Biography of Diana, Princess of Wales

Princess Diana (born Diana Frances Spencer; July 1, 1961–August 31, 1997) was the consort of Charles, Prince of Wales. She was the mother of Prince William, currently in line for the throne after his father, Dianes former husband, and of Prince Harry. Diana was also known for her charity work and her fashion image. Fast Facts: Diana, Princess of Wales Known For: Diana became a member of the British royal family when she married Charles, Prince of Wales, in 1981.Also Known As: Diana Frances Spencer, Lady Di, Princess DianaBorn: July 1, 1961 in Sandringham, EnglandParents: John Spencer and Frances SpencerDied: August 31, 1997 in Paris, FranceSpouse: Charles, Prince of Wales (m. 1981–1996)Children: Prince William (William Arthur Philip Louis), Prince Harry (Henry Charles Albert David) Early Life Diana Frances Spencer was born on July 1, 1961, in Sandringham, England. Although she was a member of the British aristocracy, she was technically a commoner, not a royal. Dianas father was John Spencer, Viscount Althorp, a personal aide to King George VI and to Queen Elizabeth II. Her mother was the Honourable Frances Shand-Kydd. Dianas parents divorced in 1969. Her mother ran away with a wealthy heir, and her father gained custody of the children. He later married Raine Legge, whose mother was Barbara Cartland, a romance novelist. Childhood and Schooling Diana grew up practically next door to Queen Elizabeth II and her family, at Park House, a mansion next to the Sandringham estate of the royal family. Prince Charles was 12 years older, but Prince Andrew was closer to her age and was a childhood playmate. After Dianas parents divorced, her father gained custody of her and her siblings. Diana was educated at home until she was 9 and was then sent to Riddlesworth Hall and West Heath School. Diana did not get along well with her stepmother, nor did she do well in school, finding an interest instead in ballet and, according to some reports, Prince Charles, whose picture she had on the wall of her room at school. When Diana was 16, she met Prince Charles again. He had dated her older sister Sarah. She made some impression on him, but she was still too young for him to date. After she dropped out of West Heath School at 16, she attended a finishing school in Switzerland, Chateau dOex. She left after a few months. Marriage to Prince Charles After Diana left school, she moved to London and worked as a housekeeper, nanny, and kindergarten teachers aide. She lived in a house purchased by her father and had three roommates. In 1980, Diana and Charles met again when she went to visit her sister, whose husband worked for the queen. They began to date, and six months later Charles proposed. The two were married on July 29, 1981, in a much-watched wedding thats been called the wedding of the century. Diana was the first British citizen to marry the heir to the British throne in almost 300 years. Diana immediately began making public appearances despite her reservations about being in the public eye. One of her first official visits was to the funeral of Princess Grace of Monaco. Diana soon became pregnant, giving birth to Prince William (William Arthur Philip Louis) on June 21, 1982, and then to Prince Harry (Henry Charles Albert David) on September 15, 1984. Early in their marriage, Diana and Charles were seen to be publicly affectionate; by 1986, their time apart and coolness when together were obvious. The 1992 publication of Andrew Mortons biography of Diana revealed the story of Charles long affair with Camilla Parker Bowles and alleged that Diana had made several suicide attempts. In February 1996, Diana announced that she had agreed to a divorce. Divorce and Life After The divorce was finalized on August 28, 1996. Settlement terms reportedly included about $23 million for Diana plus $600,000 per year. She and Charles would both be active in their sons lives. Diana continued to live at Kensington Palace and was permitted to retain the title Princess of Wales. At her divorce, she also gave up most of the charities shed been working with, limiting herself to only a few causes: homelessness, AIDS, leprosy, and cancer. In 1996, Diana became involved in a campaign to ban landmines. She visited several nations in her involvement with the anti-landmine campaign, an activity more political than the norm for the British royal family. In early 1997, Diana was linked romantically with the 42-year-old playboy Dodi Fayed (Emad Mohammed al-Fayed). His father, Mohammed al-Fayed, owned Harrods department store and the Ritz Hotel in Paris, among other properties. Death On August 30, 1997, Diana and Fayed left the Ritz Hotel in Paris, accompanied in a car by a driver and Dodis bodyguard. They were pursued by paparazzi. Just after midnight the car spun out of control in a Paris tunnel and crashed. Fayed and the driver were killed instantly; Diana died later in a hospital despite efforts to save her. The bodyguard survived despite critical injuries. The world quickly reacted. First came horror and shock. Then blame—much of which was directed at the paparazzi who were following the princesss car, and from whom the driver was apparently trying to escape. Later tests showed the driver had been well over the legal alcohol limit, but immediate blame was placed on the photographers and their seemingly incessant quest to capture images of Diana that could be sold to the press. Then came an outpouring of sorrow and grief. The Spencers, Dianas family, established a charitable fund in her name, and within a week $150 million in donations had been raised. Princess Dianas funeral, on September 6, drew worldwide attention. Millions turned out to line the path of the funeral procession. Legacy In many ways, Diana and her life story paralleled much in popular culture. She was married near the beginning of the 1980s, and her fairy-tale wedding, complete with a glass coach and a dress that could not quite fit inside, was in synch with the ostentatious wealth and spending of the 1980s. Her struggles with bulimia and depression shared so publicly in the press, were also typical of the 1980s focus on self-help and self-esteem. That she seemed to have finally begun to transcend many of her problems made her loss seem all the more tragic. The 1980s realization of the AIDS crisis was one in which Diana played a significant part. Her willingness to touch and hug AIDS sufferers, at a time when many in the public wanted to quarantine those with the disease based on irrational and uneducated fears of easy communicability, helped change how AIDS patients were treated. Today, Diana is still remembered as the Peoples Princess, a woman of contradictions who was born into wealth yet seemed to have a common touch; a woman who struggled with her self-image yet was a fashion icon; a woman who sought attention but often stayed at hospitals and other charity sites long after the press had left. Her life has been the subject of numerous books and films, including Diana: Her True Story, Diana: Last Days of a Princess, and Diana, 7 Days. Sources Bumiller, Elisabeth, et al. â€Å"Death of Diana: Times Journalists Recall Night of the Crash.