Persuasive Essay- Beggars Essay Example

Persuasive Essay- Beggars Essay Persuasive essay- beggars When you walk in the street and suddenly see a beggar asking for money, then you may have a dilemma about whether you should give him money or not; if they deserve the money or not. Here I am going to discuss this dilemma. A beggar sitting on the street may have gone trough very difficult time and tough experiences. Therefor, the last resort they have is to beg for money. But why should I give away my money to someone I do not know how would use them? Even though the beggars all have the same goal; ask for money, we can separate them into three different groups. The first group is those who only want the money for alcohol and drugs and felt that begging was the easiest way. The second group is those who have been struggling to get a job but gave up because they did not get one so they decided to start begging. The third group is the little minority of beggars who really have no other options. Begging is an ideology; an ideology that says that there is no better way than the easy way. In Norway there are a lot of helping organizations created only to help people who needs money but do not have. We will write a custom essay sample on Persuasive Essay- Beggars specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Persuasive Essay- Beggars specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Persuasive Essay- Beggars specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer An example of some well known organizations is probably â€Å"Frelsesarmeen† and â€Å"Kirkens Bymisjon†. They know people who really are in need; but cannot afford money to buy clothes and food. Therefore, those organizations provide it to those who are in need. Furthermore, â€Å"Fattighuset† (or the poor house) is very famous among beggars. On Mondays and Tuesdays from 12PM to 3. 30 PM they have clothing distribution, and on Fridays, they have food distribution from 12PM to 3. 30 PM to all their members. According to SSB statistics measures how many people have a persistent low income over three years. Low income is regarded as less than 60% of the overall income level. For a single person, this amount is about 170  000 NOK on average for the years 2007-2009. Statistics from 2009 show that about 360  000 people in Norway earn less than 60% of the general income level. In addition, those helping organizations are willing to receive money from helping hands to those who are in need for help. Moreover, they are also willing to receive anything you feel you do not need anymore as long as it is capable, like kitchen utensils, food, shoes, books, clothing for summer and winter, etc.. Therefore, if you want to be sure the money you give away won’t be used on alcohol or drugs; you can provide them to those organizations. In addition, to not feel guiltiness about not giving money to someone who is starving; you can buy some food for the beggar to be sure he is not hungry. On the other hand, the beggars have the opportunity to find a job with some help from those organizations. It is very hard for a beggar to try to find a job by himself, but if he gets help, it is not impossible. As a result, if you continue giving money to the beggars, their ideology will grow and they will continue begging. This sustains the practice of begging and may encourage other people to also start begging, when in fact; begging should not be an alternative in a rich country like Norway. [ 1 ]. http://www. fattighusetoslo. no/ [ 2 ]. http://www. ssb. no/emner/05/01/10/inntekt/ [ 3 ]. http://www. nrk. no/programmer/tv/migrapolis/1. 7838155 [ 4 ]. http://www. fattighusetoslo. no/du-kan-bidra/

How To Create A Sample Ama Style Essay Paper

How To Create A Sample Ama Style Essay PaperSample and style essay paper has many benefits. You can save a lot of time by creating a sample and style essay paper.You will be able to choose from a plethora of samples that are so easy to write for a professional writer. It will give you a list of sample topics and prompts that will easily fit into your background, life experiences, and personality. For example, you might write an ama style essay about surviving a catastrophe. You would not have to spend a great deal of time writing a dissertation paper about an earthquake that occurred in your town.As easy as it is to get started, it becomes easier as you continue to read more and work on your writing. By following the directions carefully, you can improve upon your writing skills and learn how to create a template for future use.While you can find sample topics and prompts on the Internet, it may be harder to identify a template that will adequately meet your needs. Sample and style e ssay paper will highlight the most popular topics and prompts that you may wish to include in your essay. It will also provide you with a list of sample topics and prompts that you can easily adapt for future use.For this reason, you may want to use a free online service to create a sample and style essay paper. These services are simple to use and provide a wide variety of templates. Their templates can include specific examples, or you can browse the various samples for free. When you look at these samples, you will realize that they will give you a good feel for the styles used in particular subjects.Sample templates are always flexible and versatile. With these templates, you can learn how to create a style that best meets your needs. There are also a variety of online services that are more cost effective and offer updated templates.Using a sample style paper will also save you a lot of time. If you know what topics and prompts you want to include in your essay, you will not ha ve to spend a great deal of time writing the paper. You will have all the resources you need to create your own template that will meet your needs and preferences.

