuals responsible for posting the video online.

In July 2010, an 11-year-old child with the pseudonym "Jessi Slaughter" was subjected to a campaign of harassment and cyberbullying following the viral nature of videos they had uploaded to Stickam and YouTube. As a result of the case, the potential for cyberbullying as a result of viral videos was widely discussed in the media.

Police misconduct

The Chicago Tribune reported that in 2015, nearly 1,000 civilians in the United States were shot and killed by police officers—whether the officers responsible were justified is now often publicly called into question in the age of viral videos. As more people are uploading videos of their encounters with police, more departments are encouraging their officers to wear body cameras. The procedure for releasing such video is currently evolving and could potentially incriminate more suspects than officers, although current waiting times of several months to release such videos appear to be attempted cover-ups of police mistakes. In October 2015, then-FBI Director James Comey remarked in a speech at the University of Chicago Law School that the increased attention on police in light of recent viral videos showing police involved in fatal shootings has made officers less aggressive and emboldened criminals. Comey has acknowledged that there are no data to back up his assertion; according to him, viral videos are one of many possible factors such as cheaper drugs and more criminals being released from prison. Other top officials at the Justice Department have stated that they do not believe increased scrutiny of officers has increased crime.

Two videos went viral in October 2015 of a white school police officer assaulting an African-American student. The videos, apparently taken with cell phones by other students in the classroom, were picked up by local news outlets and then further spread by social media.

Dash cam videos of the Chicago police murder of Laquan McDonald were released after 14 months of being kept sealed, which went viral and sparked further questions about police actions. Chicago's mayor, Rahm Emanuel, fired Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy and there have also been demands for Emanuel to resign. A similar case, in which Chicago police attempted to suppress a dash cam video of the shooting of Ronald Johnson by an officer, is currently part of an ongoing federal lawsuit against the city.

Political implications
The 2008 United States presidential election showcased the impact of political viral videos. For the first time, YouTube hosted the CNN-YouTube presidential debates, calling on YouTube users to pose questions. In this debate, the opinions of viral video creators and users were taken seriously. There were several memorable viral videos that appeared during the campaign. In June 2007, "I Got a Crush... on Obama", a music video featuring a girl claiming to have a crush on presidential candidate Barack Obama, appeared. Unlike previously popular political videos, it did not feature any celebrities and was purely user-generated. The video garnered many viewers and gained attention in the mainstream media.

YouTube became a powerful source of campaigning for the 2008 Presidential Election. Every major party candidate had their own YouTube channel in order to communicate with the voters, with John McCain posting over 300 videos and Barack Obama posting over 1,800 videos. The music video "Yes We Can" by will.i.am demonstrates user-generated publicity for the 2008 Presidential Campaign.  The video depicts many celebrities as well as black and white clips of Barack Obama. This music video inspired many parodies and won an Emmy for Best New Approaches in Daytime Entertainment.

The proliferation of viral videos in the 2008 campaign highlights the fact that people increasingly turn to the internet to receive their news. In a study for the Pew Research Center in 2008, approximately 2% of the participants said that they received their news from non-traditional sources such as MySpace or YouTube. The campaign was widely seen as an example of the growing influence of the internet on United States politics, a point further evidenced by the founding of viral video producers like Brave New Films.

During the 2012 United States presidential election, "Obama Style" and "Mitt Romney Style", the parodies of Gangnam Style, both peaked on Election Day and received approximately 30 million views within one month before Election Day. "Mitt Romney Style", which negatively portrays Mitt as an affluent, extravagant, and arrogant businessman, received an order of magnitude views more than "Obama Style".

Financial implications
The web traffic gained by viral videos allows for advertising revenue. The YouTube website is monetized by selling and showing advertising. According to the New York Times, YouTube uses an algorithm called "reference rank" to evaluate the viral potential of videos posted to the site. Using evidence from as few as 10,000 views, it can assess the probability that the video will go viral. Before YouTube implemented wide-scale revenue sharing, if it deemed the video a viable candidate for advertising, it contacted the original poster by e-mail and offered a profit-sharing contract. By this means, such videos as "David After Dentist" have earned more than $100,000 for their owners. One successful YouTube video creator, Andrew Grantham, whose "Ultimate Dog Tease" had been viewed more than 170,000,000 times (as of June 2015), entered an agreement with Paramount Pictures in February 2012 for the development of a feature film. The film was to be written by Alec Berg and David Mandel. Pop stars such as Justin Bieber and Esmée Denters also started their careers via YouTube videos which ultimately went viral. By 2014, pop stars such as Miley Cyrus, Eminem, and Katy Perry were regularly obtaining web traffic in the order of 120 to 150 million hits a month, numbers far in excess of what many viral videos receive.

Companies also use viral videos as a type of marketing strategy. The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty is considered to have been one of the first viral marketing strategies to hit the world when Dove released their Evolution video in 2006. Their online campaign continued to generate viral videos when Real Beauty Sketches was released in 2013 and spread all throughout social media, especially Facebook and Twitter.

