Inspire Essay Competition 2017 (emagazine) by King's High Warwick

INSPIRE ESSAY COMPETITION 2017

CONTENTS FOREWORD

YEAR 9 PRIZE-WINNING ENTRIES

Allergy oral immunotherapy: A life saver or a life sentence? Annabel Husband (First Prize)

Should school start later in order to improve academic performance and wellbeing of teenagers? Connie Hodge (Second Prize)

Humanimal medicine: One medicine for people and animals Imogen Griffin (Third Prize)

YEAR 8 PRIZE-WINNING ENTRIES

Should young people have the right to vote for their futures? Maya Sanghera (First Prize)

If aspirin and cannabis both come from natural sources, what makes one illegal? Isabel Kupshik (Second Prize)

Fashion: friend or foe for the teenager? Anna Brown (Joint Third Prize)

Is there enough discipline in prisons in the UK? Emily Scanlon (Joint Third Prize)

YEAR 7 PRIZE-WINNING ENTRIES

How has social media changed the world? Mini Willson (First Prize)

What do we learn from fantasy stories? Sabrina Cruz (Second Prize)

Painkillers: do people pay more for a brand name and why? Hannah Mason (Third Prize)

HIGHLY COMMENDED ENTRIES

Is it better to raise a child bilingual or monolingual? Leonie Howells (Year 9)

Following the increase in the youth vote in the general election, should the voting age be lowered to 16? Anusha Goodman (Year 9)

Women breaking the rules: A comparison of strong women throughout British History Laura Bawden (Year 9)

Why does humanity have such a wide range of languages? Martha Feasey (Year 9)

Will artificial intelligence make us less intelligent? Elizabeth Pocknell (Year 9)

Would women have gained the vote without the Suffragette Movement? Maud Beidas (Year 8)

Are driverless cars the future? Catherine Reynolds (Year 8)

Could humans survive on Mars? Charlotte Syson (Year 7)

What would the world be like without humans? Jessica Strens (Year 7)

What effect do the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have on the levels of acidity in the ocean? Anne Mynors (Year 7)

What does it take to become an Olympic athlete? Grace-Isabella Lloyd (Year 7)

Can fashion change the world? Freya Dhillon (Year 7)

COMMENDED ENTRIES

Should military service in South Korea remain mandatory? Genevieve Shrimpton (Year 9)

Should capital punishment be reintroduced in Britain? Grace Harvey (Year 9)

How and why do volcanoes form on destructive subduction plate margins and why have they formed in a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Ring of Fireâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; around the Pacific Plate? Emily Button (Year 9)

How and why should puppy trafficking be stopped? Fiona Boyle (Year 9)

Is the way in which politicians influence us propaganda or an acceptable strategy? Emilie Linfoot (Year 8)

102

Does Shakespeare deserve the amount of attention he receives in the English Literature Curriculum? Annabella Pagni (Year 8)

105

Is it better to live now or in the 1950s? Eowyn Charman (Year 7)

108

The Suffragettes and why every woman should vote Maya Joshi (Year 7)

111

Are the Olympics still fit for purpose? Isabella Jones (Year 7)

114

Are women equal to men and how does this compare to 100 years ago? Emma Dobson (Year 7)

118

FOREWORD I am sure that you will agree that the range of topics explored and the quality of essays in this booklet is remarkable. It reflects the exceptional talent, the intellectual curiosity, and the independence of thinking of the girls at Kingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s High. It has been an enormous pleasure to have read each of these fascinating entries and, equally, an enormous challenge to categorise them into winning, highly commended and commended entries. Every girl who submitted an essay should be extremely proud of her achievement. It is very clear that in researching and writing on a topic of their interest, the girls, as they always do, rose to the challenge and enjoyed the independence of thought and intellectual curiosity that such work fosters. I have learned a great deal about topics as diverse as immunotherapy, bilingualism, the neuroscience of sleep, social media, the history of womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rights and military service on the Korean peninsula. As part of The Inspire Programme, girls have discussed philosophy and current affairs with Professor AC Grayling, participated in parliamentary-style debates with the boys at Warwick School, and visited Oxford for a tour of Keble College and the Raphael exhibition at the Ashmolean Museum. We have lots more exciting events planned for next term to extend and enrich the academic experience of the girls beyond the classroom. The aim of the Inspire Programme is, quite simply, to promote the first aim of the school: scholarship. I am sure that you will agree that the essays collated here are superb examples of this. I am also sure that you will enjoy reading them as much as I did.

Dr SJ Burley Deputy Head (Academic)

YEAR 9 PRIZE-WINNING ENTRIES

YEAR 9

Allergy oral immunotherapy: A life saver or a life sentence? Annabel Husband Year 9 – First Prize

“I

mmunology is the study of the immune system” (as defined by the British Society for Immunology). It is, without doubt, an extremely important area of medicine (and biology) that has led to revolutionary methods of prevention for many human

diseases, for example, the development of all vaccinations.

There is no doubt that such

treatments are a staple part of modern medicine, and a real “life saver”, as millions of people would have died without such vaccinations. The immune system is extremely complicated and when one part of the system is changed or disturbed (commonly known as “immune system dysfunction”) it can cause serious problems that can be fatal. The five main disorders (as classified by the British Society for Immunology) that can occur as a result of immune system dysfunction are immunodeficiency disorders, autoimmune diseases, allergies, asthma and cancer. Allergies are issues with the immune system being hypersensitive, meaning that the immune system will defend the body against foreign substances which are harmless – causing it to damage the body that it is designed to protect. Allergies can occur to any substance (in theory) but most commonly to peanuts, pollen and dust. When allergens enter the body the immune system releases histamines which attack the allergen, and the body itself, leading to the symptoms that indicate an allergy. Common symptoms of allergic reactions, as stated by the NHS, are “sneezing; a runny or blocked nose; red, itchy, watery eyes; wheezing and coughing; a red, itchy rash; worsening of asthma or eczema symptoms”. However, more severe allergic reactions can cause anaphylactic shock – which is very severe and can lead to death. As allergic reactions only occur upon contact (digestion) of/with an allergen, people with life-threatening allergies attempt to avoid their allergen for the entirety of their life. This is undoubtedly a “life-sentence” for the patient as they have no choice in the matter – if they don’t avoid their allergen, it is likely they will have a severe allergic reaction that could, in some cases, result in death.

The immune system can be manipulated to our advantage through immunotherapy. This is defined, by MedicineNet.Com, as “Treatment to stimulate or restore the ability of the immune (defence) system to fight infection and disease.” The first evidence we have of immunotherapy being considered or used as a treatment is by William Coley (during the 19th century) to treat cancer. Immunotherapy is now commonly used to treat cancer by assisting the body in its fight to destroy the cancerous cells and to stop the cancerous cells spreading to other parts of the body. These techniques have saved millions of lives, being a real “life saver” for cancer patients, and are undoubtedly essential to modern medicine. Immunotherapy can be administered in a variety of different methods, depending on the immune system dysfunction that is being treated. However, to treat allergies (an issue that affects over 20% of the population of the UK, according to Allergy UK) especially those with very serious allergies (that have previously experienced anaphylaxis) it has been found that Oral Immunotherapy (OIT) is the most successful method. OIT involves exposing the immune system to minute (almost undetectable) amounts of the allergen and then gradually exposing the immune system to larger doses - by digesting the allergen. Theoretically, immunotherapy increases the tolerance of the immune system so that the immune system transfers from being sensitized (allergic) to the allergen, to becoming desensitized (tolerant) of the allergen. Hopefully, this allows a large amount of the allergen to be ingested without causing a severe allergic reaction. This grants the patient a much improved quality of life and therefore is a real “life saver” as there is a greatly reduced future risk of anaphylaxis. Although desensitization has been practised for over 100 years (with our earliest written data records dating from 1911: a clinical trial on desensitization for grass allergies by Leonard Noon and John Freeman; Lancet. 1911; 4:1572), OIT is a relatively new concept with the longest clinical trial on-going for 10 years. Although 10 years may seem to be a long time, OIT is administered during childhood and, it is currently believed that it must be continued for the entirety of the patient’s life. The effects of OIT for a patient’s whole lifetime are not yet understood. However, it is known that ingestion of the protein (allergen) can cease for one month without having an adverse impact on the patient’s tolerance for that allergen (as shown in the New England Journal of Medicine: N Engl J Med 2012; 367:233-243). It is, however, believed that abstaining for a period of time longer than this would lead to continued re-sensitization and eventually the effects of desensitization would stop completely.

Several allergists (Gaffin, Israel and Phitapanakul from the department of medicine in the Boston’s Children’s Hospital) have also raised concerns that complacency among patients undertaking OIT can lead to them exposing themselves to their allergens more often than they would have done if they hadn’t started OIT. Although, the allergen has a decreased effect on the person, this is still undesirable as many OIT patients don’t carry any form of adrenaline (the medication given to reverse the effects of anaphylactic shock) meaning that if the worst should happen, these people are no longer prepared. This could lead to the accidental death of these patients (due to a lack of vigilance) causing the OIT treatment to have been a literal “death sentence” rather than a “life saver”. Stern and Bingemann proved that there is a link between OIT and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). EoE is an immune response to certain allergens which causes a large number of white blood cells to accumulate in the oesophagus – this can block or cause damage to the oesophagus. EoE is known to cause malnutrition, abdominal or/and chest pain, nausea and vomiting, difficulty swallowing and food becoming stuck in the oesophagus. Thus, a patient could become desensitized to their allergen and then develop EoE which would affect their lives constantly – just like their allergy initially did, or even worse. Although it is unlikely that EoE could kill the patient the EoE is likely to lead to a greatly decreased quality of life, for which there is no current treatment. This could, perhaps, lead to a situation where the treatment that was intended to “save” the patient’s life actually decreased their quality of life, thus becoming more of a “lifesentence”. However, a variety of allergists (including Pamela Ewan, Andrew Clark and Katherine Anagnostou) believe that OIT is a revolutionary new treatment that can dramatically increase a patient’s quality of life: in a clinical study in Cambridge (published in volume 383, number 9925 of the Lancet), 91% of participants (after the second stage of treatment) voted that their quality of life had increased as a direct result of the treatment. However, the results of this study did not address how participants felt about the prospect of life-long consumption of the allergen, the costs associated with its’ purchase or long- term side effects (eg EoE). In an OIT study (using egg protein) patients showed long-term desensitization even after they had stopped treatment (this was published in the New England Medicine Journal: 10.1056/NEJMoa1200435). Due to the promise shown by OIT, some allergists are trialling OIT – multi allergen oral immunotherapy. This means that multiple allergies can be treated at once - this is very experimental but is showing early promise (information on this clinical study was published on Bio Med Central: 10.1186/1710-1492-10-1). 9

A major issue with OIT is the lack of knowledge around its long-term effects as currently patients are having to consume the allergen every day to maintain their tolerance. Patients have to pay for this privately (treatment is not currently available on the NHS) and figures (from the OIT101 website) suggest that this could cost patients around $5500 per year. Although this may be a fee worth paying, every day dosing is a lifelong commitment and would need to be continued no matter what the patient’s circumstance. The irony in this is that the lifelong commitment to a life-saving treatment could be seen as a “life-sentence”. For unless the treatment is taken for the entirety of the patient’s life, the treatment becomes useless. It seems that here the concepts of a life-sentence and a life saver are inextricably linked: the patient cannot have the life-saving treatment without committing to the life-sentence of the treatment, and associated cost, for the entirety of the patient’s life. This leads to the conclusion that OIT is not perfect but is it really so different to any other life-saving drug (for example, insulin for a type 2 diabetic)? OIT is used to prevent allergic reactions which can be life-threatening but there is an alternative without the potential impact of EoE: strict avoidance. Eventually, the choice about whether to embark on OIT remains up to the patient. Hopefully, one day there will be a variety of alternatives but at the moment patients face the choice of OIT or strict avoidance. Both with their own risks, what would you choose?

Should schools start later in order to enhance academic performance and wellbeing of teenagers? Connie Hodge Year 9 – Second Prize

“W

AKE UP CONNIE!” This is how most school days will start for teenagers in millions of households across the world. I have always wondered why it has become so much harder for me to wake up in the mornings. We all know

how important sleep is good for our bodies and minds. The Journal of Neuroscience reported that in mice prolonged lack of sleep led to 25% of brain cells dying. But what about humans? Dr Paul Kelley at the Sleep and Circadian Neuroscience Institute tells us that sleep deprivation has had many effects on us, including diabetes, depression, obesity and an impaired immune system. These consequences from sleep deficiency can have a long lasting effect and are all detrimental to our physical and mental health. Lack of sleep causes our mental and emotional processing to be less efficient, according to research by Colin Espie, the Professor of Sleep Medicine at Oxford University. This view is supported by Professor Adrian Owen who claims that when we are tired there is much less activity in the frontal and parietal lobes – areas that are crucial for decision making, problem solving and memory. And what about the effect of lack of sleep on young people? Mary Carskadon at Stanford University has looked at this issue specifically in teenagers and highlights a number of problems they may face. Struggling to wake up is an issue as it can lead teenagers to be late, or even miss, school. Deprivation of sleep often leave teens feeling sad and moody and they lack initiative and motivation. This can be a problem in the classroom as their attitude to learning is impaired. Teenagers without enough sleep also obtain poor grades as they are unable to stay awake in class or at home. Young people could turn to drugs whilst they feel sleepy in order to get an arousing sensation. These emotional consequences from lack of sleep and the effect they can have in a school environment are supported by Chad Minnich from Boston College, whose research into the impact of sleep on academic performance shows that internationally, on average, children who sleep more achieve higher in Mathematics, reading and science.

So, experts clearly agree upon the importance of sleep for all of us, and young people especially, but some have gone even further to suggest that the way we structure the timing of our school day is disadvantaging and even damaging teenagers’ mental and physical wellbeing. Research shows that during puberty sleep is important for teenagers as, whilst they are asleep, they produce a hormone essential for their growth spurt. Consequently, teenagers need more sleep than adults and children, however they get less than both. Our minds and bodies operate differently throughout the day compared to at night. One of the biggest changes that occurs at night time is melatonin is produced, which is a hormone which helps us to sleep. When teenagers were studied in a sleep laboratory, it was shown that teenagers only start to produce melatonin at 1am. This is a lot later than the average adult, whose melatonin starts to be produced at 10pm. It is possible that the upheaval of hormones during puberty can be responsible for melatonin being released later. Research by Dr Paul Kelley at Oxford University suggests that teenagers can’t control their inability to get out of bed in the morning. He claims it is not as simple as persuading teenagers to go to bed earlier: “The body’s natural rhythm is controlled by a particular kind of light,” says Kelley. “The eye doesn’t just contain rods and cones: it contains cells that then report to the SCN [suprachiasmatic nuclei], in the hypothalamus.” This part of the brain controls our circadian rhythms (sleep cycle) over a 24-hour cycle. “It’s the light that controls it. It’s like saying: ‘Why can’t you control your heartbeat?’” A pilot study was carried out at Monkseaton High School in 2010 in order to see the effects of starting school later. The study was led by Dr Paul Kelley who was the headmaster at the time, but now works as a research associate at Oxford University’s Sleep and Circadian Neuroscience Institute. After a decade of researching all the available evidence, Kelley decided to push the start of the school day back to 10:00am.

According to Kelley, there were lots of noticeable

consequences, “There were very positive outcomes, both academic and in terms of health. Academic results went up, illness down and the atmosphere in school changed. The students were not only much nicer to each other; they were much nicer to teachers. It was bliss.” Dr Paul Kelley tells us about how positive the atmosphere of the school became and how everybody was more pleasant to each other in the school environment. This supports the research by Mary Carskadon who said sleep deprivation causes teenagers to be sad and moody; therefore, with more sleep, teenagers are more considerate towards each other. Evidence shows that not only did starting school later have a dramatic effect on the school environment, it also had an effect on the academic performance of the students there: GCSE 12

results went up from 34% of pupils scoring five A*-C grades including English and Maths to 53%. The same results went up even more sharply for disadvantaged students from 12% achieving five A*-C with English and Maths to 42%. “It’s hugely more effective as an educational intervention in terms of raising achievement and health than any alternative,” said Dr Kelley. “I should have done it sooner. Nothing I had ever done in all my teaching made such a difference.” However, Monkseaton is just one school, and Paul Kelley one passionate advocate for this research. In my view, in order to obtain more reliable evidence, many more schools must participate in a similar study so that an anomalous result could be avoided. A randomised trial is necessary. For example, in a boarding school the curfew of 9pm for year 9 students would mean that all students would get a good night’s sleep, especially because electronic devices are removed from students an hour before bedtime (some researchers believe that the later release of melatonin in teenagers is due to the fact they stay up late using modern technology containing bright lights which stimulates the brain.) On the other hand, in a school such as Warwick or King’s High, where a number of students participate in sport before school, a 10am start will have little impact because they have to wake up early anyway. As a result of Kelley’s pilot study, it was recognised that there could be enormous benefits for teenagers in starting school at a later time and in 2014 an ambitious project called Teensleep was planned. It was hailed a ‘ground breaking experiment’ and was instigated by Oxford University. Over 30,000 GCSE pupils from 100 different school were to be involved. As I researched with anticipation into this new study, I found it extremely difficult to unearth any further details and my email to the Teensleep team at the Nuffield Foundation went unanswered. Interestingly, a 2017 article describes how the study has had to be ‘redesigned’ due to the difficulties of randomising start times of 100 schools. In my view, although the article is not explicit, these difficulties might be the practical problems of having years 10 and 11 on a different timescale to other year groups. Additionally, schools may have to finish an hour later in the evening in order to meet legal requirements and cover the curriculum. It might be expensive as staff would be needed in school for a longer day. The new study, to my mind, is much less innovative and much more limited: teachers are to deliver sleep education as part of PSHE. Yet it appears that sleep and sleep deprivation are still a topic of interest. Currently, for example, Professor Owen is leading a study where a team of people have designed cognitive tests online for people all over the world to participate in. He hopes that if they get enough results, he will be able to see what is the optimum amount of hours of sleep needed for our brains to work effectively. Thus it is not that the research or the theory about sleep deprived teens is invalid, but 13

that the further research needed may be impractical to carry out; whether there will be any funds to support a study of schools starting later is doubtful, in my view. To conclude, I think that starting school later to improve the academic performance and wellbeing of teenagers would probably be effective. However, a school day which goes on later and the expense potentially involved could have many more detrimental effects.

Humanimal medicine: One medicine for people and animals Imogen Griffin Year 9 –Third Prize

nimals are a lot like people. They can think, feel and show emotion, and for some people their relationships with animals are the most important part of their life. But if animals are like us in the good times, they can also share some of our weaknesses; they can get

sick, often with the same diseases as us - like infections, arthritis and cancer. With all these similarities, shouldn't human medicine and veterinary medicine be more similar? Perhaps doctors could learn from vets and vice versa. Perhaps we would all, people and animals, be better off with just one medicine. One reason to think about a joint approach to medicine for people and animals is that we humans have a responsibility to look after animals, just as we do each other. This idea is very old: the Book of Exodus makes it clear that animals (and the whole of the natural world) are under man’s care. Some people argue that animals do not have rights; but humans have a sense of morality, so they have rights, and with those rights come responsibilities, including looking after animals. So we have a responsibility to look after the human community and a similar responsibility to look after animals - in principle, it is the same obligation. A second, and more pressing, reason to think about ‘humanimal’ medicine is the benefits that people and animals could gain from it. An obvious example is the control of zoonotic diseases, in which infections are passed between animals and humans. The term ‘zoonosis’ was coined by German doctor Rudolf Virchow in the late 19th century who said “... between animal and human medicine there are no dividing lines – nor should there be”. In his time, the Plague was the most important zoonosis. In 1918, the Spanish influenza pandemic affected birds, animals and humans, killing 50 to 100 million people, which at the time was about two or three percent of the world’s population. In modern times we have seen HIV transmitted from chimpanzees to people, avian influenza threatening a world epidemic, and ebola from apes. The story of ebola is especially instructive. In a Washington Post article in 2003 about the rapid loss of chimpanzees and gorillas in West Africa due to ebola haemorrhagic fever, the vet Dr William Karesh was quoted as saying: 15

“Human or livestock or wildlife health can't be discussed in isolation anymore. There is just one health. And the solutions require everyone working together on all the different levels.” This is the first reference I can find to ‘one health’. Sadly, the apes did not receive any treatment, and the disease spread to people in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Over eleven thousand people died (including 8% of Liberia’s doctors and nurses), the cost of the international response was US$3.6bn (to December 2015), and the World Bank estimates that these three poor countries lost US$2.2bn of their gross domestic product in 2015 alone. The ultimately successful control of ebola was based on judicious quarantine; new drugs are now being developed - in animals of course. One can speculate how many fewer people would have died and how much cheaper it would have been to have controlled the outbreak in the apes when it first appeared. However, the potential benefits of humanimal medicine go far beyond zoonoses. We know that human and animal diseases depend on similar cellular mechanisms. Indeed, modern cellular biology and genetics show us that animals and people are more similar than they are different. Consequently, the treatments are often similar or even the same. Avian influenza was treated with neuraminidase inhibitors, drugs which work equally well in people and animals. A cat which is run over by a car and has a fractured pelvis can be treated by exactly the same method of external fixation as a person with a similar injury. The technology of hip replacement developed for humans with arthritis, can be just as successful in treating a labrador with worn out hips due to congenital deformity. Osteosarcoma, or bone cancer, in a dog looks exactly the same under the microscope as a similar tumour from a person; they respond similarly to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and treatment protocols are often the same. With so many similarities, why separate vets and doctors in their training, research and clinical practice? Osteosarcoma in dogs is a great example of how working together could help us all. At the moment, research into treatments for cancer in people often depends on experiments in mice, but they are not as similar to humans as larger primates. For example, telomerase reactivation (an enzyme which cuts DNA) seems to trigger these cancers in dogs and people, but not mice, and offers a target for a new drug treatment. But research in experimental models using dogs and primates is very expensive indeed and morally questionable for many people. And these models are artificially induced cancers which often behave differently to naturally occurring disease. Surely, we would be better to perform our research in animals (like pet dogs) who spontaneously develop cancer. In this way, animals would have faster access to clinical innovations and potential human treatments could be assessed more cheaply ahead of clinical trials. This approach would also lower the regulatory barriers between human and veterinary medicine. Noel Fitzpatrick, Channel 4’s Supervet, gave a lecture recently in which he 16

described a man and his spaniel having the same problem of severe vertebral disc disease. The man had been assessed as “beyond surgery” by his doctor. Fitzpatrick used an innovative surgical procedure to cure the dog, but was frustrated that doctors did not have the skills or technology to apply the same procedure to the owner and that he as a vet was not allowed to. So what progress has been made in medical and veterinary collaboration since Karesh’s notion of ‘one health’? In 2005, the BMJ (British Medical Journal) and the Veterinary Record collaborated to publish joint issues on the theme of ‘one medicine’. In 2007, the One Health Commission was founded in the USA and released a document with twelve recommendations in 2008 (ref. 38). Since 2008 the EU has promoted a one health approach in several strategy documents (ref. 42). In 2015, the Veterinary Record published a review article of progress in the ten years since their joint issue. The strong impression from all of these documents is a very well meaning idea about collaboration between human and animal medicine. But the definition of one health has become so broad as to be almost meaningless: some think this is good because they can shape it as whatever is needed for their latest grant proposal; others argue that this slows down progress to real change. And the emphasis has become heavily biased toward the risks posed by animal reservoirs of zoonoses and how to protect humans from these. It is hard to see how animals will benefit from such an approach. Finally, there is very little evidence of doctors and vets really working together - indeed many people suggest that one health has become a primarily veterinary field of which the medical fraternity is rather suspicious. Still, human doctors and vets are trained separately, do research and development separately, are regulated separately and practise separately with almost no knowledge of each others’ skills, let alone sharing of ideas. The evidence suggests that progress is painfully slow! In conclusion, it seems to me that we need a fresh direction. I would like to see a new focus on clinical research and treatments that can directly benefit both humans and animals. I would like to see vets and doctors training together and then working together in combined hospitals that treat both people and animals. Of course there will be problems to be overcome: regulations, health and safety, and people’s attitudes. But the benefits could be enormous in terms of innovation, reduced costs for research, and rapid implementation of new ideas for both humans and animals. The term ‘humanimal medicine’, which I first heard from Professor Fitzpatrick, seems to capture this perfectly. If I had to be in hospital, I am certain that my recovery would be faster, and more fun, if I was surrounded by people and animals all getting better together.

