The Treaty of Versailles was the topic of most controversy in the Weimar Republic.
The Germans saw it as 'A Diktat' - a dictated peace. The main issues: reparations and the war guilt clause.
They thought it would be based on Wilson's Fourteen Points. The ToV was considerably different.
Wilson - wanted international disarmamant, self-determination (let a country govern itself), create a new League of Nations.
Clemenceau - motivated by revenge. Wanted large annexations. Wanted major German disarmamant and heavy reparations to rebuild French economy.
Lloyd-George - initially motivated by revenge. Had to compromise and hold back Clemenceau. Just wanted GB security and to keep communism away.
Did it fundamentally weaken WR?
It was a huge blow, but Germany still had a strong economy - extensive industry and resources.
Public opinion was main problem - Germans thought it was totally unfair - had been hoping for victory - defeat came as a shock.
Fuelled 'stab in the back myth' - it was a long-term cause for failure - 'stab in the back myth' gained more popularity - Hitler used it.
Unfair - The Weimar Republic had to take responsibility for a war that Imperial Germany started. It was never going to be easy, but the WR never won round public opinion.
LEFT THREAT
KPD - wanted Marxist revolution. Totally rejected WR.
Exaggerated -
didn't have strong enough leadership (Liebknecht and Luxemburg murdererd in 1919).
Badly co-ordinated - often led by workers who had no idea what to do.
Concessions often divided them - weakened.
Repression - often brutal - Friekorps - White Terror (anti-republic and hated socialism).
They simply were NOT powerful enough to lead a revolution against WR.
RIGHT THREAT
More serious.
Kapp Putsch - highlighted weakeness of WR and unreliability of Army. ALSO the disloyalty of the judiciary - undermined WR with lenient prosecutions.
Civilians protected WR - but WR relied on unreliable forces like civilians.
Munich Putsch - most serious.
Failed because it didn't have enough loyal support.
Initally was a victory for WR.
BUT, elevated Hitler to a national audience - seen as a hero. Wrote 'Mein Kampf' in prison.
Overall, the Weimar Republic was a 'republic without republicans'.
Three main parties: SPD, ZP, DDP - lost many votes from 1919 to 1920.
Also, unable to form long-term coalitions - the longest was 18th months - inconsistency.
From 1920 onwards, political support became increasingly polarised.
BIG PROBLEM: traditional institutions undermining the republic.
Government - overestimated support for left threats and relied on the right.
RIGHT - INSIDIOUS support - growing silently - that was the real threat.
Sunday, 22 May 2011
The Weimar Republic
The Weimar Consitution was flawed.
Proportional representation encouraged the formation of splinter groups (e.g. Nazis)
Also, was nearly impossible to get a majority - coalitions.
Coalitions didn't last because parties couldn't agree - longest gov't was 18 months.\
The relationship between the Reichstag and the President - this was problematic. The constituion aimed to take away some Reichstag power. In doing so, they gave too much to the President - e.g. Article 48.
Traditional instituions - They didn't get rid of rivals in
1. The Civil Service
2. The Judiciary
3. The Military
4. Universities
All were still loyal to the old regime. This undermined the republic.
The flaws weren't so bad that they were fatal though. This is important to note.
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
My blog has been taken over by revision. For any who read it, sorry! I'm sure you don't want to hear about Germany's foreign policy in the early 20th century or how to plead duress. LOL. Oh well, it's a learning experience. Just in case.
So what's been happening? Well Cheryl Cole's gone to America. Isn't it fantastic? There I hope she'll stay. For all eternity. AND I finish school in just over a week. AND the weather's shit.
So there we go! My life is a mixture of shit, happiness and revision. Isn't it great. I look forward to going to uni, putting off reality for a few more years then becoming a failure and dying with no teeth.
Fantastic!
So what's been happening? Well Cheryl Cole's gone to America. Isn't it fantastic? There I hope she'll stay. For all eternity. AND I finish school in just over a week. AND the weather's shit.
So there we go! My life is a mixture of shit, happiness and revision. Isn't it great. I look forward to going to uni, putting off reality for a few more years then becoming a failure and dying with no teeth.
Fantastic!
Burglary
Right, so burglary.
s.9 of the Theft Act 1968
Entry
Tresspass
Building
9(1) (a) - D has an intention to commit theft on entering the building as a trespasser. He may also have an intention to commit GBH or criminal damage. Rape was removed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
9(1) (b) - D, having entered, commits or attempts to commit theft or GBH.
For (b) they need to actually TRY to do it. Criminal damage not included.
DIFFERENCE: When the intention was formed - on entry or having entered?
AO2 - what about ABH? Unfair to only include serious harm. They may punch in order to steal and it won't be burglary. This is unfair.
ENTRY
Collins - has to be 'substantive and effective'
Brown - robbed shop by reached arm through window - only has to be 'effective'
Ryan - got stuck - couldn't steal - confirms Brown
TRESPASS - concerns AR and MR
Collins - (NG) D must either know or be reckless as to whether or no he was entering without the owner's consent
Smith and Jones - robbed Dad's 2 TV's - went beyond general permission.
Scenario: If invited into house, you don't slide down banisters - goes beyond general permission.
BUILDING
Includes: houseboats, caravans, houses, flats, offices, factories, outbuildings (s.4)
'a dwelling of considerable size that is built to endure'
Seeking and Gould - tried to get into containers used by supermarket in redevelopment. Because, amongst other things, it had wheels, it was NOT a building - NOT GUILTY.
B&S v Leathly - D stole meat from farmyard freezer - Court - freezer WAS building - it meets the test - 'considerable size, built to endure' - GUILTY
Walkington - tried to rob till. Knew he was not allowed in THAT part of the building - Entry to PART of a building is sufficient.
Cases:
Collins
Brown
Ryan
Smith & Jones
Seeking & Gould
B&S v Leathly
Walkington
AO2 - Ryan - didn't ACTUALLY steal anything - he was stuck - still convicted - unfair? Also confusion over 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b)- only need intention for (a). Have to actually attempt, at least, for (b). AND none include ABH - unfair.
Trespassing - Smith and Jones - may not even realised they are considered trespassers. Collins - didn't even know - unfair to prosecute.