† The New York Times, 31 Aug. 2017.Clayton, Tim, and Phil Craig. Diana: Story of a Princess. Atria Books, 2003.Lyall, Sarah. â€Å"Dianas Legacy: A Reshaped Monarchy, a More Emotional U.K.† The New York Times, 31 Aug. 2017.Morton, Andrew. Diana: Her True Story - in Her Own Words. Michael OMara Books Limited, 2019. Biography of Diana, Princess of Wales Princess Diana (born Diana Frances Spencer; July 1, 1961–August 31, 1997) was the consort of Charles, Prince of Wales. She was the mother of Prince William, currently in line for the throne after his father, Dianes former husband, and of Prince Harry. Diana was also known for her charity work and her fashion image. Fast Facts: Diana, Princess of Wales Known For: Diana became a member of the British royal family when she married Charles, Prince of Wales, in 1981.Also Known As: Diana Frances Spencer, Lady Di, Princess DianaBorn: July 1, 1961 in Sandringham, EnglandParents: John Spencer and Frances SpencerDied: August 31, 1997 in Paris, FranceSpouse: Charles, Prince of Wales (m. 1981–1996)Children: Prince William (William Arthur Philip Louis), Prince Harry (Henry Charles Albert David) Early Life Diana Frances Spencer was born on July 1, 1961, in Sandringham, England. Although she was a member of the British aristocracy, she was technically a commoner, not a royal. Dianas father was John Spencer, Viscount Althorp, a personal aide to King George VI and to Queen Elizabeth II. Her mother was the Honourable Frances Shand-Kydd. Dianas parents divorced in 1969. Her mother ran away with a wealthy heir, and her father gained custody of the children. He later married Raine Legge, whose mother was Barbara Cartland, a romance novelist. Childhood and Schooling Diana grew up practically next door to Queen Elizabeth II and her family, at Park House, a mansion next to the Sandringham estate of the royal family. Prince Charles was 12 years older, but Prince Andrew was closer to her age and was a childhood playmate. After Dianas parents divorced, her father gained custody of her and her siblings. Diana was educated at home until she was 9 and was then sent to Riddlesworth Hall and West Heath School. Diana did not get along well with her stepmother, nor did she do well in school, finding an interest instead in ballet and, according to some reports, Prince Charles, whose picture she had on the wall of her room at school. When Diana was 16, she met Prince Charles again. He had dated her older sister Sarah. She made some impression on him, but she was still too young for him to date. After she dropped out of West Heath School at 16, she attended a finishing school in Switzerland, Chateau dOex. She left after a few months. Marriage to Prince Charles After Diana left school, she moved to London and worked as a housekeeper, nanny, and kindergarten teachers aide. She lived in a house purchased by her father and had three roommates. In 1980, Diana and Charles met again when she went to visit her sister, whose husband worked for the queen. They began to date, and six months later Charles proposed. The two were married on July 29, 1981, in a much-watched wedding thats been called the wedding of the century. Diana was the first British citizen to marry the heir to the British throne in almost 300 years. Diana immediately began making public appearances despite her reservations about being in the public eye. One of her first official visits was to the funeral of Princess Grace of Monaco. Diana soon became pregnant, giving birth to Prince William (William Arthur Philip Louis) on June 21, 1982, and then to Prince Harry (Henry Charles Albert David) on September 15, 1984. Early in their marriage, Diana and Charles were seen to be publicly affectionate; by 1986, their time apart and coolness when together were obvious. The 1992 publication of Andrew Mortons biography of Diana revealed the story of Charles long affair with Camilla Parker Bowles and alleged that Diana had made several suicide attempts. In February 1996, Diana announced that she had agreed to a divorce. Divorce and Life After The divorce was finalized on August 28, 1996. Settlement terms reportedly included about $23 million for Diana plus $600,000 per year. She and Charles would both be active in their sons lives. Diana continued to live at Kensington Palace and was permitted to retain the title Princess of Wales. At her divorce, she also gave up most of the charities shed been working with, limiting herself to only a few causes: homelessness, AIDS, leprosy, and cancer. In 1996, Diana became involved in a campaign to ban landmines. She visited several nations in her involvement with the anti-landmine campaign, an activity more political than the norm for the British royal family. In early 1997, Diana was linked romantically with the 42-year-old playboy Dodi Fayed (Emad Mohammed al-Fayed). His father, Mohammed al-Fayed, owned Harrods department store and the Ritz Hotel in Paris, among other properties. Death On August 30, 1997, Diana and Fayed left the Ritz Hotel in Paris, accompanied in a car by a driver and Dodis bodyguard. They were pursued by paparazzi. Just after midnight the car spun out of control in a Paris tunnel and crashed. Fayed and the driver were killed instantly; Diana died later in a hospital despite efforts to save her. The bodyguard survived despite critical injuries. The world quickly reacted. First came horror and shock. Then blame—much of which was directed at the paparazzi who were following the