Wednesday, December 11, 2019

Constitutional Law Parliamentary Sovereignty

Question: Evaluate the accuracy of Alders assessment of Parliamentary Supremacy today. Your analysis must include not only domestic challenges to the doctrine but, in addition, the impact of any international law which has been incorporated into UK law? Answer: Introduction: Parliamentary sovereignty is a vital concept in the aspect of constitutional law. According to this concept, the parliament is supreme over all other organs of the government. The government has three organs which includes executive, judiciary and legislative. Now according to this theory the legislature enjoys the superior power among these three organs. According to this theory, the parliament can make create any law freshly, and it does not depend on any precedent or executive actions. The theory can collide with the theory of separation of power theory that generally limits the power of the legislature. This theory also restricts the scope of judicial review by which the judiciary can judge the validity of any legislations passed by the legislature. The United Kingdom is the state where the parliamentary sovereignty is very prominent. In UK, there are two kinds of sovereignty which includes legal and political aspect. In the aspect of UK, parliament is not politically sovereign. If the parliament constructs any unwanted or impractical laws, that will not applied in the practical sense. But that does not include the concept that parliament is not a legally sovereign entity. In the light of the case of Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke, it was claimed by Lord Reid that certain things are considered to be impractical or unconstitutional for the parliament of UK. But that thing does not mean that Parliament has no authority to do the act. If the action is taken by the parliament, the court merely does not invalidate the law or the authority of the parliament. Alders evaluation in regards to Parliamentary Supremacy: The principle of parliamentary supremacy states that parliament posses the ultimate power to enact any law, and the decision cannot be overridden by any other authority or organ of government. In the case of, Jackson v A-Git was stated that this is the most important doctrines in the British Constitution. Alder in his book state that state that the classic theory of parliamentary supremacy was given by A.V. Dicey. Parliamentary supremacy considered to be legal but opposed to the principle of political theory because it defines that the parliament is above al. In the case of Pickin V British Railway Boardstates that for the action of parliamentary supremacy the valid laws might be predestined as unconstitutional in the broader political aspect. According to Alder judges, recognised the constitutional law and politics are not separated with each other. R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is the important case in this aspect which states that the exclusive power of Parliament drives from its representative character. Jackson v A-G the important case on which Lord Hope describe that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is an ineffective principle that has no validity if the parliament passes unambiguous, unconstitutional or unacceptable principle that the people of the country will not try to recognise as law. Dicey distinguishes the political and legal sovereignty. According to Dicey legal sovereignty, includes that the power of the lawmaker is absolute and conditional. But the political sense that that the law must be maintained which is recognised by the populations of the nation. Alder criticised the view of Dicey and state that Dicey by his theory indicates that the electorate even though today it might somewhat be the monetary or expert network with advantaged access to politicians. The internal and external political limits on the lawmakers are described by Dicey. The internal limits refer to the inherent rules and practice with the parliament. In the Parliament, an amalgamation of the conventions needs the Queen to consent to the entire legislations. The political and ethical pressures imposed by the conventions are also the part of internal limits partially. The external limits comprise of all the matters which deals with the people on whom the law is going to apply. But in reality according to Alden, the parliament cannot pass any law according to its wish. Alder in his book specifies that the version of Dicey in regards to the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy is in question. The theory states that the concept required external requirements and under the common law legal system the ultimate guardian of the Constitution is court. So, it can be confirmed that the concept of parliamentary supremacy is obsolete if it lose the public support. The theory of Alder is a modern concept. He describes the concept of parliamentary supremacy on the light of UK. He claimed that. As UK has no written constitution, so the foundation of parliamentary sovereignty is not a clear concept. Alder criticized that it is not desirable that all the legal power is confined to just an organ of the government. So, the alteration in the theory is required. The parliamentary sovereignty theory is based on the test of time and its applicability and adaptation. The theory based on the political ideology. If the ideology is changing, the concept of the doctrine will also change. In the case of R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, it was decided by Lord Bridge that the parliamentary supremacy concept can be modified by the parliament itself. According to revival theory, this concept is extracted from common law constitutionalism. So, therefore the courts are obeying the rule made by the parliament. In the case of Jackson v. A-G, it c ase claimed that this concept can be established by common law in the absence of the higher authority. In his theory, Alder described the challenges of parliamentary sovereignty. There were several arguments that indicate the fact that the parliament can also be legally limited. Alder claimed that the basis of this doctrine relied upon the acceptance from the subjects of a nation. Primarily this doctrine was developed as a historical response to the then political situation. It is initiated to reduce the dictatorship of the monarch. But the approached changed every day. The old conceptualisation of this doctrine is become obsolete now. Dicey provide his theory at the Victorian period that may be suitable for that occasion. The citizen of England was to some extent benefited by that system. The reason is that it relieves them from the mismanagement of the spoil empire. But presently this theory is out of date. The doctrine seems to be unreal, narrow-minded, rationally tattered. Certain internal and external forces made this theory outdated for the present situation. The forces can be c lassified as domestic and as well as the international sources. The sources include global economy, decentralization, delegation, membership in EU, related international obligation and increasing the power of the executive organ of the parliament. Alder claimed that there was no relevance of the doctrine in the modern context. The reason is that there is no political agreement that the parliament must hold the supreme legal authority. There is no such legally resonating also. Alder identifies the major challenges to the theory. The main question arises in this context is that if the UK parliament made any law regarding the independence of the certain territory, later on whether the parliament enjoys the right to amend the decision? In the decision of Blackburn v. A-G, Lord Denning states that if any principle become totally out of the line, that principle needs the reconsideration. Evaluation of the theory of Alder in the modern context: The theory developed by Alder in regards to parliamentary supremacy is very relevant in the modern context. He opposed the view of Dicey. He explained that the parliamentary supremacy is not absolute, and it depends on the acceptability of the subjects. He claimed and identified different domestic issues regarding the applicability of parliamentary supremacy theory as a whole. The relevance of the theory can be judged by defining the lope holes of the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy. The British administration by the asset of Royal Prerogative has an authority to go into any international treaty that can join the nation. On the other hand, the principle of parliamentary supremacy entails that no modification of the privileges of British people without the consent of Parliament. These privileges can be modified merely by other legislation of Parliament. Accordingly, if the United Kingdom does not desire to be in contravention of its international responsibilities, the Parliament needs to fit in international law under the law the United