Analysis of UK Adoption Law

Analysis of UK Adoption Law â€Å"Critically analyse the law relating to adoption.† Adoption in this jurisdiction is â€Å"entirely the creature of statute†[1]. It was introduced by the Adoption of Children Act 1926 and is currently regulated by the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (replacing the outdated Adoption Act 1976) which after a lengthy period of gestation and passage through Parliament received Royal Assent on 7th November 2002. While the basic principle of adoption endures (â€Å"the legal process whereby a court irrevocably extinguishes the legal ties between a child and the natural parents or guardians and creates analogous ties between the child and the adopters†[2]) the character of adoption has changed from being predominantly a mechanism for the care of orphans and the abandoned. Contraception, abortion and the reduction of the stigma of single parenthood has given rise to the contemporary situation in which there are relatively few â€Å"unwanted† babies and adoption is most frequently a means of relocating children who are at risk or otherwise disadvantaged by their circumstances. Adoption may therefore now be regarded as a species of social engineering. The law has developed to meet the challenges of this new role. In 2000, the Prime Minister declared the Government’s commitment to modernising adoption and commissioned a report from the Performance and Innovation Unit[3]. This led to a White Paper[4] and the current legislation. The 2002 Act toughens emphasis upon the welfare of the child. Whereas s.6 of the Adoption Act 1976 required that â€Å"first consideration† be given to the need to safeguard and promote welfare during childhood, s.1 of the 2002 Act provides: â€Å"[W]henever a court or adoption agency is coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child the paramount [emphasis supplied] consideration†¦must be the child’s welfare, throughout his life.† The Performance and Innovation Unit (Op. Cit., Executive Summary, para.6) highlighted the concern that â€Å"the lack of adopters is a key constraint in achieving an increase in the number of adoptions and it is clear that more people with the right skills need to be encouraged and supported†. Controversially, this has led to the ability of unmarried couples to adopt. A similar acknowledgement of the changing social landscape is found in the manner in which modern legislation addresses transnational adoptions. The â€Å"shortage of babies† and legitimate compassion for the plight of children in poor or repressive regimes had led to a dramatic increase in adoptions of children from overseas giving rise to concerns that â€Å"baby-trafficking† and even sales of infants were occurring resulting in inappropriate placements. Accordingly, the Adoption of Children from Overseas Regulations 2000 introduced a strict control framework under which local authorities must be notified of the entry of such a child into the country within a prescribed period. The child remains the subject of a private foster placement and thus under the supervision and control of the local authority with the latter under a duty to investigate and report to the court prior to the granting of an adoption order. Another step-change in the development of adoption law is to be found in the contemporary approach to the maintenance of contact with birth families. Historically, adoption had been a secretive process involving the total severance of contact with natural parents. While the right of the child to obtain knowledge of his natural parents and even, in due course, seek contact has long been recognised, there has been a signal lack of a countervailing right on the part of such parents. Recent studies have recognised the legitimate need of parents to know that the adoption to which they consented was successful[5]. Accordingly, it is now established that adoption plans should include arrangements for maintaining links with birth families where appropriate[6]. Nonetheless, a tension remains: although courts are empowered when making an adoption order to make a contact order under s.8 of the Children Act 1989, this never occurs in practice where there is resistance from the adoptive parents. Essentially, therefore, the continuation of contact remains in the gift of the adoptive parents. Similarly, a more relaxed approach is taken to the issue of adoption by relatives. Traditionally, this had been opposed on the grounds that family relationships might become distorted and it was considered that a residence order would always be the better alternative. However, s.1(6) of the 2002 Act now requires adoption to be the better option and controls are introduced equivalent to those to which â€Å"strangers† are subject. The 2002 legislation has also further developed the principle of â€Å"freeing† for adoption. This means of eliminating distressing contests with birth parents was first enacted by s.14 of the Children Act 1975 but not in fact implemented until 1984. The 2002 Act abolishes the previous freeing regime and empowers agencies to place children for adoption with parental consent. It is now possible for effective consent to adoption to be given at an early stage and a court is now longer required to approve such consent before an adoption order is made. The role of agencies in this process is enhanced. The effect of consent to placement for adoption is analogous to the making of a care order: parental responsibility is not extinguished but its exercised can be controlled by the agency. The emphasis of the new regime is upon ensuring that agencies diligently carry out their duty of appropriately matching the child and establishing with care that adoption is the subject of an independ ent and fully informed decision by the birth parent. A corollary of this is that consent to placement and adoption must now be witnessed by a CAFCASS officer (s.104). In parallel with the development of adoption law is the use and consequent regulation of surrogacy as a means of alleviating the consequences of infertility. Profit-making arrangements for both surrogacy and adoption are illegal. Adoption