text:
Talk:Culture theory

Untitled
I am the author of the h2g2 page. I assert that portions of it may be used on Wikipedia. Theanthrope

I think Larry Sanger will have real problems with "Culture is what makes humans people. " -- Tarquin 19:55 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * You still have to address the NPOV issues,

I'll remove some of the more contentious statements. In the meantime, feel free to edit this page. Theanthrope

 * With all due respect, I think you are misunderstanding our advice (if I can presume to speak for Netesq). Don't remove statements because they are contentious -- remove statements that are yours.  We are writing an encyclopedia and we have to be careful to keep our own point of view (as such) out of articles.  Instead, we have to provide accurate and balanced accounts of the state of knowledge concerning various phenomena. There are in fact many contentious debates among cultural theorists, and this article should provide an account of them.  What you need to do is not remove contentious claims, but identify and situate them (for example, "in the 1960s cultural ecologists and cultural relativists were divided over issue x, the former contending (or advocating) y, the latter, z" or something like that. Slrubenstein

 * I echo Slrubenstein's sentiments. To wit, I agree with most of the sentiments that you (Theanthrope) expressed in re culture theory, but there are other points of view which deserve equal time. -- NetEsq 20:27 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

--

i take issue with: "Even reproduction is arguably learned rather than instinctive." -- there are cases of residents of care homes whose learning disabilities were very severe, yet who managed to pair up and produce offspring. -- Tarquin

I revised the first four paragraphs. I cut this -- I think from the third paragraph
 * They rarely stop to consider what is a universal norm and what can be attributed to cultural norms.

because it is unclear who "they" are. If it refers to anthropologists, I flat out disagree. Most anthropologists would say "they" refers to regular people, but even this claim is contentious. Slrubenstein

I was revising the content to refer to the majority view of anthropologists, and I accidentally left "they" as a vestigial reference to the layperson's viewpoint. In the context of laypersons, I don't see the assertion as being that contentious, but neither is it relevant. *Doh!* -- NetEsq 23:00 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

I think the four bullet points needs reconsideration -- I'd like others to weigh in. My primary objection is: I do not see what the difference is between "learned" and "extragenetic transmission;" these are either the same thing, or if there is a difference, an overly simplistic way of parsing a more complex issue. Slrubenstein

 * Learned means someone figured it out without any help, and without relying on instinct. Extragenetic transmission means they then taught it to someone else rather than passing it on through natural selection.  Theanthrope

 * Well, as I thought, the four bullet points may not be the best way to parse something complex. I think the core issue is that humans think symbolically (for a variety of reasons this is a better way of putting it than "abstractly," although I grant the two concepts are close.  But there is a lot at stake when it comes to understanding 19th century debates about diffeences between languages; something can be more or less abstract, but something is or is not symbolic); symbolic thought is tied to both "extragenetic transmission" and creativity -- and I think what you call "learned" is really better understood as "creative."  That, it seems to me, is the key point, not that someone came up with it "on their own."  Although I am sure that some things in human history were purely individual inventions, it really is unlikely (especially given that we are social beings and constantly interacting socially and learning from one another) that most inventions were figured out without anyone else's help.  Capitalist myth celebrates entrepeneurs and innovators, but good histories of technology reveal that what were once thought of as individual inventions in fact did rely on the inspiration and help of others. Slrubenstein

 * The four bullet points would better be phrased as an ordered list, as there is a heirarchy to them. As is shown in the examples that follow, the successive stages are difficult to acheive without first acheiving the preceding ones.  You can't teach something you haven't learned.  The firstpoint is not about whether individuals or groups figure it out, or the implicit reinforcement of capitalist myths.  It's about 'figuring out' rather than doing something instinctively.  Not only humans do this.  I think further explanation should go in the respective section, and the four points should stay.   Theanthrope

 * I understand -- I am suggesting a different hierarchy conceptually: symbolic thinking (a product of human evolution) should come first. It makes possible complex social organization; social learning; and creativity.  But historically, the idea of a hierarchy is a bad idea because neither evolution nor human development works in ordered stages (first comes learning, then comes abstraction, then comes extragenetic transmission, then comes the manufacture of artifacts).  Human social behavior, symbolic thinking, inventiveness, social learning all co-evolved in a feed-back loop.  Moreover, children are born into a social environment... Slrubenstein

 * I agree that the stages of the heirarchy are not distinct. I also think we should apply this lack of distinction to the species that are mentioned in this article, in terms of their capacity for cultural behavior.  In other words, it seems you would ascribe symbolic thinking only to humans.  Dogs too, however, can "get it" and not urinate inside any house.  Learned is the more general term.  If we limit ourselves early on in the article, we may find that the definitions don't apply later on.  I agree that human children do not experience those stages in order, and humans in general have not done so for many millennia.  The four points seek rather to describe a cline of cultural behavor across across the range of species that exhibit it.  Theanthrope

 * Well, I think your last statement clears up some things -- and it is a good example of what I meant to say about NPOV yesterday. There are a number of ways to parse these elements, depending on what your purpose is.  The article should not present one series of elements as if all anthropologists agree on them.  It must make clear that if your purpose is to describe a cline of behavior et., this is one way people parse the elements of culture, but if your purpose is x or y, there are other ways of parsing it (since you have a clearer idea of what you mean, can you work on this in the article?).

 * By the way, I am not sure any other species is capable of full symbolic behavior, see The Symbolic Species (Terence Deacon) which uses a very specific (Pierceian)notion of symbolic. Slrubenstein

 * But surely you must concede that other species are capable of learning. Indeed I will work on it.  Theanthrope

I think symbolic transmission is an essential component of culture qua culture theory, and I think it's pretty clear that homo sapiens are the only species capable of symbolic thinking and symbolic communication. Attempts to teach human language to other primates (e.g., Koko) have demonstrated this, and (thus) this article should emphasize the unique nature of human language and thought. This article should also deal with concepts unique to culture/cultural anthropology, such as world view and kinship and descent. -- NetEsq 15:52 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

A few other things: Although I no longer have my notes or books from my class in culture theory, I distinctly remember reviewing the various schools of culture theory, including, e.g., structural functionalism, and the various founders/proponents of these schools, i.e., e.g., Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, and Kinsley Davis/Wilbert Moore. Correct me if I am wrong, but the four prong breakdown in this article is representative of one particular school of thought, although I can't pinpoint which one. In any event, each school of thought should be given equal time, beginning with the contributions of notable cultural anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Bronislav Malinowski. (See also: Anthropology_basic_topics.) -- NetEsq 16:57 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

 * Ok. Then we should add in the other schools of thought, rather than rephrase/replace.

