text:
Parental alienation

Parental alienation is a theorized process through which a child becomes estranged from one parent as the result of the psychological manipulation of another parent. The child's estrangement may manifest itself as fear, disrespect or hostility toward the distant parent, and may extend to additional relatives or parties. The child's estrangement is disproportionate to any acts or conduct attributable to the alienated parent. Parental alienation can occur in any family unit, but is claimed to occur most often within the context of family separation, particularly when legal proceedings are involved, although the participation of professionals such as lawyers, judges and psychologists may also contribute to conflict.

Proponents of the concept of parental alienation assert that it is primarily motivated by one parent's desire to exclude the other parent from their child's life. Some assert that parental alienation should be diagnosable in children as a mental disorder. Some propose that parental alienation be recognized as a form of child abuse or family violence. They assert that parental alienation creates stress on the alienated parent and the child, and significantly increases the child's lifetime risk of mental illness.

Parental alienation remains controversial both within the psychological community and the legal system. The psychological community has not accepted parental alienation as a diagnosable mental condition. Critics note that alienating behaviors are common in high-conflict family situations such as child custody proceedings, but that the estrangement of a child from a parent remains rare. They assert that the research performed to date does not support the theory that parental alienation results in the harm described by proponents of the concept. They also express concern that a parent who has caused a child to become estranged, for example through acts of domestic violence or child abuse, may claim to be the victim of parental alienation to convince a court that the child's justified response to the abuse is the result of the other parent's misconduct and to potentially gain custody of the child. No diagnostic criteria have been established for parental alienation, and proposals made to date have not been established as reliable. No program of treatment has been demonstrated to be safe or valid, and proponents of parental alienation theory agree that more research into treatment is necessary.

The theory of parental alienation has been asserted within legal proceedings as a basis for awarding custody to a parent who alleges estrangement, or to modify custody in favor of that parent. Courts have generally rejected parental alienation as a valid scientific theory, but some courts have allowed the concept to be argued as relevant to the determination of the child's best interests when making a custody determination. Legal professionals recognize that alienating behaviors are common in child custody cases, but are cautious about accepting the concept of parental alienation.

Characteristics
Parental alienation describes the breakdown of the relationship between a child and one of the child's parents, when there is no valid justification for that breakdown. When parental alienation is found to exist between a parent and child, the alienation is attributed to inappropriate actions and behavior by the other parent.

Parental alienation falls within the spectrum of family estrangement, a term that describes when family members become alienated from each other without regard to cause. As estrangement may occur between a parent and child for other reasons, it is possible to discuss alienation in terms of a child's having a preferred and a nonpreferred parent without implying that a child's avoidance of one parent is due to parental alienation.

The concept of parental alienation is normally raised only in contexts in which the child's alienation from the parent is alleged to be unwarranted. Under that conception, estrangement from a parent falls into one of two broad categories: Justified parental estrangement is an understandable refusal by a child to see a parent, while parental alienation lacks justifiable reason, although there is no consensus regarding how to differentiate one from the other. There is no established means of assessing whether a child's feelings toward a parent are "irrational" or "without legitimate basis", complicating any effort to attribute a child's attitudes toward a parent to parental alienation.
 * Justified parental estrangement, that results from such factors as the rejected parent's harmful or abusive behavior, substance abuse, neglect, or abandonment.
 * Parental alienation, in which one parent engages in actions that cause the child to strongly ally with that parent and reject the other without legitimate justification. The rejected parent may contribute to the estrangement in some manner, but the key concept is that the rejection by the child is out of proportion to anything that the rejected parent has done.

Theories
Alienating behaviors are often demonstrated by both parents in high-conflict divorce and child custody cases, but do not ordinarily result in alienation of a child from a parent and may backfire against the parent who engages in alienating behavior. Theories of parental alienation should explain how the relationship between the child and the rejected parent deteriorates, why under similar circumstances alienation may occur in one family but not another, and the relationship between alienating behaviors and the severity of a child’s alienation from a parent.

In situations where a child avoids one parent and strongly prefers the other, the only behaviors that can be observed are avoidance and preference. Alienation by one parent thus cannot be directly measured, and is instead inferred from the child's behavior. Some researchers thus use "preferred" rather than "alienating" parent and "non-preferred" rather than "alienated", "rejected", or "targeted" parent.

Although a number of theories have been proposed, there is no generally accepted theory of parental alienation, either as to its cause or to the motivation of the allegedly alienating parent. One theory of motivation suggests that parental alienation may occur when divorce triggers reenactment of a parent's childhood feelings of inadequacy or abandonment, and causes alienating parents to reenact psychological processes experienced during their own childhood. However, that theory does not explain alleged parental alienation that may occur in other contexts, nor in cases where there is no evidence of a parent's childhood trauma. Another theory of motivation posits that alienation is a form of harmful parenting by a parent who suffers from a personality disorder, specifically borderline personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. A divorce, breakup of a relationship or similarly difficult experience triggers feelings of inadequacy or abandonment that cause that parent to decompensate into persecutorial delusions, and to project their fears onto the other parent. However, parental alienation is frequently alleged in cases where neither parent has been diagnosed with a personality disorder.

Consequences
Studies suggest that independent of other marital issues, acts of parental alienation may be harmful to children. While not all adults who experience acts of parental alienation during childhood report negative consequences, many report outcomes that they attribute to parental alienation, including low self-esteem, addiction and substance abuse, trust issues, and relationship problems. For example, a retrospective study of adults found that independent of damage of a child's relationship with the other parent, perceived experiences with parental alienation during childhood correlate in adulthood with lower self-sufficiency, lower self-esteem, higher rates of major depressive disorder, and insecure attachment styles. A survey of self-reported childhood experiences of three hundred and sixty-one adults in Italy found that 42.1% of participants reported acts of parental alienation by their mothers, and 54.3% reported acts of parental alienation by their fathers. Reports of parental alienation were found to correlate with reports of psychological maltreatment.

Assessment of the impact of parental alienation within the context of legal proceedings, such as child custody litigation, is complicated by the participation of other professionals, including psychologists, lawyers and judges, whose actions and decisions may negatively affect family relationships. Although alienating behaviors by parents are common in high-conflict divorces, most children do not become alienated from a parent as a result of that behavior.

Some mental health professionals argue that severe parental alienation should be established as a form of emotional abuse and domestic violence. However, controversy persists as to whether parental alienation should be treated as a form of child abuse or family violence.

Diagnosis
No instrument or measure has been demonstrated to be valid or reliable in the assessment of parental alienation, or to diagnose parental alienation from any list of child behaviors. The claim that any individual behavior or cluster of behaviors demonstrates that the preferred parent has caused the child's avoidance is not based on empirical work and as an inference is the result of a problem of critical thinking called affirming the consequent. No diagnostic criteria have been proposed that can be applied to determine if a child's feelings toward a parent are irrational or disproportionate to the actions or behavior of the alienated parent. The absence of a valid and reliable assessment measure also means that it is difficult to evaluate whether parental alienation treatments are effective

Although it has been proposed that parental alienation can be diagnosed in a child who displays some or all of a set of behaviors, the proposed criteria have not been studied empirically, and have not been demonstrated to occur more often in children who avoid one parent after high-conflict divorce than they do in children matched for age who are experiencing different stressors and do not have a strong preference for one parent. It is also necessary to diagnose the whole family system in order to avoid misattributing a child's estrangement to the actions of a parent. Further, symptoms that are claimed to suggest parental alienation may occur in a high-conflict divorce even without indoctrination by the favored parent, rendering them problematic for identification of improper parenting.

Critics of this approach to diagnosis assert that if the behaviors can occur without an alienating parent, they cannot of themselves be used to determine if a child is demonstrating symptoms from parental alienation. The proposed list of behaviors has also been criticized as vague and subjective. For example, a child's claim to have independently formulated opinions of a rejected parent may be interpreted as "independent-thinker phenomenon", which is proposed as evidence of parental alienation, such that any statement a child makes about parental influence or lack thereof can be interpreted as confirmation of parental alienation.

Treatment
There is no generally recognized treatment protocol for parental alienation. A number of treatment models have been created for children deemed to show parental alienation, with some intensive models carried out after custody of the children has been transferred to the targeted parent. Five treatment programs were evaluated in terms of the levels of evidence provided by the empirical research said to support them. None were supported by research that met standards required for evidence-based treatments. Instead, they were at the third level of evidence, often called “promising”, as they involved before-and-after assessment of nonpreferred parents’ opinions rather than randomized controlled trials or clinical controlled trials using standardized assessments. Reports of some young adults who have been through one of these treatments suggest that as well as lacking an adequate evidence basis, the treatments may be either directly or indirectly harmful to children and adolescents.

One form of reconciliation therapy, described by its proponents as family reunification therapy, involves court-ordered removal of children from their preferred parent and the requirement that they engage in intensive programs with the rejected parent. The safety and effectiveness of family reconciliation therapy, the scientific validity of that therapy, and the question of whether it may properly be considered by a court, are in dispute. Due to its unproven nature, this form of therapy has been criticized as "quack therapy". In order to avoid regulations and oversight that apply to psychological and medical treatment, these programs are often billed as educational or psycho-educational. These programs tend also to be very expensive. Some children who have been compelled to participate in family reunification therapy have reported that they were forced to deny their truthful complaints about the parent that was alleged to be alienated. A recent program evaluation of a four-day intervention called "Turning Point for Families" found preliminary evidence that the program could improve family relationships in situations where a court finds alienation.

