Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
Topic: Hunting with Dogs Running for your life, but yet knowing deep inside you that you're going to be ripped limb from limb. The last thing you hear is your screams for help and the sound of cheering by a group of humans. The last thing you see is your killer's face covered in your blood. Some people call this morally wrong act of cruelty a 'sport'. It is turning into a more common 'sport' around the country and it needs to stop"¦not for the distant future, but NOW! Reports and tests show that 96.9% of animals hunted and then killed by dogs die a slow painful death due to their atrocious injuries. The other 3.1% of animals killed by dogs die from exhaustion and die more quickly from its injuries. Either way the hunted animal dies from the effects of being hunted. Surely this has to stop? "Why" do you say? Well 'why' do hunting packs only hunt foxes, deer's, hares and minks? I'll tell you why, its because these animals don't defend themselves against the hounds. They aren't strong enough to attack back. They just run, run as far as they can go, until the hounds catch up and kill them. Easy targets. More animals hunted in one go. Quick and 'effective' games. If this isn't cruelty to animals, then I don't know and can't see, what is! RSPCA, CPHA and LACS are the most highly praised organisations that try to prevent these hunting games from carrying on. They try to their highest ability to try and ban hunting with dogs, but sadly the government and the House of Lords are too strong and believe this morally wrong blood sport is perfectly 'normal'. They say the sport can go ahead because it keeps control over the numbers of Foxes, Deer's, Hares and Minks. However, studies show that the number of those animals doesn't need controlling and could decrease at alarming rates in the near future. If they thought this sport helps keep control and that it's the only way, well they're wrong! Scientists show that the only rightful way to keep control over the numbers of animals is not to hunt them with dogs but to shoot them with a type of tranquilliser which would cause the animal to die a quiet, non painful death. This is kind to the animal without the outrage of a bloodthirsty dog ripping them limb from limb. Are the government and the House of Lords being stubborn? Scared to face up to the situation and the blood sports team members? Among the supporters of hunting there is a fear that if it is banned there will be a severe shortage of jobs in rural areas. However I feel that this argument does not stand up in today's modern world with its very low overall unemployment rates. In addition to this the rapid increase in opportunities for working at home coupled with the advances in computer technology and the associated training courses available make it easier to replace any lost jobs. "Hunting is natural. Humans have been hunting since the moment we were created, so why stop now?" says Mr Robert Burns, a farmer from Somerset. Everybody aggress initially we were barbaric in nature but surely we're suppose to have progressively become more civilised. Or have we? Picture the scene: You're looking for food for your loved one and your 4 children. You hear a noise, which you've heard before, but you carry on hunting for food for your family. Then suddenly out of the bushes jump 15 hounds, thirsty for blood, your blood. You run until you can run no more; you collapse. Fighting for your breath, you try to get up but before you know it you're being ripped apart. You're dead. Your body is covered in blood and taken away by a human on a horse. Your skin to make clothes. Your flesh to be eaten by your killers. Your bones crushed to mark various items. Your family is left to starve. Your family is dead. But worse the, perpetrators revel in it. The question we need to ask is, who are the real animals, the Foxes, Deer's, Hares and Minks, or US? Let us make positive steps to change this situation by getting the law changed to ban hunting with dogs.
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 732 Views: 268 Comments: 0
Topic: Hunting with Dogs Running for your life, but yet knowing deep inside you that you're going to be ripped limb from limb. The last thing you hear is your screams for help and the sound of cheering by a group of humans. The last thing you see is your killer's face covered in your blood. Some people call this morally wrong act of cruelty a 'sport'. It is turning into a more common 'sport' around the country and it needs to stop…not for the distant future, but NOW! Reports and tests show that 96.9% of animals hunted...
know it you're being ripped apart. You're dead. Your body is covered in blood and taken away by a human on a horse. Your skin to make clothes. Your flesh to be eaten by your killers. Your bones crushed to mark various items. Your family is left to starve. Your family is dead. But worse the, perpetrators revel in it.

The question we need to ask is, who are the real animals, the Foxes, Deer's, Hares and Minks, or US? Let us make positive steps to change this situation by getting the law changed to ban hunting with dogs.

Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

When asked to compare the two...When asked to compare the two poems "“ 'Boy driving his father to confession' by Seamus Heaney and 'Praise song for my mother' by Grace Nichols the first thing that stuck out was the difference in layout. Seamus Heaney's poem is written in longer sentences and reads more like a story. Grace Nichols poem is a lot shorter with only two words in some lines and it compares her mother to various things. Seamus Heaney writes about his father in a realistic way, never praising him and only focussing on his bad points. Grace Nichols on the other hand only praises her mother, so much that I felt that this poem was a lie, nobody thinks that their parent is that perfect. 'Praise song for my mother' is written in the past tense so maybe her mother is dead and she has written this poem in her memory, only praising her good points because maybe she feels guilty that they could have been closer. In the last line of the poem it says " Go into your wide futures, you said" perhaps the daughter went overseas and didn't see her mother for a long time and now feels guilty that while away her mother was ill and died and had to face this without her daughter by her side. I think its easier to see the good points in someone if you are away from them for a long time, you don't have to see their bad points and like the saying says "absence makes the heart grow fonder". 'Boy driving his father to confession' tells us about the difficult relationship between Seamus and his father. You are immediately aware of this in the title, instead of writing son he has written boy. I think that men find it difficult to talk about their feelings and emotions. Seamus Heaney tells us that on only four occasions has he seen his father let his guard down and show his emotions. The picture I get of his father is a very private man who keeps himself to himself he probably doesn't talk to his son about anything personal only to tell him to do his homework, wash the car, tidy the room etc. I also feel that if they had to discuss an item of news the father would not accept the son's point of view. The writer Grace Nichols is Caribbean and because of this has written her poem comparing her mother to various things found in the Caribbean, in line 12 she has written " the flame trees spread to me" followed by " the crab's leg / the fried plantain smell". I think that my mother would be upset to be compared to something that I used to look for in rock pools on holidays. The diet of the Caribbean people is very different to ours. Her mother appears to have been very hippy like. Grace compares her to water, "deep and bold and fathoming". I think that the mother understood her daughter well, and because of this allowed her to make her own decisions and perhaps learn by her own mistakes. In the second verse she compares her mother to the moon "you were moon's eye to me, pull and grained and mantling". Her mother would always look out for Grace, perhaps Grace didn't always agree with her mother but she always knew that her mother would protect her. The third verse "you were sunrise to me rise and warm and streaming". This again shows the Caribbean influence with the reference to the sunrises "“ more common there than in Wales. Seamus Heaney is an Irish, Roman Catholic, we know his religion from the end of the poem where he drops his father at the church so he can go to confession. Seamus Heaney appears to be reflecting on his relationship with his father, "Here at the churchyard I am slowing down to meet you, the fourth time on common ground". Why is he driving his father to confession? He writes "you grunt, and slam the door. I watch another who gropes awkwardly to know his father". The Roman Catholics use the term father for God. Does his father have to make peace with God because he is dying, is this why Seamus is prepared to meet his father because he may not be around for long". Seamus Heaney struggles to understand his father. I think that he was a reserved man who when his other son died was terribly upset and Seamus was startled to find that his father didn't know what to do to make things better. They appear to have been a family whose life was fairly routine and ordinary, when his mother goes away for a holiday they take her to the airport and his father is upset. "I was shocked at your tears when my mother's plane took off" he writes "In twelve years you had not been apart for one whole day till this long talked of holiday" Perhaps even though this had been discussed the father didn't really think the mother would go without him, why did she go away? Perhaps there was another reason, maybe the two parents weren't getting along anymore. Having shown his emotions to his son at the airport he is then embarrassed and takes him for a beer. When his father tells Seamus a smutty story he is trying to treat his son like one of his mates, and Seamus writes "We both knew this was an unprecedented breakthrough". Perhaps his father was finding it easier to get along with his son the older he got. "You asked me to drive up to church, and sit morose as ever". I think his father was a moody man, never really happy with his life and now has had to make a big decision to confess to God about his life, and tries to hide his feelings by telling his son how to drive the car. I preferred "Boy driving his father to confession" to "Praise song for my mother" I think it's because the Irish culture is similar to our own and the references in "Praise Song" do not really mean much to me, also Seamus Heaney poem is more of a story with Grace Nichols poem you have to think about what she means "“ when she refers to her mother as "pull and grained and mantling". Perhaps also because I am a son I relate better to "Boy driving his father to confession".   

When asked to compare the two poems – 'Boy driving his father to confession' by Seamus Heaney and 'Praise song for my mother' by Grace Nichols the first thing that stuck out was the difference in layout. Seamus Heaney's poem is written in longer sentences and reads more like a...

