Quantitative easing, also known as large-scale asset purchases, is a monetary policy whereby a central bank buys predetermined amounts of government bonds or other financial assets in order to inject liquidity directly into the economy. An unconventional form of monetary policy, it is usually used when inflation is very low or negative, and standard expansionary monetary policy has become ineffective. A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying specified amounts of financial assets from commercial banks and other financial institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the money supply. This differs from the more usual policy of buying or selling short-term government bonds to keep interbank interest rates at a specified target value. Expansionary monetary policy to stimulate the economy typically involves the central bank buying short-term government bonds to lower short-term market interest rates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

In English law, the defence of necessity recognizes that there may be situations of such overwhelming urgency that a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law. There have been very few cases in which the defence of necessity has succeeded, and in general terms there are very few situations where such a defence could even be applicable. The defining feature of such a defence is that the situation is not caused by another person (which would fall under either duress or self-defence) and that the accused was in genuine risk of immediate harm or danger.

For the most part crimes that could be justified as necessary are minor in nature, such as driving over the speed limit to reach medical care, or damaging property to escape a fire. In almost all cases where a serious crime has taken place, necessity is unlikely to be a successful defence as courts have mostly taken the view that directly harming another person could not be justified even by extreme circumstances unless it directly prevented immediate serious harm or death.^[1] Even if a person were already likely to die, and their death would allow others to survive, killing them is not necessary until the point where harm is imminently likely to occur to the others and if that harm is not immediate, then necessity cannot apply. As such the circumstances where necessity could apply to a serious crime are extremely narrow, involving two or more people in an immediately life-threatening situation where only one could survive. Even in this situation, as the law does allow for a person not to take actions that would save another person if to do so would put their own life at risk, it is seldom strictly necessary for one person to kill another, one allowing the other to die in the course of the situation, then saving themselves.

The Crown Prosecution Service has historically chosen to exercise its discretion not to prosecute those cases where it believes potential defendants have acted reasonably in all the circumstances, and as such where necessity is a strong defence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_in_English_criminal_law

https://mtrial.org/

https://jahtruth.net/britmon.htm

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/native-americans/dawes/

http://tribalnations.mt.gov/blackfeet

https://www.houseofnames.com/blogs/Norman-Conquest

Lightfoot History, Family Crest & Coats of Arms

• Origins Available:
•  England

The name Lightfoot is of Anglo-Saxon origin. It was name for a swift runner. The surname Lightfoot is derived from the Old English words leoht, which means light, and fot, wh

http://www.selectsurnames3.com/lightfoot.html

Lightfoot

Select Lightfoot Surname Genealogy

Lightfoot obviously started out as a nickname and became a surname.  The roots are the Old English leoht, meaning “nimble” or “quick,” and fot or “foot.”   The name originally denoted someone with a light springy step, a speedy runner or messenger.

Select Lightfoot Resources on The Internet

• The Lightfoot Family History  Lightfoots in America.
• The Lightfoot Families  Lightfoots in America.
• The Lightfoots  Lightfoots in Alabama and Texas.

Membership

Originally the Blackfoot/Plains Confederacy consisted of three peoples (“nation”, “tribes”, “tribal nations”) based on kinship and dialect, but all speaking the common language of Blackfoot, one of the Algonquian languages family. The three were the Piikáni (historically called “Piegan Blackfeet” in English-language sources), the Káínaa (called “Bloods”), and the Siksikáwa (“Blackfoot”). They later allied with the unrelated Tsuu T’ina (“Sarcee”), who became merged into the Confederacy and, (for a time) with the Atsina, or A’aninin (Gros Ventre).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfoot_Confederacy

The Niitsitapi, also known as the Blackfoot or Blackfeet Indians, reside in the Great Plains of Montana and the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Only one of the Niitsitapi tribes are called Blackfoot or Siksika. The name is said to have come from the color of the peoples’ moccasins, made of leather.

Siksika Nation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigationJump to searchFor other Blackfoot/Blackfeet people, see Blackfeet Nation.

People	Blackfoot
Treaty	Treaty 7
Headquarters	Siksika
Province	Alberta
Land[1]
Reserve(s)	Siksika 146
Land area	710.875 km2
Population (2019)[1]
On reserve	4120
On other land	2
Off reserve	3412
Total population	7534
Government[1]
Chief	Ouray Crowfoot
Website
siksikanation.com

The Siksika Nation is a First Nation in southern Alberta, Canada. The name Siksiká comes from the Blackfoot words sik (black) and iká (foot), with a connector s between the two words. The plural form of Siksiká is Siksikáwa. The Siksikáwa are the northernmost of the Niitsítapi (Original People), all of whom speak dialects of Blackfoot, an Algonquian language.

When European explorers travelled west, they most likely met the Siksiká first and assumed all Niitsítapi of the Blackfoot Confederacy were Blackfoot, which is incorrect. The four Niitsítapi nations of the Blackfoot Confederacy are the Siksiká, Káínaa (Kainai or Blood), Aapátohsipikáni (Northern Peigan), and Aamsskáápipikani (South Peigan or Montana Blackfoot). The approximate population of the Siksika Nation, as of 2009, is 6,000 people.^[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siksika_Nation

Idle No More is an ongoing protestmovement, founded in December 2012 by four women: three First Nations women and one non-Native ally. It is a grassroots movement among the Aboriginal peoples in Canada comprising the First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples and their non-Aboriginal supporters in Canada, and to a lesser extent, internationally. It has consisted of a number of political actions worldwide, inspired in part by the liquid diethunger strike of Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence^[1] and further coordinated via social media. A reaction to alleged legislative abuses of Indigenous treaty rights by the Stephen Harper and the Conservative federal government, the movement takes particular issue with the omnibus billBill C-45.^[2][3] The popular movement has included round dances in public places and blockades of rail lines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idle_No_More