Registluciaholy
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
I Mmmmmmm I I Mmmmmmmmm I M I M I
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COPY Return of Private Foundation OMB No. 1545-0052 Form 990-PF I or Section 4947(a)(1) Trust Treated as Private Foundation À¾µ¸ Do not enter social security numbers on this form as it may be made public. Department of the Treasury I Internal Revenue Service Information about Form 990-PF and its separate instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990pf. Open to Public Inspection For calendar year 2014 or tax year beginning , 2014, and ending , 20 Name of foundation A Employer identification number THE WILLIAM & FLORA HEWLETT FOUNDATION 94-1655673 Number and street (or P.O. box number if mail is not delivered to street address) Room/suite B Telephone number (see instructions) (650) 234 -4500 2121 SAND HILL ROAD City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code m m m m m m m C If exemption application is I pending, check here MENLO PARK, CA 94025 G m m I Check all that apply: Initial return Initial return of a former public charity D 1. Foreign organizations, check here Final return Amended return 2. Foreign organizations meeting the 85% test, checkm here m mand m attach m m m m m I Address change Name change computation H Check type of organization:X Section 501(c)(3) exempt private foundation E If private foundation status was terminatedm I Section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust Other taxable private foundation under section 507(b)(1)(A), check here I J X Fair market value of all assets at Accounting method: Cash Accrual F If the foundation is in a 60-month terminationm I end of year (from Part II, col. -
Commerce and Exchange Buildings Listing Selection Guide Summary
Commerce and Exchange Buildings Listing Selection Guide Summary Historic England’s twenty listing selection guides help to define which historic buildings are likely to meet the relevant tests for national designation and be included on the National Heritage List for England. Listing has been in place since 1947 and operates under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. If a building is felt to meet the necessary standards, it is added to the List. This decision is taken by the Government’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). These selection guides were originally produced by English Heritage in 2011: slightly revised versions are now being published by its successor body, Historic England. The DCMS‘ Principles of Selection for Listing Buildings set out the over-arching criteria of special architectural or historic interest required for listing and the guides provide more detail of relevant considerations for determining such interest for particular building types. See https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/principles-of-selection-for-listing-buildings. Each guide falls into two halves. The first defines the types of structures included in it, before going on to give a brisk overview of their characteristics and how these developed through time, with notice of the main architects and representative examples of buildings. The second half of the guide sets out the particular tests in terms of its architectural or historic interest a building has to meet if it is to be listed. A select bibliography gives suggestions for further reading. This guide treats commercial buildings. These range from small local shops to huge department stores, from corner pubs to Victorian ‘gin palaces’, from simple sets of chambers to huge speculative office blocks. -
17 River Prospect: Golden Jubilee/ Hungerford Footbridges
17 River Prospect: Golden Jubilee/ 149 Hungerford Footbridges 285 The Golden Jubilee/Hungerford Footbridges flank the Hungerford railway bridge, built in 1863. The footbridges were designed by the architects Lifschutz Davidson and were opened as a Millennium Project in 2003. 286 There are two Viewing Locations at Golden Jubilee/Hungerford Footbridges, 17A and 17B, referring to the upstream and downstream sides of the bridge. 150 London View Management Framework Viewing Location 17A Golden Jubilee/Hungerford Footbridges: upstream N.B for key to symbols refer to image 1 Panorama from Assessment Point 17A.1 Golden Jubilee/Hungerford Footbridges: upstream - close to the Lambeth bank Panorama from Assessment Point 17A.2 Golden Jubilee/Hungerford Footbridges: upstream - close to the Westminster bank 17 River Prospect: Golden Jubilee/Hungerford Footbridges 151 Description of the View 287 Two Assessment Points are located on the upstream side of Landmarks include: the bridge (17A.1 and 17A.2) representing the wide swathe Palace of Westminster (I) † of views available. A Protected Silhouette of the Palace of Towers of Westminster Abbey (I) Westminster is applied between Assessment Points 17A.1 The London Eye and 17A.2. Westminster Bridge (II*) Whitehall Court (II*) 288 The river dominates the foreground. In the middle ground the London Eye and Embankment trees form distinctive Also in the views: elements. The visible buildings on Victoria Embankment The Shell Centre comprise a broad curve of large, formal elements of County Hall (II*) consistent height and scale, mostly of Portland stone. St Thomas’s Hospital (Victorian They form a strong and harmonious building line. section) (II) St George’s Wharf, Vauxhall 289 The Palace of Westminster, part of the World Heritage Site, Millbank Tower (II) terminates the view, along with the listed Millbank Tower. -