This definition is far too narrow and human focused. The term "culture" is not owned by anthropologists alone in the sense that they use it. The argument that culture is only a human creation is obviously false. I and many other pack humans communicate with our dogs daily with verbal and visual symbols. Nor is the scientific community restricting the definition to human or even primate activity. For example: whales whales wolves

Wolves: culture is a concept reserved for humans. It involves behavior that is not only learned, but also shared by most members of the group, and then passed on to the next generation. Culture is one of the primary phenonmena distinguishing humans from other animals. We "do" culture; animals do not. Athana 16:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To the writers of the article: You have a good start, here, I think. In addtion to adding alternate points of view, why not also add a simple definition of culture? Might make the article a little more accessible to the general reader. Athana 16:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the book The Nature of Technology should be cited here. It is completely irrelevant for the culture theory discussion. Where are thinkers like Boas, Levi-Strauss, Geertz, Ruth Benedict, Elias? While we dont have those, we should just erase something that doesn't help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.106.140.19 (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusion with Cultural Theory of risk
I am a non-specialist. Can someone who knows what they are talking about sort out the confusion between this article (which is linked to Cultural theory) and the possibly unrelated article Cultural Theory of risk? If the two subjects do relate, then they should be linked in some way. If they do not, then I recommend setting up a disambiguation page to clear this up.Testbed (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Text doesn't belong here?
This text below was recently substituted for the article by a new editor. It seems to relate to the article Cultural Theory of risk and that the editing mistakes could be the result of inexperience. So I have moved the contribution here in case another editor wants to comment/use - and posted this text to the talk page of Cultural Theory of risk as well.

 * ''GROUP / GRID THEORY

 * ''One branch of "cultural theory," known as "group / grid theory," seeks to operationalize the abstract notion of culture. As Mary Douglas has noted, the original aim of group / grid theory was to overcome the limitations of psychological explanations of human behavior and decision making. An emphasis is placed on social organization and norms over individual psyche. The central task of the theory is to plot the social relationship between ideas and moral norms, and social organization [1].

 * ''Cultural / grid theory begins with accessing social pressures and normative behavior. A continuum of social organization is plotted. On one hand there are low levels of social pressure on individuals. On the other hand, there are high levels of social pressure and rule-based governance. Grid theory addresses the intersection of social institutions, ideas and values. The object of analysis need not be a "culture" per se, but could include a wide range of possibilities. For example, one might apply cultural / grid theory to decision making in financial institutions, a convent, a military establishment or a hospital. A detailed, accessible course by Mary Douglas on Group / Grid Theory can be found at The Open Semiotics Resource Center.

 * ''http://www.semioticon.com. ttp://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/douglasoutline.pdf

 * ''Cultural Theory has developed in an interdisciplinary fashion. It has been been advanced by anthropologists, sociologists and semioticians, among others. --Duncan.thaw.lanark (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Testbed (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culture theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110123150543/http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~wbarthur/Papers/Papers.html to http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~wbarthur/Papers/Papers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Culture theory


text:
Gillingham F.C.

Gillingham Football Club is a professional association football club based in the town of Gillingham, Kent, England. The only Kent-based club in the Football League, the "Gills" play their home matches at Priestfield Stadium. The team competes in League Two, the fourth tier of the English football league system, in the 2023–24 season.

The club was founded in 1893 as New Brompton Football Club, a name retained until 1912, and played in the Southern League before joining the Football League in 1920. After 18 unsuccessful seasons, Gillingham were voted out of the league in favour of Ipswich Town at the end of the 1937–38 season, and returned to the Southern League. The club was voted back into the Football League in 1950, when it was expanded from 88 to 92 clubs. Twice in the late 1980s Gillingham came close to winning promotion to the second tier of English football, but a decline then set in and in 1993 they narrowly avoided relegation to the Football Conference. Between 2000 and 2005, Gillingham were in the second tier of the English football league system for the only time in their history, achieving a club record highest league finish of eleventh place in 2002–03.

The club originally played in black and white striped shirts but switched to blue shirts in the 1930s. The club crest has traditionally depicted the white horse symbol of the county of Kent. Priestfield Stadium has been the club's home ground throughout its existence; it once held up to 30,000 fans but in the modern era the capacity is less than half that figure. The club has twice won the championship of English football's fourth tier, in the 1963–64 and 2012–13 seasons, under managers Freddie Cox and Martin Allen respectively.

Early years
The local success of a junior football side, Chatham Excelsior F.C., encouraged a group of businessmen to meet with a view to creating a football club which could compete in larger competitions. New Brompton F.C. was formed at the meeting, held on 18 May 1893. The founders also purchased the plot of land which later became Priestfield Stadium. The new club played its first match on 2 September 1893, losing 5–1 to Woolwich Arsenal's reserve side in front of a crowd of 2,000. New Brompton were among the founder members of the Southern League upon its creation in 1894, and were placed in Division Two. They were named Champions in the first season (1894–95) going on to defeat Swindon Town in a test match to win promotion.

In the seasons that followed, the club struggled in Division One, finishing bottom in the 1907–08 season, avoiding relegation only due to expansion of the league. Whilst the club's league performance was disappointing, the side did manage a famous cup victory over Football League First Division Sunderland and held Manchester City to a draw before losing in the replay. In 1912 the directors passed a resolution to change the club's name to Gillingham F.C., and the team played under this name throughout the 1912–13 season, although the change was not officially ratified by the shareholders until the following year. The team finished bottom of Division One in the 1919–20 season but for a third time avoided relegation, due to the subsequent elevation of all Southern League Division One clubs to form the new Football League Division Three.

First spell in the Football League
In the first season of the newly created Football League Division Three, the 1920–21 season, Gillingham again finished bottom, and in the years to follow there was little improvement on this, the club continually finishing in the lower reaches of the bottom division. In 1938 the team finished bottom of the Third Division (South) and were required to apply for re-election for the fifth time since joining the league. This bid for re-election failed, with Gillingham returning to the Southern League and Ipswich Town being promoted in their place. Gillingham quickly established themselves as one of the stronger sides in the league, winning a local double of the Kent League and Kent Senior Cup in the 1945–46 season. In the 1946–47 season the team won both the Southern League Cup and the Southern League championship, during which they recorded a club record 12–1 victory over Gloucester City. The Gills also won the league title in 1948–49.

