Paper2 1500 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Paper2 1500 - Essay Example s concerning the depths of both crises, with close attention to ways in which stock prices, GDP, employment, manufacturing production and overall economic policy reacted in both cases. Before making the comparison between the Great Depression and the financial crisis of 2008, it is prudent to perform and analysis of the pivotal differences in the nature of the capitalist system now and in 1929. It is noteworthy that the rise of neo-liberal capitalism in the 1970s, and the post-war shift to Keynesian economics that followed it precipitated the era of capitalist development. This was fundamentally different from the previous economic regimes, including the period after the Great Depression. Several arguments have been made regarding the main causes of the recent global financial crisis, and even though it may be hard to discern the exact causality. There are a number of factors that remain clear. Firstly, in a similar manner to the Great Depression before it, before the onset of the financial crisis, the world economy experienced a boom period with a rapid growth rate between 2001 and 2007. The rate of growth during this period was higher than any other period in the preceding thirty years (Wade, 2008). In this regard, most analysts concur that the financial crisis was initiated by the collapse of the subprime mortgage bubble in the United States. However, this fact was not the primary cause of the crisis. Secondly, even though the emerging financial crisis first appeared in early 2007. It was not until the year 2008 when major banks such as the Lehman Brothers began going to the wall, and financial assets started crashing that the full extent of the crisis became appa rent. As a result, credit flows dried up, and the global financial situation became dire with each passing day. One clear example of this situation is the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States. For instance, there was $130 billion of subprime lending in the country in the year 2000, but this

PURCHASING PRACTICES assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 1

PURCHASING PRACTICES - Assignment Example If the exchange rate is unfavorable, there is a likelihood that we may be forced to cancel any purchases or reduce the quantities purchased. In purchasing commodities from China, we will need to adjust the value of the items for inflation both in China and in Canada. This could significantly adjust the value of the items. China and Canada have different cultures and trade practices. Business etiquette in China is heavily based on Chinese culture and if we are to complete and business, we have to adhere to the rules of engagement. China’s government has a significant say on the manner that business is conducted within the country. At the moment, there is a relatively open policy that encourages international businesses to engage in business transactions with their local companies. It is thus expected that we will face little opposition from the authorities if we were to purchase the items from a Chinese supplier. Furthermore, there are reduced tariffs on purchases made from china and this should help reduce the cost of the purchases

Public Interest Immunity in Protecting Informants

Public Interest Immunity in Protecting Informants Introduction The role of informants in an investigation is crucial as the information provided by an informant may be the only piece of evidence or clue available to the law enforcement agencies. So, it is critical that some clarity is drawn in identifying the rights of the informants and how and when the law should protect them. It can be argued that adding clarity to this area of law will inform and motivate informants to facilitate investigations when required. The aim of this essay is to explore the role of law in public interest immunity (PII) to protect informants as a class. As a result, this essay will explore the rights of informants and the role of law in protecting them under the principles of public interest immunity (PII). This essay will explore case law and legislation to critically analyse the role of law in PII to protect informants as a class in the following paragraphs. In doing so, this essay will argue that informants as a class should be protected by the law under the princi ples of public interest immunity. Public Interest Immunity (PII) Generally, there is public interest in protecting the identity of those who provide important information to the police, that is, the informants. As a result, the disclosure of their identity or any material that has the potential to reveal their identity is restricted through case law. However, deriving from English common law, a judge has the discretion to reveal the identity of the informant if it helps establish the fact that the accused in the relevant case is innocent. One of the statutory instruments that applicable is section 21 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996[1] (CPIA 1996). In R v Chief Constable of the West Midlands ex parte Wiley[2], it was Lord Templeman who stated that, based on the principles of public interest immunity, the disclosure of information can be denied which is pertinent to the case and also important in the determination of the proceeding in question. Hence, the only reason to deviate from this is if public interest demands for it.