Tory Turmoil:
Juliet Kose, Year 13
On 14th December 2021, tensions continued to mount in the Conservative Party as nearly 100 Tory MPs revolted against Boris Johnson’s proposals for new Covid-19 restrictions. This backbench rebellion held particular significance as it involved Conservative MPs from every tendency and intake voting against the new restrictions, displaying the large breadth of disapproval and division in the party. Neither the whips nor the rebels expected the rebellion to be so big, pointing to a leader in trouble and a party out of control. Whilst one of the main reasons for the rebellion can be linked to general dissatisfaction with Boris Johnson’s style of leadership, it is also a broader turn against nonpharmaceutical interventions and the use of the restrictions altogether from Tory MPs.
Immense pressure is not a new thing for Boris Johnson as he had to tackle and address scandals - such as reported parties in the Downing Street office last year during the winter lockdown, as well as an expensive refurbishment of his apartment. The rebelling lawmakers said that the divided vote was a wakeup call for Boris Johnson and his need for the changing of the operation of the government, in order to prevent possible leadership challenges. With some Conservative MPs describing the new restrictions as draconian, others believe that Johnson has not managed toutilise thelarge majorityandsupport what the party won with in 2019. Unfortunately, despite their expressions of discontent, there is not enough popular support to dislodge Johnson from his current role of leadership, suggesting that this rebellion may not be significant enough to impact Johnson’s future actions.
Many Tory MPs have justified their opposition to new restrictions or possible lockdowns due to the scientific evidence which suggests that Omicron is much less severe than the Delta variant. Following this logic, they believe that further restrictionsareunnecessary,especiallyduetothe uptake of the vaccine and booster jabs across the
UK. Conservative MP Richard Drax stated, “Evidence is showing there is no need for further restrictions. Time to trust people to get on with their own lives and for the state to back right off.” An overwhelming sense of frustration and anticipation has begun to spread through the Conservative party, as it wishes to return to normality without thoroughly weighing up the strengths and weaknesses of new restrictions. Britain’s future hinges on the possible compromises needed to strengthen the majority party and allow Johnson to gain control not only of his MPs, but also the variant.
As the peak of the Omicron wave is likely to be ‘long and drawn out’, government advisers have warned that the NHS could be under sustained pressure. This brings up the question of how these MPs can justify rebelling against further restrictions when the NHS is struggling due to problemsofunderstaffingandhighernumbersof admissions. Understandably, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken a huge toll on our lives for nearly two years, however, if we continue to disregardthe increasingpressure ontheNHS,we will have to face serious consequences as well as, in turn, a feeling of frustration towards the government.
Will Boris Johnson manage to unite his party, or will the feelings of uncertainty towards his leadership spread as quickly as the Omicron variant?
Notting Hill Critic – Spring 2022
have the Conservatives become the antilockdown party?
Francesca Leonard, Year 13
To fully understand the notion Virtue Ethics, one must have a basic knowledge of the man behind it, Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC). Although there are other ancient Greek philosophers who had similar principles, he is most commonly associated with Virtue Ethics. Aristotle believed in the Theory of Causation, which has relevance to Virtue Ethics when considering his concept of ‘Eudemonia’: the Greek εὐδαιμονία, Aristotle’s perception of the highest good possible, has no direct English translation but literally means ‘good spirit’, which Aristotle thought was achieved when a person fulfils their purpose. Think of the feeling of accomplishment after finally lying in bed after a productive day. He believed that everything was being pulled towards its ‘telos’ (τέλος, end goal or purpose) by the ‘Prime Mover’ , a God-like being that sets and keeps everything in motion. The telos of a knife would be to chop, when it eventually becomes dull it does not fulfil its purpose and therefore is a ‘bad’ knife to Aristotle. The same logic would apply to animals, whose purpose it is to reproduce and survive; an animal that does not achieve this would be a ‘bad’ animal.
However, humans are not knives that are simply made to chop, nor do we have the limited mental consciousness that animals have. We are rational, intelligent, and social creatures - which makes our purpose (or telos) muchmore difficult to know and achieve. However, Aristotle did not create an absolute ethical code: it is neither consequentialist (like Utilitarianism) nor is it deontological (like Kantian ethics), so Virtue Ethics serves less as a ‘what should I do?’ in a situation to behave ethically, but rather it focuses on character and would more readily prompt the question ‘how do I become a virtuous person?’.