Legal issues
Parental alienation concepts have been used to argue for child custody changes when children resist contact with a non-preferred parent. The argument generally involves the request for a court order giving full custody to the nonpreferred parent and denying contact to the preferred parent. The child may also be ordered into a treatment program to facilitate reunification with the nonpreferred parent. The rationale of this argument is that the attitude and actions of children who reject a parent without clear evidence of abuse reflects mental illness. If that belief is correct then the child's mental disorder may be attributed to the actions of the preferred parent and, as the actions have harmed the child, those actions can be defined as abusive. Once an allegation of parental alienation is interpreted as abuse by a parent, that interpretation provides a strong argument against custody of or even contact with that parent. This line of argument, however, ignores other possible factors, such as the effect on a child of poor parenting skills of the nonpreferred parent or the influence of one or both parents’ new romantic partners, and depends on inferences about the behavior of the preferred parent rather than direct evidence of inappropriate parenting.

A number of articles in professional journals have presented critiques of the manner in which parental alienation advocates have construed children's avoidance of one divorced or separated parent and strong preference for the other parent. Key among their concerns is that advocates of parental alienation concepts have presented a highly simplified explanation of visitation and contact resistance or refusal by children of couples in high-conflict divorces. As multiple factors are generally involved in human behavior, they assert that without direct evidence it is not appropriate to infer manipulation or exploitation by one parent as the cause of a child's preference for one parent over the other. Another concern is that there is a lack of evidentiary support for the concept of parental alienation, as proponents of this theory have failed to meet standards for evidence-based treatment and have never produced empirical support for claimed symptoms of alienation such as "black and white thinking".

A particularly problematic aspect of the use of parental alienation concepts in child custody decisions is the possible association of allegations of alienating behavior by the preferred parent with allegations of domestic violence by the nonpreferred parent. As allegations of parental alienation can lead to court-ordered custody changes giving the nonpreferred parent full custody, and often including restraining orders against contact with the preferred parent, it becomes possible for a finding of parental alienation to cause children to be placed in the custody of a physically or sexually abusive parent.

Although courts have long been concerned with the issue of parental estrangement, and how to safely reunite children with their estranged parents, research into the cause of parental estrangement frequently involves issues of selection bias, lack of operationalization, small sample size, misclassification, and other methodological concerns. There remain significant questions about whether there is sufficient evidence to accurately support claims about the cause, prevalence and consequence of parental estrangement, or appropriate interventions in cases where estrangement exists. Sound research in this area remains in its early stages, and further research is required that is designed to reduce the risk of misclassificaiton, produce findings that are reliable, and to identify appropriate interventions.

Brazil
In August 2010 Brazil passed the first national legislation prohibiting parental alienation. Lei No. 12.318 which it defines "as the interference with the psychological formation of a child or adolescent that promotes repudiation of a parent or damage to the establishment or maintenance of ties with a parent, when such an act is practiced by a parent, grandparent, those who have the child or adolescent under their authority, custody, or supervision." A judge who finds that parental alienation has occurred may issue a warning, may modify the custody arrangement in favor of the alienated parent, may order counseling, or may place the alienated child in an interim residence.

England
In England, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) was formed to promote the welfare of children and families involved family court cases. Cafcass recognizes the possibility of parental alienating behaviours in family separation cases.

Israel
In Israel, parental alienation is known as "nikur hori", and some courts are receptive to efforts to attempt to reunify children who have been estranged or alienated from a parent, although concerns remain that there is little empirical evidence to support the concept of parental alienation. In order to expedite the resolution of custody cases and disputes, some jurisdictions in Israel have implemented pilot projects for cases involving child custody and enforcement of visitation orders.

Mexico
In the former Federal District of Mexico, an area that is officially equivalent to Mexico City, 323 Septimus of the Civil Code prohibited a family member from transforming the conscience of a minor so as to prevent, hinder or interfere with the minor's relationship with one of the minor's parents. If a court found that such acts had occurred and were of mild or moderate nature, and that the person responsible for the alienation was the father, the court was required to transfer custody to the other parent. If the court found that the degree of parental alienation attributable to the father was severe, all contact with the father of the child was required to be suspended, and the child was required to receive counseling. This provision was repealed by the Legislative Assembly of Mexico City in 2007 and again, after its reenactment, in 2017.

Republic of Ireland
Although Ireland does not have legislation on parental alienation, in 2020, for the first time in a child access case a judge described a parent's actions as "parental alienation". During 2019 to 2021 thirty of the thirty-one Irish councils have asked the government to recognise and address parental alienation. In 2021 the Irish Government included international parental alienation research and public consultation in its Justice Action Plan.

United States
Although all states have custody laws that require courts to consider how parents' actions affect the best interests of their children, no federal or state laws that incorporate the concept of parental alienation have been passed. Some courts recognize parental alienation as a serious issue with potential long-term effects and serious outcomes for the child. Other jurisdictions may suspend child support in cases where parental alienation occurs. For example, in a New York case in which the father was prevented from seeing his son by the child's mother through a "pattern of alienation", child support was suspended. Some United States courts have tried to address the issue through mandated reunification therapy.

Due to the nature of allegations of parental alienation, many courts require that a qualified expert witness testify in support of allegations of parental alienation or in association with any allegation that a parent has a mental health disorder.

An examination of parental alienation U.S. custody decisions, based upon a review of appellate cases, found that courts are significantly more skeptical of child physical and sexual abuse allegations made by mothers as compared to similar claims made by fathers, rendering parental alienation a powerful defense for fathers accused of abuse but not for mothers. A subsequent, smaller study disputed that conclusion.

History
The term parental alienation is derived from parental alienation syndrome, a term introduced by Richard Gardner in 1985 to describe a set of behaviors that he had observed in children exposed to family separation or divorce whereby children rejected or showed what he interpreted as unwarranted negative feelings towards one of their parents.

The idea that children may be turned against one of their parents, or may reject a parent unjustifiably during family breakdown, has been recognized for centuries. The position that many family estrangements result from such a process of psychological manipulation, undue influence or interference by a third party (rather than from genuine interactions between the estranged parties themselves) is less well-recognized.

Parental alienation syndrome
Parental alienation syndrome (PAS) was proposed by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner as a means of diagnosing parental alienation within a family by virtue of identifying a cluster of symptoms that he hypothesized would only co-exist if a parent were engaged in alienating behavior. This theory involved looking for a set of psychological symptoms in a child and proposing PAS as a basis for concluding that those symptoms were caused by harmful parenting practices.

No mental health organizations recognized parental alienation syndrome. In 2008, the American Psychological Association noted that there is a lack of data to support the concept of parental alienation syndrome, but took no official position on the syndrome. A 2009 survey of mental health and legal professionals found broad skepticism of the concept of parental alienation syndrome, and caution in relation to the concept of parental alienation.

In 2012, in anticipation of the release of the DSM-5, the fifth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, an argument was made for the inclusion of PAS in the DSM-5 as a diagnosis related to parental alienation. The argument was based upon the position that parental alienation and a variety of other descriptions of behaviors represent the underlying concept of parental alienation disorder. Despite lobbying by proponents, the proposal was rejected in December 2012.

With the exclusion of PAS from the DSM-V, some advocates for the recognition of parental alienation as a diagnosable condition have argued that elements of parental alienation are covered in the DSM-5 under the concept of "Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention", specifically, "Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress". Those advocates assert that children who are exposed to intimate partner distress between their parents may develop psychological symptoms as a result of that exposure. However, relational issues are not mental disorders or diagnoses, but are instead considered to be problems that may be relevant for diagnosis or treatment of a diagnosable disorder. While parent-child estrangement can serve as an example of a relational problem such as "Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress", the observation of a relational issue is not a diagnosis.

Recognition of parental alienation
As the psychological and psychiatric communities did not accept the concept of a "syndrome", the term "parental alienation" was advanced in the 1990s as a possible explanation of a child's behavior independent of a psychological or psychiatric diagnosis. Among theories of parental alienation that have been proposed, psychologists have argued that the term parental alienation may be used in a manner synonymous with the original formulation of parental alienation syndrome, with diagnosis based upon signs observable in children, that it may be used to describe the process or tactics by which a child becomes alienated from a parent, or to describe the outcomes for parents and others who have experienced unwarranted rejection by a child.

Some empirical research has been performed, though the quality of the studies vary widely and research in the area is still developing. One complicating factor for research is that high numbers of parents involved in high conflict custody disputes engage in alienating or indoctrinating behaviors, but only a small proportion children become alienated.

In an informal survey at the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts in 2010, 98% of the 300 respondents agreed with the question, "Do you think that some children are manipulated by one parent to irrationally and unjustifiably reject the other parent?". Survey participants were divided as to whether a rejected parent partially blame when a child becomes alienated from a parent and the other parent is exhibiting alienating behaviors, and by a significant margin rejected the inclusion of parental alienation in the DSM. However, parental alienation refers not to the acts of manipulation, but rather to the child's rejection of a parent that results from alienating behavior.

United States courts have broadly rejected parental alienation syndrome as a concept that may be presented in a child custody case, but it remains possible to argue within child custody litigation that parental alienation has occurred and to demonstrate how a parent's alienating behaviors should be considered by a court when evaluating a custody case. Behaviors that result in parental alienation may reflect other mental health disorders, both on the part of the alienating parent and the rejected parent that, if proved, remain relevant to a custody determination. The behavior of the alienated child may also be a relevant factor. However, single-factor explanations for a child's estrangement from a parent have not proved valid, and multi-factor models are more complex and difficult to argue in a court setting.

