The Next Generation Transit Survey (NGTS) is a new ground-based survey for transiting exoplanets. Our primary goal is to find the first statistically-significant sample of Neptunes and super-Earths that are bright enough for radial velocity confirmation. By measuring precise masses and radii we will constrain the bulk composition and internal structure of planets that span the transition between the gas giants and terrestrial planets. Our brightest exoplanets will also be suitable for atmospheric characterisation with large facilities such as the VLT, JWST and the E-ELT. NGTS construction began in June 2013, and the survey is due to commence in 2014.

An old question of Brauer that asks how fast numbers of conjugacy classes grow is investigated by considering the least number cn of conjugacy classes in a group of order 2n. The numbers cn are computed for n ≤ 14 and a lower bound is given for c15. It is observed that cn grows very slowly except for occasional large jumps corresponding to an increase in coclass of the minimal groups Gn. Restricting to groups that are 2-generated or have coclass at most 3 allows us to extend these computations.

This paper examines social and demographic predictors of debt problems, whether debt problems tend to occur in combination with other problems and which people tend to experience long- rather than short-term debt. Data were extracted from a survey of 5,611 adults' experiences of civil justice problems, throughout England and Wales. Being in receipt of benefits and long-term illness or disability were the strongest predictors of debt, with long-term ill or disabled respondents also being more susceptible to long-term debt. We highlight the importance of advice interventions that recognise the link between civil justice problems and health, illness or disability.

Professor Cottingham's article ‘Varieties of Retribution’ in the Philosophical Quarterly, 1979, 29,238ff. is discussed, and new varieties of retributivism are outlined and criticised, particularly those proposed by Richard Burgh, Michael Moore and Robert Nozick. The ‘Kantian gap’ between moral censure and the obligation to punish is emphasised. Distinctions are drawn between theories which make punishment a duty and those which make it a right, and also between those based on the notion of a rule and those based on the expression of blame.

When I first came across Robert Nozick′s Philosophical Explanations I was struck by the purity of his justification of punishment. Most latter-day retributivists are crypto-utilitarians, claiming to find some sort of benefit in penalties, even if it is only symbolic. Nozick too sees punishment as symbolic, but not as having any necessary utility. Paradoxically, perhaps, he is one of the few retributivists who insists that it matters what the offender makes of his penalty. Even more interesting is the importance he attaches to the analogy between retribution and revenge. Most retributivists are at pains to distance themselves from vengeance: but not Nozick.

Anatomists of criminal justice systems usually ignore the tiny organ called ‘mercy’ or ‘clemency’. Its name and shape may vary from one body politic to another, but its nature and function are uninterestingly obvious.It merely allows benign interference when the programming of the system seems to be having unacceptable effects in special cases.

Unlike topics such as criminal responsibility, dangerousness has only recently begun to interest philosophically minded penologists. The most likely explanation is that until the middle of this century the periods for which people who had done serious harm to others were incarcerated in the UK so long that when they were released their age or condition or circumstances made them unlikely to repeat their crimes. It was only when pressure of resources—in plain terms overcrowded prisons and mental hospitals—forced the shortening of these periods that it became politically necessary to worry about the possible dangerousness of really substantial numbers of prisoners and patients who became eligible for release. The problem was not entirely new. A few lifers, for example, had been set free each year, under licences which lasted for the rest of their lives; and the Special Hospitals which housed the violent insane had discharged carefully selected inmates, also under supervision. But by the late 1960s the introduction of parole, the Mental Health Act and the abolition of capital punishment had greatly increased the number of cases in which the problem of dangerousness had to be faced, and difficult decisions had to be taken.

In 1897 the Indiana House of Representatives was persuaded by a mathematician (of sorts) to entertain a bill “introducing a new mathematical truth”. The new truth was a method, or more precisely methods, for computing the value of π. Since π is a transcendental number the methods could at best have achieved an approximation. In fact they yielded several inaccurate values, one as wild as 4. The legislators were doubtful enough to refer the bill to a committee (the Committee on Canals) and, when this reported favourably, to the Committee on Temperance. Eventually they had the sense to defer it sine die.