law has a part to play in that the commissioning parents can only acquire the legal status of parent by a court order analogous to those made in adoptions or indeed by adoption itself. It appears inevitable that adoption law will further develop to encompass surrogacy: there is a particular need to regulate agencies in the latter field in the manner that adoption agencies are currently controlled. Thus adoption law, while â€Å"a creature of statute† is a living and constantly evolving being, ever adapting to the changing social circumstances and mores of the times. Bibliography Adoption: a new approach, (2000), Cm. 5017 Cretney, S., Masson, J. Bailey-Harris, R., Principles of Family Law, (7th Ed., 2003) Hale, B., Pearl, D., Cooke, E., Bates, P., The Family, Law and Society, Cases Materials (5th Ed., 2002) Howe, D. Feast, J., Adoption, Search and Reunion (2000) Performance and Innovation Unit, Prime Minister’s review of Adoption, July 2000, www. number-10.gov.uk/su/adoption www.dfes.gov.uk/adoption www.hmso.gov.uk 1 Footnotes [1] Cretney, S., Masson, J. Bailey-Harris, R., Principles of Family Law, (7th Ed., 2003), 23-001 [2] Ibid., p.791 [3] Performance and Innovation Unit, Prime Minister’s review of Adoption, July 2000, www. number-10.gov.uk/su/adoption [4] Adoption: a new approach, (2000), Cm. 5017 [5] Howe, D. Feast, J., Adoption, Search and Reunion (2000) [6] Adoption Standards (2001) Standard A11, C4, D7

An Argumentative Essay Regarding the building of the Keystone pipeline

With an increasing global population and ever industrializing society's, environmental concern is rarely given priority over economic incentive. But what people fail to realize is that our environmental failures, and relative apathy about it set up a plethora of problems for future generations to deal with. One of the most important decisions president Obama will face in the next year will be whether or not to approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, a massively sized, and massively controversial oil pipeline that would stretch all the way from Alberta Canada, to American oil refineries along the Gulf Of Mexico.Despite the economic incentive present, the building of the Keystone XL pipeline should not happen because of the environmental risks posed, and the fact that it bolsters our dependence on fossil fuels. Oil pipelines are prone to environmentally devastating spills, and have never proved to be an effective long term solution for the transport of crude oil. A pipeline t he size of the Keystone XL would simply be a disaster waiting to happen.The proposed pipeline would stretch over 2,000 miles, and go directly above the Ogalalla Aquifer in the central United States. The Ogalalla aquifer is one of the largest, and most important in the entire United States, â€Å"About 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies this aquifer system, which yields about 30 percent of all ground water used for irrigation in the United States. The aquifer system supplies drinking water to 82 percent of the 2. 3 million people (1990 census) who live within the boundaries of the High Plains study area.† (Dennehy)The sheer size of the aquifer makes it so that the Keystone XL would have to go over it in order to reach it's destination, so what damage a spill would have is only magnified by the agricultural importance of the aquifer. There have been 24 oil pipeline spills in the US alone over the last decade, spilling over 680 thousand tonnes of oil. (List of Oil Spills). And even despite a recent spill in Arkansas, proponents of the pipeline still have failed to properly look into it's potential impact. â€Å"†¦the study is missing some critical elements, including an in-depth review of pipeline safety issues, added pollution in refinery communities and a special assessment of the impact on wildlife†¦. Keystone XL is rife with issues that exacerbate climate change and environmental injustices. † (Mogerman).Rather than be concerned with the issues presented by the pipeline, or the past precedent of failure many pipelines have had in the US, Keystone supporters seem to only be focused on the profit it's building would turn.And many wealthy supporters have turned to lobbying News programs into downplaying it's risks. â€Å"TV Outlets Mentioned Jobs Benefits Twice As Often As Spill Risks. Television outlets overlooked the threat of Keystone XL to the sensitive ecosystems along the pipeline route, mentioning the r isk of a spill in just 20 percent of coverage since Election Day, November 6, 2012. Meanwhile, 43 percent of television coverage promoted the jobs benefits of the pipeline.† (Fitsimmons)The media is the most effective way to get a message to the public, and wealthy oil corporations have proved they're willing to spend money to get a persuasive message across to the public, â€Å"Keystone pipeline supporters outspend it's opponents 35 to 1†¦ Some of this money going to news stations to encourage a positive view be portrayed. † (Israel) If the Keystone pipeline is built, a potential spill poses immense environmental risk to humans and wildlife alike, but supporters fail to acknowledge these risks and continue to push for it's production.America should be moving toward widespread usage of renewable energy, for the sake of its economy and environment; the building of the Keystone XL pipeline would only further our national dependence on non-sustainable sources of energ y.America, like many countries worldwide has been making a push toward sustainable energy on all fronts, and as public support of the shift becomes more and more apparent, â€Å"85% of Iowan's support wind farms, and this number is an accurate gauge of the approximate public attitude nationwide.