Words: 1097 View(s): 242 Comment(s): 0
In this Play the inspector plays...In this Play the inspector plays various roles. He plays a socialist as he is against capitalist views and because he is not just looking out for himself but others as well. Also he is known to be a catalyst as he brings a split in the Birling family. He plays a ghost as we find out he is not real. Additionally he plays a fraud because he is not a real inspector, but he does act as an Inspector. The inspector adds a great deal of tension and drama to the play. Priestley does this because he brings tension between the younger generation consisting of Sheila and Eric and the older generation consisting of Gerald, Mrs. Birling and Birling because of the inspector. Priestley uses the inspector as a substitute of him self to put his socialist points across this adds drama because we have to think about what he is trying to do. The four Birlings and Gerald are happily seated around the dinner table having an enjoyable night celebrating Sheila and Gerald"s engagement. All of them are feeling happy and are comfortable and relaxed and do not seem to have a care in the world but all of that is about to change. The scene is set in 1912, which is a pre war time. Also this is the time when the suffragettes were fighting for women"s rights. Additionally this was the time that the Titanic was built. The unsinkable ship, which ironically sank, would set sail in a week"s time. The life that the Birlings live is very nice and easy but Priestley is showing how great things always end in disaster like the evening they are having. This is also ironic as he starts by telling us how the Titanic was unsinkable and it ended and just like he will go on to tell us how the Birling"s lives are good at the moment but this will soon come to an end. The story does have some relevance to the early nineties even if the novel it was written in 1945. All these points are there to remind us of how not all good things last and how we should all look out for each other and not just for ourselves. An example is "We are members of one body," said the inspector. This shows us that the inspector is enforcing the point of being part of one community and that we should look out for one and other. This also shows the link of how the inspector could just be Priestley in another form such as a ghost. I believe that Priestley is reminding us to look out for each other just in case any major wars happen and we have to rely on each other so that"s maybe why he is enforcing this. When the inspector first enters the stage the atmosphere changes but not a great deal on first sight of the inspector. The inspector does not appear to be a big man but he does make him self appear strong and confident. He gives an impression that he will destroy them if they toy with him. Sheila changes the way she thinks and decides from now on she is going to be good. She has come to this decision as a result of the influence the inspector has had on her. His socialist views have been understood by Sheila and have changed her because she is going to start to care for other people. For example "whoever that inspector was it was anything but a joke. You knew it then. You began to learn something. And now you"ve stopped," said Sheila. This shows us that the Inspector really has influenced Sheila and she has learnt something from what he is trying to say. Also she is showing the divide between the Birlings when they find out the inspector was not real as they now will not take responsibility for the death of Eva Smith but the youngsters will. The Inspector creates a split between the family by dividing the younger and older generations. He is a catalyst because he divides the family and makes them angry at each other. Gerald and Sheila will not get married because of the inspector"s visit. Birling may not get his knighthood because of the visit from the inspector may cause a scandal. All these things are the effects of the Inspector"s visit. All Priestley is trying to do is make everyone take responsibility for their actions, for example what he is doing to the Birlings. By doing this it makes the audience feel like they need to do the same thing but not act like the older generation of the Birlings but act like the younger generation. Near the end of the play the inspector is thought to be a fraud. The Birlings have various reasons to believe this. There was no information about him and he did not tell us anything about himself when he introduces him self. He is unknown in the force as the policeman Gerald asked said there was no such inspector. Also Birling is very familiar with the county police force and he said he had never seen or heard of an Inspector under the name Goole. The way he was working through the Birlings made them think he was a fraud as no inspector has ever done this to the Birling"s before. Near the end of the play it is discovered that there is no inspector named Goole and he has never been seen on the police force. For example ""¦I met a sergeant I know"¦ He swore there wasn"t any inspector Goole or anybody like him on the force here," said Gerald. This is proof there is no Inspector Goole and he really is a fraud. Also There"s is more proof because no other inspector works like him but it definitely is very effective as he left the Birling family in shambles. The Inspector is considered a fraud. Gerald is the first to question if the inspector really is an Inspector. He goes on to say that the inspector did not show all of us the same picture as he showed everyone a picture one by one so there is no evidence that he could have showed each of them all different pictures let alone the real Eva Smith. They all may