[3] Therefore, there must be equality of arms[4] in public interest immunity (PII). The thrust of the principle of public interest immunity to refuse disclosure of relevant material is on the ground that to do so would harm the public interest. However, disclosure can be refused if material might be privileged, material might be lost, and material might be difficult to get hold of. In civil proceedings, the procedure is carried out according to Order 24 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and to withhold is specifically stated in rule 15 which states that, 15. The foregoing provisions of this Order shall be without prejudice to any rule of law which authorises or requires the withholding of any document on the ground that the disclosure of it would be injurious to the public interest.[5] It is clear from rule 15 that public interest is the ultimate factor to be considered in cases of public interest immunity. For conciseness of argument, this essay will solely focus on informants. In criminal matters where the police refrains from disclosing the identity of the informant to the defendant, there is an overlap between the principles of common law of open justice which requires that maximum disclosure takes place as established in R v Davis, Johnson and Rowe[6] and Article 6 ECHR which is demonstrated in the vase of R v H [7]. In R v H, the House of Lords held that a trial judge should take into account all the information that are available based on the nature of the PII pursued as well as guaranteeing that the complete disclosure process does not reveal more than is required given the context of the case[8]. A similar example is noted in the case of Al Rawi v Security Service[9], several men claimed for damages as they have been detained by foreign forces including places like Guantanamo Bay and claimed that the UK Security Service along with others engaged in ill treatment. In return the UK Security Service stated that they refrained from giving access to cert ain pieces of evidence and would rather be represented by special advocates[10]. It was held in this case that if governmental bodies wanted to rely on the argument of national security, they would need to rely on PII which gives them the right to do so in relation to providing protection for State interests wherever it is required[11]. The case law discussed so far provides a general overview of the attitude of the courts. However, what needs to be considered is when disclosure of the identity of the informant based on interests of justice, the protection towards the informant is still violated despite being justified by any legal reasoning or case law. Informant Rights and the Role of Law While discussing the role of informants and the role of law in protecting them, a discussion of criminal matters is warranted. It should be stated that most cases relating to PII involve civil matters even though the principles can also be applied in criminal matters where the applications are generally altered as in the case of Marks v Beyfus[12]. In Marks v Beyfus, Lord Esher stated that it was precisely recognised that it is not generally required by the witness to disclose the identity of a police informant. This is due to the significance of public interested in providing protection and as well as motivating individuals to provide information to the law and enforcement agencies. Hence, witnesses should not be asked about the identity of the informants or questions that have the potential to reveal the identity of the informants[13]. However, there are exceptions in PII. For criminal matters, if the context of the case is such that refraining from disclosing the identity of the i nformants may jeopardise the integrity of the trial by impacting on the correctness of adjudication in the case and might lead to the innocent being convicted and imprisoned. These types of cases are usually quite rare. This ratio has been given by the House of Lords in the case, R v Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, Ex p Bennett[14]. In R v Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, Ex p Bennett , the House of Lords held that in a situation where a person is charged criminally, if the person does not get justice in relation to the process, then the person should not be tried.[15] As a result, if it requires the identity of the informant to be disclosed in order to establish a defendants innocence, the court will exercise its discretion and allow the disclosure of the identity of the informant. This case reiterated the principles established in Makanjuola v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis[16]that public interest immunity is not a trump card vouchsafed to certain privileged playe rs to play when and as they wish. It is an exclusionary rule, imposed on parties in certain circumstances, even where it is to their disadvantage in litigation.[17] It is submitted that as discussed already in this essay, even though the innocent should get justice but compromising the identity of the informant is compromising his/her protection and confidence in law and enforcement agencies. It is a continuing duty of the court to consider the issue of disclosure and decide whether disclosure should be ordered or whether prosecution should offer no evidence which would disclose the identity of the informant[18]. It can be stated that in this kind of a circumstance, the trial judge is put in a complicated situation trying to assess in terms of whether the disclosure of the identity of the informant is actually necessary to establish that the defendant is innocent. If his decision is positive, then the disclosure must be ordered by the judge even though the threshold is quite low. Furthermore, in the case of R v Hallett[19], it was held by the Court of Appeal that a defendant should not be: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦deprived of the opportunity of casting doubt on the case against him.