Kingdom. The ascendancy of International law was decided in the case of ECJ in Costa v. ENEL in 1964. It reflects the detail that international law is greater to domestic laws. On the other hand, International law takes priority in the situation of a clash with requirements of domestic law. Furthermore, these requirements were prepared, so International laws are higher still to that domestic law that were ratified later. It was decided before the privileges of persons within the United Kingdom can be modified just by legislations of Parliament. For that reason, the Parliament needs to pass a law that included the requirements of Lisbon Treaty to the United Kingdom law, to that these requirements are in action in the territory of United Kingdom.In consideration of the principle of parliamentary supremacy taken into deliberation, particularly two sections of that Act is supposed to be scrutinised. On the other hand, the Lisbon Treaty launched a significant condition that openly corroborates the privilege of Member States to remove from the European Union. It is mentioned in Article 50of TEU. These stipulations highlight the disagreement that United Kingdom remains abide by the EU law as extended as the Parliament desires to stay in the EU. Consequently, it should be confirmed that the amalgamation of that Lisbon Treaty into the United Kingdom regulation must put the principle of parliamentary supremacy under supplementary damage and in hypothesis this principle still triumph in the domestic law of theUnited Kingdom. uropean Communities Act 1972 put into practice the Trea Dicey considered Parliament as protector of elementary rights and as elected council of citizens most excellently placed to the equilibrium of human rights with the community interest. Conventionally the judges establish that elementary rights might beshortenedby Parliament in the interest of the public. In the case of Entick v Carrington the decision was taken by the court. TheHuman Rights Act 1998comprises theEuropean Convention on Human Rightsand is a legitimate foundation. Section 3 of theHuman Rights Act 1998needs courtsas far as probableto interprets the domestic law as well-matched with the right of Convention. The judges obtain a purposive outlook to do so as mentioned in the case of Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza. Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998permits the High Court and other courts to set aside legislations that are unsuited with Conventional rights so far. Section 10 of theHuman Rights Act 1998let the administration formulate delegated legislationcorrective instructions, which Parliament have to support. There is no compulsion to do that, but the political force to do that has the guide to some conflicting it has turned out to be a constitutional conference for the matter to be cured when recognized in this method. Section 19 of theHuman Rights Act 1998needs a Minister to construct declaration of compatibility for the fresh law on this permits the court to assume the Act is supposed to be interpreting in a companionable manner. An administration may also make a decision to carry on with legislation that is not well-suited. Section 6 of theHRAmakes it unlawful for public authority act in way incompatible with Convention privileges; this might be superseded by legislation and but never includes aperson works out purpose in association with events in Parliament. Decentralization has a negligible effect on the Parliamentary Supremacy Doctrine. TheScotland Act 1998permits the Scottish assembly to construct on non-reserved regions like health and education but not on the reserved areas like, as overseas policy, defence r the matters constitution. It performs in the same way to a central constitution, wherever the Scottish assembly is a secondary parliament and could not make law for England Wales. Theadministration of Wales Act 1998gives authority to the Welsh legislature to create delegated legislation, not legislations and theadministration of Wales Act 2006expands these to some extent improved legislative power mentioned as assembly power. The European Court of Justice renownedthat all members have partial sovereign privileges, although within restricted fieldsas mentioned in the case of Costa v ENEL. If the United Kingdom violates a conventional compulsion, it will be assumed that it violates international law and countenance action in ECJ. If a pact necessitates a modification of law, legislative body must approve the employed legislation and judges will merely implement if the agreement compulsion has been passed in domestic law as mentioned in the case of Blackburn v Attorney-General. TheEuropean Communities Act 1972put into practice theTreaty of Accession 1972. Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972gives the consequence in the United Kingdom to straight appropriation. Section 2(4) needs United Kingdom judges to provide precedence to directly effectual EU legal rules. EU law can be unswervingly effective if it is obvious, accurate and unqualified. InLitster v Forth Dry Docks, where the national legislation had been put into practice to provide outcome to an EU command it was understand by applying purposive approach, in spite of the decision being opposing to the factual connotation of that Act. On the other hand, the judges will not acquire a purposive study if it generates abendof domestic law as mentioned in the case of Webb v EMO Air Cargo. State accountability may happen from breakdown to enact any Act, which provide the generous result to EU law or faulty completion and can guide to the judges presentation compensation for the loss. EU law can also weaken the role of assembly as the protector of privileges. To declare the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, the legislation European Union Act 2011needs a reminder before the United Kingdom concur treaty alteration or additional transport of authority to the European Union. The Act also creates Parliamentary preeminence a constitutional principle. Conclusion: After all the discussion, it can be confirmed the theory of A.V. Dicey regarding the parliamentary sovereignty is not suitable fully in the modern context. Alder criticized the theory and stated that the parliamentary supremacy depends on the acceptance or desire of the people or subjects. The theory of Alder is more acceptable in the modern concept. The parliamentary supremacy is a concept that creates the issue to those international laws that are incorporated in the law of United Kingdom. The paper identifies several domestic as well as international aspects where the theory creates the problem in modern context. So, the theory of parliamentary supremacy, as provided by Dicey, cannot be acceptable fully in the contemporary world. References Alder J and others,General Principles Of Constitutional And Administrative Law(Palgrave Macmillan 2002) Alder J,Constitutional And Administrative Law(10th edn, Palgrave Macmillan 2015) Aldous G and Alder J,Applications For Judicial Review(Butterworths 1985) Barnett H,Constitutional Administrative Law(Routledge-Cavendish 2006) Clment D, 'The Royal Commission On Espionage And The Spy Trials Of 1946-9: A Case Study In Parliamentary Supremacy' (2000) 11 Journal of the Canadian Historical Association Davis F, 'Parliamentary Supremacy And The Re-Invigoration Of Institutional Dialogue In The UK' (2012) 67 Parliamentary Affairs Doig A, 'NEXT STEPS TO THE SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT?' (1996) 49 Parliamentary Affairs Flaherty M, 'The Empire Strikes Back: Annesley V. Sherlock And The Triumph Of Imperial Parliamentary Supremacy' (1987) 87 Columbia Law Review Hatchard J and Slinn P,Parliamentary Supremacy And Judicial Independence(Taylor Francis 2003) Kurland P and Casper G,Landmark Briefs And Arguments Of The Supreme Court Of The United States, Constitutional Law(University Publications 1975) MacKay R, 'Coke: Parliamentary Sovereignty Or The Supremacy Of The Law?' (1924) 22 Michigan Law Review McCullough H, 'PARLIAMENTARY SUPREMACY AND A CONSTITUTIONAL GRID: THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS' (1992) 41 Int Comp Law Q Parpworth N and Pollard D,Constitutional And Administrative Law(Oxford University Press 2006) Rose-Ackerman S and Lindseth P,Comparative Administrative Law(Edward Elgar 2010) RUSSELL C, 'Parliament, The Royal Supremacy And The Church' (2000) 19 Parliamentary History Young A,Parliamentary Sovereignty And The Human Rights Act(Hart Pub 2009) Blackburn v A-G(1971) 1 WLR Costa v ENEL[1964] ECR Entick v Carrington[1765] EWHC KB J Jackson v A-G (2006)(2006) 1 AC Litster v Forth Dry Docks[1988] UKHL Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke(1969) 1 AC Pickin V British Railway Board[1974] AC R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport[1996] QB R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(2008) 4 All ER Webb v EMO Air Cargo(1994) 4 All ER

