"The Chamberlain Case highlighted many of the weaknesses in the Australian legal system
"The Chamberlain Case highlighted many of the weaknesses in the Australian legal system." Do you agree with this assessment? Give examples to illustrate your answer. The case of Lindy Chamberlain was very significant in Australian legal history as it involved the conviction and imprisonment of an innocent person for infanticide. This is occurrence should never have taken place and demonstrated the weaknesses in the Australian legal system. A legal system is meant to be sturdy and never failing system that the public can put its trust ad faith in but this time it fell apart and wrongly convicted an innocent mother, wife and friend. Something needs to be done to ensure the unnecessary imprisonment of an innocent does not occur again. There were many issues in the legal system that let Lindy Chamberlain down. Firstly the expensive court system that disadvantages those who cannot afford the best. Secondly, the inadequacies of the police force. The third issue was the public bias and finally the contaminated jury. Cheap Lawyer "Justice only comes by the expenditure of large amounts of money and support of many friends".1 This statement is true. Not many people in the country can afford the best lawyer and it is true to say that if you have the money to pay for a brilliant lawyer than you will have a good chance at winning any case. Not many people can afford to go as far
To what extent does Chamberlain deserve the title of one of the Guilty Men?
Adrienne Stockley To what extent does Chamberlain deserve the title of one of the 'Guilty Men'? Chamberlain was in power between 1937-1940.Some people feel that Chamberlain was to blame for the second world while others disagree and feel that while he was in power he, in fact helped Britain. Chamberlain can be seen as deserving the title of 'the guilty men' because people believe that he gave into Hitler's demands too easily and that he was being fooled by Hitler. For example: in the Munich agreement, Chamberlain gave into Hitler's demands to keep peace. He appeared to believe Hitler's promise that he would not try and take over Czechoslovakia and although Czechoslovakia should have been involved greatly in the discussion, they were not even informed which of course made them angry. And, although some people feel that Chamberlain was simply fighting for time to rearm; many others feel that he was most definitely fooled by Hitler. Chamberlain was then, later made to look stupid when Hitler Invaded Czechoslovakia and took over Prague. People also felt that Chamberlain was stupid to sign the Munich agreement because of what Hitler wrote in his book 'Mein Kampf' where he said what his plans were. Some people felt that war was imminent because of Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. What Britain was
"Why, despite having been his closet supporter in 1461, was Richard Neville, Earl of Warwickin revolt against Edward IV by 1469?"
"Why, despite having been his closet supporter in 1461, was Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick in revolt against Edward IV by 1469?" Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick has been labelled by historic tradition, with some justification, as the 'kingmaker'. It is with his support that Edward IV was able claim the throne from Henry VI, Warwick's support during the Wars of the Roses, and especially at the Battle of Towton was vital in putting the first Yorkist king on the throne. It is clear that he was instrumental in Edwards rise to the throne, however his contribution has sometimes been overemphasised. Pickering suggests that their alliance in taking the throne was equal, the victories Edwards own and even that Edward seemed more adept in battle than his ally. He says "Edward was neither 'made' by Warwick, nor controlled by him." Nevertheless, his relationship with Richard, both as an ally and a friend, must have been very good. What lead him then, less than a decade later, to revolt against Richard in support of the exiled Henry VI? The first thing to understand about Warwick was his character and to see that it was pure ambition that drove him. With the romanticism that the epithet "Kingmaker" implies, one could picture him as the noble-knight. However he seems to have far from the vignette that is perceived from the word "Kingmaker". Keen says of him "Warwick was not a
Sources of Finance available to Joseph Chamberlain Sixth Form College.