The Humane Treatment of Animals vs. Factory Farms Research Paper Example

The Humane Treatment of Animals vs. Factory Farms Research Paper Example The Humane Treatment of Animals vs. Factory Farms Paper The Humane Treatment of Animals vs. Factory Farms Paper Deanda Jones The Humane Treatment of Animals vs. Factory Farms The first questions we have to ask ourselves; do animals have rights, do they have feelings, do they feel pain, do they need as we do? To find the answer, one needs merely to think back on empirical data if one has ever owned or been around an animal, a dog or a cat, or horses or farm animals. Take for instance a mother cat. When a mother has kittens, she looks for a sheltered, warm, safe place to do so. When they are borne, she cleans her kitten instinctively until the sac it is born in is eaten and the kitten mews loudly, letting the world know she is alive and hungry. If the mother feels her babies are threatened, she will move them to a safer place, averting danger. If anything threatens her kittens, she will fight to the death to protect them. If any animal is in pain, it yelps (a dog), or mews (a cat), or moo’s (a cow). When a cow is separated from her calf, she bellows, likewise, the calf balls for its mother. When any animal is cold, it will look for shelter, in the bushes or leaves or a barn. If a puppy mill gets shut down because of its appalling conditions, such as the birthing dogs living in their own feces, and very little space to live in with no shelter, the community is outraged (some are not, I suppose) and the dogs are taken away to better homes. Animals do feel pain; they instinctively care about the members of their herd or litter. They hear and see, they suffer and feel. They form bonds to man, that if broken, they too suffer feeling of loss or abandonment. Most community’s or state’s have laws in place on the ethical treatment of animals. As long as they are used as pets or bred for pets. On the other hand, the treatment of animals raised for meat production is largely unregulated (Herzog and Golden, 2009) ie. factory farms. Factory farms; poultry-turkeys, chickens eggs, beef, pigs and dairy- their goal is to raise as much livestock in as little space as possible for as little time as possible, for as little money as possible so the bottom line is bigger. Because they are in such a small space, chickens get their beaks clipped so they don’t kill each other. When they go to slaughter, the room is darkened so they are calm ( youtube. com/watch? v=u-uYSafpKmk). Use of antibiotics is a ecessity with factory farms, to stave off disease of so many animals living so closely together. And the list of horrors grows longer. Watch a clip from this film and if you can, check it out from your local video source and watch the whole film: youtube. com/watch? v=yh8c9OUti4c In factory farms, animals are products or commodities, not animals, not pets; they have no rights. After watching some of these films, you get the sense that the world has gone askew some how. That something has gone terribly wrong. You get the feeling that animals are raised in some sort of concentration camps, tortured for life, and then killed. Is an animal raised in such a way, healthy to consume? Large corporations that run factory farms can run so cheaply that they have driven the small farmers out of business (Andre’ 2009), which is a sad derivative of factory farming. Their excuse is â€Å"Who else is going to feed the world† ( tyson. com/Consumer/CoreValues. aspx)? A hundred years ago, when people had family farms, everyone grew and raised the food they would consume. They raised their own cattle, sheep, chickens, and pigs and grew a garden. If they wanted something they weren’t raising, they often traded a neighbor for it. County fairs were a place to show off your ingenuity in farming and husbandry skills. Enter the Industrial Age and WWII. Factory’s to get food to the soldiers sprung up everywhere. Convenience food was born and embraced by the ‘modern’ woman. People moved into the city and had to buy food for the first time. People forgot about farming because they didn’t need to. There are some farmers who have stuck it out and still run their farms with humane treatment in mind. The philosophy is that happy and content animals make great food. So do we really need to eat animals anyway? With such global access to so many different kinds of food, there is absolutely no reason for westernized country’s to have to eat animals. The new food pyramid called MyPyramid (MyPyramid. org) displays 6 colored bands that represent the different food groups. The protein band, which is purple, lists not only meat and fish, but also beans, peas, nuts, seeds and eggs as protein sources. There are many meat analogues made from soybeans or wheat, which are very popular and are found in the frozen breakfast isle at your local grocers. Utilitarian’s would say, â€Å"No, there’s enough food, you on’t need to treat animals the way we’re doing for food or experiments, but it needs to be implemented in small baby steps so as not to hurt the welfare of man also (Francione, 1997). But if there are starving people in the world and they painlessly kill and eat an animal is morally permissible to do so. Tom Regan, and animal rights proponent argues that â€Å" what is important for moral consideration are not the differences between humans and non-humans but the similarities†-the ability to experience life and to care about oneself regardless of what anyone else thinks, this in and of itself deserve moral consideration (http://plato. tanford. edu/entries/moral-animal/). Animals, Regan says, have value. Consider factory farming, the most common method used to convert animal bodies into relatively inexpensive food in industrialized societies today. An estimated 8 billion animals in the United States are born, confined, biologically manipulated, transported and ultimately slaughtered each year so that humans can consume them. The conditions in which these animals are raised and the method of slaughter causes vast amounts of suffering. Given