Australia Destination Analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Australia Destination Analysis - Essay Example The same year had a record of overseas arrivals that is 5.9 million visitors came to the country (Australian Bureau of Statistics). There are many famous tourist destinations in Australia some of which include the cities of Melbourne and Sydney, Queensland, the Great Barrier Reef which is the largest reef of the world and the Gold Coast. Other popular tourist spots are Uluru, Tasmanian wilderness and the Australian outback. One must not forget that tourism and a country’s transportation are strongly interlinked since tourism is all about travel. Thus it is imperative that due attention is given to the transport system of a country so tourism can expand. There are several modes of transport in Australia out of which road travel is most common. There are over three hundred airports and an extensive rail network. You can choose to travel by road that is by a bus or coach or travel by train which is quite a convenient plus affordable means of transport in Australia. You can also opt for ferries such as the Sealink ferries or the ferry service run by the Spirit of Tasmania. The government has paid a lot of attention in developing the best transport system which is a reason why tourism is a great experience in Australia. The success of the tourism industry also lies in the fact that a lot of marketing is done in order to promote tourism. There have been several tourism campaigns that have aimed at the laid back style of the country. These include the advertising campaign of the 1980s that featured actor Paul Hogan saying "Ill slip an extra shrimp on the barbie for you" and the divisive campaign in 2006 that was done in UK. It used the Australian colloquialism phrase "So where the bloody hell are you?" In 2009 the federal minister of tourism launched another marketing campaign ‘No Leave No Life’ that encouraged employees to take their annual leaves in Australia. The most recent tourism promotion ‘There’s Nothing like

Trifles Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Trifles - Essay Example Mrs. Hale when she was Minnie Foster was a member of the choir but in the passing of time, became like bird caged in her own home, with no social relationship with her neighborhood. The primary culprit to this conflict is the husband who, though has been known to be a good man paying his debts and keeping his words, was also a hard man. The other character contributory to the conflict was Mrs. Hale who was the only person who could have at least been a friend and confidant of Mrs. Wright but chose not to be with the woman because her place has always been gloomy. She then realized the need she was not able to meet in the life of her neighbor after the discovery of the dead canary with its neck wrung, similar to how Mr. Wright died for she somehow knew what happens in a home, which are almost true for everyone, only in different ways. The investigators representing the men in general, contributed to the problem through their reactions towards women in general. They have shown contempt over the things women busy and worry themselves with and have highlighted what could have been happening in the house of the couple between themselves before the murder.

John Locke Two Treatises Of Government Philosophy Essay

John Locke Two Treatises Of Government Philosophy Essay The easy will endeavour to assess the cogency of the justifications for state power put forward by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government. Mainly the second Treaty emphasises on the inter-relation of property and formation of Government. Locke has provided a mixed conception of property throughout his both treaties. In his social contract theory Locke made property rights central to the formation and development of civil society and democratic governance. Lockes argument was based on the natural law and where natural law fell short he relied on the Christianity. Locke believed that laws can only be legitimate if they are to promote the common good and that people will as a group do the right thing. According to Locke the reason for people to come under the governmental control was mainly to protect their property. John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government has not given any clear definition of property and rather given a double meaning which refers to an economic right and a quality of being. Professor Reno, B Jeffrey  [2]  pointed out that Locke offers two revealing statements regarding the nature of property. In the First Treatise, he notes, Adams property in the creatures was founded upon the right he had to make use of those things that were necessary or useful to his being  [3]  . In the Second Treatise, Locke says that property is to be used to the best advantage of life and convenience  [4]  . It is significant that in the first statement Locke draws a distinction between property as necessary or useful whereas in the second he creates a union between property existing for life and convenience. Life and convenience are not rival goals such that one chooses to advance one or the other. Rather, echoing the empirical interpretation of the Law of Nature, one seeks preservatio n at all times and comfort when it is available. It is, however, possible to differentiate between goods that serve the advantage of life itselfnecessitiesand goods that serve the advantage of conveniencethe useful. The need for property to fit such broad characteristics helps to make sense of Lockes strange way of explaining its origin and purpose. Locke in his Second Treatises argues that property rights are justified because humans have a right to their preservation and thus have a right to meat and drink and such things that Nature affords for their subsistence.  [5]  Locke further asserts in Section 27 that everyman has a property in his own person[and that]the labour of his body and the work of his hands are properly his. According to Locke, when a person removes something from the state of nature, he has mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. Because labour is the unquestionable property of the labourer, Locke believes that no man but he can have a right to what [his labour] is once joined to. Peter Laslett  [6]  noted that this famous passage, which almost contradicts Lockes first principle that men belong to God, not themselves, together with the general claim that tis Labour indeed that put the difference of value on everything  [7]  are perh aps the most influential statements he ever made. In this section we find a new element labour to his property theory. What follows from this section is that a persons labour and its product are inseparable, and hence ownership of one can be secured only by owning the other. Hence, if a person is to own his body and thus its labour, he must also own what he joins his labour with namely, the product of his labour. Herman T Tavani  [8]  explains that Locke After providing an argument for what is required in the just appropriation of the various kinds of objects that reside in the commons, such as acorns and apples, Locke proceeds to explain how one can justly appropriate portions of the commons itself. He states: As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, enclose it from the common  [9]  . Of course, Locke does not believe that ones right to appropriate objects or to enclos e a section of the common is absolute i.e., without qualifications. For example, he imposes certain conditions and constraints as part of his justification for appropriation. One such constraint is sometimes described as the no-waste condition. According to Locke, one may take from the commons only as much as any one can make use of to the advantage of life before it spoils  [10]  . John Willinksy  [11]  notes that Locke built his argument on behalf of considerable differences in the property holdings among people in two ways: first, by giving due weight to the productive value of labour, and then by allowing for the authority of majority consent to establish alternative economic arrangements. Yet it is important to note that in what follows, Locke keeps the collective principle of a world held in common in balance with notions of private property. It was evident from the Lockes social contract that the notion of labour is central to his property theory. But in Chapter V of Second Treatise illustrate that several conditions need to be taken into account in justifying property rights.  [12]  Locke had insisted that whenever something is appropriated from the commons, enough and as good should be left for others who also wish to appropriate. Thus, Locke never assumed that the mere mixing of ones labour with something constitutes a sufficient condition for an individuals right to claim ownership of that thing.  [13]   Peter Laslett  [14]  has pointed out that Lockes account of the origin of property cannot be intended to cover all meaning of the word. For it is not defined as material possessions, nor in units of the conveniences or necessities of life but much more generally as Lives, Liberties and Estates, which I call by the general name, Property  [15]  Laslett further argues that for property to Locke seems to symbolize rights in their concrete form, or perhaps rather to provide tangible subject of an individuals powers and attitudes.  [16]   Lockes First Treatises lays foundation on the concept of property in Section 86 as the right Adams had to make use of those things that were necessary or useful to his being. In the Second Treatises in Section 26 Locke used the notion to the best advantage of life and convenience. Professor Reno  [17]  noted that in the first statement Locke draws a distinction between property as necessary or useful whereas in the second he creates a union between property existing for life and convenience. Life and convenience are not rival goals such that one chooses to advance one or the other. Rather, echoing the empirical interpretation of the Law of Nature, one seeks preservation at all times and comfort when it is available. It is, however, possible to differentiate between goods that serve the advantage of life itself-necessities-and goods that serve the advantage of conveniencethe useful. What follows from the plain reading of Section 86 of Second Treatises is that property, both in the narrow and in the extended sense, is insufficiently protected and inadequately regulated in the state of nature and this is the critical inconvenience which induces men to enter into Society to make one People, one Body Politick under one Supreme Government.. by setting up a Judge on Earth with Authority to determine all Controversies.  [18]   Lockes theory of uniting Men under one Society was based on consent as it was in case of acquisition of property. Critiques like Ashcraft, Dunn and many others argued that in fact the reason was based on ingenuity and force rather than consent. Locke believes that it is consent alone that makes civil society and such society requires political rights and obligations.  [19]  The political power that Locke refers to is the power to make law for that society but it must all be for the good of society.  [20]   It can be argued that governments were originally instituted by force without any agreement, however Locke explicitly says that he must provide an alternative to the view that all governments in the world is the product of force and violence. He admits that some governments are instituted by force and violence but if that were the only form of government he would be denying the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate governments. According to Locke a legitimate government is instituted by the consent of the people being governed.  [21]   Grant  [22]  says that the establishment of government is a two-step approach. Universal consent is necessary to form a political community and consent to join a community once given is binding and cannot be withdrawn. She goes on to ask who rules and the answer is determined by majority rule. Universal consent is required to establish the political community and majority consent to the answer who is to rule that community.  [23]   Radcliffe  [24]  says that David Hume purified Lockes empiricism by rejecting all supernatural grounds for philosophical principles. He set aside Lockes idea of theological basis for his views and relied solely on evidence that sense experience provides. He asked whether history provides any basis for thinking that political power attains legitimacy through a social contract.  [25]  Hume concluded that history does not provide any basis for thinking that political power arose through the social contract. Radcliffe further shows that Hume uncovered another weakness in Lockes social theory. The theory bases the moral obligation to obey civil government on the mutual consent and promise to be governed. However the contract does not offer any basis for the moral obligation to keep such promise.  [26]   The political obligation of obedience is on the same moral footing as the obligation to keep a promise. Hume argues that one cannot be based on the other and if the one is sanctioned then the other will also be sanctioned. However this creates its own problem that if there is no moral basis for the duty of fidelity to promises, the contract theory will not provide any moral basis for duties of political obedience.  [27]   If there is a moral basis for the duty of fidelity to promises then that duty can also form the basis for political obedience and the social contract is unnecessary.  [28]  Hume further argues that if all laws come from Gods divine will why not at the same time say that governments are established directly by Gods will.  [29]   Locke in his Second Treatise,  [30]  gradually unfolded the government and its duties to the people. John Willinksy  [31]  rightly observed that Locke was to provide as firm a basis as anyone could imagine for the closely related growth of the empirical sciences, the rise of industrial capitalism, and the gradual unfurling of democratic government. What was the justification for Governmental control over people? Locke in his Two Treatises of Government depicted a clear picture of the state of nature. Locke holds that Men choose to leave the state of nature and establish a government. They do this because the enjoyment of their life, health and liberty in the state of nature is uncertain and continuously exposed to the invasion by others.  [32]  Therefore man in his natural state before money lived in a state of nature where each was producing only what they needed. The value of the goods they needed was determined by the value that the parties placed on the goods being bartered. As goods were perishable man did not retain more than what he needed to survive on. With the advent of money, man was able to hoard more money than he needed for his requirements. Families increased and industry started to retain more than what they required. This increased the inconveniencies to persons. To avoid the increase in quarrels which may lead to war, man agreed on laws to govern their relations and to form a government. King  [33]  argues that the consent to use money has one very important feature that may have been overlooked by Locke. The use of money allows a more complete fulfilment of natural law by promoting preservation and convenience. As it transcends the scarcity put forward by Locke it permits individuals to appropriate more than what they need. Once they have done so they will sell the excess and so assist in providing for the needs of others. King further says that since those who have more can make money they have an incentive to fulfil others needs and this in turn promotes peace, preservation and convenience.  [34]  Since men are rational the existence of money creates the possibility of greater expressions of rational behaviour. King therefore argues that by overcoming the scarcity limits, the possibility for a more complete fulfilment of the law of nature is created as it allows men to engage in rational activity and such activity results in increased quality of life for a ll.  [35]   Laslett pointed out that Lockes doctrine of property was incomplete, not a little confused and inadequate to the problem as it has been analysed since his day, lacking humanity and the sense of social co-operation to be found in the canonists who had proceeded him.  [36]  Laslett argued that, contrary to the traditional view that Locke had composed the Two Treatises in order to legitimize the 1688 Glorious Revolution, they were actually written surrounding the Exclusion Crisis a decade earlier. Conclusion Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all stressed that the only way that the state can be justified is to show that everyone would in some way consent to it. They were all thus social contract theorists. The social contract theory supposed conception of political justice and obligation that is based on voluntary consent by the people. That which the people choose to agree to is just and is according to their will. Kant says that people have a duty to agree to act according to the idea of the original contract. There is the problem of justification and it is agreed that the way to look at the justification was by looking at the issue heuristically. As pointed out above Rawl has revived the social contract theory. The concept of property has been changed since Locke but the social contract theory is still applicable to the modern understanding of property. There have been numerous attempts by the academics and modern social theorists to relate Lockes social contract theory with the intellectual property rights and so on. Word Count: 2492 words.