have seen different photos. He then goes on to say that there was no evidence to prove that there really was a young girl called Eva Smith that had died. This is Gerald"s view of how the inspector works and how it makes him a fraud. The inspector also tells us how and why he works. "It"s the way I like to work. One person and one line of inquiry at a time. Otherwise, there"s a muddle." This shows us how the Inspector explains how he works and why. This sounds like the real way an inspector should work which misleads us at the beginning of the play and makes us think he really is an inspector. This makes the story effective and dramatic because it all leads to a huge twist at the end when we find out the inspector does not really exist and there is no dead girl called Eva Smith however there is another twist at the end when they really do find out an Eva Smith had really died and an inspector is on his way over. This makes the story more interesting and more dramatic like a soap opera and it adds more suspense to the play. The inspector is used in the story as someone who is supposed to be like J.B Priestley. He is like a substitute for J.B Priestly and they are linked as the inspector is being used to put across his messages. The inspector is in the story to make the Birling"s have responsibility for their actions. He is trying to make people think about what they do before they do it. "Look before you leap" as the saying goes. The inspector is trying to say that people should all be treated equally. All these messages are aimed at the audience as well as the Birlings. This is how Priestley gets his points out to us, through the link between him and the inspector. I think his main messages are that we are all part of one community, not individual people but we are connected one way or another so we have to care for each other and look after each other. For example ""¦.We are responsible for each other," said the inspector. This shows us the inspector has socialist views and does care about others apart from himself. Priestley puts across message of capitalism verses socialism as he shows the Inspector, the socialist saying how we should not be like a capitalist but more like a socialist and care for one another. The inspector is a socialist as is Priestley and have socialist views. They are against capitalism, as they do not feel you should just earn a living for money and for yourself but you should help other people. The inspector"s name is a pun for ghoul. This then leads us to believe that the inspector does not exist. He is some sort of ghost or phantom who is a nightmare to the Birlings. The Birlings have other beliefs that prove the inspector does not exist like Gerald. He finds out from another police sergeant from the county force that there is no one like or called the inspector they had met. In addition, the older generation seem to think it is all a hoax. For example "It"s a hoax of some kind," said Gerald. This shows that the older generation thinks it is some old fool playing a trick on them causing a scandal. There is nothing wrong with them believing this as they now have evidence that the inspector really is not an inspector but a fraud but that is only if he really does exist which is unknown to everyone. It could also show that the inspector is a bad ghoul playing tricks on family to have fun. He seems to know about he future because he knows what will happen to Eva Smith that no one else knows about, which may give the audience an idea that he is not a human being. He is another type of life such as a spirit that does not exist in our world, as it is virtually impossible to predict the future. He does make the Birlings scared of him as he breaks them down one by one leading them to confess. This may also show why he is a ghoul because he is scary. The inspector being a ghoul makes the audience more interested in the story because there is no obvious thing at the beginning of the story that gives him away but we all have our suspicions and this leads to tension as we want to continue to view the play to find out whether our suspicions were correct or not. This is another aspect that makes the play so good and again it involves the truth hidden behind the inspector. The inspector had an enormous affect on the Birlings. He caused them to fall out with each other and go against each other. From all what he told them the only people that actually learnt their lesson was the younger generation. The elders did not as when they found out the inspector was a fraud they were celebrating so what the inspector said went through one ear out the other. I think the family could get back to how they were before but it would be on Sheila and Eric"s conscience that they once helped lead a girl to suicide. Priestleys over all message in this story was we are all part of one community and we have to look after each other rather than just looking out for ourselves. If one person is affected in the community than all of us are. That is what Priestleys over all message is. I believe the over all role of the inspector was to play a substitute of Priestley to get Priestleys messages across to the audience and the Birlings. The Inspector has many hidden messages in him. He plays so many different roles and the he himself makes the whole story. He makes you think and puts across the messages, which to me is the point of the book. He is very effective and adds a great deal of drama.   

In this Play the inspector plays various roles. He plays a socialist as he is against capitalist views and because he is not just looking out for himself but others as well. Also he is known to be a catalyst as he brings a split in the Birling family. He...