that animals suffer under such conditions and assuming that suffering is not in their interests, then the practice of factory farming would only be morally justifiable if its abolition were to cause greater suffering or a greater amount of interest frustration. Certainly humans who take pleasure in eating animals will find it harder to satisfy these interests in the absence of factory farms; it may cost more and require more effort to obtain animal products. The factory farmers, and the industries that support factory farming, will also have certain interests frustrated if factory farming were to be abolished. How much interest frustration and interest satisfaction would be associated with the end to factory farming is largely an empirical question. But utilitarians are not making unreasonable predictions when they argue that on balance the suffering and interest frustration that animals experience in modern day meat production is greater than the suffering that humans would endure if they had to alter their current practice. http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/moral-animal/ Bentham would say, because he likes quality, and if he likes meat, that it will be alright to humanely raise animals for food. He would have his servants out in the fresh hay-filled barn massaging his beef with beer like the Kobe steaks are. His barn would be cooled in summer, heated in winter to make all of his animals happy, therefore, good to eat. Because of the 7 circumstances from Bentham, he would not at all approve of factory farming, because it doesn’t start well and doesn’t end well for any of the animals involved. see Bibl. below) Deanda Jones Bibliography Western Carolina University, Journal of Social Issues, Harold A. Herzog and Lauren L. Golden Vol. 65, No. 3, 2009, pp. 485- 498, Andre Peter, Alternatives Journal Feb2009, Vol. 35 Issue 1, p14-17, 4p youtube. com/watch? v=u-uYSafpKmk youtube. com/watch? v=yh8c9OUti4c mypyramid. org tyson. com/Consumer/CoreValues. aspx) Animal Rights Theory and Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance, Gary L. Francione, 3 Animal L. 75 (1997) Publish Date: 1997 Place of Publication: Lewis amp; Clark Law School

Senator Robert Byrd and the Ku Klux Klan

Senator Robert Byrd and the Ku Klux Klan During the early 1940s, Robert Byrd of West Virginia was a high-ranking member of the Ku Klux Klan. From 1952 to 2010, the same Robert Byrd of West Virginia served in the United States Congress and eventually won the praises of civil rights advocates. How did he do that? The Robert Byrd of Congress Born in North Wilkesboro, North Carolina, on Nov. 20, 1917, Robert Carlyle Byrd was orphaned at age 1 after the death of his mother. Raised by his aunt and uncle in a rural West Virginia coal mining town, Byrd credited his experiences growing up in a coal-mining family with shaping his amazing political career. The legendary congressional career of Robert â€Å"Bob† Byrd began on November 4, 1952, when the people of West Virginia elected him to his first term in the U.S. House of Representatives. A New Deal Democrat, Byrd served six years in the House before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1958. He would continue to serve in the Senate for the next 51 years, until his death at age 92 on June 28, 2010. With a total 57 years on Capitol Hill, Byrd was the longest-serving Senator in United States history and, at the time of his death, the longest-serving member in the history of the U.S. Congress. Byrd was the last member of the Senate to have served during the Dwight Eisenhower presidency and the last member of Congress to have served during the presidency of Harry Truman. He also held the distinction of being the only West Virginian to have served in both houses of the state’s legislature and in both chambers of the U.S. Congress. As one of the Senate’s most powerful members, Byrd served as secretary of the Senate Democratic Caucus from 1967 to 1971 and as Senate Majority Whip from 1971 to 1977. Over the next 33 years, he would hold leadership positions including Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and President pro tempore of the Senate. In four separate terms as President pro tempore, Byrd stood third in the line of presidential succession, after the Vice President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Along with his lengthy tenure, Byrd was known for his vast array of political skills, his often fierce advocacy for the supremacy of the legislative branch, and his ability to secure federal funds for the State of West Virginia. Byrd Joins then Leaves the Ku Klux Klan Working as a butcher in the early 1940s, a young Robert Byrd formed a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia. In his 2005 book, Robert C. Byrd: Child of the Appalachian Coalfields, Byrd recalled how his ability to quickly recruit 150 of his friends to the group impressed a top Klan official who told him, â€Å"You have a talent for leadership, Bob ... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation.† Byrd later recalled, Suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities!† Byrd led the growing chapter and was eventually elected Exalted Cyclops of the local Klan unit. In a 1944 letter to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore G. Bilbo, Byrd wrote, â€Å"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.† As late as 1946, Byrd wrote to the Klan’s Grand Wizard stating, â€Å"The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation.† However, Byrd would soon see fit to put the Klan far behind him. Running for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1952, Byrd said of the Klan, â€Å"After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan.† Byrd said he had initially joined the Klan for the â€Å"excitement† and because the organization was opposed to communism. In interviews with The Wall Street Journal and Slate magazine held in 2002 and 2008, Byrd called joining the Klan â€Å"the greatest mistake I ever made.