Task 4 (P3) Sources of Finance available to Joseph Chamberlain Sixth Form College There are two types of sources of finances namely internal sources and external sources. Internal sources of finance can be from savings or profits however external sources of finance can be from outside the business such as banks, shares etc There are many different sources of finance available generally however it depends on the actual business type. For JCC the sources of finance available to them are as follows: * Banks - banks are able to offer loans, business accounts, commercial mortgages and overdraft facilities based on the business plan. Interest is payable based on the predicted risk. Some security will need to be provided, e.g. assets such as a college premises, college mini bus and any valuable item which is worth more than the loan. JCC may take this loan in for its finance for the use of buying premises. * Hire purchase - hire purchase means that resources can be used by the business while they are being paid for. Until the last payment is made on the agreement the goods are not owned by the business and if payments are not made the finance company can take them back. JCC might use this for purchasing its resources such as computers. * Overdraft - an arrangement with the bank where a business will be able to borrow more money from its bank than is actually in their account.
To what extent was the Boer War brought about by the actions and decisions of Milner and Chamberlain?
To what extent was the Boer War brought about by the actions and decisions of Milner and Chamberlain? Name: Chen Rong ID Number: 4071030 Word Count: 2613 The Boer War, defined by historians as the last great imperial war1, was expected to be a small and short war (no longer than 2 months), however startlingly, turned out to be the longest (two and three-quarter years), the costliest (over£200 million), the bloodiest (at least twenty-two thousand Britain, twenty-five thousand Boer and twelve thousand African lives) and the most humiliating war for Britain between 1815 and 1914.2 Broadly speaking, the crisis that finally brought about the disastrous war in the Transvaal at the end of the nineteenth century was the culmination of two and a half centuries of Afrikaner (the old crop of white settlers mainly from Holland, of which Boer was the main group) expansion and the conflict with Africans and British.3 In an age of tremendous capitalist expansion in the second half of nineteenth century, an age of growing importance of gold in the world economy, the turning point in the history of South Africa in the year 1886 was definite to bring the region under the spotlight of the world. In 1886, gold-bearing reef was discovered on the Witwatersrand which proved to be the world's largest single source of gold, producing each year a quarter of the whole world's output.4 This event
Was appeasement Justified? What was "appeasement"?
Assignment 2 - Historical Interpretations WAS APPEASEMENT JUSTIFIED? What was "appeasement"? The definition of appeasement is a policy, which is made to keep peace. However, there are many different definitions. Before the Second World War appeasement was a term which meant 'a way of keeping peace by soothing, quieting and calming. Yet, postwar dictionaries added new meanings to the word. Appeasement came to mean 'gaining peace by buying off other countries' and 'the giving up of principles to avoid war'. This change in views resulted from Neville Chamberlain's act of appeasement and ultimately his failure to keep the peace. The policy of appeasement began when many Germans believed that Germany's position in the Treaty of Versailles was unfair. Adolph Hitler shared this view; he also believed that many other countries thought the Treaty was unfair on Germany. Hitler began to secretly rearm Germany in 1933 and by 1935 felt confident enough to announce that conscription (compulsory military service) was to be reintroduced. This obvious attack on the Treaty of Versailles left the leaders of Britain, France and Italy feeling suspicious of Germany. They called a meeting in Stresa in April 1935. However, the only agreement they could come to was that if Germany were to break the Treaty again the nations would act together. In arch 1936 Hitler sent his troops into the
How far do you agree that Chamberlain's behaviour during the Czech crisis of September 1938 reveals that Chamberlain was not the dupe of Hitler but a shrewd politician
How far do you agree that Chamberlains behaviour during the Czech crisis of September 1938 reveals that 'Chamberlain was not the dupe of Hitler but a shrewd politician' (Source 7, lines 1-2)? This matter is often debated among historians. Orthodox historians shortly after war mainly say Chamberlain was duped, because Britain was dragged into a war shortly after the crisis, whereas Revisionist Historians say he was shrewd and knew what he was doing. Source 7 says Chamberlain knew what he was doing and had one of two aims about postponing war. Source 8 says that although Chamberlain was happy, he had been duped. Source 9 agrees on the majority with source 1 and says that Chamberlain knew what he was doing, and used the time created by the Czech crisis effectively, therefore was shrewd. The fact that sources 7 and 9 agree suggest that Chamberlain was shrewd, and not duped. Source 7 states that it was Chamberlains aim to postpone war temporarily, which was achieved. The quote from Ironside confirms that it was his aim 'Chamberlain is of course right. We have not the means of defending ourselves and he knows it'. Source 9 also agrees with this and says that 'aiming to postpone it to allow Britain to gather strength'. Chamberlain knew that war would be a disaster for Western Civilisation, and this view is reflected in Britain's foreign policy during this period, with the aims of
In the period to 1902, Cecil Rhodes and Joseph Chamberlain did more harm than good to the British Empire. How for do you agree with this statement?