Notable sites

 Albino Blacksheep
 Break.com
 BuzzFeed
 eBaum's World
 Fail Blog
 Facebook
 Google Video
 Instagram
 JibJab
 LiveLeak
 Metacafe
 Newgrounds
 Nico Nico Douga
 TikTok
 Upworthy
 Vine
 Veoh.com
 VT (Viral Thread)
 WorldStar HipHop
 YouTube
 YTMND

See also

Internet meme
List of Internet phenomena
List of viral videos
List of viral music videos
Positive feedback
Seeding agency
Shock site
Streisand effect
Viral marketing

References

External links
CMU Viral Videos A public data set for viral video study.
Viral Video Chart Guardian News, UK.
Photos Gone Viral!  — slideshow by Life magazine
YouTube 'Rewind' – YouTube's page covering their top-viewed videos by year and brief information on their spread.
The Worlds of Viral Video  Documentary produced by Off Book (web series)

Viral video


Predatory pricing is a commercial pricing strategy which involves the use of large scale undercutting to eliminate competition. This is where an industry dominant firm with sizable market power will deliberately reduce the prices of a product or service to loss-making levels to attract all consumers and create a monopoly. For a period of time, the prices are set unrealistically low to ensure competitors are unable to effectively compete with the dominant firm without making substantial loss. The aim is to force existing or potential competitors within the industry to abandon the market so that the dominant firm may establish a stronger market position and create further barriers to entry. Once competition has been driven from the market, consumers are forced into a monopolistic market where the dominant firm can safely increase prices to recoup its losses.

The critical difference between predatory pricing and other market strategies is the potential for consumer harm in the long-term. Despite initial buyer's market created through firms' competing for consumer preference, as the price war favours the dominant firm, consumers will be forced to accept fewer options and higher prices for the same goods and services in the monopolistic market. If strategy is successful, predatory pricing can cause consumer harm and is, therefore, considered anti-competitive in many jurisdictions making the practice illegal under numerous competition laws.

Concept
Predatory pricing is split into a two-stage strategy.

The first stage of predatory pricing (predation) involves the dominant firm offering goods and services at below-cost rate which, in turn, leads to a reduction in the firm's immediate short-term profits. This drop in price forces the market price for those goods or services to readjust to this lower price, putting smaller firms and industry entrants at risk of exiting the industry. The principle behind this strategy is that, unlike new entrants and current players, the dominant firm has the size and capital to sustain short-term loss in profits, thus forcing a game of survival that the dominant firm is likely to win.

The second stage is the recoupment, during which the dominant firm readjusts its product and service prices to approach monopoly prices (or a monopoly price, depending on remaining industry players and the dominant firm's market share) to recover their losses in the long-term. This price adjustment can put consumers under pressure, as they are now forced to accept the higher price without any fair-priced competition, thus resulting in consumer harm. This is what differentiates predatory pricing from normal competitive pricing. Under EU law, the European Commission can account for recoupment as a factor when determining whether predatory pricing is abusive. This is because predatory pricing can only be considered economically effective if a firm can recover its short-term losses from pricing below Average Variable Costs (AVC). However, recoupment is not a precondition for establishing whether predatory pricing is an abuse of dominance under Article 102 TFEU. Assessing other factors, such as barriers to entry, can suffice in demonstrating how predatory pricing can lead to foreclosure of competitors from the market.

The use of predatory pricing to gain a foothold in a market in one territory while maintaining high prices in the suppliers' home market (also known as "dumping") creates a risk that the loss-making product will find its way back to the home market and drive down prices there. This can result in negative effects on the home market and cause harm to domestic supplies and producers. Due to this, countries often have laws and regulations enforced to prevent dumping and other forms of predatory pricing strategies that may distort trade.

Legal features
1. The principal aspect of predatory pricing is that the seller in the market has a certain economic or technical strength which distinguishes it from price discrimination, where competition exists amongst both buyers and sellers.

2. The geographic market for predatory pricing is the country's domestic market which differentiates it from "dumping". Dumping refers to the practice of selling commodities in overseas markets at a lower price than within the domestic market. Though it can be determined that both concepts have similarities in terms of "low-cost sales" and "exhaustion of competitors," numerous differences have been noted:

(1) The scopes of application of the two are different. Predatory pricing applies to domestic trade, while dumping applies to international trade.

(2) The identification standards of the two are different. Predatory pricing is based on cost, while dumping is based on the price applicable to the normal trading of similar domestic products.

(3) The laws applicable to both are different. Predatory pricing mainly falls under domestic laws, while dumping falls to international treaties or the laws of other countries.

(4) The consequences of the two are different. Legal sanctions for predatory pricing are compensatory damages or administrative penalties, while dumping involves the levying of anti-dumping duties.