But overall, burglary seems quite straightforward.
So yes, that's burglary. Nice init.
s.9 of the Theft Act 1968
Entry
Tresspass
Building
9(1) (a) - D has an intention to commit theft on entering the building as a trespasser. He may also have an intention to commit GBH or criminal damage. Rape was removed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
9(1) (b) - D, having entered, commits or attempts to commit theft or GBH.
For (b) they need to actually TRY to do it. Criminal damage not included.
DIFFERENCE: When the intention was formed - on entry or having entered?
AO2 - what about ABH? Unfair to only include serious harm. They may punch in order to steal and it won't be burglary. This is unfair.
ENTRY
Collins - has to be 'substantive and effective'
Brown - robbed shop by reached arm through window - only has to be 'effective'
Ryan - got stuck - couldn't steal - confirms Brown
TRESPASS - concerns AR and MR
Collins - (NG) D must either know or be reckless as to whether or no he was entering without the owner's consent
Smith and Jones - robbed Dad's 2 TV's - went beyond general permission.
Scenario: If invited into house, you don't slide down banisters - goes beyond general permission.
BUILDING
Includes: houseboats, caravans, houses, flats, offices, factories, outbuildings (s.4)
'a dwelling of considerable size that is built to endure'
Seeking and Gould - tried to get into containers used by supermarket in redevelopment. Because, amongst other things, it had wheels, it was NOT a building - NOT GUILTY.
B&S v Leathly - D stole meat from farmyard freezer - Court - freezer WAS building - it meets the test - 'considerable size, built to endure' - GUILTY
Walkington - tried to rob till. Knew he was not allowed in THAT part of the building - Entry to PART of a building is sufficient.
Cases:
Collins
Brown
Ryan
Smith & Jones
Seeking & Gould
B&S v Leathly
Walkington
AO2 - Ryan - didn't ACTUALLY steal anything - he was stuck - still convicted - unfair? Also confusion over 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b)- only need intention for (a). Have to actually attempt, at least, for (b). AND none include ABH - unfair.
Trespassing - Smith and Jones - may not even realised they are considered trespassers. Collins - didn't even know - unfair to prosecute.
But overall, burglary seems quite straightforward.
So yes, that's burglary. Nice init.
Causation
So, causation - the act of causing something.
In law, it's a chain.
There's 2 tests you must meet to first establish a chain of causation:
1. FACTUAL CAUSATION - Sine qua non - The 'but for' test - but for D's actions, would it have happened?
If No - they meet the test
White - He was Yes - his mum would still have died - so he got attempted murder instead.
2. LEGAL CAUSATION - The 'de minimus' test. Were D's actions substantive and operative?
Church
Malcherek and Steel - switching off the life support machine - D's actions were still substantive and operative.
Smith - dropped off stretcher
Jordan (confined to facts)
Contemporaenity - the AR and MR, if formed at different times, must cross at some point.
MPC v Fagan - car on policeman's foot, asked to move, switch off engine. D started the act when the car was on the PO's foot. His MR came when he turned off the engine.
Miller - accidentally set fire to matress then left room. AR - setting fire. MR - formed when he left the room and decided not to mitigate the harm done.
Thabo Meli - They beat the guy up - AR - then threw him out the van off a cliff - MR to GBH/death - when they threw him out.
Continuing Act - If the act is a continuing act, D may develop the MR at any point before the conclusion of the act - MPC v Fagan.
AO2 - But, if D didn't foresee any of this, it may be unfair. If, like problem uestion, one person triggers a series of linked events, is it fair to blame them? Some say yes - if they hadn't have committed the original acts, the others wouldn't have followed. Plus there are measures in place to make sure absurdities or unfairness isn't reached.
Others argue no - not fair to prosecute someone for something they didn't foresee.
So yes. The chain may be broken by one of 3 things: This is called a 'novus actus interveniens' - a new intervening act.
AO2 - Not often allowed - very narrow. Difficult to prove.
NIA:
Unreasonable actions of V - Blaue, Roberts, Williams and Davis
Roberts - NO - hitchhiker jumped out of car after he pawed her coat - not an unreasonable action - could have been foreseen that she would try to escape.
Williams & Davis - YES - D jumped out van (thought he was going to be robbed). He jumped out over cliff and died. His actions WERE unreasonable.
Unreasonable actions of 3rd party - Pagett - used girlfriend as human shield
For unreasonable actions, the test is: 'were the actions of the person so daft as to be unforeseeable?'.
Palpably wrong medical treatment - test: 'was it so independent of original wound that it constitutes a new chain of causation?'.
Jordan (confined), Smith.
Cheshire - key case - D was shot and died from a botched tracheotomy operation. It didn't break the chain of causation because D's actions - shooting - were still 'substantive and operative'. Wasn't 'so independent of original wound' - NIA
Other things:
Thin Skull Rule - Mitchell - you take V as you find them.
Blaue - Stabbed, blood transfusion, Jehovah's Witness - No. Died - D still liable.
Haywood - wife, argument, wife died of nervous excitement
Dear - pen knife, stab, V - gangrene, died
AO2 - Carey, Dawson- illustration of how 'Thin Skull Rule' doesn't work. In this case, it was unforeseeable that V would die of a heart condition as she looked healthy. Even she didn't know she had a condition.
How is it fair to prosecute someone if they didn't foresee the outcome?
BUT someone has to be held liable. But for their actions, the outcome wouldn't have come about, therefore they must be responsible.
'Turning off life support'
If it's in the patient's best interests, it can break the chain.
Malcherek & Steel
Bland - feeding tube
So overall, causation seems to be straightforward. There are a series of tests to prove liability AND there are limitations. Surely it's fair?
Cases:
White
Blaue
MPC v Fagan
Thabo Meli
Mitchell
Miller
Church
Malcherek and Steel
Blaue
Roberts
Williams & Davis
Pagett
Blaue
Cheshire
Jordan
Smith
Carey
Haywood
Dear
Bland
Woah ^
In law, it's a chain.
There's 2 tests you must meet to first establish a chain of causation:
1. FACTUAL CAUSATION - Sine qua non - The 'but for' test - but for D's actions, would it have happened?
If No - they meet the test
White - He was Yes - his mum would still have died - so he got attempted murder instead.