YEAR 8 PRIZE-WINNING ENTRIES

Should young people have the right to vote for their futures? Maya Sanghera Year 8 – First Prize

hould we lower the voting age? This is one of many questions people have been debating after this year’s general election. There are many split opinions on this subject. Many schools, including King’s High, ran their own mock general elections where pupils from

years 7 to 13 were able to have their say on which party they think would be the best for running the country. An increasing number of school children are becoming engaged in politics and are exposed to political issues as these are increasingly discussed on social media. The mock elections demonstrated that there is a real appetite amongst young people for informed political debate. Elections determine the future of this country and all citizens have to live with the consequences. Currently, only citizens over the age of 18 have the right to vote. At the age of 16 you can fight for your county so why shouldn’t you be able to decide which government you’re fighting for? Other things that you can do at 16 include working full time and paying taxes. If young people can contribute so much to our society, why are they not allowed to vote? Is this unfair? Both the EU referendum and the general election showed a difference in opinion between age demographics. The 2017 general election had the largest voting turnout in 25 years with 68% of the public voting. 72% of 18-24 year olds voted of which 60% voted Labour resulting in the increase of Labour’s young vote by 20%. 69% of over 70s voted Conservative showing that different generations have different ideas of how Britain should be governed. The turnout figures clearly demonstrate that young people in these age groups have developed a real interest in the country’s future and want to voice their opinion on the way that it is run. In the Brexit referendum 27% of young people voted leave, whereas 73% voted to remain. There were numerous reasons why a majority of young people voted remain. The younger generation views Britain’s membership of the European Union (EU) as a positive. They saw the freedom to live and work in the EU as an opportunity to open up their prospects; the younger generation like the thought of a more open and diverse society. In contrast, 40% of citizens aged 65+ voted to remain whereas the other 60% voted to leave the EU. In the leave campaign, there was much focus on the continued cost of membership of the EU. Most over 65 year olds are retired and are concerned to protect their 19

wealth; they may see staying in the EU as too expensive and the benefits of staying in the EU as not relevant to their specific personal needs. Hence, different age groups have different priorities that may affect the way they vote. The views of older people are represented fully because they are all entitled to vote but those of younger people are only partially represented because 16 and 17 year olds are not allowed to vote. I think that in the Brexit referendum people aged 16-17 should have been able to have their say in what they wanted this country’s future to look like. This is because people aged 18-24 and the even younger generations will have to live with the consequences of Brexit for around 69 years, whereas people aged 65+ only have to live with the unpredictable effects of Brexit for an average of about 16 years. Young people aged 16 and 17 will have to live with the effects for over 70 years. As seen from the figures above, most 18-24 year olds voted to remain in the EU but the older generations went against this and effectively decided the future of this country for all of us. If 16-17 year olds had the chance to vote the result would have been different and it is most likely that we would still be part of the EU. Writer for The Times, Clare Foges, argues that we should put the voting age up to 21 because under 21s are not mature enough to vote; she also implies that the votes of under 21 year olds are less important because they do not have the necessary life experience to make informed decisions and are too immature to vote. ‘Young people posted selfies taken after the event and wore stickers saying “I voted!” Should they get lollipops too?’ Does this demonstrate immaturity or does it show enthusiasm and excitement? In the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, 16 and 17 year olds were entitled to vote. An ICM survey showed that turnout amongst this group was 75% compared with 54% for the rest of the Scottish population. It shows that young people realise how important voting and democracy is and by taking selfies wearing stickers and posting them on social media they end up informing and inspiring others to vote too. There are over 1.5 million 16 and 17 year olds in the UK who are passionate about politics and the world they live in; many might even have more qualifications than people older than themselves who have the right to vote. I think that Clare Foges argument that young peoples’ votes are not as important is an unacceptable thing to say. I believe that in a democracy no person’s vote should be more important than another’s especially because of their age. In some parts of Europe including Bosnia 16 and 17 year olds with jobs can vote but I disagree with this. To me this is encouraging them to leave school earlier. Many other countries such as Austria, Scotland, Brazil and Ecuador took the decision to allow their 16 and 17 year olds to

vote and in all of these countries this process is viewed as successful and the decision has not been reversed in any instance. As there are already so many young people interested in politics I think that the government should bring in a new position, perhaps a government minister specifically for young people. I think that this minister should help even more young people understand and participate in political issues at the moment. The minister should travel around the country talking to school children and answering their questions on politics. We already have MPs visiting schools and doing this but many are often busy and do not always want to. This is where a minister would come in. To me this minister would be a very important and respected member of government as in my opinion it is extremely important to educate the adults of the future on the way the country is run. It is plainly obvious that this would benefit Britain by making it a stronger country in the future. The day before the Brexit referendum the number one Google search was, ‘What is the European Union?’ This is a prime example that shows us just how many adults of today would have benefited with a Young Person’s Minister when they were in school or university. We should be educating the young and informing children about what is happening in the world. Many young people can also be influenced by their parents in politics; again, if we were educating them about it from a younger age then these people would grow up to have their own opinions as they would be able to develop them themselves. Finally, I think that the government should definitely consider letting 16 and 17 year olds vote. Already there have been many protests including not just people from this age group but from a wider range of age groups that have decided that it is time we should let our future generation have the right to vote. It is extremely important to build a strong and informed nation that Britain’s future adults can thrive in, knowing that they have helped to shape the country from a young age. Engaging 16 year olds in politics encourages them to develop a healthy appetite for involvement in democracy for the rest of their lives.

If aspirin and cannabis both come from natural sources, what makes one illegal? Isabel Kupshik Year 8 – Second Prize

o answer the question ‘If cannabis and aspirin both come from natural sources, why is one illegal?’, I will explore the history of plants as medicines, how these plants are developed , tested and how we can make sure that the medicines we use are safe. In this

essay, I will outline the journey of my understanding from medicinal plants to the certified drugs we are prescribed today. In ancient times, people would rely on gods to heal them and believed that diseases were a punishment from the gods. Later, Greek doctors started to dissect bodies, and this helped them to understand how the body works, and how diseases affected our organs. Hippocrates, a Greek philosopher, thought that disease was caused by the environment. He stated that if an illness had natural causes, there may be natural cures. Hippocrates wrote these observations down in medical books called the ‘Hippocratic Collection’. Sage, lavender, willow bark and olive leaf were examples of natural plants used as medicines. Many cultures all over the world have used plants as medicines. They used the roots, leaves, fruits, flowers and sometimes even the whole plant. The plant cannabis (cannabis sativa) has been used for its medicinal properties since 4000BC. Cannabis has been known as a pain reliever for centuries. In fact, cannabis was regularly prescribed by doctors in the UK in the 1800s. However, it became less popular with doctors after the invention of the hypodermic needle in 1850. Drugs could be injected into patients to give faster relief. Cannabis does not dissolve in water so it couldn’t be made into a solution for an injection. In that time other drugs rose in popularity like aspirin as it could be made into a solution. Cannabis contains over 80 chemical plant compounds called cannabinoids. Two of these are called tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). When someone consumes cannabis, these compounds attach to the cannabinoid receptors in the brain. This confuses the brain. There are also many risks when consuming cannabis. It is harmful to the lungs as it contains cancer causing chemicals which increase the chances of lung cancer; if pregnant, cannabis can affect an unborn baby and there is a possibility that this baby could have mental problems or be born 22

prematurely. Cannabis also has psychoactive properties. The main psychoactive ingredient is THC. At higher strengths this can cause hallucinations, agitation, and paranoia and may lead to schizophrenia. In lower strengths it can relax people and even enhance creativity. Both THC and CBD are the main active ingredients in a drug called Sativex, which helps relieve muscle spasms from multiple sclerosis. Aspirin is also made from a plant. Ancient civilisations in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) used the extract from willow bark for medicines more than 2,000 years ago. Hippocrates, around 340BC, recommended chewing willow-tree bark for patients suffering from fever and pain. He also extracted willow bark for brewing tea for women suffering pains during childbirth. In 1829 scientists discovered that the compound within willow bark that reduced the pain was called Salicin. Later, Salicin was used by scientists from the drug and dye firm Bayer to produce the first tablet form of aspirin in 1889. This created an easily accessible medicine that was quickly recognised by medical professionals. Medical reports highlighted the benefits of aspirin which in pill form was significantly safer and less toxic than willow bark. In 1915 aspirin became available to the public without a prescription, making it a successful, manufactured, compact medicine which quickly became an international household name. Aspirin and cannabis both derive from plants, yet one became a medicine within a hundred years whilst the other remains illegal. Lots of research goes into developing a drug, and testing whether it can be safely used. However, as cannabis is an illegal substance it is extremely difficult to do any medical research using it. Tests for medicines are now very strict before they can be used on humans. Drugs are often tested on animals first. In the UK, new medicines have to undergo these tests. Animals are carefully monitored after receiving a dose of a drug. If drugs pass this test, they can then be used in trials with healthy human volunteers to check they are safe. If this stage is successfully passed, further clinical trials are done to find the right dose of the drug. Overall, the process takes a duration of ten to fifteen years and an average cost of one billion pounds. This drug development process is very long. A lot of compounds are tested, but many fail because they cause damage to cells or do not seem to work. At the end of the process, for drugs like aspirin, doctors know the right dose we need to take for particular problems, the side effects, and what happens if we overdose. This process is known as the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Five Rightsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of medicinal use: the right patients, the right drug, the right time, at the right dose, and the right route (mouth or injection) all of which are generally regarded as a standard for safe medical practice.

It is very different for scientists to do research to find the ‘Five Rights’; secondly, cannabis is a very complex substance. Dr Dupont noted that cannabis contains four hundred different chemicals from eighteen different chemical groups, with the smoke containing more than two thousand elements. This gives a reason why it is difficult to reproduce chemicals contained in cannabis to create a medication and limit the chemicals that cause harm. Any benefit from using cannabis for medical purposes is tarnished because there is a small gap between what would be an effective dose and cannabis’ adverse effects. On June 2012, Time Magazine printed an article about a new type of cannabis that lacks THC, the ingredient in cannabis that causes the ‘high’. This plant is rich with CBD and it could be used to counteract schizophrenia. This information gives hope that using this plant we could prevent future diseases. Clinical trials are hard to do because of the way cannabis has been restricted and classified. Drug companies also are trying to prevent the medicinal use of cannabis. They are afraid of losing money because cannabis may be more effective than the current medicines they sell. There is evidence that painkiller abuse and overdose is lower in states that have laws that allow medical cannabis. In these states prescriptions for painkillers and antidepressants fell sharply. If this continued, drug companies would lose more money because their prescribed antidepressants will not be the drug of choice by patients. In conclusion, I have explored the medicinal uses of plants and how these plants are used as drugs today. I also discussed the history of these plants and how these plant compounds are tested. These points I have explained are the basis of the prescribed drugs we take normally. Cannabis, compared to aspirin, still remains illegal due to lack of research. This drug may benefit the population more than aspirin and companies are worried that medicinal cannabis will lead to their drugs to be used less.

Fashion: friend or foe to the teenager? Anna Brown Year 8 – Joint Third Prize

s fashion harmful or beneficial for the teenager? Can it really be a deadly monster or kindhearted friend? In this essay I will try to answer the question: Fashion: Friend or Foe for the Teenager? and arrive at my own conclusion. Firstly: the Oxford Dictionary definition of

fashion is:

In this essay, I will be focusing on the effect that clothes have on the teenage mind and whether we should think of fashion as a friend or a foe? Fashion is a big deal and a massive business: British teenagers have an estimated spending power of £7 billion per year. Fashion-related items (clothes, shoes, accessories) account for at least 1/3 of this. But why is it so important to teenagers? Its importance is connected with what clothes can say about us - fashion offers a great opportunity to stand out from the crowd – to be different. As Christos Tolera (actor and artist) says: ‘I was once asked what my greatest fear was and I answered “Blending in”!’ Fashion has become a universal language for people to connect and express ideas all over the world. Our world is enormous,

integration

various

cultures. ‘Clothing is a fun method of selfexpression,’ says Charles Adesanya (fashion stylist) – and it is: people have free choice and

enjoy

choosing

outfits

that

fill

teenagers with confidence and comfort. ‘Dressing up is like tending your front garden. We do it 25

mostly for the collective enjoyment of the street. Any event where people dress up is more fun. The world would be a poorer place without such souls,’ says the artist, Grayson Perry. We should wear what we feel comfortable in and not feel the need to fit in. Fashion can help express our identity – who we are as people and the choices and actions we make. Whether we are talkative, loud, funny, sad, depressed, our choices of clothing reflect how we are feeling and express what’s important to us. However, one of the real needs of teenagers is to be the same as their friends: to conform. Fashion becomes an important part of that. For all the talk of individuality, we often find we wear the same brands and same styles as others – which is perhaps a little ironic! This becomes more serious when fashion has a negative impact for teenagers by giving wrong and unhelpful impressions about body image. Nowadays, young girls are looking at celebrities and models and seeing the ‘perfect’ body: an unhealthily thin and photo-shopped picture of a woman. They look at this and desperately want this body. When growing up as a teenager, your body grows at different rates and in different places. It is no wonder that 1.6 million people are affected by eating disorders in the UK alone. Teens bully other teens about how they look and by being cruelly specific in what is ‘wrong’ with their bodies. This bullying is often how disorders begin. ‘We are all chameleons at heart: there is nothing so threatening as not fitting in,’ says Karen Homer (author of Things a woman should know about Style). 80% of women say that seeing models in magazines and commercials makes them feel insecure about themselves.

The power of Photoshop 26

We complain about feeling pressured by the unrealistic goals the media set teenagers, but Felicity Hayward (model and artist) says: ‘I don’t listen to the media’s standards of what I should wear for my body type. I hope I give confidence to all the young girls to wear what they want.’ This is a great invitation to empower teenagers to stand out from the crowd and wear what they like! Lillie Langtry agrees that it is ‘every woman’s right to ignore the dictates of fashion and dress in a manner that is becoming to her character and personality.’ The question remains: is it possible to overcome the pressure people put on us when such huge marketing budgets are given to help make us feel the need to measure up? A further negative consequence of what can be quite a self-focused industry, is that we can lose sight of our social responsibility in the wider world. People take advantage of the fact that their clothes are cheaper and in more abundance, in every style and colour. People working in sweatshops in Bangladesh, children even, are working up to 18 hours a day in horrendous conditions. They live in slums and get hardly any pay at all. They are often forced to work overtime as they will get fired on the spot if they don’t. Many are beaten by their bosses if their work is inadequate; loo breaks can be short and few at specific times during the day. Some people would ask: why do they work there then? The answer is because they need work and jobs to survive – to help their families and themselves eat and drink, to have somewhere to live!

Sweatshops in Bangladesh

Of course, some brands have clear policies on the welfare of their workers, making sure suppliers meet specific standards on pay and conditions. Some of these brands include Fatface, Seasalt, ASOS and Monsoon. Others note that by donating used clothes to charity, the demand for newer

and more clothes is reduced, benefiting the environment, reducing wastage, providing affordable clothing for those on low incomes and eagle-eyed bargain hunters!

Local charity shop and shops with good welfare brands

Ethical questions are important, but to best answer our question, I would argue that we need to make a clearer distinction between clothing and identity. Being clear about who we are will help us make good ethical decisions. Kennedy Fraser (American fashion writer) said: ‘A good many women who buy clothes are afflicted by the delusions that they may thereby change their state of mind, the attitudes of their companions and ‘their lives’. Azzedine Alaia (fashion designer) argues, ‘The base of all beauty is the body,’– i.e. that we should take the superficiality of constantly changing trends less seriously. However, we have already seen, the answer is not to worry about how we look as it can lead to horrible things like eating disorders and body shaming. Perhaps, Albert Einstein can help us here. Einstein was notorious for his untidy clothing but he said: ‘If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shabby furniture, let us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shabby philosophies … It would be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped inside it.’ Basically, Einstein is saying that it’s what is on the inside that counts. Who we are as a person is vital – it would be sad if the clothes we wear were better than the person we are inside or, worse still, we judged others wrongly because of the clothes they wore.

In some ways Coco Chanel agrees, saying ‘Look for the woman in the dress. If there is no woman, there is no dress.’ The woman comes first: if the woman is secure in who she is, then the dress becomes a natural expression of her personality. But who really is the woman, or teenager, in the dress? Perhaps it could encompass her qualities and choices and beliefs, essentially her character? Martin Luther King said ‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.’ We should be judged on our character: not our clothes or appearance. If we are happy with our character, then we can use fashion to express that – not to pretend that we are someone we’re not! To conclude: I believe that fashion is a … frenemy! I think that there are multiple things that make fashion our friend and also plenty that shows us that fashion can be a way of being cruel and critical. However, fashion should be fun, and for people to enjoy! ‘Clothes change our view of the world and the world’s view of us,’ said Virginia Woolf. Clothes are powerful – they can be used positively or negatively as I have discussed in this essay. It is up to us to use the power of clothes wisely and well. To do this, teenagers should think of the importance of who they really are. And, if they can do that well, then they have taken control of fashion and not let it have taken control of them.

Is there enough discipline in prisons in the UK? Emily Scanlon Year 8 – Joint Third Prize

prison is a facility where people that have committed crimes are sent to be punished for their actions and rehabilitated in preparation for their return to society. But is the discipline in prisons strong enough to punish and rehabilitate? Anyone hearing about

UK prisons today will usually associate them with what they’ve seen on television: metal-barred cells, jumpsuit uniform, dirty conditions, female/male separation and people with an erratic behaviour…but are they all really like this? Do guards treat the inmates like people? And if so … should they? In this essay, I will cover what really goes on inside some of the most feared places in the United Kingdom and discuss whether inmates are treated appropriately in the light of what they have done. What makes this question relevant? Opinions suggest there is not enough discipline in prisons. In 2011 a survey was taken across London asking whether the public thought UK prisons worked; that is, did they positively change the inmate in preparation of a return to society? Only 42% thought that prisons worked and the remaining 58% didn’t believe that the system had any effect on the inmate. In a recent Telegraph article (13th April 2017) based on the new ‘Prison and Courts Bill’ which specifically excluded any mention of punishment, law ministers suggested that a prison is no longer a place for punishment. This is despite a report by Scotland Yard that, “warned that Britain is experiencing a surge in violent crime”. At a crisis-hit jail, the prisons inspector reported that guards had “all but lost control.” Inmates were apparently allowed to “wander around in their dressing gowns.” An article in The Guardian showed that fewer prison officers are being employed, resulting in more assaults on staff. In November 2016, 10,000 prison officers went on strike “protesting about chronic staff shortages”, but were ordered back to work. Despite prisoner numbers remaining about the same between 2010 and 2015, the number of guards has reduced by about 10,000 to 23,746. So, opinion highlights there is an issue worthy of a discussion. Why it is difficult for prisons to get the balance right? Firstly, let’s discuss gender differences. Male and female criminals are treated differently. The treatment in prison and prison environment shows significant differences and very few similarities. Female inmates tend to include very few violent offenders. Around 60% of women in 30

prisons have committed crimes due to drug abuse. As such, women in prison tend to have more privileges and are sometimes even allowed to walk around the prison grounds, attend classes and, sometimes, rehabilitation sessions. On the other hand, male prisons are a lot more violent which drives behaviour on both inmates and guards. Men often are arrested for more violent outbreaks, for example, manslaughter, murder, rape etc. Because of this, men are given much less freedom than women. Human interaction in many male prisons is restricted due to their erratic behaviour, with limited time out of their cell. At the end of January 2014 there were 81,045 men and just 3,932 women in prisons in the entire UK. This shows how small the female crime population is compared to males, which may be why a woman’s campus is far more luxurious then a man’s since it must hold fewer inmates. Most female inmates are usually in a prison anyway for recidivism, which is repeating a crime; nevertheless, crime rates have risen by 600% since 1980 for women. For the few violent female offenders, the limited capacity means they may be treated less harshly than an equivalent male inmate. Next, let’s discuss what options are open to prisons to discipline the inmates. The worst place by far in a prison is segregation, known as solitary confinement in the USA. Segregation is used where a vulnerable inmate is sent to keep them away from objects they could harm themselves with. It’s also where they send rebellious/violent inmates who have broken the prisons’ rules or regulations, or where they pose a risk to others. Segregation is sometimes located underground the prison campus and maybe a very small room but is not as bad as depicted in movies and the media. Unfortunately, when sent to ‘seg’, even if it’s for your own benefit or safety, you are denied human interaction for up to 23 hours of the day, with 1 hour for exercise and, once a week in most prisons, 1 hour of an assisted visit to the library. After a few weeks, many victims of segregation tend to avoid any human interaction at all, including the hour of exercise offered for their physical health. One man named Frank Cook, who violently assaulted a fellow inmate, told the media how “I found comfort in the end-it was like going back to the womb”. This suggests how he feels like it was the norm and how he liked it after all the stress in the first half of his sentence. John Karma, another victim of segregation, said “Now, six years on, I like being on my own …I still get a bit panicky in crowds.” On the other hand, others have described their experiences as “a loss of interpersonal skills’ and ‘Becoming depressive and suicidal’ even though Doctor Kimmet Edgar, a supporter of segregation, said how it “Isn’t supposed to be psychologically cruel”. Whilst ‘seg’ does show there is means to discipline inmates, it is not possible to use this for many prisoners.

