A short description of 'market based economies' from a Marxist perspective.

Against market/competition/PROFIT driven society (capitalism):

My evaluation of Capitalist, market driven economy:

·         The competitive nature of capitalist society hinders technological progress, as the technology is not made to the best possible degree due to the competition between market leaders for profit, rather than collaboration for the improvement of society. E.g: no product is sold for it’s worth, rather for the maximum profit it can demand without protest. Due to this, Pharmaceutical corporations, rather than sharing their research with other companies, to faster achieve progress in development, will keep their knowledge in order to be the only supplier of a drug or treatment in the future so that they can maximise profits for themselves. Which surely is amoral, yet, in a market/competition based economy, it is the logical decision to restrict resources in order to increase their value, rather than try to attain abundance; which holds no promise of profit (e.g. If a gold mine produces more gold, they do not have more money, just the value of gold is decreased, so by restricting your supply of gold to others gold retains its value and maximum profit can be achieved) .

·         In this sense, corruption and amorality is an inherent part of the economy, as a moral and humanitarian company would be destroyed by those companies that make more profit.

·         This inherent corruption is in turn then applied to society; as due to the suppliers restricting supply to increase their products value, the consumer must compete with one another in order to attain resources for themselves. This is apparent in the ‘Alienation’ that arises between the Bourgeoisie (wealthy) and the proletariat (poor) and the unbalanced distribution of wealth in the population, as we are born into a society whereby hoarding as much one’s self as you can is seen as the only way to progress within society (e.g. the Bourgeoisie).

·         This leads to international scale amorality, with powers such as America etc. feeling the need to invade and dominate other nations for their resources, as competition for profit from resources dictates that nations, corporations and the populace must only share resources for unfair ‘maximum profit’ orientated costs.

·         This even spreads to humanitarian aid, as the investment in poorer countries (who are poor due to the inability of more PROFITABLE countries to fairly share resources) is only done in order to create a perpetual and ever growing debt to the more powerful country.

From this it is apparent that money IS debt and profit IS corruption (corruption being the exploitation of others for personal gain).

Thus, profit kills fair trade.

The Innocence Project: CCRC decisions, was this decision correct?

Did the CCRC make the right decision in refusing Mr. Warner the right to appeal?

Mr. Warner was accused of murdering Mr. and Mrs. Pool on the night between the 21^st and 22^nd July 1989. The elderly couple were found dead in the upstairs of the property, with both bodies having received multiple stab wounds. Forensic evidence showed that Mr. Warner had forcibly entered or left the property through a downstairs dining room window, and there were fingerprints found around the draw in which the murder weapon was taken from. The police were alerted by a neighbour, Mr. Bell, who said that he heard a thud and a voice that sounded like a gasp.

Mr warner's appeal to the CCRC was based upon the new evidence, that there was no forensic evidence to show that Mr. Warner had been upstairs. Another defence proposed was that there was no blood found on Warner's clothes, or in the plumbing of his caravan. Along with these pieces of evidence, the defence suggested that there was a consistency between the murders of Mr. and Mrs. Pool's and the crimes perpetrated by the serial rapist known as 'the Vampire', who was at large at the time. A statement from a taxi driver stating that he picked up a bloodied man at around 11.20.

The CCRC decided to launch a section 19 inquiry, the enquiry found that the lack of forensic evidence to show that he went upstairs could be overturned should they allow the appeal on the basis that the scientist that analysed the DNA evidence said that Mr Warner's jumper showed evidence of being in contact with items recovered from upstairs, as well as an incomplete match with the other DNA evidence found upstairs that was not belonging to either of the Pools, to a degree where it was a 1 in 680 chance that the DNA could be someone unrelated to Mr. Warner. In light of this, it was believed that the central tenet of Mr. Warner's application for appeal was undermined.

The accusation included in the appeal, that the forensic evidence was perhaps contaminated, thus making the original trial 'unsafe', was dismissed by Dr. Hutchinson, who believed that there was no evidence to show that the blue pullover belonging to Mr. Warner could've been contaminated during the trial. This left Mr. Warner's appeal no grounds with which to challenge the integrity of the initial trial.

In light of this, the CCRC made the correct decision in refusing Mr. Warner the right to appeal, as his defence, no longer had a reason to claim the trial unsafe, which is required to overturn the verdict.

Law revision.

1. The supreme court is the highest court in the UK.

2. Directors of public prosecution hire the prosecutors in criminal cases.

3. The Crown Courts hear:
- indictable cases
- appeals
- tribunals

4. Magistrates Courts are responsible for:
- summary justice (non-indictable cases)
- either way cases
- committal hearings
- bail applications

5. Criminal offences: committed against the person or the state.

   - as opposed to -

Civil cases: a dispute between two parties.

6. Statute law: enacted by parliament (Common law is set by a judge).

7. Prejudice: judging someone before any evidence is heard. (not good).

Contempt: compromising the integrity of a case and/or denying someone a fair trial.

8. A case becomes legally active when 'it is likely there will be a trial' (This is a blurred definition, practically speaking it is active once someone is charged.)