† (Haugen) large energy companies, and other companies like car manufacturers become more and more likely to jump on the bandwagon and help the progress, â€Å"Green car madness has taken over. This year we have seen more electric and hybrid vehicle startups than ever before. † (Morrison) Nearly everyone recognizes the benefits of the shift, both in terms of how it would help our environment in the long term, but also the economic impact it would have, (reduced gas costs, lower electric and other utilities bills†¦ etc. ) But still, many large companies work to impede the progress in favor of  maintaining our dependence on fossil fuels.The American Petroleum institute has worked with many oil industry protection companies to stymie the renewable energy movement, even in some cases, â€Å"posing as environmentalist groups in order to attract the support of environmentalists while simultaneously pushing their anti-renewable agenda. † (Blankenhorn) Many of these companies striving against renewable energy also support the building of the Keystone pipeline, using the justification that the building of the pipeline would lower gas prices.But what they fail to acknowledge is the basic economic fallacy of this, â€Å"Fossil energy prices are not going to fall. The more you remove carbon-based resources from the ground, the more it costs to get more. † (Blankenhorn) The law of supply and demand dictates that as supply lessens, demand goes up, and as does price. So even if prices are lowered in the short term, the fact that crude oil is a non-renewable resource assures that the pipeline is in no way a permanent solution to gas prices so many peo ple worry about. Perhaps a more permanent solution to gas prices would to eliminate gas altogether.Rather than pumping money into a project like the pipeline that would simply increase our dependence on fossil fuels, more money should be put into the research and development of sustainable energy. With the US dollar that will go into building the Keystone pipeline, â€Å"Approximately 12. 2$ billion† (TransCanada), with that money alone, we could afford to put a whole home solar panel system on over 1. 8 million homes across the country (Wholesale Solar), or purchase a Nissan Leaf electric car (no gas emissions, 108 mpg) for over four hundred thousand people.(Gunther)Supporters of the Keystone Pipeline argue that the jobs created by the pipeline, and the money that would in turn be pumped into the economy validates its building. Approval of the pipeline would immediately add many job opportunities to the American workforce, â€Å"It's estimated that the Keystone XL project w ould help create at least 20,000 new American jobs in manufacturing and construction, said House Speaker John Boehner. † (Shierter) This immediate influx of jobs would benefit the national economy and reduce unemployment.Supporters also say that it's building would help reduce gas prices throughout the country, a pressing issue that effects a large number of people. â€Å".. they say the few pipelines that do connect Canada's oil production region to the US currently flow where refining capacity is limited. This means less gasoline for your tank. The result would mean more supply for US consumers, and therefore, lower gasoline prices. † (Sanati) With the pipeline carrying nearly 800,000 barrels of oil a day directly into U. S. Refineries, our foreign dependence would be significantly reduced, and the ‘everyday person' would see a drop in their gas prices.Supporters say that these economic incentives are enough enough to outweigh the environmental risks of building the pipeline. While the fact that the pipeline being built would immediately create 20,000+ jobs for American people is a fact, and can't be refuted, what supporters like John Boehner fail to acknowledge is the permanence of these jobs. The national energy panel came out with a report regarding the economic impact of building the pipeline, saying â€Å"†¦ once up and running, the operation of the pipeline would only support 35 permanent and 15 temporary jobs, mostly for inspections, maintenance and repairs.Based on this estimate, routine operation of the proposed pipeline would have negligible socioeconomic impacts. † (Buford) What good in an influx of 20,000+ jobs if, once done with their initial job are no longer needed? The idea that the jobs created by the pipeline should be enough to make us want to build it is a short-sighted evasion of facts. Rather than thrust people into impermanent jobs related to the pipeline employers nationwide should be pushing people towa rd working in the field of renewable energy, â€Å"The field of renewable energy has expanded vastly over the last 10 years, creating over 2.3 permanent jobs worldwide.A number expected to continue increasing. † But America has yet to embrace this shift as other countries have â€Å"In the United States, federal policies have been weak and inconsistent over the years. Still, a study for the American Solar Energy Society found that the U. S. renewables sector employed close to 200,000 people directly in 2006 and another 246,000 indirectly. † (Bezdek) The potential is there for renewable energy to emerge as a power player in terms of national employment in the U.S, other countries show it's massive potential, â€Å"In 2006 Germany had some 259,000 direct and indirect jobs in the renewables sector.The number is expected to reach 400,000-500,000 by 2020 and then 710,000 by 2030. † (Buhler) Yet the U. S still seems wary to make a commitment to renewable energy, in ma ny ways do to powerful oil companies and other people with economic interests in oil working to impede a national shift. Rather than focus on the short term employment that would come from the Keystone Pipeline, the American government and energy companies should work on shifting from fossils fuels, to renewable energy.It would not only benefit the environment, but expand an already existing field of permanent jobs. The risks posed by building the Keystone XL pipeline outweigh it's economic potential by a large margin. It's building would only further delay us as a country from moving toward widespread renewable energy. As inhabitants of this Earth it is our responsibility to preserve and protect the Earth and it's natural resources for future generations, to build the Keystone pipeline would contradict that philosophy.Many people have stepped up for the cause and publicly opposed the pipeline, whether through petitions, letters to political figures, or actual demonstrations, this p ublic pressure