[20] Therefore, according to the court, what is necessary is a real possibility that disclosing the identity of the informant would actually benefit to the defence. The principles of public interest immunity protect the disclosure of an informers identity as well as deal with exceptions extends to the premises where the police have undertaken surveillance on a suspected individual[21]. In this kind of a circumstance, the occupiers of the premises may feel uncomfortable, vulnerable, exposed and frightened as their premises may be identify which may victimise them. This may also result in the public refraining from assisting the police with their investigations or letting law enforcement agencies to use peoples premises for surveillance purposes. Taking into account the potential danger of the occupiers of the premises, in circumstances where the occupiers do not wish to allow disclosure, it is not permitted being subject to public interest immunity. However, there can be circumstances where the disclosure of the identity of the informant becomes necessary to test the evidence put forward by the police. In the case of R v Rankine[22], the activiti es of an alleged drug dealer had been under the surveillance of police officers through the use of private premises. It was the decision of the Court of Appeal that these types of cases can be indistinguishable from the ones where police informers are involved[23]. Hence, it is inappropriate to withhold the location of the surveillance point given that restricting such information will not lead to the miscarriage of justice. In addition to this, R v Johnson (Kenneth)[24], was further explored by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the required basis for the prosecution to make an application to withhold the location of surveillance point[25]. In this specific case, it was required for an officer to testify that he had visited the premises and ascertained the permission of the occupiers to the potential disclosure of the identity of the premises used. Additionally, an officer with the rank of at least a chief inspector to testify that immediately before the trial he ha s visited the premises in order to identify and ascertain whether the occupiers has not changed and in any circumstance, their attitude towards the identification of the premises as well as its occupants[26]. Thus, in relation to the disclosure of the identity of informers, a qualitative judgment of the decision by the trial judge is necessary as to when a failure to disclose the location of surveillance risks occasioning a miscarriage of justice even though these types of cases are difficult. Moreover, in relation to the identity of informants, if the police are required to disclose their surveillance point, the police sometimes prefer to offer no evidence instead of comprising their source as Blake v DPP[27]. In the case of An Informer v A Chief Constable[28], the duty of care towards an informant was owed by the police Chief Constable. It was held in that case that the police definitely owed a duty of care to the informant but was not liable for his economic loss. This is also su pported by Lord Toulsons statement in Michael[29] as he states, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ an example of a duty of care arising from an assumption of responsibility coupled with reliance by the claimant à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ The police conceded that they owed a duty of care to protect his physical well-being, and that of his family. They had assured him that they would do so and he had acted on the faith of their assurances.[30]In the Matter of A (A Child)[31]is an important case even though this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal by ordering disclosure of the documents. By the time, the case has reached the Supreme Court, the disclosure has been made to the mother of the child as well as to the guardian and the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the appeal[32]. Deriving from these cases, it can be stated that even though the fact that a duty of care by the police owed to the defendant is clearly established, the potential of injustice as a result of nondisclosure of information and/or ident ity of the informant will not be undermined in the process. It is submitted that informants as a class should be protected at any case. Where the courts are faced with the dilemma of justice to the accused who is potentially innocent and putting the information provided by the informant to test by disclosing the identity of the informant, the courts and the police put the informants in a vulnerable position. Conclusion This essay aimed to explore the role of public interest immunity in protecting informants as a class. It can be concluded from the discussion that this is quite a complex and challenging area of law. The general rule is, disclosure is necessary if it is necessitated by the interests of justice. However, as evidenced in the case law that has been considered in this essay that there are factors that need to