princesss car, and from whom the driver was apparently trying to escape. Later tests showed the driver had been well over the legal alcohol limit, but immediate blame was placed on the photographers and their seemingly incessant quest to capture images of Diana that could be sold to the press. Then came an outpouring of sorrow and grief. The Spencers, Dianas family, established a charitable fund in her name, and within a week $150 million in donations had been raised. Princess Dianas funeral, on September 6, drew worldwide attention. Millions turned out to line the path of the funeral procession. Legacy In many ways, Diana and her life story paralleled much in popular culture. She was married near the beginning of the 1980s, and her fairy-tale wedding, complete with a glass coach and a dress that could not quite fit inside, was in synch with the ostentatious wealth and spending of the 1980s. Her struggles with bulimia and depression shared so publicly in the press, were also typical of the 1980s focus on self-help and self-esteem. That she seemed to have finally begun to transcend many of her problems made her loss seem all the more tragic. The 1980s realization of the AIDS crisis was one in which Diana played a significant part. Her willingness to touch and hug AIDS sufferers, at a time when many in the public wanted to quarantine those with the disease based on irrational and uneducated fears of easy communicability, helped change how AIDS patients were treated. Today, Diana is still remembered as the Peoples Princess, a woman of contradictions who was born into wealth yet seemed to have a common touch; a woman who struggled with her self-image yet was a fashion icon; a woman who sought attention but often stayed at hospitals and other charity sites long after the press had left. Her life has been the subject of numerous books and films, including Diana: Her True Story, Diana: Last Days of a Princess, and Diana, 7 Days. Sources Bumiller, Elisabeth, et al. â€Å"Death of Diana: Times Journalists Recall Night of the Crash.† The New York Times, 31 Aug. 2017.Clayton, Tim, and Phil Craig. Diana: Story of a Princess. Atria Books, 2003.Lyall, Sarah. â€Å"Dianas Legacy: A Reshaped Monarchy, a More Emotional U.K.† The New York Times, 31 Aug. 2017.Morton, Andrew. Diana: Her True Story - in Her Own Words. Michael OMara Books Limited, 2019.

The Wild, Engineering Technology ( 17509637 ) 9.7 ( 2014 )

Andrews, Crispin. Uavs In The Wild. Engineering Technology (17509637) 9.7 (2014): 33- 35. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 July 2014. *June 3, 2014 South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) banned privately owned drones with cameras in South African airspace. They said the drones had to meet certain â€Å"requirements† which not one did *The next day, the Kenyan government banned privately owned drones with cameras. Drones here were being used to protect black rhinos and the critically endangered northern white rhino *A few weeks earlier, drones had been banned in US National Parks. Drones here were being used to take pictures of wildlife * â€Å"‘Drones are very difficult to control,’ says Professor David Dunn, a security expert from the University of Birmingham. ‘You can regulate, ban them from coming within 250m of a property, but how, exactly, do you police that?’† *Drones are able to provide real-time data that conservationist are be able to use for wildlife conservation and to understand animals better (i.e. track migration patterns/eating habits) * â€Å"‘There has been a lot of negative publicity in Africa about the Americans using drones in the Middle East and Afghanistan,’ Young says. ‘African governments get decidedly twitchy at the thought of drones flying over their countries. If they see something they don’t like or don’t understand, they’ll just disallow it.’† --- What are they worried about people seeing? What is being hidden? *Governments would rather put their

Food, Inc. free essay sample

They way humans eat has changed more in the last fifty years than in the previous 10,000. The film Food, Inc. sheds a ghastly light on corporate farming and the industrialization of the food industry. It uses several perspectives ranging from a chicken farmer that is cutting ties with oppressive Perdue, to inside the very plants that chemically treat massive amounts of meat to illustrate just how unnatural and dangerous today’s food can be. The movie is devided into three main segments. The first focuses on the inhumane production of meat, including beef, chicken, and pork. Not only are animals treated inhumanely, the mass production of farm animals has had an enormous and negative impact on our environment from pesticide runoff to increased number of cattle emitting poisonous, ozone-depleting gas. The conglomerate companies care even less of the people they employ. The film mentions how Upton Sinclair’s ‘The Jungle’ changed the workplace forever, creating safer environments for workers and the formation of unions. We will write a custom essay sample on Food, Inc. or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The companies have regressed the workplace hundreds of years by hiring illegal immigrants that will tolerate shoddy conditions and low pay just to be allowed to work there. The second portion of the movie focuses on the industrial production of grains and vegetables, primarily corn and soy. Focusing on these two grains makes a large portion of food available contain only corn. Also, it is so cheap and readily available that once grass-fed cattle and other farm animals are fed only corn. This corn diet leads to e-coli infections in the animals and, in turn, infects humans and can lead to death. All to lower the cost and increase production. The films third and final segment is about the economic and legal power, such as food labeling regulations of the major food companies, the profits of which are based on supplying cheap but contaminated food, the heavy use of petroleum-based chemicals (largely pesticides and fertilizers), and the promotion of unhealthy food consumption habits by the American public. The most alarming part about this is the government that regulates these companies is in fact dominated by them. There is, however, hope. Although one feels like they can’t have an impact on changing things, every