2. LEGAL CAUSATION - The 'de minimus' test. Were D's actions substantive and operative?
Church
Malcherek and Steel - switching off the life support machine - D's actions were still substantive and operative.
Smith - dropped off stretcher
Jordan (confined to facts)
Contemporaenity - the AR and MR, if formed at different times, must cross at some point.
MPC v Fagan - car on policeman's foot, asked to move, switch off engine. D started the act when the car was on the PO's foot. His MR came when he turned off the engine.
Miller - accidentally set fire to matress then left room. AR - setting fire. MR - formed when he left the room and decided not to mitigate the harm done.
Thabo Meli - They beat the guy up - AR - then threw him out the van off a cliff - MR to GBH/death - when they threw him out.
Continuing Act - If the act is a continuing act, D may develop the MR at any point before the conclusion of the act - MPC v Fagan.
AO2 - But, if D didn't foresee any of this, it may be unfair. If, like problem uestion, one person triggers a series of linked events, is it fair to blame them? Some say yes - if they hadn't have committed the original acts, the others wouldn't have followed. Plus there are measures in place to make sure absurdities or unfairness isn't reached.
Others argue no - not fair to prosecute someone for something they didn't foresee.
So yes. The chain may be broken by one of 3 things: This is called a 'novus actus interveniens' - a new intervening act.
AO2 - Not often allowed - very narrow. Difficult to prove.
NIA:
Unreasonable actions of V - Blaue, Roberts, Williams and Davis
Roberts - NO - hitchhiker jumped out of car after he pawed her coat - not an unreasonable action - could have been foreseen that she would try to escape.
Williams & Davis - YES - D jumped out van (thought he was going to be robbed). He jumped out over cliff and died. His actions WERE unreasonable.
Unreasonable actions of 3rd party - Pagett - used girlfriend as human shield
For unreasonable actions, the test is: 'were the actions of the person so daft as to be unforeseeable?'.
Palpably wrong medical treatment - test: 'was it so independent of original wound that it constitutes a new chain of causation?'.
Jordan (confined), Smith.
Cheshire - key case - D was shot and died from a botched tracheotomy operation. It didn't break the chain of causation because D's actions - shooting - were still 'substantive and operative'. Wasn't 'so independent of original wound' - NIA
Other things:
Thin Skull Rule - Mitchell - you take V as you find them.
Blaue - Stabbed, blood transfusion, Jehovah's Witness - No. Died - D still liable.
Haywood - wife, argument, wife died of nervous excitement
Dear - pen knife, stab, V - gangrene, died
AO2 - Carey, Dawson- illustration of how 'Thin Skull Rule' doesn't work. In this case, it was unforeseeable that V would die of a heart condition as she looked healthy. Even she didn't know she had a condition.
How is it fair to prosecute someone if they didn't foresee the outcome?
BUT someone has to be held liable. But for their actions, the outcome wouldn't have come about, therefore they must be responsible.
'Turning off life support'
If it's in the patient's best interests, it can break the chain.
Malcherek & Steel
Bland - feeding tube
So overall, causation seems to be straightforward. There are a series of tests to prove liability AND there are limitations. Surely it's fair?
Cases:
White
Blaue
MPC v Fagan
Thabo Meli
Mitchell
Miller
Church
Malcherek and Steel
Blaue
Roberts
Williams & Davis
Pagett
Blaue
Cheshire
Jordan
Smith
Carey
Haywood
Dear
Bland
Woah ^
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Law - Insanity and Automatism
!1qQ
So, as you've probably guessed from the title, this blog is about insanity and automatism.
Insanity is defined as when D (the defendant) suffers from 'a defect of reason, caused by a disease of the mind. Also, D has can't know EITHER the nature & quality of the act OR that it's wrong'. If they meet 3 of the 4 branches, they are insane. YAY! That means they will receive a disposal measure like a hospital order.
It comes from the 1843 case of M'Naughten (the spelling is messed up). He was a Scottish woodturner who thought Tories were out to get him so he decided to try and kill the PM of the time, Robert Peel. Instead he shot the PM's private secretary and killed him. He argued insanity successfully and, because the rules of the time allowed it, received a complete acquittal. This provoked a national outcry so they locked him up in Bedlam. So there you go.
Now you get a nice special verdict 'Not Guilty by reason of Insanity [NGRI] and some hospital orders that, ideally, will reflect your condition.
Difference between insanity and automatism? - Insanity is caused by an internal factor and is therefore likely to happpen again. Automatism is an external factor and is therefore likely to be a one-off.
Element 1 - Defect of Reason - Clarke - something that impairs the mind.
Element 2 - Disease of the Mind - Sullivan, Quick, Kemp - a disease.
Element 3 - Nature + Quality of act - Burgess
Element 4 - Wrong - Windle - can't know that the act is wrong.
If you meet the first 2 and any one of the last two, you are legally insane.
Cases - M'NAUGHTEN, Clarke, Sullivan, Quick, Kemp, Windle, Burgess
AUTOMATISM
Legally defined as 'an action done by the body, without control of the mind' (Bratty).
This is where D argues that an external factor caused them to commit an offence.
So Bratty defines this. In Bratty, D picked up a hitchhiker, fell into an epileptic whatever and woke to find he'd strangled her with her own tights. Nice.
So it has to be an external cause and you have to be COMPLETELY taken over by the automatism.
Self-induced automatism as in Bailey is generally not allowed.
BUT if it has a different effect like in Hardie and Lipman, it maybe allowed.
Cases:
Parks
Rabey - everyday disappointments of life (e.g. heartbreak) are NOT enough
^^ - both Canadian cases. Consistently approved of in GB courts.
Bratty
Hardie
Lipman
Bailey
AG Ref. No 2 of 1992 - lorry driver, went onto hard shoulder and killed breakdown woman.
AO2 - Insanity - this includes diseases like diabetes, arteoscholorisis (or however you spell it)and epilepsy. How can you hold them to the same standard as mad people?
If they are found guilty they get hospital orders - how will this help?
The medical and legal definitions of insanity are NOT the same. Since M'Naughten, medical knowledge of insanity has advanced A LOT. Many people feel the two need to be realigned. Unfair to deem diabetics insane - put in same group as insane people.
