Ima feel like this when I'm done...
Thursday, 23 June 2011
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
END OF SCHOOL/HOLIDAY
I finished school!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Finafuckinglly!
Now on holiday in Scotland.
And that's the end of this blog entry. I'll leave you with a picture of Roseisle!
Later!
Sunday, 22 May 2011
Treaty of Versailles and the Threats to the Weimar Republic
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.
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.
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 ^
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)