Activism
In late 2005, a Canadian activist named Sarvy Emo proposed that March 28 be designated Parental Alienation Awareness Day. The proposed date was later modified to April 25. The date has received some level of recognition, such as a 2006 proclamation by the Governor of Georgia recognizing April 25 as Parental Alienation Awareness Day, and its unofficial recognition by the Governor of Nevada in 2007.

There are also organizations that actively oppose the use of the concept of parental alienation and the making of custody decisions based on this belief system. For example, the Center for Judicial Excellence argues against the use of the parental alienation argument in custody cases. In 2019 the American Professional Society on Abuse of Children (APSAC) posted on its website a recommendation against using the parental alienation concept or claiming that when a child rejects a parent, emotional abuse by the preferred parent has taken place. The Institute on Violence, Abuse, and Trauma (IVAT) devoted a three-hour session at its September 2019 meeting to arguments opposing the use of parental alienation concepts and related claims.

title: Parental alienation


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu song

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Yu song.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

vanity -- Graham :) | Talk 10:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

 * :) delete! Dunc Harris | Talk 10:57, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Thue 13:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I knew it would be a computer student. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 16:18, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Computer student stuck on campus, probably not interested in sports, bored stiff. Yet still can't be bothered to make a claim for significance. Delete. Average Earthman 18:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. WHY do they keep creating articles with lower case last names?  RickK 19:48, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Andris 22:48, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu song


text:
Gunshot

A gunshot is a single discharge of a gun, typically a man-portable firearm, producing a visible flash, a powerful and loud shockwave and often chemical gunshot residue. The term can also refer to a ballistic wound caused by such a discharge.

Multiple discharges of one or more firearms are referred to as gunfire. The word can connote either the sound of a gun firing, the projectiles that were fired, or both. For example, the statement "gunfire came from the next street" could either mean the sound of discharge, or it could mean the bullets that were discharged. It is better to be a bit more specific while writing however. "The sound of gunfire" or "we came under gunfire" would be more descriptive and prevent confusion. In the latter phrase, in particular, "fire" is used more (i.e. "under fire"), as both words hold the same general meaning within the proper context.

Gunfire characteristics
There are three primary attributes that characterize gunfire and hence enable the detection and location of gunfire and similar weapon discharges:
 * 1) A muzzle flash which occurs when superheated gases and incompletely combusted propellant residue are secondarily ignited upon contact with fresh ambient oxygen after being expelled out the gun barrel
 * 2) A muzzle blast which occurs when high-pressure gases within the barrel are suddenly released and rapidly expand when the projectile exits the muzzle and the bullet-bore contact that maintained the seal is removed.  A typical muzzle blast generates a shock wave with a sound pressure level (SPL) of 140 dB or louder.
 * 3) A whip-like “snap” or “crack” caused by the sonic boom that occurs as a projectile moves through the air at supersonic speeds.

Gunfire can be confused with other noises that can sound similar, such as firework explosions and cars backfiring. Gunfire noise propagation is anisotropic. The sounds may be heard at greater distances in the direction of bullet travel than behind or beside the gun.

Urban areas typically exhibit diurnal noise patterns where background noise is higher during the daytime and lower at night and the noise floor directly correlates to urban activity (e.g., automobile traffic, airplane traffic, construction, and so on). A firearm's muzzle blast may be masked by ambient noise during the daytime, but may be detected at greater distances during the quieter hours of darkness. A popular urban gunfire locator system typically uses six to ten audio sensors per square mile for trilateration. (two or three per square kilometer)

A suppressor can be attached to the muzzle of a firearm to decrease the auditory signature of the high-velocity gases released from the muzzle when firing the weapon. The sound of firing is only decreased, however, and is still considerable. Suppressors attached to the muzzle will not reduce the sound of high velocity gases released from other locations, such as the gap between the cylinder and barrel of a revolver. A muzzle suppressor is similarly ineffective in reducing the snap of a supersonic bullet or the noise produced by the mechanical action of a self-loading firearm. Use of suppressors is rare in United States crimes. A 2007 study estimated unlawful suppressor possession was involved in only 0.05 percent (1 in 2,000) federal criminal prosecutions; and the suppressor was unused, but simply in the possession of the defendant for 92% of prosecutions involving a suppressor.

title: Gunshot


text:
Talk:Operation Spanner

Which police force/s?
The item doesn't state which police was/were involved. Moriori 10:05, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * The timeline on linked-to website says Manchester, so added that. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Outcomes
If the case weren't true it would be quite a comedy - arresting a couple for S/M activity, the top for inflicting torture and the willing bottom for aiding in their own mistreatment - quite shocking. I recall that two or more of the defendants committed suicide because of the case and several others "lost everything" as a result. As the article progresses I hope that some of the impact it had on those involved in the acse is explored. Benjiboi 12:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the judge's conclusion could easily apply to the sport of BOXING. 199.214.26.194 (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Boxing is argued to be allowable because it is "in the public interest". — ciphergoth 14:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly, a later case held that a man branding his wife's buttocks with an iron did not amount to assault. Of course, the main difference was that they were a heterosexual couple. --92.236.26.38 (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed - this was R v. Wilson. I believe the "official" reasoning given in the ruling was because R v. Brown only applied to sadomasochism, whilst this case was deemed to be not sadomasochism, and comparable to assault - see . Also of interest is the recent Mosley case where, even though this certainly was considered to be sadomasochism, the judge ridiculed the idea of it being illegal, on the grounds of it not being as serious as the events in the Spanner case (which in particular involved some participants who were under the age of consent for homosexuality at the time). Mdwh (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Spanner timeline
FYI, Spanner timeline. Benjiboi 19:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms
In the Criticisms of the Judgement section, I read this: When compared to similar cases involving injuries caused intentionally or recklessly as a result of roughness during consensual intercourse between heterosexual couples. ...and am made to wonder what the heck it's trying to say. I'd normally tackle the re-write myself if I can parse the meaning, but in this case I cannot. There's precious little context or citation to determine the usable truthiness of it. Help? -:-  Alpin  Wolf   -:- 06:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 * To me the key phrase is during consensual intercourse between heterosexual couples as in this case was held to a different standard when compared to. Agree it's not very clear though. -- Banj e  b oi   02:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any more references for this criticism? I haven't looked at the Bottomley/Bronitt book yet, but it seems unlikely the Slingsby case could be cited in comparison; that case was dismissed as there was no suggestion that the injuries inflicted were intentional, whereas the key point in this case was the capacity to consent to injury. Hence comparisons with boxing would probably be more relevant. It's also worth noting that any criticism is probably implicitly of the European system too (since the case reached the European courts). The more relevant case is probably R. v. Brown The Wolfenden Report (Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution (1957) ((Cmnd. 247)) declared that the function of the criminal law in relation to homosexual behaviour "is to preserve public order and decency, to project the citizen from what is offensive or injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others, particularly those who are especially vulnerable because they are young, weak in body or mind, inexperienced, or in a state of special, physical, official or economic dependence"; paragraph 13 of chapter 2.

In response to the Wolfenden Report and consistently with its recommendations, Parliament enacted section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which provided, inter alia, as follows:

"(1) Notwithstanding any statutory or common law provision, . . . a homosexual act in private shall not be an offence provided that the parties consent thereto and have attained the age of 21 years.

"(2) An act which would otherwise be treated for the purposes of this Act as being done in private shall not be so treated if done - (a) when more than two persons take part or are present; . ..

"(6) It is hereby declared that where in any proceedings it is charged that a homosexual act is an offence the prosecutor shall have the burden of proving that the act was done otherwise than in private or otherwise than with the consent of the parties or that any of the parties had not attained the age of 21 years. which applied at the time, of course since 2000 the age of consent has changed to 16 and public attitudes to homosexuality have too, so that case probably wouldn't be considered a relevant precedent today. 87.81.240.78 (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Reasoning
"Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilized." by the person Templeman facts: Reasoning:
 * f1 sentence 1 acknowledges there is a gradient (a potential, like from well to drain)
 * f2 cruelty: act of being cruel: cruel causes suffering
 * f3 uncivilized is the negation of civilized : civilized a state where civilization has occurred: civilization achieving an advanced state of development.
 * f4 money is an advancement in development
 * f5 wealthy/rich (monetary) having extensively more than the average does.
 * f6 statistically if there are excessive variations toward one extreme then variations toward the other extreme are required to keep the average at the same point.
 * f7 poor is the other monetary extreme
 * f8 rich people derive pleasure from their monetary status (because they are able to please some of their needs by using money)
 * f9 there are rich people and poor people, not just average. (can be empirically determined)
 * f10 based on the prerequisite that all people are the same all should possess the same money.
 * f11 the discrepancy between f9 and f10 has to come from a displacement, a gradient in some way
 * f12 f6 and f11 (and f9 and f10) require to declare that rich only exist because there are poor and vice versa
 * f13 the nature of money itself is such that if all would have plenty that no one would be in need for more
 * f14 the poor sometimes suffer even in pain because they dont have money to afford certain things
 * R1 derived from f14 f12 and f8 one can say 'that some rich derive their pleasure by the poor that sometimes suffer even in pain.' with sentence 1 this results in 'some rich are an evil thing'
 * Q1 some rich are an evil thing is something most of society would agree to but imprisonment of (some of) the rich no one would agree, why to bdsm couples for a deducible similar act?
 * R2 f2 f3 f4 f14 f13 and f12 one can say money is civilized yet causes suffering therefore sentence 2 is invalid.
 * Q2 if cruelty is derivable not uncivilized (but rather part of the civilization even) and others go free for a similar act why are bdsm couples criminalized like that then?
 * Q3 is it really morally correct to impose such double standards, and do you want to live in such a society?