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

Strategic Planning Paper free essay sample

Identifying the long-term strategic planning initiative of Walmart will be the focus of this paper. The reader should be able to recognize the strategic initiative within the reading and distinguish how the initiative will have an effect on cost as well as sales. Many times risks are associated with strategic planning. A brief look into the risks associated with Walmart’s long-term planning will also be evaluated. Strategic Initiative Wal-Mart is a leader in providing goods and services at lower costs than competitors. The store started with a cost leadership initiative for running the business, and it has worked for the company for years.Wal-Mart has taken this initiative and maximized the plan where no one can directly compete. Wal-Mart analyzes the market and decides what the company can do to continue to thrive and beat out competitors, beating competitors by an aggressive price point is how the company addresses this. Cost leadership defined by Zanebooks as a strategy that a company uses that provides low costs while concentrating on the cost advantages of all other sources, which requires a balance with cost and quality. Wal-Mart’s success is contributed to no other company able to provide the cost leadership initiative on the same scale.The company uses unrelenting tactics to bring low cost to the costumers. Using cost leadership successfully requires industry originality and is usually too costly for others businesses to copy, allowing Wal-Mart to stand alone without serious competition. A major criticism of Wal-Mart is the squeezing of the suppliers for the lowest cost and the savings passed to the consumer. The company ethics were questioned on how they deal with their suppliers and the employees for the franchise to continue to retain the title of leader in the cost leader initiative.Wal-Mart has created loyal customers just for the one stop shop concept. Those customers are important if Wal-Mart cannot maintain the position it currently holds regarding the company’s cost leadership initiative. Effects of Initiative Walmart has become one of America’s most successful companies due to their cost leadership approach in business, aggressive advertising, and fiscal diligence. Walmart continues to be a success with earnings exceeding 400 billion dollars net profit in 2010.Walmart has financial planning or due diligence to analyze when considering expanding or making any decisions that will affect the company’s future cost or sales. â€Å"The authors state that WMT gained more than 400 billion dollars in annual revenue and has low-cost leadership as it reduces the prices of consumer goods, but not in increasing profitability. They note that WMTs per-share earnings are projected at 7%-8% annual growth and higher payout ratios (Peters ; Hottovy, 2011)†. Walmart continues to use the cost leadership approach allowing their customers access to low prices to live better.The idea is the average to low income American can have access to the goods at the lowest price . Sales at Walmart have increased during this so called recession and the resistance to raise prices on their products by pinching the vendors has empowered Walmart even more. Being a cost leadership company Walmart keeps over head down and one way to cut overhead is to only have part time employees or restrict their benefit options. Walmart also controls cost by having and implementing effective ways of everything from internal communication to keeping inventory stocked at all times.This will allow them long term success and continued growth. Associated Risk The cost leadership initiative approach allows Walmart to leverage scale and reduce cost when purchasing from their suppliers. The cost leadership also enables Walmart to sell to their consumers at a lower cost than their competitors, which in return will build their customers base. Cost leadership also gives Walmart the benefit of leveraging operating expenses and improving productivity at a lower rate than sales growth. Global sourcing strengthens cost leadership strategy which helps to drive down the cost of merchandise so that Walmart can pass savings on to their consumers (Walmart 2010 annual report). Risks associated with cost leadership are changes in interest rate, changes in currency exchange rate, market change and changes in consumers taste. Walmart sources product on a global scale, so if there is a changes in currency exchanges rates the cost of the product will cost more for purchasing, shipping and handling.A change in interest rate can affect the selling price which can result in fewer purchases from consumers. Walmart analyses the potential risk that is associated with the currency exchange rate and the interest rate and use a 10% rate of increase to counteract these market risk. Market change will affect Walmart if the demand for the product is at a slower rate which will make the product remain on the shelves longer and gives a slower return rate. The 10% rate of increase does not a pply to the future possible market change. Change in one of the market risk may result in changes in another, which can affect how Walmart price the product for consumers and it also affect the value of the cost leadership initiatives. By using cost leadership to leverage operating expenses, increasing productivity and sourcing goods globally at low, low cost will maximize returns on capital invested. Walmart execute a tight financial expense control and a strong inventory management along with cost leadership and financial discipline will gives Walmart more profitable returns (Walmart 2010 annual report).In closing, Team C has evaluated Walmart’s annual report to identify relevant strategic planning initiatives as well as to gain a better understanding of how the Walmart organization uses strategic planning to their benefit. We have discovered the extreme efficiency of using such a tool as cost leadership, and how Walmart uses this tool to dominate the competition and strive as the industry leader in providing quality products at discount prices. This combination proves to maximize profits as Walmart continues to effectively utilize global sourcing policies while minimizing the collective risk associated within.

Thursday, November 28, 2019

Law Sample Essay - Personal Statement

All applicants must submit a personal statement with the application form. This is your opportunity to present yourself, your background, your experiences, and your ideas to the Admissions Committee. You may want to write about your intellectual interests, your career goals, your achievements, your family background, or your involvement in your community.The TransitionOnce in a while I am approached by past research associates who heard that I got out, as several of them put it, and who want to know how I handled the switch. Some of them have no idea that people with science backgrounds have options other than research and teaching, and many are discouraged by the thought that they would have to leave their beloved science in other to engage in those activities. Several of them have called me from home to ask these questions, for fear of being overheard at the laboratory.The first thing I tell them is that there is far more to science than the bench. I myself entered the science fiel d as an undergraduate, when I chose to study veterinary microbial genetics. I worked in the laboratory of Dr. William Sischo, an epidemiologist who specialized in number-crunching but who needed technical assistance with field sampling and laboratory work to generate the data. Dr. Sischo instilled in me a strong desire to learn and experiment in genetics. I was fascinated by the many ways genetics can be used to help understand how or why certain biological functions occur, and I wondered how I could use my knowledge of genetics to benefit society.After I obtained my bachelor of science degree, I went on to graduate school earning a master of science degree part-time while working full-time jobs in a couple of well-establish research institutions. I enjoyed both graduate school and working in the laboratory. I also learned the correct career path — an academic position at a respectable research university — was what we were supposed to want out of life. More specifical ly, academic laboratories were acceptable, but working in industry, even to do research, was generally looked upon as selling out. I believe this attitude has relaxed somewhat since then, since grants and jobs have become harder to secure and tenured positions lack the security they once possessed.It was during my graduate studies that I began to question my goals and the assumptions they were based on. I was becoming increasingly unhappy with the direction my career was heading, and I began to question my abilities and motivation. Finally, when I heard myself mutter out loud I dont want to do bench work forever, I sat up and took notice. I decided that in spite of my training, and even though I still loved science, research was not right for me.I wanted a career, or at least a job for starters, that valued my graduate degree and training, and that was a better fit for my skills and future ambitions. I decided I would do best with a job that was externally driven either by deadlines or by the needs of others; in addition, I wanted to talk, write, and/or evaluate science as a whole rather than focus on one particular aspect of a research project.As a molecular geneticist, I had occasionally interacted with the patent department at SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals in support of my supervisors patent applications. They worked on a variety of intellectual property issues in a number of scientific disciplines that were of interest to the company. I realized then that I could make very good use of my science background as a patent attorney.Earlier this year, I accepted an offer to work as a patent agent in the Corporate Intellectual Properties Department at SmithKline Beecham. The job involves writing and prosecuting patent applications, which in turn requires broad knowledge of both science and law. I soon realized that, in order to become an effective patent practitioner, I must become intimately acquainted with U.S. patent law. Because SmithKline Beecham is an international corporation, I have also learned a great deal about international patent law so that I can assist in foreign prosecution of SmithKline Beechams patents. When I first started the job, it occurred to me that my learning curve was a cliff with an overhang, and I was at the bottom looking up.I was extremely lucky to find a job almost immediately following graduation last January. However, this opportunity was not trouble-free, there were additional risks to consider at the time I made the decision to change. Our company was in the middle of negotiations to merge with another international pharmaceutical company, GlaxoWellcome Pharmaceuticals. As details of the merger were released, we were informed that the majority of the money saved in the merger was going to be invested back into research and discovery. In other words, because of the patent applications that I draft and prosecute, my job as a patent agent will play an essential role in the inventive process in the new c ompany. Daily interaction with inventors keeps me up-to-date with cutting-edge technology in the biotechnology field. As my work progressed, I knew I had made the right decision, and I have never looked back.In October, I took the complex patent bar examination. My determination to take the examination straight away was to become a registered patent agent before entering law school, so that my academic studies will not suffer while I attempt to balance a career and my education. I am now hoping to complete the career transition over the next four years by attending law school at Villanova University and becoming a patent attorney. A few weeks ago, I was offered the opportunity to move to our new research facility in North Carolina, but declined the offer in hopes of attending Villanovas law program, which is well respected among the various pharmaceutical companies on the East Coast for its intellectual property education.Intellectual property is a crucial asset to our company, and I take generating and protecting these assets very seriously. A considerable part of my job involves translating science for attorneys and patent law for scientists. I also have to be able to understand a new result quickly enough to grasp what the specific invention is and ask further questions which allow me to distill the invention down to its bare essence. Organization is also key — this is something I learned as a matter of self-preservation, since this is a deadline-driven, and sometimes crisis-driven, job.I now believe that my job as a patent agent is not a break with the past; rather, it is an exciting, alternative continuation of my career as a scientist. The patent applications that I draft and prosecute make me a critical part of the inventive process at SmithKline Beecham. Furthermore, my interactions with inventors on a daily basis keep me up to date with the latest technology. Not so long ago, when I began research as an undergraduate, I wondered what impact I w ould have on the development of new scientific knowledge. Through my work as a patent agent, I know that I am a key participant in the promotion of scientific progress.I still run into acquaintances from my research days who ask me why I left science. I am quick to set them straight. I may not get my hands wet, but I use far more of my education and training than I ever did at the bench, and I am very much still in science. I firmly believe my experiences in science and patent prosecution will allow me to be a creative and contributing member of Villanova University, both as a student and as a future attorney representing achievement.