Volume VII, Issue 1
CES Working Papers – Volume VII, Issue 1 www.ceswp.uaic.ro Volume VII, Issue 2A, 2015 EDITORIAL BOARD SCIENTIFIC BOARD: Doina BALAHUR, Professor PhD, Faculty of Philosophy, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Romania Daniela Luminita CONSTANTIN, Professor PhD, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania, President of the Romanian Regional Science Association and member of the Council European Regional Science Association Gabriela DRAGAN, Professor PhD, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania, The General Director of the European Institute in Romania Gheorghe IACOB, Professor PhD, Faculty of History, Vice-Rector of Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Romania Corneliu IATU, Professor PhD, Dean of Faculty of Geography and Geology, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Romania Ion IGNAT, Professor PhD, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Romania Vasile ISAN, Professor PhD, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Rector of Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Romania Gheorghe LUTAC, Professor PhD, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Romania Cosmin MARINESCU, Associate Professor PhD, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania Dumitru MIRON, Professor PhD, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania Gabriela Carmen PASCARIU, Professor PhD, Director of Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Romania Carmen PINTILESCU, Professor PhD, Faculty of Economics and -
THE PHOENIX LIBERATOR, February 4, 1992
THE PHOENIX LIBERATOR FEBRUARY 4, 1992 VOLUME XVIII #3 L.A. Rescinds Contract To Japan l/23/92 #l HATONN Savings & Loan debacle as to risk is just an unfair method of doing tract for the metro-line didn’t make being destroyed by exposure. He is a business--at the expense of citizens in the national news UNTIL the citizens As I monitor your “news” this highly paid businessman now--on the both nations. It is an example Of spoke up and demand& change. It day I wonder that you have as good a b asis of business gleaned from iou- thousands of such transactions taking d oes NOT demand violence--IT DE- grip on happenings as You do. But the-people for Japan place in the secret halls of ma- MANDS NUMBERS! FRANKLY, through it all, Americans in point-- Is Hatonn against Japanese busi- nipUhtiOnS every day, all over your ITDEMANDS NUMBERS OF VOT- you are being heard above the roar of ’ness? No--I love Japan as much as I globe. Another interesting point is ERS~ the lions. What may seem like a small love the United States of America. It that the incident of awarding the con- - thing in the overall scheme of politi- cians is a start indeed. The crowd of 10 Billion More Fol workers and patfiots caused the Los Space Shuttle: Cover for Angeles politicians to back down on a Israel ? plan to -give a multi-million dollar l/23/92 #l HATONN contract to Japan. You will find that Happenings At Edwards actuailly you will have gained little in What is Bush going to do about actual “funding” but you will have the $10 billion for Israel? It is a big made your point. -
Millbank Tower, London Sw1p 4Qp
MILLBANK TOWER, LONDON SW1P 4QP OFFICE TO RENT | 817 - 28,464 SQ FT | £30.00 PER SQ FT (INCL S/C) VICTORIA'S EXPERT PROPERTY ADVISORS TUCKERMAN TUCKERMAN.CO.UK 1 CASTLE LANE, VICTORIA, LONDON SW1E 6DR T (0) 20 7222 5511 MILLBANK TOWER, LONDON SW1P 4QP PLUG & PLAY OFFICES WITH STUNNING VIEWS DESCRIPTION AMENITIES Millbank Tower is located on the north side of the river Thames, with Air Conditioning Pimlico underground a short walk away, with St James’s Park and Raised Floor Westminster Underground Stations a 10 minute walk. Showers & Bike Racks Double Height Entrance Tenants not only benefit from the onsite amenities, but also on Horseferry Road, a two minute walk to the North and Victoria Street, a Manned Reception ten minute walk to the north. The available office floors are fitted to Fantastic Natural Light provide a mixture of open plan and cellular office space. AVAILABILITY TERMS FLOOR SIZE (SQ FT) AVAILABILITY RENT RATES S/C 30th 7,602 Available £30.00 Per Sq Ft (Incl Estimated at £20.00 Inclusive. Part 26th 3,678 27 April 2021 S/C) per sq ft. Part 25th 1,890 Available New lease(s) direct from the Landlord to September 2024. Part 17th 2,555 Available Part 14th 2,331 Available EPC Part 12th 2,665 Available Available upon request. Part 6th 817 Available LINKS Part 2nd 6,926 Available Website Virtual Tour TOTAL 28,464 GET IN TOUCH HARRIET DE FREITAS WILLIAM DICKSON Tuckerman Tuckerman 020 3328 5380 020 3328 5374 [email protected] [email protected] SUBJECT TO CONTRACT. -
