July 20th, 2011

Fantasy-preindustrial paper (plausibility check)

I have a fantasy world with technology at roughly equivalent to the early Renaissance. I've been searching paper-making by plausible pre-industrial methods, and it seems to me like there's 3 basic "types", that would presumably produce 3 different grades/qualities of paper.

There's straw paper--paper made from straw or grass stems, as per here: http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/prairiepaper.html -- I suspect it would be the poorest quality paper of the 3, but also the cheapest and easiest to make.

There's bark paper--paper made from the inner layers of bark. Something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_paper#Mulberry_paper -- I suspect it would be the hardest to make, but better quality than straw paper, and with cheaper raw materials than rag paper.

And there's rag paper--paper made from old cloth. It would probably be the best quality, but also have the most expensive, or at least the most inconsistently available, raw materials, as people wore clothes until they pretty much couldn't patch them up any more, in those days... so, it'd probably be the most expensive.

And, then, of course, there's parchment and vellum (any difference besides source animal?), and more makeshift materials like bark, or temporary surfaces like slate.

Am I getting any of this horribly, horribly wrong?...

edit: part of what I'm going for is to have my scholar differentiate between the "good stuff", used for proper books (some printed, some hand-written), and the cheap stuff used for keeping records that aren't expected to be needed for more than a few years. It doesn't necessarily need to exactly match actual history, just be plausible with preindustrial technology and materials

But it sounds like the bark paper wouldn't be likely, if there was rag paper; so, just straw paper and rag paper, then, plus whatever grades and qualities of parchment.
music, serious face

[ANON POST] Release following new evidence

Setting England, 2010.

My MC is in prison for murder. He's served a couple of months so he's at the start of his sentence. Significant new evidence has been uncovered which supports his claim that he was acting in self-defence. It is hightly likely that on retrial he will be acquitted.

He has no other criminal record and was previously of good character.

What happens now?

Does he stay in prison? Is he let out on bail/ license? Is he transferred to a difference category of prison?

I've read through the various wiki pages on bail and temporary licence and searched on 'criminal appeals' and retrial 'new evidence" and retrial and had several results on real life cases.

I understand he will need to appeal his conviction to the Court of Appeal and if the CA allows his appeal he will be sent for retrial. At this stage he can be bailed.

What I can't seem to find is what happens between finding the evidence and the appeal being granted - if nothing (ie he remains where he is) how long does it take to get a hearing at the CA? (Permission to appeal has to be granted first?) I've searched criminal court of appeal + waiting times, but not getting much joy.

What I really want is for him to be released asap so any ideas on how to do that would be helpful!

Thanks for any help.
music, serious face

[ANON POST] Murder or self defense according to the law

Setting: Modern day. The country it's set in is at the moment fluid depending on the answers I'll get.

Character A and B are lost at sea together, after a couple of the days the water supply becomes an issue and in order to prolong his own life A knocks B unconscious and dumps him over board.

Now, I'd like for this to lead to some type of investigation - A will be telling the truth about the events because he is certain that it will fall under self defence.

I've googled different variations of self-defense, kill, murder, justifiable kill etc. I've also checked some law texts but the problem with that is that I need someone to explain the meaning of the text... Self defence in English law is using reasonable force against an unjust threat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law), so what is "unjust"? Would it apply to my scenario