Origins Of Communism :: Communism Essays

Throughout the history of the modern world, man has sought out the perfect government. An invincible system of order. And in our search for this ideal system, the idea of holding property in common has been a reoccurring thought. From early Christian communities to modern Marxist states, socialism and more specifically, communism has had an important role in the development of this ideal system.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  After the Great French Revolution of 1789-1794, the roots of modern-day communism can be clearly seen. In 1795, Gracchus Babeuf wrote the â€Å"Plebeians’ Manifesto† which stated, for full social and economical equality:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"...to establish a common administration; to suppress individual property; to   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  attach each man to the employment or occupation with which he is acquainted; to oblige him to place the fruits of his labor in kind into a common store; and to establish a simple administration for food supplies, which will take note of all individuals and all provisions, and will have the latter divided according to the most scrupulous equality.† - â€Å"Plebeians’ Manifesto†1   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Because of this and other acts considered to be threatening to the Directory, Babeuf was executed in May of 1797. Babeuf was not forgotten though, others followed in his footsteps. Another 19th century French reformer, Charles Fourier, shared many of Babeuf’s ideas, but where Babeuf favored immediate political change, Fourier was for longer-term social reform. The Comte de Saint-Simon, another political thinker of that time, was similar to Fourier in many respects, although he valued a mixed society of capitalist thinkers and socialist workers which he believed would triumph in future French communities.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Meanwhile in England, Robert Owen, a Welsh industrialist, was developing his own brand of Socialism. Unlike many philosophers of his time, Owen based his ideas on experience rather than speculation. He managed a factory and realized that labor was the essential â€Å"factor of production†. He looked to the workers rather than government for solutions to economic problems. He proposed â€Å"cooperative societies†, or self-contained communities of producers and consumers which he hoped would prove his theories. But his socialist experiment never took place because adequate funding was denied.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the mid-1830’s, the term â€Å"Communism† was introduced to the world of French politics. First used to describe Saint-Simon and Fourier’s egalitarian slant on socialist ideas, Louis Blanc built on the ideals of Fourier to establish an important point of modern-day communism. He stated the principle, â€Å"...from each according to his capacities, to each according to his needs†, where as the old principle stated, â€Å".

Genetic Engineering Is Beneficial to Mankind

GENETIC ENGINEERING IS BENEFICIAL TO MANKIND We, Homo sapiens (and every other organism on the planet), become what we are on the basis of the genes we inherit from our parents at the time of our birth. Whether you are tall, short, dark, dusky or fair, have great hair, good health – everything depends on these genes. Earlier these genes were believed to be ‘tamper proof' and they could not be manipulated. But the human brain and contemporary science does not deem anything as impossible. Thus, we came up with a concept called genetic engineering.Genetic engineering refers to the process of directly tackling an organism's genes. Molecular cloning and transformation is used in genetic engineering for changing the structure and nature of genes. This technology has brought about a sea change in farming and in human genetics. GE in Human itself The first and one of the most prominent genetic engineering pros is that genetic disorders can be prevented by identifying those genes which cause these diseases in people. The use of genetic engineering to prevent diseases is called gene therapy.This can be extremely advantageous especially when women screen their unborn babies for genetic defects. If there is a chance that the baby can have genetic defects, it can prepare the mother and the doctors before and after the baby delivered. In advanced cases, those problem genes can be corrected. In addition to that, infectious diseases can be controlled and effectively dealt with by implanting genes which code for the antiviral proteins particular to each antigen. Humans can be developed or formed to reflect desirable characteristics.It is being said, theoretically though that this process can drastically change human genomes. This would facilitate in helping people regrow their limbs and other organs. In addition to this, people can be made stronger, faster and smarter, by using genetic engineering in the future. In other cases, if a gene exists in nature which can be good for human beings, it can be ingested in human cells. Soon a possibility of human cloning with the help of human genetics cannot be ruled out. GE in animalsPlants and animals can be genetically engineered to make products useful for us. The great example of this is diary animals. Sheep, goats and cows produce a lot of milk. Biologists found that the expression of genes for the major milk proteins is under the control of a promoter. This promoter is a sequence of DNA that causes the adjacent genes to be expressed in the mammary gland. It is called the lactoglobulin promoter. This sets up a really nice opportunity for using genetic engineering.You could take the gene you want expressed in milk and put it into a DNA vector. Then you put this vector into a sheep egg cell. If you do this, the egg can then be developed in the laboratory for a couple of days until it becomes an embryo. You can insert the embryo into a mother and the offspring that are born are sheep that would make milk which contains this extra protein. This was actually behind the reason for cloning Dolly the sheep. GE in Plants Plants can be genetically engineered to make useful products.Genetically engineering a plant is a lot easier than animals. We don’t need to inject into the fertilized egg of a plant. We can take any plant cell grown in a laboratory, put the vector in, and then grow the plant up from that cell. In agriculture, too start off with different crops, genetic engineering can culminate in alteration of the DNA structure of the original crop. This will increase the growth rate of the plant along with its immunity, and resistance towards diseases caused by pathogens and parasites.These factors in turn will be amongst the most important benefits of genetic engineering when it comes to crops. These genetically modified foods could increase the food resources to satisfy everyone's hunger. This would be done by genetically modified crops for better productivity. These crops could be genetically modified to resist pests, fight bacterial and fungal infections or have great nutritional value. These are just a few benefits of genetic engineering. I’m sure more are coming in the future, as we discover more and more about genes and proteins.