time we buy something at the super market, we cast a vote to buy organic or buy industrial. In the history of America, industrialization has changed everything about the way we live. From steel, to factories and labor, and the very food we eat. All of these changes have effected how things are established and managed. Schools become assembly lines, and farms become based on production as opposed to quality. Food, Inc. also mentions the novel â€Å"The Jungle† by Upton Sinclair. This novel portrays the lives of immigrants working in meat packing plants. Readers were so concerned for the conditions portrayed in the book that a movement for worker’s rights began to form. Sinclair was known as a muckracker , or a journalist who exposes corruption in government or business. These movements took place around 1902, and changed the workplace to this very day. To see a movie that exposes the very conditions that changed over one hundred years ago still happening is a harsh awakening. The movie Food, Inc. has opened my eyes to how I contribute to the problem. I have learned that even drinking a single soda or a bag of chips encourages the growth of genetically modified corn, and hurts the type of farmer that could provide sustainable and healthy alternatives. This movie begs the question: what can I do about any of this? It feels too big to be able to contribute to a solution, but I have learned that it is possible. Buying from a green market and helping to support local farmers is a great way to help. Another would be to never eat fast food again, without any exceptions.

The Rum Diary Review Essay Example

The Rum Diary Review Paper Essay on The Rum Diary P.Kemp, Drunk journalist, adherent and vermin hours reception from noon until dawn Monday closed H.Tompson, The Rum Diary AS Roma in the pages of this book, maybe more than the pirates. famous song. It may seem that the characters just do what they are drinking rum. Good and bad. The diluted and strong. Ice and without. Drink alone, drink in the intimate duet, drink in thousands of carnival orgy. And overturn a cup you want. Unfortunately, under the hand of the Roma was not found. The desire to pour cream liqueur, and a leisurely sweet throat pages are read by page with incredible ease We will write a custom essay sample on The Rum Diary Review specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on The Rum Diary Review specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on The Rum Diary Review specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Paul Kemp -. The alter ego of the author journalist Ulysses, journalist tramp nailed another wave of life, crowned by a crest garbage foam to inglorious shores of Puerto Rico for the vacant place in the English language a newspaper reporter in San Juan. Couple notes a week and a stable income. And what else to spend money in a country where a good rum served for ten cents? Especially, as the newspaper in which you work, and your life, recently thirties, not that smoothly slides down the slope, and already somewhere has moved down to the bottom and there rests. It remains to drink, to reflect, but to make friends with the same failures. So wait, and maybe you are lucky and a few miserable days turned up something that will allow you to not put a bullet in the forehead, and sincerely rejoice own life In general, the whole novel, is not burdened with morality and profound conclusions -. Very lytdybrovy and will be the publisher could be betrothed Rum dnyavka . However, adjusted for the talent of Hunter S. Thompson, this book has become quite a human tragicomedy. This novel can be a skillful trap for someone who through the works of the author, tries to understand the soul and way of life father of gonzo journalism. In candid biographical lies a hoax. Yet we should not forget that the work of art in front of us. It seemed to me, to pretend to be a confession of the author. While on the other hand, fraud and special no. After all, here before us is Thompson, has not yet started to write a book about the Hells Angels and even more so (a decade) to the Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Man, life on earth last until the middle and it is unknown where he was. Without a family, without a home, without a tree. Then you begin to really reflect. In addition, the image that created the hard Thompson creepy bastard from journalism was exactly that way. Here, years to the image In some novels drinkers journalists who write brilliant books, but does not publish similar.. And the Compromise Dovlatov, in my opinion, is not so far is from The Rum Diary Thompson. This novel you might like, but maybe not. I thought he brought a couple of pleasant evenings relaxing reading minor. Try to read a few pages, and if you carry away -. That your bit of fun you from the get read novel itself something reminded me of the story of Ray Bradbury, in which one researcher to prove to others that most murders occur on a hot day. So here, a couple of hundred pages bakes bright sun Puerto Rican, until then, until you hear a shot thunder, and after heavy monsoon rain will cool characters and the reader, if skhlynuvshee voltage, lead us to an end gently. pepper fame of the author will play perhaps the most cruel joke with the book. And in anticipation of something napodobii become canonical: We had two grass bag, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of blotter with a strong acid, polsolonki cocaine and an arsenal of colored pills: accelerate, slow down, povopit and laugh and even a quart of tequila , a quart of rum, a box Budweiser pint of pure ether, and two dozen of amyl nitrite capsules - readers will miss the past very good novel in which truth is not an ounce of grass, no spool mescaline, or even barbiturates. But rum, rum even zaleysya The novel itself was first published in the 68th and re-released only in 1998. It is worth noting that Russian publishers confused with chronology, annonsirovav that the novel was written in 1959. Although, in fact, it was written in the early 60s, as Hunter Tomposon only in 1960 went to Puerto Rico (San Juan), about which is being discussed in the book. P.S. Soon the novel is made into a movie. As in the film, Terry Gilliams Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas Hunter S. Thompson will play Johnny Depp.