It is worth noting that Aristotle’s position is more optimistic than Hobbes’ and Xunzi’s more pessimistic philosophies of human nature, as it declares human beings to be naturally virtuous. However, Aristotle felt that virtues were not
simply inbuilt, but needed to be practised in order to become habits.
That said, how do we know what virtues are? A virtue, as Aristotle understood it, was a ‘Golden Mean’ between two extreme vices. Take courage, for example: this would be a virtue that is a Golden Mean between cowardice and recklessness. Another example of a virtue would be honesty, which is the average between lying and brutal honesty. Philosophers such as Kant have taken a more absolutist view, believing for instance that lying is always wrong, no matter what the circumstances
Aristotle stated that this ‘Practical Wisdom’ (knowing the right thing to do in the right circumstances) can be achieved once a person has practised these virtues. For him, the best way to do so is through picking a particularly virtuous person and emulating what they do. This translates into Aristotle’s definition of a right act, being – for him - ‘the action a virtuous person would do in the same circumstances’
This philosophical point is taken up in other cultures. For instance, within Christianity, it corresponds to the famous ‘WWJD?’ (‘What would Jesus do?’) approach, a core part of the belief system through which followers are taught to act more morally.
However, one could make the argument that Virtue Ethics are outdated. Firstly, Virtue Ethics correspond to a narrow set of Christian religious
Notting Hill Critic – Spring 2022
Do Virtue Ethics still have a place in the modern world?
Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC)
views, both through ‘WWJD’ and also through Aristotle’s major influence on the 13th century Christian theologian St. Thomas Aquinas. Some will therefore critique these belief systems as being increasingly irrelevant in today’s secular society.
However, as old as Virtue Ethics is as a valuesystem, it does offer some valuable insight into modern life. Firstly, it stands out from the rest of the ethical systems by being character-based instead of being an ethical code to follow. This means that anyone can practise it without having to mathematically calculate whether the action they are about to take is moral or not, unlike (for example) Utilitarianism’s ‘Hedonic Calculus’.
Secondly, with the 21st century’s habit of idolising celebrities, it acts as a compatible ethical code to encourage people of any age to be able to utilise celebrity culture for moral reasons. Some commonly chosen virtuous people to emulate are Michelle Obama, Malala or Marcus Rashford1 .
Finally, we do not live in the same age as Aristotle, and strict ethical codes are rarely used by the average person. Virtue Ethics serves as a flexible gateway for people to be reflective about their behaviours. Rather than focussing on particular actions, it makes people look at themselves as a cumulative whole and asks them if they are happy with the character they have built up, whilst giving some guidance about how to change it if they are not.
This flexibility, however, does not mean that being ethical is easy, Aristotle recognises this. He shows that virtues must be practised to be able to come naturally. However, as the various lockdowns have served to many as a time of selfreflection and improvement, Virtue Ethics appearstobe asimportantaseverwithinmodern society.
What is COP26?
Beatrice Graham & Kavneet Dhillon, both Year 11
1 virtuous people do not have to have first names beginning with M, but it is a pattern I have
COP26 is a climate change conference that was hosted from the 31st of October to the 12th of November. It was a chance for countries and companies from all over the world to join together in an attempt to inspire climate action and encourage viewers from around the world to work on stopping climate change.Many statistics have shown that climate change is the greatest risk facing the world right now. COP26 is a way of spreading awareness and educating people about how the little things we do can have such a large effect on the rise or fall in carbon emissions.
COP26 is the world's last hope before our actions becomeirreversibleandglobalwarmingbecomes out of control, that is why it is so important for people around the world to understand what it is about. More than 190 world leaders have agreed tocome togetheranddiscusstheirplansofaction towards preventing climate change and reducing carbon emissions in their region. If emissions continue to rise in the future, the harm on the earth's ecosystem will be further damaged, and more lives will be lost. Our world is in danger.