3. The objective performance of predatory pricing is that a company temporarily sells goods or services below cost to eliminate competitors from a certain market and create exclusivity. The predatory pricing company can then sell goods and services at monopoly prices to compensate the losses from initial low price sales.

4. A dominant firm's subjective intention may be to eliminate competition to gain a monopoly advantage. Under EU law, if a dominant firm prices above AVC but below Average Total Costs (ATC), proving intention can be useful evidence for finding predatory pricing. However, difficulty is faced when distinguishing between an intention to eliminate competitors and an intention to win competition. Thus, the European Commission do not have to establish an undertaking's subjective intention to prove that Article 102 applies, as abuse is an objective rather than a subjective concept.

Implementation conditions
1. Sacrificing short-term profits

The economic theory of predatory pricing involves a company pricing its goods and services to generate less revenue in the short term, thus, eliminating competitors and increasing market power. The theory does not explicitly state that profits must be negative in order for this to be achieved. In anti-monopoly law enforcement, determining the level of pricing that constitutes predatory pricing can be difficult in operation. The generally acceptable standard is that during a period of predatory prices, the predator's profit will be negative where the price is lower than the initial cost. However, with this the question arises as to what kind of cost should be used as a reference. The use of a price that is lower than the cost may make certain predatory pricing practices not legally binding.

According to the theory of industrial organization, some predatory pricing practices may not necessarily lead to negative short-term profits. However, in this particular case, the company's ability to make low-cost profits can indicate that the company is a highly efficient company compared to its competitors. This does not necessarily indicate that such instances will lead to reduced benefits in the long-term as non-entry of entrants does not necessarily reduce welfare, and entry of entrants does not necessarily improve it. Consequently, anti-monopoly law ignores this and does not result in major welfare losses.

2. The ability of incumbent company to raise prices

An important condition for predatory pricing is that, after excluding competitors, a dominant firm can raise prices to compensate for their short-term losses. To achieve this, market power can be an important factor. However, under EU law, market power is not necessary to establish predatory pricing, since other factors such as barriers to entry can indicate an abuse of a dominant position.

It is also important to note the barriers to entry impact on a dominant firm's ability to raise the price of their goods and services. On the exclusion of these barriers, other firms could theoretically enter any market where an incumbent firm is enjoying economic profits, thereby preventing the dominant firm from sufficiently raising prices high enough to recoup the costs of lowering price.

Theories for controlling predatory pricing
It can be difficult to identify when normal price competition turns into anti-competitive predatory pricing. Therefore, various rules and economic tests have been established to identify predatory pricing.

No rule
According to Easterbrook, predatory pricing is rare and should not be considered a central concern. Introducing laws against predation, especially because it is rare, could lead to generating false positive errors, which would restrict the rule. The main point of the argument is that government intervention is dispensable, as predation is unlikely to succeed and creates a deterrent effect on its own. The deterrent effect results from selling goods and services below the costs, which causes losses without the gain in market power. In this case, the market power does not increase due to the market share holder weathering the predatory strategy. Thus, the firm punished itself by taking losses without gaining market share. As a consequence, this acts a deterrent for other firms. An additional argument against the implementation of rules is the inability of courts or competition authorities to differentiate predatory from competitive prices.

Short-term loss rules and the Areeda-Turner test
In 1975, Phillip Areeda and Donald Turner developed a short-run cost-based test, widely referred to as the 'Areeda-Turner rule'. The rules are based on short term focus due to the long run focus being too speculative and inefficient. The Areeda-Turner rule suggests prices at or above reasonable expected average variable costs (AVC) are presumed to be lawful, but prices below AVC are presumed to be unlawful and anti-competitive.

In EU law, the approach to testing for predatory pricing under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) has been explained in a number of important cases.

In ECS/AKZO, the European Commission did not adopt the Areeda-Turner rule. The Court of Justice upheld this decision for the inclusion of other factors (such as proof of intention to eliminate competition) to be taken into consideration alongside a cost-based analysis. Instead, the Court in AKZO suggested that if a dominant firm sets prices below AVC, the predatory pricing is presumed to be abusively predatory due to the assumed intention to eliminate competitors rather than maximize profits. However, a strategy would not be presumed predatory were a dominant firm to set prices above AVC but below ATC unless evidence were provided to show dominant firm's plan to eliminate competition. Additionally, if a dominant firm sets prices above ATC, the firm is most commonly not found guilty of predatory pricing, though, still may be proven anti-competitive if potential for substantial consumer harm is discovered. The AKZO test was reaffirmed in Tetra Pak II, and France Télécom.

In Post Danmark I, the Court of Justice developed upon AKZO by stating that prices above average incremental costs but below ATC would not likely be ruled abusive under Article 102 of the TFEU if there was no evidence the dominant firm deliberately intended to eliminate competition.