Sunday, November 24, 2019

Discuss the Caretaker as A Comedy of Menace. Essay Example

Discuss the Caretaker as A Comedy of Menace. Essay Example Discuss the Caretaker as A Comedy of Menace. Essay Discuss the Caretaker as A Comedy of Menace. Essay Essay Topic: House Of Mirth The Caretaker generally followed a pattern: the brilliance of the actors was celebrated and the questions of influence, primarily Becketts, were linked to discussions of the relationship between the comic and serious elements in the play. Interpretations of the meaning varied from the literal to the fully allegorical, by way of generalized abstract tags. Subsequent academic criticism, deriving from textual study rather than stage performance, has early always followed the serio-tragical-symbolical-abstract line- what we might call Modern Man in Search of His Insurance Cards, or, I stink. Therefore I am. The comedy of The Caretaker is not a dispensable palliative. To discuss meaning without taking this into account is to distort the play as a whole and devalue its achievement. The combination of the comic and the serious, laughter and silence, is often deeply disturbing for art audience: but only in confronting it can we begin to understand the play. For one member of the audience, at least, the relationship between the comic and the serious elements was unacceptable. Leonard Russell, the Sunday Times book reviewer, recorded his impressions of a performance at the Duchess Theatre in an open letter to Harold Pinter: I will go so far as to admit that I found it a strangely menacing and disturbing evening. It was also a highly puzzling evening; and here I refer not to the play but to the behaviour of the audience. On the evening I was present a large majority had no doubt at all that your special contribution to the theatre is to take a heartbreaking themes and treat it facially. Gales of happy, persistent, and, it seemed to me, totally indiscriminate laughter greeted a play which I lake to be, for all its funny moments, a tragic reading of life. May, I ask this question- are you yourself happy with the atmosphere of rollicking good fun? Pinters reply is such crucial importance for an understanding of the play: Your question is not an easy one to answer. Certainly I laughed myself while writing The Caretaker, but not all the time, not indiscriminately. An element of the absurd is, I think, one of the features of the play, but at the same time I did not intend it to be merely a laughable force. If there hadnt been other issues at stake the play would not have been written. Audience reaction cant be regulated, and no one would want it to be; nor is it easy to analyses. But where the comic and tragic (for want of a better word) are closely interwoven, certain members of an audience will always give emphasis to the comic as opposed to the other, for by so doing they rationalize the other out of existence. On most evenings at the Duchess there is a sensible balance of laughter and silence. Where, though, this indiscriminate mirth is found. I feel it represents a cheerful patronage of the characters on the part of the merrymakers, and thus participating is avoided. This laughter is in fact a mode of precaution, a smoke-screen, a refusal to accept what is happening as recognizable (which I think it is) and instead to view the actors (a) as actors always and not as characters and (b) as chimpanzees. From this kind of neasy jollification I must, of cause, dissociate myself, thought I do think you were unfortunate in your choice of evening. As far as Im concerned, The Caretaker is funny, up to a point. Beyond that point it ceases to be funny, and it was because of that point that I wrote it. Pinters letter is an essential starting point for discussion of the play. Adequate criticism must be based on a recognition of both the comic and tragic elements compounded in the paralleled process of stage performance and audience response. Out emotional reaction of laughter or silence complements what happens on stage. Both actors and audience create a structure of feeling that the play has in its living moment, as Pinter puts it. The point where The Caretaker ceases to be funny must be found within the movement of the play itself and within the emotional complex of our participation. In order to do so, I wasnt to focus not so much on the physical structure which is relatively straight forward but rather on the structure of feeling, the emotional rhythm of laughter and silence which culminates in the arrested tension of both. Rather than follow the tendency to generalise from paraphrase and thereby lose the essential drama, one must examine certain passages in order to bring out the deeply sensitive psychological insight that lies behind Pinters plain statement. Deeply Sensitive Psychological Insight When the curtain rises, Mick shares the activity of the audience. He slowly looks about The Room looking at each object in turn. He looks up at the ceiling, and stares at the bucket. Then he brazenly separates himself from the audience. Ceasing, he sits quite still, expressionless, looking out front. Silence for thirty seconds. Mick then leaves upon hearing muffled voices. This silent enigma is in dramatic contrast to the end of the play. At the outset Mick, in effect, rejects the audience by walking offstage after a protracted silence, while at the close it is Davies who is left onstage rejected by the audience insofar as we recognize that he must go. But this formal, inverted symmetry is recognised retrospe ctively. Micks silence and departure stays as a qualm, leaving a question behind the laughter that is immediate. Astons opening invitation to Davies to sit down is manifestly frustrated by the evident disorder of the attic. As Aston sorts out a chair, Davies breaks into the first of so many complaints: Sit down? Huh I havent had a good sit down I havent had a proper sit down well, I couldnt tell you Ten minutes off for a tea-break in the middle of the night in that place and I can’t find a seat, not one. All those Greeks had it, Poles, Greeks, Blacks, the lot of them, all them aliens had it. And they had me working there they had me working All them Blacks had it, Blacks, Greeks, Poles, the lot of them thats what, doing me out of a seat, treating me like dirt. When he come at me tonight I told him Daviess categorical discriminations (sit down good sit down proper sit down) express the degree of deprivation that he feels he has suffered. His present gratitude is deflected and finally demolished by recrimination directed at the immediate past. An aggrieved sense of active and collective discourtesy by default is magnified to a major injustice; it is as if the merely adventitious revealed the latent injustice of victimization as a permanent condition of the world. As so often in comedy a mundane occurrence is given an unwarrantedly inflated significance. Daviess bigotry, aggravated by constitutional self-righteous defensiveness, evidently distorts whatever really happened, and as a consequence we laugh rather than sympathize. The insistent repetition inadvertently suggest that, on the one hand, it is both the multi-racial conditions of work and work itself that has pained Davies, and on the other that his appeal is in part determined by a bit of tobacco coming his way: as Aston begins to roll himself a cigarette. Davies watches him. This initial comedy continues to develop in the ever widening gap between the intentions of Daviess speech and its effect on the audience. Daviess Tramplike Appearance and Mannerisms Even before he speaks Daviess tramp-like appearance has prompted a certain predisposition in the audience. Socially, tramps are at an inferior extreme, and their condition precludes a normative response by definition. Reactions to tramps are nearly always compounded of fear, distaste, embarrassment, seeming indifference, or a degree of sympathy arising from unconscious self-reproach at our own well-being. Whatever feeling predominates depends upon the tramps behaviour on a scale from abasement to aggression. Abasement invites individual, summary charity as a token of Societys larger responsibility for victims of circumstance. Aggression (like Daviess), though frightening on actual encounter, ultimately prompts laughter in the dramatic representation of self-determined viciousness. The transformation of the actual into the dramatic, the street into the theatre, the individual into audience, brings with it the laughter of relief. Before taking a seat, winded by climbing the stairs, Davies must loosen himself up. He exclaims loudly, punches downward with closed fist crying, I could have got done in down there. There is no book and Daviess evidently exaggerated claim is undermined even further by comic colloquialism. The stance of retrospective pugilism suggests a purely mimetic valour. It is clear that the combination of self-assertion and self-deception creates for Davies a fiction to live by. But although the imperatives of his existence have confounded fiction and fact, the distinction is evident to the audience throughout. Aston immediately offers Davies a roll-up but he replies: What? No, no. I never smoke a cigarette Ill tell you what, though, Ill have bit of that tobacco there for my pipe, if you like Thats kind of you, mister. Just enough to fill my pipe, thats all. I had a tin, only only a while ago. But it was knocked off. It was knocked off on the Great West Road. Daviess refusal of the roll-up is reinforced by a categorical