Will also keep the law up to date and contemporary.
Automatism
AO2 - should encompass cases of diabetes. Unfair to differentiate between hypo and hyper? One insane and the other automatistic - how is that fair?
Should bring out law more into line with Canada's - a lot more functional and fair.
What else? Automatism, if argued successfully, results in a COMPLETE acquittal. Insanity, a disposal method. UNFAIR!
SO there's Insanity and Automatism. Hope I remember all this for the exam!1
Think I'd like duress as an exam Q. That's the one I'm the most worried about.
But yes...time will tell. I just gotta learn ALL the rest.
So, as you've probably guessed from the title, this blog is about insanity and automatism.
Insanity is defined as when D (the defendant) suffers from 'a defect of reason, caused by a disease of the mind. Also, D has can't know EITHER the nature & quality of the act OR that it's wrong'. If they meet 3 of the 4 branches, they are insane. YAY! That means they will receive a disposal measure like a hospital order.
It comes from the 1843 case of M'Naughten (the spelling is messed up). He was a Scottish woodturner who thought Tories were out to get him so he decided to try and kill the PM of the time, Robert Peel. Instead he shot the PM's private secretary and killed him. He argued insanity successfully and, because the rules of the time allowed it, received a complete acquittal. This provoked a national outcry so they locked him up in Bedlam. So there you go.
Now you get a nice special verdict 'Not Guilty by reason of Insanity [NGRI] and some hospital orders that, ideally, will reflect your condition.
Difference between insanity and automatism? - Insanity is caused by an internal factor and is therefore likely to happpen again. Automatism is an external factor and is therefore likely to be a one-off.
Element 1 - Defect of Reason - Clarke - something that impairs the mind.
Element 2 - Disease of the Mind - Sullivan, Quick, Kemp - a disease.
Element 3 - Nature + Quality of act - Burgess
Element 4 - Wrong - Windle - can't know that the act is wrong.
If you meet the first 2 and any one of the last two, you are legally insane.
Cases - M'NAUGHTEN, Clarke, Sullivan, Quick, Kemp, Windle, Burgess
AUTOMATISM
Legally defined as 'an action done by the body, without control of the mind' (Bratty).
This is where D argues that an external factor caused them to commit an offence.
So Bratty defines this. In Bratty, D picked up a hitchhiker, fell into an epileptic whatever and woke to find he'd strangled her with her own tights. Nice.
So it has to be an external cause and you have to be COMPLETELY taken over by the automatism.
Self-induced automatism as in Bailey is generally not allowed.
BUT if it has a different effect like in Hardie and Lipman, it maybe allowed.
Cases:
Parks
Rabey - everyday disappointments of life (e.g. heartbreak) are NOT enough
^^ - both Canadian cases. Consistently approved of in GB courts.
Bratty
Hardie
Lipman
Bailey
AG Ref. No 2 of 1992 - lorry driver, went onto hard shoulder and killed breakdown woman.
AO2 - Insanity - this includes diseases like diabetes, arteoscholorisis (or however you spell it)and epilepsy. How can you hold them to the same standard as mad people?
If they are found guilty they get hospital orders - how will this help?
The medical and legal definitions of insanity are NOT the same. Since M'Naughten, medical knowledge of insanity has advanced A LOT. Many people feel the two need to be realigned. Unfair to deem diabetics insane - put in same group as insane people.
Will also keep the law up to date and contemporary.
Automatism
AO2 - should encompass cases of diabetes. Unfair to differentiate between hypo and hyper? One insane and the other automatistic - how is that fair?
Should bring out law more into line with Canada's - a lot more functional and fair.
What else? Automatism, if argued successfully, results in a COMPLETE acquittal. Insanity, a disposal method. UNFAIR!
SO there's Insanity and Automatism. Hope I remember all this for the exam!1
Think I'd like duress as an exam Q. That's the one I'm the most worried about.
But yes...time will tell. I just gotta learn ALL the rest.
Monday, 16 May 2011
Pranks
So last days of school ever. This calls for some pranks. We have 2 horrible librarians and a jumped up secretary in mind. Fish behind the radiators, hens, superglue etc etc etc.
So here's some pictures for inspiration...
Happy pranking!
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Last Times
So my school has a rota system - we have a week A and a week B and alternate between the two. This week, it's my last week B. And next is my last week A. And my last week at school. Ever.
CanNOT believe it. Thirteen years has gone so fast. Leaving friends behind but starting something new feels so weird. You feel guilty for looking forward to the end, in a way, and you never realise how ultimate the end will be. It's on you now to go out into the world and make your way. And you hope that you and your friends will stay in touch. And you wonder how adulthood and life will affect you. You can't wait to be older but you don't want to be an adult - because that would mean leaving behind your childhood. For mischievous kids like me, adults were the enemy, and suddenly I'm expected to become one? It's kinda wack.
So as I embark on my last week B, I'm going to try and cherish the last times I'll ever do things. Tomorrow will be the last time I wait for 4 hours in the library for my 6th period. Friday will be my last two hour lie in. And next week will be my last week of school ever. I'll miss the people, not the place. Yeah I'll have to go in for exams but walking home from school on the 27th May will feel weird and fantastic. And walking back on 23rd June, my last exam day, will be the best feeling ever.
A thirteen year experience will have come to an end. It's time for change...
CanNOT believe it. Thirteen years has gone so fast. Leaving friends behind but starting something new feels so weird. You feel guilty for looking forward to the end, in a way, and you never realise how ultimate the end will be. It's on you now to go out into the world and make your way. And you hope that you and your friends will stay in touch. And you wonder how adulthood and life will affect you. You can't wait to be older but you don't want to be an adult - because that would mean leaving behind your childhood. For mischievous kids like me, adults were the enemy, and suddenly I'm expected to become one? It's kinda wack.
So as I embark on my last week B, I'm going to try and cherish the last times I'll ever do things. Tomorrow will be the last time I wait for 4 hours in the library for my 6th period. Friday will be my last two hour lie in. And next week will be my last week of school ever. I'll miss the people, not the place. Yeah I'll have to go in for exams but walking home from school on the 27th May will feel weird and fantastic. And walking back on 23rd June, my last exam day, will be the best feeling ever.