To fully understand what COP26 is aiming towards we have to look further back to COP21, which took place in Paris in 2015. The Paris Agreement was discussed between the countries
discovered when thinking of inspiring contemporarycelebrities
Notting Hill Critic – Spring 2022
Indian prime minister Narendra Modi addresses COP26
involved - it was agreed that to prevent livelihoods being damaged, the further rise in temperatures must be hindered. The agreement was to work towards decreasing global temperatures by 1.5 degrees. Each country involved committed to a plan to reduce their emissions, and to a meeting that would be held every five years to discuss further progress on each plan. When reflecting on whether many improvements were made over the last couple of years, we can now say that the promises to decrease temperatures were not fulfilled. This has resulted in the hope of being able to achieve what we wanted to be slowly declining.
COP26’s aims and the UK
The aims of COP26 are to secure global ‘Net Zero’ (where the amount of carbon being produced is equal to the carbon taken in by plants in nature) by 2050, and to keep a reduction of 1.5 degrees within reach. Countries involved with COP26 are asked tosubmitambitiousplansforhowtheywill reduce emissions by 2030.
Some of the UK’s proposals that have been discussed at COP26 include utilising taxes to fund green initiatives. The government has been investing in low carbon structures, for example using solar panels and hydroelectric power systems to create energy instead of fossil fuels in order to become a sustainable country. The British government also seeks to decrease deforestation and encourage citizens to switch to electric cars. These actions have been taking effect; between 1990 and 2016 the UK cut greenhouse gas emissions by 41%.
The Adaptation Action Coalition
The ‘Adaption Action Coalition’ was founded in 2021 in order to accelerate global plans on adaptation to achieve an ecosystem that is stable by 2030. The Coalition was developed by the UK, Egypt,Bangladesh,Malawi,theNetherlands,and Saint Lucia. It demonstrates real world action in response to risks our climate may be under, as well as showing adaptations that countries can make and evidence to support how it is helping.
The Council also develops action plans that countriescanimplementtoreduceemissionsand
improve the natural world. The coalition focuses on small areas to develop an awareness of how the world is changing and to maximise the successrate throughout the country. Inshort, the programme was created to try to catalyse our actions towards decreasing the global temperatures through reducing our emissions and improving the environment around us. 38 other countries are now a part of the Adaptation Action Coalition.
Impact on our earth…
The burning of fossil fuels, destruction of nature, our feelings of dominion over the natural environment - all release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Thus, the stability that the earth depends on has become unhinged. This results in storms, floods, forest fires, air pollution, the list goes on. The change in temperature around the globe is due to the increased greenhouse gases people have released into the atmosphere.
There is a chain of disasters around the world caused due to our actions in day-to-day life, and although it may not directly affect people in this school, we should still all work together to make change. Raising awareness about these disasters will help convince people to work towards saving this planet and making it a better place for not only future generations but also our generation. Making small changes and sacrifices everyday can cause a huge change in our carbon footprint and our impact on the environment.
Climate change is not felt equally across the earth, the people who have done the least to escalate this problem are being affected themost. That is why we must work together as a school to try and help those who have been impacted and give back what was taken away from them. Small actions of change are enough to change the course of the future. If everyone makes changes to adapt their way of living, the whole world will benefit.
The UK’s gain is other countries losses
Although it may seem like the UK has effectively tackled climate change, The UK’s plans fall short, and the poorer areas are being impacted the most. The UK is outsourcing a significant
Notting Hill Critic – Spring 2022
proportion of its emissions to poor countries. An example of outsourcing is the production of fast fashion clothing and mass manufacturing of electronicsmadeinothercountriesandimported into the UK which increases other countries emissions. Another way the UK has had a large effect is through the waste deposited creating landfill in other countries. This may pollute surrounding waters, meaning people in deprived areas are drinking unclean water that could lead to disease. The UK should take ownership of its own problems instead of putting the onus on other countries and causing more people harm.
This article was an entry for the 2021 ISRSA essay competition.
I somewhat agree with the first statement because religion is extremely prominent in many countries. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all monotheistic religions and therefore rely on the moral authority of one higher spirit. The Bible, the Quran, the Ten Commandments, and Jesus’s Beatitudes are all examples that support the belief that God makes the rules and we as humans follow them.
SomereligiouspeoplelooktoGodtopardontheir sins and give them a fresh start, which only further reinforces the notion that God is omnipotent and candecide right andwrong. This notion is called ‘Divine Command Theory’. Many people feel that their morality will be kept intact if they are obedient to their God and follow God’s rules. This theory leads us to contemplate religion and moral authority’s part in society. Is something erroneous or dishonourable if it goes against God's word?