Long-term cost-based rule
Posner's long-term cost-based rule assumes that long-run marginal costs are a more reliable test of predation than short-run costs. This is due to the predator, who prices at short-run marginal cost, having the ability to eliminate competitors that cannot afford the same losses in the short-run. To determine predation, Posner brought forth a test that substitutes the average costs from the firm's balance sheet to establish a test that relates to the full average costs based on the company's books. The test would include certain prerequisites, an intent element, as well as a defense. As a prerequisite, Posner requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the market was predestined for effective predatory pricing. As indicators, Posner lists, for instance, that the predator operates in various markets, whereas the prey operates in fewer markets, concentrated markets, slow entry, few fringe firms, homogenous products and numerous buyers. Posner would authorize the firm to defend due to changes in supply or demand, allowing the respondent firm to price its products at short-run marginal cost.

According to the European Commission's "Guidance on the Commission's Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82 of the Treaty to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct by Dominant Undertakings", if a dominant firm does not cover its average avoidable costs or long-run average incremental costs, this implies the dominant firm is operating at a loss in the short-term to foreclose equally efficient competitors from the market. The Guidance does not bind the EU Courts, however, it is an important document that could influence future decisions.

Rules governing price increases after predation
William Baumol proposed a long-term rule seeking to avoid full reliance on cost-based tests to determine predatory pricing. Baumol's rule involves requiring any price cut made in response to entry to continue for a five-year period after the exit of the entrant (i.e., if an incumbent firm cuts its price to drive out an entrant, the incumbent firm is prevented from increasing price for five years). This rule significantly diminishes the incentive of a firm to engage in predatory pricing since the predatory firm cannot reap the benefits of its anti-competitive behavior (monopoly profits) during the five-year period. Baumol's proposed rule is not absolute, however, it does offer the predator some freedom to raise its post-exit price if the price increase is justified by demonstrable changes in the firm's costs or market demand.

Further strategies

Industry-specific rules
Craswell and Fratrik suggest that establishing a legal standard to detect predatory pricing in the retail industry is unnecessary and should not amount to an antitrust violation. The primary reasoning was that predatory pricing typically requires strong barriers to entry to generate profits in the long run, which are absent in the retail grocery industry. When low-cost warehouse stores enter the market, supermarkets often reduce their prices to eliminate this competition or discourage them from expansion. However, Craswell and Fratrik suggest that this may not be predatory pricing, but rather incumbent firms engaging in non-predatory price cuts required for ordinary competition.

Rule of reason test
Section 1 of the Sherman Act Antitrust Act of 1890 prohibits 'every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.' However, Courts have adopted the rule of reason test to analyze the effects of a restraint of trade on competition. Recent case law suggests that there is a four-step rule of reason test. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate an "anti-competitive effect." Second, the defendant must show a "legitimate procompetitive justification." Third, the plaintiff must highlight that the restraint is not "reasonably necessary" to achieve the defendant's objectives or that there are "less restrictive alternatives." Fourth, the Court will balance the restraint of trade's "anti-competitive effects with its pro-competitive justifications." Failure to satisfy any of these elements will defeat the anti-trust violation claim.

Output restriction rule
Williamson offers the output restriction rule to restrain dominant firms from engaging in predatory pricing. The rule stipulates that upon the entry of a new firm in a market, a dominant firm cannot abuse their position by increasing their output above the pre-entry level. A prevention period of 12 to 18 months should be adequate for new entrants to establish a market identity and understand economies of scale while disincentivizing dominant firms from holding excess capacity. Williamson suggests that the output restriction rule possesses greater welfare properties than the short-run marginal cost rule or short-run average cost rule.

Two tier approach
Joskow and Klevorick offer a two-tier approach to identify predatory pricing. The first stage involves an analysis of the structural characteristics of the relevant market and the market power of the firm allegedly engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the market in which the behaviour occurred would be prone to predatory pricing and cause losses in economic efficiency. The second stage involves behavioural considerations which may demonstrate predation such as the dominant firm pricing below average variable cost.

The Brooke Group rule

The Brooke Group rule was established by the US Supreme Court in 1993 for the particular case involving Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation. Under this rule, to be found guilty of predatory pricing, the plaintiff was to prove the following:

 Defendant set prices to below own cost of production.
 If successful in driving competitors from the market, defendant had high probability of recouping losses through increase in prices in the long-term.
 Defendant had clear intent to engage in predatory pricing

The first element can be proven with sufficient evidence of defendant's costs in the production of their goods and services. The second element can be proven with evidence of the defendant's barriers to entry, market power and other evidence that would likely lead to the increase in prices in the future. The third element would require direct evidence to clearly demonstrate the defendant's plans to manipulate the market through use of predatory pricing strategy. This may be found through capture of firm's internal documents or plans.

If all elements can be proven with sufficient evidence for each, following the Brooke Group rule, the plaintiff may claim for predatory pricing under the US antitrust law.