 * This obviously has no connection to this lemma. Could anybody please delete it? Nemissimo (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I guess you are referring to Lord Templeman's
 * "In principle there is a difference between violence which is incidental and violence which is inflicted for the indulgence of cruelty. The violence of sadomasochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. Such violence is injurious to the participants and unpredictably dangerous. I am not prepared to invent a defence of consent for sadomasochistic encounters which breed and glorify cruelty [...]. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilized."
 * Wikipedia is quoting Templeman, to try to help us understand the judgement.
 * I don't think being rich should protect one from going to prison.
 * --195.137.93.171 (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"As a result of the Spanner case, the Law Commission decided in 2007 to investigate the status of consensual sadomasochistic acts in the law of England and Wales."
Is there any source related to the results of this investigation?Nemissimo (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any new information on this? Nemissimo (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Why does 'protection of morals' link to 'Paternalism'?
Any idea what paternalism has to do with 'protection of morals'? Restrictions 'for ones own good' are surely not the same thing as restrictions that protect morals. 122.62.116.20 (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Source of name
The operation was apparently given its name by the Police on the basis that when officers read about the various acts of sado-masochism "they felt their nuts tighten". It would be good if an appropriate citation could be found for this! https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/325658.html?c=on hardly seems a suitably authoritative source to cite.Ntmr (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Operation Spanner


text:
Johnnie Johnson

Johnnie Johnson may refer to:

 * Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer) (1915–2001), Royal Air Force Second World War II flying ace and air vice-marshal
 * Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer, born 1917) (1917–2009), English Royal Air Force air vice-marshal and cricketer
 * Johnnie Johnson (musician) (1924–2005), American pianist and blues musician
 * Johnnie Johnson (American football) (born 1956), American football cornerback and safety
 * Johnnie Johnson Jr. (born 1942), first black chief of police for Birmingham, Alabama.

title: Johnnie Johnson


text:
Haitian

Haitian may refer to:

Relating to Haiti

 * Haitian, an adjective referring to something of, from, or related to Haiti
 * Haitian Creole, a French-based Creole
 * Haitian French, variant of the French language
 * Haitians, an ethnic group
 * Haitian art
 * Haitian Carnival
 * Haitian cuisine, traditional foods
 * Haitian gourde, a unit of currency
 * Haitian patty, in culinary contexts
 * Haitian literature
 * Haitian mythology
 * Haitian Revolution
 * Haitian Vodou
 * Ligue Haïtienne (Haitian League)

Other uses

 * Haitian (Heroes), minor character in the 2006 television series Heroes

title: Haitian


text:
User:Malene

 * Contributor to the danish Wikipedia: User:Malene
 * Photographer on Commons: User:Malene

da:Bruger:Malene de:Benutzer:Malene es:Usuario:Malene fo:Brúkari:Malene fr:Utilisateur:Malene nl:Gebruiker:Malene ja:利用者:Malene no:Bruker:Malene nn:Brukar:MaleneDk pl:Wikipedysta:Malene sv:Användare:Malene

title: User:Malene


text:
Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer)

Air Vice Marshal James Edgar Johnson,, DL (9 March 1915 – 30 January 2001), nicknamed "Johnnie", was an English Royal Air Force (RAF) pilot and flying ace who flew and fought during the Second World War.

Johnson grew up and was educated in the East Midlands, where he qualified as an engineer. A sportsman, Johnson broke his collarbone while playing rugby, an injury that later complicated his ambitions of becoming a fighter pilot. Johnson had been interested in aviation since his youth and applied to join the RAF. He was initially rejected, first on social, and then on medical grounds; he was eventually accepted in August 1939. The injury problems, however, returned during his early training and flying career, resulting in his missing the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain between May and October 1940.

In 1940 Johnson had an operation to reset his collarbone, and began flying regularly. He took part in the offensive sweeps over German-occupied Europe from 1941 to 1944, almost without rest. Johnson was involved in heavy aerial fighting during this period. His combat tour included participation in the Dieppe Raid, Combined Bomber Offensive, Battle of Normandy, Operation Market Garden, the Battle of the Bulge and the Western Allied invasion of Germany. Johnson progressed to the rank of group captain by the end of the war.

Johnson was credited with 34 individual victories over enemy aircraft, as well as seven shared victories, three shared probable, ten damaged, three shared damaged and one destroyed on the ground. Johnson flew 700 operational sorties and engaged enemy aircraft on 57 occasions. Included in his list of individual victories were 14 Messerschmitt Bf 109s and 20 Focke-Wulf Fw 190s destroyed making him the most successful RAF ace against the Fw 190. This score made him the highest scoring Western Allied fighter ace against the German Luftwaffe.

Johnson continued his career in the RAF after the war, and served in the Korean War before retiring in 1966 with the rank of air vice marshal. He maintained an interest in aviation and did public speaking on the subject as well as entering into the business of aviation art. Johnnie Johnson remained active until his death from cancer in 2001.

Early life
Johnson was born 9 March 1915 in Barrow upon Soar, Leicestershire, to Alfred Johnson and Beatrice May Johnson. He lived and was brought up in Melton Mowbray, where his father was a policeman. Alfred Johnson was an inspector by the mid-1930s. One evening Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British Union of Fascists, held a meeting in the town. The licence for the meeting expired at 10 p.m. at which time Alfred Johnson went alone and ejected the Fascists from the building.

Johnson was educated at Camden Street Junior School and Loughborough Grammar School. Johnson's uncle, Edgar Charles Rossell, who had won the Military Cross with the Royal Fusiliers in 1916, paid for Johnson's education at Loughborough. According to his brother Ross, during his time there, Johnson was nearly expelled after refusing punishment for a misdemeanour, believing it to be unjustified: "he was very principled and simply dug his heels in". Among Johnson's hobbies and interests were shooting and sports; he shot rabbits and birds in the local countryside.

Johnson attended the University College Nottingham (later the University of Nottingham), where he qualified as a civil engineer, aged 22. Johnson became a surveyor at Melton Mowbray Urban District Council before progressing to assistant engineer with Chigwell Urban District Council at Loughton. In 1938, Johnson broke his collarbone playing rugby for Chingford Rugby Club; the injury was wrongly set and did not heal properly, which later caused him difficulty at the start of his flying career.

Joining the RAF
Johnson started taking flying lessons at his own expense. He applied to join the Auxiliary Air Force (AAF) but encountered some of the social problems that were rife in British society. Johnson felt he was rejected on the grounds of his class status. Johnson's fortunes were to improve. The prospect of war increased in the aftermath of the Munich Crisis, and the criteria for applicants changed as the RAF expanded and brought in men from ordinary social backgrounds. Johnson re-applied to the AAF. He was informed that sufficient pilots were already available but there were some vacancies in the balloon squadrons. Johnson rejected the offer.

Inspired by some Chingford friends who had joined, Johnson applied again to join the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve (RAFVR). The RAFVR was a means to enter the RAF for young men with ordinary backgrounds. All volunteer aircrew were made sergeant on joining with the possibility of a commission. Once again he was rejected, this time on the grounds that there were too many applicants for vacancies and his injury made him unsuitable for flight operations. His ambition frustrated, Johnson joined the Leicestershire Yeomanry, where the injury was not a bar to recruitment. He joined the Territorial Army unit because, though he was in a reserved occupation, if war came, he had "no intention of seeing out the duration building air raid shelters or supervising decontamination squads". Johnson was content in the Yeomanry. One day while riding through Burghley, near Stamford, on annual camp Johnson took a detour to RAF Wittering nearby (now in Cambridgeshire.) Upon seeing a line of Hawker Hurricane fighters Johnson remarked "If I've got to fight Hitler I'd sooner fight him in one of those than on a bloody great horse!".

Flight training
In August 1939, Johnson was finally accepted by the RAFVR and began training at weekends at the airfield Stapleford Tawney, a satellite airfield of RAF North Weald. There he received ground instruction on airmanship. Taught by retired service pilots of 21 Elementary & Reserve Flying Training School, Johnson trained on the de Havilland Tiger Moth biplane. Upon the outbreak of war in September 1939, with the rank of sergeant, Johnson entrained for Cambridge. He arrived at the 2nd Initial Training Wing to begin flight instruction. He was interviewed by senior officers in which he said his profession and knowledge of topography, surveying and mapping would make him more useful in a reconnaissance role. The wing commander agreed, but nonetheless, Johnson was selected for fighter pilot training and given the service number 754750 with the rank of sergeant. Johnson and several hundred others were entrained for Cambridge and the 2 initial Training Wing. While assigned here Johnson learned basic military drill, sometimes given the slang name "square bashing".