On the contrary, the second statement is true up to a point. The number of atheists or simply not that religious people is immense, and they don’t tend to follow the moral authority of God at all, or as devoutly as very religious people. Marxism, for example, holds the belief that we obtain our
Moses descends from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments, Ferdinand Bol, 1662
moral compass from the people around us and who we look up to. This may be why families all have the same values, because they have grown with each other and rely on each other for a sense of right and wrong. These values can involve political views, interests or thoughts about what constitutes an unethical act.
Therefore, people might follow the word of God, but is the word of God derived from the people? It has been proven that certain people influence others, maybe even more so than God. Social media, celebrities, parents, and friends are all examples of platforms and people that influence us on a daily basis.
There are supporters and critics of both beliefs that contribute to their credibility. Plato, Kai Neilson, and J.L. Mackie have all voiced their opinions against Divine Command Theory. In his dialogue Euthyphro, Plato states that “if something is morally right just because God commands it, then morality becomes arbitrary”. This means it is based on a random decision or a whim rather than any logic or reasoning. The dialogue also states that given this, we could inflict pain and torture on others because we are morallyobligated byahigherpowertodoso – for example, some terrorist groups are influenced by their own religious beliefs and what they think
Notting Hill Critic – Spring 2022
Is that which is right because God commands it? Or does God command that which is right?
Jaan Walia, Year 8
their God expects from them. In 1973, Kai Neilson argued that religion and morality are logically independent from each other. In his book ‘Ethics without good’ Neilson states that for God’s word to be relevant to humans, God has to be good. And while religion maintains that belief, there is no basis for it. He goes on to give an example of this. He says, “A believer might say they know God is good because the bible teaches this, or because Jesus embodied and displayed goodness. However, these responses show that the believer themselves has some logically prior criterion based on something apart from the mere fact that God exists.”
Philosophers that support Divine Command Theory areRobert Adams,Duns Scotus and John Calvin. In 1987 Robert Adams proposed a ‘Modified Divine Command Theory’ and stated that the two statements were equivalent: It is wrong to do X. It is against God’s commands to do X. This implies that God’s commands are humans’ source of moral authority.He alsostates that “an action is only wrong if it defies the word of a loving God. If cruelty was commanded, God would not be loving therefore his actions would not have to be obeyed and his theory of ethical wrongness would break down”. Adams’s theory tries to counter Kai Nielson’s as God’s commands are based on his omnibenevolence (unlimited goodness). Duns Scotus is another promoter of Divine Command Theory. He argued the only fixed command in life that God cannot change is that “humans are to love one another and God”. He said that any other moral action is decided by God and his word.
In conclusion, there is no firm answer to the question because different people have contrasting opinions based on their religions and other beliefs about God and morality in the world. Many philosophers have debated the validity of Divine Command Theory, yet most people are convinced their opinion is the right one.
The Tories and Rishi Sunak’s Autumn Budget
Liliana Benoliel, Year 10
Back in October, Rishi Sunak, Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivered his budget speech for the UK. This budget outlined plans that point towardswhatheandhisparty,theConservatives, were planning to do in regard to the UK's economy and budget. So, what did he say? And how did he try and maintain support for the Tories throughout his speech?
He began his speech by mentioning inflation. Sunak said that he wanted to keep rates of inflation low, having written to the Bank of England to say so, as well as keeping rates of interest lower too.
He also mentioned that he aimed to help lower income families through the winter, though did not give any formal numbers or plans to do so. Later though, in his address, he mentioned how fuel duty was going to be cancelled. That would mean saving £8bn over five years for motorists, which will be helpful for struggling families.
He said that he expected the UK’s economy to grow by 6.5% and be back to its pre-pandemic size by early 2022. As we are now in early 2022, this will be interesting as we will be able to watch and see if our economy goes back to its prepandemic size. Though this may be difficult given, the somewhat, short time frame and our new supply chain issues due to Brexit. Sunak went on to say that he aimed to bring UK
Notting Hill Critic – Spring 2022
Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
borrowing down to 3.3% of the UK’s GDP, as in the past two years we have had the highest ever rate of borrowing in peacetime.