Return to the Football League
In 1950, plans were announced to expand the Football League Division Three (South) from 22 to 24 teams and, taking into account their local success in the interim, Gillingham were re-elected to the Football League with a landslide vote. The team spent eight seasons in Division Three (South) before the restructuring of the league system for the 1958–59 season saw them placed in the newly created Fourth Division. They remained in this division until 1964, when manager Freddie Cox led them to promotion, winning the first championship in the club's history. The team finished the season level on 60 points with Carlisle United, but with a fractionally better goal average (1.967 against 1.948).

After relegation back to the Fourth Division in 1970–71, the Gills were soon promoted back to the Third Division in the 1973–74 season. After this the club seemed to find its level in Division Three, regularly mounting a challenge for promotion which ultimately fell short each time, coming particularly close to promotion in 1986–87 when they reached the play-offs only to lose in the final to Swindon Town. During this period the club produced future stars Steve Bruce and Tony Cascarino, who was famously bought from non-league Crockenhill in exchange for a set of tracksuits.

In 1987, the Gills hit the headlines when, on consecutive Saturdays, they beat Southend United 8–1 and Chesterfield 10–0, the latter a club record for a Football League match. Just a few months later, however, manager Keith Peacock was controversially sacked, and within 18 months the club had fallen into Division Four. The ensuing spell in the lower division brought little success, and in the 1992–93 Division Three campaign the Gills narrowly avoided relegation to the Football Conference.

Recent highs and lows
Beset with financial problems, the club went into administration in January 1995, and by the end of the 1994–95 season faced the threat of being expelled from the Football League and closed down. In June 1995, however, a London-based businessman, Paul Scally, stepped in and bought the club. He brought in new manager Tony Pulis, who led Gillingham to promotion in his first season, finishing second in the old Division Three (now Football League Two). In 1999 the Gills made the play-offs but lost in the final to Manchester City. The Gills were 2–0 up with less than two minutes left only to see City score twice, the equaliser in injury time, and go on to win 3–1 in a penalty shoot-out. Soon after the play-off loss, Pulis was sacked for gross misconduct, and Peter Taylor appointed manager. In the 1999–00 season Gillingham qualified for the play-offs again, where they faced Wigan Athletic in the final at Wembley Stadium. The game finished 1–1 after 90 minutes, but, thanks to goals in extra time from substitutes Steve Butler and Andy Thomson, the Gills won 3–2 and were promoted to Division One for the first time.

Taylor then left to manage Leicester City, and Andy Hessenthaler was appointed as player-manager. He led the club to their best ever league finish of eleventh in the 2002–03 season, but the following season saw the club narrowly avoid relegation on goal difference. Hessenthaler resigned as manager in November 2004, and new boss Stan Ternent was unable to prevent the Gills' relegation to League One. At the end of the 2007–08 season the club was relegated again, this time to League Two, but an immediate return to the third level was secured via the play-offs after beating Shrewsbury Town in the final. In the 2009–10 season, however, the Gills slipped into the bottom four on the last day, and were relegated back to League Two, having failed to win a single away game in the league all season. This resulted in manager Mark Stimson having his contract terminated, and Andy Hessenthaler was appointed as manager of the club for the second time. At the start of the 2012–13 season Hessenthaler was replaced by Martin Allen, who led the club to promotion as League Two champions in his first season in charge. However, shortly after winning League Two, Allen was sacked in what many saw as a surprise after a poor start to the season. The club remained in League One from 2013 up until 2022, with a best finish of ninth, achieved in the 2015–16 season. In the 2021–22 season, Gillingham were relegated back into League Two. In December 2022, Florida-based property tycoon Brad Galinson acquired a majority shareholding in the club, with Scally retaining minority ownership. In January 2023 the club confirmed that Galinson would also take on the position of Chairman.

Stadium
The Gills have played at Priestfield Stadium throughout their existence. The ground was originally purchased by the founders of the club through an issue of 1,500 £1 shares. Sources differ on whether the ground was named after the road on which the land stood, Priestfield Road, or whether the road was named after the ground; if the latter is the case then the origin of the ground's name is unknown. The ground was extensively developed prior to the 1930s, but there was then little change until the late 1990s and the arrival of Paul Scally as chairman. Three of the four stands were demolished and rebuilt between 1995 and 2000. The fourth stand, known as the Town End, was demolished to make way for a new stand, to be named the Brian Moore Stand after television sports commentator Brian Moore, who was a well-known Gills fan, but the club's financial situation has not allowed the new stand to be built. A temporary stand was erected in 2003 and remains in place as of 2024. From 2007 until 2010 the stadium was officially named KRBS Priestfield Stadium as part of a sponsorship deal with the Kent Reliance Building Society. In 2011 it was rebranded again, this time, to MEMS Priestfield Stadium under another such agreement.

At its peak in the 1940s the official capacity of the stadium was listed as "between 25,000 and 30,000" but subsequent redevelopments, the removal of terraces and building of new facilities have seen this reduced to a current capacity of 11,582. In the 2018–19 season, the most recent to be completed in full with full crowd capacity permitted, the average attendance at home matches was 5,128. The ground has also hosted home fixtures of the England women's national football team. The club's training ground is Beechings Cross, in Grange Road, Gillingham. In 2012 the club was involved in a dispute with the local council, who alleged that Gillingham owed over £30,000 in unpaid bills relating to the training facility.

Colours and crest
Although Gillingham have long been associated with the colours blue and white, the original New Brompton side wore a strip consisting of black and white striped shirts with black shorts. In 1913 the black and white strip was dropped in favour of red shirts with blue sleeves, emblazoned with the borough's coat of arms. The striped shirts returned after World War One, before finally being replaced with the now-familiar combination of plain blue shirts and white shorts in 1931. More recent years have seen several variations on the blue and white colour scheme. In the late 1990s the team wore blue and black striped shirts, recalling the original New Brompton stripes. In the summer of 2003 it was controversially announced that the club's first choice shirts for the following season would be predominantly white, rather than blue. The announcement received such a hostile response from supporters that the white strip was replaced by one featuring blue and black hoops, which had originally been earmarked as the team's third choice kit. In March 2010 the club announced a return to the black and blue stripes for the 2010–11 season. In recognition of the centenary of the renaming of the club, the 2012–13 kit was red with blue sleeves and collar, and the club's crest was replaced by the town's crest. After winning the League Two title in 2012–13, the club gave season ticket holders the chance to vote on what colours the club would play in for the 2013–14 season, with the fans choosing to return to a blue and white kit. Blue and white, or blue with black stripes, have been used since.

