A Freedom Fighter, or Terrorist?

A Freedom Fighter, or Terrorist? The recent surge in Terrorism as a phenomenon has been unparallel in modern history. It now features as one of the top priorities in government agendas for most of the countries around the world. It is debatable whether it has been hyped up to some extent but unarguably has been one of the most unfortunate trends that have made considerable impact on the way of life for all. The security agencies, religious heads, community leaders, experts and such, are all facing a mammoth task of tackling the menace. It is costing governments billions of pounds in loss of lives, properties, trade and importantly confidence. Due to sensitive nature of the issue, involvement of varied drivers, the lethal cocktail of domestic and international politics, the lack of political will to identify root causes, bungled intelligence information and importantly its geographical spread covering all continents are some of the contributing factors that has left the modern world exasperated. The importance of differentiating and defining the legitimate and unlawful has become academic and a matter of statute. This unfortunately has not helped the bigger cause of tackling the issue in a fair manner thus leaving lives of common people at increasing risk. The debate about values of civil society and rights of the oppressed has blurred and can be argued, to such an extent that no common consensus exists in relation to what is acceptable and what is not, leaving ordinary people confused and causing rift between different communities. This however does not diminish the importance of reaching an amicable definition, the need for it is more than ever before, especially to uphold the values of liberty, fairness and democracy in a volatile society. The discussion will elude to some relevant issues in the context of background, causes, and legislation and will endeavour to arrive at a satisfactory definition that hopefully would distinguish the freedom fighter from the terrorist. This discussion would take into account both national and international scenarios on the basis that the phenomenon is not restricted to UK alone and indeed the definitional problems it poses worldwide, as incidentally does the threat of violence from it. Background The Freedom Fighter: To allow this discussion to evolve and formulate, it is imperative to define and differentiate between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. The term freedom fighter can be defined as being for those engaged in a struggle to achieve political freedom for themselves or obtain freedom for others  [1]  . The common conception of a freedom fighter is that it is someone who opposes a cruel or unfair government by fighting against it, using weapons usually as a part of an organised group  [2]  or even someone who uses violent action, or threats of violent action, for political purposes  [3]  . These general definitions provided from varied academics, saturate an area which is already filled with many views and opinions on the definition of such word and how it should be classified. The Terrorist The term terrorist has also been attempted to be defined as being the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion  [4]  . It has also been classed as someone who use violence in order to achieve political aims  [5]  or a person who uses violent methods to try to remove a government from power  [6]  . A terrorist in a definitional sense connotates acts of violence being carried out, in order to fulfil aims. The resistance movement can be clearly termed as activities involving conflict of some nature. The conflict mainly against the authorities as the above definitions seems to presume. The purpose of achieving political freedom or aims indicates opposing some political establishment. It also however signifies restriction of liberty and free will and either a violent or non-violent approach to break these restrictions to make inroads for the organisations willing to do something about it. People who are described as freedom fighters are often also called in popular culture as assassins, rebels, insurgents, or even terrorists. This leads to the dictum one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter  [7]  , which poses the difficulty that governments are faced with when trying to define it. A freedom fighter could be meant to consist of someone who will fight for the cause of freedom but as we thoroughly discuss, traditional use of such terminology in popular media is confined to those who are engaged in violent behaviour and those who fight for freedom peacefully are disregarded for the reason that violence by other groups whom claim to be freedom fighter, cast a shadow over them. This also poses the validity of using term armed rebellion as it is linked to violence outside the sphere of traditional terrorism. Nelson Mandela and Yasar Araafat were initially branded terrorists only to be recognised as diplomats and freedom fighters, even though the factions they were linked to were directly responsible for the loss of numerous lives and creating social disorder. In crude comparison even Osama bin Laden was encouraged and supported by US to fight Russia to protect their strategic interest in the area  [8]  . It is ironic that he is now the most wanted man on the earth. The perceived transformation of terrorist to freedom fighter and vice versa in context of their roles blurs the definition even further. The term terrorist and freedom fighter has become distorted with the changing times. It is interesting to note that Seymour above has no qualms in making those blurred boundaries more prominent. His emphasis on differing universal values attached to the activities instead of the blanket definition is worth noting and he suggests that they are the same entity and the difference between them both is only a matter of a opinion and a subjective view. International Perspective: The history of resistance movement goes back to from 1 AD to 6 AD according to various historians, even though no concrete evidence exists as to when the usage of the word terrorism came into existence  [9]  . Various studies have found over 100 definitions of terrorism  [10]  and this coupled with the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition  [11]  . Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations (UN) strived to classify terrorism, but the implementation of such definition concluded to fail as member states found it difficult to verify it, in regards to the use of violence for national liberation and self determination  [12]  . This was mainly due to Palestine movement which was not only whole heartedly supported by the Middle-East but countries in South Asia, Russia, China and Africa also provided tactical support to the cause as and when it was required. The solidarity groups ac ross the world staged peaceful demonstration on regular basis, mainly to keep the momentum going. The active freedom fighters or comrades of the movement also got involved in violent activities inside and outside of the mainland Palestine. This always posed problems for the countries that hosted such groups and they refrained from making any supporting statements when the activities resulted in loss of lives and destruction of properties. This showed how freedom fighters can immediately become terrorists or undesirables through the actions they undertake. The United Nations General Assembly uses the commonly agreed political definition of terrorism when condemning such acts  [13]  . The declaration reads: Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them  [14]  . The absence of term violence in the above declaration and its reliance on general criminality of the acts makes it less influential and renders it incapable to deal with modern day trend, which is more complex and extraordinary. It is safe to assume that the criminal laws of any country, irrespective of their political structure must be quite effective in dealing with criminal acts and the declaration ignores variety of internal and external threats the countries may face, such as risk to infrastructure, utilities, national treasurers, technology and others. Due to severity and the new reality that has dawned following 9/11 attacks, then Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, described the terrorist attack on USA as an attack on humanity as a whole, without definition, all terrorism to be condemned whatever the political origins  [15]  . This was a progressive step forward and highlighted the need for rigorous definition and a zero tolerance approach. There was also an acknowledgement and underlying message of not getting too wrapped up with the legal clarity about the definition and instead to tackle the issue at hand in a non-negotiable but effective manner. It is also worth noting the usage of term whatever the political origins, as a conflict of any political nature was considered as a trigger point that may result in terrorism and a battle for self determination. It must be observed that since the rise of terrorism in the west, the Patriot Act 2001 was enacted in the United States of America (USA), which attempted to define terrorism as being premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience  [16]  . This definition has no consideration of the social factors for the cause of terrorism and attempts to infer that political pressure is the only aim . The Act was described as a pendulum reaction to 9/11 event by Lord Carlile  [17]  . The act was scrutinised by both major parties in the USA as it encroached upon and showed scant regard for liberties of the individual  [18]  . The UN has made several resolutions to allow uniform adoption of counter terrorism measures. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373  [19]  (2001) was seen as a response to 9/11 and since as become a pillar of the global legal framework for the prevention and suppression of terrorism.  [20]  The introduction of such resolution meant that countries such as Japan took steps in order to freeze the assets of many individuals  [21]  . However it must be noted that although the counter terrorism measure in this resolution were adopted, the resolution failed to define terrorism and persisted to include Al-Qaida and Taliban within the framework of defining terrorism. Further attempts have been made from the UN to understand the growing threat of terrorists. UN Security Council Resolution 1566 defined terrorism as being:- criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.  [22]   This definition takes into consideration of the wide scope of damages that terrorism could cause such as in taking the lives of civilians and does not restrict it to just political aims or in times of war. The further need for a strict definition was attempted also by Tamar Meisels whom advocates a consistent and strict definition of terrorism, which she defines as the intentional random murder of defenceless non-combatants, with the intent of instilling fear of mortal danger amidst a civilian population as a strategy designed to advance political ends  [23]  . This definition seems in include an aim again and shows that violence and instilling fear are the key components of the behaviour of a terrorist. The history of Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and African National Congress (ANC) is riddled with violence, kidnapping, civil disorder, threats, incitement in order to achieve the aims of these organisations, which in effect was self-determination, freedom, justice, equality, fairness and so on, similar aims of the freedom fighter. The rights of the Palestinian people to self determination has been recognised by the many organisations around the world including the security council and the international court of justice and most importantly even by Israel as well. About 100 nations recognize Palestine as a state  [24]  . In 1990, the successful negotiations between the government and ANC resulted in ending apartheid, culminating in multi-racial democratic elections in 1994, which were won by the African National Congress under Nelson Mandela  [25]  . In both the above cases the uprising was internally and externally supported by individuals, organisations and governm ents across the world. The campaign highlighted the injustices, segregation, and deprivation of basic human rights of indigenous people that became magnet for people to protest against it. It also gave platform for other people and groups internally and sometimes externally to participate in the struggle in a non-violent way. The justification of methods within an organisation is met with the internal wrestling between the political arm and the branch that deals with rebellion by way of force. This has meant that disputes within groups stagnate further development for their cause. There has been an increasing interest at the international level in supplementing traditional human rights principles with rights for minorities within in each group. For example, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe adopted a declaration on the Rights of National Minorities and established a High Commissioner on National Minorities in 1993  [26]  , this being significant as within the international framework, the rights of minorities are being protected in reaction to terrorism diluting their rights in certain states. Similarities and Differences The above definitions and backgrounds provide useful information on making an informed decision on the similarities and differences between the two. The overlapping of some triggers and factors are inevitable and readers are urged to be cautious when taking a stand for and against the issue. Most of the formal definitions of terrorism and freedom fighter have some common characteristics mainly a fundamental motive to make political or societal changes through use of violence or illegal force. The terms have stark differences as well. The use of violence perpetrated by terrorist is random and does not take into account the destruction of lives and properties of innocent people. The freedom fighter on the other hand, targets governmental and military installations with a view to bring them to the negotiating table. This is in contrast to terrorists who aims to create fear and terror and instead issues orders and demands to surrender and may lack diplomatic channels, resulting in the approach taken by militants, both can command support. The terrorists support comes from clandestine organisations and rouge states. The freedom fighter cause is celebrated and may get support from all sections of the society including democratic institutions. UK Context There is no single definition of terrorism that commands full international approval. It remains the subject of continuing debate in international bodies  [27]  . Lord Carlile arrived at this conclusion after carefully researching the current terrorism laws that exists in 60 countries. The majority of countries selected for the study had either too broad or too narrow scope of definition and importantly were designed to reflect specific political situation and threat of the individual country. Only few European countries had some similar features to UK legislation and context. The Terrorism Act 2000 was aimed to establish a sound definition of terrorism in the law with a view to introduce entirely new set of police and investigatory powers to deal with incidents that would be deemed beyond the ordinary violent offences. It also superseded and repealed some of the previous acts and provisions. Since 2000, the UK has enacted five main pieces of legislation to deal with terrorism  [28]  . Following the events of 9/11, legislation and security measures from the Government were under threat of not going far enough to deal with the issues raised by violence, such as terrorism. Following the events of 9/11, legislation and security measures from the Government were under threat of not going far enough to deal with the issues raised by violence, such as terrorism. In response to this the government initiated CONTEST (I and II) as the main authority for counterterrorism strategy for the UK. It was designed to take account of the evolution of the threat and of our understanding of the factors which are driving it  [29]  . The latest conception of CONTEST attempts to deal with issue that foreign policy concerns breed violent extremism  [30]  . It endeavoured to define how foreign policy in the UK could act as a catalyst for people to turn to extremism. Real or perceived grievances, some international and some local, including in particular: a perception that UK foreign policy in the Muslim world (notably military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) is hostile to Islam; the experience of wider conflict in the Muslim world and conflict involving Muslims (often attributed either to western intervention or to western indifference); and a range of domestic issues, including racism, inequalities and the experience of criminality and migration.  [31]   This brings the paradoxical argument that, grievances such as the foreign policy of a country could lead to the radicalisation of those aggrieved, who in turn could result in fighting for the cause, and ultimately for the minority the perceived freedom fighter could become an instrument of terrorist activities. It must be mentioned that he report conducted by Lord Carlile  [32]  where he defined terrorism and reviewed all legislation in relation to this topic, has now become a fundamental part of terrorism legislation Terrorism Act 2000 The introduction of the Terrorism Act 2000 signified a huge step in the right direction in the attempts to define such violent acts. The act defined it as being an action which is designed to influence the government through a threat or to intimidate the public and threats made for the purpose for progress of a political, religious or ideological cause can be seen as terrorism, for the purposes of the act. These attempts show that the UK government had stretched the boundaries and attempted to define it. The act also cleared up discrepancies in regards to what type of damage or threats are caused. Section 2 of the Act also defines what type of actions can be inferred to be that of terrorists and includes actions which involve serious violence or serious damage to property. An action which endangers a persons life or a deed which creates serious risk to the public can be also be deemed as actions of terrorism. The act also attempted to cover the rise of technological warfare by includ ing attempts to disrupt electronic systems can also fall under the heading of terrorist activities. It is imperative to mention that the act also considered terrorist activities committed outside of the UK would still be classified as terrorist actions for the purpose of the act. This is important as the scope for actions is wide thus allowing such actions to be classed as terrorist activities. However, this act even with the attempts and inroads it has tried to make in regards to defining terrorism, has been met with criticisms chiefly from Lord Carliles paper. He suggested that the act should include the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar case  [33]  . If the section 1 (1) (c) was to be amended in the 2000 act, it would provide a positive message by enhancing the legal clarity of the act. The Terrorism Act 2006 also extends the range of offences which can be classed as terrorism and included the term glorifies  [34]  , which can be meant as a novel word for a criminal offence. The amendments made by the 2006 Act, such as, glorification and mere preaching cannot be seen as terrorist actions, Lord Carlile was content with the protection that was in place in regards to the misusing of the clause preaching and glorification  [35]  . Like the Patriot Act in the Unit ed States, the current UK law has been scrutinised due to the slow dissolution of key human rights such as right to privacy which allows the police excessive powers, which could result in misuse of them. The Terrorism Act has been wrongly exploited by authorities such as the Police force and Customs as they have often cited the Terrorism Act when combating terrorism when in fact in various cases these events are not connected to those of terrorism. Another contentious issue arising from the act is section 44. This section involves the authorisations available to senior police officers if they believe that it is expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism, they can confer powers to other police officers to search people and there is no requirement that the officers to do so on reasonable grounds. Stop and searches have been taken advantage of as those with no connection in terrorism can be targeted, such as protesters  [36]  , however the police must have reasonable suspicion that the person pursued is operating as a terrorist, according to the Home Office  [37]  . In many states across the world which breed terrorist organisations, the experience that they have such as poverty and hardship lead to the radicalisation of the masses. Recent research suggests that poverty and illiteracy as well as the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq are key factors leading to religious extremism  [38]  . This has led to the school of thought that freedom fighters and terrorist have not always derived out of the same background and it is the ideology that they pursue which is different from one another. Summary The discussion on the said topic was approached with a view to define Terrorist and Freedom Fighter, and includes researching various understanding of these terms and the views as expressed by national and international experts, including relevant legislations. The unique characteristics or commonality that compares and distinguishes both terms are vital in critically considering its legitimacy and legal status. The rapidly diminishing boundaries of terrorist and freedom fighter has not only left ordinary people confused but authorities struggling to provide legal clarity as well. The discussion also ask the questions to ponder on the necessity to define these terms to the hilt at the expense of ignoring such a sensitive issue and in turn giving secondary preference to tackling the issue. The Terrorism Act 2000 and subsequent legislation that followed like the Terrorism Act 2006 which made amendments to the 2000 act such as creating new offences in reference to the encouragement of terrorism which deals with the root cause of it  [39]  , provides an insight into the UKs context and how counter-strategy with all its teething problems and weaknesses remains at the heart of providing protection and stability to UK. Conclusion The exclusion of religious causes from the definition of terrorism is controversial and there is no discourse as it stands that political cause may be excluded from the definition, this also applies to an ideological cause. Can there be a religious cause which is neither political nor ideological? If so, should it be under the terrorism umbrella?  [40]   The above questions bring the debate about root cause to the fore. The counter-terrorism strategy identifies the importance of the role specific community should be playing. The Prevent strand aims to tackle the issue through community involvement. It is hoped that by identifying the underlying issues such as foreign policy, discrimination, deprivation etc the authorities would be in better position to address the issue through various community based and led initiatives. This however must not underestimate the importance of containing and eliminating the menace of terrorism through policing and judiciary means mainly via legislation. The international community it seems are still divided over defining the term freedom fighter. The thin line that separates it from terrorist is too risky to be crossed. It also depends on individual countrys foreign policy, e.g. The Middle East whole heartedly supports Palestine movement and some countries also give tactical support in form of funding, promotion etc. The argument with some of the western countries is that the funds can be easily channelled to terrorist causes and openly promoting the cause can have adverse effect on their relationship with Israel, not to forget the wrong message it would send to those elements who could resort to violence and derail the campaign. The current definition of terrorism as it stands now in UK has been rigorously designed and implemented through proper policy making mechanism. The inherent weaknesses and the lessons learnt of abuse of powers since 2000 have either been amended or eliminated. The process of treating each case on merit and trying to identify the root cause can only exasperate the situation. The sensible approach route however would be to look at the end result. Did the activities result in illegal and random violence? Did it cause loss of lives of innocent people and destruction of properties? Have the perpetrators got legitimate concerns that can be resolved through negotiations? Is the issue of persecution, human rights visible and quantifiable? The concept of Freedom Fighting is alien to current UK scenario. The robust laws and legislations in place, the mechanism of transparency and implementation of these laws, the equality and human rights, democratically elected local and central government, rights of citizen, checks and balances of political and judiciary system etc are antithesis to the path of violent struggle for freedom. It is also equally true that any widely accepted and legitimate freedom struggle outside UK such as Burma, Palestine etc must not be underrated. The UK citizens should have right to protest within the boundaries of UK law, including marching, publicity, awareness campaign, funding raising etc. Developing a Successful Corporate Strategy: Examining Volkswagen Developing a Successful Corporate Strategy: Examining Volkswagen A business strategy is an organizational plan with long and short tem purposes of achieving set business goals and objectives. Its a management plan aimed at strengthening the performance of a company through provision of quality products and services and maintaining market share and successfully containing competition (Aaker, 2001). A business strategy can be developed and implemented at three levels of an organization structure; the corporate level, the business level and the departmental level. Developing business strategies at corporate level involves maintaining the business positive performance while ensuring long term success of all business units through improving compatibility among the units. Companies develop corporate strategies to manage their operations, departments, products, services and staff to make the company competitive and ensure that every component contributes to the success and achieving organizational goals. The development and implementation of a business strategy or model involves the use of organizational design which is the process of deciding how a company must form, utilize and combine organizational structure as well as control systems and organizational culture to pursue a business goal (Hill and Gareth 2008). This essay will focus on developing and implementing business strategies at corporate level based on the Volkswagen Group which is a motor manufacturing company. Factors to Consider when Developing a Successful Corporate Strategy Well developed business strategies must address the strategy choice, organization structure, primary people concerns and organizational culture dimensions. Volkswagen Group has identified differentiation as it major market strategy. This strategy involves positioning the group on top of motor manufacturing by the year 2018 with increased service delivery and customer satisfaction. Developing this strategy has been practiced through provision of quality products, new designs and always improving and expanded services that go beyond the normal automobile manufacturing standards. Volkswagen Group therefore focuses on a quality strategy which is a subset of a whole differentiation strategy so that it can outstand among the many competitors in the industry. However, the current increase of many players in motor industry has gone into Volkswagen group strategy plan and implementation because of the greater efforts needed to maintain revenue, market share, reduce costs and most importantly keep customers who seem attract to other cheap car models from other manufacturers. Volkswagen Group management assigns employees to particular value creation tasks and roles that are linked together to create a framework that will increase quality provision, effective service delivery, innovation and responsiveness to customers to increase competitive advantage. This motor manufacturing group has succeeded in integrating the efforts of all employees across all company structure, functions and business sections so that specific set of strategies are achieved. The Volkswagen organizational structure is very flexible with all duties clearly spelled out together with the staff who should undertake them. The structure of the Volkswagen Group organizational structure has been one of the contributing factors to effective implementation of previous strategies because every employee knows his/her job description and expectations. The development of any corporate business strategy must take into account the primary concerns of all the people involved by ensuring production of good quality products and quality services to guarantee customer satisfaction. To achieve this, Volkswagen Group has installed programs to train all its human resources prior and after a strategy is devised and implemented. This assures the company that the staff is capable of turning the business strategies into business values. The choice of its staff is very complete because only staff with great quality combinations for a motor manufacturing industry is considered. Organizational culture is a collection of values, norms, beliefs and attitudes that are common among people and groups in an organization. Volkswagen group has organizational standards that control how the employees interact with each other, with the customers and stakeholders outside the company. Just like many other international companies, the top management of Volkswagen group has the upper hand in ensuring that employees work towards achieving the company strategies and goals because they can influence the kind of beliefs to be exercised in the company. Developing a corporate strategy is therefore a very complex process that is primarily concerned with selection of business area where the organization should operate and compete as well as developing and coordinating business profile through stipulation of objectives, aims and goals (Checco 2005). In developing business strategies organizations must address key strategy components that usually determine the long term performance of such strategies. These components include; strategy reach, competitive contact, managing resources and business relationship and management practices. The corporate strategy reach involves defining corporate mission, vision, objectives and goals. The strengths and opportunities as well as weaknesses and threats are considered in this component. The definition of these management components enables execution of the strategy while ensuring business units are integrated into each other for easy management. The competitive contact is more concerned with speculating the future competition environment and developing products and services that will be able to compete favorable with those of the competitors. Opportunities and threats are more addressed at this point. Coordinating the use of company resources, both material and intellectual across the business units forms the other component of managing corporate activities and relationships. Developing a business strategy dictates that all business units in harmony and compatible with each other such that communication and business instructions can flow from unit to unit (Porter 1998). The effective use and management of corporate resources should be stressed in the strategy since the success of a corporate strategy is dependent on how the resources are utilized. The choice between centralization and decentralization of a corporation needs more considerations such as the external factors that may face business activities, the level of compe tition as well the available resources and the benefits expected to be accrued from such resources. However, every organization should look carefully at its intended corporate strategy as compared to that of its competitors to see if it can better leverage its internal strengths and potential for operational efficiencies because development and implementation of a poor strategy may be the ultimate downfall as many competitors are finding ways to incentivize customer value through lower prices, additional options or more product for the same price to maintain customer base. This could be a battle that Volkswagen group could fail at if it does not keep pace or find a way to show consumers its value. Conclusively, strategic choice, organizational design, culture and principal people concerns shape employee beliefs, behaviors, values and norms and this determines how they will implement the business models and strategies.

Demographics of Leave and Remain Voters

Demographics of Leave and Remain Voters Does the public portrayal of who voted either way in the EU referendum and why, match the reality of people in north-east London and surrounding areas? Introduction The European Union (EU) referendum on 23rd June 2016 left both the media, politicians on either side of the debate, and professional researchers taken aback at the outcome. Leading up to the voting day there was a large amount media coverage, and comment from politicians and newspapers on why the British public should vote either way.   After the vote there was extensive analysis on why people voted the way they did. Results showed that factors such as gender, age group,  employment,  level of education or training,  ethnic group and where the voters lived, played a key role. The media and researchers also examined the main influences for the public’s vote, and the results ranged across family, friends, colleagues, social media, general media, politicians or entirely longstanding personal views.   These views were often around immigration, the economy, employment, personal identity, national sovereignty, the environment, and national security. This essay will cover these points in further detail, examining studies of why people voted either way, from a variety of sources, including the media, university, and professional research results, before comparing these with a survey taken in north-east London by the author. As London voted overall to remain, with an average of nearly 60% to stay part of the EU and in some areas over 70% (Donovan, 2017)[1], the question of why London’s vote to remain was so much higher than that of the rest of England arises (the rest of the country with only a 46% vote to remain and the overall UK percentage was 48.1%) (Goodwin and Heath, 2016) [2].     A conclusion will then be drawn to decide if the public and media portrayal of who voted either way in the EU referendum and why matches with the reality of people in north-east London and surrounding areas.   Reasons for any mismatch will be suggested. Research after the vote There has been a large amount of research on why people voted either way, and it has become clear that different demographic groups had vastly different opinions on EU membership and the option of â€Å"Brexit†.   Results from polling all over the country has revealed deep divisions in the United Kingdom and its constituent countries, most evidently through age and education (Kirk and Dunford, 2016)[3] as well as areas the voters live in.   Opinions on the EU and immigration through membership of it vary greatly, with clear divides based on age, education, and ethnicity. It became evident that white, older, and more lower paid people without high levels of education were much more likely to vote for Brexit than younger people, degree-holders, ethnic minorities, and the more secure middle- and upper-classes (Goodwin and Heath, 2016)[4]. Research has also revealed that many of those who voted to leave the EU did so due to a belief that this would lead to improvements in the economy, international investment, and the UK’s influence in the world (Ashcroft, 2016)[5], amongst the other factors.   