Rishi Sunak has also announced plans for the government to increase departmental spending by £150bn, the largest increase in a century. In terms of real time this means that departmental spending will increase by 3.8% a year. Sunak said, “If anybody still doubts it, today's budget confirms it. The Conservatives are the real party ofpublicservices".Thisstatementmaybe seenas unbelievable, considering that the Tories have been in power for ten years and in that time have been cutting the public sector budget in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis. So where will this money come from, and how can we keep inflation low at the same time? However, this policy still benefits many parts of the public sector including the NHS, TfL and schools around the country which have been struggling with the austerity programme from 2010. Also, raising the minimum wage from £8.91 an hour to £9.50 has a positive outcome for many people around the country. As I mentioned before, funding for schools is to be increased and restored to 2010 levels. A return to 2010 levels means an additional £1,500 for every student, going to show just how much money the Conservatives have cut from schools in the past ten years.
As well as increased departmental spending, Rishi Sunak announced a plan for “levelling up”. They are allocating money to constituencies to help with the economic effects of covid and to lower unemployment rates. Sunak even said that theyweresocommitted to “levelling up”that“We are even levelling up the opposition of the front bench”, meaning all constituencies including ones held by Labour. This is, quite obviously, Sunak relaying Johnson’s message, hoping to retain the seats they’ve won in the north and in the Midlands.
In terms of the public sector, Sunak announced plans for libraries to be “renovated, restored and revived”, though have notindicated how theywill achieve that. It was announced that the government was going to invest £21bn on roads
and £46bn on railways. This is a large amount and should go a long way to improving transportation in the UK as many people frequently complain about the state of Britain’s roads. The government’s target for hitting research and development funding and investment of £22bn is planned to be reached by 2026-27, two years later than planned.
The chancellor says the government will raise government spending on skills and training by £3.8bn over the parliament, an increase of 42%. The government is to set up a national skills training program to increase the skills of adults, particularly numeracy skills. Skills is not a particularly popular topic among voters, but the Conservative Party is very adamant about increasing the skills of citizens, something that should also help adults to get more jobs.
The chancellor also confirmed the national living wage will increase from £8.91 to £9.50 an hour fromApril.Atthesame time however,Sunakalso said that his goal was to reduce taxes by the end of parliament. Another thing that the Tories like to lean towards.
However, there were a couple of things that Sunak noticeablydid notmention throughout his speech. Most notably, he did not announce any measures that the UK would be taking to reduce climate change or anything regarding the new high-speed rail that has been discussed. This silence on green measures is particularly worrying along with the cancellation of fuel duty, because while it is good for struggling families, it will encourage people to drive more which is bad for the environment.
Notting Hill Critic – Spring 2022
is less effective than prayer’
Beatrice Cook, Year 8
This article was an entry for the 2021 ISRSA essay competition.
Meditation is listening to the world around you. It comes in many forms: breathing, awareness of the senses, focusing on something or emptying the mind of thoughts all together. Prayer, on the other hand, is talking, the part of religion where youcommunicate withthehigherpower,theGod or spirit. In some ways they go hand in hand: to pray and to meditate are similar things. You concentrate on the world and try to connect with nature, a higher power, or even the universe.
However, although it may seem that meditation is less effective than prayer, for many people, it is more effective. For those who are not religious, prayer would not help them become calm or purified. For these people, therefore, meditation would be the solution.
One main type of meditation, ‘appreciative meditation’, involves the limbic system and anterior insula which are connected to emotional wellbeing and awareness. Meditation for mindfulness involves the prefrontal cortex and parietal lobes, which relate to focus and attention. To meditate you must be at total peace and unity with the world around you. You have to accept the troubles you may face, and you must listen to the Universe. The act of meditation can make one feel satisfied and content with life; it helps you to understand the world. In this sense, meditation has more of an effect, it teaches you tobe atpeaceandunderstandingwiththe life you have - unlike prayer in which you may ask for something more. Meditation has been proven to improve concentration and brain power as well as increasing memory capacity and helping you to feel calm. Therefore, meditation is still incredibly effective, whether it is more or less effective than praying.
The act of prayer is very effective, as Dr Speigel says, “Praying involves the deeper parts of the brain: the medial prefrontal cortex and the posterior cingulate cortex the mid-front and back portions, these parts of the brain are involvedinself-reflectionandself-soothing.” The act of praying can calm you more than the act of meditation.