Tragic Hero Essays

Tragic Hero Essays Tragic Hero Paper Tragic Hero Paper In every Sophoclean drama, there is a hero of some kind.These heroes usually are the focus of the myth.Some examples would be Frodo from the Lord of the Rings, Jason and the Argonauts in the Quest for the Golden Fleece, etc.Characters such as Creon and Antigone of the myth Antigone are also great examples.All of these characters have the qualities of a tragic hero, according to Aristotle.These qualities would be that they are inherently good, have good intentions, recognize responsibility, and accept their fate with dignity.Unfortunately, every hero has a tragic flaw. Creon and Antigone embody characteristics of the traditional Greek tragic hero and the Sophoclean tragic hero, respectively. The traditional Greek tragic hero is defined by five characteristics, thefirst being Aret. Aret is having excellence.Hubris is defines a hero as having excessive pride.At is blind recklessness that heroes may follow because they do not think about what is going to happen next.Nemesis is disastrous retribution.The tragic flaw that a traditional Greek hero harbors is their excessive pride.This is shown when Creon says, But whoever steps out of line, violates the laws or presumes to hand out orders to his superiors, hell win no praise from me. (AI L746-750)They will not accept defeat and this is bad.Creon of the myth Antigone is a traditional Greek tragic hero.He is also the antagonist in the story. The Sophoclean tragic hero is a character whose rigid and courageous adherence to a set of principles invites their disastrous fate.Their flaw is their rigidity.Antigone is a Sophoclean tragic hero in the self-entitled myth.She would not leave a family member unburied, which in turn breaks her fathers law and proves to bring her doom. Tragic hero Essays Tragic hero Essay Tragic hero Essay The Crucible as a drama effectively explores and treats the problems of envy and jealousy. These two problems are personified by the character Abigail. Abigail is vehemently jealous of Elizabeth Proctor and of course, her relationship with John Proctor, and in Act One drinks a charm to kill her. As this initial ceremony is what sparks the witch-hunts in Salem, it can be inferred that the jealousy evident in the play is the cause for all of the other problems that arise with the witch-hunts. This jealousy throughout the play causes hysteria and panic Elizabeth, knowing that Abigail wants [her] dead fears that she will be suspected in the witch hunts because of Abigails jealousies. This is indeed what occurs, Abigail utilising the agency that she gains during the trials to her advantage. However, the background of Abigails character must be explored in order to completely understand this jealousy and will for attention and love. Abigails parents were brutally murdered, and she was left as an orphan under Parris strict household. The nature of her jealousy, therefore is centres a will for affection and love. This problematises Abigails upbringing, thereby failed parents are revealed and problematised. The audiences response to Abigail identified with the tone of the play and with the manner in which envy is treated in the play with sympathy, but condemned. Other characters however, are not viewed as sympathetically. The Putnams also represent envy and resentment. Ann Putnam is resentful of Rebecca Nurse and her healthy family and this leads to Rebecca Nurses imprisonment and hanging. Thomas Putman represents envy in his constant struggle to gain more land. In this case, however, the audience condemns them. As members of the upper-middle class they do not attract sympathy for their actions. The problems of envy, jealousy and resentment, are condemned in Millers The Crucible and although partially justified in the case of Abigail, are deemed unacceptable by the audience. In Millers drama The Crucible, the need to maintain a good reputation and personal integrity is explored and problematised, revealing the superficial nature of the contemporaneous society and any applied society. John Proctor, who in Act 4 decides to hang rather than have his name be blackened typifies this trait. For this, he is immediately perceived as a character of high morals and the tragic hero of the play. However, the motives behind this high morality are exposed too. John Proctor, when deciding he will hang reveals his obsession with his good name. Although John Proctor is happy to sign the confession, he will not let it hang on the church door and this brings him to tear up what he has signed. This action represents superficiality and is problematised. The nature of the public eye, particularly the gossiping nature of Puritanism represented undermines the judicial system and ridicules it. In this, the society of Salem is condemned by the audience for its theocracy and that prive and public morality are one. The character John Proctor, although viewed as essentially good and condoned by the audience has motives to appear perfect in the public eye, an obsession that is problematised, and ultimately results in his death. Giles Corey, another character essentially viewed as good also refuses to give into the pressure of society and indeed the pressure of the stones that pressed him and clung to his personal integrity when refusing to name those whod signed an affidavit as to the good nature of Elizabeth Proctor, Martha Corey and Rebecca Nurse. This personal pride borders on the edge of stubbornness and for this reason is problematised. The result of this pressing is the Corey dies, which although tragic, allows the audience to understand that he did die in vain, and with regards to the symbolic nature of the text understand that Giles Corey gave in to societal pressure like John Proctor, resulting in his downfall. Although the values of a reputation and the importance of personal integrity are maintained throughout the drama, obsession with these traits is problematised, resulting in death and destruction. A significant moral problem that is raised in the drama The Crucible is moral uncertainty, and it is explored and treated as the drama progresses. The original John Hale spoke of a conscientious endeavour to do the thing that was right. This is true of the nature of the Coreys, the Proctors and the Nurses in the play, and to an extent the judges who believe it is G-ds work [they] do. Yet these characters have