Words: 2134 View(s): 112 Comment(s): 0
In Willey Russell's play, "Our Day...In Willey Russell's play, "Our Day Out" the deprivd youth of inner city Liverpool are treated to an exciting day out to Wales. They are so poor they cannot aford a proper breakfast or even school uniform. Four teachers r responsible for them. First there is the kind, gentle and understanding Mrs. Kay, described as a "mother hen". Mr Briggs, the strict disciplinerian is sent to watch over the trip. The young teachers and lovers Susan and Colin do not play a larg part, but add humour to the play. But, after an incident at the beach, both Mrs. Kay and Mr. Briggs change. The playright makes it clear that different teaching methods and ideas clearly suit different classes, and that one of the teachers is clearly better at teaching the Progress Class. This is because of the way they treat the children and their understanging of the children's situation. This is shown by the way the playwright uses the visits to the zoo, castle, fairground and beach, especially Briggs and Carols encounter on the clifftop, which changes his view of her and her inner-city neighbors. Mrs. Kay is the teacher all the children love. At the begginning of the play she is surounded by them: "One group of kids surrounds a teacher, Mrs. Kay." She is kind and caring towards the children because she understands their problems and feels sorry for them. She calls them "love". Even when Briggs is angry, she still smiles, and although she is civil towards him it is clear she disagrese with his harsh and impolite behaviour. She has to be polite towards him because he is intent upon getting her sacked: "When we get back to school"¦your number up." She is slightly ironic and sarcastic as well, as she calls him "Mr Happiness". This is funny because he is clearly a very grumpy and disagreeable character, one of the reasons he is not a good teacher for the Progress Class. Mrs. Kay knows the area the children live in, one of the roughest around, and teaches the very worst of them, the Progress Class, so called because they cannot read or write properly: " Y' go down there "¦ if y' backward like." Therefore she tries not to stub their hopes: "Well you could try, couldn't you, love?" She knows they will probably not get the qualifications they need to get a good job, and will end up as "factory fodder". Their school is poorly funded as they are unpopular with parents and attract fewer pupils than most other schools. They are unlikely to get a job at all, as all the factories are closing down, as well as the docks. She tries to make their lessons fun because their lives at home are so bad. Some of the children's mothers are prostitutes: "all the fellers she picks up on Parly"¦them Blacks pay a fortune for a bit of White." Others beat them because they will not share their cigarettes: "but when me dad comes home, sir, sir, he belts me"¦ because I won't give him one." They must be so poor that their parents cannot afford to buy cigarettes, and somehow Andrews has some. Perhaps he has taken to stealing them. For these reasons she tries to make the lessons more fun so that they want to learn, and although she cannot control them, they all love her so much they wouldn't want to cause any trouble. When they are told off by her they learn from it because she explains why it is wrong: "let's have no silly squabbling or doing anything that might be dangerous". Her only rules are to "think of other people too." This means that they do learn to read and write, and they carry on to examination classes: "Now you can read and write you're back in normal classes." If they get that far maybe they will have a future. This is Mrs. Kay's reason for teaching them. She tries to act like a mother to them, because a lot of them have never had someone to cuddle up to who loved them. Andrews' mother is too busy selling her body to keep the family going, and his father beats him. She is warm and personal, she tries to "get them to call her Helen", and they end up chanting it. She even breaks rules so that the children can enjoy themselves, by letting Digga and Reilly come, even though they aren't in the Progress Class: "You know I'd take you. But it's not up to me"¦you'll have to get Briggs' permission." She wants them to enjoy themselves as well. She persuades the coach driver not to search them for lemonade because "lemonade never touches their lips." Her little speech is so effective the coach driver sends a kid to get sweets for them all. She lies for them, and trusts them to keep their lemonade and chocolate out of the driver's view. When she tries to discipline them, it doesn't really work, and the kids know this: "Andrews I'm gonna tell miss"¦Digga go'n tell her. She won't do nott'n anyway." She is a soft teacher. The children would rather tell Mrs. Kay because Mr. Briggs is too strict. Mrs. Kay does not tell them off for smoking, because she knows how hard things are and she smokes herself: "Mrs. Kay sits at a table "¦ she lights a cigarette." At the beach Mrs. Kay has fun and plays with them, but is a very irresponsible because she loses Carol. This is the only really bad point about her character. When things go wrong it is her fault. This is one of the reasons Briggs is so different; everything he does is perfectly scheduled and timed. The main reason Mrs. Kay is a good teacher is because she makes their lessons fun and they want to learn. The way she teaches them, by example not punishment makes them want to please her, by learning well. She is experienced at teaching their level. She understands their problems and just how awful their lives at home are. She is a little ray of sunshine in their lives. After the events on the cliff she gets herself together, organises the group and becomes much more responsible: "At the moment I'd say the most important thing is to find the girl "¦ Susan, you keep these lads playing football. We'll split up and look for