Problem: What is the answer for the question: Who uncovers someone as a British double agent? from the following article ? In 1915 Berlin, the German high command is worried about ally Turkey. Recent British attacks on the vital Dardanelles shows signs of inside knowledge. Von Sturm, the head of German intelligence, is ordered to find out if Ali Bey, the Turkish commander of the region, is the traitor. As his best agent has not been heard from in several weeks, von Sturm assigns Kruger the task. Shortly afterwards, Annemarie, known by the code name "Fraulein Doktor", returns after completing her mission. She also informs von Sturm that fellow spy Mata Hari has fallen in love and therefore can no longer be trusted. She recommends that an incriminating message be sent using a code that she knows has been broken by the Allies. In addition, she uncovers Kruger as a British double agent known as K-6. When Kruger is arrested at his dentist contact's office, another patient, American medical student Douglas Beall, is also taken into custody, though he is later released. Just to be sure though, von Sturm orders Annemarie to make sure Beall is innocent. She arranges to be rescued from an unwanted "suitor" by Beall, who invites her to his hotel suite. During the course of the evening, he confesses he has fallen in love with her, now going by the name Helena Bohlen. Helena is attracted to him, but when she reads a coded message from von Sturm informing her that he has taken her advice regarding Mata Hari, she abruptly leaves. Beall persists however. When Helena boards the train to Constantinople, he follows her on the spur of the moment and continues courting her, despite her half-hearted attempts to discourage him. Her assistant Karl watches with growing concern. As they near the Turkish border, she orders Karl to return to Germany so Beall can use his visa.

A: Annemarie
Problem: Given the question: What is the answer for the question: What was Lynda Nead referring to being the specific stereotypicall image of feminism? from the following article ? On 10 March 1914, the suffragette Mary Richardson walked into the National Gallery and attacked Velazquez's canvas with a meat cleaver. Her action was ostensibly provoked by the arrest of fellow suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst the previous day, although there had been earlier warnings of a planned suffragette attack on the collection. Richardson left seven slashes on the painting, particularly causing damage to the area between the figure's shoulders. However, all were successfully repaired by the National Gallery's chief restorer Helmut Ruhemann.Richardson was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, the maximum allowed for destruction of an artwork. In a statement to the Women's Social and Political Union shortly afterwards, Richardson explained, "I have tried to destroy the picture of the most beautiful woman in mythological history as a protest against the Government for destroying Mrs. Pankhurst, who is the most beautiful character in modern history." She added in a 1952 interview that she didn't like "the way men visitors gaped at it all day long".The feminist writer Lynda Nead observed, "The incident has come to symbolize a particular perception of feminist attitudes towards the female nude; in a sense, it has come to represent a specific stereotypical image of feminism more generally." Contemporary reports of the incident reveal that the picture was not widely seen as mere artwork. Journalists tended to assess the attack in terms of a murder (Richardson was nicknamed "Slasher Mary"), and used words that conjured wounds inflicted on an actual female body, rather than on a pictorial representation of a female body. The Times described a "cruel wound in the neck", as well as incisions to the shoulders and back.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Velazquez's canvas
[Q]: What is the answer for the question: Where did Richard Weobley opt to burn the tally sticks? from the following article ? Since medieval times the Exchequer had used tally sticks, pieces of carved, notched wood, normally willow, as part of their accounting procedures. The parliamentary historian Caroline Shenton has described the tally sticks as "roughly as long as the span of an index finger and thumb". These sticks were split in two so that the two sides to an agreement had a record of the situation. Once the purpose of each tally had come to an end, they were routinely destroyed. By the end of the eighteenth century the usefulness of the tally system had likewise come to an end, and a 1782 Act of Parliament stated that all records should be on paper, not tallies. The Act also abolished sinecure positions in the Exchequer, but a clause in the act ensured it could only take effect once the remaining sinecure-holders had died or retired. The final sinecure-holder died in 1826 and the act came into force, although it took until 1834 for the antiquated procedures to be replaced. The novelist Charles Dickens, in a speech to the Administrative Reform Association, described the retention of the tallies for so long as an "obstinate adherence to an obsolete custom"; he also mocked the bureaucratic steps needed to implement change from wood to paper. He said that "all the red tape in the country grew redder at the bare mention of this bold and original conception." By the time the replacement process had finished there were two cart-loads of old tally sticks awaiting disposal.In October 1834 Richard Weobley, the Clerk of Works, received instructions from Treasury officials to clear the old tally sticks while parliament was adjourned. He decided against giving the sticks away to parliamentary staff to use as firewood, and instead opted to burn them in the two heating furnaces of the House of Lords, directly below the peers' chambers. The furnaces had been designed to burn coalwhich gives off a high heat with little flameand not wood, which burns with a high flame. The flues of the furnaces ran up the walls of the basement in which...
****
[A]:
in the two heating furnaces of the House of Lords