difficulty in determining what exactly is right and what exactly is moral. Repetition is utilised in order to illustrate this problem. The repetition of the phrase I think indicates this uncertainty. In Act Two, for example, Elizabeth says in succession The towns gone wild, I think, I think you must go to Salem, John. I think so, and when referring to the court I think they must be told. To this, Proctor answers Ill think on it and I think its not easy to prove shes fraud. All of this suggest an uncertainty, not only to the whole situation of the witch-hunts in Salem but to societys inability to make correct judgements, and the uncertainty that society displays about what is right and wrong and what each individuals position is. This insecurity and inability to make clear concise decisions and the moral uncertainty of these decisions escalates the conflict within the drama, revealing dilemma and thus making the drama more effective. Unconsciously these characters ignore what they feel is right, and instead depend on the views of the persuasive society to do what they think is right. For example, Judge Danforth refuses to believe that the girls might be frauds and he has been making the wrong judgements throughout the play and sentencing innocents to death. The problem of moral uncertainty represented throughout the play through repetition, characterisation and conflict allows the audience to condemn this uncertainty. The audience is also able to view the destruction of characters and society itself within the play as a result of this lack of moral conviction and integrity. The Crucible, by Arthur Miller is an effective medium in which a variety of social and moral problems are raised. These problematised issues are typically treated in two ways. Firstly, in the case of problems raised such as gender and class inequalities, traditional roles are often maintained, but varied slightly in order to create confusion and complications. These complications allow these problems to be raised and condemned. Other problems, such as envy, jealousy and bigotry are vehemently attacked by Miller, allowing the audience to immediately view these issues and others as problematic. While some problems and issues raised are justified for example, Abigails desire for affection relates to her traumatic childhood all in all, the main problems raised in The Crucible are rejected. This is achieved by the use of a variety of dramatic techniques and conventions throughout the drama, allowing the audience to gain insight into the problems evident not only in the Puritan society of Salem, Massachusetts in 1492, but to other contexts be it Millers McCarthyist context, the Nazi Germany period, contemporary society or to any general context where human behaviour and conflict is evident.

Business Advice Essay Research Paper In advising

Business Advice Essay, Research Paper In reding Gus, Gloria, and the murderer ( jointly known as the ? claimants? ) as to the sustainability in jurisprudence of their several claims in relation to, Rajinder ( hereinafter referred to as? R? ) , Sarah ( hereinafter referred to as? S? ) , and the liquidated company Exotic Holidays Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as? E Ltd. ? ) , the nucleus issue appears to be that of corporate individuality as opposed to personal individuality of the members of the corporate entity. Issues associating to the general effects and effects of incorporation are besides discussed, viz. , issues of separate legal personality, liability and related exclusions, which in bend necessitates consideration of the? corporate head covering? and under what fortunes the tribunals will be prepared to delegate liability etc beyond the corporate entity to the members. Before sing single claims, some idea is given to the general or cardinal issue of legal individuality, on the evidences that this is cardinal to all the state of affairss. The most of import instance in this respect is doubtless Salomon V Salomon [ 1897 ] AC 22 ( hereinafter referred to as? Salomon? ) , which besides provides an disposed get downing place.The basically of import principal that emerged from Salomon is that a company, one time incorporated, is a legal entity in its ain right. In other words, the company itself, in this case E Ltd. , is a clearly separate being from those that are its members ( R and S ) , and as such, has? single? rights and liabilities accordingly.This has two immediate consequences. First, the company, non its members, must seek a redress despite the fact that in world, it will be the members, non the company, that conclude a redress is needed to turn to some incorrect making to the company. Second, the alternate state of affairs in which the company itself must be sued straight, non the members personally, in the event that the company itself has committed some error. The overall consequence is that members? personal liabilities and the liabilities of the company are regarded as separate. For all purposes and intents, the tribunals have traditionally drawn a divide between them. This separation of members and company, or instead the differentiation between them, is frequently referred to as the? corporate head covering? .The Salomon principal has been by and large upheld by the tribunals, sometimes with terrible effects. In the Irish instance Macaura V Northern Insurance Company Limited [ 1925 ] AC 619, the tribunal upheld the statement of an insurance company that it was non apt to pay out if points were insured on a member? s ain name and non? his? company? s name despite the fact that the points being a portion and package of the company? s concern. The tribunal maintained a stiff divide between the member and the company.In more modern times, Slade LJ basically reiterated the go oning cogency of the Salomon principal in Adams v Cape Industries [ 1990 ] Ch 433, ? ? the tribunal is non free to ignore the principal of Salomon? simply because it considers that justness so requires? ? This principal was more late once more affirmed in Ord A ; Another V Belhaven Pubs Limited [ 1998 ] BCC 607.However, as resolute as the principal stands, there are exceeding instances where the tribunal will? raise the corporate head covering? either at common jurisprudence or by legislative act. This was considered in Atlas Marine V Avalon Maritime [ 1991 ] a All ER 769, ? ? . . . to pierce the corporate head covering