Jordan Renault

Considered as both a defining characteristic of functional meritocratic society and a key justification for the efficiency of capitalist economy, the concept of social mobility is held as an ideal in truly inclusive democracies. This essay seeks to address three issues in connection with social mobility within the UK. First it is asserted that a discourse on social mobility would be void of substance if not first demonstrated to be an issue. Thus, the first section of this essay will examine the academic literature concerning social mobility in the UK. Having shown that social mobility is lacking, particularly in terms of relative mobility this essay will then seek to demonstrate that education can and indeed is a mediator of social mobility. This will be done by recourse to theoretical discourse on the relationship between origin, education and destination. Upon this premise particular attention will be paid to the role of further education in mediating a perceived historical weakness between education and destination. In particular consideration will be given to how further education can address social mobility through: greater parity and availability of effective vocational and academic courses; raising expectations and a raised awareness in professional practice of the needs of disadvantaged students. Particular attention will be given to A level law as a way of demonstrating the impact of further education studies outside of the core subjects of Maths, English and Science.

Drawing a comparison between philosophers and artists Bertrand Russell (1950: 159) asserts that teachers likewise may only perform properly through internal creative impulse rather than being fettered by external authority. Whether this position rings true is likely a matter of perspective on the nature of education. Regardless, structured curriculum endures and continues to be the driving force that underpins the delivery of education in the UK. However, what makes an educational curriculum is a subject of ongoing debate. Indeed, Tummons (2009: 4) quite rightly contends that the word curriculum itself is too vague, broad and far reaching to be useful in any genuinely helpful way. Therefore, in this essay I will explore the two predominant models of curriculum planning with the view of analysing their efficacy and suitability in enabling truly educational curriculum. This will require theoretical and ideological consideration of what education is to mean in our democratic society.
From the outset I assert the product model to be deficient in enabling a truly educational curriculum concluding the process model most accurately reflects this concept. I will discuss the curriculum as it is today and conclude that whilst guised as learner-centred and adhering to holistic process principles it is in fact an overtly objective, product based curriculum. Further to this I will discuss the possible impact of using such a model of curriculum in the contemporary FE sector.

The question of whether or not psychiatric patients ought to be detained against their will invokes contemplation of conflicting ethical principles. The detainment of an individual is the ultimate encroachment of their autonomy and liberty. Such conduct therefore requires a proportionately just cause. This is the primary concern of ethical discourse, the difference between the ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’ of action.  In such a pursuit the ethical theorist has recourse to a number of ethical theories concerning the morality of action. However, the inevitable outcome of the existence of conflicting ethical theories is that to adopt one or another may be considered as producing diametrically opposed outcomes. Indeed, Smart argues “it is still possible that there is no ethical system which would be satisfactory to all men, or even to one man at different times ”.
This essay will undertake a discussion of rights theory and care ethics as they apply to mental health provision. Beginning with an analysis of the dominance of rights theory in UK law, I will present the difficulties posed by mandatory detention and treatment of mental health patients with respect to the sovereign notion of autonomy as a right. Subsequent to this I will argue that rights theory poses a dangerous centralisation of concern for autonomy, rendering individuals isolated entities within society. Here I will contend care ethics offers an attractive supplementary role toward those suffering from conditions who are in dire need of compassionate assistance. Contrary to the notion of the unencumbered, sovereign self I use care ethics to demonstrate the reality of human vulnerability and the importance of social integration and indeed, paternalism. By doing integrating rights theory in care ethics as complimentary theories, I contend that the availability of multiple ethical approaches, far from being extraneous variables, ought to be embraced as intellectual tools with which we may deduce ethical action in complex scenarios.