Ã‚  At the same time many people voted to remain as they felt Brexit would adversely affect these things. Unchangeable factors which may have led to a leave/ remain vote This section focuses on the characteristics of British voters that they have no choice over and have no ability to change. That is to say, who the voter is and how that may have affected their vote, as opposed to their reasoning for voting either way (these being things they may have been influenced into thinking or made a conscious decision to believe).   This section will include: AgeEducationEthnicity Age This had a clear impact on the referendum.   Leaving the EU was strongly supported by the UKs older population with those aged over 60 being the most likely group to want to leave the EU, according the polls before the vote (Kirk and Dunford, 2016)[6]. In the actual referendum, 73% of 18 to 24-year-olds voted to remain, dropping to 62% among 25-34s and the number of remain voters falling again with those aged over 45, only 44% voting to remain. Those aged 65 or over were the age group most likely to vote to leave, with only 40% voting remain (Ashcroft, 2016)[7]. Apart from two, each of the top thirty areas of the UK in terms of aging population voted for Brexit.   Higher pensioner areas showed the largest enthusiasm to leave the EU (Kirk and Dunford, 2016)[8]. Put simply, the older the voters, the more likely they were to have voted to leave the EU. Types of pension also affected the vote decision, with around two thirds of those retired on a state pension voting to leave and more than half of those retired on a private pension. (Ashcroft, 2016)[9] However, it is not as simple as ‘the elder generation’s vote to leave swung it’ as there are many overlaps with other factors.   Even the increase of Leave voters with a state pension rather than private begins to reveal some sort of connection to discontent with the government and public funding, uncovering another layer to why the public voted the way they did. It may seem obvious that older generations would vote to leave as older people tend to hold more conservative attitudes than younger people, but there are many reasons aside from age which pushed the people to vote either to leave or remain in the EU. Research shows higher levels of support for Brexit in areas with not only an older population but with below average levels of education. These places in the UK are more likely than others to encounter deprivation and have seen large amounts demographic change as a result of the inward migration of EU nationals in recent years (Goodwin and Heath, 2016) [10].   A combination of all these factors led to an overall vote to leave from a particular area. The author’s own research in north-east London see Appendix E does not completely follow the normal pattern of age, with only 20% of those who voted to leave being 61+, whereas the biggest vote for Brexit was from 41-60-year old’s, with 57% of those who voted to leave being from this age group. The numbers fit for the younger generations with only 17% leavers being 26-40 and 7% being 18-25. The decision for Brexit will affect younger generations more than anyone else in the longer term so may be more inclined to vote to stay apart of the EU for economic reasons (see the section on Economy). The question is why the number of 41-60-year old’s vote to leave was so high in north-east London. It is not clear why this has happened.   It could be the result of an angry baby boomer generation which overlaps with this group, who never experienced the difficulties that not being part of the EU could bring up, whereas an older generation have experienced the long history of conflict which the UK has often been drawn into. In fact the UK was failing economically before it joined the European Economic Community (EEC which later became the EU) in 1973. People might well have forgotten that uncomfortable fact even if they are baby boomers and voted to stay in the EEC in the 1975 vote. However, London is always going to be an anomaly in any comparison with the results from the rest of the UK, as shown later in this essay.   Education   This leads on to the connection between the level of education a person achieved and their decision to vote either way. National media has widely reported that degree holders were more likely to have voted to remain in the EU and most research concurs, showing that the higher the level of education, the higher the EU support, with university graduates being the most likely people to want to stay in the EU. This concurs with the fact that people with GCSE or equivalent as their highest qualification were more likely to vote for Brexit (Kirk and Dunford, 2016)[11]. Within this, those who are still in full time education, whether it is at a lower level or a degree are more likely to vote to remain. (Clarke and Whittaker, 2016)[12] Research shows that a 57% of those with a university degree voted to remain, 64% with a higher degree and an extremely high 81% still in full time education also voting to remain (Ashcroft, 2016)[13], clearly highlighting how higher levels of education progressively result in higher levels of support for Remain. Of the areas that voted to remain, 92% had above average GCSE results (Scott, 2017)[14]. As with age, qualifications bring about the usual liberal vs conservative attitudes, those with few qualifications tending to remain more socially conservative whilst more highly educated people holding a more liberal perspective on matters (Goodwin and Heath, 2016) [15] . This does appear to be true with the high support for Brexit in areas where a large percentage of the population had no qualifications; all the 20 areas considered in the UK ‘most highly educated’ voted to remain and 15 of the 20 ‘least educated’ areas voted to leave while (Goodwin and Heath, 2016) [16].    One of the reasons that a more highly educated area may be more inclined to vote to remain in the EU is their ability to take advantage of the globalization the EU offers.   Authors Hanspeter Kriesi, Robert Ford and Matthew J Goodwin believe that the ‘winners of globalization’ are usually highly-educated and qualified whilst the losers tend to possess fewer skills and therefore are extremely challenged by the increased competition or even see their jobs outsourced due to the increase EU immigration. This is supported by the case that  Ã‚   votes to leave the EU were highest in areas where it could be regarded that the majority of people were lower educated and therefore do not necessarily have the skills to prosper in a progressively competitive and globalized economy that works better for those with the required skills. The lower levels of of education may leave these people with a disadvantage in a fast moving economy, and a lack of opportunities in these low skilled areas further marginalizes them in society and really holds them back.   It results in a society which looks on globalized systems such as the EU as a negative thing. (Goodwin and Heath, 2016)[17]. Those with an ‘A-level’ or equivalent level of education are the group which compromise the importance of education and bring forward the relevance of area. They are the ones who seem to have been most influenced by their surrounding environment, mirroring those in their community. (In a low-skilled community those with A-levels or equivalent are likely to vote the same way as those with low education and in higher-skilled communities they are likely to mirror the beliefs of those with a degree). This begins to show how vital area was in influencing the outcome of the referendum. This is supported by the fact that people with all levels of education were more likely to vote leave in areas which were considered low-skill as opposed to those considered high-skill (Goodwin and Heath, 2016)[18]. My own research very much supports this, with 71% of those who voted to remain having a degree, 18% of those with A levels and only 7% of those at O level or GCSE standard. Ethnicity As much of the campaign to leave the EU was based on fear of immigration (33% of people said the main reason for their vote to leave was to regain control over immigration and Britain’s borders), it is unsurprising that white voters voted to leave the EU by 53% to 47%. Research also shows that 67% of those describing themselves as Asian voted to remain, as did 73% of black voters, highlighting how, on average, non-white voters did not support the leave vote. The importance of this concern over immigration from other countries including EU states (ranging from concern over control through to outright dislike), is supported by the data that those from a white British background voted to leave with 52% but only 31% of those from a white other background voted to leave the EU. (Goodwin and Heath, 2016)[19]. The high levels of white British leave voters also show links to national sovereignty, with the desire to ‘take back control of Britain’s borders’, reports say that people who feel very strongly English were highly likely to vote to leave than any other group (71 to 36%). This also underlines the conception of national identity that comes with the feeling of being English rather than British, supporting the fact that English voted 54% to leave (Goodwin and Heath, 2016)[20]. The author’s local research does not correlate completely with this.   Non-white British voted mostly in favour of remain, as was expected, 60% of white others voted to remain, 70% of Asian British and 50% of mixed-race British. The only anomaly here is that 60% of Black British voted to leave in the north-east London survey. It is possible that the reasoning for the higher leave vote amongst a local black population is due to likelihood that those who would refer to themselves as ‘black British’ in London are often third, fourth or even further generation immigrants, resulting in a similar sense of national identity to those who are ‘white British’. This could mean that this section of voters in north-east London has seen the more recent influx of other immigrants in the area and therefore hold the same views as the majority of white voters.   Factors for the voter’s decision This section is broken down into the voter’s personal reasoning for their vote as opposed the previous section which focused on the actual voter. In this section the voters may have been open to influence on particular issues and had a choice in whether to believe positive or negative messages or not. This section will include: ImmigrationJobs/ EmploymentEconomyNational SovereigntyLongstanding personal viewsPersonal Identity Immigration As has already been brought up in the section on ethnicity,the issue of increasing immigration both legal immigration from EU states, and illegal immigration from other countries by people travelling into and then through the EU to Britain was widely debated in the lead up to the referendum. EU migrants make up for about half the people who move to the UK for a minimum of a year, increasing from only 21% since Eastern Europe was included in the EU, now making up for more than a third of the UK foreign born population. (Ashcroft, 2016)[21] In 2016, EU migration was about   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   596,000 in total, with around 268,000 citizens from other EU countries migrating to the UK. (Ashcroft, 2016)[22]   Many of those who voted to leave the EU did so with the belief that doing so would bring about a better immigration system and improve border controls. (Ashcroft, 2016)[23] According to research, nearly 90% of those who felt that immigration was bad for the economy supported the vote to leave, but less than 10% of those who thought immigration was good for the economy (Goodwin and Heath, 2016)[24].   Those who see immigration as a positive thing and therefore voted remain are also not uncommon. Britain often uses the free movement of people within the EU to its advantage: 1.2 million UK-born citizens work, study, and retire in other EU states. (As an aside, most working in other EU states are professionals, and the largest number of retirees go to France and Spain.) (JRF, 2016)[25] 85,000 in total emigrate abroad per year. (Ashcroft, 2016)[26] This may have been a factor which spurred on some members of the public to vote remain, but clearly it wasn’t significant enough. On average Britain’s immigrant population preferred the remain campaign due to the level at which the leave campaign stressed the importance of decreasing migration across Europe and other countries.   