A thirteen year experience will have come to an end. It's time for change...
Sorry I put so much revision on here. I'm watching Gone With the Wind at the moment. Love this film. 4 hours long LOL! It is described as being 'perhaps the most famous film of all time' and as being 'an emotional, artistic and technical triumph'.
My new book 'Enduring Love' came the other day. Ian McEwan never fails to astound me with his words. I love the front cover already. My favourite is 'On Chesil Beach'. Never have I seen red and blue work so well together.
I also have 'A Streetcar Named Desire' and 'Pride and Prejudice' to finish in time for my exam next month. Love Through The Ages. Had a mock the other day. 2.5 hours! And I didn't see the bloody end of the extract over the page. So annoyed after! Oh well!
So yes, I plan to read all these books. And a big fat copy of 'Gone With the Wind' before my life is over.
Wish me luck!
German Foreign Policy
So...German Foreign Policy
Weltpolitik - Kaiser wanted Germany to be world power.
Mean different things to different people - some just wanted EU expansion, some Lebensraum (living space) and some world domination - like the Kaiser.
Germany - didn't expect alliances from GB - it was the strongest country but decided that in worsening climate, it needed alliances.
Alliances - Franco-Russian Alliance, Anglo-Japanese, Anglo-French, Anglo-Russian, Triple Entente
First Moroccan Crisis - led to Anglo-Russian agreement
This led to the Bosnian Crisis
And the problems coming from the GB v G naval race - GB wanted G to stop rearming, G wanted GB to remain neutral in war. Neither was going to agree. Came to nothing.
Then came the Second Moroccan Crisis - The Germans sent 'The Panther' - a gunboat, a clear sign of Brinkmanship - alarm bells ran for the other EU countries.
Fischer Argument - deliberate - Weltpolitik, Schlieffen Plan, Naval rearmament, War Council Meeting, Daily Telegraph Affair
Wehler argument - deflection from domestic issues - bad economy, growth of SPD, Kaiser's ineptitute - unite the country
Some thought it was a 'calculated risk' - Germany thought that it could win a war in EU but made a mistake. Thought France and Russia would be slow to mobilise.
Conclusion - Germany did have a large share of responsibility.
BUT a lot was response to external factors - alliances > encirclement
Tried to secure position - many diplomatic errors
Like the Kruger Telegram, Daily Telegraph Affair, 2nd Moroccan Crisis - Mostly on Kaiser's part - he was an idiot!
War Council Meeting - misunderstood? - was it really important? Hollweg didn't attend - does this mean it was trivial or that the army were taking over?
Altogether, Germany was influenced by outside factors, but did have a large part in starting WW1.
Law - involuntary manslaughter
Right so the law revision - involuntary manslaughter.
GNM - a way for prosecuting those whose professional failures cause death.
Duty of Care
Adomako 1994
Misra 2004
Bateman 1925
Andrews 1937
Donoghue v Stevenson - neighbour principle
Pittwood - contractual
Dytham - public office
Instan - voluntary assumption
Stone & Dobinson - voluntary assumption
Gibbons & Proctor - specific relationship
Lowe - specific relationship
Miller - duty to rectify dangerous situation
Khan & Khan - can create new ones
Evans (Gemma) - (used Khan & Khan) duty to mitigate harm done
Wacker - duty to provide care, even in illegal act
Willoughby - duty to provide care, even in illegal act
Winter - duty to recitfy dangerous situation
AO2 - people who engage in illegal acts and therefore owe a DoC to their fellow criminals may not even know they are under that obligation. Applies to others as well like Stone and Dobinson and Wacker.
CAM - a way of prosecuting people for reckless crimes that end in death
Church - establishes test
Lewis - reinforces test - most recent statement of the law
Hancock & Shankland
Newbury & Jones
Lamb
Dhawali
Dawson - bystander
Watson - bystander
Carey - bystander
Slingsby
AO2 - How can you prosecute someone who didn't even foresee death? Who didn't even intend it? Unfair. May not even know their actions contributed - Slingsby
Reckless Act Manslaughter - a way of convicting those who kill out of recklessness
Seymour - reckless act - brought it back - confusion
Lidar - reckless act - subjective test - brought it back again - confusion
AO2 - surely should be subjective test - subjectivist argument - empathy to D - put themselves in situation - because RM would never be reckless - always reasonable.
GNM - a way for prosecuting those whose professional failures cause death.
Duty of Care
Adomako 1994
Misra 2004
Bateman 1925
Andrews 1937
Donoghue v Stevenson - neighbour principle
Pittwood - contractual
Dytham - public office
Instan - voluntary assumption
Stone & Dobinson - voluntary assumption
Gibbons & Proctor - specific relationship
Lowe - specific relationship
Miller - duty to rectify dangerous situation
Khan & Khan - can create new ones
Evans (Gemma) - (used Khan & Khan) duty to mitigate harm done
Wacker - duty to provide care, even in illegal act
Willoughby - duty to provide care, even in illegal act
Winter - duty to recitfy dangerous situation
AO2 - people who engage in illegal acts and therefore owe a DoC to their fellow criminals may not even know they are under that obligation. Applies to others as well like Stone and Dobinson and Wacker.
CAM - a way of prosecuting people for reckless crimes that end in death
Church - establishes test
Lewis - reinforces test - most recent statement of the law
Hancock & Shankland
Newbury & Jones
Lamb
Dhawali
Dawson - bystander
Watson - bystander
Carey - bystander
Slingsby
AO2 - How can you prosecute someone who didn't even foresee death? Who didn't even intend it? Unfair. May not even know their actions contributed - Slingsby
Reckless Act Manslaughter - a way of convicting those who kill out of recklessness
Seymour - reckless act - brought it back - confusion
Lidar - reckless act - subjective test - brought it back again - confusion
AO2 - surely should be subjective test - subjectivist argument - empathy to D - put themselves in situation - because RM would never be reckless - always reasonable.
Friday, 13 May 2011
FRIDAY THE 13th!
OMG. It's Friday the 13th! Now I am usually superstitious, but this particular day always seems to go quite well for me.
Which is good.