By December 1939, Johnson began his initial training at 22 EFTS (Elementary Flying Training School), Cambridge. He flew only three times in December 1939 and eight in January 1940, all as second pilot. On 29 February 1940, Johnson flew solo for the first time in Tiger Moth N6635. On 15 March and 24 April, he passed a 50-minute flight test followed by two night flights the following day. The chief flying instructor passed him on 6 May. He then moved to 5 FTS at Sealand before completing training at 7 OTU (Operational Training Unit) – RAF Hawarden in Wales flying the Miles Master N7454 where he earned his instrument, navigation, night-flying ratings and practised forced landings. After training was complete on 7 August 1940, Johnson received his "wings" and was immediately inducted into the General Duties Branch of the RAF as a pilot officer with 55 hours and 5 minutes solo flying.

On 19 August 1940, Johnson flew a Spitfire for the first time. Over the next weeks he practised handling, formation flying, attacks, battle climbs, aerobatics and dogfighting. During his training flights, he stalled and crashed a Spitfire. Johnson had his harness straps on too loose, and wrenched his shoulders – revealing that his earlier rugby injury had not healed properly. The Spitfire did a ground loop, ripping off one of the undercarriage legs and forcing the other up through the port main plane. The commanding officer (CO) excused Johnson, for the short airfield was difficult to land on for an inexperienced pilot. Johnson got the impression, however, that he would be watched closely, and felt that if he made another mistake, he would be "certainly washed out". Johnson tried to pack the injured shoulder with wool, held in place by adhesive tape. He also tightened the straps to reduce vibrations while flying. The measures proved useless and Johnson found he had lost feeling in his right hand. When he dived the pressure aggravated his shoulder. He often tried to fly using his left hand only, but Spitfires had to be handled with both hands during anything other than simple manoeuvres. Despite the difficulties with his injuries, on 28 August 1940, the course was complete. Johnson had 205.25 hours on operational types including 23.50 on the Spitfire.

Injury resurfaces
After training, in August 1940, he was briefly posted to No. 19 Squadron as a probationary pilot officer. Due to equipment difficulties, 19 Squadron were unable to complete Johnson's training and he left the unit. On 6 September 1940 Johnson was posted to No. 616 Squadron at RAF Coltishall. Squadron Leader H.L "Billy" Burton took Johnson on a 50-minute training flight in X4055. After the flight Burton impressed upon Johnson the difficulties of deflection shooting and the technique of a killing shot from line-astern or near line-astern positions; the duty of the number two whose job was not to shoot down enemy aircraft but to ensure the leader's tail was safe. Burton also directed Johnson to some critical tactical essentials; the importance of keeping good battle formation and the tactical use of sun, cloud and height. Five days later, Johnson flew an X-Raid patrol in Spitfire X4330, qualifying for the Battle of Britain clasp.

Johnson's old injury continued to trouble him and he found flying high performance aircraft like the Spitfire extremely painful. RAF medics gave him two options; he could have an operation that would correct the problem, but this meant he would miss the Battle of Britain, or becoming a training instructor flying the light Tiger Moth. Johnson opted for the operation. He had hoped for discreet treatment, but word soon reached the CO, and Johnson was taken off flying duties and sent to the RAF hospital at Rauceby. He did not return to the squadron until 28 December 1940. CO Burton took Johnson up for a test flight on 31 December 1940 in Miles Magister L8151. After the 45-minute flight, Johnson's fitness to fly was approved.

Second World War
Johnson returned to operational flying in early 1941 in 616 Squadron, which was forming part of the Tangmere Wing. Johnson often found himself flying alongside Wing Commander Douglas Bader and Australian ace Tony Gaze. On 15 January 1941, Johnson, the recently appointed Squadron Leader Burton and Pilot Officer Hugh Dundas, who arrived back at the squadron on 13 September 1940, took off to offer cover for a convoy off North Cotes. The controller vectored the pair onto an enemy aircraft, a Dornier Do 17. Both attacked the bomber and lost sight of it and each other. Although the controllers intercepted distress signals from the bomber Johnson did not see it crash. They were credited with one enemy aircraft damaged. It was the only time Johnson was to engage a German bomber. By the end of January, Johnson had added another 16.35 flying hours on Spitfires.

In the opening months, Johnson flew as a night fighter pilot. Using day fighters to act as night fighters without radar was largely unsuccessful in intercepting German bombers during the Blitz; Johnson's only action occurred on 22 February 1941 when he damaged a Messerschmitt Bf 110 in Spitfire R6611, QJ-F. A week later, Johnson's squadron was moved to RAF Tangmere on the Channel coast. Johnson was eager to see combat after just 10.40 operational hours and welcomed the prospect of meeting the enemy from Tangmere. If the Germans did not resume their assault the wing was to take the fight to them.

In November 1940 Air Marshal Sholto Douglas became Air Officer Commanding (AOC) RAF Fighter Command. On 8 December 1940 a directive from the Air Staff called for Sector Offensive Sweeps. It ordered hit-and-run operations over Belgium and France. The operations were to be conducted by three squadrons to harass German air defences. On 10 January 1941 Circus attacks were initiated by sending small bomber formations protected by large numbers of fighters. The escalation of offensive operations throughout 1941 was designed to draw up the Luftwaffe as Douglas' command took an increasingly offensive stance. These operations became known as the Circus offensive. Trafford Leigh-Mallory, AOC 11 Group, penned Operations Instruction No. 7, which he had written on 16 February. Leigh-Mallory outlined six distinct operations for day fighters: Ramrod (bomber escort with primary goal the destruction of the target); Fighter Ramrod (the same goal where fighters escorted ground-attack fighters); Roadstead (bomber escort and anti-shipping operations); Fighter Roadstead (the same operation as Roadstead but without bombers) along with Rhubarb (poor weather ground attack operation) and Circus operations (see glossary).

Circus offensives
Johnson's first contact with enemy single-engine fighters did not go as planned. Bader undertook a patrol with Dundas as his number two. Johnson followed in his section as number three with Whaley "Nip" Heppell guarding his tail as Red Four. Johnson spotted three Bf 109s a few hundred feet higher and travelling in the same direction. Johnson, forgetting to calmly report the number, type and position of the enemy, shouted, "Look out Dogsbody!" (Bader's call sign). Such a call was only to be used if the pilot in question was in imminent danger of being attacked. The section broke in all directions and headed to Tangmere singly. The mistake brought an embarrassing rebuke from Bader at the debriefing.

Johnson flew various operations over France including the Rhubarb ground attack missions which Johnson hated—he considered it a waste of pilots. Several successful fighter pilots had been lost this way. Flight Lieutenant Eric Lock and Wing Commander Paddy Finucane were killed on Rhubarb operations in August 1941 and July 1942 respectively. Squadron leader Robert Stanford Tuck would be captured carrying out a similar operation in January 1942. During this time, Dundas and other pilots also expressed dissatisfaction with the formation tactics being used in the wing. After a long conversation into the early hours, Bader accepted the suggestions by his senior pilots and agreed to the use of more flexible tactics to lessen the chances of being taken by surprise. The tactical changes involved operating overlapping line abreast formations similar to the German finger-four formation. The tactics were used thereafter by all RAF pilots in the wing.

The first use of these tactics by the Tangmere Wing was used on 6 May 1941. The wing engaged Bf 109Fs from Jagdgeschwader 51 (Fighter Wing 51), led by Werner Mölders. Noticing the approaching Germans below and behind them, the Spitfires feigned ignorance. Waiting for the optimum moment to turn the tables, Bader called for them to break, and whip around behind the Bf 109s. Unfortunately for the Tangmere Wing, while the tactic had been successful in avoiding a surprise attack, the break was mistimed. It left some Bf 109s still behind the Spitfires. In the battle that followed the wing shot down one Bf 109 and damaged another, although Dundas was shot down for the second time in his career—and once again by Mölders, who had remained behind the British. Dundas was able to nurse his crippled fighter back to base and crash-land. One month later, Johnson gained his first air victory. On 26 June Johnson participated in Circus 24. Crossing the coast near Gravelines, Bader warned of 24 Bf 109s nearby, southeast, in front of the wing. The Bf 109s saw the British and turned to attack the lower No. 610 Squadron from the rear. While watching three Bf 109s above him dive to port, Johnson lost sight of his wing commander at 15,000 feet. Immediately a Bf 109E flew in front of him and turned slightly to port at a range of 150 yards. After receiving hits, the Bf 109's hood was jettisoned and the pilot baled out. Several No. 145 Squadron pilots witnessed the victory. He had expended 278 rounds from P7837's guns. The Bf 109 was one of five lost by Jagdgeschwader 2 (Fighter Wing 2) that day.

A flurry of action followed. On 1 July 1941 he expended 89 rounds and damaged a Bf 109E. Bader's section was attacked and Johnson out-turned his assailant. Firing, he saw glycol streaming behind it. On 14 July, the Tangmere Wing flew on Circus 48 to St Omer. Losing sight of the squadron, Johnson and his wingman proceeded inland at 3,000 feet after spotting three aircraft. Turning in behind them, he identified them as Bf 109Fs. Johnson dived so as to come up and underneath into the enemy's blind spot. Closing to 15 yards, he gave the trailing Bf 109 a two-second burst. The tail was blown off and his windshield was covered in oil from the Messerschmitt. Johnson saw the other Bf 109s spinning down out of control. Having also lost his wingman, Johnson disengaged. Climbing and crossing the coast at Etaples, Johnson bounced a Bf 109E. Giving chase in a dive to 2,000 feet and firing at 150 yards, he observed something flying off the Bf 109's starboard wing. Johnson could not see any more owing to the oil-covered windscreen and did not make a claim. His second victory was probably Unteroffizier (corporal) R. Klienike, III./Jagdgeschwader 26 (Third Group, Fighter Wing 26) who was posted missing.