be taken into account. In answering the question whether law should protect informants as a class under the principles of public interest immunity, the answer is definitely yes but what is also essential to take into account is considering the balance between the necessity to restrict disclosure of the identity of the informant and the possibility of injustice towards the defendant. This is a question best left for the courts in the United Kingdom (UK). [1] Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, < http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/25/contents> accessed 20 February 2017. [2] R v Chief Constable of the West Midlands ex parte Wiley [1994] 3 All ER 420. [3] Ibid, R v Chief Constable of the West Midlands ex parte Wiley. [4] International Review, The principle of equality of arms is a jurisprudential principle issued by the European Court of Human Rights and is a part of the right to a fair trial written in the (European) Convention for human rights and fundamental freedoms. accessed 22 February 2017. [5] Oder 24 of the Rules of the Supreme Court < https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/uksc_rules_2009.pdf> accessed 19 February 2017. [6] R v Davis, Johnson and Rowe [1993] 1 WLR 613-614. [7] R v H [2004] UKHL 3, < https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040205/hc-1.htm> accessed 21 February 2017. [8] Ibid, R v H. [9]Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34 < http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/34.html> accessed 22 February 2017. [10] Ibid, Al Rawi v Security Service [11] Ibid, Al Rawi v Security Service [12]Marks v Beyfus (1890) 25 QBD 494 [13] Ibid, Marks v Beyfus. [14]R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, ex p. Bennett (No. 2) [1994] 1 All E.R. 289, D.C. [15] Ibid, R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, ex p. Bennett. [16] Makanjuola v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [ 1992] 3 All E. R. 617, C. A. (Civ. Div.) [17] Ibid, Makanjuola v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. [18] Public Interest Immunity, Research Paper 96/25, 22 February 1996, < http://www.researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP96-25/RP96-25.pdf> accessed 21 February 2016. [19]R v Hallett [1986] Crim LR 462. [20] Ibid, R v Hallett. [21] Ibid, Research Paper 96/25. [22]R v Rankine (1986) 83 Cr. App. R. 18 [23] Ibid, R v Rankine. [24]R v Johnson (Kenneth) [1988] 1 W.L.R. 1377. [25] Ibid, R v Johnson (Kenneth). [26] Ibid, R v Johnson (Kenneth). [27] Blake v DPP [1993] 97 Cr. App. R. 169. [28] An Informer v A Chief Constable [2013] QB 579. [29] Michael v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2. [30] Ibid, Michael v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police. [31] In the Matter of A (A Child) [2012] UKSC 60. [32] Ibid,In the Matter of A (A Child).

The Value of Product Testing Essay -- Business Market Research

Based upon 30 years of marketing research experience, spanning thousands of research projects, I am convinced that product testing is the single most valuable marketing research that most companies ever do. The great value of product testing is, perhaps, best illustrated by some of its many uses. It can be used to: • Achieve product superiority over competitive products. • Continuously improve product performance and customer satisfaction (i.e., to maintain product superiority, especially as consumer tastes evolve over time). • Monitor the potential threat levels posed by competitive products to understand competitive strengths and weaknesses. • Cost-reduce product formulations and/or processing methods, while maintaining product superiority. • Measure the effects of aging upon product quality (shelf-life studies). • Implicitly measure the effects of price, brand name, or packaging upon perceived product performance/ quality. • Provide guidance to research and development in creating new products or upgrading existing products. • Monitor product quality from different factories, through different channels of distribution, and from year to year. • Predict consumer acceptance of new products. Companies committed to rigorous product testing and continuous product improvement can, in most instances, achieve product superiority over their competitors. Product superiority, in turn, helps strengthen brand share, magnifies the positive effects of all marketing activities (advertising, promotion, selling, etc.), and often allows the superior product to command a premium price relative to competitors. Most companies, unfortunately, do very little product testing. Few companies really u... ...he structure and mechanics of execution will vary greatly from product category to product category. For example, computer software can be tested, furniture can be tested, store environments can be tested, dog food can be tested, airline service can be tested, equipment prototypes can be tested, etc. Competitive Advantage The ultimate benefit of product testing is competitive advantage. Product superiority is the surest way to dominate a product category or an industry. Companies dedicated to ongoing product improvement and product testing can achieve product superiority, and achieve a competitive advantage of great strategic significance. Companies that ignore product improvement and product testing, on the other hand, may wake up one morning to find themselves on the brink of extinction from a competitor who has built "a better mousetrap."