is what convinces politicians to support a stance, and this will to protect is exactly what will end up preserving our Earth. â€Å"We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity, belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, then we may begin to use it with love and respect. † An Argumentative Essay Regarding the building of the Keystone pipeline With an increasing global population and ever industrializing society's, environmental concern is rarely given priority over economic incentive. But what people fail to realize is that our environmental failures, and relative apathy about it set up a plethora of problems for future generations to deal with. One of the most important decisions president Obama will face in the next year will be whether or not to approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, a massively sized, and massively controversial oil pipeline that would stretch all the way from Alberta Canada, to American oil refineries along the Gulf Of Mexico.Despite the economic incentive present, the building of the Keystone XL pipeline should not happen because of the environmental risks posed, and the fact that it bolsters our dependence on fossil fuels. Oil pipelines are prone to environmentally devastating spills, and have never proved to be an effective long term solution for the transport of crude oil. A pipeline t he size of the Keystone XL would simply be a disaster waiting to happen.The proposed pipeline would stretch over 2,000 miles, and go directly above the Ogalalla Aquifer in the central United States. The Ogalalla aquifer is one of the largest, and most important in the entire United States, â€Å"About 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies this aquifer system, which yields about 30 percent of all ground water used for irrigation in the United States. The aquifer system supplies drinking water to 82 percent of the 2. 3 million people (1990 census) who live within the boundaries of the High Plains study area.† (Dennehy)The sheer size of the aquifer makes it so that the Keystone XL would have to go over it in order to reach it's destination, so what damage a spill would have is only magnified by the agricultural importance of the aquifer. There have been 24 oil pipeline spills in the US alone over the last decade, spilling over 680 thousand tonnes of oil. (List of Oil Spills).And even despite a recent spill in Arkansas, proponents of the pipeline still have failed to properly look into it's potential impact. â€Å"†¦the study is missing some critical elements, including an in-depth review of pipeline safety issues, added pollution in refinery communities and a special assessment of the impact on wildlife†¦. Keystone XL is rife with issues that exacerbate climate change and environmental injustices. † (Mogerman). Rather than be concerned with the issues presented by the pipeline, or the past precedent of failure many pipelines have had in the US, Keystone supporters seem to only be focused on the profit it's building would turn.And many wealthy supporters have turned to lobbying News programs into downplaying it's risks. â€Å"TV Outlets Mentioned Jobs Benefits Twice As Often As Spill Risks. Television outlets overlooked the threat of Keystone XL to the sensitive ecosystems along the pipeline route, mentioning the r isk of a spill in just 20 percent of coverage since Election Day, November 6, 2012. Meanwhile, 43 percent of television coverage promoted the jobs benefits of the pipeline.† (Fitsimmons)The media is the most effective way to get a message to the public, and wealthy oil corporations have proved they're willing to spend money to get a persuasive message across to the public, â€Å"Keystone pipeline supporters outspend it's opponents 35 to 1†¦ Some of this money going to news stations to encourage a positive view be portrayed. † (Israel) If the Keystone pipeline is built, a potential spill poses immense environmental risk to humans and wildlife alike, but supporters fail to acknowledge these risks and continue to push for it's production.America should be moving toward widespread usage of renewable energy, for the sake of its economy and environment; the building of the Keystone XL pipeline would only further our national dependence on non-sustainable sources of energ y. America, like many countries worldwide has been making a push toward sustainable energy on all fronts, and as public support of the shift becomes more and more apparent, â€Å"85% of Iowan's support wind farms, and this number is an accurate gauge of the approximate public attitude nationwide.† (Haugen)Large energy companies, and other companies like car manufacturers become more and more likely to jump on the bandwagon and help the progress, â€Å"Green car madness has taken over. This year we have seen more electric and hybrid vehicle startups than ever before. † (Morrison) Nearly everyone recognizes the benefits of the shift, both in terms of how it would help our environment in the long term, but also the economic impact it would have, (reduced gas costs, lower electric and other utilities bills†¦ etc. )But still, many large companies work to impede the progress in favor of  maintaining our dependence on fossil fuels. The American Petroleum institute has worked with many oil industry protection companies to stymie the renewable energy movement, even in some cases, â€Å"posing as environmentalist groups in order to attract the support of environmentalists while simultaneously pushing their anti-renewable agenda. † (Blankenhorn) Many of these companies striving against renewable energy also support the building of the Keystone pipeline, using the justification that the building of the pipeline would lower gas prices.But what they fail to acknowledge is the basic economic fallacy of this, â€Å"Fossil energy prices are not going to fall. The more you remove carbon-based resources from the ground, the more it costs to get more. † (Blankenhorn) The law of supply and demand dictates that as supply lessens, demand goes up, and as does price. So even if prices are lowered in the short term, the fact that crude oil is a non-renewable resource assures that the pipeline is in no way a permanent solution to gas prices so many peo ple worry about. Perhaps a more permanent solution to gas prices would to eliminate gas altogether.Rather than pumping money into a project like the pipeline that would simply increase our dependence on fossil fuels, more money should be put into the research and development of sustainable energy. With the US dollar that will go into building the Keystone pipeline, â€Å"Approximately 12. 