† To young people interested in becoming involved in politics, Byrd warned, â€Å"Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Dont get that albatross around your neck. Once youve made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena.† In his autobiography, Byrd wrote that he had become a KKK member because he â€Å"was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision a jejune and immature outlook seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions,† adding, â€Å"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I dont mind apologizing over and over again. I cant erase what happened †¦ it has emerged throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me and has taught me in a very graphic way what one major mistake can do to one’s life, career, and reputation.† Byrd on Racial Integration: A Change of Mind In 1964, Senator Robert Byrd led a filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as well as most of the anti-poverty programs of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society initiative. In the debate against anti-poverty legislation, Byrd stated, â€Å"we can take the people out of the slums, but we cannot take the slums out of the people.† But time and politics can change minds. While he first voted against civil rights legislation, Byrd would later hire one of the first black congressional aides on Capitol Hill in 1959 and initiate the racial integration of the United States Capitol Police for the first time since Reconstruction. The 1970’s saw a complete reversal in Sen. Byrd’s former stance against racial integration. In 1993, Byrd told CNN that he had regretted his filibuster and vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and would take them back if he could. In 2006, Byrd told CSPAN that the death of his teenage grandson in a 1982 traffic accident had radically changed his views. â€Å"The death of my grandson caused me to stop and think,† he said, explaining that event made him realize that African-Americans loved their children as much as he loved his own. While some of his fellow conservative Democrats opposed the 1983 bill creating the Martin Luther King Jr. Day national holiday, Byrd recognized the importance of the day to his legacy, telling his staff, â€Å"I am the only one in the Senate who must vote for this bill.† However, Byrd was the lone Senator to  vote against the confirmations of Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, the only two African-Americans nominated to the United States Supreme Court. In opposing the 1967 confirmation of Marshall, Byrd cited his suspicion that Marshall had ties to communists or the communist party. In the case of Clarence Thomas in 1991, Byrd stated that he had been â€Å"offended by the injection of racism† into the hearings when Thomas called opposition to his confirmation a form of â€Å"high-tech lynching of uppity blacks.† Byrd called Marshall’s comment a â€Å"diversionary tactic,† adding â€Å"I thought we were past that stage.† Byrd also supported Anita Hill in her accusations of sexual harassment by Thomas and was joined by 45 other Democrats in voting against Thomas’ confirmation. When interviewed by Tony Snow of FOX News on March 4, 2001, Byrd said of racial relations, â€Å"Theyre much, much better than theyve ever been in my lifetime †¦ I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us ... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, Robert, you cant go to heaven if you hate anybody. We practice that.† NAACP Praises Byrd In the end, the political legacy of Robert Byrd went from admitting his former membership in the Ku Klux Klan to winning the accolades of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). For the 2003–2004 session of Congress, Byrd was one of only 16 Senators rated by the NAACP as being 100% in line with the group’s position on critical legislation. In June 2005, Byrd sponsored a successful bill dedicating an additional $10,000,000 in federal funding for the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that â€Å"With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently.† When Byrd died at age 92 on June 28, 2010, the NAACP released a statement saying that over the course of his life he â€Å"became a champion for civil rights and liberties† and â€Å"came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda.†Ã‚   Robert C. Byrd Biographical Fast Facts Full Name: Robert Carlyle Byrd (born Cornelius Calvin Sale Jr.)Known for: - American politician - Longest serving member of U.S. Senate in American history (over 51 years)Born:   November 20, 1917, in North Wilkesboro, North Carolina,Died: June 28, 2010 (at age 92), in Merrifield, VirginiaParents: Cornelius Calvin Sale Sr. and Ada Mae (Kirby)Education:- Beckley College- Concord University- University of Charleston- Marshall University (BA)- George Washington University - American University (Juris Doctor)Major Published Writings - 2004. â€Å"Losing America: Confronting A Reckless and Arrogant Presidency.† ISBN 0-393-05942-1.- 2004. â€Å"We Stand Passively Mute: Senator Robert C. Byrds Iraq Speeches.† ISBN 0-9755749-0-6.- 2005. â€Å"Robert C. Byrd: Child of the Appalachian Coalfields.† ISBN 1-933202-00-9.- 2008. â€Å"Letter to a New President: Commonsense Lessons for Our Next Leader.† ISBN 0-312-38302-9.Wife: Erma JamesChildren: Daughters Mona Byrd Fa temi and Marjorie Byrd MooreNotable Quotation: â€Å"Ones family is the most important thing in life. I look at it this way: One of these days Ill be over in a hospital somewhere with four walls around me. And the only people wholl be with me will be my family.† References Byrd, Robert C. (2005). Robert C. Byrd: Child of the Appalachian Coalfields. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press. Pianin, Eric. A Senators Shame: Byrd, in His New Book, Again Confronts Early Ties to KKK. The Washington Post, June 18, 2005 King, Colbert I.: Sen. Byrd: The view from Darrells barbershop. The Washington Post, March 2, 2002 What About Byrd?. Slate. December 18, 2002 The Democrats Lott. The Wall Street Journal. December 12, 2008. Draper, Robert (July 31, 2008). Old as the Hill. GQ. New York, NY. â€Å"Sen. Robert Byrd Discusses His Past and Present†, Inside Politics, CNN, December 20, 1993 Johnson, Scott. Saying Goodbye to a Great One, Weekly Standard, June 1, 2005 Byrd, Robert. Robert Byrd Speaks Out Against the Appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. American Voices, October 14, 1991. NAACP Mourns the Passing of U.S. Senator Robert Byrd. â€Å"Press Room. www.naacp.org., July 7, 2010