The club's current crest is a shield divided vertically into halves of black and white stripes and solid blue, reflecting the club's original and modern kits. On the blue half is the county emblem of Kent, a white horse rampant, albeit slightly altered from its normal form as its mane is stylised into the letters of the word "Gills". This side has been sometimes given a red or pink background, to coordinate with away kits featuring those colours. The club's motto, which appears on a scroll below the crest, is Domus clamantium, the Latin for "the home of the shouting men", a traditional epithet associated with the town of Gillingham. In keeping with the crest, the club's mascot, Tommy Trewblu, takes the form of a horse. He first appeared at a match against Macclesfield Town in October 1998.

The first sponsor's name to appear on Gillingham shirts was that of Italian home appliance manufacturers Zanussi, who sponsored the club in the mid-1980s. Subsequent sponsors have included Chatham Maritime, Medway Toyota, Cannon Tool Hire, Invicta FM, Kool, Medway News, SeaFrance, MHS Homes Group, Kent Reliance Building Society, Automatic Retailing, MEMS Power Generation, and Medway Council.

Player of the Season
Gillingham's Player of the Season award is voted for by the club's supporters. It was first introduced in the 1968–69 season.

Club officials
As of June 2024

Managers

For the first three years of the club's existence, team matters were handled by a committee. In 1896 William Ironside Groombridge, the club's secretary, took sole charge of team affairs to become Gillingham's first recognised manager. Former England international Stephen Smith was appointed as full-time manager in 1906, but left in 1908, with Groombridge once again taking on team responsibilities. Groombridge was associated with the club, as manager and secretary, for over 25 years. When the club was admitted to the Football League in 1920, Robert Brown was appointed as manager, but he resigned a month later before the season had even begun. His replacement, Scotsman John McMillan, thus became the first manager to take charge of the team in a Football League match.

In 1939, a year after the club was voted back out of the Football League, Archie Clark took over as manager, and was still in charge when the club was elected back to the Football League in 1950. Clark remained in the job until 1957. Freddie Cox took over in 1962 and led the club to the Football League Fourth Division championship in the 1963–64 season, making him the first manager to win a Football League divisional title with the club. Basil Hayward was sacked in 1971 after the club was relegated back to the Fourth Division in the 1970–71 season, but his successor Andy Nelson led the club to promotion back to Division Three three years later before controversially resigning.

Tony Pulis took over in 1995, with Gillingham once again in the bottom division, and managed the club to promotion in his first season in charge. Three years later he led the team to the Second Division play-off final, but was sacked immediately after this after being accused of gross misconduct. Peter Taylor replaced him and took the club to a second consecutive play-off final, where Gillingham gained promotion to the second tier of English football for the first time. In 2013 Martin Allen became the second manager to lead the Gills to a divisional title in the Football League, as the team won the championship of League Two.

Chairmen
The following have been chairman of the club's board of directors:

Honours
Sources:

League
 * Second Division (level 3)
 * Play-off winners: 2000
 * Fourth Division / Third Division / League Two (level 4)
 * Champions: 1963–64, 2012–13
 * Runners-up: 1973–74, 1995–96
 * Play-off winners: 2009
 * Southern League
 * Champions: 1946–47, 1948–49
 * Runners-up 1947–48
 * Southern League Division Two
 * Champions: 1894–95
 * Kent League
 * Champions: 1945–46
 * United League
 * Champions: 1908–09
 * Thames & Medway Combination
 * Champions: 1898–99, 1899–1900

Cup
 * Southern League Cup
 * Winners: 1946–47
 * Kent League Cup
 * Winners: 1945–46
 * Kent Senior Cup
 * Winners: 1945–46, 1947–48
 * Runners-up (5): 1938–39, 1948–49, 1949–50, 1994–95, 2014–15

Statistics and records
Goalkeeper Ron Hillyard holds the record for Gillingham appearances, having played 657 matches in all competitions between 1974 and 1990, while the record for appearances solely in the Football League is held by another goalkeeper, John Simpson, with 571 between 1957 and 1972. Brian Yeo is the club's all-time leading league goalscorer, having scored a total of 136 goals between 1963 and 1975. He also jointly holds the club record for the most Football League goals scored in a single season, having scored 31 goals in the 1973–74 season, equalling the record set by Ernie Morgan in 1954–55. The highest number of goals scored by a player in a single game at a professional level is the six registered by Fred Cheesmur against Merthyr Town in April 1930. The highest transfer fee received by the club is £1.5 million for Robert Taylor, paid by Manchester City in 1999, and the highest fee paid by Gillingham is £600,000 for Carl Asaba, signed from Reading in 1998.

The club's record home attendance is 23,002, for an FA Cup match against Queens Park Rangers on 10 January 1948, a record which will almost certainly never be broken unless the club relocates to a larger ground, given that Priestfield Stadium's current capacity is approximately half that figure. The team's biggest ever professional win was a 10–0 defeat of Chesterfield in September 1987, although they had previously registered a 12–1 win against Gloucester City in the Southern League in November 1946. The Gills hold the record for the fewest goals conceded by a team in the course of a 46-game Football League season, set in the 1995–96 season, during which goalkeeper Jim Stannard kept 29 clean sheets.

Rivalries
The 2003 Football Fans Census revealed that no other team's supporters considered Gillingham to be among their club's main rivals. Millwall are considered to be the closest the Gills have to local rivals. Swindon Town are seen by many fans as the club's biggest rivals, stemming from bad-tempered matches between the teams in the past. While Swindon fans generally do not consider Gillingham among their biggest rivals, there was violence when they met at Priestfield in the 2005–06 season, their first meeting since a promotion play-off match in 1987. Following their promotion in 1989, Maidstone United became Kent's second League side. A rivalry with Gillingham developed over the following seasons, until Maidstone's financial troubles forced them to resign from the League in 1992. A minor rivalry between Gillingham and Fulham has developed arising from the death of a Fulham fan who was killed during a clash between both sets of fans outside Priestfield Stadium in March 1998.