Russian Military Thinking and Threat Perception: a Finnish View
CERI STRATEGY PAPERS N° 5 – Séminaire Stratégique du 13 novembre 2009 Russian Military Thinking and Threat Perception: A Finnish View Dr. Stefan FORSS The author is a Finnish physicist working as Senior Researcher at the Unit of Policy Planning and Research at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and as Adjunct Professor at the Department of Strategic and Defence Studies at the National Defence University in Helsinki. The views expressed are his own. Introduction “The three main security challenges for Finland today are Russia, Russia and Russia. And not only for Finland, but for all of us.”1 This quote is from a speech by Finnish Minister of Defence Jyri Häkämies in Washington in September 2007. His remarks were immediately strongly criticised as inappropriate and it was pointed out that his view didn’t represent the official position of the Finnish Government. Mr. Häkämies seemed, however, to gain in credibility a month later, when a senior Russian diplomat gave a strongly worded presentation about the security threats in the Baltic Sea area in a seminar organised by the Finnish National Defence University and later appeared several times on Finnish television.2 The message sent was that Finnish membership in NATO would be perceived as a military threat to Russia. This peculiar episode caused cold shivers, as it reminded us of unpleasant experiences during the post-war period. The Russian military force build-up and the war in Georgia in August 2008 was the ultimate confirmation for all of Russia’s neighbours, that the Soviet-style mindset is not a thing of the past. -
![Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 6 the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) December 2017; C 2-3.] Bill](https://docslib.b-cdn.net/cover/1898/official-report-rural-economy-and-connectivity-committee-6-the-forestry-and-land-management-scotland-december-2017-c-2-3-bill-731898.webp)
Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 6 the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) December 2017; C 2-3.] Bill
Meeting of the Parliament Tuesday 20 March 2018 Session 5 © Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Information on the Scottish Parliament’s copyright policy can be found on the website - www.parliament.scot or by contacting Public Information on 0131 348 5000 Tuesday 20 March 2018 CONTENTS Col. TIME FOR REFLECTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 BUSINESS MOTION ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Motion moved—[Joe FitzPatrick]—and agreed to. URGENT QUESTION ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Brexit Transition Agreement (Fishing Industry) ............................................................................................ 4 TOPICAL QUESTION TIME ................................................................................................................................... 9 Royal Hospital for Children (Water Contamination) ..................................................................................... 9 FORESTRY AND LAND MANAGEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL: STAGE 3 ..................................................................... 13 FORESTRY AND LAND MANAGEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL .................................................................................. 116 Motion moved—[Fergus Ewing]. -
Peter Spens CV
CURRICULUM VITAE PETER SPENS 3 Cranley Gardens, London N10 3AA Date of birth: 24th March 1961 Director of Cranley Gallery Limited since 2001 (formerly Peter Spens Fine Art Limited prior to 2010) TRAINING & PRACTICE 1974-79 Newport Grammar School, Essex 1979-80 Braintree College, Foundation Course in Art & Design 1980-83 Bristol Polytechnic, BA (Hons) Fine Art 1982 Student Exchange to Luminy Univercité, Marseille 1980-85 Periodic study in Florence, Sienna and Rome 1984 Based in Quimper, painted Brittany series 1984-85 Studio in Bristol 1985-86 John Skeaping Residency: Saint Remy de Provence series 1986-88 Gerry Underwood Jazz series 1987-89 Taught drawing at St. Albans and Loughton Colleges 1989-00 Established studio, monotype and landscape series in the Drôme, Southern France 1996> Established London studio and start of the London series 1998-99 Large Thames paintings commenced from Andersen Consulting and Kings Reach Tower 1998-00 New York and Long Island & Greenwich Village commission 1998-08 Highbury Fields series 1999-00 Canada House night paintings, commissioned by Crown Estates 1999-02 Shell Tower 2001-04 Vertigo Bar, Tower 42 series 2002 Painted from Bracken Room, Financial Times, Southwark Bridge 2002-03 Riverside House series 2004-05 HSBC, 40th Floor, Canary Wharf 2005 First 80 Strand series 2006 Stephenson Harwood commission, St Paul’s from the roof of 1 St Paul’s Churchyard 2006 Land Securities commission, Trafalgar Square from 5 Strand series 2007 Tate Modern series 2007 > Hampstead Heath series (ongoing) 2008 > Camel Estuary -