Effects of tissue paper usage on the environment Research

Effects of tissue usage on the environment - Research Paper Example Effects of tissue paper usage on the environment There have been many advertisements encouraging people to continue using given brands of tissue papers mostly made from trees. Although the use of tissue papers is dominant in females, the United States uses about 50 pounds of tissue products per person annually. Tissues papers have variant effects on the environment. Since, most of the tissue paper use is at home, then, it is possible to regulate the amount of tissue paper that we consume. This paper will discuss the environmental impact of tissue paper and draw a conclusion from the discussion. The paper will then make a persuasive argument about the moral or ethical implications of our consumption. The argument will aim at convincing the rest to adopt our style of using tissue paper that is reducing the consumption and using the recycled. There are variant effects of tissue paper usage on the environment. The impact depends on the production, mode of use and method of disposal. Tissue paper usage destroys forests, wildlife habitat, aridity, and may lead to loss of biodiversity because of the huge number of trees used in the production. As such, deforestation has now become a major environmental concern because of the negative effects on the humidity, carbon dioxide levels, and earth's temperature. There are variant effects of tissue paper usage on the environment. The impact depends on the production, mode of use and method of disposal. Tissue paper usage destroys forests, wildlife habitat, aridity, and may lead to loss of biodiversity because of the huge number of trees used in the production. (European Commission Web). As such, deforestation has now become a major environmental concern because of the negative effects on the humidity, carbon dioxide levels, and earth's temperature (Secret life Web). The production of tissue papers uses a lot of energy in transportation and distribution. Tissue paper production uses a lot of water hence depleting the scarce water sources and pollutes the water sources via the emissions from the factory (Bajpai 53). The gas emissions directed to the air are pollutants containing carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and sulphur oxides, which cause global warming and acidification (European Commission Web). Acidification and global warming affects agricultu re significantly. The emissions to the air and water contain toxic chemicals and cancer- causing chemical that are all pollutants to the environment (simple ecology Web). Additionally, the chemicals used in production of paper and pulp can have negative effects on health and the environment. Toxic chlorine used in pulp breaching is an example of such chemicals (Yaffa Web). Tissue paper is a source of waste in the environment. Many people do not use recycled tissue papers. About one-third of household waste is paper and only one-half is recycled and used in the US (simple ecology Web). Hence, I observe that there are diverse effects of tissue paper usage on the environment. Most of these effects are negative and dire to humans, animals and the environment. Therefore, there is need to minimise the consumption of tissue paper, devise better disposal methods and venture in the usage of 100 % recycled tissue paper products. This guarantees a positive impact on the environment. If we redu ce the consumption of tissue paper from 50 pounds to 33 pounds per person annually and buy only 100% of recycled products we will significantly benefit the environment. We need to use only enough toilet paper, use sponges, cloth towels, and hand dryers in place of paper towels. We can also use cloth napkins at home and only one napkin at fast food outlets. Similarly, we can use a handkerchief in place of a facial tissue where necessary. When these reductions and improvising intertwine with purchase of 100% tissue papers, we can save many trees annually and reduce the water and energy consumption (Lianos Web). This is because tissue paper uses 40% less energy and

The European Dimension Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

The European Dimension - Essay Example Marks & Spencer was named as the leading UK retailer responsible for fish sourcing by Greenpeace, and Marine Conservation Society. Similarly, RSPCA recognised them for their animal welfare policy and launch of a range of clothing made from Fairtrade certified cotton in clothing. Marks & Spencer has been included in the Dow Jones Sustainability and FTSE 4 Goods index. They converted all the roast, ground, and instant coffee to Fairtrade, and became the first major UK high street retailer to launch a range of clothing made from Fairtrade certified cotton (An extract from the Chairman’s speech on the occasion of CSR) (Marks & Spencer-The Company, www2.marksandspencer.com [Accessed 20 August 2006]). Marks & Spencer work to protect the environment and animal welfare, and have made huge contributions in the development of community services in countries where they have their presence. The company’s hard work has seen them included in the Dow Jones Sustainability and FTSE 4 Good Indexes and ranked equal 20th with a score of 95% in Business in the Community’s Corporate Responsibility Index (Marks & Spencer-The Company). They manage CSR under Product, People and Places. The United Kingdom, from the census gathered from 2001 showed the total population of the country at 58789194 of which, 28579869 were men, and 30209325 were women. At the same time London, based on data released on or before 13 February 2003 showed a population of 7172091.