her." She becomes the leader, directing the others, and it turns out she is a good leader. By being impulsive and splitting them up, she is found. She also stops the alarm being raised among the kids by leaving Susan to keep them busy. All Briggs can do is to criticise them and be negative: "All I can say is it's a wonder you haven't lost a dozen of them"¦when we get back to school, your numbers up." Mr Briggs teaches the examination classes. The children he teaches are also from this deprived area, but are not so demanding. His strict teaching methods tend to work better with his classes because they have better manners. He tends to be much more strict and impersonal. It is not until he saves Carol from the cliff he realises just how bad it is. Mr Briggs is grumpy and bossy. Even when he is greeted cheerfully by Mrs Kay, he still replies "begrudgingly". He likes order and is very keen on discipline. The children dislike him for the same reason they love Mrs Kay - he is horrible and appears to hate them: "You hate all the kids", but she is kind and loves them. To the children he seems boring and his idea of 'fun' is very different to theirs, for example when they pass the old docks: "I'm often down here"¦taking notes, photographs." He totally disapproves of the children getting sweets, as he wants it to be a educational trip: "sweets!" Mr Briggs obviously comes from a better-off area, and although he is gentlemanly he is quite snobbish towards them. He feels it is bad to cane a girl: "be grateful you're not a lad" but would not think twice about giving her an earful. On the cliff Carol says: "Sir, sir, y'know if you'd been my old feller, it woulda been all right." He knows they come from a bad area, but has no real idea of their lifestyle, and if he does he chooses to ignore it or he would feel guilty. He looks down on them, especially those in the Progress Class. He shows this when he lets Reilly off and punishes Andrews: "All right, all right to Reilly" and "Get to the front! to Andrews". Andrews is still in the Progress Class, so he picks on him, even though he knows it was Reilly's cigarette. He treats them like dirt, not even bothering to call them by their names or to be polite. To him they are there to be stuffed full of facts, so he gets paid. He does not realise that this will not work for the Progress Class and would be useless to teach them. As soon as he gets on the coach he shouts: "Sit down now, come on, move ". He thinks they are trouble just because of the class they are in: "There's a few of them I could sling off right now." He makes this judgement even though he has never taken them. Mr Briggs is used to the kids being cheeky and hating him, and expects it from all of them. You can imagine his surprise when some girls try to link arms with him and is not ready for this kind of chummy relationship: "[The two girls link his arms"¦he stops] Oh! [Taking their arms away] walk properly." Everything he does is negative, he tells them what they must NOT do: "We do not shout at our mates"¦We do not wander up and down the aisles." He dictates exactly what they must not do. Mrs Kay however, is positive all the time she believes that they will find Carol and tells them to make their own decisions whether something is wrong: "think of others as well". The area the children live in is the roughest in Liverpool. There are no trees or playgrounds: "the kids chopped 'em down an' burnt them all". It is the kind of street where you would not leave your car at night. The parents of the children work in the factories or docks, "me old man works down ere". They bring in very little money, they may also spend it on drugs or drink. There is none left for the children to get clothes: "Carol rushes along the street wearing a school uniform which doubles as a street outfit and her Sunday best." Many do not get a proper breakfast: "She is eating half a sandwich and clutching a supermarket carrier bag." They have not even heard of Wales, and do not know how to get there: "Will we have t' get a boat?" Andrews' mother has to be a prostitute to bring in some money: "She's always with them blacks off the boats, your ma." The children will probably never get a better job than their parents, because schools that attract less pupils get less money, as Mrs Kay points out: "You won't teach them because you're in a job that's designed and funded to fail!" Unlike Mr Briggs she realises a lot of things about them that he cannot accept. This helps her teach them in an appropriate way. She feels truly sorry for them and understands that they have no hope for a bright future. This is why she is so kind to them, so they have at least one happy memory of life and school. It is the only way to get through to them. The children are not affected by Briggs' ranting, they have "heard it all before". It does not affect them in any way. He does not understand their difficulties and wants to ignore them; he is just like society, not wanting to feel guilty about those worse off than themselves. This is highlighted when he says: "I'll see that it's the last you ever go on school trip." He doesn't realise that it probably will be anyway. When the children are at the zoo, they discuss the bear, and how it doesn't know any other life, without realising it also applies to them. Just as the bear is trapped in its pit the children are also captive. They know no other life, even where Wales is. When they are set free they go wild and steal the animals, just as a bear would kill. They would not know it was wrong as it was how they survived. I think the owners taking advantage of them by raising the prices justified the children's actions in the Café: "We'll milk this little lot." They do not have any experience of this type of kid. At the zoo they steal the pets because they have never had anyone to cuddle up with or to love. This is Mrs Kay's function to Carol on the coach. The kids are fascinated by Briggs' teaching