National figures show areas with higher levels of net migration, such as London, voted to remain (Scott, 2017)[27] (Clarke and Whittaker, 2016)[28]. London is also an area where immigration is undeniably higher than the rest of the country, with just under 40% of Londoners being foreign born and a significantly larger amount being second or third generation immigrants (Kirk and Dunford, 2016)[29]. However, researchers Italo Colantone and Piero Stanig claim that there is no evidence of a connection between the support for Brexit and the proportion of immigrants or new immigrants in an area. (Clarke and Whittaker, 2016)[30] Other data also supports this, saying that areas which started with relatively few migrants but which saw sizeable increases experienced a sudden influx of EU migrants over the last ten years were often more pro-leave (the leave vote was high in areas such as Redditch, Maidstone, Gravesham and Lincoln, with links to this factor) (Goodwin and Heath, 2016)[31]   This shows that if the number of immigrants in an area has seen a sudden increase, there was more likely to be a Leave vote in that area than an area which has had a large number of immigrants for a long time. It suggests that fear of immigration is key (Clarke and Whittaker, 2016)[32] The public is often afraid that EU migrants tend to come to the UK to work (JRF, 2016)[33], so a sudden increase of immigrants in an area may lead to a loss of job for those who had already been living there.   Residents also often believe that the arrival of new immigrants is a principal contributor to the pressure on services (Travers, 2016)[34]. This shows that the level of migration doesn’t seem to matter but the pace of change over the past decade or so does, suggesting yet again how area plays a significant role on why people vote either way.   Higher-skilled, higher-migrant, low-leave areas include Westminster, Hammersmith & Fulham, and Camden (Clarke and Whittaker, 2016)[35], also highlighting the importance of area: these have seen significant migrant increase, yet voted in favour to remain also bringing into light the other factors which influenced the area’s votes. Areas which voted to leave witnessed significant demographic change due to the surge of EU immigrants in recent years and are more likely than others to experience deprivation and. (Goodwin and Heath, 2016)[36] The author’s research matches what has been said, as the survey taken was in London where a higher migrant population is the norm. Amongst the north-east Londoners that were questioned, 42% of the cited immigration as a key reason for their vote. However, this was not the most common answer, coming third behind employment (52%) and economy (65%) as key reasons which influenced a vote either way. An interesting result, which matches what has been said about areas with higher levels of immigration being less likely to see this as a negative issue, is that 60% of those who chose immigration as a reason for their decision actually voted to remain.   This suggests that they saw immigration as a positive result of remaining part of the EU. This reflects on the importance of area as London’s results are so different to those of the rest of the country. Jobs/ employment Many people’s decision to vote either way in the referendum was spurred on by the subject of employment. This links back to the subject of immigration as the employment rate of EU migrants is high; 82% of working-age EU migrants are employed, with EU migration expanding the UK workforce by around 0.5% a year and putting 6% of the UK workforce under stress of severe reduction by 2018 (JRF, 2016) [37]. The unemployed were much more likely to vote to leave the EU as well as those who felt their financial situation had deteriorated (Goodwin and Heath, 2016)[38], because they felt their situation was down to the UK being a member of the EU. This again links back to the issue of area as a whole.   Many areas have experienced a loss of jobs such as mining, docking and seaside jobs, as well as those which involve traditional manufacturing. This has left these places with weak private sectors and a mismatch between skills available and skills needed for the modern economy, resulting in a backlash of resentment toward the EU, (some of the biggest Leave votes were in areas exactly as descried: Stoke-on-Trent, Blackpool, Mansfield and Barking & Dagenham to name just a few). Many believe those who run government have allowed large parts of the country to be left behind (Ashcroft, 2016)[39]. As has been mentioned before, students are more likely, on average to have voted to remain, forming a higher proportion of the population in low leave vote areas. Once the number of students in an area is controlled, the correlation between employment and votes either way becomes much clearer (Clarke and Whittaker, 2016)[40].   Research shows that support for leave was higher for those on a lower pay ( £20,000 per year), than it was for those with incomes of more than  £60,000 per year (Goodwin and Heath, 2016)[41]. Overall, when employment is taken in to consideration with a vote either way, it is, on average, those who earn less who voted to leave. However, when taken into consideration with other factors, as in other sections of this essay, the line becomes blurred and it is no longer as simple as that. The north-east London findings research fall very much in line with what others have said, with students more likely to vote to remain than leave by about 20% (with a considerable amount not voting at all), and those who are unemployed voting to leave by about an extra 60%. Those in work were more likely to vote remain and those who had retired vote to leave. This can link back to the importance of age and by extension, education, those who have retired mostly being older and students usually being younger and better educated. Economy The EU is Britain’s largest trading partner, accounting for nearly 45% of UK trade and is the largest source of foreign direct investment (JRF, 2016)[42], so a vote to leave the EU puts into question the economic reasoning behind the decision. 43% of those who voted remain did so as they believed the risk of leaving was too high of a danger for the economy. Only just over 6% said the main reason for their remain vote was that â€Å"when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it† (Ashcroft, 2016)[43] so it is surprising the UK voted to leave.   The UK’s membership fee in 2015 was  £12.9 billion per year which comes to around  £200 per year for each person. Many believe this money would be better spent within the UK, for instance towards public goods and services such as the NHS. In terms of total contribution to the EU budget, the UK pays the highest amount after Germany (JRF, 2016)[44] and it is often argued that the amount the UK pays is too high, and this resulted in many Leave votes. The author’s figures shows that London also saw the economy as a key reason that the UK show either remain or leave the EU. It was the biggest factor influencing north-east Londoners’ vote, with 65% citing this as a reason for their decision. The local research also correlates with other national research. Of those who cited economics as a reason for their vote, 78% voted remain, matching the idea that some feel the UK would do much better economically within the European Union, and those in London feel particularly strongly about this. This may link to the immense centralisation of the UK, politically and in terms of the concentration of the economy, which will be talked about further later in this essay.   This centralisation allows more people within London to see the economic benefits of being a member of the European Union than people in other areas, who may often feeling cut off from what is going on in the city. National Sovereignty The loss of sovereignty inherent in EU membership was also a reason for why people voted to leave. Many believe that other EU countries have too much influence over the laws which affect the UK, convincing several people to vote Leave. These laws include regulations which affect working hours, the environment, financial services, workers’ rights, and even domestic appliances.   Research has shown that 49% of those who voted leave claimed the biggest reason for them wanting to leave the EU was â€Å"the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK† (Ashcroft, 2016)[45]. International aid has also increased and many think that the problems within the UK require more attention at this time, considering that funding for the Home Office, local government, further education, and housing has been cut by up to 35% (Travers, 2016)[46].   13% of leave voters feared that remaining in the EU would result in the UK having no choice â€Å"about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead† (Ashcroft, 2016)[47], while believing that the UK does not have a fair say in the laws and policies of mainland Europe. The author’s research finds Londoners care less about national sovereignty in relation to their decision to vote remain or leave, with only 19% of the survey results coming back with this being a key reason for their decision.   This again shows how different Londoners opinions are to the rest of the country and highlights problems such as the centralization that fuels the UK but often leaves the rest of the country feeling detached from politics. This will be talked about in more detail in the sections on London and Area. Longstanding personal views Longstanding personal views must be taken into consideration as to why people voted either way in the referendum, as 43% of people said that they were always sure of what they would end up voting or decided early on, whereas only 24% decided their vote within a week of referendum day with 10% deciding the day before, or even on the day of the vote (Ashcroft, 2016)[48]. Although the voters seemed unsure what to decide, both leave and remain voters were equally likely to have chosen what their vote would be on the actual day of the referendum (Ashcroft, 2016)[49]. This suggests that according to the research, longstanding personal views were not the main reason which influenced the outcome of the vote.   The north-east London research showed that 50% of people believed their longstanding personal views were a big part of how they voted, 37% of the people saying it was their sole influence. This could relate to people in London having been in the centre of politics so much that they are more in touch with and understand the situation Britain is in, allowing them to make up their minds sooner.   Ã‚   Personal Identity Personal identity seemed to be the least important issue for most people, with little available research on this section. Just under 17% said their main reason to vote remain was the belief that UK would â€Å"become more isolated from its friends and neighbours† and only 9% said they felt a â€Å"a strong attachment to the EU and its shared history, culture, and traditions† (Ashcroft, 2016)[50], highlighting how little British people feel a connection to their mainland European neighbours and linking back to the idea that those who felt primarily British were more likely to vote to leave the EU.    The author’s data shows that north-east Londoners feel more strongly about personal identity than the rest of the country, with 33% of them citing this as one of the reasons which influenced their vote. It is possible that Londoners feel a stronger connection to Europe than the rest of the country, and explain why the number is higher. Linking back to the fact that the UK is a very centralised country, London has a stronger affiliation with Europe than the rest of the country. It has more relations with mainland Europe due to the nature of many jobs in London, specifically in the city of London, a large amount of which must keep consistent contact and relatively good relations with the rest of Europe. Another reason for the higher percentage of people seeing personal identity as a reason to influence their vote could be the, already discussed, high local immigrant population, especially from other EU countries, resulting in more integration and a more evident personal connection to the rest of Europe.   