On 21 July, Johnson shared in the destruction of another Bf 109 with Pilot Officer Heppell. Johnson's wingman disappeared during the battle. Sergeant Mabbet was mortally wounded but made a wheels-up landing near St Omer. Impressed with his skilful flying while badly wounded, the Germans buried him with full honours. On 23 July, Johnson damaged another Bf 109. During this battle Adolf Galland, Geschwaderkommodore (wing commander) of JG 26 was wounded; his life was saved by a recently installed armour plate behind his head.

Johnson took part in the 9 August 1941 mission in which Bader was lost over France. On that day Douglas Bader had been without his usual wingman Sir Alan Smith who was unable to fly due to having a head cold. During the sortie, Johnson destroyed a solitary Messerschmitt Bf 109. Johnson flew as wingman to Dundas in Bader's section. As the wing crossed the coast, around 70 Bf 109s were reported in the area, the Luftwaffe aircraft outnumbering Bader's wing by 3:1. Spotting a group of Bf 109s 1,000 feet below them, Bader led a bounce on a lower group. The formations fell apart and the air battle became a mass of twisting aircraft;

"It seemed to me the biggest danger was a collision rather than being shot down, that's how close we all were. We got the 109s we were bouncing then (Squadron Leader) Holden came down with his section, so there were a lot of aeroplanes ... just 50 yards apart. It was awful ... all you could think about was surviving, getting out of that mass of aircraft."

Johnson exited the melee and was then immediately attacked by three Bf 109s. The closest was 100 yards away. Maintaining a steep, tight, spiralling turn, he dived into cloud and immediately headed for Dover. Coming out of the cloud, Johnson saw a lone Bf 109. Suspecting it to be one of the three that had chased him, he searched for the other two. Seeing nothing, Johnson attacked and shot it down. It was his fourth victory. Johnson ended his month's tally by adding a probable victory on 21 August. But it had been a bad day and month for the wing. The much loathed Circus and Rhubarb raids had cost Fighter Command 108 fighters. The Germans lost just 18. On 4 September 1941 Johnson was promoted to flight lieutenant and awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

Johnson's last certain victories of the year were achieved on 21 September 1941. Escorting Bristol Blenheims to Gosnay, the top cover wings failed to rendezvous with the bombers. Near Le Touquet at 15:15 and around 20,000 feet, Johnson's section was bounced by 30 Bf 109s. Johnson broke and turned in and behind a Bf 109F. Approaching from a quarter astern and slightly below, Johnson fired closing from 200 to 70 yards. Pilot Officer Smith of Johnson's section observed the pilot bail out. Pursued by several enemy aircraft, Johnson dived to ground level. About 10 miles off Le Touquet, other Bf 109s attacked. Allowing the Germans to close within range, Johnson turned into a steep left-hand turn. It took him onto the tail of a Bf 109. Johnson fired and broke away at 50 yards. The Bf 109 was hit, stalled and crashed into the sea. Johnson was pursued until 10 miles south of Dover. The two victories made Johnson's total to six destroyed, which now meant he was an official flying ace. In winter 1941, Johnson and 616 Squadron moved to training duties. The odd convoy patrol was flown but it was an idle period for the squadron which had now concluded its "Tangmere tour".

Squadron leader to wing commander
On 31 January 1942, the squadron moved to RAF Kings Cliffe. After an uneventful few months, RAF Fighter Command resumed its offensive policy in April 1942 when the weather cleared for large-scale operations. Johnnie flew seven sweeps that month. But the situation had now changed. The Spitfire V, which was flown by the RAF had been a match for the Bf 109F, however, the Germans had introduced a new fighter: the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. It was faster at all altitudes below 25,000 feet, possessed a faster roll rate, was more heavily armed and could out-dive and out-climb the Spitfire. Only in the turn could the Spitfire outperform the Fw 190. The introduction of this new enemy fighter resulted in heavier casualty rates among the Spitfire squadrons until a new mark of Spitfire could be produced. Johnson claimed a damaged Fw 190 on 15 April 1942 but he witnessed the Fw 190s get the better of the British pilots consistently throughout most of 1942:

"Yes, the 190 was causing us real problems at this time. We could out-turn it, but you couldn't turn all day. As the number of 190s increased, so the depth of our penetrations decreased. They drove us back to the coast really."

On 25 May, Johnson experienced an unusual mission. His section engaged a Dornier Do 217 carrying British markings, four miles west of his base. Johnson allowed the three inexperienced pilots to attack it, but they only managed to damage the bomber. Days later, on 26 June 1942, Johnson was awarded the bar to his DFC. More welcome news was received late in the month as the first Spitfire Mk. IXs began reaching RAF units. On 10 July 1942, Johnson was promoted to the rank of squadron leader, effective as of 13 July, and given command of 610 Squadron. In rhubarb operations over France, Johnson's wing commander, Patrick Jameson, insisted that the line-astern formation be used which caused Johnson to question why tactics such as the finger-four had not been universally adopted. Johnson criticised the lack of tactical consistency and when his squadron flew top cover, he often changed to the finger-four as soon as they reached the French coast, hoping his wing leader would not notice.

By August 1942, preparations were begun for a major operation, Jubilee, at Dieppe. The Dieppe raid took place on 19 August 1942. Johnson took off at 07:40 in Spitfire VB. EP254, DW-B. Running into around 50 Bf 109s and Fw 190s in fours, pairs and singly. In a climbing attack Johnson shot down one Fw 190 which crashed into the sea and shared in the destruction of a Bf 109F. While heading back to base, Johnson attacked an alert Fw 190 which met his attack head on. The dogfight descended from 8,000 to zero feet. Flying over Dieppe, Johnson dived towards a destroyer in the hope its fire would drive off the Fw 190, now on his tail. The move worked and Johnson landed back at RAF West Malling at 09:20. For the remainder of the year, the squadron was moved to RAF Castletown in September 1942 to protect the Royal Navy fleet at Scapa Flow.

Johnson took command of No. 127 Wing RCAF based at RAF Kenley after Christmas and they received the new Spitfire IX: the answer to the Fw 190. After gaining a probable against a Fw 190 in February 1943, Johnnie selected Spitfire EN398 after a 50-minute test flight on 22 March 1943. It became his regular mount. Being a wing commander now meant his initials could be painted on the machine. His Spitfires now carried JE-J. He was also allotted the call sign "Greycap".

Johnson set about changing the wing's tactical approach. He quickly forced the wing to abandon the line-astern tactics for the finger-four formation which offered much more safety in combat; enabling multiple pilots to participate in scanning the skies for enemy aircraft so as to avoid an attack, and also being better able to spot and position their unit for a surprise attack upon the enemy. Johnson made another alteration to his units operations. He loathed ground-attack missions which highly trained fighter pilots were forced to participate in. He abandoned ground attack missions whenever he could. During these weeks, Johnson's wing escorted United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) bombers to targets in France. On a fighter sweep, Ramrod 49, Johnson destroyed an Fw 190 for his eighth victory. Unteroffizier Hans Hiess from 6. Staffel bailed out, but his parachute failed to open.

The spring proved to be a busy one; Johnson claimed three Fw 190s damaged two days later. On 11 and 13 May he destroyed an Fw 190 to reach ten individual air victories while sharing in the destruction of another on the later date and a Bf 109 on 1 June. A further five victories against Fw 190s were achieved in June. Two were claimed on 15 June. On 17 June while leading the wing over Calais Johnson bounced one of JG 26's Gruppen led by Wilhelm-Ferdinand Galland. He shot down Unteroffizier Gunther Freitag, 8./JG 26 who was killed. On 24 June he claimed one destroyed and one damaged on and another victory on the 27th to bring his total to 15.

Johnson scored more success in July. The USAAF began Blitz Week; a concentrated effort against German targets. Escorting American bombers, Johnson destroyed three Bf 109s and damaged another, the last being shot down on 30 July; his tally stood at 18. There was still no standard formation procedure in Fighter Command, and Johnson's use of the finger-four made the wing distinct in the air. It earned 144 Wing the nickname "Wolfpack". The name remained until 144 Wing was moved to an Advanced Landing Ground (ALG) at Lashenden and was renamed No. 127 Wing RCAF, part of the RAF Second Tactical Air Force under the command of No. 83 Group RAF.

The tactics proved successful in the Canadian wing. Johnson scored his 19th to 21st victories on 23 and 26 August, whilst claiming yet another Fw 190 on 4 September 1943. Johnson's 19th victory was gained against Oberfeldwebel (First-Sergeant) Erich Borounik 10./JG 26, who was killed. Johnson's 21st victim, Oberfeldwebel Walter Grunlinger 10./JG 26, was also killed.

Johnson's portrait is included in a montage of eighteen pilots painted by Olive Snell at RAF Westhampnett in 1943; it is now in the Goodwood collection on the same site.