statement similar to the earlier example which expresses both the certainty of negative choice and yet an alternative possibility in the suggestion of a latent discrimination. His initial question- What? - is a response to Astons putative motive and means; Davies is rejecting what he feels may be charity but offering to accept Astons tobacco in terms of his own positive preference for the more socially acceptable pipe, all the time leaving the actual decision to Aston. Daviess acknowledged indebtedness is modified by the subsequent etiquette. His self-conscious moderation forestalls any charge of excess, establishing his action as a gen tle manly custom rather than revealing a condition of permanent dependence. The closing anecdote is intended to alter the action of giving and receiving into a form of indirect restitution. A similar rationalisation takes place later in the act when Davies accepts a few bob from Aston: Thank you, thank you, good luck. I just happen to find myself a bit short. You see, I got nothing for all that weeks work I did last week. Thats the position, thats what it is. Though retrospective criticism of this nature articulates the ironies of Daviess gesture and utterance, the immediacy of the audiences experience registers this emotively, responding to the comic moment which is immediately fulfilled when Aston fails to corroborate Daviess revision of his misfortune. You heard me tell him, didnt you? Davies asks, Aston replies I saw him have a go at you, forcing him to attempt to draw sympathy by reference to age, Go at me? You wouldnt grumble. The filthy skate an old man like me. But here Daviess aggressive demotic ironically pre-empts the response he seeks, while the claim that breathlessly follows- Ive had dinner with the best- incites the broadest laughter with its blatant i mprobability. Aston, with a neutral imperturbability that promotes our laughter even further, refuses to comply and calmly repeats himself, Yes, I saw him have a go at you. Daviess only recourse is to recall his persona! standards to bolster his present judgments: All them toe-rags, mate, got the manners of pigs. I might have been on the road a few years but you can take it from me Im clean. I keep myself up. Thats why I left my wife. Fortnight after I married her, no, not so much as that, no more than a week, I took the lid off a saucepan, you know what was in it? A pile of her underclothing, unwashed. The pan for vegetables, it was. The vegetable pan. Thats when I left her and I havent seen her since. Davies has no apparent sense that such demonstrative probity is so farcically disproportionate that it cancels what it claims. Following Daviess earlier revision of events, this exaggeration suggests that what we hear is a ludicrous distortion of whatever may have happened. The indis criminately vulgar language of the opening- All them toe-rags, mate, got the manners of pigs- burlesques the posture of arbiter of decorum which it protects. Immediately following this, Davies describes the row in the cafe. While laiming proper respect due to an old man, if a few years younger he would break in half that Scotch git. All the socially regulative values Davies claims- dignity, respect, propriety, decorum- are confounded by the language and gesture of a caricatured ethic more appropriate to an anti-social wild animal, as Mick later describes him. In short Daviess comic character is founded on a total travesty of the mode of being to which he aspires. The pathos of his deprivation is made comic with the citation of a public lavatory attendant as a promoter of a personal hygiene. Vast significance is given to the quotidian- Shoes? Its life and death to me, man, Daviess scale of values inverts the normative values of the audience, accustomed to more abstract priorities, which remain unquestioned since Davies cannot be taken seriously. We reason not the need when it is rendered in comic picaresque. Elaborating on his need for footwear, Davies launches into the celebrated tale of the quest to the Luton monastery. A ‘bastard monk, the representative of a holy order, warns the suppliant, if you dont piss off Ill kick you all the way to the gate. As Davies expands on his misfortunes, mounting audience laughter accompanies each incident, culminating in applause at the close of the story. And with applause action is temporarily suspended. For a few crucial seconds the actor is divorced on the character as the audience celebrates a comic performance. The reality of whatever happened in Luton is subverted by characteristically jaundiced aggression which is transferred to the monk, dramatically evoking laughter rather than sympathy. Therefore, Davies as a credible being struggles not only with Aston and Mick, but with the theatrically formalised predisposition of the audience, a predisposition to see Davies as a type, a brilliantly embodied act, at best a tramp, but hardly an individual Shortly after the Luton story, the anecdote of Sidecup and the papers consolidates this. Davies insists that the Side up papers prove who I am They tell you who I am, but we know he will never collect those chimerical documents of fifteen years ago. Lack of shoes, or bad weather, or something else will always intervene. His re-assumption of a past bureaucratic identity could not alter what he is. It is being a tramp which has shaped his body and soul, and not the fact that he is called Bernard Jenkins rather than Mac Davies. Every utterance and every gesture he makes denote a class rather than an individual, dialect subsumes idiolect. Davies is finally no more than his languge and appearance- and this is how Mick encounters him at the end of the first act. Micks Insight It is as if throughout most of Act I Mick has been listening in, since he shows an uncanny insight into Daviess character. In this sense Mick is almost a representative of the audience, knowing, sardonically, as much as they know. On the other hand Mick knows his Davieses as he knows his London, but he expresses it indirectly in terms of Astons behaviour: Mick: He doesn’t work. (Pause) Davies: Go on! Mick: No, he just doesnt like work, thats his trouble. Davies: Ay. Mick: Hes just shy of it. Very shy of it Davies: I know that sort. Mick: You know the type. At the end of Act: Mick immediately recognises Daviess work-shy type, and his first words, Whats the game ? are really the later statement, I know what you want, put in the form of a question. Comic Relief It has been shown by Peter Davison that Micks first two speeches derive in form from the traditional music-hall monologue. As such, alongwith something like the bag-passing game, they border on the farcical. But there is more to them than this. In laughing at the combination of the ludicrous, the grotesque and the improbable, the audience join s Mick in laughing at Davies. In other words, Mick provides the relief of a new comic perspective which enlists the audience on its side. At this point the verbal slapstick seems almost innocuous: You remind me of my uncles brother. He was always on the move, that man. Never without his passport. Had an eye for the girls. Very much your build. Bit of an athlete. Long-jump specialist. He had a habit of demonstrating different run-ups in the drawing-room round about Christmas time. Had a penchant for nuts. Thats what it was. Nothing else but a penchant. Couldnt eat enough of them. Peanuts, walnuts, brazil nuts, monkey nuts, wouldnt touch a piece of fruit cake. Had a marvelous stop-watch. Picked it up in Hong Kong. The day after they chucked him out of the Salvation Army. Used to go in number four for Beckenham Reserves. That was before he got his Gold Medal. Had a funny habit of carrying his fiddle on his back. Like a papoose. I think there was a bit of the red Indian in him. To be honest, Ive often thought that may be it was the other way round. I mean that my uncle was his brother and may be he was my uncle. But I never called him uncle. As a matter of fact I called him Sid. My mother called him Sid too. It was a funny business. Your spilling image he was. Married a Chinaman and went to Jamaica. In spite of its seeming inconsequentiality this speech manifestly says a lot about Davies, Mick and Aston on a naturalistic and psychological level. Micks sardonic delivery expresses at once both discursive doubt and impatience with the conversation game and a sadistic playfulness. The verbal barrage parallels the earlier arm-twisting: verbal intimidation follows physical domination. Mick is equally dexterous at both. What Mick is really saying behind the formal obliquity of his narrative is this- I recognized your sort, a tramp (always on the move), with your story of papers (never without his passport), your ridiculous physical posturing (Bit of an athlete), thrown out of a monastery (they chucked him out of the Salvation Army) of questionable background (a bit of the Red Indian in him), now mixed up with my brother (Ive never made out of how he came to be my uncles brother), why dont you clear off (married a Chinaman and went to Jamaica). But at the same time Mick is deflecting a suppressed view of his own brother that is forced into his mind by the fact of Daviess presence: my brother (You remind me of my uncles brother) has picked up this nut (had a penchant or nuts), he must be nutty as a fruit cake (wouldnt touch a piece of fruit cake). Micks feelings only emerge eventually by way of his surrogate; Davies whose exclamation Hes nutty! enables Mick to savour the