This will again come up in the sections on London and Area. Other Nationally, gender did not significantly affect the way people voted.   By contrast a stronger possible factor for people voting either way was their feelings of detachment from politics. 70% of leave voters were concerned that ‘politicians don’t care what people like me think’ (Goodwin and Heath, 2016)[51]. About 75% of council and housing association tenants preferred the leave vote, (Ashcroft, 2016)[52] but this could be linked to other issues such as employment and the belief that the money spent of the EU should be spent within the UK. Another group who were more likely to vote Leave were those in favour of the death penalty as well as harsher prison sentences in general, and those who are against equal opportunities for women and homosexuals (Goodwin and Heath, 2016) [53], but this again could link back to an elder generation as well those who are generally more right wing often voting to leave.    The author’s research taken in north-east London conflicts with what other data says about gender being irrelevant, as 76% of the women voted to remain whereas only 54% of men said the same. This could be due to EU regulations and directives, some of which are particularly in the interest of women and go further than previous UK legislation.   These areas relate to maternity rights, sex discrimination and equal pay, offering woman what some may see as a better deal than men if Britain voted to remain.   Views on this are both positive and negative and it is intuitive that more women would take a positive standpoint. Area Area stands alone to the other sections in this essay as it is neither a conscious reason to vote either way or an unavoidable part of who a person is, but could fit into both parts as has links to both. Most of what has been said so far comes down to area and the structure of UK, the most centralized large democracy in the world, highlighting how, arguably, London cannot and will not in any way reflect the views of the rest of the country. People not living in London feel cut off from the Government, because in fact they actually are, with ministers and other officials living in central London whilst making decisions which effect the rest of the country (Travers, 2016)[54]. This may have led to many of those in areas outside London voting to leave in a protest vote, pointing out that their voices are not being heard and their needs are not being addressed; these areas have been ‘left behind’ by fast economic and social change and were the most likely to vote for Brexit (Goodwin and Heath, 2016) [55]. The area in which people live seems to override every other reason for which they voted, for instance, education; people with all levels of qualifications being more likely to vote leave in a lower-skilled area than those in a higher-skilled area, regardless of the level of education they attained. Even though they were less educated and therefore at a natural disadvantage, this was not the only reason they felt marginalized in society and therefore voted Brexit, due to the complete lack of opportunities that were offered in these low-skilled communities (Goodwin and Heath, 2016)[56]. Research shows that people living in these low skilled areas also naturally tend to be more conservative as well as identify more strongly with being English rather than British or European and feel more out of touch politically than similar types of people living in high-skilled areas (Goodwin and Heath, 2016)[57]. In areas where there is little opportunity to ‘get ahead’ and the people feel economically disadvantaged and struggle to keep up with other, more highly skilled areas, people were also more likely to vote to leave. These areas have often also seen important changes due to the inward migration of EU nationals (Goodwin and Heath, 2016) [58], reasserting the importance of immigration but showing that area was above that factor in importance when voting.    This all shows the importance of all factors, with area tying other sections together. In some cases, area even comes through as a stronger cause to vote either way, overriding other reasons for why people may have voted, such as education and age. London Consideration must always be taken when comparing polling results with London, where immigration rates are high, with the largest number of migrants in the UK, 1.4 million living in inner London in 2015 and 1.8 in outer (Vargas-Silva and Rienzo, 2017)[59] and with the votes for remain resulting in some of the highest in the country (Scott, 2017)[60]. Votes were swayed towards remain in London, partially due to large numbers of people from immigrant backgrounds (see Factors for the voters’ decisions above. For example, in north-east London boroughs such as Waltham Forest and Hackney clearly voted to remain (by 59.1% and 78.5% respectively).    The BBCs political editor Laura Kuenssberg summed up the situation perfectly, commenting that, London is an island, compared to the rest of the country where the Leave campaign is gaining ground, (Donovan, 2017)[61]. Conclusion  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Does the Public portrayal of who voted either way in the EU referendum and why, match with the reality of people in north-east London and surrounding areas? Overall it is difficult to compare London with the rest of the UK due to the extreme centralization of the country politically and economically, but most results seem to correlate and confirm national trends for particular factors. When it comes to sections such as immigration results vary enormously, but those in London who voted to leave often had other reasons for their vote aside from this. The rest of country feels more detached from politics than London and so votes are naturally more likely to sway to leave but the research has also showed that those in areas with less immigration were more likely to vote leave than those with a large number of migrants, even if they named immigration as one of the top reasons for their vote. This shows that the fear of immigration is more effective than actually living in an area such as London. This can also be linked to the idea that areas with less migrants are less likely to be in large cities and therefore will feel more detached from politics and will be ‘left behind’ in a rapidly globalized country and therefore are searching for someone to blame. Due to the high number of immigrants in London as well as it being the capital with a higher average wage, it is naturally more likely to vote remain so any surveys taken in London will reflect this. Although the parts of north-east London people interviewed were from are not necessarily the most educated areas, the research has shown that although this could sway votes, the area in which the people live is more important and therefore outweighs that, resulting in a less educated person living in London being more likely to vote to remain than a higher educated person in a seaside town. This can also be taken into consideration when it comes to age and other factors.   With this in mind, the north-east London research generally matches with the national public portrayal of who voted either way and why. From the author’s perspective, at the same time it underlines the centralised nature of the UK and the concentration of economic growth in London and the south east. Summary of References Electoralcommission.org.uk, 2017 Electoralcommission.org.uk. (2017). Electoral Commission | Complete set of turnout figures for referendum now published. [online] Available at: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/referendums?a=117451 [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. Clarke and Whittaker, 2016 Clarke, S. and Whittaker, M. (2016). The Importance of Place: explaining the characteristics underpinning the Brexit vote across different parts of the UK Resolution Foundation. Resolution Foundation. Available at: http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/the-important-of-place-explaining-the-characteristics-underpinning-the-brexit-vote-across-different-parts-of-the-uk/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. Goodwin and Heath, 2016 Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. JRF, 2016 JRF. (2016). The EU Referendum and UK Poverty. [online] Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/eu-referendum-and-uk-poverty [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. Kirk and Dunford, 2016 Kirk, A. and Dunford, D. (2016). EU referendum: How the results compare to the UKs educated, old and immigrant populations. [online] The Telegraph. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-the-results-compare-to-the-uks-educated-old-an/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. Travers, 2016 Travers, T. (2016). Why did people vote for Brexit? Deep-seated grievances lie behind this vote. British Politics and Policy at LSE. Available at: Why did people vote for Brexit? Deep-seated grievances lie behind this vote [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. Scott, 2017 Scott, S. (2017). Did education count in the EU vote?. [online] Schools Week. Available at: http://schoolsweek.co.uk/did-education-count-in-the-brexit-vote/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. Ashcroft, 2016 Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. Vargas-Silva and Rienzo, 2017 Vargas-Silva, D. and Rienzo, D. (2017). Migrants in the UK: An Overview Migration Observatory. Migration Observatory. Available at: Migrants in the UK: An Overview [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. Donovan, 2017 Donovan, T. (2017). EU referendum: Most London boroughs vote to remain BBC News. [online] BBC News. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36612916 [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. Appendices Appendix A Schools Week, (2016). The Relationship Between voting Leave and Educational Background. [image] Available at: http://schoolsweek.co.uk/did-education-count-in-the-brexit-vote/ [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017]. Appendix B Lord Ashcroft Polls, (2016). How Britain Voted by demographic. [image] Available at: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/ [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017]. Lord Ashcroft Polls, (2016). When they decided. [image] Available at: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/ [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017]. Lord Ashcroft Polls, (2016). The Relationship Between Voting Leave and Educational Background. [image] Available at: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/ [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017]. Ashcroft Polls, (2016). Reasons to Leave, Reasons to Remain [image] Available at: How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017]. Lord Ashcroft Polls, (2016). Do you think of each of the following being a force for good, a force for ill, or a mixed- blessing? [image] Available at: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/ [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017]. Lord Ashcroft Polls, (2016). National Identity. [image] Available at: How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017]. Appendix C Resolution Founation, (2016). Four Groups of interest. [image] Available at: http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/the-important-of-place-explaining-the-characteristics-underpinning-the-brexit-vote-across-different-parts-of-the-uk/ [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017]. Resolution Founation, (2016). Leave vote in the local authority, by % of 16-64 year olds with NVQ4+. [image] Available at: The Importance of Place: explaining the characteristics underpinning the Brexit vote across different parts of the UK [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017]. Appendix D Joseph Rowntree Foundation, (2016). Support for leave among different demographic groups. [image] Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017]. Appendix E: Author’s survey in north-east London 30Dec 2016 [1] Donovan, T. (2017). EU referendum: Most London boroughs vote to remain BBC News. [online] BBC News. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36612916 [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [2] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [3] Kirk, A. and Dunford, D. (2016). EU referendum: How the results compare to the UKs educated, old and immigrant populations. [online] The Telegraph. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-the-results-compare-to-the-uks-educated-old-an/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [4] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [5] Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [6] Kirk, A. and Dunford, D. (2016). EU referendum: How the results compare to the UKs educated, old and immigrant populations. [online] The Telegraph. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-the-results-compare-to-the-uks-educated-old-an/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [7] Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [8] Kirk, A. and Dunford, D. (2016). EU referendum: How the results compare to the UKs educated, old and immigrant populations. [online] The Telegraph. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-the-results-compare-to-the-uks-educated-old-an/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [9] Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [10] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [11] Kirk, A. and Dunford, D. (2016). EU referendum: How the results compare to the UKs educated, old and immigrant populations. [online] The Telegraph. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-the-results-compare-to-the-uks-educated-old-an/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [12] Clarke, S. and Whittaker, M. (2016). The Importance of Place: explaining the characteristics underpinning the Brexit vote across different parts of the UK Resolution Foundation. [online] Resolution Foundation. Available at: The Importance of Place: explaining the characteristics underpinning the Brexit vote across different parts of the UK [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [13] Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [14] Scott, S. (2017). Did education count in the EU vote?. [online] Schools Week. Available at: http://schoolsweek.co.uk/did-education-count-in-the-brexit-vote/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [15] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [16] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [17] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [18] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [19] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [20] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [21] Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [22] Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [23] Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [24] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [25] JRF. (2016). The EU Referendum and UK Poverty. [online] Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/eu-referendum-and-uk-poverty [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [26] Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [27] Scott, S. (2017). Did education count in the EU vote?. [online] Schools Week. Available at: http://schoolsweek.co.uk/did-education-count-in-the-brexit-vote/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [28] Clarke, S. and Whittaker, M. (2016). The Importance of Place: explaining the characteristics underpinning the Brexit vote across different parts of the UK Resolution Foundation. [online] Resolution Foundation. Available at: The Importance of Place: explaining the characteristics underpinning the Brexit vote across different parts of the UK [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [29] Kirk, A. and Dunford, D. (2016). EU referendum: How the results compare to the UKs educated, old and immigrant populations. [online] The Telegraph. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-the-results-compare-to-the-uks-educated-old-an/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [30] Clarke, S. and Whittaker, M. (2016). The Importance of Place: explaining the characteristics underpinning the Brexit vote across different parts of the UK Resolution Foundation. [online] Resolution Foundation. Available at: The Importance of Place: explaining the characteristics underpinning the Brexit vote across different parts of the UK [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [31] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [32] Clarke, S. and Whittaker, M. (2016). The Importance of Place: explaining the characteristics underpinning the Brexit vote across different parts of the UK Resolution Foundation. [online] Resolution Foundation. Available at: http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/the-important-of-place-explaining-the-characteristics-underpinning-the-brexit-vote-across-different-parts-of-the-uk/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [33] JRF. (2016). The EU Referendum and UK Poverty. [online] Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/eu-referendum-and-uk-poverty [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [34] Travers, T. (2016). Why did people vote for Brexit? Deep-seated grievances lie behind this vote. [online] British Politics and Policy at LSE. Available at: Why did people vote for Brexit? Deep-seated grievances lie behind this vote [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [35] Clarke, S. and Whittaker, M. (2016). The Importance of Place: explaining the characteristics underpinning the Brexit vote across different parts of the UK Resolution Foundation. [online] Resolution Foundation. Available at: The Importance of Place: explaining the characteristics underpinning the Brexit vote across different parts of the UK [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [36] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [37] JRF. (2016). The EU Referendum and UK Poverty. [online] Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/eu-referendum-and-uk-poverty [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [38] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [39] Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [40] Clarke, S. and Whittaker, M. (2016). The Importance of Place: explaining the characteristics underpinning the Brexit vote across different parts of the UK Resolution Foundation. [online] Resolution Foundation. Available at: The Importance of Place: explaining the characteristics underpinning the Brexit vote across different parts of the UK [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [41] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [42] JRF. (2016). The EU Referendum and UK Poverty. [online] Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/eu-referendum-and-uk-poverty [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [43] Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [44] JRF. (2016). The EU Referendum and UK Poverty. [online] Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/eu-referendum-and-uk-poverty [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [45] Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [46] Travers, T. (2016). Why did people vote for Brexit? Deep-seated grievances lie behind this vote. [online] British Politics and Policy at LSE. Available at: Why did people vote for Brexit? Deep-seated grievances lie behind this vote [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [47] Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [48] Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [49] Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [50] Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [51] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [52] Ashcroft, L. (2016). How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why Lord Ashcroft Polls. [online] Lordashcroftpolls.com. Available at: How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday and why [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [53] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [54] Travers, T. (2016). Why did people vote for Brexit? Deep-seated grievances lie behind this vote. [online] British Politics and Policy at LSE. Available at: Why did people vote for Brexit? Deep-seated grievances lie behind this vote [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [55] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [56] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [57] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [58] Goodwin, M. and Heath, O. (2016). Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [59] Vargas-Silva, D. and Rienzo, D. (2017). Migrants in the UK: An Overview Migration Observatory. [online] Migration Observatory. Available at: Migrants in the UK: An Overview [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [60] Scott, S. (2017). Did education count in the EU vote?. [online] Schools Week. Available at: http://schoolsweek.co.uk/did-education-count-in-the-brexit-vote/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017]. [61] Donovan, T. (2017). EU referendum: Most London boroughs vote to remain BBC News. BBC News. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36612916 [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017].

Essay --

My background is a traditional literacy as I started with my research papers with arguments and making a point; and the following years with writing an essay or a term paper and other academic formal papers each week; and finally I have learned the truth that I did not love this activity, but it has taught me how to think in an organized manner. But reading taught me how to be a better writer and the amazing part is that technology contributed a major part to hone my reading and writing skills. I have learned to rely on the Internet for my researches and I knew that I could write creatively, or express my own opinion, in a manner more persuasive than working on it using the traditional literacy methods. Using the computer before was introduced to me as a tool for learning by educational games and computer programs, but as times passed the use of the computer for learning became the available tool for me that have cultivated my love for reading and writing. Blogging is writing which is a fun and great way to encourage creativity without any binding rules for a contemporary student like me that is full of emotions, arguments and ideas that I cannot express in formal academic writing. Integrating new literacy particularly technologically into the classroom is a smart move to implement a positive interaction with much gusto. At first, I thought that this major development would lead to my education’s trend towards reading and writing even less, but the new approach to literacy keeps me happy and comfortable, and even make me do logical and cohesive writing. Blogging is a useful tool for my inability to think critically and write persuasively. I do believe though that there is value in the traditional as well as the new literacy... ...al literacy might change the way we write and who we interact with. 21st century literacy involves not only reading and writing competency, but also involves technological ability to effectively engage in a technologically advanced world. I have learned to analyze text easily as well as analyzing multimedia such as images, sound and video, and understand how the appearance of print affects my understanding of ideas. My writing has become more concise on the Internet as I have the choice of my writing style such as a blog and regularly communicate with my peers. As I see the different effects of social media on all sectors of society, I also see a more disciplined future social media age and literacy activities by more students being aware of critical thinking in the decisions that they make in blogging or performing other forms of online written communication.