There are also issues associated with mental health. In a recent article posted by The Independent newspaper, (28th June 2017), they describe how the “Government fails to track mental health in prisons amid soaring suicide and self-harm rates”. Apparently, the prison suicide rate doubled in four years which calls into questions whether officers are focused on supporting vulnerable inmates and disciplining more violent inmates. Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office (NAO), did admit that “Improving the mental health of those in prisons will require a step change in in effort and resources. The quality of clinical care is generally good for those who can access it, but the rise in prisoner suicide and self-harm suggests a decline in mental health and well-being overall.” She follows by stating, “The data on how many people in prison have mental health problems and how much government is spending to address this is poor. Consequently, Government do not know the base they are stating from, what they need to improve, or how realistic it is for them to reach their objectives.” The Justice Department is now focusing more on prisoners’ mental health also. After recapping and analysing the data and information I have read and collected, I’ve concluded that there is simply not enough appropriate discipline in UK prisons. It appears that society and the government are misguided, with little understanding of the activity in prisons, as shown in the discussion on mental health issues. Also, the increase in crime outbreaks demonstrates how little people care about going to prison nowadays. Plus, with the recent lack of control over inmates as stated by the prisons inspector and striking guards, I wonder what the point of prisons is at all. Whilst I see that there are some big challenges for prisons, I think that to resolve this problem every prisoner in serious offence prisons should be in segregation. This would regain control and power over inmates as well as ensuring the safety of guards. In this way, more people would feel happier to work in prisons and the public would feel that prisons would return to being a deterrent.

YEAR 7 PRIZE-WINNING ENTRIES

How has social media changed democracy? Mini Willson Year 7 – First Prize

ver the last five years we’ve seen social media change democracy a great deal. For most of the 20th century ordinary voters relied on newspapers, radio, television and magazines for political thought leadership. You had your political preferences

confirmed and supported by both the types of newspaper you read and the TV channel you watched. The Guardian and The Mirror were considered left wing and The Telegraph and The Times were right wing. The Daily Mail was in the centre and The Observer was more liberal. The BBC had a liberal left agenda and ITV was more to the centre right. This was the old established media political order that had continued unchanged since the 1930s. But, with the advent of social media and a new generation of Millennial who don’t use the traditional media sources like newspapers, the way they get their political opinions has changed beyond all recognition. This can be seen through the results of Brexit, the election of the American President and most recently how activity on Facebook and Twitter reduced the support for the Conservatives and increased support for Labour. All the polls and experts got these results wrong and underestimated the force of the new Internet thought leadership. The development of Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and Pinterest has created new political communities that are immediate, active, and, above all, live. You feel more connected to both political supporters like yourself but more importantly have a link to the candidates themselves. Donald Trump has 32 million followers on Twitter and many of those followers feel directly connected to Trump himself. This sort of direct connection with politicians and political supporters has never happened before. Candidates have social media strategies that make their supporters constantly re-tweet/repost things on their feeds, which means every time people look at their feed they see lots of positive campaigning for that party. This can alter their political views and make them feel part of a bigger political community. The world’s media didn’t believe that Donald Trump would ever get into the White House. But Trump’s mastery of social media made half of the American population – or 62 million people - vote for him. This is a startling example of how an inexperienced candidate

with no previous political history could galvanise huge and surprising support through a new force: social media. Political scientists have pointed out that social media makes it easier for campaigners to organise; they give voice and power to people who have neither. For instance, they helped get Black Lives Matter, a movement fighting violence against African-Americans, off the ground, according to a recent study led by Deen Freelon of the American University in Washington, DC. But research into another effect has only just begun: social media is also making politics and collective action more “chaotic”, argues a new book called Political Turbulence. The spontaneous debate element of social media means that traditional democracy is now constantly at risk of chaos. Jeremy Corbyn was seen as a poor Labour leader by both his own party and most of the media and was given little hope of having a successful election campaign. But a highly organised social media strategy almost got him elected and changed the views of both his own party and the electorate. And the clue to this big uplift lies in Corbyn’s popularity on social media. He has 1.3 million followers on Twitter while Theresa May has 300,000. Labour’s social media strategy raised his popularity by talking to a new kind of voter: the young Millennial. Giles Coren, writing in The Sunday Times, said ‘Only the black arts of social media could transform a bearded dud into Glastonbury’s new symbol of popular hope’. Millennials and Generation Z use social media for entertainment and this daily form of regular usage has crossed over into absorbing news opinions and creating political trends. Donald Trump coined the phrase ‘Fake News’ to describe this new form of political opinion that has no editorial control. Most posts, however wrong or unfair, usually get through the censors so there’s a much more aggressive uncontrolled opinion force out there that we’ve never seen before. Even though you can get real news from real news websites, people come across political views and opinions by accident on social media and subconsciously absorb them. A 2015 study by the University of Hawaii, “How Young Adults use Facebook to Evaluate Political Candidates”, argues that a single Facebook feed could change the voting patterns and political views of 60,000 friends. Expand that single feed to several thousand and you can see how the numbers of voters influenced could grow into millions. This opens the whole political process and democracy itself to a new form of change and even manipulation. The FBI now agrees that Hilary Clinton’s Presidential campaign was damaged by hacking into her email and distributing the information on social media. Conspiracy theorists continue to insist that Russian hackers, on the orders of President Putin, used social media to affect the outcome of the US election. The same has been said to have taken place in French and Dutch elections. James Comey, the ex-head of 35

the FBI, said at a 2017 congressional hearing that ‘the dumping of unlawfully obtained data on social media is one of the gravest threats to democracy history has ever seen.” But there’s one more element of social media that has changed democracy: its brevity. Instead of long articles and boring debates political thought can be summed up in 140 characters or a short paragraph in a Facebook post. This makes political thought easy to digest, simple, and, here’s a surprise, popular. In 2017 John Humphrys on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme said: “Five years ago most people tried not to talk about politics at all, now it’s become a national obsession played out on a smart phone.” But the danger in those 140 fun characters is the simplification, dilution and misunderstanding of wider political issues and complications. You simply can’t have differing but balanced views in such a brief constrained format. Light, shade, fairness and accuracy disappear when a political concept is reduced to a single sentence. For me the biggest effect of social media on democracy is that it has actually stopped us thinking and trying to get a wider selection of views before we come to a political position. And sadly, many more people are interested in politics now through social media because it has become tribal, easier to access and understand, and gives supporters a sense of belonging. Social media has changed democracy beyond all recognition. We’ve seen Deen Frelon’s chaos theory enacted in 2017 with hundreds of millions of American voters; we’ve seen the pollsters and pundits completely wrong-footed; and we’ve seen political upheavals here at home. Perhaps the more pressing question is this: how can we stop social media turning democracy into chaos?

What do we learn from fantasy stories? Sabrina Cruz Year 7 – Second Prize

here are many different types of stories in the world. There are mysterious, adventurous, romantic ones and horror, dramatic and fantastical stories, just to name a few. In this essay, I am going to focus on fantasy stories and fables which aren’t real or true, but

which remain a crucial part of our lives (especially for children). Most fantasy stories have magical creatures or include aspects of magic. They have a lot of imagination and sometimes make you think, “Wow! I would love to be able to do that!”, or “I wish I could have their life!” Though, the merciless and contemplative part of fantasy stories is that they make you look at your own life and evaluate - they trick you into thinking that your life is terrible, tedious, boring and insignificant in comparison to the lives of those characters in the stories. There are many of these fictional tales in the world and I believe that each one has a moral from which we can learn. If I could read each fantasy book and tell you the morals from each one, I believe that I would be able to improve the world, make it better and tell you why we keep reverting to our evil ways, explain how we are making the Earth “sick”. When I was younger, enthralled, I would read Aesop’s tales every term; there are many that I can still remember to this day, for example, ‘The Hare and the Fox’, ‘The Fox and the Crow’, ‘The Ant and the Grasshopper’, ‘The Jay and the Peacock’, ‘The Wolf and the Horse’. When I questioned my teacher as to why we would review the fables, she answered, “We are learning these fables not only because of the incredible imaginary but also because each one has a vital moral to it and if we live by these morals we can make the Earth a better place.” I have never forgotten those words, which had such an impact on my so-fertile imagination, that once in a while, when nostalgia hits, I read and study some of Aesop’s Fables, in an attempt to learn their didactic message and try to

put

them

into

practice

life.

Everyone knows of ‘The Hare and The Tortoise’ and may even reiterate quite often its moral that you might be fast, speedy and rapid but without any brains, you can do nothing. As I was told by my teacher when we were studying this story, ‘Slow and steady wins the race’, meaning that despite the hare being swifter, he was too big-headed and egotistical to think that he could be beaten by a tortoise and then, he awoke from a quick nap and found the tortoise very close to the 37

finish line. The hare ran as fast as he could but he was too late. The tortoise had won the race. The way we can use this in our lives is if you have been given a certain amount of time to do a piece of work, you should use that time wisely instead of waiting until the last minute. For example, if my homework was to make a poster and the teacher had given me 2 weeks to complete it, I would do it in stages, 10-20 minutes each day. Experience shows that steady work will produce better results than a rushed job, always! Hence, the hare's victory. Another fable is ‘The Fox and the Crow’ where the fox ‘sweet-talks’ the crow into dropping the cheese in its beak. The moral to this fable is ‘Don’t give in to flattery, the person might not mean it.’ In several instances, I've witnessed a person trying to make someone else behave a certain way and sometimes that individual gives in to the flattery and with obsequiousness, allows the other person to take whatever they want. I have learnt that very painful lesson: you should keep your guard up and not believe everything that people tell you. More often than not, it leads to heartache and disappointment. ‘The Jay and the Peacock’ is another one of the fables written by Aesop. This particular fable’s moral is, ‘It isn’t only fine feathers that make fine birds.’ The Jays' lesson is that you can have all the features to appear attractive and beautiful, but, in the end, it is how you treat others around you that counts. People, with their fine feathers and false faces, will pretend to be benign and caring, when they are in fact quite the opposite. The personality and character of a person is what truly matters, not the superficial, skin-deep appearances. Another famed fable of Aesop is ‘The Wolf and the Horse’. The didactic message this time is quite a negative one, as it focuses on the evil in the world in which we live. The clear message here is, ‘Men of evil reputation, when they perform a good deed, fail to get credit for it.’ The fox had done some incredibly appalling and atrocious things in the past so much so that the horse believed that this was another one of the fox’s bad deeds. This shows you that if you continue to do disreputable things to people and lie to them, they will never believe or trust you, even if on this particular occasion, the truth is being employed. People will think that everything immoral that happens is your fault – they connect you with the wicked actions that occur. Basically, through your wickedness and deceitfulness, you have conditioned others to expect only badness from you, so that when you finally do something good, it is not believed or appreciated. Along the same lines, the moral might be, ‘It is one thing to lose trust but quite another to gain it.’ Once you lose the trust bestowed on you by another person, it is extremely difficult to gain that trust again. I think that this is a vital lesson which is imperative to learn for the future, as this is a mistake that many make without entirely realizing the repercussions. 38

The ‘Maze Runner’ series, though not a fable, reminds me of the moral and teachings of fables. The series speaks of courage, bravery and self-belief when so many are behaving cowardly and conforming. Thomas (the last boy to come up in The Box) gets to the Glade and immediately asks questions that aren’t answered. From the very beginning, the other characters were too scared, therefore, tried to limit those who enter “The Maze”. This leads to the story’s first moral: ‘Don’t be afraid of asking questions and embrace the future instead of trying to shape it’, clearly shown when Thomas asks questions which may cause problems. The Gladers (the boys in the Glade) don’t give him any type of helpful answers but nevertheless, Thomas does what he thinks is right which is a shining example of the moral, ‘Even if you don’t know someone very well, you should try to help them’. Thomas, again, does this when he runs into the death-defying maze to try and help Minho, a runner, and Alby, the first Glader. ‘Don’t give up trying’, when the Runners keep going into the maze, day after day, month after month and year after year. They show resilience and how badly they want to get out of the Glade. This takes 14 years – ‘determination.’ Another aspect, ‘Look at things from a different perspective’, hence when Thomas looks at the model of the maze, he finds something else worth fighting for. All in all, though The Maze Runner is not an Aesop Fable, its lesson is equally priceless, that in life, it is always crucial to fight for what is right, and determination and resolution are powerful attributes to have. Undeniably, there are many things that we learn from fantasy stories and tales. Just understanding the morals and trying to put some in practice, can actually make a difference to the people around you and to your life. Is it not disconcerting and rather disturbing to think that people have been looking for answers to problems in society, when the answers were always there in a few childhood stories? Read and learn! Respect, caring, comprehension, hard work, devotion, determination, grit, commitment, words to live by. Just one more thought that I hope will inspire you the next time you pick up a book: read between the printed lines, look for the hidden message and moral and try to live by it. Understand how it could better you as a person and just by employing it, perhaps, our society will stand a chance!

Painkillers: do people pay more for a brand name and why? Hannah Mason Year 7 – Third Prize

any people know that the expensive painkillers that we buy are essentially the same medicine as some tablets that cost a fraction of the price. I wanted to explore and find out how many people pay more for a brand name and why they do it. I chose

this question because a few weeks ago I was in Sainsbury’s with my dad to buy some painkillers. I noticed that there were lots to choose from and there was a dramatic difference in price between products like Nurofen and ibuprofen (Nurofen being the brand leader). I then went on to look at the back of the packet to see if I could tell why there was such a difference in the prices. It came as a bit of a shock to find out that both products contained almost exactly the same ingredients. Type of Painkiller

Brand Leader

(16 pack)

Sainsbury’s Own

Difference in price

Generic Equivalent

Panadol

£1.50

£0.40

£1.10

Nurofen

£2.20

£0.45

£1.75

Anadin

£1.50

£0.45

£1.05

Total

£5.20

£1.30

£3.90

I decided that I wanted to carry out a survey to find out which products people buy, generic or branded, and what it is that makes us choose that product. The easiest way to do this was through an online website called Survey Monkey. I got 47 responses and while the results showing how many bought which type of painkillers were interesting, it is the comments that people made that really help to provide a better insight into why people buy specific brands. Of the 40 people who buy paracetamol-based products, one fifth of them selected the brand leader Panadol, even though it costs a lot more. For ibuprofen-based products, 41% of the 37 people who bought them said that they buy the brand leader Nurofen. The result was even more pronounced for the aspirin-based products, although 60% said that they don’t buy them, because 9 out of the 19 who do buy them voted for the brand leader Anadin, which is nearly half. 40

My last question asked for reasons as to why they chose their selected products over the other choice. A key word which could be observed many times in the answers of those who voted for the brand leaders was “trust”. A typical answer was, “They are popular brands that are safe and I know I can trust them”. Other common themes among the comments included that the brand leaders are easier to swallow and that they are reliable. I can’t dispute that that is their opinion, but I wanted to do more research to see if they were correct. I could have looked at the websites of the companies who created the brand leading products, such as Nurofen; however, I knew that they would be based to their own brand so I ruled them out. Bearing this in mind, I turned to other websites. Most of them that I looked at said that generic painkillers are just as good as the more expensive brand leaders. Although a generic painkiller may differ in taste or appearance to a branded painkiller, they actually contain the same active ingredients and they work just as quickly. It is the active ingredient that determines the effectiveness of the painkiller. Although the inactive ingredients in a generic painkiller can be slightly different to those in the branded painkiller, it does not affect the performance, safety or effectiveness of the painkiller. A generic painkiller will always have the same rate and the extent of absorption into the blood stream as the branded painkiller –known as bioavailability and bioequivalence. Branded painkillers are more expensive because the companies that manufactured them have to obtain a drug patent. This means that no one else can produce another version of the product until the patent expires, which is usually around 17 to 20 years. Once the patent expires, other companies can start to make their own generic version of it. Because they don’t need to start manufacturing the product from scratch, the cost of it becomes cheaper, as they don’t need to pay for as much advertising, marketing and promotion. On the other hand, there are a few websites that say that the brand leader’s painkillers are more effective. There are three general themes about why they are supposedly better: 1. They’re easier to swallow. Branded painkillers often have some sort of a coating to make them not only look shiny buy to make them easier to swallow 2. They work faster. They say that they work more quickly and better due to the quality of the ingredients. This suggests that the website is not a very good or reliable one. Due to the proof I have found on the packets and in the evidence above, they contain the same active ingredients. The website has not been bothered to check that their information is right. 41

3. If you buy them, you are supporting future research. Cheap, generic painkillers would not exist if it wasn’t for the branded ones, whose manufacturers worked hard to produce them and created them in the first place. The companies that make the own brand generic painkillers are just benefiting on the back of other companies hard work, therefore you should respect the producers’ products. You also need to take the placebo effect into consideration. If somebody did not know that a generic painkiller was identical to a branded painkiller, and so they thought that the brand leader would work better, they would probably take that one. Then, because they thought it would work better, it would seem like it did as well. This is because their brain has incorrectly been tricked as a consequence of thinking that the generic one did not work as well. Pharmaceutical companies such as Reckitt Benckiser (the manufacturer of Nurofen) spend a lot of money on marketing and advertising their products, which makes the product more appealing. The shiny packet makes the product stand out among the generic products which come in plain packaging in comparison. I have also noticed that the branded painkillers are positioned at eye level on the shelf, whereas you have to look harder for the generic ones, because you usually have to bend down to reach them. All of this is extremely influencing for many people who are persuaded to buy the branded products. To validate my research, I spoke to a family friend, Clara Chandler, who has been a qualified pharmacist for 15 years. She confirmed that the active ingredients are always the same in both branded and generic painkillers and even went on to say, “The really interesting thing is when you start looking at product licences … You can see these referenced on all packaging as PLxxxx/xxxx (numbers). If you can find a generic and branded product with the same P/L number on the package they are literally identical, active and in-active ingredients all exactly the same so with those products any claim by a patient that the branded version is “better”, “easier to swallow” etc is completely wrong! This is because the terms of the product licence specify exactly what is in each product.” After conducting my detailed research and analysis, I am convinced that it is best to buy the cheaper, generic painkillers, which not only are a much better value for money, but they also work just as well as the brand leaders. I would definitely try to persuade the people who took my survey and voted for the brand leaders to switch to generic. I have focused this essay on painkillers, but as a next step, it would be interesting to see if the same thing applies to other products, from other medicines such as hay fever tablets and stomach ache remedies to everyday products like cereals. Just think, how much money you could save each year! 42

PART TWO HIGHLY COMMENDED ENTRIES

Is it better to raise a child bilingual or monolingual? Leonie Howells Year 9 – Highly Commended

he benefits of raising children to be bilingual particularly when one or both parents aren’t native speakers of the second language is a subject that can split opinion. On the one hand, there are many advantages to raising a child bilingual – it’s proven that bilingual

children perform better in tests, that they strive to have better relationships with others, that they are more tolerant of others and are naturally more curious, and so want to discover new things and travel more than monolingual children do. On the other hand, there are various concerns that people have for children being raised bilingual – that they risk delayed language development through being exposed to more than one language, that they will be isolated from their peers for being different, and that they may possibly have smaller vocabularies. The overwhelming evidence seems to point to there being many more advantages than disadvantages, but there are still some things that people worry about even after they have seen the evidence, so the point of this essay is to show that the disadvantages are either harmless or miniscule and firmly outweighed by the advantages. One of the most widely known reasons for raising a child to be bilingual is education. Many studies have shown that being raised speaking two or more languages raises the level of concentration in children at school, which means that they will probably learn more than their monolingual peers. Because of the way their brains develop, bilingual children tend to be able to block out irrelevant distractions more than monolingual children of the same age. Another benefit to their learning is that because they often have to constantly switch between languages when at home with parents, or in public, they think longer about what words to use and can practise decision making that is vital when they are looking after themselves, for example in a job interview. Psychology Today says that bilingual people have to use specific parts of their brain when they want to switch language, because their brains ‘need to evaluate and determine not only the meaning of words, but also which patterns of sentence structure and grammar apply and recognize nuances of pronunciation unique to the language of focus.’ Raising a child bilingual from birth can also lead to the child developing early reading skills because they come to see language as a tool they can use to help themselves. Perhaps the most persuasive evidence is that bilingual children are shown to perform better than average in tests designed to show cognitive 44

intelligence. This has been attributed to the prefrontal cortex being more active because of the constant switching between languages. Raising a child with a language not common to its home country can improve the child’s relationships with other people as they often learn to be more accepting of other cultures and more open minded as a result of that. And because learning another language when a child is young almost always makes it easier to learn an additional language, not particularly with the same language roots – i.e. a person who was raised speaking both English and Hebrew would probably find it easier to learn Mandarin than a person raised speaking just one language – due to the areas in their brain being more developed than monolingual children, they would probably travel more and want to explore other cultures more than if they hadn’t learnt another. This then opens up more opportunities for further education abroad, as they have spent time studying the language and the culture. Even if they don’t study abroad, employers are almost always more interested in employing someone who speaks more than one language, as it is not only useful in careers such as business and sales where people need to be able to trade, and in social services and hospitals where people who have very limited English are helped, but also in most careers, because it shows willingness to work with other people and, again, bilingual people are often more creative thinkers than their monolingual counterparts. Despite the many advantages of raising a child as bilingual, there are also some disadvantages that may matter more. During the time when most children are beginning to speak, bilingual children sometimes experience a ‘silent period’ where they are still working out how to say words, as they hear double or triple the number of words a monolingual child does, which sometimes delays initial language development further. Then at around 16 months, when children first learn vocabulary, a bilingual child may be able to say about 15 words in two languages, so actually 30 words, compared to a monolingual child’s 25. Even though this is a larger vocabulary overall, it seems like less when speakers of only one of the languages spend time with the child and can lead to people thinking that they have language development issues. These are both natural and completely normal when raising a bilingual child. However, some children raised as bilingual have been shown to have smaller vocabularies in both languages than a native speaker of just one, which can impact their work and everyday life. They are also shown to have, possibly due to this, more ‘tip of the tongue’ moments, where they struggle to remember words, or remember the words in their other language but not the one they’re currently speaking in. In conclusion, raising a child bilingual seems to have more advantages than it does disadvantages. The opportunities it gives – an advantage in education, a large advantage in the 45

workforce, and developing relationships with other people â&#x20AC;&#x201C; are definitely worth the risk of the popularly believed disadvantages, such as long-term delays in language development, and exclusion by their peers. Raising a child to be bilingual has many benefits that give that child advantages for life and help to develop them as people too, so it makes sense that people are starting to raise their children speaking two or more languages, even when the parents themselves are native speakers of the language spoken in the country in which they and the child live in, as their children will definitely have more of a push to learn things and meet people than monolingual children would.