is an look I would reserve for handling the rights or liabilities or activities of a company as the rights or liabilities or activities of its stockholders? ? There are assorted fortunes where the tribunal will raise the head covering. In the context of liability, such a class of action by the tribunals will intend that the members themselves will be held apt beyond the company. In other words, liability will non halt at the company, as per the Salomon principal, provided the tribunal is satisfied that certain conditions are met. ? It is these conditions that demand to be considered in each single instance with regard to the claimants, since from the given facts, it appears that R and S seek to trust on the Salomon principal in order to deviate any possible liability from themselves personally to E Ltd as a separate legal entity. ? # 8212 ; Gus.According to the given facts, Gus has issued a writ against R originating from alleged? ? behavior in breach of contract? ? that predates and overlaps the day of the month of incorporation of the company.The alleged breaches extend from April 1998 to October 1998, while R sold his concern to E-Ltd in June 1998 while the company itself was incorporated on the 30th June 1998. Therefore, it appears that Gus had been covering with E Ltd. and non R personally after the incorporation.Ordinarily, by application of the Salomon principal, the action against R would neglect on the evidences that Gus was covering with? E Ltd. and non with R.However, as mentioned above, there may be a manner in which the tribunals may be asked to life the head covering and seek action against R straight. This may go on if R is suspected of fraud, although non needfully of a condemnable nature. In this instance, just fraud would suffice. Put another manner, the duties adhering the member are extended to the bind the company.In Jones v Lipman [ 1962 ] 1 All ER 442, the sale of a piece of land was at the Centre of a contract. The marketer had later changed his head? and in order to avoid an order of specific public presentation of his contractual duties, he transferred his land into the name of a company. The tribunal refuses the defense mechanism that the land was now in the ownership of the company and granter an order of specific public presentation against the seller.Likewise, in Gilford Motor Company Limited V Horne [ 1933 ] Ch 935, the tribunal held that a company that constituted a mere? fake? and formed to avoid contractual duties would non be tolerated. In this instance, the tribunal once more lifted the head covering and issued an order against an person who was non even a member of the company in question.Similarly, Gus must demo that R was in consequence? concealment? behind E Ltd. If this can be achieved, it seems possible that the tribunal may allow a redress against R straight. However, if R can demo that the sale was a legitimate trade in the sense that the sale of R? s former concern to E Ltd. was non a? fake? and was formed simply to avoid a contractual duties etc, it seems improbable that the tribunals will follow the path taken in Jones v Lipman or Gilford v Horne in visible radiation of the determination in Adams v Cape Industries where the tribunals refused to raise the corporate head covering. Lord Keith commented in Wolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1979 ] that the Salomon principal should merely be excluded in instances of a fraudulent nature where facts were being concealed by a ruse.That said, if R seeks to trust on Adams v Cape Industries, there might be a job sing that this instance was distingu ished from a similar instance, Creasey V Breachwood Motors Limited [ 1992 ] BCC 638 partially on the footing of the timing of the transportation from entity to entity. The tribunal may good see the timing of the sale, i.e. half manner through the alleged breach of contract, as a relevant factor and may good see this as some kind of turning away tactic on R? s portion. It is deserving bearing in head that Creasey v Breachwood was later criticised in Ord V Belhaven. Hobhouse LJ stated, ? ? it seems to me ineluctable that the instance in Creasey v. Breachwood as it appears to the tribunal can non be sustained. It represents a incorrect acceptance of the rule of piercing the corporate head covering? Therefore, in my opinion the instance of Creasey v. Breachwood should no longer be treated as authoritative? ? ( Although the evidences for the unfavorable judgment might good non use to the present instance. ) In sum-up, the facts are non sufficiently clear to justify a clear decision, but it appears that the chief obstruction to Gus wining would be the ability to show that R sold his concern to E Ltd. in order to avoid contractual duties via assumed trust on the Salomon principal. Notably, Lord Keith commented in Wolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1979 ] JPL 169 that the Salomon principal should merely be excluded in instances of a deceitful nature where facts were being concealed by a artifice. Such as artifice must clearly be demonstrated. # 8212 ; Gloria ( hereinafter referred to as? G? ) .From the given facts, G is stated to hold been a? ? former client? ? of E Ltd. Again, with respect to the philosophy of the corporate head covering, G would prima facie merely have a claim against E Ltd. and non R straight or personally. Unless, the tribunals can once more be persuaded to raise the corporate veil.Members of a company have a general fiducial responsibility of attention which should regulate all their behavior within the model of the company in inquiry, and unless it can be shown that they have breached that responsibility by gross carelessness or Acts of the Apostless of bad religion, no personal liability claims can by and large be successful against them. In Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd ( 1998 ) 2 ALL ER 577, the House of Lords held that the corporate head covering should merely be lifted in utmost instances and moreover, there must be some kind of personal deceits made by the member of the company, who accepts as much, and that the complainant would hold had to hold relied on these deceits. The House of Lords refused to raise the head covering in that instance on the evidences that there had been no contact between the parties and in any event, there was no grounds that the complainant had believed that the suspect had