2$ billion† (TransCanada), with that money alone, we could afford to put a whole home solar panel system on over 1. 8 million homes across the country (Wholesale Solar), or purchase a Nissan Leaf electric car (no gas emissions, 108 mpg) for over four hundred thousand people.  (Gunther)Supporters of the Keystone Pipeline argue that the jobs created by the pipeline, and the money that would in turn be pumped into the economy validates its building. Approval of the pipeline would immediately add many job opportunities to the American workforce, â€Å"It's estimated that the Keystone XL proje ct would help create at least 20,000 new American jobs in manufacturing and construction, said House Speaker John Boehner. † (Shierter) This immediate influx of jobs would benefit the national economy and reduce unemployment.Supporters also say that it's building would help reduce gas prices throughout the country, a pressing issue that effects a large number of people. â€Å".. they say the few pipelines that do connect Canada's oil production region to the US currently flow where refining capacity is limited. This means less gasoline for your tank. The result would mean more supply for US consumers, and therefore, lower gasoline prices. † (Sanati) With the pipeline carrying nearly 800,000 barrels of oil a day directly into U. S. Refineries, our foreign dependence would be significantly reduced, and the ‘everyday person' would see a drop in their gas prices.Supporters say that these economic incentives are enough enough to outweigh the environmental risks of buil ding the pipeline. While the fact that the pipeline being built would immediately create 20,000+ jobs for American people is a fact, and can't be refuted, what supporters like John Boehner fail to acknowledge is the permanence of these jobs. The national energy panel came out with a report regarding the economic impact of building the pipeline, saying â€Å"†¦ once up and running, the operation of the pipeline would only support 35 permanent and 15 temporary jobs, mostly for inspections, maintenance and repairs.Based on this estimate, routine operation of the proposed pipeline would have negligible socioeconomic impacts. † (Buford) What good in an influx of 20,000+ jobs if, once done with their initial job are no longer needed? The idea that the jobs created by the pipeline should be enough to make us want to build it is a short-sighted evasion of facts. Rather than thrust people into impermanent jobs related to the pipeline employers nationwide should be pushing people toward working in the field of renewable energy, â€Å"The field of renewable energy has expanded vastly over the last 10 years, creating over 2.3 permanent jobs worldwide.A number expected to continue increasing. † But America has yet to embrace this shift as other countries have â€Å"In the United States, federal policies have been weak and inconsistent over the years. Still, a study for the American Solar Energy Society found that the U. S. renewables sector employed close to 200,000 people directly in 2006 and another 246,000 indirectly. † (Bezdek) The potential is there for renewable energy to emerge as a power player in terms of national employment in the U.S, other countries show it's massive potential, â€Å"In 2006 Germany had some 259,000 direct and indirect jobs in the renewables sector.The number is expected to reach 400,000-500,000 by 2020 and then 710,000 by 2030. † (Buhler) Yet the U. S still seems wary to make a commitment to renewable energy, i n many ways do to powerful oil companies and other people with economic interests in oil working to impede a national shift. Rather than focus on the short term employment that would come from the Keystone Pipeline, the American government and energy companies should work on shifting from fossils fuels, to renewable energy.It would not only benefit the environment, but expand an already existing field of permanent jobs. The risks posed by building the Keystone XL pipeline outweigh it's economic potential by a large margin. It's building would only further delay us as a country from moving toward widespread renewable energy. As inhabitants of this Earth it is our responsibility to preserve and protect the Earth and it's natural resources for future generations, to build the Keystone pipeline would contradict that philosophy.Many people have stepped up for the cause and publicly opposed the pipeline, whether through petitions, letters to political figures, or actual demonstrations, th is public pressure is what convinces politicians to support a stance, and this will to protect is exactly what will end up preserving our Earth. â€Å"We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity, belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, then we may begin to use it with love and respect. †

Critical Essay on Cadbury