suppressed, emotionally forbidden, work: Nutty? Whos nutty? (Pause). Did you call my brother nutty? My brother. Micks second speech is also something more than an exercise in intimidation. It is a comically indirect way of elaborating on what is implicit: the foreignness of Davies. The indigenous Mick ironically compares the indigent Davies with a fellow Londoner. Micks irony is sharpened by his reflection on the sense of difference felt by a working-class North Londoner for those from south of the Thames. When I got to know him I found out he was brought up in Putney. That didnt make any difference to me. The bloke, after all, was born in the Caledonian Road, just before you get to the Nags Head. Micks North London references are to neighboring localities linked by bus routes at the centre of which is the blocks old mum still living at the Angel. Mick evokes neighbourhood, pub and home- the self-advertisement of a particular kind of Londoner recognising an outsider and reminding him of the fact. By contrast, Davies lonely wandering existence is reflected by sporadic, peripheral references to places outside of London proper (Sidcup, Luton, Watford, Wembley) and to past friends: I used to know a bookmaker in Acton. He was a good mate to me. Whereas Micks two speeches are littered with familial terms (uncle, brother, mother, cousin). Daviess anecdotes suggest that over the years, in all of London between Luton and Sidcup, only two encounters have ever led to friendship- and both friendships of a dubious kind. The style and delivery of Micks speeches suggest the amateur comedian at home in pub, club or family; Davies is only a solitary tramp stranded somewhere on the Great West R oad or the North Circular, an anomaly. But all these serious undertones are checked by a sense of game. Micks interrogation of Davies is deliberately punctured by straight music-hall cross-talk: Mick: Thats my bed Davies: What about that, then Mick: Thats my mother’s bed. Davies: Well she wasnt in it last night! Even when Mick rounds on Davies in this third long speech. Youre stinking the place out. Youre an old robber, theres no getting away from it. Youre an old skate†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. - the serious force of his charges is tempered, firstly by his appropriation of Daviess language (filthy skate, and secondly, by an extended parody of the conditions of tenancy and purchase. Between an outline of costs and recommendation of Aston as decorator. Mick threatens Otherwise Ive got a van outside, I can run you to the police station in five minutes, have you in for trespassing, loitering with intent, daylight robbery, filching, thieving and stinking the place out. Amusing to the audience, this exaggeration is frightening to Davies since the language parallels his own exaggerated sense of persecution. The ludicrous magnification of the obligations, commitments and penalties of legal responsibility in buying a house is a humorous reminder to the audience of an often exhaustingly protracted business, but to Davies it is a manifestation of a bureaucratic world that excludes him. Mick makes the point in his repeated final question Who do your bank with? This complex verbal humour is accentuated by the visual comedy. Throughout the act Davies has been on stage without his trousers, in his long pants, and Mick emphasizes the fact by flicking Daviess trousers in his face- several times. This is then followed, almost immediately, by one of the oldest plays in the slapstick repertoire, the bag-passing game with its knockabout sequence reversal. Threat and menace are conflated in Micks speeches and the bag-passing game is almost wholly funny (but not merely funny, since the same symbolises the way in which Davies himself passes from brother to brother). Then, with the terrifying attack in darkness and the succeeding revelation that it is Mick merely spring cleaning with an electrolux, violence and laughter are powerfully juxtaposed. Thus Pinter exploits different kinds of comedy in a cumulative and structured way: comedy of character is established in Act I and then extended by music-hall monologue and broad farce in Act II. Comedy of language, gesture and action is then allowed to build up to the moment when it is dramatically arrested by Astons long, painful account of treatment in a mental hospital, and the events leading up to it. Astons speech has always been recognized as a major moment in the movement of the play, but its full significance has not been adequately discussed. Astons Behaviour John Russell Brown has pointed out the correspondences between Astons hospital treatment and his present behaviour. He underwent electrical treatment and now fiddles obsessively with electrical equipment: he has a white coat, a pillow and a sheet at the ready: the uncovered light bulb glares down; he stares smilingly over Davies in bed. Brown also points out that Aston did go back to place like the cafe and did talk to strangers again- namely Davies- and suggests that the impetus for this was two-hold. Aston is haunted by revenge and somehow sees his own role as a caretaker of Davies. These are all important points, but need to be taken further. Aston refers to the piles of papers he was shown as medical evidence: Davies refers to the piles of papers kept in the attic. Aston says that the window of his hospital room was barred; the indications are that the attic window was kept open even before Daviess malodorous entry. Aston spent five hours sawing at the bars, and is now preoccupied with saws, ostensibly to carry out the building work. He recognises that in cafe and factory he talked too much, and his long speech is a chilling reminder that he still does. What does all this add up to? Surely the commonly accepted notion of Astons charity in taking in Davies is called a question here. Rather than a disinterested act deriving from an impulse or conviction of moral duty and thus a token of his social rehabilitation it is part of the irreparable damage brought about by his sufferings. Astons charity is a way of simultaneously vindicating himself and impugning those who have harmed him. Davies is there in the attic because of Astons psychology, not because of his ethics: Aston sees. Davies as a version of himself. Astons recollections of the glass of Guinness and the lady in the cafe indicate his continuing disorientation. Both these speeches occur after pauses and have no relation to what precedes them and both after pauses and have no relation to what precedes them, and both contrast forcefully with Astons previous reticence. As conversational gambits they are disastrously bizarre; it is almost as if of an interior monologue has suddenly come to the surface. The preoccupation of Aston and Davies are psychological treadmills imprisoning each in his mutually exclusive world. For Aston to work on the house he needs to clear the garden for a shed. To build the shed on the house he needs to clear the garden for a saw bench, is needed for the shed. Davies, to sort himself out needs his papers at Sidcup. To get to Sidcup he needs good shoes, to get good shoes he needs, money, to get money he needs his papers to sort himself out Both minds have been numbed by the different experiences of being on the road and being in a mental hospital: both are reduced to a preoccupation with the physical function of hands and feet. With Astons speech the laughter ceases. And there is no caretaker for them. The audience is silenced and confounded as the darkness grows. Comic Tableau As Act III opens, and before anything is said, Davies is seen in a comic tableau, pipe in hand and incongruously garbed in a smoking jacket. Here, after the strain of confronting the nature of Astons being, we are at last allowed the relief of laughter. But when Davies speaks, although his concerns seem much the same (the gas stove, blacks, shoes, etc. ) his continual reference to Aston compromise and complicate our response. At this point as subjective coefficient of guilt rises in us, deriving in part from our former complicity with Mick (now more evidently working on his strategy of expulsion) and in part from laughing at Astons expense. Whereas earlier Davies seemed self-determining and thus responsible for what he is, he now seems more like a plaything being used by Mick for certain questionable ends. The serious and the comic are now much more, forcefully counter pointed. Micks dry-mock is still there (You must come up and have a drink something. Listen to some Tchaikovsky and Daviess procrastination, although now invidiously ungrateful, is still lightened to pure comedy (the only way to keep a pair of shoes on, if you havent got no laces, is to tighten the foot, see? But Daviess response to Micks evocation of a penthouse palace- What about me? - gives voice to the inevitable question at the heart of the situation. Micks All this junk here, its no good to anyone, is much less casual than it seems. Davies as, part of the junk, will obviously have to go, and we recognise it. Mick obliquely incites Daviess verbal attack on Aston by giving voice to what the tramp has felt from the outset. Daviess real feelings in surveying the attic are compromised by the fact that Aston has rescued him. As a consequence Davies says the opposite of what he feels: Davies: This your room? Aston: Yes. Davies: You got a good bit of stuff here. Aston: Yes. Davies: Must be worth a few bob, this put it all together. (Pause) Theres enough of it. Aston: Theres a good bit