In his dictum within the case of Hewer v Bryant , Lord Denning stated that the law surrounding children’s rights “can, and should, keep pace with the time ”. Denning criticised the late Victorian era case of Re Agar-Ellis  where it was held that a parent’s absolute authority over their children continued unabated until the age of majority. These comments resurfaced in the prominent case of Gillick  where the House of Lords established that a child’s capacity to make important medical decisions depended not on a legally set age but rather their individual level of maturity and understanding. This essay argues that post Hewer, Gillick and the implementation of the Human Rights Act , the UK has seen an increasingly contentious relationship between the concepts of parental responsibility and child autonomy at law. It is contended that the concepts are not inter-dependent but rather exist theoretically and practically opposed as competing and contextually qualified interests. This will be contended on the basis that the rights inherent within parental responsibility naturally conflict with a full conception of autonomy and represent instead a publicly endorsed paternalism toward children. Further, it is argued that both concepts are often used as judicial rhetoric in combination with the ‘welfare principle’ in order to impose judicial, value based, policy judgements; a precarious practice. It will be shown this is most apparent in the logically incoherent concept of ‘Gillick competency’  in relation to refusal of treatment.

The question of whether a framework legalising physician assisted dying ought to be adopted in the UK engages conflicting ethical ideologies towards the value of life and the rights of individuals. Currently the law in the UK prohibits ‘mercy killing’, absolutely on the grounds of murder, irrespective of permission or good will . The law surrounding assisted suicide is however enshrined in Statute as a particular offence. The Suicide Act 1961 criminalises “an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person” . This law is unique in that it renders an accessory liable to conviction when the principal individual does not themselves commit a criminal offence . However, following a number of high profile cases involving individuals with debilitating illnesses who wished assistance in committing suicide  and a growing public consensus on the desirability of pro-assistance legislation , Parliament is reviewing Lord Falconer’s ‘Assisted Dying Bill’  which aims to legalise the practice in limited circumstances.

In this essay it will be asserted that the ethical desirability of legalising physician assisted suicide (PAS) and active voluntary suicide (AVE) rests upon the value of life and the ethics of suicide itself. Consequently, before any consideration of the ethics on legislation can be accurately made it must first be shown whether suicide itself can be ethically justified. This essay will address this issue by considering the conflicting ethical concepts of the inherent sanctity of life and theories on the importance of autonomy and self-determination. Upon concluding that it is indeed the latter aspects of human life that give it value, it will be argued that an ethical continuum exists that allows for the extrapolation of the ethical justifiability of suicide to PAS and AVE.

It is generally accepted that in order for competitive markets to function successfully, businesses need to be consistently competitive in their attempts to acquire and retain consumers. Competitive markets require consumers to be economically active and confident in their decision making when considering options and challenging firms to provide better services and goods . However, for consumers to be expected to do so effectively the law governing their rights ought to be sufficiently clear and suited to consumer needs. A report published by the Law Commission has suggested that a high level of confusion currently exists amongst UK consumers regarding the rights they have at law . This is perhaps unsurprising when one considers that the law governing consumer’s rights is spread across nine main pieces of legislation  and “over a hundred years’ worth of case law ”. This being augmented by recent EU legislation that affects the consumer landscape , further complicating the law . This issue has prompted the Coalition government to propose the UK Consumer Rights Bill  with the aim of consolidating consumer protection law into one, simplified piece of legislation. It is hoped that this will improve clarity and better protect consumer rights thus improving the function of consumer markets.

This essay will provide an analysis of the Consumer Rights Bill  with regard to whether it accurately reflects insights from economic and psychological research on consumer decision making. Contemporary behavioural theories will be considered and applied to Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill which concern the sale of goods and unfair terms respectively. This will be done for the purposes of determining whether the Bill accurately accommodates consumer behavioural tendencies as observed by economic and psychological research. Further to this, the Bill’s potential for improving the function of consumer markets will be discussed throughout with regard to the likely effects of the Bill’s provisions on consumer market participation.

Freedom of expression is generally held to be a fundamental tenant of any democratic society that is characterised by tolerance and pluralism . It is internationally believed that the free trade of ideas  plays an essential part in strengthening democratic processes and offers citizens an indispensable tool for informed participation. Indeed, philosophers such as John Mill assert that freedom of expression “represents the optimal condition by which "truth" may be discovered ”. However despite this very general consensus, nationally proscribed limits of the freedom are quite different, particularly when one considers the contrasted theories of Western Europe and the USA. This essay will attempt to analyse the differing limitations on freedom of expression posed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights  and the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution  with particular regard to ‘Hate Speech’.