Explore the vast range of titles available.

Linda S. Clark is a distinguished scholar of fifteenth-century England, best known for her important contribution to the study of the late medieval English parliament. She has served as general editor of 'The Fifteenth Century' since 2003. This special volume in the series marks her four decades of work for the History of Parliament Trust. As is appropriate, its essays focus above all on Parliament and the personalities that served in its chambers, but they also illuminate a wider range of themes that have long concerned students of the later middle ages, including the lawlessness of the gentry and nobility, the acquisition and management of their estates, and their self-expression in pageantry and legend. Other social groups, ranging from the mercantile élite of the city of London and their Italian trading partners to England's common soldiers, also make an appearance. Several of the papers collected here have a geographical focus in London and East Anglia, but other regions are also represented. The collection thus pays tribute to the breadth of Dr Clark's contribution to the field, both in her own writing, and in her long-standing commitment to facilitate the publication of the original research of others. Contributors: A. J. Pollard, Simon Payling, Charles Moreton, Colin Richmond, J. L. Bolton, James Ross, Carole Rawcliffe, Elizabeth Danbury, Matthew Davies, Hannes Kleineke, David Grummitt, Caroline M. Barron

The advance of populism in Europe and the positioning of this type of politics on the Web are both facts substantiated by scientific research. In this connection, a platform like Twitter serves as a stage for dissemination, interaction, mobilisation and building the personality of influencer/leaders and as a strategic tool for the selection of issues and for propaganda and fake news. The main objective is to know the impact that this communication model has on both digital users and the media, particularly in electoral processes. To this end, a quantitative-qualitative comparative content analysis, which studies the issue frame and the game frame, is performed on the personal Twitter accounts of Marine Le Pen (@MLP_officiel), the leader of Rassemblement National (RN) in France, Matteo Salvini (@matteosalvinimi), the leader of Liga Norte (LN) in Italy, and Santiago Abascal (@Santi_ABASCAL), the leader of Vox in Spain. In the context of the European elections held on the 26 May 2019, a sample of 2,187 tweets, user metrics (‘likes,’ retweets and comments) and their reproduction in the digital newspapers @lemondefr, @repubblica and @el_país are analysed. The initial results evince a strategic use of online tools, with a media and public response that reproduces the populist discourse of the far-right, to the point of making it go viral.

On the basis of a candidate's sex, voters ascribe particular personality traits, capacities, and opinions to candidates (often to the detriment of women), which are referred to as political gender stereotypes. The prevalence of political gender stereotypes has almost exclusively been investigated in the United States. As the presence of these stereotypes is highly dependent on contextual factors, we switch the context and investigate whether they are also present in a List-Proportional Representation (PR) system with a high share of women in parliament spread over different parties. The results of our experimental study, conducted in Flanders (Belgium), provide evidence for the existence of stereotypical patterns. The differences in perceived issue competence are, however, rather small and not always unequivocal, but larger differences were found in terms of ideological position. This leads us to conclude that misperceptions about women's ideological orientation might be persistent and difficult to overcome. Moreover, our results demonstrate that the argument that female politicians are perceived as more leftist because they disproportionately belong to leftist parties does not hold, as female politicians are rather equally spread over the different parties in Belgium.

The definitive guide for ensuring data privacy and GDPR compliance Privacy regulation is increasingly rigorous around the world and has become a serious concern for senior management of companies regardless of industry, size, scope, and geographic area. The Global Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) imposes complex, elaborate, and stringent requirements for any organization or individuals conducting business in the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA)—while also addressing the export of personal data outside of the EU and EEA. This recently-enacted law allows the imposition of fines of up to 5% of global revenue for privacy and data protection violations. Despite the massive potential for steep fines and regulatory penalties, there is a distressing lack of awareness of the GDPR within the business community. A recent survey conducted in the UK suggests that only 40% of firms are even aware of the new law and their responsibilities to maintain compliance. The Data Privacy and GDPR Handbook helps organizations strictly adhere to data privacy laws in the EU, the USA, and governments around the world. This authoritative and comprehensive guide includes the history and foundation of data privacy, the framework for ensuring data privacy across major global jurisdictions, a detailed framework for complying with the GDPR, and perspectives on the future of data collection and privacy practices. * Comply with the latest data privacy regulations in the EU, EEA, US, and others * Avoid hefty fines, damage to your reputation, and losing your customers * Keep pace with the latest privacy policies, guidelines, and legislation * Understand the framework necessary to ensure data privacy today and gain insights on future privacy practices The Data Privacy and GDPR Handbook is an indispensable resource for Chief Data Officers, Chief Technology Officers, legal counsel, C-Level Executives, regulators and legislators, data privacy consultants, compliance officers, and audit managers.