of it, all right. Davies: You sleep here, do you? Aston: Yes. Davies: What, in that? Similarly, Micks pointed summary not only places Davies as part of the rubbish and simultaneously predisposed him to attack Aston, but gives utterance to that protracted stare at the opening of the play: All this junk here, its no good to anyone. Its just a lot of old iron, thats all Clobber. Davies Opportunistic Nastiness Davies echoes this in his viciously prolonged attack on Aston as an irresponsible lunatic, all this junk I got to sleep with this lousy filthy hole. Daviess contemptible vilification is emotionally complex for an audience. If it confirms our opinion, of Daviess opportunist nastiness and strengthen our impulse to reject him as wholly objectionable, at the same time it provides almost a release for our strained protective feelings towards Aston. The opening lines of the speech continue Daviess exaggerated sense of comic victimisation made ludicrous by disproportionate expectation: Its getting so freezing in here I have to keep my trousers on to go to bed. I never done that before in my life. But thats what I got to do here. Just because you wont put in any bleeding heating! We may derive a temporary sense of relief in what follows by intellectually assessing the circularity of Daviess charge- Aston is lunatic because he is irresponsible and irresponsible because he is lunatic- and even maintain our distance when Davies claim the friendship and kindred opinion of Mick. But this relief is completely shattered as Davies sadistically baits Aston with the prospect of renewed electrical treatment. As the emoti on rises both in Davies and the audience it is, paradoxically, both undercut and heightened by localised London slang: Theyd take one look at all this junk I got to sleep with theyd know you were a creamer. Davies charges Aston with what, in all probability, has been levelled at him, acreamer. It is almost funny as an unexpected synonym for the more current nutcase, but at the same time more insidiously mocking for Aston, since Davies uses the highly specific argot of Astons own background. Yet even at this point we are tempted to laugh as Daviess expression gets more and more Welsh in self-righteous anger: You want me to do all the dirty work all up and down them stairs just so I can sleep in this lousy filthy hole every night? Not me, boy. Not for your, boy. But the idioms that provoke laughter also arrest it: Youre up the creek! Youre half off! Our awareness of the possibility of this being true checks our natural tendency to respond humorously to figurative exaggeration. Daviess subsequent question Whoever saw you slip me a few bob? Simultaneously recalls Astons kindness in doing just that, and predisposes the audience to take up a defensive position, on Astons behalf, against Daviess final callousness- I never been inside a nuthouse! Even here, the colloquially derisive reduction makes us want to laugh, as we have laughed at the peremptory idiom of Micks attack on Davies. But as Davies draws his knife on ominous silence supervenes. This tableau recalls Davies ineptitude in threatening Mick earlier, and Aston finally breaks the tension with a delayed understatement that is totally deflating: I think its about time you found somewhere else. I dont think were hitting it off! This is precisely what Mick has been worming towards. He could have thrown Davies out whenever he liked, but he has waited two weeks for Aston to see through Daviess character. Mick has promoted the exposure in order that Aston will see and feel as he does. The usual interpretation of Mick and Astons relationship- that there is an unspoken bond of brotherly love between them- is really rather naive and sentimental. Mick smashes the Buddha to pieces out of a frustrated rage that derives from his suppressed acknowledgement of the truth of Daviess previous accusation (Hes nutty), and his subsequent passionate outburst is a wilful attempt to see Astons condition in terms of his failure to decorate the house, rather than in terms of what lies beneath it. To have thrown Davies out would have been a tacit admission that Aston was a lunatic to have brought him there in the first place. (Perhaps Davies wasnt the first? ) Mick and Aston In other words, Micks obligation to his brother is formal rather than affective. Micks character- tough, sardonic, worldly-wise- is similar to that of the people in the cafe and the factory who found Aston funny and were instrumental in having him put away. Like his mother and the doctor, Mick wants Aston to live like the others. He understands Davies so well because they both have a kind of bureaucratic view of the world. They both see human activity in terms of status conferred by institutions that regulate society (social security, solicitors, etc). Whereas the Buddha for Aston was an example of something well made, for Mick it embodies all that he cannot face in his brother- the inscrutable, the passive, and the alien. But, in tarring over the roof Aston is learning to take over of himself, in Micks term. At the opening of the play the suspended bucker focuses for Mick his brothers condition as he understands it, and their only exchange in Act II concerns the problem of tarring over the leaking roof. As Act III opens, Davies contemplates Astons silence in terms of his single activity of doing the job (ironically this anticipates his own expulsion). This small task signalises that Aston will comply with Micks view of things, a complicity dramatized by the taint smile they exchange towards the close. Mick smiles in recognition of what he sees as his rightness in paying off Davies, and Aston smiles back conceding the fact- his last words to Davies were Get your stuff. Davies must go, however plangent his appeal: What am I going to do?. Where am I going to go. The pauses between each utterance are lengthened into the long silence of the final stage direction. Aston turns back to the window, remains still, his back to him, at the window, but we are faced with Daviess concrete questioning presence. We are forced here to confront not only what laughter has created but also what laughter has suppressed. The repetitions of Davies language echo those moments of comedy which are now stifled by the specter of destitution. Daviess need for material items has created moments of high comedy, but the serious moral implications of such subsistence culminate in those questions. The material, social and cultural privileges that presuppose our presence in the theatre are indices of the totality of Daviess deprivation. Throughout the play Davies has been the object of the solidarity of laughter, but now the audience itself is exposed in its own silence before him. The possibilities of food, shelter and warmth are now to be replaced by the possibilities of hunger, cold and exposure, intimation of which have been present all along (I could have died on the road, Davies says at one point. Was this the substance of his nightmares? ). The harsh regimen of the doss-house has been evoked earlier in Daviess hurried attempt to forestall what he knows must happen as the rule of each daybreak: Dont you want me to get out. Rhythm of the Play The points where the laughter spasmodically ceases are obvious enough in the rhythm of the play. These dramatic moments correspond psychologically to the point in each of us where conflicting impulses and vestigial atavism and ostensible civility meet. We experience in The Caretaker the Hobbesian triumph of superior of laughter ovger inferior objects and ludicrousness transforms the socially embarrassing. But beneath this is the self-protective impulse to remove what is psychologically painful. Just as children laugh at (and thus exorcise) the sight of physical deformity, so we react to Daviess warped morality- all the time expecting him to ask for our compassion. But Davies remains intransigent, he does not offer us the adult compromise of compassion. In our laughter there stirs an uneasy atavism which grows in proportion as Daviess nastiness increases. We cannot finally accept Davies on his own terms- as he is. He has to be either killed off by our laughter, or transformed by the tragic dignity of self-awareness. Our emotional expectations are in part shaped by dramatic convention. Davies must be either contemptible or pitiful, a comic vice exposed in laughter, or, by token of some redemptive self-insight, an ultimately traffic figure. But he is actually neither, and this is what is almost too painful. In the theatre adult emotions are customarily channeled into a comforting species of self-protective compassion. Pinter refuses to provide this. Initially Pinter felt that there would have to be a death at the end of the play, but it is clear that this would have only provided another kind of emotional release- and evasion. Pinter not only dropped this notion but in revision, chose to stress the ineluctable concrete actuality of Davies there, before us: resistant to allegory, abstraction, and moral formula. Here, in the long silence, no longer so much an audience as a disparate assembly of individuals which includes Davies, we are forced to confront the limits of our human response, the edges of emotional vulnerability, the barriers of social ordinance that join and divide us all. This is our participation, and this is where the point of laughter and silence, as Pinters letter reminds us, both begins and ends. Bibliography: http://plays. about. com/od/playwrights/a/pinter. htm