Legal aspects amongst different countries
In many countries, there are legal restrictions upon using the predatory pricing strategy as it may be deemed anti-competitive. Although it may not be technically illegal, it can be subject to severe restrictions.

Australia
Predatory pricing is illegal in Australia under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (formally known as the Trade Practices Act). The Act prohibits the use of this particular commercial strategy by dominant firms with significant quantity of the market share within the industry of operation. The Act defines the strategy as a dominant firm employing the method of undercutting or underselling with the intention to force competitors to exit or prevent entry to the industry. The dominant firm can only have significant quantity of the market share in an industry if the firm is not substantially impacted or constrained by its competitors on suppliers and consumers.

In 2017, the Australian government amended the Competition and Consumer Act by introducing an "effects test." This particular test determined engagement in predatory pricing if a firm were discovered to be selling goods or services at prices likely to lead to the lessening of competition in a market industry. This amendment to the Act was one of the changes included in the "Harper reforms" that expanded the predatory pricing definition to include the effect of below-cost prices in lessening competition regardless of firm market power. The Harper reforms were introduced to allow for smaller firms to stand ground amongst larger firms engaging in predatory behaviour and anti-competitive strategies.

In 2020, further amendments to the Act created a new threshold test to prohibit those engaging in predatory pricing and strengthen the prohibition of market power misuse. These amendments were made in response to the recommendations made during the Harper reforms. The amendments, labelled the "Birdsville Amendments" after Senator Barnaby Joyce, penned the idea in Section 46, to define the practice more liberally than other behavior by requiring the business to first have a "substantial share of a market" (rather than substantial market power). This was made in a move to further protect smaller businesses from larger players and their misuse of market power.

Canada
Section 50 of the Competition Act, which criminalized predatory pricing, has been repealed and replaced by sections 78 and 79, which both deal with the matters civilly.

Section 78(1)(i) of the Competition Act prohibits companies from the selling of products at unreasonably low prices designed to facilitate the effect of eliminating competition or a competitor. The Competition Bureau has established Predatory Pricing Guidelines defining what is considered unreasonably low pricing.

United States
Predatory pricing practices may result in antitrust claims of monopolization or attempts to monopolize. Businesses with dominant or substantial market shares are more susceptible to antitrust claims. However, as antitrust laws are ultimately intended to benefit consumers, and discounting results in at least short-term net benefit to consumers, the U.S. Supreme Court has set high hurdles to antitrust claims based on predatory pricing theory. The Court requires plaintiffs to show a likelihood that the pricing practices affect not only rivals, but also competition in the market as a whole in order to establish there is a substantial probability of success in monopolization. If there is a likelihood that market entrants will prevent the predator from recouping its investment through supra-competitive pricing, then there is no probability of success and the antitrust claim would fail. Additionally, the Court established that for prices to be predatory, they must be below the seller's cost.

The US Department of Justice, however, argues that modern economic theory based on strategic analysis supports predatory pricing as a real problem, and claims that the courts are out of date and too skeptical.

European Union
Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is the relevant statutory provision under EU law for dealing with predatory pricing. According to Article 102:"Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States."  If Article 102 is breached by a predatory pricing practice, the European Commission may intervene as they prioritize dealing with "exclusionary abuses" which exclude competitors from the market.  According to the 'Guidance in Applying Article 102''', the Commission normally intervene in possible predatory pricing cases if a dominant firm aims to maintain or strengthen its market power by "sacrificing" short-term losses to foreclose "as efficient" competitors, or even "less efficient" competitors. The "as efficient competitor" refers to a hypothetical competitor with the same costs as the dominant firm. The "as efficient competitor" test was endorsed in AKZO as the legal standard for assessing predatory pricing under Article 102.

India
The Competition Act, 2002 outlaws predatory pricing, treating it as an abuse of dominant position, prohibited under Section 4. Predatory pricing under the Act means the sale of goods or provision of services, at a price below cost, as may be determined by regulations, of production of the goods or provision of services, with a view to reduce competition or eliminate the competitors. A contravention of section 4 of the Act is anti-competitive per se, where there is no requirement to prove that the conduct had an anti-competitive effect on the market.

Russian Federation
Article 10 of the Federal Law No.135-FZ 'On the Protection of Competition' (FLPC) (Russian: ст. 10, Федерального закона от 26.07.2006 N 135-ФЗ "О защите конкуренции") deals with unilateral conduct of economic entities by prohibiting abuse of dominant position. The definition of such abuse, as stated in the article, includes   "the setting of an unjustified high or unjustified low price of a financial service by a financial entity".

All the matters connected with the abuse of the market power are handled by the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russian Federation (FAS). The FAS investigates all alleged violations of the antimonopoly legislation and determines whether a dominant position has been exploited by one of the market participants.