I think being afraid of numbers is going a little too far. Having said that, I don't like black cats or walking under ladders (I got a bump on my head for my troubles yesterday). I've managed to obtain a picture of a young man braving the bad luck with the 3 drains. I'm now looking on Wikipedia to see what else people don't like.
''
Friday the 13th Myths:
• If you cut your hair on Friday the 13th, someone in your family will die.
• A child born on Friday the 13th will be unlucky for life.
• If a funeral procession passes you on Friday the 13th, you will be the next to die.
Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1879288,00.html#ixzz1MFkrjewx''
''Friday the 13th Anecdotes:
• In 1913, a New York pastor tried to assuage couples' fears by offering to marry them for free on Friday the 13th.
• In 1939, a small town in Indiana forced all black cats to wear bells on Friday, Oct. 13. When the measure seemed to work (nothing bad happened, at any rate), the town continued the practice for the next three years.
• At the time, Oct. 13, 1989, was the second largest drop of the Dow in history. Nicknamed the Friday-the-13th mini-crash, these days it's not even in the top 10. That might be the scariest fact of all.
Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1879288,00.html#ixzz1MFkxqQQ1''
I found a penny today, picked it up. Don't know if I had good luck all day long yet though. Hope I did with my english mock. And that I can repeat it for the real and my other 4 exams! :)
I also got an image of a funny faceplant. Cause I saw a kid fall over the other day. And (she was okay, I did try and help) it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Cause you know kids don't try and break their falls, they expect someone to catch 'em. So she just went DOWWWWN! like a ton of bricks. Should have been filmed. Was the DEFINITION of a faceplant! So good.
So there you have it folks, Friday the 13th. I'll leave it to you to decide on it. Me? I LLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIKKKKKKKKE IT. The thought that a number/day can scare the whole world makes me ROFL endlessly!
Thursday, 12 May 2011
More revision. May Twelve
So I took out 'A Streetcar Named Desire'. Need to read it in full. AND SEE THE FILM. SKY NEED TO SHOW IT!!! !!!1qQ!!!1qQ!!!1qQ!!!1qQ!!!1qQ!!!1qQ
Yes, finally copy and paste works too.
Revised for law - duress and necessity.
Key cases: Cole, Valderamma-Vega, Howe, Wright, Cole, Graham, Quayle, Shepherd, Dudley and Stephens etc etc etc.
Duress: Scope - It's a complete defence, except to murder and attempted murder and treason. If argued successfully, it results in a complete acquittal.
Duress - Limitations:
Have to believe threat - Graham test
Must be threat of death/serious injury - Valderamma-Vega - can add stuff, if this threat exists = cumulative duress
Must be against you/someone you feel reasonably responsible for - Wright
Must be imminent - Abdul-Hussain
Must be specific threat - Cole
Also Graham test - Does D believe threat. Would RM believe it - problems because 'reasonable firmness - crosses into subjective and case of Bowen - can't take temporary features into account - no IQ etc.
Also self-induced - Howe, Shepherd, Heath
Can't usually argue if you put yourself in situation of violence. But if you don't know group is violent, like Shepherd, you may be allowed it.
Duress of Circumstances - Martin (Colin) Result from the circumstances, not the threat that D finds themselves in. Conway - believed threat. Safi - believed threat coming from fact he was intellectual being persecuted.
Necessity - Kitson, Re: S, Re:M, Re:A 'choice between the lesser of 2 evils'. D had to have done everything to avoid irrepairable or serious harm.
Criticised as same as duress of circumstances. ALSO, used a lot in civil cases - medical like Re:A - only obiter - never been accepted by criminal law.
Law Commisson - consultation - said duress should only be partial, should only reduce liability
Full report - said duress should be full defence - acquittal
Shows changes between consultation and proper report.
So overall, that's duress. I get it - I'm quite surprised. We did intoxication the other day.
Voluntary - Basic - Majewski, Lipman and Specific like Beard and Dutch Courage like Gallagher
Involuntary - Kingston.
And mistake - O'Grady and Hutton
And I got that too!!!
And we've done attempts, burglary, theft and consent. So I'm alright on all those I think.
Need to go over involuntary manslaughter again for the synoptic.
And cases!! Need to know all these.
But overall, tis good. Just need to get media and history out the way. Can't revise much for English, just conventions of drama, poetry and prose.
So it's all looking goooooooooooooooood!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, finally copy and paste works too.
Revised for law - duress and necessity.
Key cases: Cole, Valderamma-Vega, Howe, Wright, Cole, Graham, Quayle, Shepherd, Dudley and Stephens etc etc etc.
Duress: Scope - It's a complete defence, except to murder and attempted murder and treason. If argued successfully, it results in a complete acquittal.
Duress - Limitations:
Have to believe threat - Graham test
Must be threat of death/serious injury - Valderamma-Vega - can add stuff, if this threat exists = cumulative duress
Must be against you/someone you feel reasonably responsible for - Wright
Must be imminent - Abdul-Hussain
Must be specific threat - Cole
Also Graham test - Does D believe threat. Would RM believe it - problems because 'reasonable firmness - crosses into subjective and case of Bowen - can't take temporary features into account - no IQ etc.
Also self-induced - Howe, Shepherd, Heath
Can't usually argue if you put yourself in situation of violence. But if you don't know group is violent, like Shepherd, you may be allowed it.
Duress of Circumstances - Martin (Colin) Result from the circumstances, not the threat that D finds themselves in. Conway - believed threat. Safi - believed threat coming from fact he was intellectual being persecuted.
Necessity - Kitson, Re: S, Re:M, Re:A 'choice between the lesser of 2 evils'. D had to have done everything to avoid irrepairable or serious harm.
Criticised as same as duress of circumstances. ALSO, used a lot in civil cases - medical like Re:A - only obiter - never been accepted by criminal law.
Law Commisson - consultation - said duress should only be partial, should only reduce liability
Full report - said duress should be full defence - acquittal
Shows changes between consultation and proper report.
So overall, that's duress. I get it - I'm quite surprised. We did intoxication the other day.
Voluntary - Basic - Majewski, Lipman and Specific like Beard and Dutch Courage like Gallagher
Involuntary - Kingston.
And mistake - O'Grady and Hutton
And I got that too!!!
And we've done attempts, burglary, theft and consent. So I'm alright on all those I think.