Humane Education Essay

The material devised and discussed briefly by Dr. Chauvin argues primarily on the validity of humane education and the rationale for the possibility of an educator promoting and advocating the concept. It is not something new. Observations concerning infants and people in general who tend to be attracted to animals have become important aspects not only in the educational setting but also specially in the therapeutic set-up and this is probably the main reason that educators are encouraged to implement or even just entertain the idea in the classroom setting. There writer did explain the advantages of having a pet and how teacher or instructor paves the way for the students to imitate him/her in the care, attention and manner of attending to a creature. The article tackled as well the precautions a person or family must bear in mind or understand before embarking on owning or taking care of an animal by primarily providing brief descriptions of the animals least likely to be of help to the animals most likely to possess value of developing â€Å"humaneness† to a person or child. The article posited that certain limitations must be in place where the school setting is concerned once the students and/or teacher decide to own a pet or animal. II. Discuss the pros and cons of animals in the classroom The pros: A child or person has direct physical access to an animal. Vicariously watching what the particular animal may need and how it will be in association or relationship with people or fellow creature itself (Chauvin, p. 21). It allows the opportunity for students to learn what it is like to be responsible and how or manner of learning the skills that are necessary to be able to work and behave with creatures but most especially towards fellow human beings (Chauvin, p. 21). The trait of empathy is an important characteristic for any person to possess. However, while some have this to some degree, many individuals still do not have the trait or has become elusive for them. It usually takes time and effort to be able to learn and adapt the skill of empathy. Empathy is the ability to feel what the other person feels much like putting oneself in the shoes of another (Chauvin, p. 21). The cons: The article or material warns of problems that may be faced by a person or child especially if he/she did not bother to take the time to learn the basics about the project. Moreover, it implies that anyone interested must be prepared for the setbacks or downsides (Chauvin, p. 21). Anyone on this kind of project must appreciate or anticipate the expenses that might be incurred; more of which are unforeseen most of the times (Chauvin, p. 21). III. Why you will or will not have animals in your classroom. It is a very wonderful and amazing idea because it removes boredom and predictability when this is followed. But if I were to decide I would probably have it like a â€Å"show and tell† type rather than having animals left in the classroom. It is indeed costly on effort, time and money/expense. Not only that, the hidden danger of dealing with animals which will not rule out the possibility of attack on the child/individual (Chauvin, p. 21). The â€Å"show and tell† type may be revised to suit the rationale and intentions of this project to encourage students towards becoming more humane or empathetic. This can be done by having the activity done on a regular basis so that students are followed up what they do at home with their pets and do reflections whether something in the attitudes and behavior of the student has changed considerable or not. Importance of â€Å"humane† education is not just a very trivial thing or idea. The project is significant on the matter of coexistence especially that this planet has become one global village as they say. Reference: Chauvin, Wynter. Animals and children

Hotspur and Hal is the main theme in Henry IV part one Essay

The contrast between Hotspur and Hal is the main theme in Henry IV part one and creates an enthralling play. Hal and Hotspur are total opposites in some ways but when examined more closely one sees that their moral values are the same. They are both ambitious and determined to succeed but only one can prevail. At the beginning of the play Henry IV draws a clear contrast between Hotspur and his son, whose reputation is sullied by â€Å"riot and dishonour†. The king then goes so far as to wish they had been exchanged when infants, so strongly does he feel the difference between them. There are many examples of the way that the two cannot exist at the same time. Hal and Hotspur are both heroes who want to win. Falstaff is the other main character in the play. Falstaff has a totally different view on honour to that of Hotspur. This is shown in Act II when Falstaff runs away from the two robbers, he values his safety much more than his reputation. Hotspur would never think about doing anything like that he would prefer to fight. In between these two extreme ideas of honour is Hal Throughout the play Shakespeare juxtaposes from one scene to another. One scene may be very solemn and serious and then the next scene amusing. For instance Act II scene iii is not one of merriment and mirth, Hotspur talks about the rebellion and how serious it is getting. The next scene, Act II scene iv, shows Hal in the tavern joking with Falstaff. Shakespeare juxtaposes to show the contrast between Hal and Hotspur. The juxtaposition shows how each hero copes with the situations that they