The Doctrine of ‘Personality Rights’ in the UK

The Doctrine of ‘Personality Rights’ in the UK The United Kingdom has never acknowledged a specific doctrine of ‘personality rights’; the law provides neither coherent nor consistent protection, as the courts are ‘sceptical about creating monopoly rights in nebulous concepts such as names, likeness or popularity’.[1] Therefore celebrities and other high-profile individuals rely on a combination of passing off, trademark, copyright and privacy laws for protection of the commercial value of their personality. None of these were invented to protect personality rights; however they are gradually developing to adjust to the commercial reality of the value of celebrity merchandising and endorsements. Misleading the public by giving a false impression of endorsement of a product by a celebrity has been to commit the tort of passing off for over a decade.[2] The tort of passing off was traditionally defined as ‘nobody has the right to represent his goods as the goods of someone else’.[3] The ‘ classical trinity’ is necessary to succeed in passing off: ‘the goodwill or reputation must be attached to the products or services of the plaintiff, the misrepresentation must lead to the confusion as to the source of the goods and services, and this confusion must cause damage to the claimant’.[4] In the case of Fenty Ors v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop) Anor,[5] high street fashion retailer Topshop licensed an image of popstar Rihanna’s face from a photographer and printed it on a t-shirt without either her permission being sought nor obtained. Rihanna then sued for passing off. Mr Justice Birss applied the doctrine to the dispute. Although on very particular facts, Birss J found in favour of Rihanna and established a general principle that arguably goes against any celebrities who might have hoped to see the creation of a doctrine of personality rights. This decision develops the tort of passing off to small degree whilst emphasising that, in each case, the facts are decisive.[6] The debate about the recognition of personality rights in the UK is gathering impetus in the wake of Fenty with academics like Walsh questioning if ‘personality rights are finally on the agenda’.[7] In the 1970s the UK courts were regularly unwilling to find false impressions relating to merchandising resulted in misrepresentation because of the need to show that they were engaged in a ‘common field of activity’. This introduced a somewhat blunt test for confusion and there often would be no proximity between, for example, a radio broadcaster and a cereal manufacturer.[8] Until the test was discarded, at least as an absolute condition,[9] it limited attempts to expand the categories of misrepresentation to cover licensing connections.[10] Where the absence of a common field of activity was not conclusive the court for example held the use of the name of the pop group Abba on merchandise did not amount to passing off on the basis that there was no real possibility that the public would be confused into thinking that Abba had approved the goods merely because their name or photograph appeared on them.[11] Likewise the use of a photograph of the Spice Girls on the cove r of a sticker collection was held not to constitute passing off.[12] An important exception came when it was held passing off had been established where cartoon characters, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, were on clothing without authorisation, since the public did expect the goods to be licensed.[13] This case was distinguished from the Abba scenario on the basis that it was brought in the context of the unauthorised reproduction of images of cartoons in which copyright existed, rather than the image or name of a celebrity. Yet the decision is generally viewed as opening up character merchandising law in the UK. In the seminal case of Irvine Laddie J held passing off covered cases of false endorsement, like where Talksport had altered an image of racing driver Eddie Irvine to have him hold a branded Talksport radio for advertising purposes without his permission. Laddie J considered the increasingly popular marketing practice of personality licensing, including the licensing of a personality’s name or likeness outside a celebrity’s area of expertise as a common and lucrative practice for them, to reject the ‘common à ¯Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ eld of activity’ condition. Laddie J identified the inherent flexibility of passing off by saying ‘the sort of cases which come within the scope of a passing off action has not remained stationary over the years†¦passing off is closely connected to and dependent upon what is happening in the market place’.[14] Although Irvine was celebrated as a turning point in the protection of personality rights, the important limitation in the judgment was that passing off was limited to false endorsement and excluded merchandising cases. The classic celebrity-merchandising situation seems similar: the celebrity has a reputation and the public knows that it is common practice for celebrities to market their popularity by granting merchandise licenses.[15] Laddie J differentiated between cases of endorsement and merchandising, however in Fenty Birss J approved Laddie J’s reasoning but made it clear there is no difference in merchandising cases and that the legal principles apply equally well in passing off if the public had been deceived into thinking the celebrity had authorised the product. Rihanna easily established sufficient goodwill in the fashion industry, as a style icon because of her ‘cool, edgy image’.[16] This was demonstrated in her endorsement contracts with Nike and Gillette, her fashion design and promotion work with rival retailer River Island, and she had worked with HM, Gucci and Armani to collaborate on and design clothing. Birss J therefore stated Rihanna’s ‘identity and endorsement in the world of high street fashion was perceived†¦to have tangible value by an organisation well placed to know’.