Following the increase in the youth vote in the general election, should the voting age be lowered to 16? Anusha Goodman Year 9 – Highly Commended

have chosen to research whether the voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16 following the General Election, because of the success of countries such as Scotland in doing so, and the value of the youth vote. In the recent election, 57% of young people aged 18-19 voted,

indicating a large rise in the number of young people becoming interested in politics and realising the significance of the vote. This leads to the question whether younger people aged 16 and above should be receiving the opportunity to participate in deciding what their future looks like. The Debate There are many reasons that the voting age should be lowered. Firstly, young people will have to live with that country’s decisions for a long time and face the consequences, whereas the elderly (who can vote and do, in masses) will not be affected as much. Member of the Youth Parliament, Ashley Gregory, quoted, ‘I find it difficult to hear MPs having conversations about what the level of tuition fees will be or even what curriculum we study in school without being a

Number of 16 to 17-year-olds who registered to vote in Scottland (March 2014) Scottish Government

legitimate conversation.

part These

of are

the the

decisions that affect me, but I’m not allowed a voice.’ For example, the UK has decided to leave the European Union, yet the young adults who it will really affect, such as 16-year-olds, were not able to

Registered

Did not register

have their say in what they wanted.

Another point is that some young people are faced with adult responsibilities every day, such as young carers, yet they are denied the rights that adults with even less responsibility have. There are around 376,000 young adult carers in the UK aged 16–25.Therefore, it is unfair to say that the reason that the youth vote should not be lowered is that young people are not responsible enough. Furthermore, 16 year olds in work are required to pay income tax and national insurance 47

contributions, yet they have no say in how that is spent. If it was an adult in the same situation, we wouldn’t think that was fair, so why do we allow it with younger people facing just the same responsibilities? In addition to this, many countries such as Scotland have had positive experiences lowering the voting age: in March 2014, the Scottish government reported that over 80% of 16 and 17-yearold voters in Scotland had registered to vote. This suggests that when young people feel that they are being taken seriously and that their opinion is valued, they will participate more in politics. Surely, we cannot tell young people that they need to start getting more interested in their future and in politics if we do not allow them to vote. Many people who are grown adults do not use their vote wisely, yet we don’t exclude them from voting. So why can’t 16-year-olds who will use their vote wisely, be allowed to vote? Evidence has shown that if someone votes the first time they can, they are more likely to continue voting regularly. So, if we make sure 16-year-olds are registered to vote by their school and that politics is embedded in the school curriculum, they are likely to vote, resulting in a rise in voting numbers for the future. On the other hand, some would say the voting age should definitely not be lowered because 16-year-olds simply aren’t mature enough to make decisions as important as who they vote for; young people are easily influenced by radical politics or will simply vote for the same party as their parents. The New Scientist states that ‘research on adolescent brain development shows that adolescent’s judgement in situations that have time pressure or heightened emotions is unlikely to be as mature as that of an adult’s - certainly no younger than 18.’ In addition to this, some young people just simply aren’t interested in politics; in 2011-12, the University of Essex conducted a UK-wide Understanding Society Survey. In the survey of people aged 16-24, 42.4% said they had not interested in politics. This fell to 21% for over 65s. Furthermore, the voting levels for 18 to 19-year-olds is still the lowest amongst all age groups. Why should we go to all the trouble of getting the vote lowered if young people really aren’t interested at all and most of them won’t vote? But, on the other hand, if we change things and make sure that the importance of voting and politics is taught to school children from a young age in a fun and interesting way, young people are more likely to get interested in politics Also, following the decision to leave the European Union, young adults, a vast majority of which wanted to remain, may have realised the incredible importance of politics and the vote; if more of them had voted the result may have been different. 48

Data from YouGov shows that 57% of 18 to 24-year-olds opposed the move, compared to around 51% of 25 to 59-year-olds. Why should we give 16-year-olds the vote if people around the same age group oppose it? Waiting two more years will also expand the knowledge of 16-year-olds before they vote, so when they can they can make a considered, rational judgement based on information about the parties’ policies they have collected over years. Political parties’ points of view From a party view, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green party have all been known for their interest in lowering the voting age given how important the youth vote is to them. The Labour party, with a 66% vote for them in 18 to 19-year-olds in the recent general election, receive a vast number of votes from their younger supporters. It would, therefore, be in their interest to lower the voting age, as that would most probably mean winning more seats from the Conservatives. The Labour party promises to, as stated in their manifesto, ‘abolish university tuition fees’, which is why they are so popular with people aged 18-24. The Conservatives are fully aware of their unpopularity amongst the young; they abolished university block voting, which had previously made it easier for the young to vote, as they knew the votes were not going to them, meaning that they would certainly not want to lower the voting age. Data from YouGov suggests that 78% of adults aged over 60 oppose giving 16- year-olds the vote, but is this because they believe that it’s best for society if they didn’t, or because some are worried the vast majority of young people will vote Labour? 59% of adults aged 65+ voted Conservative, showing a strong preference for the Tories? Why would they help their party lose seats? In March 2017, following the Prime Minister’s statement that she does not agree with giving young people aged 16 the vote, Liberal Democrat spokesman Tom Brake accused Theresa May of robbing young people of future opportunities through her damaging hard Brexit agenda, and added: ‘It's no surprise she is now refusing to give 16- and 17-year-olds the vote.’ This only adds to the suggestion that the PM doesn’t strongly care abut young people’s futures.

Conclusion In conclusion, some may disagree with lowering the voting age because evidence has shown that 16-year old’s brains aren’t fully developed and some may be incapable of making independent decisions in important situations. However, I believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16. I think that many young people face similar responsibilities to those of adults and therefore they should be treated equally and allowed the vote. As someone who is strongly interested in politics, I believe that I, as well as many other young people, am capable of making a thoughtful decision in a couple of years time - after all, we are the generation that will be most affected by this country’s decisions. 16-year-olds will not feel that their opinions are valued until they receive the vote. We’ve had hard fought votes for women and people of different races, so when will we take the next step forward for the future of our country and extend the right to vote to 16-year-olds?

Women breaking the rules: A comparison of strong women throughout British History Laura Bawden Year 9 – Highly Commended

hroughout history women have been subjected to being second class citizens to men. Many women have revolutionized the way they have resisted a patriarchal society and proved that women are, in many ways, equal to men. Whether by leading

industries or companies or by breaking the ‘rules’ of society by various acts of defiance, women have rebelled against the social conformities and proved their worth. Whether by going to polling stations and voting, women are using the rights given to them by women that have gone before - the women explored in this essay. A movement known as Feminism has been particularly significant during the 20th century and moving forward into this century. The Urban Dictionary has described feminism as ‘the idea we can solve all inequalities between the genders by focusing solely on the issues of one of them.’ This means that feminism is the belief that women are equal to men and should be viewed as just that. All of the women discussed in this essay have sown the seeds of Feminism and led the way for modern role models such as Emma Watson. The first rule-breaker from British History is Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry Tudor (also known as King Henry VIII). Anne caused a lot of controversy throughout her life and there are many similarities between her and the late Princess Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, Princess of Wales (née Spencer). Both Diana and Anne grew up in a noble household, Anne growing up at Hever Castle, her father’s seat, alongside her mother and father, Lady Elizabeth Boleyn (née Howard, a relative of one of Henry’s later wives, Katherine Howard) and Sir Thomas Boleyn and her two siblings, George and Mary. There is a difference, however, with Diana’s father being a viscount which is a higher title than a knight. It also suggests that Anne’s family were high in favour at the time as a knighthood is often more of a gifted title than a hereditary title like viscount. Diana also grew up on an estate known as Sandringham, also her father’s seat. Anne caused controversy as she changed the course of British history and the religious allegiance of England when she married King Henry Tudor. Anne also became the first queen to marry a king who had been previously divorced, whereas Diana became controversial after her divorce from Prince Charles, 51

eldest child of Queen Elizabeth II and the heir to the throne. Both women continued to be controversial after the divorces, Diana under scrutiny from press and Anne under scrutiny from fellow jealous nobles. Diana had also given birth to two boys during her marriage to Charles, one named William (who is currently second in line to the throne, with two children with his wife, Kate) and Henry, also known as Harry. Anne’s failure to provide sons caused her subsequent downfall. Anne did, however, provide a daughter for Henry, named Elizabeth, who went on to succeed her sister Mary and become one of the longest reigning monarchs England has ever seen. It is also interesting to understand the pressure Anne was under to produce a son compared to the pressure Diana faced. Anne lived in a male-dominated world, one in which she was brought up to provide children for her husband. As she failed to do this, Henry tired of her and started to look for a new wife, one that could provide him with heirs, unlike his first two wives who had provided him with a daughter each. Diana was not under such pressure and it would have been easier for her to have produced a daughter than it would have been for Anne. Anne and Diana both differ when it comes to education however. Anne was highly educated for the time and spent much of her childhood in the French court. Anne was cultured and could play the lute, had a love for music and art and could speak fluent French. On the other hand, Diana failed her O-levels (equivalent to GSCEs) twice but was a keen pianist and loved dancing. The third rule-breaker from British History, Georgiana Cavendish, lived in the 18th century. Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire (née Spencer) was a leading member of late Georgian society. There are also many similarities between Georgiana Cavendish and Viscountess Nancy Astor, who lived in the 19th century. Lady Georgiana Cavendish was born into a life of luxury in Althorp, Northamptonshire. She was the eldest daughter born to Earl John Spencer, one of the richest men in England and Margaret Georgiana Poyntz. In comparison, Nancy Astor (née Langhorne) was born in Virginia to a relatively poor railroad businessman and it was only when she was thirteen that her father re-established his wealth and built a sizeable home for his family of nine. Georgiana married William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire on her 17th birthday. The marriage was ill-suited as the duke’s extremely reserved demeanour did not suit Georgiana’s fiery and stubborn personality. Georgiana turned to fashion and became the fashion icon of her time. Where Georgiana led, people (particularly high class women) followed. She set fashions and, in particular, the famous ostrich feather wigs that many people associate with the era. Once Nancy Astor came to England, she instantly became known as a fashionable and equally witty American that many wanted to be near to. Similarly, Nancy married a man (Robert Shaw) who was not suited to her and controversially, as divorce was often frowned upon in this particular era, divorced him 52

in 1903. Then Nancy married William Waldorf Astor, who was much more suited to her. Both Astor and Cavendish were extremely interested in politics and Georgiana enthusiastically embraced her husband’s politics. Devonshire House (the seat of the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire) became the hub of the Whig Party. Georgiana helped James Fox regain his seat in the Westminster election by canvassing votes for him. Her actions were successful and he regained his seat although not without causing uproar from the press. Throughout her life, Georgiana was instrumental in persuading and influencing different political factions to work alongside each other and eventually founded a new Ministry known as the Ministry of All the Talents. Nancy decided to run in the election and become a member of parliament. This was after her husband succeeded in being accepted into the House of Lords. Her husband had a seat in the House of Commons several years before World War One and had to forfeit this after his father’s death resulting in his immediate entry to the House of Lords. This led Nancy to try and contest his vacant seat in parliament. Although Astor had not become involved with the Women’s Suffrage Movement run by the likes of Emmeline Pankhurst, she still managed to become the first woman elected to the British Parliament. Nancy Astor was also the subject of press scrutiny and was described as ‘out of touch’ and was disliked for her known distaste of alcohol consumption. Although Georgiana did not run in any elections she was a key part of the Whig campaign and both ladies supported a party and changed the way their own party was viewed. It is interesting to compare all four women and show how very similar in ideas and beliefs they are and in the situations they have experienced or been forced into. For example, Georgiana and Diana were both married at a young age to an older man who may not have been suited to them. Georgiana was married at just seventeen exactly (as her marriage was on her birthday). Diana was a little older and married Prince Charles just a few days after her twentieth birthday. It is also an interesting coincidence that both Anne Boleyn and Nancy Astor spent time living at Hever Castle as Nancy’s second husband, William Waldorf Astor, spent lots of money refurbishing and extending the house, even installing a man-made lake in the garden. There is another similarity between Diana and Georgiana in the fact the Georgiana is the great-great-great-great aunt of Diana; Diana is a descendent of Georgiana’s brother, George. Both Anne and Georgiana are accused of having an illicit affair with men that were not their husbands. In Anne’s case she was suspected of having several affairs with other men; one being court musician, Mark Smeaton, and the other being incestuous, George Boleyn. Historians are unsure as to whether Anne committed these offences or whether they were created by Henry and his advisors to add to the case brought 53

against Anne, ending in her death. Georgiana was accused and was actually found guilty of an affair with Charles Grey, an up-and-coming politician and later prime minister, which resulted in an illegitimate child, Eliza, before the relationship was discovered and swiftly ended.

Why does humanity have such a wide range of languages? Martha Feasey Year 9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Highly Commended

nyone one who has ever studied languages could tell you that although it may seem like there is no way of linking the thousands of languages spoken around the world, they are far more alike than you may think. Some researchers go as far as to say that

English is merely a dialect of French and that Portuguese is little more than Spanish with a different accent. However, the majority of people would be offended if you even suggested this. But how and why do Portuguese and Spanish link? And how did the same species manage to create such different and similar languages all across the globe? How did civilisations that never met have similarities between their way of communicating? Did they borrow words from each other or do they have a common ancestor language which both came from? What will our languages be like in the future? Throughout this essay, I will address the questions that have been facing linguists for years and see if there is a common mother tongue. Language Family Trees When tracing our family back through the generations we often do so by creating family trees; linguists do the same but with languages. They create different trees with branches coming off representing smaller, sub-language family trees which in turn have branches with the languages that we know, speak and learn today. There are three main language families which the majority of modern languages stem from. These are the Indo-European (includes English), the Sino-Tibetan (includes Chinese) and the Afro-Asiatic (includes Arabic). The Indo-European Family Tree Latin is often considered the mother of all languages but we can trace the origins of the Romance and other European languages back even further. Linguists believe that in the prehistoric era, Indo-European spread from India and the Middle-East to Europe where it evolved to become a wide variety of languages ranging from Welsh to Greek. This is why languages like Farsi or Hindi are in the same language family tree as English. When Indo-European spread to Europe it was only spoken, not written. This is why Hindi and Farsi look unrecognisable to a native English speaker - the way of writing originated independently from one another. However, the further 55

back in time we go, the harder it is to know if we are correct or not. As there were no written records, it is difficult to be certain because there is no concrete evidence.

Borrowing or Common Ancestor? As well as lack of evidence, it is also difficult to know due to the borrowing of words or simple coincidences. Around 80% of English vocabulary is borrowed which can make it difficult to tell what was the language it evolved from. As vocabulary can be borrowed, linguists often look to grammar, articles or family terms to get a more accurate estimation of where a language comes from as these are rarely borrowed. In the diagram above of the Indo-European family tree, you may have noticed that English was listed as a Germanic language rather than a Romance language as you may expect. This is especially surprising when you take into account that 60% of English words have Latin or Greek roots. Also, many students of both French and German (myself included) would agree that French is easier as it seems more familiar. You may have also noticed an arrow pointing from French to Middle English. This is the influence of the French language when William the Conqueror invaded and became the English King. Old English was far more of a Germanic language than the language we speak today and a native German speaker would find a poem such as Beowulf easier to understand than a French speaker whereas a French speaker may be more successful with a poem written in modern English. When deciding which branch a language belongs to, linguists consider where it evolved from (i.e. Old English) rather than where the majority of its words come from. Therefore, English is found on the Germanic branch.

Nostratic Language families such as the Indo-European have lots of evidence that link them; however, the further back you go, the harder it is to make links. Similar to normal family trees, there is less evidence so it is hard to tell more than a few generations back. Having said this, there are theories that all languages stem from one mother tongue known as Nostratic. Professor Joseph Greenberg and his team at Stanford University came up with this theory and although parts of this extended language family tree are widely accepted, other sections are questioned as there is little to no evidence to back it up. This theory links the Indo-European language family to the Altaic language tree (which includes languages such as Korean and Japanese.) It then goes on to link these family trees to the Afro-Asiatic (includes Arabic and Hebrew) to form Nostratic. Here is a simplified version of Professor Greenbergâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposal:

However, this theory is widely disputed due to a lack of evidence and very few linguists agree with every link Professor Greenberg made. From dialect to language Many languages start off as dialects or even accents of another language, but how do these slight differences in pronunciation become completely different ways of communication? In simple terms, a tribe of people who lived and worked together split into two smaller tribes to search for new food or water. Over time, the different tribes encounter different animals, survive different conditions and eat different foods resulting in completely different languages which are incredibly difficult to link together. Linguists know that things like conditions and food eaten affect language due to common themes across languages that developed from colder or warmer climates. 57

The Future of Languages Throughout history, we have seen an increase in languages. However, linguists are beginning to see the opposite effect: languages going extinct. Around 26 known languages die out per year as more dominant languages like English and Mandarin replace them. As dominant languages are required for businesses and many jobs, smaller languages are no longer useful so simply die out. The last speaker of Eyak (a native Alaskan language) died in 2008 and it is only one among many that die each year. There are efforts to keep languages alive with both Hawaiian and Welsh being compulsory parts of the curriculum in their respective countries. Conclusion Language has evolved and changed over time and no matter how hard we may try to put together the pieces of the language jigsaw, we can never know for certain. Although we can link within families, we have little evidence to make links across different families making the possibility of one mother tongue impossible to prove. Our own language has changed to seem more like French and other Romance languages due to borrowed words, making it difficult for linguists to trace its origins. We know how climate and food changed the way our ancestors and hence us speak and we know that languages will continue to change, evolve and go extinct but we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know where or how. We can never know for certain what has happened and what will happen; we only know that, like us, language has and will change.

Will artificial intelligence make us less intelligent? Elizabeth Pocknell Year 9 – Highly Commended

n this essay, I explore what intelligence is and the positive and negative impacts that artificial intelligence (AI) is having on the human race. I will also talk about the problems that may occur when robots become more frequently used and, finally, I hope to spark debate with

my conclusion on whether artificial intelligence will make us more or less intelligent. Intelligence is defined as ‘being able to acquire knowledge and perform skills’. Einstein said, ‘The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination’. The implied meaning is that being intelligent is not just knowing things, but how you use the knowledge you are given. For example, you are told that bricks are strong, so you use the bricks to build a house. We become more intelligent by learning from our teachers, researching, practising skills, talking with our friends and family, and reading. We also learn, individually and as a human race, by failing at tasks because we can try them again and use our brain to learn and improve upon our experiences. From the moment we are born we are practising and learning. The intelligence we have, as individuals and as a collective, is not finite but is rather evolving and exponentially growing. Artificial intelligence is defined as ‘the theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence’. Computers, for a long time, have been capable of being functional; for example, translating what is spoken from French into English: Je m’appelle = I am called. However, large computers now have the ability to store trillions of pieces of information and to use that to learn for themselves and from themselves. Computers can and do make medical procedures safer and they can improve the quality of life for the disabled – Stephen Hawking, for example. They have the ability to store and use large amounts of information. Our brains do not have the ability to store that much information because they cannot compute the same volume of data. Computers are therefore providing us with a medium in which to store a lot of useful information that we can use to make the world a better place. AI is learning and is now doing a lot of tasks for us - tasks that before relied on our brains. A calculator is a perfect example: it can calculate in milliseconds something which 100 years ago would've taken much longer to solve. Because we don't have to waste that time doing the actual calculation, we can now focus on more complex, thought-requiring problems. 59

Artificial intelligence will be able to help with logical and analytical intelligence, like being able to work out the next digit in the sequence of Pi, but it will not, however, be able to help with social or emotional intelligence such as being able to empathise with how someone is feeling, because robots and computers do not have consciousness, and will never be able to have the same feelings that the human brain can generate. They will be able to learn what feelings they should have because of the volume of data they will be able to collect about genuine human feelings; however, they will never have real feelings. So, in theory, they can process data so they can react how a human should react, and effectively by reacting to situations in a human-like manner, can trick people into thinking they have certain feelings. Once they are able to do tasks quicker and more effectively than us, they will start to take up some of our jobs in the workplace. On the face of it, if our brains aren't being used and we aren't learning as much, our general level of intelligence is going to go down. In other words, as a race we will, overall, be less intelligent. We will slowly lose the ability to think for ourselves upon bigger decisions because computers will be doing the thinking for us, in the same way that if you donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t keep exercising, and keep eating, you will put on weight. However, what artificial intelligence might do is provide more data more quickly to release our brains from doing the basic thinking and allowing our brains the space to do the very clever analysis and calculations that we don't yet know we can't do. For example, around 3000 years ago we thought the world was flat. With the help of intelligence, we were able to work out that the world is spherical. If we had had more data and more information provided to us by computers, we might have been able to work out more quickly that the world was spherical. If we had been able to work out more quickly that the world was spherical, then we might have been able to work out more quickly how to get to the moon. This is how artificial intelligence is making us more intelligent, because it is using the sources of information that it has found out and learning to think in the same way to work out similar calculations. Artificial intelligence is not going to take away from us our senses such as sight, sound, touch, smell and taste, but the human brain has a capacity and is unable to comprehend some things, and to take in as much information, to the extent that computers can. So, as a society, we will still use all of our senses to gain knowledge and acquire skills. We will also be able to use our brains more effectively and to work on inventing and thinking about bigger problems, because our basic level of information will be computed more quickly for us by computers. Of course, using AI comes with negatives, as once they are able to do tasks quicker and more effectively than us, they will start to take up some of our jobs in the workplace. But if we can look past or improve on the

negatives and use AI to our advantage, it will be exceptionally useful for the future and will help us build a stronger economy. I believe that Einstein was right and that the true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination, and that our brains will be released from more mundane tasks to allow our brains to imagine even bigger things that we haven't yet thought about. I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t feel we will lose as much of our decision making as we think because we still have social interactions that computers will never be able to take away or empathise with to the extent that humans do. Before I started this research, I thought that AI would make us less intelligent, but I have now reached the conclusion that AI will contribute a lot to our knowledge, and that if we carry on using our imagination and our brains, AI will make us more intelligent and give us knowledge we didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know was possible.