Normandy to the Rhine

In the lead up to the Battle of Normandy and the D-Day landings Johnson continued to score regularly. His 22nd and 23rd victories were achieved on 25 April 1944 and Johnson became the highest scoring ace still on operations. These victories were followed by another Fw 190 on 5 May (no. 24); III./JG 26 lost Feldwebel Horst Schwentick and Unteroffizier Manfred Talkenberg killed during the air battle. After the landings in France on 6 June 1944, Johnson added further to his tally, claiming another five aerial victories that month including two Bf 109s on 28 June. The mission in which Johnson recorded his 26th victory on 22 June was particularly eventful; four more Fw 190s fell to his wing. After bouncing a formation of Bf 109s and Fw 190s, he shot down a Bf 109 for his 29th victory. Five days later, Johnson destroyed two Fw 190s to reach his 30th and 31st air victories.

Johnson's wing was the first to be stationed on French soil following the invasion. With their radius of action now far extended compared to the squadrons still in Britain, the wing scored heavily through the summer. On 21 August 1944, Johnson was leading No. 443 Squadron on a patrol over the Seine, near Paris. Johnson bounced a formation of Focke-Wulf Fw 190s, shooting down two, which were recorded on the cine camera. Climbing back to his starting point at 8,000 ft, Johnson attempted to join a formation of six aircraft, he thought were Spitfires. The fighters were actually Messerschmitt Bf 109s. Johnson escaped by doing a series of steep climbs, during which he nearly stalled and blacked out. He eventually evaded the Messerschmitts, which had been trying to flank him on either side, while two more stuck to his tail. Johnson's Spitfire IX was hit by enemy aircraft fire for the only time, taking cannon shells in the rudder and elevators. Johnson had now equalled and surpassed Sailor Malan's record score of 32, shooting down two Fw 190s for his 32nd and 33rd air victories. However Johnson considered Malan's exploits to be better. Johnson points out, when Malan fought (during 1940–41), he did so outnumbered, and had matched the enemy even then. Johnson said:

"Malan had fought with great distinction when the odds were against him. He matched his handful of Spitfires against greatly superior numbers of Luftwaffe fighters and bombers. He had been forced to fight a defensive battle over southern England and often at a tactical disadvantage, when the top-cover Messerschmitts [Bf 109s and Bf 110s] were high in the sun. I had always fought on the offensive, and, after 1941, I had either a squadron, a wing or sometimes two wings behind me."

In September 1944 Johnson's wing participated in support actions for Operation Market Garden in the Netherlands. On 27 September 1944, Johnson's last victory of the war was over Nijmegen. His flight bounced a formation of nine Bf 109s, one of which Johnson shot down. During this combat Squadron Leader Henry "Wally" McLeod, of the Royal Canadian Air Force, and his squadron had joined Johnson. During this action McLeod went missing, possibly shot down by Siegfried Freytag of Jagdgeschwader 77 (Fighter Wing 77).

The wing rarely saw enemy aircraft for the remainder of the year. Only on 1 January 1945 did the Germans appear in large numbers, during Operation Bodenplatte to support their faltering attack in the Ardennes. Johnson witnessed the German attack on his wing's airfield at Brussels–Melsbroek. He recalled the Germans seemed inexperienced and their shooting was "atrocious". Johnson led a Spitfire patrol to prevent a second wave of German aircraft attacking but engaged no enemy aircraft, since there was no follow-up attack. From late January and through most of February, Johnson reduced his flying time.

In March 1945, Johnson patrolled as Operation Plunder and Operation Varsity pushed Allied armies into Germany. There was little sign of the Luftwaffe. Numerous ground-attack operations were carried out instead. On 26 March Johnson's wing was relocated to Twente and he was promoted to group captain. Days later Johnson took command of No. 125 Wing. On 5 April, after returning from patrol in Spitfire Mk XIV MV268, he switched off the engine just as a Bf 109 flew overhead. Seeing the Spitfire, it turned in for an attack; Johnson took cover under his fighter while the airfield defences shot down the 109. On 16 April 1945 Johnson's wing moved to RAF Celle in Germany.

During the last week of the war, Johnson's squadron flew patrols over Berlin and Kiel as German resistance crumbled. During a flight over central Germany looking for jet fighters, Johnson's squadron attacked Luftwaffe airfields. On one sortie, his unit strafed and destroyed 11 Bf 109s that were preparing to take off. On another sortie, an enemy transport was sighted, but took evasive action and retreated back to German held territory but Johnson's pilots shot it down. On another occasion, Johnson intercepted a flight of four Fw 190s. The German fighters, however, waggled their wings to signal non-hostile intent and Johnson's unit escorted them to an RAF airfield.

After the German capitulation in May 1945, Johnson relocated with his unit to Copenhagen, Denmark. Here, his association with the Belgian No. 350 Squadron RAF led him to be awarded the Croix de Guerre with Palm and the rank of officer of the Order of Léopold with Palms.

Post-war
Johnson was given a permanent commission by the RAF after the war initially as a squadron leader, on promotion to wing commander (his wartime rank) becoming OC Tactics at the Central Fighter Establishment at RAF West Raynham in Norfolk.

Korean War and afterwards
During an exchange posting to the US Air Force, in 1950 he served in the Korean War flying the Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star, and later flew the North American F-86 Sabres with the US Air Force Tactical Air Command. Johnson did not leave any written record of his experiences but at the end of his tour received the US Air Medal and Legion of Merit.

In 1951, Johnson commanded a wing at RAF Fassberg, a station in the RAF Second Tactical Air Force in West Germany. In 1952, he was promoted to group captain and commanded RAF Wildenrath in West Germany until 1954. From 1954 to 1957 he was deputy director operations (DD(Ops)) at the Air Ministry in London. In 1956 his wartime memoir, Wing Leader was published. On 20 October 1957, Johnson became commanding officer of RAF Cottesmore in the UK, commanding a station operating the Victor V bomber. In 1960 he was promoted to air commodore and attended the Imperial Defence College (IDC) course in London and in June 1960 was made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) for his work as station commander at Cottesmore. After the course he was posted to the headquarters of No. 3 Group RAF of Bomber Command at RAF Mildenhall. On 1 October 1963 he was promoted to air vice marshal and served as air officer commanding (AOC) RAF Middle East based at Aden.

In 1964 he published his book Full Circle, a history of air fighting, co-written with Percy "Laddie" Lucas, a former Member of Parliament and Douglas Bader's brother-in-law. In 1965 on retirement from the RAF he was appointed a Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB).

Later life
Johnson was a deputy lieutenant for the County of Leicestershire in 1967. He established the Johnnie Johnson Housing Trust. In 1969 and by 2001 the housing association managed over 4,000 properties.

After the death of the WW2 RAF fighter pilot Douglas Bader in 1982, Johnson, Denis Crowley-Milling and Sir Hugh Dundas set up the Douglas Bader Foundation, to continue supporting disabled charities, of which Bader was a passionate supporter.

Johnson was also the first to recognise the skills of Robert Taylor, aviation artist, in the 1980s. Depictions of aircraft and battle scenes in print began to become popular and he helped Taylor promote them. The venture was successful and Johnson's sons set up their own distribution networks in the United States and Britain.

Johnson spent most of the 1980s and 1990s as a keynote speaker, fundraiser and spending time on his hobbies; travelling, fishing, shooting and walking his dogs. Johnson appeared on the long–running British television show This Is Your Life on 8 May 1985, the 40th anniversary of VE Day. Among the programme's guests was German fighter ace Walter Matoni. British wartime propaganda had alleged Johnson had challenged Matoni to a personal duel; a version of events denied by Johnson. The two men arranged to meet after the war but were unable to do so until the TV programme. Among other guests was Hugh Dundas, "Nip" Heppel, who flew alongside Johnson on his first operation—in which he earned a rebuke from Bader—Crowley-Milling, Johnson's former wing commander Patrick Jameson and his uncle, Charlie Rossell who was over 100 years old at the time.

Personal life
As a teenager, Johnson became fascinated by speed and joined the Melton Car Club with two boyhood friends. Johnson enjoyed the lifestyle of cars and "pacey women". Although he had many early interests, Johnson later settled and added to his family. On 14 November 1942, Johnson married Pauline Ingate in Norwich during home leave. Hugh Dundas acted as best man and Lord Beaverbrook's son, Wing Commander Max Aitken also attended. During the war Pauline worked for the Fire Service. They had two sons: Michael (16 October 1944) and Chris (born 1 December 1946). After the couple split up, Johnson lived in Buxton, Derbyshire with his partner, Janet Partridge.

On 30 January 2001, Johnson, aged 85 years, died from cancer. A memorial service took place on 25 April 2001 at St Clement Danes and the hymns Jerusalem and I Vow to Thee, My Country were played. His children scattered his ashes on the Chatsworth estate in Derbyshire. The only memorial was a bench dedicated to him at his favourite fishing spot on the Monsall Dale area of the estate; the inscription reads "In Memory of a Fisherman".

List of air victories
Johnson's wartime record was 515 sorties flown, 34 aircraft claimed destroyed with a further seven shared destroyed (three and one shared victories), three probable destroyed, 10 damaged, and one shared, destroyed on the ground. All his victories were fighters. As a wing leader, Johnson was able to use his initials "JE-J" in place of squadron code letters. He scored the bulk of his victories flying two Mk IXs: EN398/JEJ in which he shot down 12 aircraft and shared five plus six and one shared damaged, while commanding the Kenley Wing; MK392/JEJ, an L.F Mk. IX, 12 aircraft plus one shared, destroyed on the ground. His last victory of the war was scored in this aircraft. Johnson ended the war flying a Mk XIVE, MV268/JEJ. His post-war mount was MV257/JEJ; it was the last Spitfire to carry his initials.