Cadbury’s Coporate Social Responsibility Businesses these days are much different from how it was in previous generations. Nowadays, society impacts that corporation has is not only about economic power, instead it has also gone into corporate social responsibilities. Cadbury is an international company that is the second largest confectionary company in the world. (Factbox: British confectioner Cadbury 2010).Therefore, they have a bigger impact to affect both positively and negatively on the society as they have a bigger influence and power on the society due to their dominance in market share. In this essay, it will go in depth about the performance of Cadbury in relation to its corporate social responsibility. This essay will explain and argue a balanced argument about the negative and positive impact Cadbury has today on its society by analyzing their â€Å"Cadbury Community† programme and their association with child labour.Negative Social Responsibility of Cadbury According to a documentary called â€Å"Slavery† on the BBC, it documented cocoa beans production and how it is related to child labour, in the documentary, it focused on Cadbury, aiming at them about that negative social responsibility that they have. The reason for child labour in the cocoa production is because of the prices that are set on the cocoa beans is very low when it is sold. For example, farmers are only selling their cocoa beans for only a mere sum of money, therefore they would want to gain more profit.The only way to do that is to get cheaper labour so that their expenses are not so high which would result in higher revenue earned at the end of the day. Since child labour is one of the cheapest labour in the world, it is the top choice for labour to keep cost down would be child labour. In a brighter light, not everyone was affected by the low priced cocoa beans. For example, Cadbury was still able to employ many people around the world and still kept their p roduct prices down to continue attracting their customers.However, Cadbury was later seen as a supporter of child labour. Reason being, Cadbury were purchasing the cocoa beans from the farmers that were using child labour for their cocoa beans production. This in turn makes Cadbury a supporter of child labour as well as they are purchasing the beans from the farmers which encourages them to continue that they are doing. The consumers later came into conclusion that the low prices of Cadbury’s chocolate were not worth the children’s hard cheap labour in the developing countries. Read Critical Essay about Skurzynski’s NethergraveThe world’s largest cocoa producer, Cote d'Ivoire has given the possibility of Cadbury to demand the cocoa beans at a very low price. (World Cocoa Production. n. d. ) As they are the largest producers, they have more control of the cocoa prices around the world. To further exxagerate how much farmers of the cocoa production are getting paid, an example would be, for every kilogram of cocoa beans that a farmer harvest, they are getting paid almost the same amount of how much a bar of chocolate consumers pay for consumption. Which in most cases, would be a range of a dollar to two dollars. (Olivier. 2012. . This is not following their policies that Cadbury should be following under their code of conduct (Our Business Principles. 2008. ). In the document, it states that it is their responsibility, both corporate and social to make sure that there are proper and ethical practices to manage the business. Ethical issues such a s human rights, ethical trading and employment practices are considered when business is done in Cadbury. However, that is not much of the case when Cadbury is purchasing low and unfairly priced cocoa beans from the farmers. This is against their ethical values of ethical trading.Reason being, as mentioned above in this essay, by purchasing the beans at such a low cost, it is encouraging the farmers to hire more child labourers in order to keep their cost of production down and to gain more revenue earned. The stakeholders that are mostly affected would be the children that are forced to work at the farms to harvest the cocoa beans. Working at the farms does not only mean long working hours with very little pay, it also means that they might get beaten often due to carelessness at work or not meeting the expected weight of cocoa beans.It also means that they might not even get paid after working long hours with no food (Cocoa Campaign. n. d. ). By the year 2003, Cote d’Ivoire , which is the world’s largest cocoa producing nation, had about 109,000 child labourers (Country Reports on Human Rights and Practices. 2003). Out of the 109,000 children, more than half of them were said to be working on their own farms owned by their parents. The rest of the children, which consists of about 10,000 of them, are working as slaves or are being trafficked.By working on the farms, it means that the children are not given a chance to go to school to increase their knowledge or to further their education. This would therefore result in a vicious cycle of people depending solely on cocoa farming in order to earn enough money to meet their basic needs. For example, when a child is forced to work on the farms, he will not be able to attend school to gain knowledge to have a chance to get out of the country to work. Since he is stuck on the farm, he will grow up only with the knowledge on how to harvest cocoa beans.His main concern would be to maintain the farm and to earn more money for his family. In order to earn more money, it means that he has to harvest more cocoa beans. Therefore, he will need more help at the farm. Therefore, he will want to get as much help from his children to increase the cocoa beans production. This would continue in a cycle. Cadbury did try to solve the problem that they have made by sourcing their cocoa beans from Ghana, the second largest cocoa producer instead of from Cote d’lvoire. However, many people still are uncertain about their true motives to really solve the problem created.Reason being, back in 2001, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association (CMA) which consisted of large chocolate confectionary companies such as M, Cadbury and Mars Inc. decided to make a promise that their cocoa beans production would be free of child labourers by 2005, July. The commitment was made to the Cocoa Industry Protocol (CIP) (Protocol for Growing and Processing of Cocoa Beans and Their Derivative Products. 