[17] Misrepresentation was the key issue. Topshop argued the clothing was simply a t-shirt bearing an image of Rihanna and the public had no expectation that it was authorised by her, whereas Rihanna contended that the particular facts of the case meant customers were misled into believing she had endorsed the t-shirt herself. The court considered the point in depth, addressing the various circumstances before considering the issue as a whole. Certain evidence considered was found to be neutral to finding a misrepresentation. The fact there was other unauthorised clothing bearing Rihanna’s image on sale did not imply that the public would necessarily believe that such clothing was authorised. Topshop had sold both clothing bearing authorised images and clothing, which was approved or endorsed by celebrities. Overall, its customers were neutral: having no positive expectation either way when considering clothing bearing a celebrity’s image. Also the t-shirt was fashionable an d on sale in a high street retailer. Certain factors indicated finding in Topshop’s favour. Some of Rihanna’s official merchandise included an ‘R slash’ trademark logo or her name, the t-shirt lacked both, and apart from a few days online the word ‘Rihanna’ was not used at all. There was also no genuine evidence of actual confusion. However on balance, significant factors supported RIhanna. Topshop had made considerable effort to emphasise connections in the public consciousness between the store and celebrities notably Kate Moss, and now more importantly Rihanna. This made it more likely purchasers would conclude that the t-shirt was authorised and being a fashion retailer, consumers would reasonably expect Topshop to publicise and sell products authorised by celebrities. Topshop’s prior association with Rihanna was important as Topshop ran a competition in 2010 to win a personal shopping appointment with Rihanna. Rihanna also visited Topshop in 2012 which they chose to publicise by tweeting to their 350,000 Twitter followers, just before the t-shirt went on sale – a significant commercial communication in the eyes of Birss J, to a demographic who valued social media highly. Topshop had therefore repeatedly associated itself and it products with Rihanna in a high-profile manner and this demonstrated Topshop were looking to take advantage of Rihanna’s position as a style icon. The image on the t-shirt was taken during the video shoot of RIhanna’s single ‘We Found Love’ from her 2011 ‘Talk that Talk’ album. Importantly, it showed Rihanna with the same hairstyle and headscarf as the album cover. This meant that the image was not just recognisably Rihanna but looked like a promotional shot for the music release. The court found that it was entirely likely that, to her fans, the image might be regarded as part of the marketing campaign. This was a critical point in the de cision. Although Birss J believed a ‘good number’ of purchasers would buy the t-shirt without considering the question of authorisation, he concluded that, in the circumstances, a substantial proportion of those judging the t-shirt (specifically Rihanna fans) would be encouraged to think that it was clothing authorised by the popstar. They would have recognised that particular image of Rihanna not simply as an image of her but as a particular image of her connected with the particular context of the album. Many of these purchasers would have bought the product because they thought that Rihanna had authorised it; others would have bought it because of the value of the perceived authorisation itself. In each case, the idea that it was authorised was part of what motivated them to buy the product and in each case they would have been deceived. The test for damage was also easily satisfied. If a substantial number of purchaser’s were deceived into buying the t-shirt because of a false belief that it was authorised by Rihanna herself, then that would have damaged Rihanna’s goodwill, both by way of sales lost to her merchandising business and a loss of control over her reputation in the fashion sphere.[18] Considering the particular facts, it is not surprising Birss J found in Rihanna’s favour. The classical trinity of passing off were fulfilled, however this decision is unlikely to open the floodgates for cases to be brought every time a celebrity’s image is used without a merchandising license, as it was made clear ‘the mere sale by a trader of a t-shirt bearing an image of a famous person is not without more, an act of passing off’.[19] Birss J was eager to emphasise that ‘there is today in England no such thing as a free standing general right by a famous person (or anyone else) to control reproduction of their image.’[20] The judgment is useful as a confirmation of the general principles of passing off applied to unauthorised use of celebrity images.[21] If the UK is approaching the creation of a doctrine of personality rights in some form, it is necessary to analyse the justifications and gauge whether they are robust enough to validate the subsequent restraints that would be placed upon society. The justifications suggested in support of personality rights fall largely into three groups: moral, economic and consumer protection arguments. The labour-based moral justification is founded on John Locke’s theory of property.[22] Essentially, itprovidesthat an individualhasamoralrightintheobjectofvaluetransformedbecauseoftheir efforts. Nimmer supported this point by contending that the person who has ‘long and laboriously nurtured the fruit of publicity values’ and has spent ‘time, effort, skill, and even money’ in their creation, is presumably allowed to enjoy it.[23] Professor McCarthy feels personality rights are ‘a â€Å"common-sense†, self-evident right needing little intellectual rationalisation to justify its existence’.[24] However, Madow deconstructs these arguments by contending that fame is something ‘conferred by others’ and is not necessarily down to the efforts of the individual.[25] Moreover according to Madow the labour argument ignoresthe fundamentalrole themediaplayinthecreationofcelebrities.He uses the example of Einstein andobservesthatth emedia selectedhim becausehedidinterviews, wasquotable and hehadtheright‘look’.[26]TheimageofEinsteinthat is familiar today,what itmeanstothe pubic themadbutpleasant scientistwith bushywhitehairandmoustache wasa personality createdby themedia. Therefore only when the media and public take notice and attach importance to a personal image can it fully enter into the market place.[27] Thus contrary to the statement by McCarthy, it would appear a celebrity cannot justify that they solely created their public image and consequently cannot stake an indisputable moral claim to the exclusive ownership or control of the economic value that comes with it. Personality rights can also be justified on economic arguments. Economic theory proposes persons should be economically incentivised into ‘undertaking socially, enriching activities’ such as creating a persona that benefits society culturally,[28] and this creativity can only be encouraged if the person is given exclusive right to control their creations, because this ‘provides incentive for performers to make economic investments required to produce performances appealing to the public’.[29] However Carty doubts whether personality rights would produce increases in ‘economic activity’ or ‘innovation’.