Need to go over involuntary manslaughter again for the synoptic.
And cases!! Need to know all these.
But overall, tis good. Just need to get media and history out the way. Can't revise much for English, just conventions of drama, poetry and prose.
So it's all looking goooooooooooooooood!!!!!!!!!!
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Revision May 10th
I find recounting my ideas, in my own words, beneficial so.......
Caprivi, he was Chancellor from 1890 - 1894. He embarked on a 'new course' for foreign and domestic policies.
He got rid of the Anti-Socialist laws, introduced Tariff reforms and Social Reforms like child labour laws and hours that women could work. Tariff laws - laws levied against importing countries.
Some people - like the military, Tories and landowners - didn't like the tariff laws, or him. He annoyed the military by reducing the length of conscription from 3 to 2 years. When it was upped, it sparked nationalism. Did the opposite when reduced.
Landowners didn't like the tariff laws - thought it would negatively impact agriculture.
And the Tories didn't like him cause he seemed to be a bit of a socialist. So when he made a mistake, they took full advantage of the situation.
When the Army Bill was rejected, people used this to show the Kaiser how unsuitable Caprivi was for the role of Chancellor.
When the Kaiser asked him to draw up an anti-socialist law, Caprivi refused. He managed to talk the Kaiser out of a plan to realign all power to him and then stepped down, gladly in 1894.
So that was the end of Caprivi.
Then came Weltpolitik 'world politics' - the notion that Germany would become a superpower by expanding across EU then the world.
Influenced by the growth in nationalism, imperialism, social darwinism and radicalisation. Tirpitz made a Navy League in 1898 to further the expansion of the Navy, as outlined in Weltpolitik. It got a lot of support, from across the social and political spectrums - appealed to patriotism etc.
Aligned politicians and people with the Kaiser - unity.
The Chancellor at the time was Hohenloe and 1897 is often viewed as a turning point because a lot of key political figures came to the fore at this time e.g. Bulow. It marked a decisive shift in Germany's foreign policy.
What else? Ah Yes!!
Bulow and all his problems with Weltpolitik - cost of rearming, social reforms, Tariff Laws (they came to a compromise in 1902).
Daily Telegraph Affair - Kaiser revealed too much about foreign policy. Reichstag wanted a way to limit what he said. Bulow sided with the Reichstag. Lost the Kaiser's trust. Demonstrated how the Chancellor's position was vulnerable as they had to keep pleasing the Kaiser - unfair.
Then came the political stalemate under Hollwegg. The SPD became the biggest party in the
1912 election. Though Hollwegg was Tory, he tried to remain neutral to keep everyone sweet as the Reichstag shifted to the left.
The Zabern Affair - German officers v French in Alsace > Violence > condemnation. The army said they were accountable only to the Kaiser. The Kaiser agreed. Reichstag didn't. Hollwegg sided with the Kaiser - didn't make the same mistake as Bulow.
Crystallised division in politics and society. The fact that B-H carried on as Chancellor again demonstrates the power of the Kaiser. Even though structuralists consider him as a puppet for the elites - a 'shadow Kaiser'.
Another problem - military spending in 1912 -13. They wanted more money. B-H, afraid of inheritance tax backlash like one before under Bulow, went with a spirit tax.
Then, they wanted to increase peacetime army. People were okay with inheritance tax here because of the tense political atmosphere.
The key debate concerns whether Germany was 'an entrenched authoritarian state'. I would say yes. Doesn't matter about whether Kaiser was a puppet, he, effectively, controlled everything. The people were ruled by law - rechsstaat - and the weak constitution and the flawed political system increased his power.
So yes overall, Caprivi and his 'new course', Bulow and his 'Daily Telegraph' and 'Weltpolitik' worries and Bethmann-Hollwegg and his military, Reichstag and Zabern affair worries.
COOL. Only ten million more chapters to go!
Monday, 9 May 2011
May 9th
So I just finished watching Tess of the D'Ubervilles. I knew the ending but it's still sad. Such a good story. Had thoughts about the links between Robbie & Cecelia from Atonement, Othello and Desdemona, Romeo and Juliet and Tess and Angel. Seperated by death but also FATE. If Robbie had sent the right letter, if Cassio hadn't copied the handkerchief, if Romeo had waited a few seconds longer and if Angel and Tess had got together after they saw each other the first time. So sad.
ALSO, the end of school! Sounds shallow, but when I got to 6th form, I bought so many clothes 'cause I was finally able to express myself through my clothes. So now I feel like I should wear them all. Starting tomorrow. Can't wait. When you wear nice clothes, you feel so much better.
Sad about it all ending, still got exams and prom though. But excited for the future. And I've got a much better chance of keeping in touch with friends. So that's good. Makes you appreciate what you have. So yes. Newness.
Just gotta get 2 A's and a B, at least in my exams. Wish me luck!
Just gotta get 2 A's and a B, at least in my exams. Wish me luck!
Sunday, 8 May 2011
REVISION
So it's been sunnnnnnnay! And I sent my cousin a birthday card with a hogwarts seal on the back, addressed [his address] England, U.K, Europe, Earth!To say I was happy with this effort would be an understatement.
To say he was ROFLin would be true!
So yes. I am very happy with that.
I'm also happy with the progress of my revision. Just revised all of the Bismarckian era of Germany. Unification, the consistution, the new system and the problems with it. The economy, industry and agriculture, changing attitudes e.g. anti-semitism, racism, socialism, social darwinism etc. And also what effect the Kaiser himself had. He was lazy and inept, but believed in the 'Divine Right of Kings' so he didn't care. A hedonist through and through, he was totally unsuitable for the role of monarch. But he didn't care. So no-one else did. He was surrounded by bum-lickers [sycophants] like Bulow who licked his arse for a living. Rohl argues he ran Germany. The Prussian elites also had a hand. Wehler argues that they were, in fact, in charge of the country. Junkers, the judiciary, senior civil servants, senior diplomats and officers in the German army were in fact holding the reigns according to him. Whereas others, whose names I've forgotten argued that pressure groups and parties like the Agrarian League and the SPD held real sway. The rule from below they say. So yes that's my history.