How did group skills contribute to the development of the drama Essay

We approached our initial research by deciding on the path we were taking for our piece and examining what would be the best to topics to research i. e. the Wall Street Crash, the credit crunch, primitive civilisations, survival techniques etc. and then distributing these sections to members of the group to individually research. Every member of the group did their own research on everyone of these subjects so we all knew and understood every topic and to get an overview of what we were taking, which would help with our portrayal of the themes within our material. We executed this by discussing what we had found in our research and comparing it with the other members of the group. We then picked the most relevant points from our discussions and integrated them into our material. We all researched different aspects of the stimulus during our brain storming sessions, drawing from what we knew about the image and then exploring it independently. Ideas were developed collectively, individuals would put forward their ideas for the piece (which were often the same as other members of the group) which were then discussed and collectively performed and then modified, depending on their relevance and cohesiveness with the rest of the piece. However input seemed to keep coming from the same people all the time, so we had to extend and force particular members of the group to share their individual thoughts about our ideas. The majority of the devising work was worked on as a collective, although some individuals could have been more involved with the process, but we all wanted to make sure that everyone agreed on the direction we were taking the piece and aspects of the scene. Our piece was a mixture between ensemble and individual based. For the wise man scene there was a section in which we all had to act out the story of the crash moving into images of everyday occurrences surrounding work, partying and resting. To make sure that we were all together for these transitions we practised them over and over again often having to compromise our actions to make them run smoothly into one another. Throughout we all decided that if we were ever stationary or had to focus on a particular spot we would all stare at the same horizontal bar above the audience in our theatre. For our scene in the company we all had to hold boards and walk in an oval always facing the audience, this took place behind the protagonist to give the illusion that he was running down a corridor. For this we to work we had to be organised and efficient, first of all we had to make sure that there were three boards at the front at all time meaning we all had to walk at the same pace, we also had to carry the boards at roughly the same height, this was quite difficult to achieve so we did as best we could by holding them at arms height. We didn’t focus on the bar for this scene until we had become stationary; this was so we could focus on the movement of the circle and its relationship to the speed that the protagonist was walking at. To achieve this shared physical look we practised over and over again, extracting one of the members of the group to see if it looked good enough. Through trial and error we managed to obtain the same physical relationship between one another. Characters were, most of the time, created individually however when needed we helped people who were struggling with their character profile or decided that a character should be different to how they were being portrayed. Most of us put forward suggestions towards certain members’ character development anyway as a suggestion if we felt that they weren’t doing enough to explore and exploit their potential. This happened a lot in the War scene as we had to create contrasting and analogous characters within the separate groups and, as it was one of our best scenes, we wanted everyone to be heard and seen. I contributed a lot to the development of a movement piece, I took a piece of music called ‘Clubbed to Death’ from the Matrix and listened to it, noted where the distinguishing sections were and began to create a piece of movement to go with it. This was when we were using one of our original plot lines so it wasn’t used in the final performance but one or two of the ideas were used in certain areas of the play. It was originally showing the downfall of the company and the death of the protagonist, I wanted to use the boards a lot, making members of the chorus use them as shields, slamming them down and pushing them along the floor with two gargoyles on the tower of Babel (a piece of staging we were using at the time) the company’s opponents are throwing spears then slowly through the piece the gargoyles break themselves away from the tower to kill their attackers. They achieve this by touching their attackers heads, this all happens in the middle section of the music which is quieter and more sinister. After the gargoyles make contact with the attackers heads I made them writhe as if they were being electrocuted, all the while the protagonist reaches the top of the tower and flings paper out into the audience, however a spear hits him and he dies as do the gargoyles as soon as the papers are thrown into air they begin to crumple and then collapse. I really enjoyed choreographing this piece of movement but, unfortunately by this point, we had already changed our plot, which rendered it useless. I also provided a lot of the sounds like the track during the rape