9. After an arrest, only neutral facts can be reported about the case.

10. When a case is in Magistrates Court we can only report:
- Name age etc (Pos. I.D.)
- the Charge
- whether bail was requested and whether it was granted (but not why)
- Their plead.

The rest will be added later. Need to revise for Philosophy.

journalism now.. but before 'now' because it would be better for it to be proof read...

The Daily Telegraph.

The Daily Telegraph’s demographic is hardly a secret; old, wealthy, Conservatives and usually middle upper class at that. Floating around in the ABC1’s has no doubt shaped the way in which The Daily Telegraph is written, with today’s (17^th Nov) front pages demonstrating the difference between the paper and it’s competitors. Whilst other papers covered the ‘bank crisis’ as ‘Jobless generation’ (The Times) and ‘Migrants grab 12,000 jobs a month’ (Daily Express), The Daily Telegraph looks upon the story from a purely observational standpoint, speaking of ‘growth forecasts’ and other such things, not once mentioning the effects on today’s youth, or the effect of immigration. This is presumably due to the fact that the readership of The Daily Telegraph will not be feeling the pinch of ‘the cuts’, merely observing them from the lofty heights of grandeur and wealth.

Another big story, that has been hit hard by the tabloids today, is the ignorance of Sepp Blatter (the figurehead of FIFA), which brings me to my second point that defines The Daily Telegraph for me: the lack of a sport’s back page. Not only this, the well-hidden 20-page pull out even manages to place football on the 8^th page, after straight Rugby Union (and no mention of Rugby League), another stereotype of the privately educated upper middle classes. Once you have found the football pages, you will not find a league table or a record of results, but a brief summary of the financial and legal troubles found outside of the game. It would be unfair to suggest however that any of the sports covered were done from the perspective of a fan of the game, with not one result (apart from the odd gaze back into the ‘good old days’), or, in fact, any record of anyone actually playing the sports (the exeption being the praise of Federer’s victories at the age of 30 which is a cause of constant reference. But even then, the story is a biography rather than coverage of the sport.). To me it seems obvious that these stories have been chosen for their retrospective viewpoint or for their relevance to business.

The Telegraph tells the news in facts and figures that fit the thinking of hard-nosed businessmen and other such stereotypes of the demographic. This is done by expressing, mostly, the financial and business sides of a story for those who may not understand contemporary references to mass culture or want to read about the way in which people are effected by stories, instead looking at what the facts and figures can tell us, with a business-like efficiency that makes for good journalism but doesn’t offer anything for the less-educated to grasp onto. To summarise, The Daily Telegraph reports stories that are opposite to how their readership likes their rooms: hard and cold.

With regards to Libel.

To begin our foray into the depths of Libel, we must first look at what is required of the claimant in order for them to mount such a malicious attack upon another: (use of the colon perfected in precision english) the claimant must prove that whatever material they have taken offence to is 'defamatory' towards them; as in lowering their reputation: they must then prove, in a Civil court, that the material is understood to be referring to the claimant 'beyond reasonable doubt'; the third and final proof required is that of a third person's involvement, e.g: a readership.

Now we have established that there isn't much to prove in order to take someone to court over Libel, I will take us back to the beginning of the lecture in which I was given this information (although I had read the book, but for storytelling purposes this is easier and more interesting):

-Zoning in-
We begin with Chris Horrie holding, as is quite regular in these situations, The Sun newspaper; Chris is laughing aloud as we disentangle the reason why the cabinet women were being so immorally attacked by Mary Portas (insufferable orange-haired witch from humbly-named television programmes such as 'Mary Queen of Shops' and nothing else of any more prestige than that), Emily Ashton (y'know that famous woman from... The Sun.) and The Sun's Fashion Editor: Toni Jones. The reason is surprisingly simple, even though the article was especially defaming, it is all very legal.

But why? (I hear nobody cry, due to the form of media I am using) The reason is, hauling us back from the tangent of The Sun's witless abuse of politicians, 'mere abuse': the first instance of legal jargon to be spoken of in the lecture, and for good reason: mere abuse is a great defence against Libel claims, as, if the defendant can prove that the insults are matters of opinion and they are the truthful opinion of the defendant (this is under the cover of the 'Fair Comment' defence), then the defendant has the right to print their own opinion.

The lecture then moved onto a more formal note, defining Libel as what it is; a dispute between two parties over reputation, which then required a proper definition of what a person can claim of their reputation, which is: a person has the reputation to which they are entitled [through the opinions of others]: not what said person thinks their reputation is.

This definition, whilst seeming to aid the defendant, is balanced by the fact that defamation only has to TEND (this is how it was written in my notes) to damage reputation, meaning that the claimant must only prove, on the balance of probability, that the person's reputation COULD (once again, how my notes were written) be damaged.

Also, accusing someone of a crime is a definite act of libel, unless they are already proven guilty in a British Court of Law, and even then a summary of the defence must be given in the interests of fairness.

To be Libel; the defamation must be in a permanent form, hence why it is such a threat to journalists. These definitions of the fine points of Libel can be summarised by the convenient addition:

Identification + Publication + Defamation = Libel (handy).

With this handy summary of Libel, I will bid you Adieu.