find themselves in. It also shows how two people have different qualities and they are two different types of leaders. Shakespeare is asking what qualities does a good leader possesses As his nickname suggests, Harry Percy is an impulsive and reckless character that acts first and thinks later. His bravery and rashness are the two qualities constantly commented on by the other characters in the play. Henry sees Percy as a young god of war, â€Å"Mars in swathling clothes† and says he is acknowledged by all as the holder of â€Å"military title capital†. He is regarded as the greatest soldier in Europe. On the whole it is his bravery which impresses them most, for them he is the epitome of honour, the living example of those chivalric values to which a noble youth should aspire. By the end of the play however, we have had an opportunity to see Hotspur in perspective and our judgement of him is not so favourable. We realise that, brave and likeable as he is, his pursuit of honour is dangerously obsessive, so much so that it leads him to threaten the peace and unity of the kingdom. His cause however is right, Mortimer has more right to the throne than He nry. He is very proud and would hate to look anything but the best. At the conclusion of the play Falstaff reduces honour to an empty concept. For Falstaff life is valuable and must be preserved at any price. He sees the brave Sir Walter Blunt’s corpse and exclaims â€Å"There’s honour for you† Yet he confesses a moment later, that he has deliberately allowed his men to be killed in order to line his own pockets. † Give me life; which if I can save, so; if not, honour comes unlooked for, and there’s an end† Falstaff’s version of honour licenses him to do anything so long as his own life is preserved. If we are in doubt that Falstaff’s honour is as dangerous and empty an idea as Hotspur’s, then we are finally convinced by his shocking mutilation of Hotspur’s corpse. The irony, of course, is that Falstaff commits this cowardly act in order to gain the rewards of the honour he despises. Between the two extreme attitudes to honour is the figure of Hal. At the beginning of the play, as his father points out, his reputation is the very opposite of Hotspurs. As the play goes on Hal begins to present a changed public image. The rebel Veronon describes his preparations for war in terms which depict Hal as the very soul of honour. Being honourable doesn’t make you a good leader it is the opposite in fact. Hal is a good leader and he is quite dishonourable, Hotspur is the epitome of honour but isn’t a good leader. To be a good leader you need to be able to use rhetoric and be very cunning and a bit dishonest. Hotspur is none of these and this is why he is not a good leader. Hal is the central character in the play and in his progress to maturity we see a princes education as he learns the nature and responsibilities of kingship. Hal has a reputation for being part of a low life circle that spend most of their time getting drunk, womanising and thieving. Hal is sly and sneaky; this is shown in his soliloquy at the end of Act 1 scene ii. He says that he is aware of the nature of his tavern companions but will put up with their idleness for a while. He will imitate the sun by allowing himself to be covered with clouds, so that when he reappears it will be amazing, â€Å"My reformation glittering o’er my fault shall show more goodly and attract more eyes† In some ways this is quite childish and immature. For just as Hotspur is over anxious to monopolise honour, Hal here seems over anxious to present his reformation in the most dramatic way. Hal has no pride in himself until his reformation when he becomes the prince he should be. Hotspur shows his dislike for rhetoric and his love of truth in Act III. Glendower talks of disturbances of a heavenly and earthly nature at his birth â€Å"at my birth the front of heaven was full of fiery shapes†, Hotspur contradicts these comments. Glendower continues talking about how he is magical. Here Hotspur shows his impetuous side by saying to Glendower, â€Å"let me not understand you then: Speak it in Welsh†, meaning that no men speaks better Welsh (talks nonsense and brags). Hotspur doesn’t like the way Glendower uses rhetoric relentlessly. He prefers to speak the straightforward truth. From this childish exchange we gain further insight into Hotspur’s character, he cannot bear to think that someone else could share glory and honour with him. This also shows that he would prefer to speak the truth rather than made up stories. Hal on the other hand loves to talk in rhetoric and uses it all of the time. He is very good at using language to get his own way. This is shown in Act III scene ii. In this scene we see the King and the Prince together for the first time. The King says that Hal must have been sent by God to punish his own â€Å"mistreadings.