2001. ). Al though some large chocolate confectionary companies signed the CIP, none of them were able to meet the criteria of the commitment.Therefore, the dateline was extended and the percentage of their cocoa beans to come from childfree labourers was also reduced. Cadbury has recently self publicized that their products are now labeled as ‘Fair Trade Certified' (About Fairtrade n. d. ) which means that in general perception, a minimum price is to be directly paid to the cocoa producers which would hopefully reduce child labour. However, this is not the case reason being, when farmers are paid the minimum sum of money for their cocoa beans through the Fair Trade premiums, they will still have to minus off the a huge sum of their profit.So what exactly are reducing the farmer’s profit? They are the administrative expenses, operating costs, business reinvestments and other social costs (Fairtrade Certified: Frequently Asked Questions – Advanced n. d. ). Therefore, at the e nd of the day, cocoa farmers are still earning very little. This was just a spin doctoring made by Cadbury to change the public’s perception of Cadbury’s wrong doings. Positive Social Responsibility of Cadbury Cadbury does not only have negative corporate social responsibilities, instead, they are doing well in their work for the local communities around the world.Cadbury has donated some of their profits back to the community. Although this is just a mere 1% of their profit before tax, it is still something as some other companies are not even contributing back to the society at all (Working Together to Make a Difference in the Community n. d. ). Cadbury also has a community that helps in the society’s health, welfare, enterprise, education and environmental sustainability. For example, Cadbury’s â€Å"Miles for Smiles† event involves employees to walk between their two factories and raise funds for to raise funds for the less fortunate.Adding on, Cadbury has also donated to charities, sponsored to countries to help with their developments, developed programmes to help the less fortunate around the world. All these work was done voluntarily by Cadbury. Therefore, it displays the positive side of their company’s social responsibility to give back to the society. Conclusion Although Cadbury has done many negative impacts on the society, they had their fair share of making the world a better place by contributing back to the society as much as they can.Some of the public might still find that Cadbury has a lack of empathy towards ethical issues such as child labour. This might affect Cadbury’s reputation as this would be a hard point to erase form the consumer’s mind. Which means that no matter how much positive things that Cadbury does, at the back of the consumer’s mind, they will always remember the negative impact that Cadbury had caused that is now hard to resolve. And although Cadbury is trying hard to contribute back positively to the society, the public might see is as a way for Cadbury to advertise themselves more.Therefore, in order to keep up the good reputation and try to convert more of the public to view them positively, Cadbury has to keep up with their moral integrity and ethical guidelines, which is seen as a positive action by the public. Work Cited About Fairtrade. n. d. http://www. fairtrade. com. au/about (accessed August 31, 2010) Cocoa Campaign. n. d. http://www. laborrights. org/stop-child-labor/cocoa-campaign (accessed August 30, 2010) Country Reports on Human Rights and Practices. 2003. http://www. state. gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27723. htm (accessed August 30, 2010)Factbox: British confectioner Cadbury. 2010. http://uk. reuters. com/article/idINTRE60D1XX20100114? pageNumber=2=0=true (accessed August 30, 2010) Fairtrade Certified: Frequently Asked Questions – Advanced. n. d. http://www. transfairusa. org/content/resources/faq-advanced. php#indiv iduals (accessed August 31, 2010) Our Business Principles. 2008. http://collaboration. cadbury. com/SiteCollectionDocuments/English%20Booklet. pdf (accessed August 30, 2010) Olivier, M. 2012. Ivory Coast Cocoa Farmers to Put Pay Raise in Crop Output. http://www. bloomberg. om/news/2012-10-05/ivory-coast-cocoa-farmers-to-put-pay-raise-in-crop-production. html (accessed April 2, 2013). Protocol for Growing and Processing of Cocoa Beans and Their Derivative Products. 2001. http://www. cocoainitiative. org/images/stories/pdf/harkin%20engel%20protocol. pdf (accessed August 31, 2010) Working Together to Make a Difference in the Community. n. d. http://www. cadbury. com. au/Cadbury-Community. aspx (accessed August 31, 2010) World Cocoa Production. n. d. http://www. zchocolat. com/chocolate/chocolate/cocoa-production. asp (accessed April 2, 2013).

Ebenezer Scrooges Visit by the Three Spirits in Dickens...

Novels that are phenomenal makes the reader travel into a world where anything can happen. However, many authors made the readers travel into the main characters mind or point of view. In Charles Dickens novel, A Christmas Carol, a grumpy and selfish old man, Ebenezer Scrooge, was visited in his dream by three spirits. It all started in the morning of Christmas Eve when Scrooge came across into some events which made him started thinking and dreaming about his past, present and future with 3 different sprits. Many people believed that the three Spirits did visit Scrooge. It started when Scrooge heard Marley, Scrooge’s old partner in their job, softly in the air and saw him on Scrooge’s knocker at his door. Scrooge might have been†¦show more content†¦Therefore, Scrooge didn’t talk to the people, and remember that Scrooge doesn’t like to chat with other people, and he had a long night with the illusion of Marley. For these reasons, people believe that Scrooge really met the three Spirits and therefore never thought of why it could have been all in a dream. Ebenezer Scrooge has been reminded in the beginning of the story about his old friend, family, his nephew, and Christmas. These facts in the beginning must have bothered him. But the most must have been his friend Marley. After Marley left the book said,†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ went straight to bed, without undressing, and fell asleep on the instant.† Scrooge must have been extremely tired and that’s when he started to dream.