In many other ways too, prayer is more effective: it can help you to feel happy and at peace and can be a way to reflect on the world around you that youwouldn'tbe abletodoif youweremeditating. Prayer helps you to assess your day-to-day life and to be thankful and appreciative for what you have. For different religions, the form of prayer changes. Some forms involve listening to the world around you, othersinvolve meditation. For Christians, praying is talking to God: thanking him or asking him for something specific which is very different to meditation, during which you listen.
In conclusion, it is impossible to have a singular correct answer to this argument. Every person is different, and for some it can be hard for them to meditate and empty their minds of thoughts. For others, they may struggle to connect with a God or a higher power through prayer and therefore feel as if meditation is the only way to feel calm and at peace. Prayer and meditation are both similar and different things, they involve differentsensesandevokedifferentemotionsbut in many religions the form of prayer is meditation. You cannot say that one is more effective than the other if it is different for everybody.
Notting Hill Critic – Spring 2022
‘Meditation
Saying Grace (1951) by Norman Rockwell
Nothing could have prepared the world for COVID-19; both the pandemic's economic and social impacts have been drastic, leaving consumers, producers, and governments uncertain about how to manage it and what is to come. In 2020, there were roughly 81 million cases of COVID-19 worldwide; the global economy shrank by around 4.2%.
COVID-19 spreads through respiratory droplets, especially when people are in close contact. Therefore, the best way to limit the spread is by social distancing, wearing a mask, and staying home - as is heavily advocated by governments. Economic activity was brought to a halt when the pandemic first hit at the start of 2020; business closures and declines in GDP worldwide saw economic agents struggling to cope. The UK's GDPfell19%inQ2of2020afterthefirstnational lockdown, the largest decline in its history, resulting in a decrease in infection rate to prelockdown levels. Given the health risk, it is incumbent on the government to encourage and sustain the public's cooperation to minimise the infection rate whilst also minimising impact on the economy.
Fairness and reciprocity have been a defining aspect of how people and governments respond to COVID-19. The idea that people are
considerate of others and want to reciprocate support is not considered in mainstream economics when understanding human behaviour. Policymakers need to build trust with citizens to overcome barriers such as optimism bias and ‘moral hazard’. A survey conducted in December 2020 revealed that 57% of people in the UK said they did not trust the government to control the spread of COVID-19. Figuring out the best way to ensure that the general population followsgovernmentguidelinesandrulesrequires balance. If governments are too lenient about regulations, fewer people will cooperate; if too much fear is induced, it would not be easy to convince people to return to normalcy so that the economy can pick up again. A balance between enforcement and encouragement needs to be found to reduce the spread of the virus without diminishingpeople'sconfidenceinpolicymakers.
To achieve this, nudge theory is used: adverts promoting mask-wearing, evoking sympathy, and building a sense of "we are all in this together" - such as 'Protect the NHS' - help incentivise cooperation. Human beings are influenced by how things are presented when making decisions as emotions greatly influence beliefs. The UK utilises the framing effect during dailyCOVID-19 briefings to evoke caution aswell as reassurance. The scientific advisors accompanying the UK prime minister indicate that the government trusts the science and therefore the population should too. Additionally, a sense of fear is created by mentioning the death toll and the number of cases first, discouraging people from breaking the rules and going out.
COVID-19 has negatively impacted nations and the global community both socially and economically. Policy making during this time is difficult as there is so much uncertainty surrounding the pandemic; governments need to decide what to prioritise, and people have less confidence in governments and are less incentivised to listen. To combat this, governmentscanuseeconomictheorylikeNudge theory to encourage following policies tomitigate the pandemic's effects.
Notting Hill Critic – Spring 2022
How do economic theories affect Government policy-making during a pandemic, and how can behavioural economics be used so the policies actually work?
Lily Sideso, Year 13
Prime minister Boris Johnson addressing the nation on Coronavirus measures
Notting Hill Critic is the magazine of the Politics, Philosophy and Economics departments of Notting Hill & Ealing High School
Like thinking Critically?
Join The Critic Team today! Email t.pilling@ to make your mark. All Years Welcome
Tilda Hardman, Year 10