† The King can’t understand why in spite of his royal blood Hal is so attached to vulgar pleasures with his unfavourable companions â€Å"such barren pleasures, rude society†. Hal is hurt and in a subdued and repentant mood replies that he is not guilty of everything that he is charged with. He says that the stories are malicious gossip and asks for forgiveness â€Å"As well as I am doubtless I can purge Myself of many I am char’g withal†. The King then goes on to talk about how little respect people have for Hal and how he has lost his place on the council â€Å"thy place in council thou hast rudely lost†. Hal is obviously hurt by the extent to which he has lost his father’s affection and respect and in a passionate speech swears he will redeem himself and kill Hotspur, â€Å"I will redeem all this on Percy’s head†. We know that Hal is very cunning so he might actually be pretending that he is hurt by what his father says so that he can win back his affections. In this scene we see an aspect of Hal that makes him a good leader. He can use rhetoric and acting to get his own way. This is something that Hotspur never does as he prefers to be up front and honest. This is a very important scene for other reasons besides the rhetoric and the reconciliation of the King and the Prince. Here we are made aware of the essential part that the rivalry plays in Henry IV Part 1. In the very first scene of the play we noticed how Henry compares the two, to Hal’s disadvantage; Hotspur is everything he would like his own son to be. Hal and Hotspur are each conscious of the others pursuits; in Act 1 Scene iii Hotspur calls Hal â€Å"that same sword-and-buckler Prince of Wales† While in Act II scene iv Hal characterizes Hotspur as a murderous hothead. Neither judgement reveals the respect they feel for each other. Now we see that their rivalry is to be crucial to the salvation, not only of Hal’s character, but of the kingdom. The personal and political threads of the play are entwined, and we are prepared for the climax, the single combat of Hal and Hotspur in Act V In Act V scene v. When they are about to fight Hal says Hotspur is â€Å"a very valiant rebel† but that they can no longer share in glory. Two stars cannot move in one course and England cannot have â€Å"a double reign† of Hal and Hotspur. It shall not replies Hotspur, â€Å"for the hour is come, To end the one of us† This really shows the great respect that they have for each other. Shakespeare is saying that to be a good leader you need to be able to use language to your advantage. In Act IV scene I we see one of many scenes that show how impatient and impetuous Hotspur is. Hotspur receives a letter from his father saying that he will not be bringing troops as he is sick. Hotspur exclaims that Northumberland’s sickness infects the whole enterprise, â€Å"Tis catching hither, even to our camp† This has greatly reduced the number of troops available for fighting and really they should postpone the attack until other soldiers arrive. Hotspur says that his father’s absence will make their business seem all the more heroic and daring (thus adding to his own honour), â€Å"It lends a lustre and more great opinion, A larger dare to our enterprise†. So they decide to go ahead with the attack against the wishes of Worcester. For Hotspur war is not regarded as something terrible and destructive but is simply a means of more glory. At the end of Act I Scene ii he shows his immature attitude, â€Å"O, let the hours be short, Till fields and blo ws and groans applaud our sport!† Hal is in no way impatient and impetuous, Hal is scheming and thinks about what he has to do rather than rushing in. He knows what he wants this is shown in his soliloquy in Act I. This is one of the reasons why he is a really good leader. He doesn’t get flustered, he holds his cards close to his chest. Hotspur has a bad temper that flares up over of the slightest thing. He is depicted as a fiery red head who acts first and thinks later, even his name suggests this. In Act I scene iii Hotspur is in the court with the King. Hotspur is refusing to give the King any prisoners unless he pays ransoms for Mortimer who has been captured. The king refuses saying that Mortimer is a traitor â€Å"redeem a traitor home, Let him starve on the Welsh mountains† This is too much for Hotspur who flies into one of his tempers and exclaims â€Å"revolted Mortimer†. He tries to explain that Mortimer fought bravely for the king â€Å"Those mouth wounds, which valiantly he took, When on the gentle Severn’s sedgy bank†. Henry doesn’t listen and departs from the court. Hotspur is beside himself with rage; he wants to express his feelings even at the risk of his own safety, and attempts to follow the King â€Å"An if the devil come roar for them, I will not send them† he will not give up the prisoners. He is restrained by his father, but continues to rant. This is the reason that the rebellion begins. Hotspur doesn’t think straight when he is in one of his tempers and is lucky that his father was there to restrain him. This is also an example of the way that Hotspur takes action rather than thinking about it. Hal is cool headed but can be nasty towards Falstaff. He knows that one day soon he will have to break his ties with Falstaff. Deep down Hal knows that Falstaff is a thief, and a king cannot be friends with him. As the play draws on Hal drifts slowly away from Falstaff. In the midst of the battle Falstaff offers Hal a bottle of wine instead of a weapon, Hal angrily throws it back, underlining the desperate circumstance by his question â€Å"is it a time to jest and dally now†. Hal has realized when play must stop and serious life begin, but Falstaff has not. A number of times during the play Hal blames Falstaff of corrupting him but it is the other way round. Hal is the corrupter. In act V scene iv Falstaff stabs Hotspur’s dead body and pretends that he has killed him. He says that Hal is lying and did not kill Hotspur. Hal isn’t angry with him and even offers him help. This shows that Hal has not completely tired of Falstaff’s company. He is torn between princely