In the period to 1902, Cecil Rhodes and Joseph Chamberlain did more harm than good to the British Empire. How for do you agree with this statement? Joseph Chamberlain was a radically-minded Liberal Party member, and he became leader of the Liberal Unionists and in 1886 he formed an alliance with the Conservative Party. As a result, in 1895, Chamberlain was given the post of Colonial Secretary, in Salisbury's Government. He seized the opportunity to execute his imperial vision. However, now he had a wider canvas, on which he might create a closer union between the colonies and Britain, welding together the occupied territories to create 'an empire greater and more potent for peace than any that history has yet known'. Cecil Rhodes was the prime-minister of the Cape Colony, who created the British South Africa Company that was aimed to enable colonisation and economic exploitation across much of South and Central Africa. Rhodes was a gay figure in pressing for the extension of British control in South Africa with his prime aim being to extend British power from 'Cape to Cairo'. Joseph Chamberlain and Cecil Rhodes both played very large roles in expanding the control of the British Empire, but outcomes of certain events led to the British Empire being more harmed than benefited. The factors that portray Joseph Chamberlain did have a positive affect the British Empire are
To what extent did the Munich Conference contribute to the outbreak of World War 2?
To what extent did the Munich Conference contribute to the outbreak of World War Two? . PLAN OF INVESTIGATION On 30 September 1938, the Munich Conference took place. Neville Chamberlain- British Prime Minister and Adolf Hitler- Nazi leader in the 1930s, agreed on the annexation of Sudetenland-Czechoslovakia. The research question is: To what extent did the Munich Conference contribute to the outbreak of World War Two? This investigation will assess the aims and motives of Britain and Germany’s leaders at the Munich Conference. This investigation will discuss the results of the Munich Conference and how the Munich Conference initiated World War Two. Sources including magazine articles, newspaper articles, books and online database such as magazine article: “Munich Agreement Is Signed: September 30th, 1938” by Bartlett, J. W and the book “Neville Chamberlain, appeasement and the British road to war” by Frank McDonough will be analysed to figure out their origin, purpose, value, limitation, thus analyse how Munich Conference contributed to the outbreak of 2nd World War. Word count: 147 . SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE: Here is a summary of evidence that suggests the Munich Conference contributed to the Second World War. 2.1) Hitler’s demand: In 1930s, the Nazis was the dominate power of the world. Its military power was the greatest and therefore scared the Allies,
The treaty of Versailles was signed between Britain, France and USA. Lloyd-George, Clemencau and Wilson all devised a treaty that could cripple Germany, leading to their aim - prevention of further conflict and a war.
Following the end of the First World War in 1919, it was decided that, prevention of another war was an important factor in Europe. The treaty of Versailles was signed between Britain, France and USA. Lloyd-George, Clemencau and Wilson all devised a treaty that could cripple Germany, leading to their aim - prevention of further conflict and a war. The treaty was to be divided; territorially, military, financially and general. Much of Germany was taken from them, to try and reduce ambition. Major reductments in Military were introduced Germany's army was reduced to 100,000 men; the army was not allowed tanks nor an airforce, only 6 capital naval ships were allowed and no submarines. Finally and perhaps most damaging to Germany, a huge some of reparation money was demanded as compensation. $6,600Billion was to be paid in instalments. Being placed with the guilt for the war created a hostile relationship, and caused a lot of resentment. However much historical debate has centred around the Treaty and its influence over starting the Second World War. Revisionist Carr believed that the Treaty was a 'failure to solve 'German Problem''1. Revisionist AJP Taylor supported this as he believed the second World War was 'a war over the settlement of Versailles; a war that had been implicit when the first World War ended because the peacemakers had not solved the German problem.'2 Some