[30] Following Madow’s ideas, the UK is currently without a personality right, yet celebrities still gain significant income from their publicity values and failure to introduce such a right in the future will not stop individuals profiting from the income already gained through endorsements and merchandising officially authoris ed by them.[31] According to Madow such protection also has ‘distributional consequences’,[32] whereby personality rights elevate the price of merchandise and advertising in general, placing more wealth in the hands of a select few, who already derive significant income, and away from the mass of consumers making up society.[33] Another justification for personality rights is the consumer protection argument focusing on the idea that without protection, the public will be misled about the authorisation of a celebrity’s association with a product or service. At first sight the consumer protection argument appears advisable, joining protection of the celebrity’s success with protection of the consumer, and it mirrors the traditional rationale for trademark and passing off.[34] However personality rights would allow celebrities to stop commercial uses of their personas that are not fraudulent or deceptive, and Professor Shiffrin states personality rights give celebrites power ‘to control the dissemination of truth for his or her own profit’.[35] On another level, Madow argues the degree to which personality rights would stop the consumer being misled is generally superfluous,[36] because in situations where there is a realistic chance that, consumers will be deceived or confused about a celebrity’s association or endorsement, legal mechanisms better adapted for that reason already exist, notably passing off. In conclusion, the extent to which Fenty constitutes a creation of a doctrine of ‘personality rights’ is limited. In the words of Roberts ‘this judgment does not change the law; and it does not create an â€Å"image right†. It simply applies the existing doctrine of passing off to the evolving commercial reality of the value of celebrity endorsements’.[37] The decision is important as it improves a flaw in the Irvine verdict,[38] in the same way that Irvine marked the first time that passing off was applied to false endorsement, Fenty is the first time it has been applied to false merchandising featuring a real person, with merchandising claims having only previously succeeded in relation to fictional characters,[39] and indicates that UK courts are slowly recognising the need to protect the commercial value of celebrity merchandising. It is clear from the case that the result was carefully balanced on particular facts and that if for example Rihanna had not been a fashion icon or the image was different she would have less chance of being successful. Fenty highlights the issue of misrepresentation is however always one of fact, and the false belief of the purchaser is key: to constitute passing off, a false belief incited in the mind of the prospective purchaser must play a role in their choice to buy. Although there are persuasive advocates of the creation of a doctrine of personality rights,[40] and there is also no definite rationale for an absolute rejection,[41] it would seem the decision in Fenty should be welcomed because there are substantial drawbacks in the moral, economic and consumer protection justifications put forward. The decision develops passing off to a small degree to keep up with modern business practice without creating personality rights, which are not necessary as celebrities are already sufficiently protected. The tort of passing off has again demonstrated its inherent flexibility and that it is ‘ closely connected to and dependent upon what is happening in the market place’. To sum up, ‘without an element of consumer deception, English law in this area remains characteristically cautious’,[42] and this should be welcomed. [1] J. Klink, ’50 years of Publicity Rights in the United States and the Never Ending Hassle with Intellectual Property and Personality Rights in Europe’, (2003), 4 IPQ 363, p.366. [2] Irvine v Talksport Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 423 [3] Reddaway v Banham (1896) 13 RPC 218 at 244 per Lord Halsbury [4] Reckitt Colman v Borden [1990] 1 WLR 491 at 499 per Lord Oliver [5] [2010] EWHC 2310 (Ch) [6] D. Meale, ‘Rihanna’s face on a T-shirt without a licence? No, this time it’s passing off’, (2013) 8(11) JIPLP 823, p.823. [7] C. Walsh, ‘Are personality rights finally on the UK agenda?’, (2013) 35(5) EIPR 253, p.253. [8] McCulloch v Lewis A May [1947] 2 All ER 845 [9] Lyngstad v Anabas Products [1977] FSR 62 at 67; [10] Wombles Ltd v Wombles Skips Ltd [1975] FSR 488 Ch D; [11] Lyngstad v Anabas Products [1977] FSR 62 [12] Halliwell Ors v Panini Ors (6 June, 1997, unreported) [13] Mirage Studiosv Counterfeat Clothing [1991] FSR 145 [14] [2002] FSR 60 at para 13-14 [15] J. Klink, op.cit., p.375. [16] Fenty v Topshop [2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch) at [46] [17] Ibid at [42] [18] Ibid at [72] [19] Ibid at [75] [20] Ibid at [2] [21] H. Beverley-Smith and L. Barrow, ‘Talk that tort†¦of passing off: RIhanna, and the scope of actionable misrepresentation: Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop), (2014), 36(1) EIPR 57, p.61. [22] J. Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1952) [23] M.B. Nimmer, ‘The Right of Publicity’, (1954) 19 Law and Contemporary Problems 203, p.216. [24] J.T. McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy, (New York: C.Boardman, 1987), s.1.1[B] [2] at 1-5; s.1.11[C] at 1-46. [25] M. Madow, ‘Private Ownership of Public Image: Popular Culture and Publicity Rights’, (1993), 81 CLR 125, p.182. [26] Ibid, p.190 [27] J. Fowles, Celebrity Performers and the American Public, (Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1992), p.84. [28] J.T. McCarthy, ’Melville B. Nimmer and the Right of Publicity: A Tribute’ (1987) 34 UCLA LR1703, p.1710. [29] D.E. Shipley, ‘Publicity Never Dies: It just Fades Away, (1981) 66 Cornell LR 673, p.681. [30] H. Carty, ‘Advertising, Publicity Rights and English Law’, (2004) 3 IPQ 209, p.251. [31] M. Madow, op.cit., p.211 [32] Ibid, p.218. [33] Ibid [34] H. Carty, op.cit., p.252. [35] S. Shiffrin, ‘The First Amendment and Economic Regulations: Away from a General Theory of the First Amendment’, (1983) 78 NW ULR 1212, p.1258. [36] M. Madow, op.cit., p.233. [37] J. Roberts, ‘Face off: Rihanna wins â€Å"image rights† case’, (2013), 24(8) Ent LR 283, p.285. [38] A. De Landa Barajas, ‘Personality rights in the United States and the United Kingdom – is Vanna too much? Is Irvine not enough?’, (2009) 20(7) Ent LR 253, p.258. [39] J. Roberts, op.cit., p.285. [40] S. Bains, ‘Personality rights: should the UK grant celebrities a proprietary right in their personality? Part 2’, (2013) 18(6) Ent LR 205 [41] [42] H. Beverley-Smith, op.cit., p.61.