United Kingdom
Section 18(1) of the Competition Act 1998 prohibits the abuse of a dominant position by "one or more undertakings... if it may affect trade within the United Kingdom." This is commonly known as the "Chapter II prohibition." The section is very similar to article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union governing the anti-monopoly laws within the EU jurisdiction, with the exception of parts regarding the effect on trade within the UK.

Germany
Sections 19 and 20 of the Act against Restraints of Competition (ARC) prohibit the abuse of a dominant position. Section 19 lists in more detail the entities with market power addressed by the Act. Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union also applies, although it has some differences with the ARC.

Compliance with the Act is enforced by the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) (German: Bundeskartellamt). With the FCO as the higher federal authority, there also exists state cartels in each of the federal states in Germany. The FCO is in the area of responsibility of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (German: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie).

 Austria
The European competition law art. 82 EC and § 5 KartG 2005 prohibit a market dominant enterprise, as well as a collective of several dominant enterprises, from intentionally suppressing a competitor or increasing their respective market share by using methods other than those of legal competitive performance. According to the law, predatory pricing is considered a violation if a market-dominant enterprise controls the local market by offering its goods and services at prices below AVC. However, if prices are below ATC, but above AVC, predattory pricing may not be considered a law violation. Furthermore, if market abuse is directed against competitors, and not against suppliers and clients, Austrian law provides provisions under  § 1UWG (in connection with §5 para. 1 KartG 2005, if there is a competitive relationship). Additionally, according to §1UWG,  predatory pricing can be unconscionable if intended to harm competitors—even without the dominant company incurring losses. Moreover, predatory pricing can be unconscionable according to §1UWG  if the dominant firm expels enough competitors from the market to gain enough market share to dictate prices.

Denmark
According to §6, sec. 1, of the Competition Act (CA), entering into anti-competitive agreements is prohibited.  The CA §6 corresponds to art. 81, sec. 1 of the EC- Treaty and prohibits predatory pricing.

Greece
Generally, Art. 1(1) of the antitrust law (I. 703/1977) prohibits all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices that strive to prevent, restrict, or distort competition in the Greek market. Particularly art. 2(1) of I 703/77 prohibits predatory pricing within Greece.

Sweden
Under Art. 101 TFEU and Section 6 of the Swedish Competition Act (KL), agreements between undertakings with objectives to effect prevention, distortion or restriction of competition are strictly prohibited in Sweden. Price-fixing agreements (where competitors concur to set prices at an agreed level) between competitors are considered "hardcore" restriction of competition and are prohibited. This does not include other types of price agreements between competitors. These agreements may, therefore, be assessed under rule of reason and can be found permissible if no significant anti-competitive effects are identified.

 Criticism
According to economist Thomas DiLorenzo, true predatory pricing is a rare phenomenon and an irrational practice with laws designed to inhibit competition. According to the European Commission, this is because predatory pricing can cause firms to make a loss due to increased output. This stance was taken by the US Supreme Court in the 1993 case Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco. The Federal Trade Commission has not successfully prosecuted any company for predatory pricing since.

Thomas Sowell explains one reason why predatory pricing may not be completely effective:Obviously, predatory pricing pays off only if the surviving predator can then raise prices enough to recover the previous losses, making enough extra profit thereafter to justify the risks. These risks are not small.However, even the demise of a competitor does not leave the survivor home free. Bankruptcy does not by itself destroy the fallen competitor's physical plant or the people whose skills made it a viable business. Both may be available-perhaps at distress prices-to others who can spring up to take the defunct firm's place.The Washington Post went bankrupt in 1933, though not because of predatory pricing. But neither its physical plant, its people, or its name disappeared into thin air. Instead, publisher Eugene Meyer acquired all three-at a fraction of what he had bid unsuccessfully for the same newspaper just four years earlier. In the course of time, the Post became the biggest newspaper in Washington.Critics of laws against predatory pricing may support their case empirically by arguing that there has been no instance where such a practice has actually led to a monopoly. Conversely, they argue that there is much evidence that predatory pricing has failed miserably. For example, Herbert Dow not only found a cheaper way to produce bromine but also defeated a predatory pricing attempt by the government-supported German cartel Bromkonvention, who objected to his selling in Germany at a lower price. Bromkonvention retaliated by flooding the US market with below-cost bromine, at an even lower price than Dow's. However, Dow simply instructed his agents to buy up at the very low price and then sell it back in Germany at a price still lower than Bromkonvention's. In the end, the cartel could not keep up with selling below cost and had to surrender in the price war. This was used as evidence that the free market is a better way to stop predatory pricing than regulations such as anti-trust laws.

In another example of a successful defense against predatory pricing, a price war emerged between the New York Central Railroad (NYCR) and the Erie Railroad.  At one point, NYCR charged only a dollar per car for the transport of cattle. While the cattle cars quickly filled up, management were dismayed to find that Erie Railroad had also invested in the cattle-haulage business, making Erie a buyer of cattle transport, and thus profiting from NYCR's losses.