In popular culture
In 1956, comedian Fred Emney filmed a scene for his sitcom Emney Enterprises prior to the start of a match between Gillingham and Brighton & Hove Albion. The footage featured the overweight Emney, wearing a flat cap and monocle and smoking a cigar, dribbling the ball past the entire Gills defence and scoring a goal. The 2005 film Green Street makes use of action sequences filmed during a match between Gillingham and West Ham United, although the dialogue states that the team playing West Ham is Birmingham City to align with the narrative of the film. A film entitled The Shouting Men, released in March 2010, centres on a group of Gillingham fans and features scenes shot at Priestfield.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Gillingham F.C.


text:
European Committee of the Regions

The European Committee of the Regions (CoR) is the European Union's (EU) assembly of local and regional representatives that provides sub-national authorities (i.e. regions, counties, provinces, municipalities and cities) with a direct voice within the EU's institutional framework.

Established in 1994, the CoR was set up to address two main issues. First, about three quarters of EU legislation is implemented at local or regional level, so local and regional representatives needed to have a say in the development of new EU laws. Second, there were concerns about a widening gap between the public and the process of European integration; involving the elected level of government closest to the citizens was one way of closing the gap.

History
Within the European Union, local and regional authorities have lobbied for an increased say in EU affairs. This resulted in the creation of the European Committee of the Regions by the Maastricht Treaty, and the provision for Member States to be represented in the Council of the EU by ministers from their regional governments.

Principles
There are three main principles at the heart of the committee's work:

 * Subsidiarity
 * This principle, enshrined into the Treaties at the same time as the creation of the CoR, means that decisions within the European Union should be taken at the closest practical level to the citizen. The European Union, therefore, should not take on tasks which are better suited to national, regional or local administrations.

 * Proximity
 * All levels of government should aim to be 'close to the citizens', in particular by organising their work in a transparent fashion, so people know who is in charge of what and how to make their views heard.

 * Partnership
 * Sound European governance means European, national, regional and local government working together – all four are indispensable and should be involved throughout a "multi-level governance" decision-making process.

Scope
The Treaties oblige the European Commission and the Council of the European Union to consult the Committee of the Regions whenever new proposals are made in areas that have repercussions at regional or local level. Outside these areas, the commission, Council and European Parliament have the option to consult the CoR on issues if they see important regional or local implications to a proposal. The CoR can also draw up an opinion on its own initiative, which enables it to put issues on the EU agenda.

The CoR has gained the right (semi-privileged status) to approach the European Court of Justice now that the Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force following ratification by all EU Member States (Article 8, Protocol (No. 2) on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality).

Composition
The CoR has 329 full members and the same number of alternate members. The number from each EU country reflects the size of its population, but ranges from a representation of an average of 88087 citizens of Malta per seat to 3.45 million citizens per German seat. Its members are locally and regionally elected representatives including mayors, regional presidents and councillors. The numbers per country are as follows:

President
Elected for a two-and-a-half-year term at the plenary assembly, the President guides the committee's work, chairs plenary sessions and is the CoR's official representative. Apostolos Tzitzikostas (Greece / European People's Party, EPP), Governor of Central Macedonia Region, was elected President of the European Committee of the Regions on 12 February 2020. On 29 June 2022, he was replaced by Vasco Cordeiro (Portugal / Party of European Socialists, PSE), Member of the Regional Parliament of Azores.

First Vice-President
The First Vice-president is also elected by the plenary assembly for two-and-a-half years and represents the president in the latter's absence. Vasco Alves Cordeiro (Portugal / Party of European Socialists, PES), Member of the Regional Parliament of Azores, was elected First Vice-president of the European Committee of the Regions on 12 February 2020. On 29 June 2022, he was replaced by Apostolos Tzitzikostas (Greece / European People's Party, EPP), Governor of Central Macedonia Region.

Bureau
The Bureau is the executive body of the CoR. It comprises 61 members: the president, the First Vice-president, the presidents of the six political groups, one vice-president per member state (27), and 26 other members from the national delegations, enabling it to reflect national and political balances. The Bureau generally meets seven or eight times a year to draw up the CoR policy programme and instructs the administration on the implementation of its decisions.

Plenary assembly
The members of the CoR meet in plenary session in Brussels six times a year, to discuss and adopt opinions, reports and resolutions.

CoR commissions
The CoR structures its work by means of six thematic commissions, which specialise in topical areas:

 * CIVEX: citizenship, governance, institutional and external affairs
 * COTER: territorial cohesion policy;
 * ECON: economic policy;
 * ENVE: environment, climate change and energy;
 * NAT: natural resources and agriculture;
 * SEDEC: social policy, employment, education, culture and research.

They prepare draft opinions and hold conferences and seminars focused on their areas of competence. Each commission has approximately 100 members (each member can be part of two commissions) and is supported by a secretariat within the administration. A special Commission for Financial and Administrative Affairs (CFAA) is also established to assist the CoR Bureau.

Political groups
The CoR has six political groups: the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (PES), the European People's Party (EPP), Renew Europe (RE), the European Alliance (EA), the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and The Greens (GRE). The members of each political group meet before major meetings to adopt common positions, membership of the plenary body is as follows, with 15 seats currently vacant:

De facto coalition (238): {{legend|#0099FF|EPP: 116 seats}} {{legend|#FF0000|S&D: 79 seats}}{{legend|#FFDD00|Renew Europe: 43 seats}}

De facto opposition (62):

{{legend|#000475|ECR: 27 seats}} {{legend|#700000|European Alliance: 13 seats}} {{legend|#0FE500|The Greens: 11 seats}} {{legend|#A5A5A5|Non-inscrits: 11 seats}}

Conference of Presidents
The CoR president, first vice-president, presidents of the political groups and the secretary general gather within a Conference of Presidents before each plenary session and other important meetings, with the aim of reaching a political consensus on strategic questions.

National delegations
The CoR also comprises 27 national delegations. Members meet in their national delegations before plenary sessions and other events to discuss common positions.