Thursday, November 21, 2019

Marketing strategy Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Marketing strategy - Assignment Example Macro and Micro Environmental Analysis PESTEL The PESTEL analysis is performed to analysis the macro environment of the industry. The PESTEL analysis provides a frame within which the strategic thinking of the company for the future takes place. The analysis sets boundaries and expectations (Burke, Clarke,, 2008, p.27). Political factors of the US software industry seem to be stable. The government has promoted the IPR protection as the US software industry experience a loss of about $12.8billion due to inadequate protection (Brown,, 1995, p. 9). The US economical factor represents a strong GDP rate of $47200. In the market oriented economy, private firms and individual dominates the business. US business enjoys a better flexibility than the other parts of its counterparts (Central Intelligence Agency, n.d). With the population becoming savvier about the software industry there has been a steady rise in the software applications and industry. The social factor of the US h as demanded the country to produce more software application. The technological factors of US software industry have enabled it for the global distribution of software management teams. With a technological advance the software industry has been able to develop a new phase in the software industry. ... Legal factors include compliance with issues like Open Source Initiatives. The companies are following the source code to protect it against any threat. Also the use of illegal software is prohibited. Product-market industry analysis The product market industry is analyzed with the help of two dimensions and their extremes which is the product-market matrix. This matrix explores the two dimensions Product and Market (Lowy & Hood, 2004, p.134). Figure 1: Product-Market Matrix (Source: Lowy & Hood, 2004, p. 135) Microsoft with the launch of Windows 7 Phone has come up with a product development and hence its product Windows 7Phone would fall under the first quadrant of Product development. Microsoft has understood the positive relationship with its customers and also the goodwill and thrust that accompany it. When ZuneHD was launched it gained a positive feedback and thus Microsoft also expect the same from its 7 phone. With a growth in mobile phone, it has become a major computing pla tform for big giants like Microsoft, Apple. The market of Smartphone is expected to grow by 705 thus investment in this growing sector would help Microsoft gain profits and revenue as well as capture the market share. The new product, Windows 7 Phone, resents a lot of information more clearly and it’s easy to navigate. Therefore the product development by Microsoft is its new Windows 7 Phone. Competitor’s analysis The competitor analysis aims to evaluate the company with its peer group with a motive to analysis the company’s positioning with its competitors. Microsoft top competitors are Apple and Google. Apple known for its innovation, with its release of iPhone has revolutionized the mobile industry. Also with its innovation in desktop and laptops

Wednesday, November 20, 2019

Management of Quality in ABC organisation Assignment

Management of Quality in ABC organisation - Assignment Example For this report it has been decided to adopt a manufacturing company namely Toyota. This paper will cover the theoretical assumptions of quality management and simultaneously will demonstrate that how Toyota has applied all these assumptions in its business processes (Deal In the recent past, quality has gained prominence as the organisations experienced the high cost of poor quality. According to the scholars of the quality management, all the aspects of the organisation are affected by quality and therefore it has dramatic cost implications. Basically cost to quality can be broadly categorised under two heads namely cost of conformance and cost of non-conformance. The first type of cost is incurred to prevent the second one. After Prius recall, management of Toyota has decided to implement new quality plan. Among those, the most important is the developing of the communication plan. They have a plan to open up a regional customer research centre for collecting customer’s queries and for resolving them. Appraisal Cost: Primarily appraisal costs are incurred to ensure that the defects do not reach to the customers. It consists of a cost of assessing suppliers, inspections of incoming and outgoing materials, product testing and performing audits. Toyota has been crediting the ‘Quality Cost Delivery’ (QCD) award to their suppliers whose cost, delivery and most importantly quality exceeds 95% standard of excellence. The management of Toyota evaluated the suppliers on the basis of the rejection rates on the basis of parts per million (PPM). Internal Failure Cost: It has been associated with all those events which are employed to determine the poor product quality before delivering to the customers. It consists of rework for modifying the defects and losses of material. Even it also includes cost of scraps which refers to the defective products that cannot be corrected

Sunday, November 17, 2019

N analysis of any assigned primary source document from the book Major Term Paper

N analysis of any assigned primary source document from the book Major Problems in American History Volume II - Term Paper Example In the eighth stanza, Randolph laments that he cannot take up the musket and fight anymore.1 The word â€Å"anymore† illustrates that he probably took part in the recently ended war. The conflict was bitter and quite biased against the North, so he views the Republic and the constitution as mere instruments from the latter region. His biases have thus caused him to speak against critical principles of the US like freedom. Southerners were regarded as masters by their slaves; not only were they going to lose this status, but they now had to submit to the North. The hatred and bitterness should not come as a surprise as the defeat had adverse consequences. It is these sentiments that informed the writer of the song. He probably detested the fact that he now had to play to demands from the ‘Yankees’. He has a rebellious character in the song because he lost so much. It is for this reason that he does not care for their pardons; he boldly claims that he wishes he could kill some more Northerners, but the law does not allow him. The song was written in 1860 immediately after the Civil war; the South had lost, and one of the terms of the war was to integrate them into the Union. A lot of losses had been reported and it was clear that the people were devastated. In the period just before composure of the song, an appalling loss of lives had been recorded. It is estimated that approximately 20% of the adult white male population had been wiped out in the South. Therefore, the men were physically and emotionally wounded. Farm buildings in the region had been fully ruined. Additionally, work animals as well as the machinery used for in economic activities were destroyed. The value of everything within the Southern states was low because of the War. In fact it is estimated that even 10 years after the Civil war, all the assets in the South were still 30% less than their former value. The people left behind would soon have to tackle a long road to