Callous–unemotional traits consist of lack of empathy, guilt and shallow affect. A growing body of research suggests that the presence of these traits are of clinical significance, even if they occur in the absence of concurrent antisocial behavour.

What explains the variation in tone in politics? Different literatures argue that changes in the tone of politicians reflect changes in the economy, general language, well-being, or ideology. So far, these claims have been empirically tested only in isolation, in single country studies, or with a small subset of indicators. We offer an overarching view by modelling the use of tone in European national parliaments in 7 countries across 30 years. Using a semi-supervised sentiment-topic model to measure polarity and arousal in legislative debates, we show in a preregistered multiverse analysis that the tone in legislative debates is not systematically related to previously claimed factors. We also replicate the absence of such systematic relationships using national leader speeches and parties’ election manifestos. There is also no universal trend towards more negativity or emotionality in political language. Overall, our results highlight the importance of multi-lingual and cross-country multiverse analyses for generalizing findings on emotions in politics.

PurposeSocial media have become the main channel of direct communication between members of parliament and constituents. The study analyzes the content in all Israeli MPs' Facebook channels throughout an entire term of parliament and asks if the results are consistent with the equalization or the normalization hypotheses.Design/methodology/approachThe study uses automatic analysis to produce a birds-eye-view of the content uploaded to the Facebook pages of all Israeli MPs during a full term of parliament. All 106 MP pages were automatically scraped. Some complementary information was added to each post in the dataset, such as post length (number of words) and whether the page belongs to a member of the opposition or coalition. The total of 441,974 posts was analyzed to compare engagement and publication rates between pages, coalition vs opposition MPs, MPs vs users etc.FindingsThe findings demonstrate that the MP-Facebook sphere is non-egalitarian, in that it follows skewed distributions by MPs in terms of post publication and engagement rates; non-inclusive, in that pages of coalition members receive significantly much more engagement vis-a-vis pages of members of the oppositions; and “top-down”, in that MP-authored posts receive dramatically more engagement then user-authored posts, suggesting MPs have a near-monopoly on setting the agendas manifest in their pages, while users have extremely limited agenda-setting capabilities in these pages.Originality/valuePrevious studies have looked at the character of the interactions between MPs and constituents on the Internet and particularly on online social media. Yet, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no study provides a birds-eye-view of the content in all MPs' Facebook channels throughout a full term of parliament. Such an analysis provides a more comprehensive understanding of the character and dynamics of conversations that take place in such arenas.

The current historical consensus is that English common law was somewhat confused, but that coerced servitude was legal in England before 1772, and certainly in its empire, where English law on slavery did not reach, because it was “beyond the line” of English justice. The common law is characterized by an effort to see continuity and consistency, and historians (despite our natural desire to track change) often look for those patterns too. Such efforts to provide a consistent overview of an England that was free and colonies that created slavery on their own—have obscured the vibrant struggle over slavery within the English judicial system—the common law—over more than a century. Not only did the common law on slavery change profoundly during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: the common law became an instrument of crown policy. It did so within a federal empire, wherein colonial legal norms had to adhere, in crucial ways, to that common law. English high court judges thus provided the legal foundation for an imperial common law of slavery that allowed people to be deemed absolute property. That definition of people as property was closely connected to absolutism, both in theory and practice. In theory the absolute power of kings over subjects was connected to that of masters over slaves. In practice, the crown's use of the courts to create laws without parliamentary consent (to bypass parliament) also increased crown revenue and thus their independence from parliamentary control. These powerful legal mechanisms made it possible to “recover” enslaved people as assets for debts, a legal definition that was essential for a market in people to function sucessfully. This history reveals the absolutist character of early capitalism, and the extent to which the character of capitalist development depends on the legal rules that define markets and justice.