Secretary-General
The Secretary-General is appointed for five years by the Bureau. As head of the CoR administration, the Secretary-General must not hold a political mandate. He is responsible for implementing President's and Bureau decisions and the smooth running of the CoR administration. Petr Blížkovský is the CoRs' Secretary-General since 16 December 2019.

Secretariat-General
The Secretariat-General consists of five directorates: Members and Plenaries; Legislative Work 1; Legislative Work 2; Communication; Human Resources and Finance. The Logistics and Translations Directorates are jointly managed with the European Economic and Social Committee. The total number of CoR staff in 2015 was 527.

Budget
The CoR's 2013 budget (€36.5M) represents 0.06% of the total EU budget which makes it the third smallest EU institution in terms of budgetary needs. Its 2014 budget (€90.2M) breakdown according to purpose of expenditure is as follows: 39.7% – Consultative Works (€35.8M); 30.3% – Translation, Interpretation and Print (€27.2M); 30% – Administration and Functioning (€27M). The CoR's 2015 budget was €89.2M. Although all CoR expenditure formally falls under Heading 5 (Administrative expenditure) of the EU Budget, as is the case for the European Parliament budget, a substantial part of its budget relates to non-administrative expenditure. Most obvious examples are all CoR expenses related to its Members and their political activities.

Opinions
The European Commission, Council of Ministers and European Parliament consult the CoR when drawing up legislative texts (directives, regulations, etc.) on areas affecting local and regional authorities. The draft texts are forwarded to the relevant CoR commission. A rapporteur is then appointed to draw up the committee's opinion. This draft opinion must be adopted by the CoR commission before being discussed at the plenary session. Once it has been approved in plenary, the official opinion is sent to all the European institutions and published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Resolutions
Resolutions enable the committee to express its view on important and topical issues. The CoR's political groups or 32 CoR members can draw up resolutions.

Studies and other publications
The CoR produces studies on various aspects of the local and regional dimension of the EU (education, transport, social issues, enlargement, etc.). They are drawn up with the help of outside experts. The CoR also produces publications for both the general public and for regional and local players, aimed at explaining its activities and outlining current political developments.

Events
As a meeting place for regions and cities, the CoR organises conferences, seminars and exhibitions in cooperation with local and regional partners and other EU institutions. Once a year, during the European Week of Regions and Cities, the CoR welcomes to its headquarters thousands of participants who take part in lively discussions or seek partners to collaborate on joint projects.

Key dates

 * 1992 – Maastricht Treaty
 * EU leaders decide to set up the Committee of the Regions (CoR) as a consultative assembly which will provide regions and cities with a voice in the EU decision-making process and act as a direct link between Brussels and the citizens. The Treaty makes it mandatory for the European Commission and the Council of Ministers to consult the CoR on key areas of regional concern. CoR members are to be nominated by the governments of Member States and will serve for four years. In March 1994 the CoR holds its first plenary session in Brussels.

 * 1995 – EU enlargement
 * The CoR's membership increases from 189 to 222, following the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.

 * 1997 – Amsterdam Treaty
 * Extends the CoR's remit to cover around two thirds of the EU's legislative proposals. The Treaty also makes it possible for the Committee to be consulted by the European Parliament.

 * 2001 – Nice Treaty
 * Underlines the democratic legitimacy of the CoR by requiring that its members are elected or politically accountable to an elected regional or local assembly. Caps the number of members at 350.

 * 2002–03 – Convention on the Future of the EU
 * CoR members take part in the convention responsible for drafting an EU constitution. The text expressly recognises the role and powers of local and regional government; it also gives the CoR the right to go to the Court of Justice of the European Communities to challenge EU laws which do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity.

 * May 2004 – EU enlargement
 * Number of CoR members increases from 222 to 317, following the accession of 10 new Member States.

 * February 2006 – New term of office
 * The CoR starts a new four-year term. Its political priorities include boosting the role of local and regional authorities in line with the Lisbon Strategy for Jobs and Growth, strengthening cohesion and solidarity, and spearheading the 'Communicating Europe – Going local' campaign to bring the EU closer to its citizens.

 * January 2007 – EU enlargement
 * With the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the number of CoR members rises from 317 to 344.

 * December 2007 – Lisbon Treaty
 * The Lisbon Treaty confirms the CoR's right to appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Communities to safeguard its prerogatives and the subsidiarity principle – a right already recognised by the Convention on the Future of the EU. This new entitlement will strengthen the CoR's political role, by enabling it to act more effectively on the EU stage for the benefit of regional and local authorities. The Lisbon Treaty extends the term of office of CoR members from four to five years.

July 2013 – EU enlargement
 * Number of CoR Members increases from 344 to 353, following the accession of Croatia (CoR members later decreased to 350).

Early 2020 – Brexit and Greens

Following Brexit (31 January), the number of CoR Members decreased to 329 due to the removal of the 24 members from the United Kingdom. As of February, a new Political Group was represented in the CoR, The Greens.

Criticism
In 2020, the Committee of the Regions was criticized for its 20-year-old unresolved case of Robert McCoy, a former internal auditor, who has been severely harassed after he blew the whistle on "fraud and embezzlement" at the EU body. In his speech before the European Parliament, McCoy claimed the CoR had run "a vindictive campaign" against him and "denigrated" his personal and professional reputation. That issue made the Committee receive criticism also from the Dutch MEP Sophie in 't Veld, who used to work for the Committee of the Regions. She told Parliament that from her experience, the administration at the CoR had been "totally incompetent and rotten to the core". She also accused the CoR of being stuck in "full denial mode" and suggested potential budgetary sanctions. One of the leading critics of the Committee of the Regions' inaction on this issue was also the Czech MEP Tomáš Zdechovský: "When I look at this case, it reminds me of the American film 'Groundhog Day' where the protagonist becomes trapped in a time loop".

title: European Committee of the Regions


text:
European Economic and Social Committee

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is a consultative body of the European Union (EU) established in 1958. It is an advisory assembly composed of representatives from employers' associations, workers' unions (trade unions) and civil society organisations. Its seat, which it shares with the Committee of the Regions, is the Jacques Delors building on Belliardstraat / Rue Belliard 99 in Brussels.

Once known by the acronym "EcoSoc", the body is now referred to as the "EESC", to avoid confusions with the United Nations ECOSOC.