scene (â€Å"The Piano Duet† from Corpse Bride) and in the final scene (â€Å"My Dearest Friend† by Devendra Banhart) All the, concepts and situations were created amongst the group. Our group is extremely diverse both in personalities and in ability, overall we have some very good actors and we all get on wonderfully and made a good team, however there are members of the group that are weaker than others, one in particular who barely gave any ideas or thoughts to the process. Their silence happened so often that we had to question her constantly about her views on everything just to know what her reaction was to the content we were producing or the direction we were heading in. This proved very tedious also because she took no initiative into developing her character and when given suggestions by the other members of the group she listened to them but didn’t seem to put any of these ideas into practise. We coached her as much as we could and managed to get a decent performance out of her for the final performance. On a completely different note there was tension between two girls in our group but they moved passed these differences and worked with each other as best they could, the tension lessened over the weeks with a few hiccoughs but the managed to work together as a team planning props in the few weeks before the performance. Moment were the group worked well together Why it was important During the development of the War Scene after the group had been separated into two to create material, we worked together to find a ways to cut between the separate scenes to make a seamless and amusing scene. It strengthened our group dynamic, the girls being on one side bar one and the boys on the other, this allowed us to relax with each other and improvise things that we found amusing. Most of the members of the girls group were fans of Monty Python, French and Saunders and Black Adder, which we all seemed to agree, had the right kind of comedy that we wanted to integrate in our section. It helped us understand each other’s sense of humour and our acting dynamic. After this scene it was clear that we were on the same page regarding material that we’d produced prior to this exercise. Sitting opposite the group of boys was good too as they are very funny people, it helped us to improve our scene, in comparison with theirs, but still carry on the path of humour we’d been following. Rehearsing the Company scene where every member of the chorus has a board and we created a movement piece using them together. This was important for the group as it allowed us to work as a collective rather than individuals, we were all concerned about this piece and wanted to create a slick, focussed piece of physical theatre. Through rigorous rehearsal we managed to pin point exactly what was needed and achieved a focus that, with the music, made a punchy start to the beginning of the company scene. We had to bang our boards down at exactly the same time cueing the music, to do this we all agreed to focus on the person who was most visible to everyone, which happened to be me, and we managed to do this perfectly every time in the last few weeks of rehearsal right through the performance. Moment were the group didn’t work well Why? What did we learn from this At the beginning of the Wise man scene the chorus plays ‘freaks’ who follow the wise man, there wasn’t enough group development on these characters during rehearsals. Everyone was concerned about the content of the scene, which provided some brilliant freaks, but we didn’t think how it would perceived by an audience and as a whole, we left this to the last minute, which meant they could’ve been even greater. That we need to face everything head on, leaving things to the last minute on one of the biggest scenes of play, especially the start of it, even though we did a lot of discussing in eagerness to push on we sometimes miss little things that could be rectified and turn a piece of action that hasn’t been through into something clear and concise that stands by itself. A character that, if taken out of the scene, could stand by themselves and have a background giving more depth to the madness. At the beginning of the process when we seemed to keep brainstorming and discussing things rather than being spurred into action and, if we did create something that was bad suggestion in the first place, we didn’t question we went along with it. We were more concerned about not getting into an argument that we didn’t tell one another if we thought an idea wasn’t good, instead we suggested more ideas. That sometimes you have to tell people if an idea won’t work and don’t get worried if someone’s annoyed at you, it is better to create a good piece of drama that can lead you in a great direction after having a falling out than coming up with a rubbish idea that doesn’t hold together as a piece of theatre. We all did our bit to collaborate on design ideas this was so we could perform with the set, lighting and music that we all wanted so that we could perform in an ideal space that the group collectively designed. There was a big difference between group skills in rehearsal to performance, in rehearsal we were a lot more calm about everything and kept a very relaxed group dynamic but, only as it came to the dress and tech rehearsals did we start buckling down and making sure everyone’s focus was impeccable and that we were all doing this for each other, to stand as a collective rather than individuals as this was the only way our marks would be better.