Would women have gained the vote without the Suffragette Movement? Maud Beidas Year 8 – Highly Commended

he name Suffragette comes from the word ‘suffrage’ meaning the right to vote and the ‘ette’ making it a feminine form, in the manner of various words such as usherette, although originally the term was applied by the male press to these women in a sneering,

derogatory way. ‘Ette’ was a diminutive form, a term for the ‘little woman’, the ‘second sex’, and it was strange for the ruling male elite to hear it coupled with a masculine concept like suffrage. The Suffragette movement, which reclaimed the word for its own ends, was a large group of females and some male supporters who were keen to gain the right to vote for women, because most men already had this opportunity. They argued that universal suffrage should be a right. Until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, women had little to no rights; they 'belonged’ to their husbands. But women were growing in consternation. They didn’t want to be controlled by men anymore and as they didn’t have the vote, they had no say in the laws that governed them, so gaining the vote would be the first step to greater equality. Eventually the government was persuaded by various different actions to give women the vote. But would women have the vote without the actions of the Suffragettes? I shall explain below. The idea of women having a vote had actually been discussed a hundred or so years before the Suffragette movement was founded in 1903. It was brought to the attention of the “reading classes” by Mary Wollstonecraft when she wrote her Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792. Mary Wollstonecraft was one of the earliest

women

have

professional paid career outside the home, as an editor and translator. Some educated women had been keen to gain the franchise, or vote, for their sex. In the early nineteenth 62

century, only 3% of men had the vote but throughout the nineteenth century, various bills went through Parliament giving more men the right to vote; the vote, however, was only given to middle class property owning men over the age of 21, whereas women had few rights. Everything they owned belonged to their husband upon marriage. Writer and MP John Stuart Mill said that women and men should have equal rights, as he argued in his essay ‘The Subjection of Women’ (1861). He drafted a parliamentary bill calling for women’s suffrage in 1866, helped by his friend Richard Marsden Pankhurst, an early socialist who later would become the husband of Suffragette leader Emmeline. It was defeated. Local and national suffrage organisations got involved and in 1897 they became the National Union of Women’s Suffrage societies (NUWSS), campaigning for women to have the vote on the same terms as men. Their approach was constitutional, choosing to lobby parliament and collecting signatures for petitions. Their campaigns were peaceful and used political methods (although limited, as they did not have direct access to Parliament and could not vote!) to try and gain the vote for women. They held public meetings and published leaflets, pamphlets, newspapers and journals displaying the reasons and justifications for granting women the vote. ‘Suffragists’ was the name given to the members of NUWSS and other such organisations. Their calls for the vote had fallen on deaf ears, perhaps because the campaigns were fairly quiet and low key, or maybe because the government quietened the media. Perhaps the media was not interested. Women did not draw attention to themselves back then. It wasn’t the done thing. But their campaigns got them nowhere! The political climate of the late 19th century had changed; the 1870 Education Act meant that all children had to attend school so the working classes were now increasingly literate. There was a rise in popular political movements, such as Trades Unions and the birth of socialism with the Independent Labour Party in 1900. Working people of both genders were demanding to be heard. It was mainly women that were campaigning for women’s suffrage, but they were to have help from supportive men such as Keir Hardie and Fredrick Pethick-Lawrence. In 1903, the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), their members being known as Suffragettes, was founded by Emmeline Pankhurst and two of her daughters Christabel and Sylvia. They took it upon themselves to raise awareness of the cause that is women’s suffrage. Their campaign almost immediately was characterised by violent and disruptive actions and events; their motto was ‘DEEDS NOT WORDS’ because the previous campaigns had achieved nothing with their lobbying and petitioning, and the Pankhursts did not want their campaign to be ignored. To raise the awareness they believed they needed to use militant actions such as throwing rocks

through windows of prominent men’s homes, chaining themselves to gates of various important edifices, setting fire to public buildings, disrupting public meetings and other scandalous acts. Many of the Suffragettes fighting for the cause were imprisoned as a result of their actions, yet they would not be silenced. They often chose to go on hunger strike to continue gaining precious publicity and also because the government refused to treat them as political prisoners. However, the government could not afford the possibility of there being a martyr so they were force fed. The force feeding was brutal; a tube was stuck up their nose and liquid was poured down it. A very committed Suffragette, Emily Wilding Davison, barricaded herself in her prison cell so that she would not be force fed. As well as this, on Derby Day, 4 th June 1913, Davison threw herself under the King’s horse whilst holding a ‘VOTES FOR WOMEN’ banner. The injuries she received proved fatal and she died few days later giving the Suffragettes a martyr. Her actions raised a lot of awareness, yet many men in power thought that because of this, women were stupid and could not be trusted with the right to vote. Others saw the extremes women would to go to gain the right to vote and were swayed into thinking that the vote should be given to women. The single incident alone could be seen to have had more impact than anything else because the media couldn’t hide it and the King himself was involved. During the First World War, Emmeline Pankhurst put a hold on all militant acts and demanded that women contributed to the war effort while the men were away fighting. ‘Women are only too anxious to be recruited!’ she claimed, and as they were not allowed to go and fight, there was plenty that they could do on the Home Front. She led a march of women in 1915 demanding ‘the right to serve’. Seeing as most men had gone, plenty of traditionally ‘male’ jobs needed to be done, and there was no one else to do them except women. Many had to take paid work or else their families would starve. Some women even continued in their line of work once the war was over others went back to having the man of the house as the breadwinner while they looked after the children. They worked tirelessly in factories making munitions for the war, driving buses and working as engineers. Their work was valued by everyone in Britain, and it could be argued that these good works had a bigger impact on changing the government’s opinion on women’s suffrage than any previous campaigns of violence, or deeds of martyrdom by the Suffragettes. 64

1918 was a year to remember for women’s suffrage as the Suffragettes’ demands were finally listened to and all women householders over the age of 30 were allowed to vote. This was not a lot but it was an improvement. In Parliament, the Representation of the People Act passed the motion by 385 votes to 55 to extend the franchise to 5.6 million more men and 8.4 million women. The UK electorate trebled from 7.7million in 1912 to 21.4 million in 1918; women made up 43% of the electorate by 1918. If women had received the vote on equal terms with men in 1918, they would have made up the majority of the electorate, because many young men had been killed in the First World War. This is probably why the vote in 1918 was only given to women over 30. By 1928, universal suffrage was given to both genders over the age of 21 and then in 1970 it was reduced to the age of 18. Although women’s work and effort during the First World War proved that women were both mentally and physically able to work on equal terms with men, the Suffragettes brought the awareness and attention that the demand for female suffrage needed. Without their cries, and their ‘deeds, not words’, arguably the franchise would not have been granted to women. The weight of evidence shows that without the Suffragettes then women would not have made their voices heard by the men in power. Even with the success of women’s war work, without the awareness of the cause that the Suffragettes raised, we may still be holding peaceful protests outside Parliament.

Are driverless cars the future? Catherine Reynolds Year 8 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Highly Commended

hen I am old enough to drive, will I need to drive a car at all? If accidents happen, who will be blamed? If cars are driverless, will jobs be lost? These are just some of the many questions arising from the prospect of driverless cars in the future. Many

technology companies, such as Google, are currently trying to create the best driverless cars of the future. A fully driverless car is a car that does not require any passenger to do anything towards the control of the vehicle. Driverless cars are ranked in levels nought to five on how autonomous they are. It starts at level nought where all features of the car are operated by a human and nothing is done by the car itself. Level one is the next level up and is what most cars on our road today come under. This is where the person at the wheel does most of the control but the car is also capable of assisting in a few features, for example, acceleration and cruise control. A Level 2 car can control two things by itself, for example, steering and breaking. The other controls, however, are human operated. Level three means all features of the car are autonomous: the car can completely drive itself only with a human driver on standby to step in should something go wrong. Since level three requires the human driver to watch the road and be aware at all times it is a pretty pointless autonomous car since you might as well be steering as well, since that is the easiest part of driving and you have to do the harder elements of driving anyway. Level four cars are fully autonomous with no driving controls inside the car. However, they can only drive around in a certain mapped area that the car knows its way around. Level five cars are the same as level four, only they can drive you anywhere you want in the world. Driverless cars are referred to as a thing of the future, but in fact they already exist. However, none are classed as fully autonomous yet, since we only have level three so far on limited production so the driver still needs to be on high alert at all times and ready to correct the car if it goes wrong. Technology company Google has launched a driverless car project called â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Waymoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. This project started at Google in 2009 and then was given a separate name and they have created several cars up to level four standard. Google currently invest 30 million dollars a year in driverless cars. Many other companies such as Intel also invest vast amounts of money into driverless cars 66

because they believe that level five cars on our streets will happen in the future. However, how many years into the future is not known exactly. A few companies, such as Ford, are saying they will have level four driverless cars available to buy in the 2020s. Driverless cars work by using sensors and special software to know where they are and detect other cars, cyclists, pedestrians etc. Whilst detecting people, cars and animals aren't a problem at the moment, making ethical decisions that humans make in their cars all the time is an issue. For example, I was on my way home from school the other day and a bird was in the middle of the road and there were other cars behind us. In this scenario my mum who was driving made the split-second decision to carry on driving and not stop, knowing that the bird would almost definitely fly away as we got closer and that, if we stopped, we would probably cause a crash from the people behind crashing into us. These are the sorts of decisions that are difficult to teach a robot to perform, since they could detect the bird using their sensors and stop, thus causing a crash in which several people may be injured or die, just for one bird that would have almost definitely survived anyway. Any driverless cars built are probably all going to be electric since that is probably how most cars will be in the future and some are already. Normal motor cars have been around for about 130 years and are an important part of many people's lives. However, during that time, they have heavily contributed to polluting the earth and increased global warming. Meanwhile, they have also caused around 1.3 million deaths every year: 3,562 people per day. Yet, in the vast majority of accidents, the humans have been the ones to blame and not the vehicle, so why not do away with the problem causer - the driver. These vehicles as they are have many negative facts surrounding them and yet there are 31.7 million cars (as of 2016) on the UK roads alone. So why do so many of us all have cars if they kill so many people per year and pollute and slowly destroy our planet? Because they are used so much in our everyday lives and we are so dependent on them now - whether it is to get to work or go to shops, lots of us rely on cars to make the effort for us. Another reason perhaps is that we don't directly see the large impact cars have on our planet and therefore forget or would rather not think about it. There are some improvements though: companies such as Tesla and Volvo make electric cars that don't damage our precious planet anywhere near as much as burning the petrol in normal cars does. These cars are not autonomous at the moment. Electric cars need charging and companies such as Nissan are creating wireless charging, since plug-in charging already exists. As well as being the way cars seem to be heading now anyway, electric cars are far easier to make autonomous than petrol or diesel cars. So new driverless cars built are probably all going to be electric.

Driverless cars will enable disabled people to get around. They, also, will save lives. Humans can make mistakes, but if computers are programmed correctly, then they won't make mistakes and so, will save lives. Since there is so much money, effort and time going into creating fully autonomous cars and we have already got to a level two and three, I think that in the future there will be mostly driverless cars on our roads including level four and five ones in the not so distant future since some companies are skipping straight to working on level five cars already. I also think that although we will have mainly driverless cars on our roads eventually, it wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be good news for everyone since a quarter of a million people work as some form of driver for their living, whether it be a delivery person, or a taxi driver - they will slowly go out of work. I think that driverless cars are the future of cars on our roads and although having almost all cars on our roads being level five autonomy may be very far off, I think we will get there and it will happen, and, hopefully, in my life-time so I get to drive one, or, I should say, be driven by one!

Could humans survive on Mars? Charlotte Syson Year 7 – Highly Commended

ith the right technological support, humans could survive almost anywhere. The main things humans need to survive are food, water, shelter, air (nitrogen, oxygen) and a temperature of about 20oC. Very few of these things exist naturally on Mars,

and so my challenge was to find ways of transporting and keeping these conditions on the Red Planet. A weekend on Mars To survive for a couple of days on Mars an astronaut could take everything with him. His spaceship would provide shelter from the harsh Martian environment and provide enough air to breathe at the right pressure. He would only need about 6 litres of water for that short period of time and a few kilos of food. His energy would come from the spaceship’s batteries which would be able to provide enough heat and light for a short stay. A year on Mars A year on Mars, however, is a different story. For a week or a month, an astronaut could live in his spaceship and carry food, water, and oxygen with him. But for a year he would need to set up a shelter, a reliable source of food and water, and lots of oxygen. Water – It is possible to make water using oxygen and hydrogen by burning them, but it is very dangerous, especially on Mars, where an explosion could be very serious. Therefore, if I was stranded and in need of large quantities of water, I would only use that method as a last resort, when I was desperate. We believe there is a large amount of ice on Mars and it is probably at the poles. I would seriously consider putting my base there. Assuming I had planned to be on Mars for a month or so, I would need a rover designed by NASA especially for Mars. This would only travel a small distance and would need to run on solar power. Another option is to re-use the water I do have; for example, purifying urine which can be done quite easily by heating it up (which can be done using the sun) and then collecting all the evaporated water from this, much like what you’d do to collect the solvent from a solution. You could live like this for a long time, so this is what I’d do. Shelter – Assuming you were expecting to stay on Mars for a month or so, you may have a temporary weather-proof tent. If this was the case, you would be lucky because you would have 69

an air-tight space in which you could breathe, wear normal clothes, and eat easily; without this, however, making a shelter would be challenge because the weather is harsh. You would need to wear a spacesuit as it is too cold for humans. If I knew how long I’d be away I might have tried to live in my spaceship, but this could be very tricky if it was small. However, since it would have taken a few years to travel there, it wouldn’t be too small for a few more months. Using the Martian materials, it is possible to make a shelter to live in. This could be achieved by digging a shelter underground which would be warm and airtight, but to do this you would really need a digger of some sort – a spade and a pickaxe wouldn’t really do the job. Lots of physics would be involved in this to make sure the shelter was the right shape and as safe as possible. Mars might have lava tunnels from volcanos years ago. These tunnels would make very good shelters and would not need much digging. Food – You would need to take several years’ supply of food if you were on a trip to Mars. If you stayed for longer than expected you would need to grow more food. You could try rationing out the food you have, but if you aren’t sure how long you will be stranded for, that’s not the best option. Growing vegetables is possible, but Martian soil doesn’t have all the nutrients in it that plants need to grow. One option is to mix this soil in with human waste – it’s not very pleasant, but it would work. Assuming you had sprouting foods (for example, potatoes) you could regrow them and ration out the rest of your food so you still have a varied diet, but mainly focusing on potatoes and other root vegetables. Air – Air is arguably the first and most important factor when trying to survive anywhere. Humans can last about three days without water; however, without air you can only survive for about four minutes, which is not long at all. Since growing food is probably one of the first things you’d try to do, plants would help change the carbon dioxide into oxygen. However, this isn’t necessarily the fastest and most efficient way to make oxygen. You can make oxygen and hydrogen through the process of electrolysis of water. This is a relatively safe way to make it, but you would need a lot of water which could be a problem in the long term. For a long stay you will need to use natural cycles using plants but, for a year, electrolysing water would work quite well. A lifetime on Mars Living on Mars forever is a huge challenge. You would need to create natural cycles for air and water. Solar panels could create electricity, but it is limited and you cannot replace a solar panel if it breaks. Electrolysing water can make oxygen but is there enough water? Urine can be purified to water, but is it fast enough and is there enough of it? So many factors come into living on Mars, but, yes, a small number of humans could survive on Mars for a very, very long time if we 70

really wanted to. Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m sure that in the next few decades we will know how to do it and how to live on the Red Planet indefinitely; however, I think it will be hard to do for more than a small number of people.

What would the world be like without humans? Jessica Strens Year 7 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Highly Commended

e all know that over the last few centuries humans have affected the world in a negative way, from litter to global warming. But what if humans just disappeared off the face of the Earth? Would our mistakes still affect the Earth? And would it be

better or worse? Scientists estimate the Earth has existed for over 6 billion years and humans have been in power over the world for just 0.003% of that (200 000 years). Within that time we have wiped out millions of species and endangered even more. But if we just vanished, would the endangered species recover? And what about the animals we have bred to be domestic? Would they survive? Some think the world would do a lot better without us, but some quite disastrous things could occur. Hereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s what we think will happen. First, the pets stuck in houses and zoos will start to die and those who escape will probably not survive without humans to feed them. Millions of chickens, cattle and other livestock will die, becoming a source of prey to wild animals. Big dogs will most likely group together and hunt the smaller ones or livestock and the smaller dogs, like pugs, who have short legs and fur not useful in the wild will die out. At the same time, most of the power stations will shut down (except for solar, wind and hydroelectric power, which too will eventually stop). With no power, all the lights will go out. The water which the nuclear power stations use to keep cool will gradually evaporate, so they will overheat and cause mass explosions. Sewage pipes will burst and will leak into the rivers and lakes, and, with all the fumes from the explosions in the air, many species will suffer from cancer and forest fires. Some of these animals might mutate because of radiation exposure, like in the Chernobyl disaster. This could speed up the process of evolution, creating brand new species over the period of just a few years. After a few days, the tubes and underground tunnels will be flooded, as the pumps made to keep them empty will stop working with no humans. However, the earth should recover quite quickly from all of this and, within 25 years, the air will be much purer than it is now. With no cars or factories releasing fumes into the air, visibility will be a lot better in all the large cities and plants and trees will have taken over three-quarters of all of our houses and roads. Where there are plants, there are also animals, so many of the endangered species will begin to rebuild their numbers. The houses will start to fall down with no 72

one to take care of them or fix broken roofs and walls. Wild animals will probably use them as shelter. After 300 years, metal constructions such as the Eiffel tower or sky scrapers will fall down, as no one is there to paint them to stop them rusting or weathering and most houses will have nothing left of them. Whales and large sea animals will thrive with no one to hunt them, more smaller fish, and cleaner waters. Global warming will slow down with no fumes from cars being released into the atmosphere and might even stop. This also means some desert lands could thrive with nature once more. After 500 years all large cities will be grass lands or forests abundant with all kinds of animals, and, after 10,000 years, all evidence that human beings ever existed will be stone or concrete structures, such as pyramids and the Great Wall of China. Plastic bottles will outlive all of this and still be there in 50 million years’ time. Eventually, these too will disintegrate and no trace of humankind will exist. This is what would happen if nature balanced itself out, but that is not necessarily what will happen. By then it is possible a new species will rise into dominance, such as a main predator or another ape similar to mankind, and they could be just like us. Some argue that humans are the most intelligent species that have ever and will ever live and that no other animal could really travel through space. If they could potentially evolve, why haven’t they already? Others argue that if human beings could evolve, then so could another species. The world isn’t going to stay in constant harmony and balance for ever. Even now, animals are becoming cleverer, and we have discovered emotions in monkeys and other animals very similar to those of humans. For all we know, our own technology could develop feelings and a conscious mind; we are already developing human-like computers that can learn how to do things from copying us. Also, without humans to balance things out, other wild animals might not all survive. Humans have done things to protect and preserve other species - for example, people destroying Crown of Thorns starfish to save the coral - so without us the starfish could grow in numbers and eat all the coral. However, others state it is our fault they were increasing in numbers anyway, because we nearly wiped out all their predators. So, without us, their predators can increase in numbers and everything will be equal. For some, though, it won’t be so easy. Humans have introduced many insects and ants to foreign places where they have thrived, killing many of the new places’ own native species. Even without mankind spreading them, they could still do a lot of damage and infest the countries we have brought them to. 73

So, has the impact of humans on this planet been good or bad? We have achieved great things, sent men to the moon and even sent space robots to Mars, whilst at the same time harming this planet with pollution and litter. For every rocket we send to space, toxic gases are released into the atmosphere, and every time a nuclear power plant takes a risk, there is a possibility thousands could die. Humans may mean well, but still do bad things. If we really try, we could achieve lots and protect the environment at the same time. We may be the most intelligent species on earth, but we do also make very stupid choices. It is very unlikely humans will just disappear, but there could be horrible viruses and diseases that could wipe us out within a few years. We will probably have started living on other planets by the time one evolves that is contagious enough to spread around the whole planet. Over all, without humans, I think the world would be a very, very different place.