Marriage Proposal in Pride and Prejudice Essay -- Pride Prejudice Essa

Marriage Proposal in Pride and Prejudice During "Pride and Prejudice" there are six examples of marriage proposals to consider. Throughout this essay I am going to be commenting on the proposals between Mr Darcy and Lizzie the first time, Mr Collins and Lizzie, Mr Collins and Charlotte as well as Mr Bingley and Jane, Wickham and Lydia and the second proposal of Mr Darcy to Lizzie. Whilst looking at these proposals I will also be analysing the aspects of Love, Money, the relative status and class and the views of others, which might have influence within these proposals. The first proposal I am going to analyse is Mr Darcy to Lizzie. Mr Darcy proposed to Lizzie in Kent at Mr Collins and Charlotte's house when Lizzie was visiting them for a few weeks and Mr Darcy was staying with Lady Catherine De Bourgh, his aunt. Mr Darcy and Lizzie were first acquainted with one another at Netherfield's, which is the neighbouring estate to Longbourne, Lizzie's family house. They met at a ball, which was held by the new lodger Mr Bingley at Netherfield's, and Mr Darcy was there as a friend of Mr Bingley's who hosting the ball for his new arrival to the village. Lizzie and Darcy didn't get on at first as Lizzie thought he was arrogant and unsociable. But Mr Darcy's dislike for Lizzie gradually grew to love for her. It seems that the continuation of this dislike was all a cover for his real feelings as he did not want to love or marry a woman who was beneath him in every state, money and status and especially the views of others would of discouraged him to act upon his feelings for Lizzie as he was thought of as much more superior to Lizzie and her family and at that time it was thought of as wrong or unheard of to mar... ...an to get married over that age. There were also many issues that a woman had to think about before they got married, whether they were in love which wasn't a major issue but it was though of as a bonus if they were. Money and status played a huge role in deciding who to marry, rich men went for women of the same class or a bit higher which made it difficult for woman of a lower class or without much wealth to marry a wealthier or higher classed man. It was thought of as unethical to marry someone beneath you in any state. The influence of others played a big role in those days as people were put under a lot of pressure to get married as soon as possible and to someone higher up the society ladder. As you can see the attitudes to marriage in the 19th Century in which these characters lived in is very different to the attitudes in which we live in today.

Diagnostic Medical Sonography

Amelie Landry Professor Evans English 102-2WA 20 March 2012 Diagnostic Imaging: A Sound Career in Sonography One of the main reasons for choosing a healthcare career in todays society, aside from the basic need for a self sustaining income, is the opportunity to make differences in peoples lives. With the demand for healthcare professionals and alternative medicines on the rise, so is the need for adequately educated trained personnel. Diagnostic Medical Sonography is becoming an increasingly attractive alternative to radiologic procedures such as x-ray and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Accounting for approximately 50,300 jobs in the United States in 2008, compared to the 214,000 jobs held by radiologic technicians, according to the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Sonography is a small yet rapidly growing field. In diagnostic imaging, there are several procedures that aid doctors in the diagnoses of ailments in patients. Radiology, commonly known as x ray, uses radiation to prod uce a picture on a film. Another common imaging method is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which uses giant magnets and radio waves to create an image.However, sonography uses sound waves to generate an image. Through the use of special equipment and computers, diagnostic medical sonographers direct high frequency sound waves into parts of a patient’s body through a wand called a transducer. The transducer sends and receives reflected echoes of sound, much like a dolphin uses â€Å"echo-location† (Merton). The initial responsibility of a sonographer is to explain the procedure to the patient and obtain any additional medical history relevant to the exam.During the exam a sonographer determines which sonogram images are of the best quality and documents any abnormal findings. Elizabeth Jackson, a graduate of diagnostic medical sonography, states â€Å"There is a diverse spectrum of anatomy a sonographer looks at every day which makes it essential that they know what t hey are looking at, what to look for, and what pathology looks like in order to convey what they see to the Radiologist to make an accurate diagnosis. † Interpersonal skills and communications are vital to the success of the diagnostic process.Detailed oriented individuals with biological science and mathematic backgrounds contribute to the field of sonography. The increasing demand for diagnostic imaging and therapeutic technology promises an exceptional outlook for sonographers. The majority of diagnostic medical sonographers are employed by hospitals, but accessibility to low-cost portable ultrasound equipment has led to a growing number of career opportunities at clinics and diagnostic centers (Rising Demand for Diagnostic Medical Sonographers).They now have access to portable units as small as laptop computers making commuting from hospital bedsides to clinical practices easier. Since some sonographers make their own schedules through contracts with clinics, these portabl e units make traveling much more convenient. Less means more in terms of health risks. Unlike some imaging methods, sonography doesn't involve radiation, harmful side effects, nor complications from repeated exposure for both patient and sonographer.Although, due to repetitive movements they are unfortunately prone to musculoskeletal pains. In a report, Murphy and Russo show â€Å"In Figure 1 an illustration of the anatomical sites of discomfort reported by sonographers, showing that higher numbers of respondents experienced discomfort in the shoulder, neck, low back, wrist and hand/fingers. † A sonographer must apply moderate pressure on areas of a patient’s body in order to get an accurate reading with the transducer. These ergonomic issues arise when sonographers are unaware of their body mechanics.Fortunately, there are strategies that influence a better working environment. After evaluating the risks associated with becoming a Registered Diagnostic Medical Sonogra pher some might find the monetary compensation, and the cost associated with obtaining the education comforting. The U. S Bureau of Labor Statistics also suggests, â€Å" the middle fifty percent of sonographers earned between $52,570 and $73,680 in 2008. The earning potential of a sonographer is highly dependent upon their level of education.Post secondary education is a must, therefore program or college tuition can cost anywhere from $4,000 to $30,000 depending upon the level of program chosen (What It Costs). The cost of obtaining a bachelors degree in diagnostic medical sonography equates to about half of an annual salary. Before entering the world of sonography, an individual must first decide which learning path is right for them. The educational journey for a sonographer may vary from one to four years depending upon the certificate or degree completed.The typical educational path takes approximately two years (United States). The American Registry for Diagnostic Medical So nography(ARDMS) recommends that a student attend programs governed by The Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs (CAAHP), considering the accreditation is a requirement for taking national registry exams. Prior to admission into a sonography program, the applicant must at least have a high school diploma or GED.Individual schools have different criteria for entry into their program. For example, Delgado Community College requires one of three things: an associates degree, a bachelors degree or successful completion of their Radiologic Technology program. Hospitals may also offer a vocational program. It’s an acronym jungle for the potential sonographer. Upon successfully completing an accredited sonography program, a student has up to five years to apply and take their national registry exam.Once the applicant has been accepted as a candidate by the American of Registered Diagnostic Medical Sonographers (ARDMS), he or she has only ninety days to actua lly take their exam. A candidate who successfully completes their exam earns the credentials of a Registered Diagnostic Medical Sonographer (RDMS), a Registered Diagnostic Cardiac Sonographer (RDCS), or a Registered Vascular Technologist (RVT). These credentials are dependent upon a graduates specific choice of modality in the field (Society of Diagnostic Medical Sonography).With technological advances leading to improved diagnostic capabilities, learning for a sonographer is perpetual. According to the American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography, continuing education units are required to maintain their registered title. The ARDMS also mandates a minimum of thirty continuing education credits (CE’s) within a three year period from an accredited teaching facility. Failure of the sonographer in completing the CE requirements usually results in a temporary loss of their credentials and a fine assessed in addition to the regular fee of renewal.So when doing research for a specific healthcare career, careful consideration of all variables is a must. With the growing demand for more outpatient diagnostic imaging sites and a alternative innovations, a sonographer can expect a variety of employment opportunities. It may be a toilsome path for some to walk, but the reward in assisting physicians to make a difference in peoples lives may be all it takes to obtain a sound career in diagnostic medical sonography.

Frankenstein Socratic Seminar Reflection

Frankenstein and Pride & Prejudice Socratic Seminar Reflection This Socratic Seminar made me agree much more with Socrates’ beliefs: that extended discussion and continual questioning facilitate the most meaningful learning experiences. It helped me understand the novel much more than I had before because I got to hear about the book from the perspective of others and how they interpreted the story and discussed what they thought were the positive and negative aspects of Frankenstein.I discovered that many others interpreted some meanings of the novel in the same way that I did. Overall, the seminar went very well in both groups, but there were some negative aspects in both seminars. In the Pride & Prejudice seminar, none of the members proposed any questions in response to an already given question (a rebuttal question). This was not the case in the Frankenstein group, which is good.However, although we did ask rebuttal questions, our group failed to use quotes for support an d our discussion was more of a modern conversation between people with a lot of agreeing and disagreeing, but no evidence for backup. I believe that there was only one person who used quotations and cited them to backup his/her point, who was Matt Kane (I hope you didn’t want us to specify names; at least it’s not a bad comment). The Pride and Prejudice group did fulfill the use of quotations, which evened out the differences between the seminars.There were also many great points brought up in our discussion of Frankenstein, which almost everybody agreed with such as how we appointed Victor Frankenstein as the monster of the novel and not the physical monster that he has created. I would not have thought about many of the things with deeper meanings that were discussed in the seminar by myself. Not only was the seminar itself what helped me to further understand the story, but also the pre-seminar tasks (question responses and formation).Each question coincidentally as ked me something that I had thought about at least one time during the reading, and the required quotations helped remind me of when and where I had encountered the question while reading it. The post-seminar paper (this thing) is helping me because it makes me remember what we talked about during the seminar and how it was effective to understanding the story. Being reminded of how effective the seminar actually was, will make me believe more in the beliefs of Socrates, as well as want to do more seminars for different novels in the future.