Role
The European Economic and Social Committee was established by the Treaty of Rome of 1957 in order to unite different economic interest groups to establish a Single Market. The creation of this committee gave them an institution to allow their voices to be heard by the European Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. The EESC declares itself to be "a bridge between Europe and organised civil society".

It is mandatory for the committee to be consulted on those issues stipulated in the Treaties and in all cases where the institutions deem it appropriate. The Treaty of Maastricht considerably enlarged the committee's domain. Its influence now extends to matters such as social policy, social and economic cohesion, environment, education, health, customers protection, industry, Trans-European Networks, indirect taxation and structural funds. On certain issues the EESC works in partnership with the Committee of the Regions.

In latest years, the committee has taken up the challenge of civil society, opening up its forum to representatives of all sectors, developing two complementary missions:
 * Involving civil society organisations more in the European venture, at both national and European level,
 * Boosting the role of civil society organisations in non-member countries or country groupings where the committee is furthering structured dialogue with civil society organisations, and promoting the creation of consultative structures based on its experiences, not least in the countries applying for EU membership, the Mediterranean partner countries, African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, India, China, Latin America (Mercosur) and Brazil.

Operation
It is mandatory for the committee to be consulted on those issues stipulated in the Treaties and in all cases where the institutions deem it appropriate. The EESC may also be consulted on an exploratory basis by one of the other institutions, and under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure may issue opinions on its own initiative. Around 15% of its opinions are own-initiative opinions.

Own-initiative and exploratory opinions often raise the awareness of decision-making bodies, and of the commission in particular, about subjects which have hitherto barely attracted their attention, if at all. Exploratory opinions drawn up at the request of other institutions before the commission has even drafted its proposals enable the various components of organised civil society represented within the EESC to express the expectations, concerns and needs of grassroots stakeholders.

The Committee adopts on average 170 opinions a year on a wide range of subjects concerning European integration. It therefore plays an active role in the processes of shaping Community policies and preparing Community decisions.

Membership
Currently, EESC membership numbers 329 (same as the Committee of the Regions). The number of members per EU state varies according to the population of each state (see table below for state-by-state membership figures; the breakdown is the same for the Committee of the Regions). Members of the EESC are divided into three groups of equal number, employers, employees and a third group of various other changing interests such as: farmers, consumer groups, professional associations and so on.

Members are appointed by the council (by qualified majority) following nominations made by the government of the respective Member State. However, once appointed, the members are completely independent of their governments. They have a renewable term of office of five years. The President of the EESC, elected for a $2 1/2$-year term, is Oliver Röpke (since 2023), and the previous presidents were Christa Schweng (2020–2023) Luca Jahier (2018–2020) Georges Dassis (2015–2018) and Henri Malosse (2013–2015).

Opinions
Selected own-initiative opinions include:
 * Opinion on the Value and supply chain development in a European and global context (adopted 25 April 2007) which argued that EU and member state agencies should work to improve the environment in which "initial and intermediate companies" operate within supply chains. Initialised as "IICs", a term which was "coined specifically for this opinion", the opinion refers to the relatively less visible, generally smaller or medium sized enterprises, at the lower tiers of supply chains, operating at early stages of the value creation process, often in innovative ways, and playing an important role in employment. The opinion notes that there is "no established definition of IICs" and that attitudes to such companies vary across member states and regions.
 * Towards an ILO standard against gender-based violence at work (16 September 2015)

Critiques
In a report reviewing 50 years of the EESC, C.S. Dimitrioulas cited Jacques Delors as saying that EESC contributions from 1958 to 2008 on civil and social matters were "remarkable". Dimitrioulas commented: "Thanks to its membership and unique role in the EU’s institutional framework, the Committee will in future have special responsibility for making a reality of participatory democracy and for working towards the development of structured dialogue between organised civil society and Union institutions."

The Lisbon Treaty has confirmed the EESC's role and influence. According to proponents of the EESC: "Indeed, significant prospects for the development of participatory democracy are opened through Article 11 of the new Treaty on the European Union, which lays the foundations for the future establishment of a genuine structured civil dialogue at European level alongside the political dialogue between the EU and its Member States and the social dialogue with the social partners, thereby ensuring sustainable participation of organised civil society in the European political process. In this context, the EESC has a particular responsibility in bringing participatory democracy to life. In view of its membership and role, as laid down in the Treaties, and in partnership with the other institutions, the Committee's purpose is to be even more in the future the means of developing participatory democracy and civil dialogue at Union level."

In October 2020 reappointment of a Polish business representative Jacek Krawczyk for another five-year term as a member of the EESC became a target of harsh criticism as the EESC faced pressure to better prevent harassment in the organization. Mr. Krawczyk was himself accused of psychological harassment and is prosecuted by Belgian authorities. Besides that, the conduct of Jacek Krawczyk has been investigated by the EU’s anti-fraud office OLAF. MEPs therefore rejected the EESC’s 2018 financial accounts over its failure to deal with the issue of harassment. According to the words of MEP Tomáš Zdechovský, who led the budget discharge procedure, the EESC was not able to answer questions regarding its various mistakes and take measures which would make MEPs believe that this particular institution is able to protect the interests of European citizens.

Overall usefulness of the EESC has also been questioned recently. While the number of administrative staff has decreased from 727 in 2013 to 668 in 2019 and the number of opinions has gone down, the annual EESC's budget has continued to grow. Czech MEP Tomáš Zdechovský said, that “very few lawmakers are reading the opinions of this committee. The impact is close to zero.” He also described the EESC as “a zombie committee that lost its purpose but still lives on.”

title: European Economic and Social Committee


text:
Leaves (Icelandic band)

Leaves are an Icelandic indie band formed in 2000.

History
Vocalist Arnar Gudjonsson was formerly the guitarist with Mower, and he was joined by Hallur Hallsson (bass guitar), Arnar Ólafsson (guitar, accordion), Bjarni Grímsson (drums), and Andri Ásgrímsson (keyboards). Late in 2001 they played with Emiliana Torrini and drew early praise from the New York Times. They came to prominence in 2002 with their single "Race" (which reached number 66 in the UK Singles Chart), and début album, Breathe, drawing comparisons to groups such as Coldplay, Muse, The Verve and Doves. The album was released in the UK first to positive reviews, reaching number 71 in the UK Albums Chart, then was re-released in the United States, and a tour of both the UK and the U.S. followed. Their second album, The Angela Test, was released in 2005 and their third album, We Are Shadows, was released in 2009. The group's most recent album, See You in the Afterglow, arrived in 2013. In 2016, the group released a reworked version of "Breathe". In 2017 vocalist Arnar formed a solo project, Warmland.

