Should prisoners have the right to vote?

This isn't a review as such, more of an analysis of a key issue in today's society. Here is what I think of it.
    David Cameron: “"I see no reason why prisoners should have the vote. This is not a situation that I want this country to be in. It makes me physically ill even to contemplate having to give the vote to anyone who is in prison."

"Makes me physically ill" - David Cameron is firmly against giving prisoners the vote.

Although the idea of prisoner’s having the vote doesn’t quite make me physically ill, I agree with the basic sentiment of the Prime Minister. I too see no reason why prisoners should have the vote, and plenty of reasons why they shouldn’t.

I have no problem with prisoners voting once they’re out of prison. They’ve then repaid their debt to society, and have earned back their right to vote. Until then, however, it is my firm belief that the vote should be unavailable to them, as they have broken their contract with society. If they are unable to participate in a law-abiding society, then why should they be able to have a say in it?

            By committing a crime, a person has proven that they are not fit to comply with the law and therefore are unfit to vote. The vote is a right, but one that only comes with citizenship, and someone serving a sentence has, for the time being, lost their citizenship.

            One of the uses for prison is to deter people from committing crime; meaning that we should limit offenders to as few luxuries as possible. Refusing them the vote will help to act as a deterrent to any criminal serious about wanting to vote, as they will understand that it is a right exclusive to law-abiding citizens. If a criminal who cares about the vote is allowed to vote in prison, there is less of an incentive not to commit crime, increasing the likelihood of their criminal activity.

            I completely accept the argument that giving them the vote would help keep them in touch with society, and that the government would be able to take into consideration the views of those behind bars, however again I feel that when a contract with society is broken, so should the right to have a say in how that society functions. Why should their views influence law-abiding citizens?

            What kind of government would it be that let dangerous criminals, such as murderers and child abductors, have a say in how it is run?

            In conclusion, I suppose there are two choices to make. Should we allow criminals, possibly dangerous and unstable ones, to influence what goes on in the society they have damaged? Or should we wait until they have repaid their debt to society, making prison more of a deterrent and not letting them influence the course of a country with whom they’ve broken their contract? I know which one I’m going for.

England 2-0 Poland - Match Report

A capacity 90,000 crowd, 20,000 of whom were Poles, filled up Wembley Stadium to watch the last qualifier of England's group. The equation was simple; beat Poland or fail to qualify outright, having to enter the unpredictable play-offs to book their ticket to Rio 2014.
   All the talk was of the 1973 match against Poland, a game with a similar scenario, one which England lost 1-0 to a last-gasp winner. The 70,000 England fans sitting tensely in their expensive seats were praying that this wouldn't be a repeat.
   Roy Hodgson, a manager who had come under heavy criticism in the past few months, picked an attacking line-up, with the young and exciting Andros Townsend on the wing, and the selection of a versatile front 3 of Rooney, Welbeck and Sturridge. The team lined up as follows: Hart, Walker, Jagielka, Cahill, Baines, Gerrard, Carrick, Townsend, Welbeck, Rooney, Sturridge. England were setting up to attack.
    The first half began with an electric atmosphere: 20,000 Poland fans booing whenever and England player got on the ball, and a very fast tempo. There were chances at both ends, but the majority of them fell to England. Townsend hit a right footed shot, saved comfortably by Arsenal's Szczesny, before unleashing a beautiful, powerful strike with hit left which rattled the crossbar. Poland frequently counter-attacked well and one quick move from an England corner saw the revered Robert Lewandowski fire just wide of the mark.
   Chances continued to fall for the home side: Jagielka nodded just wide, Sturridge had a shot well saved, Welbeck poked a sitter past the post and Szczesny again thwarted Rooney. Tension began to build; would this be another frustrating night where we fail to put away our chances?
    The breakthrough came on 41 minutes, with the impressive Leighton Baines picking out Wayne Rooney with an exceptional cross, before the United striker rising to head home. Wembley erupted. England were ahead.
    A nervy second half lay ahead, with the coming 45 minutes meaning the difference between a pass to the World Cup and the lottery of the play-offs. Hart made himself big well to deny Lewandowski a one-on-one goal, and England were dropping deeper and deeper. Though ball retention was declining, England still threatened the Polish goal, with efforts from Gerrard and Cahill off target, and Rooney and Welbeck well saved.
   The midfield was reinforced with Lampard on for Carrick, Milner on for Townsend and Wilshere on for Sturridge, but England were still nervy. The game was in the balance. And then Gerrard struck.
   Showing his true passion and desire, the England captain burst into the box and poked it past the keeper under a strong challenge. His celebrations were immense, and relief flooded through Wembley. England were through. We're going to Rio!
   It was a good, solid performance by England, with the back four being relatively solid, the midfield two controlling possession well and the front four creating plenty of chances. Welbeck and Sturridge were wasteful, with Rooney, Gerrard and Baines being the stand out performers.