Sowell argues:It is a commentary on the development of antitrust law that the accused must defend himself, not against actual evidence of wrongdoing, but against a theory which predicts wrongdoing in the future. It is the civil equivalent of "preventive detention" in criminal cases—punishment without proof.Support
An article written by heterodox economist Thomas DiLorenzo and published by the libertarian Cato Institute suggests that while a company might be able to successfully price other firms out of the market, there is no evidence to support the theory that the virtual monopoly could then raise prices. This would be due to other emerging firms rapidly entering the market to compete. Such entrances demand substantial capital investments, which would not be repaid for a substantial period of time due to sharp price decreases, provoked by resumption of competition. According to the Chicago School of Thought advocated by Robert Bork, predatory pricing is not always anti-competitive even if it ends a successful strategy. The Court in Post Danmark agreed predatory pricing does not always harm competition because competing "on the merits" to exclude less-efficient competitors can benefit consumers by providing lower prices, improved quality and choice of products and services.

The DG Competition's 'Discussion Paper' states predatory pricing can sometimes be justified as a rational strategy. This is why dominant firms can rebut presumptions of predatory pricing, despite prices falling below the "relevant cost benchmark". For example, dominant undertaking could argue that changing market conditions have caused reduced demand but increased capacity, and therefore   below-cost pricing was necessary in the short-term to sell off fresh produce. Although this defense is not commonly accepted due to predatory pricing rarely being the most efficient option, it is still possible for predatory pricing to be considered a rational strategy.

Examples of alleged predatory pricing
In AKZO v Commission, AKZO were fined €10 million for abusing its dominant position in the organic peroxides market by reducing its prices to loss-making levels, preventing English firm 'ECS' from competing on the polymer market.
In Tetra Pak v Commission, Tetra Pak were fined €75 million for abusing its dominant position by reducing prices of non-asceptic cartons.
In Wanadoo Interactive, a €10.35 million fine was imposed on France Télécom's subsidiary, Wanadoo Interactive. Based on AKZO, high-speed residential broadband internet services were priced at levels below AVC until August 2001, and later at around AVC but below ATC.
 In ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd, Cabcharge were fined $3 million for engaging in predatory pricing conduct by supplying taxi meters that were below cost and fare schedule updates at no charge. This breached section 46(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
 In MCX v NSE, the NSE abused its dominant position in the currency derivatives segment by waiving transaction and admission fees, thus preventing MCX from competing in the market. This breached section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 and amounted to a Rs 55.5 crore penalty.
According to an AP article a law in Minnesota forced Walmart to increase its price for a one-month supply of the prescription birth control pill Tri-Sprintec from $9.00 to $26.88.
According to a New York Times article the German government ordered Walmart to increase its prices.
According to an International Herald Tribune article, the French government ordered amazon.com to stop offering free shipping to its customers because it violated French predatory pricing laws. After Amazon refused to obey the order, the government proceeded to fine them €1,000 per day. Amazon continued to pay the fines instead of ending its policy of offering free shipping. After a law was created explicitly banning free shipping, Amazon started charging one cent for delivery.
In the Darlington Bus War, Stagecoach Group offered free bus rides to put the rival Darlington Corporation Transport out of business.<span style="visibility:hidden">
Some have accused Amazon of using predatory pricing to undercut competitors such as Quidsi before offering to buy them out at low cost once their financial future had become bleak.
Sir Freddie Laker, founder of Laker Airways, sued IATA member airlines British Airways, BCal, Pan Am, TWA, Lufthansa, Air France, Swissair, KLM, SAS, Sabena, Alitalia and UTA for conspiracy to put his airline out of business by predatory pricing. They settled out of court for US$50 million, with British Airways later agreeing to contribute a further $35 million. British Airways also reached a separate out-of-court agreement with Sir Freddie personally for £8 million.

See also
 Penetration pricing
 Price skimming
 Herbert Henry Dow
 Dumping
 Externality
 Price discrimination
 Robinson–Patman Act (US Federal law passed in 1936)
 Contestable market
 Limit price
 Low-ball

References

 EU Primary Sources Cited

 Article 102 TFEU
 ECS/AKZO (IV/30.698) Commission decision of 14 December 1985
 Case 202/07 P, France Télécom SA v Commission of the European Communities [2009] ECR I-2369
 Case 85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. AG v Commission of the European Communities [1979] ECR II-00461
 Case 209/10, Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet [2012] EU:C:2012:172Case 333/94 P, Tetra Pak International SA v Commission of the European Communities [1996] ECR I-5951
 Case 62/86, AKZO Chemie BV v Commission of the European Communities [1991] ECR I-03359
 Case C-23/14, Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet EU:C:2015:651
 Wanadoo Interactive (Case COMP/38.233) Commission decision of 16 July 2003