The ability to verify British claims against the British' main opponents in 1941 and 1942, JG 26 and JG 2, is very limited. Only two of the 30 volumes of War Diaries produced by JG 26 survived the war. Historian Donald Caldwell has attempted to use what limited German material is available to compare losses and air victory claims but acknowledges the lack of sources leave the possibility for error.

A list of the 34 individual victories.

title: Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer)


text:
Talk:Trimeter

But what's an anapaestic trimeter? (see William Shenstone). Cutler 10:21, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * See Anapaest. Each line goes short-short-long, short-short-long, short-short-long. --   the     GREAT     Gavini   18:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Trimeter


text:
The Dogfather

The Dogfather is an American series of 17 theatrical cartoon shorts produced by DePatie–Freleng Enterprises and distributed by United Artists between 1974 and 1976. It is the final theatrical cartoon series made by DePatie–Freleng.

Plot
The Dogfather was a parody of The Godfather, but with canines as part of the Italian organized crime syndicate. It consists of the Dogfather (voiced by Bob Holt impersonating Marlon Brando) and his henchmen Pug (also Bob Holt) and Louie (voiced by Daws Butler).

The opening credits featured the Dogfather, speaking to the lyrics of a song entitled "I'll make him an offer he can't Refuse".

The Dogfather was later broadcast as part of the NBC Saturday morning cartoon series The Pink Panther and Friends.

Revival
In 1993, The Dogfather was revived (and re-designed) as a recurring antagonist for The Pink Panther. The Dogfather was voiced by Joe Piscopo (except for "It's Just a Gypsy in My Soup" where he was voiced by Jim Cummings), while Pug and Louie are voiced by Brian George and Jess Harnell.

Remakes
Much like a number of DFE-produced cartoon shorts, about half of the Dogfather cartoons were remakes of Looney Tunes cartoons from the 1950s that were directed by Freleng, which are listed below: However, this was criticized by Charles Brubaker, the author of the website Cartoon Research, who pointed out that this made the series almost completely unoriginal and resulted in inferior versions of those Looney Tunes shorts.
 * The pilot episode (The Dogfather) was a remake of Tree For Two (1952).
 * The Goose that Laid a Golden Egg was a remake of Golden Yeggs (1950).
 * Heist and Seek was a remake of Bugsy and Mugsy (1957).
 * Mother Dogfather was a remake of Stork Naked (1955).
 * Saltwater Tuffy was a remake of Tugboat Granny (1956)
 * Devilled Yeggs was a remake of Satan's Waitin' (1954).
 * Watch the Birdie was a remake of Dr. Jerkyll's Hide (1954).
 * M-O-N-E-Y Spells Love was a remake of Hare Trimmed (1953).
 * Rock-a-Bye Maybe was a remake of Kit for Cat (1948).
 * Eagle Beagles was a remake of Hare Lift (1952).

Crew

 * Produced by: David H. DePatie and Friz Freleng
 * Directors: Hawley Pratt, Gerry Chiniquy, Arthur Leonardi
 * Story: Bob Ogle, Don Christiansen, John W. Dunn, Friz Freleng, Dave Detiege
 * Title Designer: Arthur Leonardi
 * Animation: John V. Gibbs, Bob Matz, Norm McCabe, Bob Richardson, Warren Batchelder, Don Williams, Bob Bransford, Nelson Shin
 * Layout: Dick Ung, Richard H. Thomas, Roy Morita
 * Background: Richard H. Thomas
 * Music by: Dean Elliott
 * Lyrics: John Bradford
 * Camera: John Burton Jr.
 * Executive in Charge: Lee Gunther

Home media
Kino Lorber released all 17 shorts on DVD and Blu-ray in April 2018.

title: The Dogfather


text:
Strongly connected component

In the mathematical theory of directed graphs, a graph is said to be strongly connected if every vertex is reachable from every other vertex. The strongly connected components of a directed graph form a partition into subgraphs that are themselves strongly connected. It is possible to test the strong connectivity of a graph, or to find its strongly connected components, in linear time (that is, Θ(V + E )).

Definitions
A directed graph is called strongly connected if there is a path in each direction between each pair of vertices of the graph. That is, a path exists from the first vertex in the pair to the second, and another path exists from the second vertex to the first. In a directed graph G that may not itself be strongly connected, a pair of vertices u and v are said to be strongly connected to each other if there is a path in each direction between them.

The binary relation of being strongly connected is an equivalence relation, and the induced subgraphs of its equivalence classes are called strongly connected components. Equivalently, a strongly connected component of a directed graph G is a subgraph that is strongly connected, and is maximal with this property: no additional edges or vertices from G can be included in the subgraph without breaking its property of being strongly connected. The collection of strongly connected components forms a partition of the set of vertices of G. A strongly connected component C is called trivial when C consists of a single vertex which is not connected to itself with an edge, and non-trivial otherwise.

If each strongly connected component is contracted to a single vertex, the resulting graph is a directed acyclic graph, the condensation of G. A directed graph is acyclic if and only if it has no strongly connected subgraphs with more than one vertex, because a directed cycle is strongly connected and every non-trivial strongly connected component contains at least one directed cycle.

DFS-based linear-time algorithms
Several algorithms based on depth-first search compute strongly connected components in linear time. Although Kosaraju's algorithm is conceptually simple, Tarjan's and the path-based algorithm require only one depth-first search rather than two.
 * Kosaraju's algorithm uses two passes of depth-first search. The first, in the original graph, is used to choose the order in which the outer loop of the second depth-first search tests vertices for having been visited already and recursively explores them if not. The second depth-first search is on the transpose graph of the original graph, and each recursive exploration finds a single new strongly connected component. It is named after S. Rao Kosaraju, who described it (but did not publish his results) in 1978; Micha Sharir later published it in 1981.
 * Tarjan's strongly connected components algorithm, published by Robert Tarjan in 1972, performs a single pass of depth-first search. It maintains a stack of vertices that have been explored by the search but not yet assigned to a component, and calculates "low numbers" of each vertex (an index number of the highest ancestor reachable in one step from a descendant of the vertex) which it uses to determine when a set of vertices should be popped off the stack into a new component.
 * The path-based strong component algorithm uses a depth-first search, like Tarjan's algorithm, but with two stacks. One of the stacks is used to keep track of the vertices not yet assigned to components, while the other keeps track of the current path in the depth-first search tree. The first linear time version of this algorithm was published by Edsger W. Dijkstra in 1976.

Reachability-based algorithms
Previous linear-time algorithms are based on depth-first search which is generally considered hard to parallelize. Fleischer et al. in 2000 proposed a divide-and-conquer approach based on reachability queries, and such algorithms are usually called reachability-based SCC algorithms. The idea of this approach is to pick a random pivot vertex and apply forward and backward reachability queries from this vertex. The two queries partition the vertex set into 4 subsets: vertices reached by both, either one, or none of the searches. One can show that a strongly connected component has to be contained in one of the subsets. The vertex subset reached by both searches forms a strongly connected component, and the algorithm then recurses on the other 3 subsets.

The expected sequential running time of this algorithm is shown to be O(n log n), a factor of O(log n) more than the classic algorithms. The parallelism comes from: (1) the reachability queries can be parallelized more easily (e.g. by a breadth-first search (BFS), and it can be fast if the diameter of the graph is small); and (2) the independence between the subtasks in the divide-and-conquer process. This algorithm performs well on real-world graphs, but does not have theoretical guarantee on the parallelism (consider if a graph has no edges, the algorithm requires O(n) levels of recursions).

Blelloch et al. in 2016 shows that if the reachability queries are applied in a random order, the cost bound of O(n log n) still holds. Furthermore, the queries then can be batched in a prefix-doubling manner (i.e. 1, 2, 4, 8 queries) and run simultaneously in one round. The overall span of this algorithm is log2 n reachability queries, which is probably the optimal parallelism that can be achieved using the reachability-based approach.

Generating random strongly connected graphs
Peter M. Maurer describes an algorithm for generating random strongly connected graphs, based on a modification of an algorithm for strong connectivity augmentation, the problem of adding as few edges as possible to make a graph strongly connected. When used in conjunction with the Gilbert or Erdős-Rényi models with node relabelling, the algorithm is capable of generating any strongly connected graph on n nodes, without restriction on the kinds of structures that can be generated.

Applications
Algorithms for finding strongly connected components may be used to solve 2-satisfiability problems (systems of Boolean variables with constraints on the values of pairs of variables): as showed, a 2-satisfiability instance is unsatisfiable if and only if there is a variable v such that v and its negation are both contained in the same strongly connected component of the implication graph of the instance.

Strongly connected components are also used to compute the Dulmage–Mendelsohn decomposition, a classification of the edges of a bipartite graph, according to whether or not they can be part of a perfect matching in the graph.

Related results
A directed graph is strongly connected if and only if it has an ear decomposition, a partition of the edges into a sequence of directed paths and cycles such that the first subgraph in the sequence is a cycle, and each subsequent subgraph is either a cycle sharing one vertex with previous subgraphs, or a path sharing its two endpoints with previous subgraphs.

According to Robbins' theorem, an undirected graph may be oriented in such a way that it becomes strongly connected, if and only if it is 2-edge-connected. One way to prove this result is to find an ear decomposition of the underlying undirected graph and then orient each ear consistently.

title: Strongly connected component