Rooney and Gerrard, the two goal-scorers, showing how much the win meant to them.

ENGLAND PLAYER RATINGS:

Hart: 7

Smalling: 6
Jagielka: 7
Cahill: 7
Baines: 7

Carrick: 7
Gerrard: 7

Townsend: 7
Welbeck: 6
Rooney: 8

Sturridge: 5

The Shawshank Redemption

The poster of the film

A 1994-released film listed 4th in Empire's '500 Greatest Movies of All Time. A film directed by Frank Darabont, placed 72nd on the American Film Institute's '100 Best American Movies'. A film starring Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins ranked first by the user-generated Internet Movie Database. With 9/10 reviews on multiple online review sites, The Shawshank Redemption is one hell of a film.
    This review is about my favourite film of all time, one which I have seen twice, the most recent of which just a few weeks ago. The acting is brilliant, the conveyed message is deep and effective and the plot is fantastic.
    The Shawshank Redemption is a film about Andy Dufresne - played by Tim Robbins - a man convicted of murdering his wife and the lover he found her with. Rightly or wrongly, we never completely find out, though Andy maintains his innocence throughout. In fact, one unique factor of this film is that the establishing of the convicted man's guilt is highly irrelevant to the overall plot. Andy is in prison for the best part of 20 years.
    Andy enters the prison and meets Red - played by Morgan Freeman - who is referred to as the "man who gets things" in the prison. High up in the black market of the prison, Red is able to get anything a man wants; cigarettes usually. Andy requests a rock hammer, supposedly to carve chess pieces, and a poster of the then-popular Rita Hayworth, supposedly to look at. We find out the significance of these requests later in the film.
    "The Sisters", a gang of nasty homosexual men, take a shine to Andy in the wrong sort of way, and assault him for refusing to cave in to their demands. The assaults become a regular occurrence whilst Andy is working in the laundry, before repair work needs doing on a building. Red proves his worth by swinging things so that he, Andy and their mates get the job.
    Whilst on the job, Andy overhears a guard complaining of tax worries, and offers (at great risk) to sort things out, as he used to work as a banker. He helps the guard and gets free beer for all of his colleagues, resulting in a beautiful moment with the men sipping beer in the sun, feeling like free men for the first time in decades. Andy then gets a rough beating from "The Sisters", leading to the culprit being sent to another prison - this is the end of the abuse.
    Andy is given a job in the library with an elderly man named Brooks, and not only helps solve multiple financial problems of prison workers, but is also put in charge of the prison's finances, the significance of which comes into play later in the film. He write numerous letters to the Council until he is given funds to renovate the prison library.
   Brooks is released from prison after 50 years, and hangs himself, unable to adjust to life outside of the prison. This scene reflects on the fact that for some men, the prison walls have become their home, and a symbol of safety; as though they are keeping the real world away from the prisoners rather than the normal view of vice versa.
   Hope is fully introduced when Andy plays a heavenly, timeless song over the prison public address system, causing every man to stop in their tracks. These are the first notes of music any of them have heard in years, often decades, and the beauty of it fills their hearts with hope and wonder. Andy spends a week in solitary confinement for this act, but feels that this is worth the satisfaction it brought.