about the animals, but bored by his speech at the castle. Mr Briggs will never trust them again after the event and Mrs Kay is upset because she also trusts them, but as they did not know it was wrong she could not be upset for long. Carol gets a pet at the fair: "Handing a goldfish"¦to Carol." Mr Briggs' main concern is to educate them, like his examination class field trips. Mrs Kay knows they cannot be educated and works to give them a fun day out. At the zoo Mr Briggs manages to teach them while letting them have fun, making him more like Mrs Kay, until they break his trust. At the beach he totally disowns and abandons them: "I made it quite plain I was having nothing more to do with your outing." He is disgusted by the lack of discipline and control and is intent on finally getting Mrs Kay and the others fired: "Don't worry, when we get back to school your numbers up, and hers." He is needed, however, when Carol goes missing. Mr Briggs is the one who finds Carol, having a moment of peace on the clifftop, but she behaves defiantly towards him. At this point Mrs Kay is worried about Carol's welfare, but Mr Briggs worries about the rules and getting the others sacked. He does not know any other way to handle the situation but to be angry and fierce, and it doesn't work. He suddenly realises it will be his fault if she falls and tries to get her back by telling her off. She makes him realise how bad her life is and how she and other pupils feel about him. When he sees she is so desperate she is prepared to jump off the cliff, he gets some kind of idea of the plight they are in and encourages her to see that he doesn't really hate them and that she could do well if she tried really hard. He starts to care about her. He takes a bit of Mrs Kay's persuasive nature and manages to get Carol to believe that if she has the will she can get free of her life. He also picks up Mrs Kay's caring and affection when he hugs Carol. He has changed so much he takes them to the fair and has FUN. He sings with them on the coach: "Briggs is also on the back seat - cowboy hat on, tie pulled down and singing with them." It is like he has become another person altogether. Unfortunately, as soon as he sees the familiar surroundings he reverts to his old self: "He sits up, puts his tie back to normal, goes to straighten his hair and feels the cowboy hat. He takes it off and puts it on Andrews. He then takes out a comb and combs his hair." He forgets his new feelings for the class, and the whole day has been a waste. I think it is very sad that he is ashamed of himself, and forgets how bad things are. It must be the city that reminded him. He is so ashamed he "pulls open the film and exposes it to the light, crumples it up and puts it in his pocket." He doesn't even seem to notice Carol, which is even sadder after he has just saved her life. He is his old, pigheaded snobby self. I think the playwright has made it clear that both teachers have their own methods and attitudes to their classes, and are both good teachers, but that one teacher is clearly better at teaching the class involved: the Progress Class. He conveys this by the attitudes of the pupils and by the events in the play. Mrs Kay may not be a good teacher for the examination classes, but the playwright gives us little evidence for her experience with other classes, so I have assumed that the question applies to the class with them that day, the Progress Class. In the case of the Progress Class, Willy Russell makes it clear that Mr Briggs would be useless at teaching them, and that through experience Mrs Kay has figured out how to get the most effective teaching with them. She is the best teacher for them because she knows and understands them; she has a very clear idea of what their home lives are like, and sympathises with them. She is realistic but does not snub their hopes and dreams for the future, even though she knows they are unlikely. Briggs, however, chooses to blot out this part of their lives. The children in her classes like her, and because of this they are eager to please her by doing well. Briggs is hated and nobody cares what he thinks. They are happy to obey her. Although she is normally scatterbrained and unorganised, when it is necessary such as when Carol is missing, she assumes the role of leader and is very good at ordering the others, as well as not alarming the kids. Although organised all the time, Briggs has no 'fun side' at all, and always uses rules rather than his judgement when making decisions. When he tells the kids off often and loudly, they are cheeky and usually disobey him anyway. They take pleasure in getting him wound up. When Mrs Kay has to tell them what to do, she gives them a reason, such as 'it could be dangerous'. The kids see the logic and have a reason to stop it. She gives them an opportunity to choose right or wrong, and guides them. Mrs Kay is on their wavelength, and she never looks down on them, or judges them. Mr Briggs is planets away and looks down on them all, when he doesn't know them at all. She wants to make it better for them, and she cares and loves for them as if they were her own children. She is always positive and teaches them by example. Briggs is always negative and teaches by punishment. If Briggs were left in charge, there would be a riot. Willy Russell clearly shows Mrs Kay is better because her class learns faster and is dedicated to getting things right so they can impress her. There are also fewer disturbances in her class, as they do not want to miss out on the fun they have. Years of experience have meant her lessons are perfectly suited to their ability and special needs.   

In Willey Russell's play, "Our Day Out" the deprivd youth of inner city Liverpool are treated to an exciting day out to Wales. They are so poor they cannot aford a proper breakfast or even school uniform. Four teachers r responsible for them. First there is the kind, gentle and...