accepted any personal liability.In sum-up, it seems unlikely, based on the given facts, that G? s action straight against R will win. However, taking the determination in Williams v Natural Life into history and the stated standards upon which the House of Lords refused to raise the corporate head covering, if G can run into those standards, her claim might good be sustainable. # 8212 ; The Liquidator ( hereinafter referred to as? L? ) .Again, the principal from Salomon is the get downing point with respect to L? s claim against R and S.A farther parallel can be drawn with Salomon. The murderer in Salomon claimed that the company therein was nothingness as it was basically a? fake? on the evidences that the company was in world nil more that Salomon? s? agent? , due in portion to it being a ? one-person company? . However, the House of Lords held that it was irrelevant that the company was in consequence a? one adult male company? ? and that provided the company had been incorporated right, the fact that one individual held an overpowering bulk of portions in the company was non relevant either.More specifically, it was held in Kodak Limited V Clark [ 1905 ] 1 KB 505 that a 98 % shareholding in a company does non by itself create a member/agency relationship. Therefore any similar statements on the evidences that E Ltd. was fundamentally an? agent? of R? s due to his big shareholding will neglect due to the opinion in Salomon and Kodak v Clark.. By and large talking, L will be unable to trust on a common jurisprudence based attack in inquiring the tribunal? s to life the corporate head covering against R and S. However, there may be a possible path via legislative act. Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in consequence states that where a individual has continued to merchandise through a company cognizing full good, i.e. fraudulently, that the company will be unable to duly repay creditors, the individual may be held personally apt to an extent determined by the tribunals. Section 214 of the same Act, relevant to companies in insolvent settlement ( as is the instance with E Ltd. ) , extends beyond a clear? purpose to victimize creditors? , as per s213, to include? unlawful trading? whereby the individual knew or ought to hold known that creditors will be unable to be duly paid while go oning to merchandise through the company until the clip of the weaving up order being granted. ? In order for the s213 to apply, L must bring forth grounds of a deceitful purpose by R and S to victimize the creditor he represents. Alternatively, under s214, L must show? unlawful trading? which might be an easier proposition.When sing s213, s213 ( 4 ) directs the tribunals to take assorted things into history. Under s213 ( 4 ) the tribunals are directed to see whether the member/s had acted moderately under the fortunes, or more specifically, ? ? the facts which a manager of a company ought to cognize or determine, the decisions which he ought to make and the stairss which he ought to take are those which would be known or ascertained, or reached or taken, by a moderately persevering individual holding both? ( a ) the general cognition, accomplishment and experience that may moderately be expected of a individual transporting out the same maps as are carried out by that manager in relation to the company, and ( B ) the general cognition, accomplishment and experience that that manager has. Therefore in drumhead, in order for s213 to use, these criterions must be applied to the facts of the present instance, and if it is found that R and S had fallen below the needed criterions, an application via s214 might good be sustainable in that the tribunals may good raise the corporate head covering and extend liability to R and S in their personal capacities. Bibliography. ? Farrar? s Company Law? ? ? J.H. Farrar A ; B.M. Hannigan? Company Law? ( Statutes ) ? Butterworths? Company Law? ( Cavendish ) Internet Beginnings. ? Rethinking Company Law and Practice? ? The Hon Justice Michael Kirby ( www3.lawfoundation.net.au ) ? Company Law? ( www.bigwig.net ) ? Limited Liability? a necessary effect of incorporation? ? ? Aiden Small ( www.nuigalway.ie ) ? Company Law? Corporate Personality? ( www.ukcle.ac.uk ) ? Piercing the Corporate Veil? ( www.themis.wustl.edu ) ? The Doctrine of Separate Legal Personality? ( www.law.anu.edu.au ) ? Raising the Corporate Veil Revisited? ( www.acca.org.uk )

Understanding Money and Banking Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Understanding Money and Banking - Essay Example To use money requires cost and a person or business entity that needs and uses the same for the acquisition of good and services has to pay interest based on prevailing market rate. Another concept is the price of goods and services, expressed in currencies, which must be understood as the value of these goods and services when they are acquired in the market. Inflation rate is about rate of price increase as measured by price index and is usually measured yearly or monthly and erodes purchasing power of money (Eyler, 2009). It is important to know the same since the higher the inflation rate the higher would be the prices of goods and services and the harder for one who needs money to acquire the goods and services required for consumption or business purposes. High inflation rate would therefore normally be related to higher interest rate, which can be influenced or controlled by monetary authorities as way of arresting increase in prices or inflation for general welfare. In the article, the bankers are demanding that the monetary authorities or the policy makers should allow interest rates to go up as former blames the low level of interest rates to be causing inflation or the continued increase in the prices of commodities. Krugman author has US economic slowdown or low economic recovery development in mind with high unemployment in the United States, which is a problem that must be addressed. He argues that increasing interest rate would mean accepting unemployment as permanent reality or accepting hardship without having in solution in the offing. To increase interest rate would be to discourage business borrowing from banks and tight monetary supply could in fact reduce inflation, which is also bad for the economy, but the greater evil of more unemployment would arise as consequence. Arguments used to justify increasing