    Andy tutors a student called Tommy to pass an exam, who reveals to Andy that he knows the true murderer of his wife. Shocked, Andy relays the information to the warden, who refuses to listen. He secretly has Tommy killed, knowing that Andy cannot be released from prison, due to the fact that he has taken part in the scam with the prison's finances. After Andy is blackmailed to continue working on the finances, he tells Red of his hope of living in Mexico one day, and instructs Red to go to Buxton and look for a package should he ever be released.

Andy's escape: The incredible moment of freedom

    Red grows increasingly worried about what Andy is planning, and spends a sleepless night in his cell before roll call the next morning, where Andy is found missing. The audience discovers the true use of the poster and the rock hammer. The poster is ripped off the wall, revealing a tunnel, dug with a rock hammer of the course of two decades. Andy had escaped from prison, and bankrupted the prison by stealing it's money through fraud in the process. It is an unbelievable escape, cleverly and subtly crafted over the course of the film. Clues which seemed innocent at the time now make perfect sense.
    Andy has also planted evidence of the prison's fraudulent ways, enough to convict high-up members of the prison. The police come and the warden commits suicide rather than face arrest.
    Red is released after 40 years, and like Brooks fails to adjust to the real world. Remembering his promise to Andy, he makes his way to Buxton and retrieves a letter from Andy, sent from Mexico. Happiness fills the old man as he travels to Mexico, finally feeling the hope which Andy felt all along.
   The final scene of the film is a sensational and powerful one which will always stick in my memory: the two friends reunited on a Mexican beach.
   I love this film because the messages of hope and fighting spirit are effectively conveyed through a gripping and incredibly innovative plot. Morgan Freeman's commentary throughout the movie is brilliant and moves the plot on well, whilst the amazing escape of Andy is so ingenious that it makes you laugh. Not only has he escaped over the course of 20 years, he also wrecks a corrupt regime at the prison. Incredible!

The powerful last scene where the two friends are reunited. 

The Teacher Strikes

Welcome to my first review of this blog, and no, this is not the conventional type of review I will be posting in the coming months. However, this is an issue that has affected me today, which is why I will be reviewing just why and how many teachers up and down the country have gone on strike today.
   Thousands of schools across the nation shut today due to two large teaching unions (The NUT and the NASUWT) striking over pay and pensions. At least 2,500 schools were closed, with areas in the East of England, the Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber being the worst affected.
    My school was not closed, and most teachers were there, though my class were in the hall for one section, due to the fact that a teacher cannot be covered for a lesson when they are striking. My dad's school was open, whilst my sister's and mum's were both shut due to strikes.
    Should teachers, employed for the vital role of educating the 'next generation', have the right to strike? I believe so.
    There is a common misconception that teachers work from 9-3 and have it very easy, with their work stopping as soon as they leave the classroom, with little or no care about the children they have to educate. Why should they have the right to want an improvement on an already generous pension and wage structure?

Today's Union strikes.

    The fact is, the role of a teacher is so much more, and I know that from experience. Of course there are bad, lazy teachers, who perhaps give the profession a bad name, but what profession doesn't employ some incompetent workers? The same can be said for the majority of jobs in society. Both my parents are teachers and I know that their job involves an incredible amount more than the misconception I stated earlier. The work in the classroom is simply the tip of the iceberg: the average teacher leaves the house at 7-7:30 in the morning and doesn't return until about 6 in the evening, often later. There is a great deal of marking, lesson-planning, welfare-calling, audit-completing and much more, none of which can be done in lesson time. There is also the added pressure of 30 sets of eyes looking up at you, waiting for you to slip up and prove you wrong, and the lack of ability to simply go to the toilet when you wish. The general pressures on you from senior management and the like is also great and hard to cope with.

Michael Gove, the controverisal Education Minister.

    Not only the is the issue about reductions to pensions and pay, but also about the way Michael Gove is revamping education. Nor is he the first to do this - many teachers take issue that plans are put in place for education which last only until that particular government is out of power, and sometimes not even that long. They worry that Gove is making damaging, wholesale changes to the profession which really could tarnish the education system.
    One argument is that parents get fined for taking their children out of school and denying them a day of education, yet teachers are allowed to do the opposite - it does sound a little hypocritical. But I believe that public sector workers, including teachers, should have the right to strike against pensions, pay, and Gove's ideological changes.