Words: 3359 View(s): 248 Comment(s): 0
"I saw my service... "I saw my service so strongly and simply I was there to protect and defend the little creatures"¦" The governess see's it as her duty to protect Miles and Flora. What do the children need protection from and how does Henry James illustrate this in his novella 'The Turn Of The Screw'? Henry James is a widely recognised author who has written many great pieces of work and one of his most widely recognised novellas is the gothic mind-boggler 'The Turn Of The Screw'. 'The Turn Of The Screw' is a gripping story revolving around two "innocent" little children who from "honest and lovely" little children, turn into full blown fragrant liars. Henry James novella describes the hypocrisy, which revolves around them. At the beginning of the novella you can see the governess as a pleasant and well-mannered young lady but when you delve further into the novella you begin to question her mentality, has she lost her mind? Or does the author lead us to believe this. You may also enquire about the symbolic nature of the novella. Some may say that this novella is symbolising the loss of innocence, perhaps by evil, and the connection with the adult word. What about the governess? She does seem to have a sense of innocence and it seems that she is vulnerable. The governess has no experience. Does the governess need protection? The novella could also be illustrating the Victorian society "“ the Status of the characters in the novella, the power each individual has in the novella. This is all criticized in the novella. The novella also exposes the fact that there is no system for orphaned children, if this were today's time and age, there would be the NSPCC to help protect the children. The novella also shows the lack of care and love shown by the children's uncle, he doesn't have anything to do with them, he neglects them. There are several layers of meaning to this novella. A simple meaning for this novella could be the fact that it is a plain and simple ghost story. The literary traditions of this novella are from the Gothic era. The novella is based on Gothic literature. The novella was written after the Gothic period and you realise this by doing some research. After reading the novella a few times you realise that this novella distances the characters and the time of the novella from the person reading it. Another key point is the fact that ghosts were a big deal at the time the novella was written. This novella also starts off with someone telling some people a ghost story so you can notice that most Gothic novellas may also be like this. All in all I can comment that this novella is heavily influenced by Gothic literature and Gothic traditions and that this story was written in a Gothic style. The language and the structure of this novella illustrate ambiguity and create fear and tension in many ways. The first main convention used by Henry James to create a feeling of suspense is when he builds up an atmosphere when something is going to happen. You notice in the novella that Mrs.Grose looks very frightened. This makes you wonder, what is she scared of? Is she scared of the governess or the ghosts? This brings us back to the point of what the children need protecting from. If Mrs.Grose, a fully-grown woman is getting scared then you cant help but feel that the children must be petrified. Also the fact that only the governess can see the "ghosts" poses a striking question to the mind. Could the fact that only the governess can see the ghost be so that she provides a cover for the own fear she has created for the children and Mrs.Grose? This point really stirs the mind to think because you cannot help but think that the governess really is evil and the children do need protection from her. The narrative structure of the novella is only the governess's point of view. Why is this so? Could this be because the author only wants us to see the story from the governess's point of view? You cannot help but notice that every time something tense is going to happen, Henry James builds up a certain atmosphere that lets you know that something strange is going to happen. The mental images that come into your mind are those of horror. The metaphors and similes in the novella are all built in a certain structure to illustrate the story. Peter Quint is illustrated as a tower; this is a frightening description and builds a sense of fear. The novella could also symbolise the sexual desires of the governess. When the governess first sets eyes on Peter Quint she is very attracted to him and this is visible. Could the governess be using the children to get closer to Peter Quint to fulfil her sexual desires? The novella describes Peter Quint as a tower who has big red hair. The vocabulary used in the novella is very advanced and quite intellectual. In my conclusion I found that the novella was full of twists and dark secrets. The novella kept me guessing till the end and really made me think. The novella reaches to the back of the mind to find out the answers to the questions that need answering. For example, who did the children really need protecting from? Were there really ghosts visible? Was the governess making it up? Or was the governess hallucinating? I believe that the governess was overcome by her state of mind. She had been given power and she was trying to use her power to get to what she wanted. I do think that the children needed protection from the governess because her desires soon drove her to despair and she may have suffered mentality issues. The governess was a very frightening woman who exposed her powers to fulfil her own selfish desires. She did not care who she hurt as long as she got what she wanted. All in the entire novella was a very good read and was full of unexpected twists and turns.   

"I saw my service so strongly and simply I was there to protect and defend the little creatures…" The governess see's it as her duty to protect Miles and Flora. What do the children need protection from and how does Henry James illustrate this in his novella...

Words: 1050 View(s): 181 Comment(s): 0