† When Scrooge and the Spirits of Christmas Past visit Scrooge’s past, Scrooge heard that it was all silent outside. This is some how wrong because during Christmas Eve adults and children are out playing, getting last minute gifts, or having a feast. After, Scrooge comes back from his past the Spirits of the present comes to show Scrooge’s present. The spirit tells Scrooge to enter a room which was full of foods and Christmas decorations. When the Ghost of the present took him to places it is l loud and cheerful. All of a sudden it was all loud (strange). ScroogeShow MoreRelatedScrooges Change in A Christmas Carol Essay1691 Words   |  7 PagesScrooges Change in A Christmas Carol Dickens combines a description of hardships faced by the poor with a heart-rending sentimental celebration of the Christmas season. The novel contains dramatic and comic element as well as a deep felt moral theme. In the beginning of the novel Ebenezer Scrooge is portrayed as a hardhearted and unsociable man. However at the end of the novel we see dramatic changes in him as a trio of ghostly visitations causes a complete changeRead MoreScrooge in A Christmas Carol2375 Words   |  10 PagesCall for Change: Dickens’ Attempt to Improve Society, and Walt Disney’s Subversion Thereof In a time in which the significance of Christmas gradually started to change, Charles Dickens, in accordance with these changes, wrote a Christmas tale: A Christmas Carol. The novella was published six days in advance of the Christmas celebrations of 1843; it was sold out three days later. Although a socially engaged narrative, Dickens’ work is not occupied with trivialities such as the introduction ofRead MoreThe Metamorphosis of Ebenezer Scrooge in Dickens A Christmas Carol1476 Words   |  6 PagesMetamorphosis of Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol Ebenezer Scrooge learned a great deal about himself during the visitations of the three ghosts in A Christmas Carol. He learned things that not only changed his life, but also the lives of others such as Tiny Tim and his family. At first these changes came gradually, probably because they where not really fuelled by fear of what might be, but instead by remorse for things he had already done. Not until the second and third spirits visit Scrooge canRead MoreAnalysis Of A Christmas Carol By Charles Dickens1395 Words   |  6 PagesMore than Just a Novel for the Christmas Season Christmas, the most joyous season of the year for many Christians. Yet, in the early Victorian era many industry and business leaders started to emerge as people who lacked the spirit of giving of kindness, particularly around Christmas. Charles Dickens, in eighteen forty-three penned a novel that to this day is one of the most beloved books of the Christmas season. Many view the book only as a seasonal novel to read as a young child or even an adultRead MoreThe Symbols Of A Christmas Lessol : A Christmas Carol1818 Words   |  8 PagesA Christmas Carol was published relatively early in his career, appearing in 1843 when Dickens was 31. The tale is one of a series of short stories on a subject that had long preoccupied its author: the importance of celebrating Christmas. One of Dickenss earliest published works was a defense of this holiday against its enemies, both religious, and irreligious. The former objected to the pagan unseemliness of feasting and frolicking in celebration o f the birth of Christ. The latter objected toRead MoreCharles Dickens and A Christmas Carol1613 Words   |  7 PagesCharles Dickens and A Christmas Carol: Famed British author, Charles Dickens was born on February 7, 1812, in Portsmouth, England. He was the second of eight children, living in a poor neighborhood in London. His parents were John Dickens, a naval clerk, who always lived beyond his means. Married to his mother Elizabeth Dickens, who aspired to be a teacher and a school director. Dickens went to William Giles’ school in Chatham, Kent, for approximately one year before his father’s money habitsRead MoreUse of Ghosts to Change Victorian Society in A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens3307 Words   |  14 PagesVictorian Society in A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens A Christmas Carol is a novel by Charles Dickens, written in the Victorian era about a man named Ebenezer Scrooge. The book was written to remind people that we should all be kinder and more generous towards one another, and keep the spirit of Christmas all the year, not only in the Christmas season. Scrooge is a representation of most of Victorian society, and he is used by Dickens as a literary device. HeRead MoreHow and Why Does Dickens Present the Change in Scrooge in ‘a Christmas Carol’?2608 Words   |  11 Pages‘A Christmas Carol’ covers a period of 24 hours from Christmas Eve to Christmas Day. It is a simple morality tale of the radical change in the character Ebenezer Scrooge from being bitter, ironfisted and miserable to becoming a new, openhearted and charitable man. The book was first published in 1843, a time when many of the wealthy people neglected the old Christmas spirit of charity. In addition, the Industrial Revolution had further done away with the simple pleasures of the season. Dickens’ intentionsRead More A Christmas Carol - character study of Scrooge Essay2602 Words   |  11 PagesA Christmas Carol - character study of Scrooge A Christmas Carol â€Å"Scrooge! A squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old sinner!† Scrooge is the main character in the novel ‘A Christmas Carol’. At the beginning of the novel he is a brutal, evil, pitiless, cold-hearted man, but subsequent to meeting three spirits, Scrooge regrets his life and decides he needs to alter it. The main theme Charles Dickens conveys through the story is redemption; this is significantRead More A Christmas Carol By Charles Dickens Essay1877 Words   |  8 PagesA Christmas Carol By Charles Dickens In this essay I intend to write about Ebenezer Scrooge who is the key character of the astonishing novel written by Charles Dickens one of greatest English novelist of he Victorian period. He wrote and published ‘a Christmas carol’ in 1843. Charles Dickens’s also well know stories such as ‘Oliver twist’. Dickens was born on the 2nd February 1812 in London port Hampshire. He moved from his birth place to Chatham where he received little education