What effect do rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have on the levels of acidity in the ocean? Anne Mynors Year 7 – Highly Commended

ots of people know about climate change (global warming) and CO2 in the atmosphere

being problems for the ‘health’ of the world; however, a problem that not many people recognise is the dilemma of the ocean absorbing CO2. Ever since the industrial revolution started in the 1800s, fossil-fuelled machinery has made an extraordinary amount of progress in human lives; however, this has also caused the release of lots of CO2, along with other gases, into the Earth's atmosphere. Half of this in return has, over time, been absorbed by the ocean, which in some ways has benefited us by slowing climate change, rather than speeding it up which it would have done if the gases had stayed in the atmosphere. When CO2 dissolves into the ocean, it makes carbonic acid leading to higher acidity of the oceans, mainly near the surface. The absorption of CO2 into the ocean has, unfortunately, decreased the ocean’s pH level, making the ocean more acidic. This means that instead of the ocean being pH > 7, it is pH < 7. The pH of seawater had remained steady for millions of years before the industrial period began: the average pH at the ocean surface being about 8.2 (called ‘slightly basic’. 7 is neutral). Today, it is about 8.1 and it might not look like a significant difference but if we carry on producing CO2 at the same speed as we are doing, by 2100 the ocean might have a pH that is low enough to dissolve the skeletons of the coral, resulting in the reefs falling apart (it will also affect other underwater sea creatures). It will also cause more acid rain than happened in the north in the industrial era. Acid rain stops plants from growing properly and it gets into the waterways and it does a huge amount of damage.

So now that you know what is going on with acidity levels in the ocean, you might want to know what people are doing or can do to resolve this problem. The answer is not much at the moment. It takes lots of energy and money to pump and then also treat water to reduce ocean acidity. Lots of countries signed up to the Paris Agreement which is looking at ways to stop or at least slow down global warming. One of the ways that they are doing this is by decreasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. One of the drawbacks is that President Trump has pulled America, one of the world’s largest CO2 generators, out of the Agreement. There is one interesting option though: adding lime to the oceans will reduce the amount of CO2 and in return the oceans will absorb more from the atmosphere decreasing the amount of CO2 altogether. This project was thought of by Tim Kruger in 2008 and is called Cquestrate. Cquestrate is working with the University of Oxford, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, University College London and AEA Technology. So how does this method work? Well, the lime reacts to the carbon acid in the sea water converting it into something called bicarbonate ions which then decreases the acidity of the water and lets the ocean absorb some more CO2 from the air. This does two things: one, it decreases the acidity of the oceans; and two, it reduces global warming. Even though this is a great idea it may not solve the whole problem, so scientists are thinking of other ways just in case this one is not enough. Another idea to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere so that the ocean stops absorbing it is to send self-proficient ships out to spray lots of tiny droplets of seawater into the atmosphere so that they form clouds to reflect the sun’s rays and eventually cancel out the massive temperature rise caused solely by humans. However, 1,800 ships would cause the same amount of CO2 that we imagine will occur within a few decades (with 300 ships we think that we can stop the temperature rise). So now you know about what scientists can do to reduce ocean acidity, you might want to know how people are going to set this project up and, also, how much it will cost us. It will cost quite a lot because the whole world will need to mine and process around 10 cubic kilometres of limestone each year to soak up the whole world’s CO2 emissions. Also, there will be CO2 emissions as a result of the limestone being mined. Also, the world would eventually run out of limestone and we would be back to square one. There would be more and more CO2 in the oceans 76

and they couldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t absorb any more the atmosphere because of the over population of the world. So that is what it will cost with regard to resources. On the financial side, it will cost (in dollars) 1 trillion by 2100. However, the cost might be higher than this because of damage to the coasts that might be caused. In conclusion, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the reefs and other plant life to die because they canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t live in waters of such high acidity. It could also cause acid rain which will destroy crops and stop any plant life such as trees or flowers from growing. This happened before in the north of this country. The main way that we can stop this from happening is by adding lime to the oceans, decreasing the acidity and allowing more CO2 to be absorbed and then cancelled out. The downsides are that this is an expensive project with regard to finances and other resources because we might run out of limestone.

What does it take to become an Olympic gymnast? Grace Isabella Lloyd Year 7 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Highly Commended

have an ambition to become an Olympic gymnast. Is this realistic? Will my drive, enthusiasm, hard work and skill get me there or does it take more? I have researched this question to understand whether my dream could become reality. I have investigated a number of

different factors and requirements essential to the training and career of a gymnast and evaluated them into nine different key areas. This work included many references and comparing the profiles of top gymnasts. I examined Olympic medal tables and interviewed an elite gymnast, Caroline Ardon. Due to their incredible success at the Olympic Games, my research also included learning about the USA national gymnastic system. I have evaluated and analysed the key factors that must be considered to become an Olympic gymnast. 1. Training Training is essential and the number of hours per week depends upon age but can lead up to thirty hours. Training improves skill level, speed of movement, agility, timing, balance, rhythm, flexibility and strength. A gymnast training at the highest level tends to live in the gym! I have created a realistic example from my research and interview answers to demonstrate the type of training hours required (based on fifty weeks). Per Week

Per year

Age 4-5

2 hours

100 hours

Age 6-8

6 hours

900 hours

Age 9-12

15 hours

3000 hours

Age 13-16

30 hours

6000 hours

This example shows that a gymnast will reach a total of 10,000 hours of training. When selected for the Olympics, the gymnast would be training up to forty hours per week. 2. Start at a young age The starting age for Olympians and elite gymnast is often around four years old. I believe the earlier you start gymnastics the more opportunity you have to become skilful, flexible and strong. Beth Tweddle, the most successful British gymnast, started at seven years old. Olympic competition has a minimum age of sixteen. In the 2012 London Olympics, four out of the five American team were only sixteen! Louis Smith, a British male gymnast, was nineteen in his first 78

Olympics when he won silver and bronze medals. Max Whitlock, the most successful gymnast in British history, was also seven when he started gymnastics and twenty-three when he won his first gold medal. 3. Attitude A gymnast has to never give up and to be able to cope with fear and failure. The road to being an Olympian will certainly be a very difficult one; there will be lots of times when it would be easier to go back to having a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;normal lifeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. They need to deal with stress, pressure and nerves. It is my belief that physical strength and mental strength are just as important. Gymnasts need to be dedicated, disciplined and need to concentrate at all times so they also need to develop their emotional characteristics. Gymnasts have to cope with anxiety, anger, frustration and pain that can come from training and competing. I believe fear would stop many gymnasts from making their dream come true. 4. The right natural body type I believe natural body shape plays another important part in gymnastics: for example, a sumo wrestler would not make a great gymnast. The average height of a female Olympic gymnast is 1.54cms. My current height is 1.49cms. Usain Bolt has proven that a different body type to what is expected can change beliefs. He was considered far too tall to be a 100m athlete. He is now the most successful 100m runner of all time. Body shape can change through training but you need to be sensible with your body at all times. 5. Healthy diet A healthy diet must consist of protein, carbohydrate, fruit, vegetable, vitamins, minerals and fibre eaten in a balanced way. This allows the gymnast to have fuel during training and to work hard during the many hours at the gym. Poor eating habits will affect the stamina and health of any gymnast. Water intake is also essential for a healthy diet. 6. Correct coach and plan A coach becomes like another parent because of the number of hours the gymnast is training and preparing for the high level of competition. They need to be not too hard but not too easy at the same time. The coach needs to be very clear of the goals of the gymnast, for example a plan for training and competing at a local, national and international level. I have examined the Olympic medal tables for gymnastics and they show the USA won 40% of medals in the last four Olympic Games. The USA has a training programme called TOPS; it stands for Talent Opportunity Programme. It helps children aged seven to eleven get to the elite level and then on to Olympic standards. It advances all skills. The gymnasts attend testing clinics and the results are compared 79

with children all over the country. Those with the highest results are invited to specialist training camps. In England, we do not have anything like TOPS; however, I think we should because it has helped the Americans win medals. My opinion on TOPS is that it helps the Olympic coaches pick out the best and let them know who might have a chance early on. Recently, on a holiday to Florida, I met an eight year old girl who was a USA State Champion. She taught me how to do a backhand spring in two days.

Sport England funded a British gymnastics national talent

development programme in 2013 to increase the size and quality of gymnasts in the country. I believe they could use the TOPS as a model for our country. 7. School Flexibility with school hours can be very difficult and hard to juggle. Most national squads are home schooled. 50% of the top gymnasts are home schooled but they can make plans to be part time as well. If you want to be an Olympian I have shown you need to train many hours and more than half your day must be spent doing gymnastics, which would be very difficult with normal school days. 8. Sleep and recovery Rest is an important part of preparation. Muscles tear and need time to rest and sleep. The recommended number of hours spent sleeping is eight to nine. If a gymnast gets injured then physiotherapy, doctors, medical treatments and massages can all be used to improve recovery. 9. Sacrifices I believe that to be able to compete at the Olympics would require sacrifices elsewhere in life. There would be no time for other sports or hobbies. Family time and social time would be very limited by the training and competitions every weekend. The balance of school and gymnastics could change your education. The gymnast would not have a typical teenage life and little or no time for boyfriends! Conclusion Martin Luther King once said “I have a dream…” and so do I: my dream is to become an Olympic gymnast. Does my research support my dream? My research shows that it is fine to have dreams but to become an Olympian you need extraordinary skills. Gymnastics at an Olympic level is not just a hobby - it is a dedicated way of life that is trying to produce excellence in all areas. This regime requires self-determination, gymnastics ability, a healthy body and elite coaching. It needs an enormous sacrifice to your social life and changes at school due to the training schedule. The road to become an Olympian will definitely be difficult. Can I deliver my dream? Yes I can. In 2020, I will be fifteen and below the national age standard so the first Olympics I will able to compete at 80

is 2024 when I will be nineteen. My age will then be above the age of a USA champion but that does not mean it is not possible and I believe I could achieve my dream! I now have seven years to demonstrate my ability to enable me to enter the British Olympic Program. Bela Karolyi (who coached nine Olympic champions, fifteen world champions, sixteen European medalists and six USA national champions) says â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;I have seen less physically talented athletes become great athletes through an incredible amount of work, self-discipline, seriousness and consistency. As a coach, it is much more exciting and rewarding to work with those who are less talented bur more dedicated and committed to success than athletes who try to get by with physical talent alone.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; I know myself that I have the personal determination to compete at the top level. My research has shocked me at times and there are many decisions ahead but I do still have a dream!

Can fashion change the world? Freya Dhillon Year 7 – Highly Commended

hen you hear the word ‘fashion’ what comes to your mind? Some people instantly think that fashion is frivolous - it’s just clothes! Then other people will think that fashion is great as it is a way to express yourself and how you are feeling. But

everyone needs clothes: they are essential for warmth, modesty and safety. If fashion is not your thing or you have a limited budget, then you might be trying to find the cheapest clothes possible, but the cheapest things are usually the ones that are killing the environment and using child labour. In this essay I will talk about why the fashion industry is one of the most powerful industries in the world, why it can change the world and what you need to do to contribute to saving our world - if we all do a little bit then we can make a big impact. What is Fashion? In my opinion, fashion is not just clothes; fashion is art. When you wear clothes, you are wearing a piece of artwork and making a statement about yourself. A body is a blank canvas and the wearer chooses to cover it as an expression of themselves – this might be how they feel, what their role is, who they identify with. Art can express what the artist is feeling; that is what fashion means to me. When I asked a friend “What is fashion in your opinion?” she replied, “Clothes.” I think clothes can make you feel a certain way by wearing what you find pretty, smart, confident, comfortable, energised, relaxed or whatever else you want to portray or feel. Why does the Fashion industry needs to change? When you are buying a new pair of jeans and the shop assistant hands you your bag with your new clothes in, do you think about where those jeans have been made? What they have been made from? Where they have been made? Who they have been made by? And what the impact is on the world? 1.24 billion pairs of jeans are sold worldwide annually. Modern manufacturing techniques are focused on low cost production and have been criticised for the use of cheap and child labour in developing countries, working conditions and the pollution of the environment. To resolve this issue, some companies have been coming up with innovations to reduce the impact on the world. Innovations such as thinking creatively about what fibres are used in cloth manufacturing such as using plastic bottles, paper, bamboo or using fibres from old clothes to make new clothes. One 82

company which is doing this is H&M as they have recently launched their ‘Conscious Collection’. They used lots of plastic bottles to make a stunning dress earlier this year and shown at various international catwalk events. BAM is a company that sells clothing made from highly sustainable bamboo, particularly focused on the sports and leisure market. Another example is Marks and Spencer who have a responsible sourcing plan that they report on each year. Another reason the industry needs to change is because the fashion industry is one of the most powerful influencers in the world. The fashion industry can make you change your favourite colour, like a certain cut or style in each season. This is how the fashion industry has become such a big business - it was worth £28bn in the UK alone in 2015. There is a huge demand for cheap fashion but the seller is using pesticides on the crops or dyeing fabric using harmful dyes and making children, who should be at school, do all the hard labour. Fashion trends tend to come from the large luxury fashion designers such as Gucci, Versace, Chanel, Dolce and Gabbana, Dior and Louis Vitton. Their designs are copied, re-created and interpreted by the rest of the world. The luxury designers can afford highly trained, well-paid craftsmen, well-sourced fabrics and sound dying techniques to create individual masterpieces but these translate into cheap, unecological and harmful reproductions in the mass market. Recycling Clothes I bet everyone who is reading this essay will claim to recycle as much as they can, but I bet that you won’t recycle all your old items of clothing. This doesn’t just mean taking them to the charity shop. This means saying to yourself “What can I do with this ‘yellow dress’ before I give it to the charity shop?” You could, maybe, make a pillow case with it instead of buying one. You could make fancy dress for your children by sticking some pom-poms on it and maybe a pair of fairy wings. You could also make a bag or quilt cover – these are just a few ideas and I’m sure that you can come with lots more. Technology is also helping – a new machine has been invented that can take your old clothes and remove the fibres to create a new fabric that can be used to produce new clothes. Donating old clothes to charity shops is also a great way to recycle as it means that clothing is passed on to other people to wear – whether it be through reselling it as vintage items in a fashionable charity shop or shipping out to developing or war-torn countries where there is an instant need for warmth and comfort from the clothing. What can you do to help fashion change? If you want a better world for your children then you will need to do your part in making fashion change because if everyone does a small bit then there will be a big impact. The little things 83

count! So if we all play our part then the benefits of fashion will be available to everyone with no child labour or harmful pesticides or other negative impacts on the world. But I guess you’re wondering what you can do to help. Here are some suggestions: 

You can try wearing your clothes again the next day if they are not dirty instead of over-washing them and using too much electricity



Instead of ironing, hang the item of clothing up outside the shower and the steam will iron it out whilst you have a shower



Instead of buying new clothes see if any of your friends have any old clothes that you like - borrow or swap those



When you are buying new clothes, don’t be afraid to ask the shop assistant or look at the label to find out where it was made, how it was made, what it’s made from so that you can make an informed decision about whether to buy them



Buy clothes from a conscious collection that is ecologically sourced and raise awareness about it so more people will do the same



Have a go at making your own clothes



Check out the policies of the retailer that you buy your clothing from – do they have sourcing and human rights policies?



Buy clothes that are made locally to reduce transport costs and pollution



Buy clothing made from sustainable natural fibres (e.g. cotton, wool, bamboo) and natural dyes to reduce pollution and use of plastics and other man-made fibres. Conclusion To conclude, I think that fashion is definitely not frivolous. It is important to have a way of expressing ourselves to others – whether that is our uniqueness or our belonging. But we have a responsibility to reduce the negative impact on our world by making responsible and conscious choices about the fashion we choose to buy and wear.

PART THREE COMMENDED ENTRIES

Should military service in South Korea remain mandatory? Genevieve Shrimpton Year 9 - Commended Essay

outh Korea has gained recognition throughout the world because of tensions with its neighbour, North Korea,

which

have

remained

prominent since the Korean War, where the country split into North and South because

political

differences.

However, an increasingly pressing issue within the country itself is mandatory Security at the North-South Korean border demonstrate the tensions between the two countries.

military service which requires all ablebodied men aged between 18-35 to complete military service for two years,

depending on the service in question that is chosen. Although service is a sensitive topic in South Korea, the public view is divided: some view it as a national duty and instil a sense of patriotism, while others look upon it with dread, depending on the ideologies they were exposed to throughout childhood or personal circumstance. Especially because of growing fear of neighbour North Korea developing weapons and attacking, the government has stated that mandatory service is increasingly necessary, although many calls from the public to either shorten the time of serving, which ranks in length under Israel, Singapore and North Korea, or abolish it completely, have been acknowledged. Chapter II Article 39 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea states that: 1) All citizens have the duty of national defence under the conditions as prescribed by law. 2) No citizen may be treated unfavourably on account of the fulfilment of his obligation of military service. The Conscription Law, which was enacted in 1965, requires all able-bodied men of Korean citizenship aged between 18-35 to perform approximately two years of service. However, 86

it is not compulsory for women, as the ruling in the Constitutional Court was that, “Men are more physically fit for combat. Although there are women with comparable physical ability, physiological conditions including pregnancy and childbirth can hinder them during training sessions and combat support missions. Therefore, the military draft law that applies only to men cannot be judged as arbitrary.” Also, excessive tattoos are considered to represent gang membership and owners are therefore excluded from service. Assessments are held to determine whether the person is fit to participate, both physically and mentally. There are several categories of placement: •Grades 1-3: men in these grades are required to fulfil their service. •Grade 4: men in this grade are unfit for service due to physical or psychological reasons, but are still able to participate in an alternative service, such as civil workers. •Grade 5: men in grade 5 act as part of civil defence during peace time. •Grade 6: those in this category are exempt from military service. •Grade 7: anyone put in grade 7 is required to attend a re-check-up within two years of the evaluation. There are two types of service: active duty, such as the army, and non-active duty, such as civil service, which is completed after 5 weeks of training. The length of service varies depending on the branch. For example, serving in the Army or Marines requires 21 months, while Navy is 23 months, Air Force is 24 months and non-active duties range from 24-36 months. However, citizens with skills that are deemed to be assets North Korea attacking Yeonpyeong Island in 2010.

to the country have the option to complete their service accordingly. For example, those holding medical licences are allowed to serve as

public health doctors for 3 years as an alternative. After service has been completed, citizens are put on the reserve roster and attend several days of military training for 6 years proceeding. Despite public appeals for mandatory military service to be shortened or abolished completely, the government has stated that it is necessary, even though it was briefly discussed. One of the main reasons behind this is North Korea, a geographical 87

neighbour that was once joined as a country before the Korean War, known throughout the world as being a potential threat to international relations due to the development of nuclear weapons. Although a ceasefire was called at the end of the war, a peace treaty was never agreed on, so the war never technically ended. Tension still exists between the two, especially since the ROKS Cheonan sinking on 26th March 2010, when a Pohang-class corvette of the Republic of Korea Navy was sunk of Baengnyoeng Island, killing 46 people. Despite the South Koreans leading an investigation that led to the accusation of North Korea sinking the ship with a submarine torpedo, North Korea denied responsibility. Another event that increased tensions was the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong, where North and South Korea were directly engaged in artillery fire on 23rd November on Yeonpyeong Island. North Korea defended its actions by stating that South Korean shells had been fired into North Korean waters and that they had retaliated. The former UN ambassador, Bill Richardson, described the situation as "the most serious crisis on the Korean peninsula since the 1953 armistice which ended the Korean War". South Korea justifies its mandatory military service by needing to prepare for future confrontations with North Korea, which could lead to war or invasion. Many men feel proud to protect their country in this way and some even volunteer for harder roles, such as paratroopers because of this. It is important to remember that Western ideologies are different to those of South Korea, and, although service may seem cruel, it is part of Korean culture and upbringing, so cannot be compared. For this reason, many artists in the increasingly popular K-pop industry embrace military service as they gain respect from fans and often become more popular when they return. However, many men dread military service and will go to great lengths to avoid it, including giving up their Korean nationality (for example, actor Steve Yoo) or cheating the assessment as to fail (for example, actor Song Seung-heon, who took medication as to fail his physical examination and lied about having diabetes). However, the punishments for this are often severe, as well as idols receiving public backlash and becoming unpopular, including up to two years in prison. Although mandatory military service is a sensitive topic in South Korea, K-pop group BTS, who are well known throughout the world for their profound lyrics about important world issues, included fears of going on military service in their song Adult Child (translated from Korean): â&#x20AC;&#x153;What every man in their 20s experience is a deep sense of remorse Fearing military draft notes, the things that once felt so far away 88

Become reality. They said “[North and South Korea] would be unified by the time you’ve grown up” That’s what mom said and I had completely believed her But the reality is that [I’m] an able-bodied first-rate soldier material This friend who’s perfectly healthy is a fourth-rate so why am I first-rate How could I be so uselessly healthy Civil duties? it’s a juvenile death sentence I envy and envy the nation’s lowest 10% It blows away this flowery adolescence, I’m evading military service” Military service not only interferes

with

idols’

careers, as they are usually enlisted when they are most popular, but also the careers of normal

citizens,

who

have to catch up on two years education

further or

career,

leaving them two years behind their peers, making adjusting back into civilian life difficult. Another reason why mandatory military service is such an issue in South Korea is its infamous suicide rate, which is second highest in the world. Suicide is the biggest killer in South Korea of people from 10-30. Depression in South Korea is not rarely discussed as, unfortunately, some view it to be a sign of weakness. Although it is important to remember that military service is not one of the main recognised causes of suicide, if a person is unfit for service has been drafted into the army because of unwillingness to discuss their mental health, therefore passing the evaluation, the pressure could affect them or even push them over the edge. Education is one of the main causes of suicide in South Korea, as immense pressure for success and study is placed on students from a young age. After two years in the army catching up on the work or education missed can be enough to affect a person’s mental health.

Although mandatory military service can be hard to fully appreciate, the conclusion reached would be that it is necessary to prepare for the possibility of impending

attacks

from

North Korea, who have most likely attacked before in 2010 - it is an important part of national pride and culture. However, it has also caused public unrest and displeasure, as for many, the idea of military service is daunting. To resolve this issue, the length of service should be gradually shortened to enable people to return to civilian life sooner and the remainder of service to be optional. Also, the psychological section of the assessment should be scrutinised more closely as to make sure that people with mental health issues are not put under pressure.