Marking the 30Th
Marking the 30th Marking the 30th anniversary of the Chornobyl disaster in Ukraine - the worst nuclear catastrophe in history. A one-day CEEL event in partnership with the: • Central and Eastern European London Review • Embassy of Ukraine • Association of Ukrainians in GB • Association of Ukrainian Women • Anglo-Belarusian Society Chornobyl: 30 Years On Foreword by the Ambassador of Ukraine to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland “ Her Excellency Mrs Natalia Galibarenko In the morning when I woke up, I did not APRIL 1986 Today, the construction know something had happened until I went was the date of a new safe confine- out of my home….As soon as I went down the 26 when the ment at the Chornobyl world learned the name Nuclear Power Plant is stairs of the apartment block and out through of Chornobyl. underway. The confine- ment, due for comple- the door into the street, I was aware at once In the last 30 years it tion next year, will has become a synonym isolate the destroyed that something was wrong. I could feel on both for a terrible power generating unit my face a tingling as though it was raining technological disaster from the surrounding and ecological catas- environment. although it was not. I felt also a taste of metal trophe on a global scale. The imperatives of in my mouth, and my eyes began to water…. strengthening nuclear This tragedy has safety and overcoming taught mankind that the consequences of As I turned the corner which would bring technological progress technology and the the Chornobyl catas- can produce a bitter environment. -
Height Vs. History Tall Buildings in the Heart of London Controversy Over Tall Buildings in Central London Is Not a Recent Phenomenon
Height vs. history Tall buildings in the heart of London Controversy over tall buildings in central London is not a recent phenomenon. Peter Stewart explains how heated debates on the issue began as long ago as the late nineteenth century. The proposal for a 250m (820ft) tall residential France, Westminster, completed in 1888 (demolished tower to be built next to Paddington Station – in 1973). Crude and joyless in its design, it was the ‘Paddington Pole’ – is the latest in a line of considerably taller than any other London residential controversial tall-building projects to come forward in building at the time and prompted widespread central London over the last two decades. Designed complaints, including one from Queen Victoria, whose by Renzo Piano, the architect of the ‘Shard’ at London view of the Palace of Westminster from Buckingham Bridge (completed in 2012), and promoted by its Palace was obstructed by the block. Several developer Irvine Sellar, the project has provoked generations of royals later, Prince Charles has proved protests from lay commentators and architects alike. just as vociferous a defender of London’s skyline. Journalist Simon Jenkins, a serial opponent of tall The development of the passenger lift had buildings, complained that the scheme flies in the made tall buildings possible from around 1870 but, face of established planning policies which set out while maximum buildings heights in New York and where tall buildings should and should not be built in Chicago increased rapidly, reaching 240m (787ft) London; and architect Sir Terry Farrell has criticised the with the Woolworth Building in New York by 1913, scheme as piecemeal and opportunistic. -
Female Diplomats: Gender Issues of Diplomatic Service in Ukraine and in the World
Поза протоколом: участь жінок у міжнародній політиці Beyond the Protocol: Women and International Politics Female Diplomats: Gender Issues of Diplomatic Service in Ukraine and in the World Olena Zakharova Analytics and External Relations Officer, International Centre for Policy Studies Women’s way in the diplomacy • Wives • Administrative workers (stenographers) • Female-diplomats (single) • Female-diplomats (single and married) • Heads of diplomatic missions (political appointments); • Heads of diplomatic missions (professional promotion) • Deputy Heads and Heads of the Foreign Affairs Ministries of the countries Number of women who head diplomatic missions to the UN 35 30 25 20 35 15 10 15 5 5 0 2002 2012 2015 In 2015 the number of women who headed the diplomatic missions to the UN was 17.2% Number of women who head diplomatic missions in London (%) 2015 17,4 2012 13 2002 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 In November 2015 there were 23 women who headed foreign embassies in London among 132 diplomatic missions US President’s Rating Presidents # of female total # of the % ambassadors ambassadors female-ambassadors Barack Obama 116 367 31,6 % 2009 – George W. Bush 118 474 24,9 % 2001 – 2009 Bill Clinton 78 420 18,6 % 1993 – 2001 George H. W. Bush 22 213 10,3 % 1989 – 1993 Ronald Reagan 21 394 5,3 % 1981 – 1989 Jimmy Carter 19 201 9,5 % 1977 – 1981 Gerald Ford 7 94 7,4 % 1974 – 1977 Richard Nixon 5 242 2,1 % 1969 – 1974 Lyndon Johnson 4 161 2,5 % 1963 – 1969 John Kennedy 3 130 2,3 % 1961 – 1963 Dwight Eisenhower 5 228 2,2 % 1953 – 1961 Harry Truman