My English included analysing 'The Eve of St. Agnes' by John Keats. Was quite a nice poem actually. For Love Through the Ages A2 Level. Based on Romeo and Juliet, it is a series of 42 sonnets, in iambic pentameter telling the story of Porphyro and Madeleine. Employing an ABABACC rhyme scheme, it is a tightly structured long narrative and uses various language techniques like sibilance, alliteration, personification, metaphors, and imagery of both natural and pastoral scenes. It has links with Wuthering Heights due to its use of windows and doors to enforce the feeling of entrapment. It's use of fruit also gives it a parallel with Christina Rossetti's most famous poem, Goblin Market. Other links include between Romeo and Juliet, Othello and Desdemona, Ernest Dowson's 'Brief Life' with it's famous line - ''days of roses and wine'', Tess of the D'Ubervilles, because of the fruit-related imagery and temptation - Alec and the strawberry incident and various other texts that I can't be bothered to outline, but I will name - Anne Hathaway by Carol Ann Duffy and The Nymph's Reply by Walter Raleigh.
I did find this [I love onomatology [study of names]]: ''Is there irony in the selection of the names? Madeline derives from Magdalen, the prostitute accepted by Christ as a follower. The name Porphyro means purple, a color used for the clothing of nobles; purple was further associated with the aristocracy and royalty in the phrase "purple blood" (we say "blue blood" today). There are numerous references to the color purple in the poem. His namesake, the historical Porphyro, was an active enemy of Christianity in the third century.''
Hm...
Anything else? Nah think that's pretty much it ;)
Enjoy the pic of the best Kaiser EVER! (joke)
Friday, 6 May 2011
FRIDAY
So Tess arrived, along with Claire, Andrew, Brian, Allison and BENDER! Happy!Still have back knots BUTTTTTTTTTTTT having a curry tonight!
Watched footage of 7/7 today. Very sad. Seems like only yesterday. Remember exactly where I was when it happened. D.T. Year 8. D block. Trying to wire something to something else........that didn't come out right. Lol?
ANYWAY! Now reading Pride & Prejudice and it's surprisingly good. So that's, erm, good.
And I already have it on duh-vuh-duh so that's good. Googled it - first image above.
LOLin about the Lib Dems can't help it. Lovin' the SNP results.
And what else? Oh yes, calling all employers, if you want someone to have experience, it sometimes means you have to offer opportunities for the said person to gain it. I'm just sayin'
Thursday, 5 May 2011
STOP ALL THE CLOCKS!
5th MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY
Revenge of the fifth?
And my DVD's still haven't arrived! Wah wah!
Did a presentation about social networking today on my OWN (partner was in an exam). Did okay actually. No breakdowns. Speaking of, apparently a kid was having a spaz the other day before his exam, refusing to go in etc and they had to get his parents in. I LOL but I suppose I shouldn't. Hope he's awyt now.
What else? Oh yes, RIP Claude Choules. 110 years old. Whenever I hear stories like that, I always wonder if I'd like to live that long.
Like the woman who they got who went to the last Olympic games in Greece in the 1800's. She'd lived through 3 centuries. And Harry Patch, who always reminds me of Belgium and our year 8 trip there.
The term is ending soon and though we know it, no-one's getting upset over it or anything. I think prom's the last time we'll see everyone. Which may be quite sad. I will miss my friends when I go uni (hopefully everything will run smoothly). But it's not like I'm dying. Don't get it when people cry everywhere. You come home etc. It's not prison or like the old days when people walked everywhere (Tess) or got carriages (Alec) or traps (Angel).
Bit of wider reading coming in there. Need to finish my essays and shit actually. How great. And the library printer rejected me today. Was quite upset actually (not).
So yes, maybe this is a good way of exploring intertextuality. 'A powerful part of Tess of the D'Ubervilles comes when Alec likens himself to the devil in John Milton's Paradise Lost as he compares himself to the snake that tempts Eve. The implication that Eve is Tess is an example of how women were idealised in the 19th century, just as Eve was when the world began'.
And so on and so forth.
And my DVD's still haven't arrived! Wah wah!
Did a presentation about social networking today on my OWN (partner was in an exam). Did okay actually. No breakdowns. Speaking of, apparently a kid was having a spaz the other day before his exam, refusing to go in etc and they had to get his parents in. I LOL but I suppose I shouldn't. Hope he's awyt now.
What else? Oh yes, RIP Claude Choules. 110 years old. Whenever I hear stories like that, I always wonder if I'd like to live that long.
Like the woman who they got who went to the last Olympic games in Greece in the 1800's. She'd lived through 3 centuries. And Harry Patch, who always reminds me of Belgium and our year 8 trip there.
The term is ending soon and though we know it, no-one's getting upset over it or anything. I think prom's the last time we'll see everyone. Which may be quite sad. I will miss my friends when I go uni (hopefully everything will run smoothly). But it's not like I'm dying. Don't get it when people cry everywhere. You come home etc. It's not prison or like the old days when people walked everywhere (Tess) or got carriages (Alec) or traps (Angel).
Bit of wider reading coming in there. Need to finish my essays and shit actually. How great. And the library printer rejected me today. Was quite upset actually (not).
So yes, maybe this is a good way of exploring intertextuality. 'A powerful part of Tess of the D'Ubervilles comes when Alec likens himself to the devil in John Milton's Paradise Lost as he compares himself to the snake that tempts Eve. The implication that Eve is Tess is an example of how women were idealised in the 19th century, just as Eve was when the world began'.
And so on and so forth.
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Finished Tess of the D'Ubervilles today. Was really sad :( Such a frustrating book. Long to get into, then when you do, it ends.
Ordered the BBC adaptation on DVD. Cause it's good.
And The Breakfast Club. Cause I love it. And it's good. So yes.
And knots in your back are the most ANNOYING thing ever. Tried to find a picture but couldn't. So yes.
And I saw this monstrosity on Jeremy Kyle today too.
Goodbye.
Monday, 2 May 2011
Sunday, 1 May 2011
Long Weekend
Had a Harry Potter marathon this weekend. Realised the most common word in them all was Nyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' and pondered the heroism of Severus Snape which has yet to be revealed.
It will be a bittersweet affair.
One thing is for sure, I will be running into that cinema!
The best!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)