In source 4 we also learn that much must have depended on diplomatic relations with Maximilian and Ferdinand, however Henry’s allies proved unfaithful and unreliable. Source 4, is written by a member of the Government of England. The government is who Henry and Wolsey would go to for Money for these situations. The Government did not like how much Money Henry kept asking for so this could have been reflected in Keith Randall’s report. Henry spent 1.4 millions pounds on fighting wars between 1511-25 and this set England back a far way.
There was a lot of confusion between the Commanders at the Charge of the Light Brigade, centring of the gestures of the bearer of the written order, Captain Nolan, and the verbal explanation he gave, led to Lord Lucan sending the Light Brigade up the wrong valley against the wrong guns. In Source One, the provenance states that it is written from Captain Nolan’s obituary, which means that it will be in favour of Captain Nolan; therefore we are to presume that Source One is biased. Source One is not blaming Captain Nolan, we can tell by the terminology that is used in the Source, such as “It is alleged” and “We are aware”, showing us that the writer of the Source wants us to think different, think about faults of other Generals, not Captain Nolan. Also, the date of this extract, shown in the provenance states it was written in November 25th 1854, which is just after ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’ was taken place, which automatically tells us that there was no evidence to blame Nolan at that time, it would have had to be assessed carefully by journalists at the time of the Charge, to come to a conclusion who was to blame for the disastrous charge. At the end of the Source, it says that Captain Nolan had “an excess of enthusiasm”, and this is cross referencing into Source Two where it says that Lord Lucan was influenced by the “eager spirit of Captain Nolan”, this is showing us that he could have been very forceful towards the attack, making sure that it goes ahead, however not realising the disastrous outcome that will unfold because of his lack of organisation.
This contributed to the loss of support of the Conservative party because during this tour, made by Gladstone, of the Conservative seat in Scotland, Midlothian, he gave a series of speeches in large towns such as Edinburgh, attacking Disraeli’s foreign policy. He spoke in emotive language, commenting on Disraeli’s continued support of the Turkish Empire, describing this Eastern policy as ‘inhumane’. He portrayed his rival’s foreign policy as expensive and aggressive, consequently losing support of Conservatives, and swaying the minds of others to vote Liberal. Personality had become an important part of the political process in aiding the decisions of the electorate, and the fact Disraeli was in bad health meant he could no longer contest Gladstone’s attacks. This lead to Conservatives losing the election because many Christians were outraged and humanist sentiment was lowering in the country due to the way Gladstone spoke of the foreign policy, and Disraeli was in no state to argue back, so the public just followed what Gladstone said.
The Chamberlains being judged under a heavily biased jury influenced by the media, therefore shows the maltreatment of the case by the justice system and the society. In conclusion, the Lindy Chamberlain was NOT treated impartially by the society and the justice system. After evaluating the role of the media, nature of evidence and police investigation, it is determined that the Chamberlain case was not judged fairly. The evidence was lacking, unreliable and tampered with, there was no motive, society was exposed to one sided media and the jury was biased. Overall, the assessment of the case thus indicates that Lindy Chamberlain was indeed treated unfairly by the justice system AND the
Throughout is powerful speech he uses emotional appeals and rhetorical questions to get his ideas across. Henry uses emotional appeal by expressing how much the colonists have been hurt and wronged by the British government. Simply by expressing how much Britain has placed soldiers and naval fleets around the colonies makes there a perception that Britain does not trust the colonies and must guard them like a prison not giving them any rights. Also, by asking rhetorical questions about simple human rights and freedom he puts the listeners into a mindset that they have been wronged. He does not always say exactly what Britain has done but rather mentions their government and then asks a rhetorical question about the man’s freedom.
The treaty of Versailles greatly humiliated Germany forcing it to accept soul responsibility for the war. Another fault in this treaty was that it did not work as intended. The idea that Germany could ever afford to pay the reparations to full amount was ludicrous as it was already suffering from the defeat of war. These reparations caused runaway inflation throughout Germany. But perhaps the biggest problem of all was that those who created it themselves did not enforce
Analysis what sense can you make of the situation Conclusion what else could you have done? Action Plan if it arose again what would you do? 2. Why is reflective practice important? Answer Reflective practice is important as it enables you to achieve a better understanding of yourself, your skills, competencies, knowledge and professional practice.
“A Personalised induction will always be more effective” Discuss. Base your answer on theoretical concepts and techniques presented in class. Introduction In order to be able to discuss the effectiveness of personalising an induction, it is important firstly that we explore what is meant by the term personal induction and define it clearly. On doing so, we can then look at the concepts involved in the process. The rest of this essay will focus on the arguments in favour of personalised inductions and the arguments against personalised induction, before drawing a conclusion.
At this level you are able to make judgments based on criteria and standards. You can accept or reject ideas and concepts based on prior knowledge. You are able to argue, assess critically, test, and validate. The highest level of thinking on Bloom’s taxonomy is creating. At this level you are able to put information together to form a coherent whole.
Clem’s statement is unconstitutional, immoral, and is inappropriate for the criminal justice system.seeing a former House Representative as well as an attorney stating such things just will construct an apocryphal government in the future. Clem might only be one of many thinking like this. Systematic biases in the operation of the death penalty exists at both the state and federal level. It’s efficiency, equality, morality, productivity, clemency, constitutionality and implementation overall are dissensions that have been elements of the larger query of is the death penalty acceptable to be utilized? I have concluded that the death penalty is erroneous and incongruous in society today, but whether the death penalty utilized or not.