Should capital punishment be reintroduced in Britain? Grace Harvey Year 9 - Commended Essay

apital punishment was used in Britain for many years to punish the severest crimes but, in 1965 (1973 for Northern Ireland), the UK abolished the death penalty and, for 52 years, life imprisonment (an average of 15 years in prison) has

been used to punish those criminals who have committed the most serious crimes such as murder and rape. However, a recent statement made on 27th April 2017 by Peter Dawson, Director of Prison Reform Trust said that, ‘An overcrowded prison system cannot cope with the number of people it is expected to hold’ suggesting that there is no longer room in prison to keep people imprisoned for long lengths of time. Whilst some might interpret this as a call for shorter sentences, there might equally be an argument for the introduction of the death penalty and, in this essay, I will explore both sides of the argument for capital punishment and whether or not it should be re-introduced to Britain. Some people would agree that capital punishment should be re-introduced in Britain on the basis that people who have committed a crime deserve to receive a punishment that is in proportion to the crime they have committed, also known as the theory of retribution. This ‘eye for an eye’ approach is not currently applied in Britain but some would argue that 15 years is not enough to punish someone from permanently taking another’s life. Many believe that if you murder someone then you have taken away their right to life, therefore you have given up yours too. Justices A.S Anand and N.P Singh from the Supreme Court of India explain that, ‘The measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime …Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime.’ Murder is seen as a horrific crime which should not be tolerated whatsoever in society, so therefore those who commit the crime must not be tolerated either and must receive the worst punishment possible, hence capital punishment would be the most appropriate sentence for them.

Others would also argue that in order to fulfil the theory of protection you should enforce capital punishment for the worst offenders such as murderers because the aim of protection is that punishments are used to protect society from somebodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s anti-social behaviour. By giving a person a 15 year life sentence, you are not permanently protecting society from them because once the offender has served their time, they could leave prison and commit crimes again. Statistics from the Prison Reform Trustâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bromley Briefings (Summer 2016) reinforce this idea, as they show that forty six percent of adults are re-convicted within one year of release. By enforcing a death penalty, you are permanently removing dangerous people from society, meaning they cannot commit any further crimes and the death penalty would also act as a deterrent because it would stop people from murdering in the future as they would know the ultimate consequence of their action would be death, so therefore serious crimes would be less likely to be committed. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that by removing capital punishment, fewer murders have been committed. Since 1965 when the death penalty was abolished, the homicide rates in the UK have significantly increased and in 2001, homicide rates were double the level they were before the death penalty was abolished. Capital punishment would also help solve the issue of prison overcrowding: it would mean that those who would have otherwise served long life sentences, would no longer fill up prisons. It therefore means that those who have committed lesser crimes will have a place in prison thereby reducing the pressure of prison over-crowding. However, some people would disagree that capital punishment should be reintroduced into Britain as there are arguably many problems with capital punishment. Some might say that the biggest drawback of capital punishment is human error. If someone has been convicted of a crime and they are subsequently executed but then later found to be innocent, then the jury would have killed an innocent person. An example of this is the Cameron Willingham case which took place in the USA. Willingham was convicted of murdering his three children in a house fire in 1991 and in 1992 he was put on trial, found guilty and then later executed in 2004. However, after a further examination of the evidence from the case, four arson experts from across the USA concluded that the Willingham case was flawed and the fire could have been an accident as there was no evidence to suggest that arson was the case, suggesting that Willingham was innocent. This would present a fundamental problem when courts were deciding whether or not to 92

give out capital punishment to an offender and if the court made a wrong decision then they would have claimed an innocent life. In addition, capital punishment breaks the theory of reform whereby people who have committed crimes should receive punishment which will prevent them from committing crimes again and make them a responsible citizen. By killing someone you are not giving them a chance to change themselves and become a better person. Some people who have committed a crime might have a regret and remorse for the crimes they have committed or they might have committed a crime under the influence of drugs or a similar substance. Instead of putting them in prison where they will get a chance to turn around their lives and learn new skills, they would be killed instead. Many might argue that the death penalty breaks the Human Rights Act as it states that everyone has the ‘right to life’ and if this rule is broken then a great injustice has been done. Capital punishment will also have an effect on the friends and family of the convict who has been executed as they will feel the pain of the loss of someone close to them and some people might say that this is unfair because their families and friends have done nothing wrong and by killing someone that they love, you are hurting them as well and the offender. After closely evaluating both sides of the argument, it is clear that capital punishment is a highly severe punishment to give out, as it results in loss of life and it should only be used in the most serious of cases. However, by using capital punishment, I believe that it is highly likely that homicide rates will fall as it will act as a deterrent to all those who are planning on committing serious crime, as they know that they face death as a sentence. Capital punishment will also be a fairer punishment for those who commit murder. If they take someone else’s life, then they themselves surely do not have the right to live their life. In addition, forensic science has developed significantly over the past decade and although we cannot be certain about what will happen in the future, as the methods of testing evidence become even more advanced then we will be more easily able to identify offenders correctly and therefore there will be less doubt over the validity of the conviction. This would mean that the risk of innocent people being found guilty would diminish and only those who have committed the crimes will receive the punishment. I think the death penalty should be re-introduced into Britain; however, it should only be used to punish those who have committed the most serious crimes where the court is sure that there is absolutely no doubt of the offender’s guilt, so that an innocent life will not be taken. 93

How and why do volcanoes form on destructive subduction plate margins and why have they formed in a ‘Ring of Fire’ around the Pacific Plate? Emily Button Year 9 - Commended Essay

he definition of a volcano is a mountain or hill having an opening or openings in the Earth’s crust through which lava, cinders, steam, gases etc., are or have been expelled continuously or at intervals. There are lots of different types of volcano:

for example, the most common is a cinder cone volcano. The cinder cone volcano is shaped like a symmetrical cone and it is mainly found standing alone. Composite volcanoes are the most common type of volcano which form on destructive subduction plate boundaries; a composite volcano is one which has steep sides and contains alternate layers of lava and ash. The land on which we live on is constantly on the move; the Earth’s crust is made up of large pieces called tectonic plates which float on top of the liquid mantle. The two types of crust consist of oceanic crust – which is dense and is found under the oceans and continental crust – which is less dense and is found under the continents. Tectonic plates are moving at about the same rate as our fingernails grow. They all move either at different times and in the same direction, towards each other, or away from each other. A destructive subduction plate boundary is one where the denser oceanic crust is forced to subduct under the less dense continental crust. An effect of this is that deep ocean trenches are formed at the point of subduction. At the point of subduction, friction is created. This friction continues to build which causes tension to build up between the two plates as they continue to push against each other. When this tension is suddenly released, it causes earthquakes to occur: the surface of the Earth is 94

shaken violently in pulses of energy called seismic waves. As the oceanic crust continues to sink below the continental crust, it eventually meets the liquid mantle which is extremely hot molten rock which is around 3,800°C. When it sinks, it takes a considerable volume of sea water down with it; this results in it becoming less dense than the mantle. The oceanic crust is then consequently melted into the mantle, but, it will eventually rise up through the continental crust into the magma chamber of a volcano. The pressure will then continue to rise in this magma chamber until it is released and the magma flows out of the crater of the volcano. This is a volcanic eruption. The volcanoes that have formed around the Pacific plate are mainly caused by destructive subduction plate margins. A volcano is formed when magma from the liquid mantle rises up through cracks and weak spots in the Earth’s crust. The more magma that rises, the greater the pressure. The pressure slowly builds up until it is eventually released as the result of plate movements. When the pressure caused by the magma on the Earth’s crust is suddenly released, the magma explodes as it reaches the surface. This is then a volcanic eruption. Magma that has reached the surface is called lava. When the lava from the eruption finally cools, it forms a new crust over the destroyed one. With time, after multiple more eruptions and repeating this process, the cooled lava gradually builds up, and a volcano is formed. The ‘Ring of Fire’ is the name

given

the

many

volcanoes that have formed along the boundary of the Pacific Plate.

The ‘Ring’, however, is

actually more of a semi-circular shape. It is estimated that 75% of all known active volcanoes are located along the ‘Ring of Fire’. The western edge of the Pacific Plate is where the volcanoes are most active, such as the islands of Japan, which has more tectonic activity than any other country on Earth. People who live in countries like Japan and the Philippines, which are located on the ‘Ring of Fire’, have to be aware of the dangers of tectonic hazards. These hazards include earthquakes of a severe magnitude and volcanic eruptions. It is estimated that 90% of the total number of earthquakes in the world are located in countries on the ‘Ring 95

of Fire’. One example of an earthquake located on the ‘Ring of Fire’ with an extremely high magnitude was in Fukushima, Japan in 2011.

It had a magnitude of 9.0 and

consequently caused a huge tsunami which destroyed much of Japan’s coast. The main reason for the formation of the volcanoes around the Pacific Plate is because it has multiple destructive subduction zones. As the plate is so large, it has many more points of subduction than smaller plates. As the Pacific Plate is part of the Earth’s crust, it is always on the move. It is known as oceanic crust, so consequently is denser than the continental crust so therefore is always subducted under into mantle. Movements between tectonic plates causes friction, resulting in earthquakes and eventually volcanoes being created and erupting, which is why the ‘Ring of Fire’ is such a tectonically active area. Experts are able to predict when a volcano is estimated to erupt as ones which have the potential to erupt, are all closely monitored for increasingly frequent tremors. However, seismologists are currently unable to predict when an earthquake will occur. Volcanoes along the ‘Ring of Fire’ are all closely monitored and if there happens to be a possibility of a likely eruption, the whole surrounding area will be evacuated and people will be taken to safety. Unfortunately though, predicting major devastating earthquakes is at the moment impossible, meaning that the people living in countries which border the ‘Ring of Fire’ are at a constant risk.

How and why should puppy trafficking be stopped? Fiona Boyle Year 9 - Commended Essay

here has been a growing trade in puppies across the world, more specifically in Europe. Many of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most popular breeds are in high demand, including miniature smooth-haired Dachshunds, Pugs, Boston terriers and French bulldogs.

When buying a dog it is easy to assume that you are buying it from reliable breeders whose biggest concern is for their dogs but this is not always the case. Puppy Trafficking is where dogs are illegally bred en masse and then smuggled, usually to the UK, in dangerous and uncomfortable conditions. Every day over 200 puppies are imported and sold in the UK and it is estimated that in the year 2015 around 70,000 puppies were imported. Most of Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s puppy farms are found in Ireland and 40,000 of the 70,000 imported puppies came from there. The Kennel Club has estimated that 1 in 5 owners buy dogs that are bred in puppy farms.

The reason why puppy farms and puppy trafficking are so bad is due to the inadequate and dangerous conditions in both. In the puppy farms the dogs will start life crammed into small crates, sometimes be kept in the dark and in conditions that are so unhygienic that many of the puppies will die and be left in with the live puppies. Also, once 97

breeding females reach the end of their productive life, they are abandoned, killed or sold on to unsuspecting members of the general public. A 16 month RSPCA investigation in Solihull reported that, when outside the farm, they couldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t hear any of the puppies because they had been so traumatised. The puppies had been trained not to bark by being squirted with water when they did and kept in darkness. In other investigations, dead puppies have been found lying in wheelbarrows alongside live ones and groups of puppies have been found huddled together at the back of dark cages. When the puppies are being transported across the sea conditions only worsen. Puppies are kept in small confined spaces behind bags of sawdust so that they cannot be seen. Dogs are used to help search lorries and vans for puppies but many still make their way into the UK.

In a case in Manchester roughly 95 puppies were found crammed on top of one another in plastic buckets. The puppies had just been delivered from Ireland and some had not survived the journey. Over time traders like these will transport and sell thousands of dogs and many of these will not even survive to be bought. Sometimes even those that do survive donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t live for long. There have been countless stories of owners who have bought a dog from an online advert, unaware that the dog was trafficked. The owners will take their dog home and

often the puppy will only survive around 3-4 days. This is because of hygiene issues causing illnesses from, diarrhoea, malnourishment and fleas. Although

puppy

trafficking is a cruel and a terrifying experience for the puppy, some people feel

differently

whether

about

should

stopped or not.

These

dogs are produced en masse, so the breeder can afford to offer lower prices. Thus, if we successfully managed to get rid of puppy farming, the price of dogs would rise. This would not simply be because dogs were now only being bought from legitimate breeders, but also because there would no longer be a lower price range for the breeders to compete with and so they could increase their prices. In addition, getting rid of puppy trafficking could create problems because in legal dog trading, the dog must get a passport, rabies injection and safe transport to cross the sea, so it would be a lot cheaper to get a dog bred in the UK. This would mean that there would be a limited number of breeds to choose from, unless owners are willing to pay higher prices and travel further distances for their dog. Also, the UK may be unable to cope with the demand for dogs and so this would make it harder to get a dog and it would become a slower process. Due to the demand for dogs bought in the UK increasing, this could mean that puppy welfare standards drop back down to the same levels as in overseas puppy farms, therefore meaning that getting rid of puppy trafficking only makes the situation worse. This means that with the improvements to puppy welfare, there would be disadvantages to the owners in terms of cost, breed and availability of dogs. If the UK tried to take more control of the puppy trafficking problem, then security and laws would have to be tightened. Currently, the usual sentence for a puppy trafficker is around 6 months. This would have to be lengthened because there are many traffickers who have been sent to prison and continued to traffic puppies on release. Also, these are people who have killed hundreds of dogs and enslaved those who have survived so should 99

be given a longer sentence as both a punishment and a deterrent. Human traffickers in the UK can face life imprisonment so even people who don’t believe in the rights of animals should be able to see that this sentence needs to be lengthened. Also, if there were to be a fine on owners who bought dogs from puppy traffickers then people might take more care when buying their dog. They need to make sure they see the mother with the puppy, make several visits to the dog, see paperwork to show information about the dog having been vet checked and vaccinated, make sure that the dog is at least 8 weeks old, see that the dog is interactive around humans and that the owner can give them advice on how to care for the dog. When buying a dog, many owners fall in love with the dog and forget the need to check important details like those that I have listed. If there was a fine in place, then people would take more care and the process of getting rid of puppy trafficking would be much quicker. Many owners forget that by turning down a puppy that has been trafficked, they are not worsening the dog’s situation but are instead helping the thousands of other dogs that are trafficked into the UK. If the UK does not manage to get rid of puppy trafficking soon then the result will be catastrophic. There would be an increase in mortalities of dogs bred specifically with short, ‘squashed’ snouts, due breathing difficulties. More of these dogs would be bred en masse, therefore meaning that there would be an increase in puppy mutation which causes these sorts of

problems. The increase in

puppies breathing problems would mean that vets would have to perform many more Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome surgeries, where excess area in the soft palette must be removed and the nostrils largened. Due to demand in certain breeds, when puppies are bred in bad conditions or on a large scale, mutations and deficiencies can appear, therefore meaning that they must be given surgery to do simple things like breathing. The overall impact of puppy trafficking continuing would be that the price which owners must pay to care for their dog increases. After buying their dog at a potentially cheaper price than they are usually sold for, the owner may have to spend large amounts 100

of money on their dog’s healthcare due to previous poor conditions and care. Although pet insurance may cover this, it will not cover breed deficiencies. If the owner buys a dog that is, for example, a short snouted breed then surgery for breathing issues will not be covered by pet insurance and can cost around £3,000. In conclusion, I think that although puppy trafficking may offer the benefit if having more of a variety of dogs. Overall, it would save more money to buy one healthy dog that was bred and cared for correctly when first born, than to have multiple dogs that cost you thousands of pounds due to their health and some of which will only survive a couple of days. I think that the puppy trade is a horrific market where ill dogs are being bought and sold. The larger issue concerning how we stop this trafficking needs to be addressed in multiple ways. As I have already said, sentences need to be lengthened and buyers of trafficked dogs should be fined to make people more careful. I think that the most important thing that needs to be done is raising awareness. Before doing research for this essay I was only vaguely aware of the issue. I thought that only a couple of dogs were smuggled and sold in the UK over the course of a year but it turns out it is thousands. So few people are aware of the issue but if they were then I’m sure that many people would take more care when buying a dog and not turn to online adverts. To improve awareness, I think that as social media is one of the easiest ways to access information, there should be a worldwide campaign to tackle the issue and that the RSPCA should be able to come into schools and talk about the problem. Thus, the next generation don’t witness the same harsh treatment to man’s best friend.

101

Is the way in which politicians influence us propaganda or an acceptable strategy? Emilie Linfoot Year 8 - Commended Essay

he definition of ‘propaganda’ from the Collins English Dictionary is ‘information, often inaccurate, which a political organization publishes in order to influence people.’ I would like to discuss whether politicians are using propaganda to gain

public and parliamentary support or whether it is acceptable because all politicians do it. I am also going to discuss if what they are doing is considered as propaganda and why they resort to methods that could be considered in a negative light. In the past, many political figures have used what we consider to be propaganda and, for most, it has worked in their favour, bringing thousands of people to their side. An example is Adolf Hitler in World War Two, where he used propaganda to turn the people of Germany against anyone Jewish. In this example, the methods Hitler used fit the definition perfectly. He published inaccurate information about Jewish people to influence and change people’s views of them. In this circumstance, most people would say that the way in which propaganda was used was wrong. But propaganda tries to influence people and some could argue that we do this every day and, in these circumstance, is it wrong? Aren’t we just sharing our opinions? But a quote from Longe and Ofanu (1996) contradicts this, saying that ‘propaganda means information, doctrines opinion etc that are often derogatory as in political propaganda films and plays. These are said to be derogatory because they tend to damage or take away credit from something or someone. The sole purpose of propaganda is to misinform and to mislead and to consciously indoctrinate’. The definition of ‘indoctrinate’ is ‘to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view’ .This means that propaganda is used solely for wrong and selfish reasons to benefit purely one’s self. In the case of Adolf Hitler, he took credit away from everyone Jewish and consistently misinformed and misled many people into believing that Jews were evil just so that he could get the power and strength he desperately wanted. Hitler used posters and films to convince the people of the wickedness of the Jews and they were never politically 102

presented in an unbiased light. All evidence against the politically produced propaganda was destroyed and fear stopped anyone from believing anything else. All of the sources I have collected state that propaganda is something published by a political organization, but is there really a difference between politicians stating their opinions on what a country or government should do or be like and someone stating an opinion to the same question but in a classroom or home environment. I understand that when speaking in front of big crowds or more influential figures, more people are and can be influenced, which can bring bigger changes. But in my mind, this raised the question ‘Is it right that politicians can use their status and power to influence people to benefit themselves?’ I do not believe that misuse of power or status is right or an acceptable strategy. They are using what the public has given them for themselves and, in my opinion, that is an unacceptable strategy, even if it means you can claim the power and status you have always wanted. Others could argue that this is the only way that a politician is going to gain a paid working job. If politicians are using this strategy and people are still voting for them to win a seat in the House of Commons as an MP then it must be acceptable. Some people would argue that the people who make the rules are loathe to change them as this is the way that they have hung onto power for many years. Does the fact that politicians want to make the country the best it can be change the way their words are seen? Does ‘the end justify the means’? Politicians use speech to reach their goals and the language used plays a vital role in any campaign or negotiation and the way words are delivered can strengthen or weaken an entire argument. In this case you could say that if a politician does not strongly enforce their opinion then it is very likely that their proposal or their ideas will be denied and cast aside. In this situation, you are not going win your case if you are making it seem weak by declining to enforce your opinion strongly. This is because everyone else will be trying as hard as possible to convince others that their opinion is correct and will benefit them. Whether someone agrees with the argument being presented to them could also change their view on whether it is propaganda and whether what they are saying is right or wrong. It changes whether they are seen in a positive or a negative light and this could affect their entire career. Also, how wrong or opinionated do your views and speeches have to be to be considered as propaganda? A quote from Alison Fragale is ‘People will resent you and resist your attempts to influence them’. Many agree with this but it is very hard to tell when this is happening as it is all around you in the form of newspapers, television and social 103

media sites. Millions of people read and intake the information from these sources daily but yet they are some of the most common places politicians go to in order to spread and encourage their views and ideas. Is it acceptable that they use tools which society is very susceptible to? Some would argue that this is acceptable and would pose the question â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;why should politicians have to use general sites differently to others?â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Others could argue that this is unacceptable because they are taking advantage of their large followings to try and convince others that their opinions are correct. After exploring many different arguments and opinions, I have found that there is no simple answer to this question and, in my opinion, it depends on whether the information they are giving to millions of people is accurate or not. If it is inaccurate then I believe that what they are doing is propagandizing and unacceptable. People who are controlling the law and making changes for the country should not have lied and deliberately misled to get to where they are because I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t think that they will have the best interests of the country at their heart and, as far as I am concerned, that is one of the key qualities I would look for in a politician. There have been times (such as Milosevic and his Policy of Ethnic Cleansing during the Balkan Crisis) when leaders have shown the same level of propagandizing as Hitler, which has led to what we now class as war crimes. But governments have learnt from previous experiences, resulting in international agreements which have been put in place to react and reduce the risk that the extreme propaganda delivered by such leaders will impact on the population. This does not mean that there are not occasions when this still happens and extreme propaganda creates an international situation such as President Assad in Syria. I believe that the way that politicians influence us can be an acceptable strategy if their arguments are all based on true fact and if those facts can be understood by the general public. I think that sometimes what is said can be propaganda when there are loose facts which are often hard to understand which leads to votes and decisions based on emotion and led by propaganda. I think that votes should be based on facts and beliefs on what is right and wrong and, in my opinion, elections and campaigns should be entirely based on fact and what they will definitely do for the country instead of giving false promises. In an ideal world, I think that the answer to this question would be that politicians do not influence us with propaganda. However, there will always be politicians who crave power more than a united nation and will mislead and misinform in order to gain support and votes. 104