 Works cited

 Areeda, Phillip; Turner, Donald (1975). Predatory Pricing and Related Practices under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Harvard Law Review. 88: 697–733 – via JSTOR.
 Bork, Robert (1993). The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy At War With Itself. Simon & Schuster. .
 DG Competition Discussion Paper on the Application of Article 82 of the Treaty to Exclusionary Abuses. Brussels: European Commission. 2005. Retrieved April 22, 2020.
 Ekaterina, Rousseva (2010). Rethinking Exclusionary Abuses in EU Competition Law. Hart Publishing. .
 Guidance on the Commission's Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct by Dominant Undertakings. European Commission. February 24, 2009. Retrieved April 22, 2020.
 Jones, Alison; Sufrin, Brenda; Dunne, Niamh (2019). Jones & Sufrin's EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press. .
 Whish, Richard; Bailey, David (2018). Competition Law. Oxford University Press. .
 Predatory Pricing''. OECD. 1989. Retrieved April 22, 2020.

External links
 Predatory Legislature, by William L. Anderson, Ph.D. Professor of Economics
 Predatory Pricing Laws: Hazardous to Consumers Health, by Donald J. Boudreaux, Ph.D. Economics
 Predatory Pricing: Strategic Theory and Legal Policy, Patrick Bolton, Ph.D. Professor of Finance and Economics
 3M Company FKA Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. LePage's Incorporated, et al., U.S. Supreme Court No. 02-1865
 EU court upholds antitrust fine against France Telecom unit
 FTC Staff Concludes that Alabama Motor Fuels Marketing Act Restricts Competition, Re: The Alabama Motor Fuels Marketing Act
 Predatory Pricing Report

Anti-competitive practices
Commercial crimes
Monopoly (economics)
Pricing controversies
Ethically disputed business practices
Abuse
Competition law

de:Kampfpreisunterbietung

Predatory pricing


Nigel Roebuck (born 1946 in Manchester, Lancashire) is an English journalist. Since 1971 he has reported on Formula One, and is considered one of the sport's most influential writers. From 2007 to 2016 he was editor-in-chief of Motor Sport magazine.

Roebuck was educated at Giggleswick School in North Yorkshire, also the alma mater of Keith Duckworth, another well-known figure in Formula One. He wrote freelance articles for many publications as well as being Press Officer for the Embassy Hill F1 team in 1975. At the same time he was writing for Autosport magazine and became their Grand Prix correspondent in 1976.

Roebuck's weekly column, entitled '5th Column' in deference to Emilio Mola Vidal, a Nationalist general in the Spanish Civil War, became a must-read for its insights into drivers, team managers and some of the self-important bureaucrats running F1 in the late 1970s and 1980s. While covering F1 (a category of racing that he loved more than any other) he became close to several drivers, notably Gilles Villeneuve, Chris Amon, Keke Rosberg, Mario Andretti, Eddie Cheever, Derek Warwick, Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost.

He is also a passionate collector of Roadster-era US oval racing literature.

Among Roebuck's freelance outlets were Autosport, plus Autoweek in the USA and a retrospective column in Motor Sport.

At the end of 2007 he stopped writing his weekly articles for Autosport magazine and website, to concentrate on his new position as editor-in-chief of Motor Sport magazine.

In 1982 Roebuck drove a Formula One Renault turbo at Circuit Paul Ricard in  France.

Roebuck was a commentator for the ESPN coverage of the 1988 Canadian Grand Prix.

In January 2017 Motor Sport magazine announced that Roebuck would no longer be writing for the magazine, returning to his 'spiritual home', Autosport magazine.  His column was one of the most popular in Motor Sport magazine and ran for over nine years.

References

External links
 Motor Sport Magazine
 Autosport.com

1946 births
Living people
British motoring journalists
People educated at Giggleswick School
Formula One journalists and reporters
English motorsport people
Journalists from Manchester

Nigel Roebuck


Ernest Rude (23 January 1871 – 18 March 1948) was a Norwegian photographer. He was born in Drammen as a son of photographer Christoffer Gade Rude (1839–1901) and his wife Andrea Elise Geelmuyden (1839–1920). He was an uncle of Finn Støren.

He started his career in his father's company, and from 1907 to 1910 he ran a company together with Frederik Hilfling-Rasmussen. He continued to run this company until his death in March 1948 in Oslo, from 1943 with Andreas Thorsrud who took it over. As a photographer Rude was best known for portrait photography. He chaired the Norwegian Association of Professional Photographers from 1912 to 1927 and became an honorary member in 1946. He was also an honorary member of the Swedish and Danish associations, and was appointed a Knight of the Order of the Dannebrog in 1925.

Family
Rude was married to Margrete Arneberg (1876–1954), and their son Rolf Rude was a notable painter.

References

1871 births
1948 deaths
People from Drammen
Norwegian photographers
Portrait photographers
Knights of the Order of the Dannebrog

Ernest Rude