The name of the band refers to Nick Drake's first album Five Leaves Left.

Members

 * Current
 * Arnar Guðjónsson: lead vocals, piano, guitar
 * Elís Pétursson: bass guitar
 * Nói Steinn Einarsson: drums
 * Andri Ásgrímsson: keyboards

 * Former
 * Arnar Ólafsson: guitar, backing vocals
 * Bjarni Grímsson: drums
 * Hallur Hallsson: bass guitar

Albums

 * Breathe (2002), B-Unique – UK #71
 * The Angela Test (2005), Universal/Island
 * We Are Shadows (2009)
 * See You in the Afterglow (2013)

Singles

 * "Breathe" (2002), B-Unique – UK #99
 * "Race" (2002), B-Unique – UK #66
 * "Catch" (2002), B-Unique – split single with The Coral and Electric Soft Parade – UK #81
 * "Silence" (2002), B-Unique
 * "The Sensualist" (2013)

title: Leaves (Icelandic band)


text:
Fountain of Dreams

Fountain of Dreams is a 1990 role-playing video game developed and published by Electronic Arts for DOS as a successor to 1988's Wasteland.

Gameplay

The gameplay is similar to that of Wasteland since Fountain of Dreams was originally intended to be a sequel to it. It is considered to be "very unforgiving" near the beginning, making it hard to start the game without dying.

Plot
The game is set in post-nuclear war Florida, physically separated from the continental United States by intensive bombing during World War III that sparked an enormous earthquake. Central Florida itself was hit heavily with neutron and chemical weapons, in order to destroy the life there and preserve the technology. 50 years later after "The Change", life on the island of Florida is threatened by mutations due to residual ionizing radiation. Adding to the threat are the deranged Killer Clowns, as well as three organized crime factions: the DeSoto Family, the Obeah Orders, and the Bahia Mafia. The player controls a small band of adventurers who set out to find the purifying waters of the legendary "Fountain of Dreams" to stop the spread of mutation.

Development
The game was originally intended as a follow-up to Wasteland, but neither Interplay nor any of the creative team that created Wasteland worked on it. In effect, the game engine is similar but was created from scratch, and in 2003 Electronic Arts dropped all claims that the game had any connection to Wasteland. Fountain of Dreams was part of the beginning of a trend at EA to produce in-house sequels to its previous titles.

Reception
Fountain of Dreams was met with negative reception as it was a much shorter and smaller game than Wasteland. Computer Gaming World in 1991 described it as inferior to the predecessor, stating that it "incorporat[ed] all the worst features of that game, and not much of the good." The magazine noted that the game had no copy protection, "but then, a product like this probably doesn't need any." In 1993 the magazine called the game "a horrible post-nuke loser" with an "inane plot, ridiculous combat, and terrible ending". In 1996, Computer Gaming World ranked it as the 41st-worst game of all time, stating "Wasteland got stupid as killer clowns, a silly plot, and fear of Disney ruined the sequel."

title: Fountain of Dreams


text:
SM U-19 (Germany)

SM U-19 was a German Type U-19 U-boat built for the Imperial German Navy. Her construction was ordered on 25 November 1910, and her keel was laid down on 20 October 1911, at the Kaiserliche Werft Danzig. She was launched on 10 October 1912, and commissioned into the Imperial German Navy on 6 July 1913.

Service
From 1 August 1914, to 15 March 1916, U-19 was commanded by Constantin Kolbe. During this period she had the unfortunate distinction of becoming the first U-boat casualty of World War I when she was rammed by HMS Badger (1911) on 24 October 1914. Her hull was badly damaged, but she survived and was repaired.

On 22 January 1915 the Durward was near the Maas lightship when they saw U-19 on the surface. They tried to escape, but as they could only manage 12 knots they were unable to do so. The mate of Durward, who was later interviewed by the Daily Mail special correspondent in Rotterdam related how the second officer, who spoke excellent English, had ordered them to lower a boat and come to talk to them. The captain and crew were given ten minutes to leave the ship. The mate asked the second officer whether he could return to the ship to collect his clothes. He replied "Sorry, old man, it can't be done. I am in the mercantile marine myself, having been in the North German Lloyd service but now I am doing a bit for my country." The commander of the U-boat towed the lifeboat to within 100 yards of the Maas lightship, even stopping at one stage to repair the tow when it parted, after which the crew of Durward said goodbye to the submarine and rowed to the lightship.

Kolbe was relieved by Raimund Weisbach, who had previously served as torpedo officer on SMU U-20 (Germany) and had (on Kapitänleutnant Walther Schwieger's orders) launched the torpedo that sank RMS Lusitania. During his brief command, Weisbach carried out an unusual mission: he delivered the revolutionary Roger Casement and two other agents to Banna Strand in Ireland in hopes that they would foment an uprising that would distract the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from World War I.

Weisbach was relieved on 11 August 1916, by Johannes Spiess, who was relieved in turn on 1 June 1917, by Heinrich Koch. Koch turned the boat over on 25 October 1917, to Hans Albrecht Liebeskind, who commanded for less than a month before being relieved on 17 November 1917, by Spiess again. On 1 June 1918, Liebeskind took over again and commanded U-19 until the end of the war.

U-19 conducted 12 patrols, sinking 58 ships totalling 99,182 combined tons, including Santa Maria (5,383 GRT) off Lough Swilly on 25 February 1918, Tiberia (4,880 GRT) off Black Head near Larne on 26 February 1918, and HMS Calgarian (1913) (12,515 GRT) off Rathlin Island on 1 March 1918.

Fate
On 11 November 1918, U-19 was surrendered to the British, and was broken up at Blyth sometime in 1919 or 1920.

The main gun of U19 was donated to the people of Bangor, Co. Down and today sits near the War Memorial in the town's Ward Park. It was donated by the Admiralty in recognition of the valorous conduct of Commander The Hon. Edward Bingham whilst on board HMS Nestor (1915) while fighting in the Battle of Jutland in July 1916, for which he received the Victoria Cross.

title: SM U-19 (Germany)