Does Shakespeare deserve the amount of attention he receives in the English Literature Curriculum? Annabella Pagni Year 8 – Commended Essay

illiam Shakespeare was a well-known playwright and poet born in Stratford 1564 and famous for his plays such as Hamlet, Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet and Othello. Shakespeare seems to have dominated most of the English

curriculum, overlooking topics of poetry and creative writing. Every year, in every school across England, every student is presented with yet another Shakespearean play in their English lessons. As a lover of Shakespeare, I’m very happy to study his work, but I decided to challenge his work on the behalf of many different opinions. In England today, we have many diverse cultures and backgrounds. Shakespeare mainly created white characters because of the ethnicity in the Elizabethan age. In addition, presenting Shakespeare to a modern-day classroom in our present-day England, would not be inclusive of all students. On the other hand, in The Tempest Shakespeare’s presentation of Caliban (a character that Shakespeare supposedly intended to be played by a black man) encourages us to feel sorry for him as he is shown as a slave and suffers discrimination which could be linked to his ethnic background. Therefore, Shakespeare intentionally imagined him not as white, so a Shakespearian audience wouldn’t treat someone of a different race as inferior, outside of the theatre. This tells us that perhaps Shakespeare was trying to raise awareness for racial equality, so maybe it could be acceptable to teach to a mixed ethnic class. Comparing modern-day playwrights to Shakespeare We teach Shakespeare today because of his wonderful diverse work in literature and language, including phrases and words of old English that we still use today. Nowadays, the children of the 21st century may find it difficult to comprehend with the situations within Shakespeare’s plays. The themes of his plays are normally based around love and death, but also a very old fashioned way of dealing with money, people and, of course, speaking. We could study more contemporary playwrights such as Caryl Churchill. Churchill explores topics of feminism and cultural change in the world around us. This 105

would be relevant to teach through the English curriculum because of the inclusiveness and reference to the modern day world. Top Girls is a highly rated play about successful women throughout time, very famous for its iconic opening scene of a dining room, where historical famous women throughout time come to a dinner party. Many students in England today find Shakespeare tiresome and complicated to read, as it could be described as practically written in another language. One of the advantages of teaching children Shakespeare is to educate them in what life was like 500 years ago in Europe. Shakespeare shows his interpretation of the world through theatre using language that is considered mastery throughout the centuries. But in a contemporary classroom, you need to explore the ideas of why Shakespeare wrote a passage/scene in a particular way and how to relate that to a modern day situation. From a child’s perspective I know that we are most likely to sit up and listen to the things we are interested in, rather than something that bores us if it has not been explained to us thoroughly. Teaching us about a teenage girl and her rich family living in northern Italy, fighting her father to run away with her desperate lover and all that resulting in death what does that teach us for future life? Studying plays from different eras, comparing and contrasting them, then adding history as a cross curricular focus, would let our minds be more open minded when it comes to making new decisions in later life. GCSE and A-Level Curriculum Plays GCSE and A-Level plays include Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, The Merchant of Venice, Much Ado About Nothing and Julius Caesar. GCSE examination boards decided to choose plays with white characters, from Shakespearean times, in modern day, multi-cultural England. Pupils and teachers at a school in East London began a campaign to represent female and ethnic minorities in the English curriculum, instead of having to learn and study plays in the GCSE and A-Level curriculum by ‘white, male and deceased writers’ – not only referring to Shakespeare but other writers such as Christopher Marlowe and Richard Burbage. This particular school says they have spotted a ‘concerning lack of female and ethnic minority authors’. Research shows that that 31% of the AQA, Edexcel and OCR’s 201516 English literature curriculums/reading lists include women, despite the female population taking up more than half of the population. Also, people of Asian, black and ethnic backgrounds have been somewhat ignored, even though they take up 14% of the UK’s population. An AS-Level student from the same secondary school said: ‘If we turn our backs on the hundreds and thousands well renowned writers of female, Asian, black and 106

ethnic minority backgrounds, how, as an English student, can I grasp the nature of true English literature itself?’ Many more quotes and expressions were shown across social media, using #curriculumcampaign, in March 2016. In conclusion, I think that Shakespeare should be getting attention in English, but not as much as he and his fellow writers are dominating the English curriculum. We should be studying modern day playwrights and authors as well as traditional English plays to be able to compare and contrast. Personally, I think that we would get higher grades, or better-shaped understanding and knowledge of literature if we had a taste of all the different writers. We would also have a wider range of knowledge of other people’s ethnicities, as some authors and playwrights with diverse backgrounds write about their own experiences. Learning only about white fiction, we would never be able to empathise with others from a different race or religion. Sticking with Shakespeare is living in the past: I think we need to move on with the curriculum and learn about real life too. English teaches us to comprehend and listen to other people’s opinions that we have never encountered before. You can definitely tell when others are not as well read or have not read very diverse books, as they may display incompetence and stubbornness to other people’s ideas. Reading the same Shakespeare plays all the time might portray us as ignorant to other people, as we do not have the knowledge about others’ backgrounds. I think that Shakespeare is very important but you can definitely have enough of him, so this generation can learn to have compassion and understand a very diverse world.

107

Is it better to live now than in the 1950s? Eowyn Charman Year 7 - Commended Essay

ver the last 60 or so years you would be surprised how much life has changed. Since 1950 there has been 16 Prime Ministers, two of which were women. Most of the antibiotics we have today and perhaps take for granted as the norm,

were only discovered in the 1950s. With this amazing decade starting five years after the Second World War your life would have been very different! Families If you were a child in the 1950s you would have had a very different life than you would today. Most children left school at the age of 14 to start work to help to earn money for their families whereas, today, most children stay in school until at least 18, after doing their GCSE and A Levels. Being better educated there is a greater variety of jobs and a wider choice of careers. If you were a girl in the 1950s you would be expected to help do the housework which would be much more difficult than it is now; for example, washing was done by hand rather than in a washing machine. Once a woman married and had children it was very common that they would no longer work but stayed at home and dealt with childcare and house work. While there were refrigerators in the 1950s, they were a luxury. If you didn’t have one, food would have to be bought daily for freshness. Food During the Second World War food was rationed and even when the war ended rationing continued. Whilst more food was coming into the country there were still some shortages and rationing didn’t finish completely until 1954. Children waking up on Christmas morning experienced rationing of food and clothes. It was very normal to go without the sweets, biscuits, crisps and fizzy drinks that we take for granted today. Before sweet rationing ended in 1953 the most prized thing in a stocking would have been something small like a 56 gram bar of chocolate – a dairy milk bar today is around 100 grams. Tea stayed on ration until 1952; sugar and eggs came off ration in 1953; cheese and meat finally came off ration in 1954, nearly 14 years since rationing started! When the meat ration finally ended many people concentrated on cooking meat dishes for their families 108

and impressive joints for Sunday lunch if they could afford it – Sunday roasts many of us take for granted today. Medicine Many medical advances happened in the 1950s including the world’s first aorta transplant (the main artery in the human body), the discovery of Hepatitis A (a virus that causes liver disease and inflammation of the liver), and the discovery of Penicillin. Penicillin, however, could not cure all illnesses as scientists first thought. By 1952 Polio was at an all-time high with 58,000 reported cases. The race for a cure was well and truly on! After a year of searching, in 1953, the first successful cure was found. However, it did not start being tested for efficiency until 1954. Medicine was a very male-dominated profession with a mere 5 % of medical students being women and less than 3% African American. The first birth control pill was tested on more than 15,000 Puerto-Rican and Haitian women under close supervision and, although there were some very serious side effects, they were downplayed and Enovid become widely distributed. In 1956 smoking was slowly becoming a known health risk as scientists were proving it could increase your chances of having lung cancer. Life would not be the same today if it was not for these discoveries. For example, today smoking is much less acceptable in public spaces and on transport. Childhood Awareness of safety has changed so much since the 1950s compared to today. Many people would leave their doors unlocked and the key on the hook behind the letter box so they could come and go as they pleased. Parents couldn’t just use their mobile phones and call their children to come home, or text them. Children would just have to come home by themselves or would have arranged somewhere before they went out to perhaps meet their mother or father and walk back home with them. In the 1950s children would play in the middle of road and wouldn’t have to worry about cars as there were fewer than two million cars in Britain with only 14% of households owning a car. Some people believe that it was a much safer time to grow up then compared to now, perhaps because there was hardly any crime, vandalism or the fact that many young children feared those in authority, more so than perhaps now, such as policemen, teachers and park keepers as they thought that if they misbehaved they might get punished. Most people did not have a television set until the late fifties! Only three million households had one by 1954 with numbers significantly increasing in 1964 to almost 13 million. However, the number of channels to watch programmes was very limited, with ‘live TV’ on just one or 109

two channels, so no multi channels, pause, record, on demand, or ability to download – imagine that! Houses were also very different to what we have now. In the 1950s houses would be drafty with no central heating and double glazing so in winter they hung thick curtains behind the front door to try and help reduce the flow of cold air into the house and frost that formed on the windows overnight. During the day, people would wear two or three thick jumpers as they didn’t have central heating like we do now. If you were fortunate then you may have been able to have a fire in one room. The average temperature of a house then was only 18c whereas today it is 22c. Many people today take central heating for granted in many ways and just turn it on or up rather than putting on a jumper. These are just a few examples and show how lucky and fortunate our lives are today compared to the 1950s. How fortunate are we to have extensive education today and the opportunities at school and in choosing a career we really want to follow and are interested in rather than limited education and qualifications? Next time you go to a pharmacy think about the vast selection of medicine on the shelves and how the range just wouldn’t be on the shelves without all of the amazing scientists who have developed them. Think about the vast array of food types available and how you can just store food in the fridge and be able to eat it days after buying it with no need to buy daily. Think about how your favourite sweet treats, or break time snacks, might not have been readily available due to rationing. I haven’t even mentioned the internet and the World Wide Web which has undoubtedly been one of the biggest transformations in our lives and one we perhaps take for granted now? But when do you think it is better to live: now or the 1950s? Whilst in the 1950s it might have felt ‘safer’ and in some ways lifestyles were simpler, I really think it is much better to live now as we are benefitting from extensive medical research and development, our education and career opportunities are greatly advanced; we have a greater variety of foods and we have significant technological advancements. I wonder how life will change again over the next 50 or so years?

110

The Suffragettes and why every woman should vote Maya Joshi Year 7 - Commended Essay

his essay is about the importance and power of women voting and having their voice heard in society. It is going to highlight the many struggles and fights women in the last century had to endure in order to ensure we have an equal

right to men to vote and an equal standing in the country and laws we are expected to obey. I believe voting is extremely important for everybody, but, in particular for every generation of women. This is because women only gained the rights to vote in the last century. In fact, only women who were householders over the age of 30 got the vote in 1918. Women over 21 years did not get to vote until 1928. It was not just voting women who couldn’t participate; women were treated unequally to men even in the workforce. Many women could not take on a particular profession or gain a certain degree, just because they were female. This may never have changed had it not been for The Suffrage Movement, their courage and bravery, and their fight for equality. This is a movement I admire greatly. In the late 1800s a group of women formed the NUWSS, which stands for ‘National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies’. These women were led by a campaigner named Millicent Fawcett and the group called themselves the Suffragists. Fawcett and her women strongly believed every female should get a vote and have a say in the laws they were expected to obey. Fawcett only believed in peaceful actions, so that the people could understand that women were as sensible as men and could hold responsibility. They used pamphlets, posters and legal protests to educate the country into why women should get a vote and, hopefully, to persuade the government and parliament to address the rights of women. Many people were against the Suffragists, even women, and some campaigners were treated disrespectfully by the general public. These women only wanted their voices heard and wanted the best for their country. They were determined to give every child a proper education and ensure every girl would receive equal schooling to boys and to be able to further their education following the career paths of their choice. 111

They would plan to change the horrific living conditions of many families which the parliament of the time had completely ignored. The Suffragists were a devoted group of women that the government ignored, simply because they were women and because they went against what the government believed in. These women needed change! So, after many years of tireless campaigning, certain women were starting to get tired, restless and impatient. They still hadn’t won the vote, after all their endless, determined and desperate trying. So, in 1903, Emmeline Pankhurst, along with her two daughters, Christabel and Sylvia, decided to create a different group, who called themselves Suffragettes. However, the Suffragettes were different from the Suffragists, as the Suffragettes were determined to go as far as it took for women to get a vote and a voice in the country: they were going to be militant. They decided that they would have to force parliament to listen; they’d have to take notice and they would not stand silently. Many people did not agree with this course of action, including some Suffragists. Personally, I really admire these women for voicing their opinions in an unfair and unjust society. The Suffragettes carried out militant, dangerous and violent acts. They smashed shop windows, broke into private male political meetings, burned down parts of houses, attacked railway stations and destroyed a few churches. The police sent these women to prison and encouraged the public to think that these women were crazy and out of their minds. However, the Suffragettes and Suffragists eventually had to retire from their protests as World War I loomed on the horizon. The women had to support their country in making guns, stitching soldier’s clothes and nursing the wounded. In what I believe the only positive outcome of World War I, it forced men to recognise that these women had supported them through the horrific war. In the same year as the end of the war (1918), a law passed giving the vote to women over the age of thirty. They had to be householders and had to have graduated from a British university. This was, at least, a start, but it still meant that less wealthy women did not get a vote, neither did younger or foreign women. Luckily, in 1928, the government passed another law allowing women over the age of 21 to vote, as they had helped society an immense amount during the war effort. But did it really have to take a war for this to be recognised, a tremendous loss of lives to force the country to work in unison and give women basic human rights? Their status was now equal to men’s and their drive and determined fight is still something I admire. Their fight 112

changed the world and their story is still many are in awe of. They were a strong and fantastic group of feminists who worked together to create a secure and stable environment for their children and the women of today. In my opinion, the Suffragettes were a large group of dedicated and passionate woman who saw no ends or boundaries in their movement. Without them, I believe it is uncertain whether we would have the rights we do today, or whether we’d still be fighting for a vote. They fought so that the future generations of women would lead a different life, a life which we choose and so we grow up in a place where we are equal to men, in a just and secure society, so that we are confident that our voice and our vote matters. From this, we can see the hardships women in that time had to endure. That is why I believe nobody should take their vote for granted as we did not always have a vote and a say in our laws, country and society. Still, across the world, some women and men alike do not get a voice in the laws of their country. The Suffrage Movement ensured that we have the country we live in today: ‘Deed, not words’.

113

Are the Olympic Games still fit for purpose? Isabella Jones Year 7 - Commended Essay

he Olympic Games is the biggest sporting event in the world. It is held every 4 years and lasts for 4 weeks. Countries compete to host the Games because they think it will be good for them and worth the huge amount of money needed to

build the stadiums and host all the teams, supporters and visitors. But is it worth it? Are the Olympic Games still fit for purpose? Money Over the years, the Olympics has grown enormously, now taking over 4 years to prepare for. Last year, in Rio de Janeiro, R$7.07bn was spent on the Olympic stadiumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s construction, and as Brazil isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t a very rich country, too much of their money was spent on hosting the Games, leading to protests from the Brazilian people. Some countries have the money to justify the cost of the Games and are able to maintain the sites and keep them for other events, tours and competitions; for example, Britain who hosted the Games in London in 2012. However, many countries cannot afford to keep the grounds clean and safe, therefore they are no longer the spectacular arenas and stadiums they once were (for example, Greece after the 2004 Games in Athens). Originally, going back to when the Olympic Games were founded, each Games was hosted in Athens and included shotput, running, javelin, long jump, boxing, pankration and equestrian only. To begin with they were only held over 1 day, progressing into 3 days in 684BC and then over 5 days. The Games continued to be held in Athens until 1896, which is now known as the first modern Olympic Games.

114

Performance Enhancing Drugs Ben Johnson was a drug cheat in the 1988 Seoul Olympics in South Korea. During the 100m race, he achieved the world record time of 9.7 seconds; however, in previous years, he had been a very average international sprinter and the world record time was a shock to everyone. His appearance had changed dramatically: he was much stronger, muscular and more powerful. As he came first by several metres â&#x20AC;&#x201C; which is a lot for a race of only 100m - he was tested for drugs soon after he finished the race. Three days later his gold medal was taken away from him as he was found guilty of taking illegal performance enhancing drugs. Over the years, the drug testing system has become more rigorous with much more accurate testing so that the authorities can find more athletes who are guilty of cheating. Athletes take these drugs to improve their strength, power and physicality and it leads to higher performance in races and events. Their determination and desire to win at all costs encourages them to take drugs to gain an advantage over the other competitors, but illegal drugs can be dangerous to their health. So, why take the risk when there is now a very high chance of being caught? Top athletes want to win; they want to be known for being the greatest man or woman in their sport. Winning Olympic events gives them a lot of money and fame and some athletes are prepared to risk everything and cheat their way to victory and success. The gold medal was immediately taken away from Ben Johnson â&#x20AC;&#x201C; cheating did not work for him or other athletes who have tested positive for illegal drugs.

115

Equality Over the years, gender equality has become much fairer. Back when the Olympics began, women didn’t compete, nor could they even watch the Games! It was only in 1900 that women were allowed to compete, although they weren’t highly respected or allowed in many events. In 1928 women’s gymnastics and athletics allowed women to compete, and in 2012 there were no Olympic events included that women didn’t compete in. In the Ancient Olympics, it was thought that women should stay at home, that they were weak and only men should have the right to participate and watch. Men are naturally built stronger and more powerful, but that shouldn’t allow them any more rights or advantages. During the late 19th century to 20th century, women were protesting for equal rights and abilities (for example, the vote). The Suffragettes didn’t only enhance the move to female voting, but they also influenced other women to stand up against other disadvantages and unfair treatments. During the 20th century, race issues were a big problem, although things have now improved in many countries. The Olympic Games has also been affected by race issues. One example of this was in the Berlin Olympics in 1936 when Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party was in power and had control over Germany. The famous black American field and track athlete Jesse Owens won 4 gold medals in the Berlin Olympics, but Hitler refused to shake his hand at the ceremony because of his colour. Previously, he had shaken hands with the German athletes, but he then stormed out of the stadium upon Jesse Owen’s arrival. Hitler was furious that Owens had beaten the Germans, and claimed that the whole of Germany had been humiliated by ‘a sub – human.’

Race was also a big issue at the 1968 Olympics held in Mexico. Two black American athletes - Tommie Smith and John Carlos (gold and bronze medallists in the 200m) - stood with their heads bowed and a black-gloved hand raised as the American National Anthem 116

played during the victory ceremony. They were protesting against discrimination of black people in the USA. The two athletes were sent home from the Games because of their silent protest. Terrorism In the 1972 Munich Olympics on September 4th between 4:30 and 5:00am, eight Black September members killed 2 Israeli team members and held 9 other members hostage. They then fought, leaving 5 of the terrorists and all the hostages dead. At 4:00 am they climbed over the 6 foot high fence enclosing the Israelis, and by 4:30 am they had entered the building. By 5:15 police had been alerted and the news had started to spread internationally. A few of the participants in the Olympics had managed to escape through windows; others were held hostage to die. One attacker was named as Luffif Afif, who was at the time wearing a white hat and his face was blackened by shoe polish. The Olympics were temporarily suspended as a result of this terrorist attack whilst a memorial service was held for the dead, although they resumed shortly after. Terrorism is a continuous threat at all major events, especially the Olympics, and security at the Games is now a major priority. Summary The Olympic Games is a fantastic international sporting event and is the highlight for athletes and sports fans around the world. However, the high cost of the modern Olympic Games, the increasing problems of performance enhancing drugs and the growing threat of terrorism make the Games harder to justify to countries who might want to host them. Some question if they are worth the effort and cost since they are a long way from the simplicity of the original Games. As someone who loves sport, I think it would be a great loss if the Games were not to continue as they are such an important way of bringing people and cultures together from around the world.

117

Are women equal to men and how does this compare to 100 years ago? Emma Dobson Year 7 - Commended Essay

he question that I shall be trying to answer is if women are equal to men and how this compares to 100 years ago. By doing this I shall explore many different aspects such as seeing if there is any difference in their pay, if there is comparison

between the prices of women’s items and men’s items, the percentage of women that vote in contrast to men (and seeing how this is depicted at different ages). At the end of this essay, I shall then link these aspects back to 100 years ago to see how equality between women and men has gradually evolved over time. The average cost of essential items such as shampoos, socks and deodorant is 37% more for women than men. They cost the same amount of money to produce, so why should women have to pay more? Another situation in which women don’t have the same equality as men is when you compare their salaries. It is said that on the whole men tend to earn 16% more, resulting in women having to work an extra 40 days a year to be earning the same amount of money. On top of that, men tend to earn 34% extra in the East Midlands, 30% more in the South East, 28% more in the North East and 26% more in the West Midlands. Such circumstances should not be tolerated as it is now the 21st century: this behaviour and attitude should have been stopped many years ago. Additionally, in the recent election only 29% of the elected MPs were women. This was said to have been a ‘record high’. Even though this may sound positive, it seems very disheartening that people are proud that women only achieved 29% of the seats. The reason for this is due to the fact that some people don’t feel safe voting to have a woman in power. These people think that they don’t have the power and knowledge needed to run the country and that this role should be given to a man. Hopefully, with by our country being governed by Theresa May, these people will start to realise that women do have the power to do such things. This suggests that women can often be underestimated, forgotten about and seen as not worthy.

118

On the other hand, rights for men are slightly different. Men over 21 have had the vote since 1884. At this time, however, women were not permitted to vote and still were not until 1918 and even then the voting age was above 30; this did not become equivalent to men until 10 years later, 1928. As well as that, men can play a lot of sports such as rugby, cricket, football, boxing and shooting which never really got considered as something a woman should do. This is due to the fact that these sports are thought of as more ‘manly’ and not suitable for a woman. Women should be able to have free rights and be able to do what they desire. Even nowadays when women are starting to play these sports and it is becoming more frequent and, furthermore, popular to do this (for example, in competitions such as the Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Six Nations, football World Cup), it gets emphasised on the score cards about how it is a women’s event not a men’s. For example, in football, all of the leagues in which men compete in are either called The Premier League, The Championship, League 1 or League 2. Whereas, where women are concerned, they always put the word ‘ladies’ in front of the previous names. Although this may not seem like a significant matter, it is an implied assumption that men are more important and that everybody thinks of men when football is mentioned. Also, it was only in 2007 that it was agreed that women should win the same amount of money as men do for winning Wimbledon: it used to be £30,000 different! Approximately 100 years ago, equality between women and men was very different. At this time, women didn’t have very good opportunities to get a job: they would be left to do housework and chores such as ironing, cleaning and cooking and this would be mostly what they would do all day. As well as that, exactly 100 years ago, Britain was in the middle of World War One and women had to stay at home and look after the children, be medics and live with the fear that their family may not survive. Women were never considered worthy enough or strong enough to fight and survive so that resulted in them staying at home or being a nurse. Nowadays, women are able to join the army. It was assumed then that this was all that they were capable of. These points suggest that 100 years ago there was huge inequality between men and women. Many people nowadays complain that men and women do not enjoy equality and that something should be done about it. Even though this issue definitely should be addressed, when compared against 100 years ago rights for women have moved on and have improved a lot. As a result, this essay as a whole depicts that men and women’s rights 119

have been significantly equalised in comparison with 100 years ago, but, there is still room for greater equality.

120

121