leadership and princely fun. Hotspur is extremely ambitious. He believes that he can do anything he wants to. He believes he can â€Å"pluck bright honour from the moon†- â€Å"An if the devil come roar for them I will not send them†. This shows how Hotspur has the utmost confidence in himself. Sometimes his ambition can over rule reason. His main ambition in life is to get honour. Since he wants to monopolize honour, he must defeat any possible rival, in this case Hal. Hotspur rebels against the king because he feels that his honour is threatened by the Percy’s association with what he calls â€Å"this ingrate and cankered Bolingbroke†. He doesn’t wants to be King. He is just trying to do what he believes is right. Mortimer is the rightful King and even though to rebel is wrong in this case it is right. But what is honour. In act V Falstaff explicitly states his notion of honour. He wittily reduce honour to an empty concept. The difference between Hal and Hotspur is that Hal’s attitude to honour is neither obsessive nor unreflective. Hal certainly wants to gain honour and defeat Hotspur, but he does not lack a sense of proportion or of the human cost of war. When Hal makes his challenge it is as much â€Å"to save blood on either side†. When Hotspur wishes for single combat with Hal I feel that he does so because it might increase the glory for him if he wins. We first see Hotspur’s private life in Act II scene iii. At his castle in Northumberland where he has received a letter he is not happy about. His wife Kate enters and shows her concern for him. In this scene we see a tender side of Hotspur we have not seen until now and will not see much of again. She is worried about why for the past few weeks he has been so distant and preoccupied â€Å"For what offence have I this fortnight been A banish’d woman from my Harry’s bed†. Hotspur changes the subject, but it is brought straight back up by Kate. He says that this is a world for battles not for love. When Hotspur tells her he does not love her, Kate seems upset by this and is not sure if he is joking or not. But, says Hotspur, when he is on his horse then he will swear he loves her â€Å"And when I am o’ horseback, I will swear I love thee infinitely†. He reassures her, saying â€Å"Whither I go, there shall you go too†. This view of Hotspur with his wife allows us to see that he is not completely rash and unfeeling. Most noblemen wouldn’t let their wife’s near the battle field but Hotspur wants her near and she is going to follow the next day. His exchanges with his wife reveal a tender and affectionate aspect of his character, an aspect that he represses in pursuit of honour. Hal has a different social life to Hotspur. He spends most of his time in the tavern with his friends. He drinks and plays practical jokes on other people. He is very quick witted and loves to use rhetoric. There is no sign of him having any lady friends as he was probably too busy drinking. Falstaff is a womaniser but there is no reason to make us believe that Hal is too. He never seems to get anxious or get cross; he is too cool headed. Hotspur seems to be over confident, he always seems to be sure that he is right and that the rebels will win. He doesn’t wear his heart on his sleeve and covers up his feelings so that it doesn’t make him look weak, but deep down or subconsciously he is quite nervous about the rebellion. This is shown in Act II scene iii. In his sleep he has murmured of war and weapons. His wife says â€Å"In thy faint slumbers I by thee have watch’d and heard thee murmur tales of iron wars† Hotspur might look confident on the surface but deep down is he. Hotspur is a great competitor and doesn’t like to lose, he wants to reign supreme. Hal doesn’t like losing, this is another reason that Henry IV part 1 is such a great play. The rivalry is phenomenal and neither wants to lose but only one can triumph. Hal on the other hand is quietly confident about everything that he is going to do. This is shown in the soliloquy in Act I. As the play goes on he becomes more and more self-assured. In Act II Hal becomes extremely confident, in some ways over confident, after he has listened to his father telling him that he is failing him Hal states that he will kill Hotspur. It is a bit presumptuous of him seeing as Hotspur is the greatest soldier in Britain at that time. Hal must have spent time training and learning how to fight when he was younger or he must have been learning in between being in the tavern, he knew that his time would come. Throughout the play Shakespeare asks questions about leadership and what characteristics you need to have to be a good leader. Shakespeare exaggerates Hal and Hotspurs faults, this is because he is querying political power. He is hinting that all political power is corrupt. What is power and how do you get it? He shows that the better leader will be the one that can use language to manipulate people. Hotspur has some very good characteristics but he is not a good leader. Hotspur needs to play the political game, you can’t be honest and be a good leader. The play also shows that you will get punished if you rebel. The characteristics that your must have to be a good leader are being dishonourable, using language to great effect, being ambitious but not shouting about it, being dishonest and being very cunning. These are the qualities that Hal posses, even though Hotspur is probably the better person morally he has not got the characteristics to be a good leader.