The 7th of May 2015 bought the general election, the first one that I've been heavily involved in. I was only just getting into politics; and all I really remember is watching some of the votes being counted.
Seeing the uproar on social media, I presumed we'd end up with Labour - possibly with an SNP coalition, if Mr. Miliband would accept it. All I prayed was that it wasn't fully Conservative, and that a certain party didn't get in.
One of those wishes came true, at least.
I watched the Election broadcasting till about half eleven before forcing myself to sleep; then woke up again at five am to watch more. When I left for school, it was still as the exit poll predicted - Labour and Conservative neck and neck, with a lot of new SNP MPs.
By ten o'clock, my friend told me that it was beginning to become clear that we were soon to be under a full Conservative government. We prayed, though. But by lunchtime? We knew.
And with that came twitter uproar and a sudden sombre mood; for so many knew that they weren't going to have a good few years.
We say the majority voted for Conservative. The majority didn't - but because we aren't a two-party Government, votes for Green and the Lib Dems split the vote and allowed for Mr. Cameron to slip back into Number 10.
I am not a part of the Labour Party. But they would be much better for our country right now.
The fact that our HUMAN RIGHTS, the acts that give us our freedom, may be taken away.
The fact that most of my generation won't be able to go university.
The fact that there will be thousands of deaths if the NHS is privatised; due to suicides because there's no mental health service, and due to general illness because people can't afford it.
I ask you; was that worth the fact that people didn't want to pay a little bit more tax?
There have been protests on the streets of London, but the media won't cover the fact that the police are abusing some of these protesters; they'll only show the rough protesters.
Someone tweeted me, saying "you can vote them out in 2020". That's a long way away. Five years is a long time, and a lot can happen. A lot will happen.
I sincerely worry for our safety as a nation.
I worry because our new justice minister wanted hanging to become legal again.
I worry because our new equalities minister voted against gay marriage.
Labour would not have been perfect. No party would've been.
But surely; better than this Government will be.
11/05/2015
18/04/2015
A Cynical Teenager Watches the BBC Debate
Being fourteen, I am unable to vote, but I'm into politics, and the upcoming election both intrigues and worries me. So on Thursday night, I sat down with a pad of paper, ready to sigh at some idiocy and wonder whether my generation will ever be safe.
Now, I have no "alliance" to any party - so there won't be any biasty, except against one party. I'm sure many will guess which. However, I am "left wing". We also must take into account that most of the things said during the debate are probably irrelevant, as at this point, they all just want votes.
DISCLAIMER: I don't claim any of these views are right, and yes, I am fourteen, which OBVIOUSLY means I don't know anything about politics, so feel free to huff and sigh.
The Opening Act
The debate opened with the opening speeches, Ms Wood from Plaid Cymru talking about wanting a post-austerity society and that she "won't apologise for speaking up about Wales". She was followed by Mr Farage, already banging on about immigration and the fact that "ONLY UKIP ARE PREPARED TO TALK STRAIGHT". No comment there. Mr Miliband, who it turns out can hold a stage pretty well, discussed mansion tax, the freezing of energy bills and putting working families first. Mrs Sturgeon of the SNP followed, with her talk of a higher minimum wage and NHS protection, as well as progressive change for ordinary people. Finally, we had Ms Bennett, Green, wanting to "challenge the establishment" and create a sustainable world.
The structure of this debate was to be simple: 5 questions, 1 minute uninterrupted on it each, 10 minutes or so of pleasant debate. Of course.
Debt and the Future Generations
So our first question was asking whether it was fair to increase government spending when we will be left paying it off. Ms Sturgeon and Ms Wood spoke of wanting to tackle the debt, and create an alternative. Ms Bennett also spoke of reducing or eradicating tuition fees. Mr Miliband wants to clamp down on tax avoiders and cut deficit, and ultimately raise standards of the working class. He also had a fair amount of digs at Mr Cameron (whom was not present, along with Mr Clegg). Do I even need to go into what Mr Farage spoke about? No prizes - CUTTING FOREIGN AID. So unpredictable.
On this one? I agreed with pretty much all of them, because they talked about cutting the debt. I also wouldn't complain at my uni fees being cut. The only thing I disagree on is the foreign aid being cut too much.
The Lack of Affordable Social Housing
By this point, I was sick of Mr Farage's voice already, but I battled on. Mr Miliband spoke first about this lack of social housing, and his want to build 20,000 homes. He would like a "use it or lose it" policy for large developers. Ms Wood, whom had been slightly quiet in the debate of the last question, spoke of tackling homelessness, building more council homes and putting on rent caps. Plaid Cymru would also like to double tax on holiday homes; which makes sense to me, because a lot of the time they aren't being used.
Next came the beautiful voice of one certain Mr Farage; blaming this lack of housing on only one set of people... Immigrants. HIS plan to tackle the demand of housing was not to build more houses, but to reduce immigration. Oh wait. He does want to build more homes... but only for UK nationals. Fabulous.
Ms Sturgeon said this was one of the biggest issues; and want to build 30k homes by 2016; as well as put on rent caps. She referenced to Mrs Thatcher and said Tory policies were wrong. I was also very happy when she then shot Mr Farage down slightly, telling him that he can't blame everything on immigrants. Thank goodness.
Trident and Nuclear Weapons
Admittedly, this isn't a topic I particularly understood before the debate, I looked it up afterwards; and there were only two main opinions really, so I won't go to into this one.
Surprisingly, UKIP and Labour actually agreed on something - that we can't afford to let go of Trident. They didn't agree about working with Europe, of course, but hey! They weren't completely biting each other's heads off. Oh wait. Then they did. About the idea of a "European army". It was nice whilst it lasted.
The SNP, Green and Plaid Cymru all spoke against Trident; calling it unnecessary and that we should just increase conventional defences.
As I said, I don't enough to comment too much, accurately - but I did get the point that the money could be spent elsewhere; and that the money for renewal can't really be justified in current economy.
Immigration and Putting Public Services at Risk
I was SO LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS TOPIC. Of course I was. Who wouldn't, with it being on the tip of one man's tongue for every sentence?
Ms Bennett opened; saying that everyone contributes to the British way of life and that it isn't immigration putting the services at risk, it's austerity and privatisation that have - this was met with a cheer from the audience, and me. Ms Wood later said this too. Ms Sturgeon also argued that we need to put more money into them, and pointed out that a lot of immigrants work - our society would probably collapse without them, also said by Ms Wood.
Mr Miliband didn't have much to say in his minute on this one, so we swiftly went on to the man himself. As soon as he opened his mouth, I knew I was in for a long minute. I don't need to go into what he spoke about - "fair and ethical" ways of choosing who comes into the country, that we shouldn't be in the EU, etc etc etc.
Ms Bennett - an immigrant from Australia herself - talked of wanting a fair, humane system, and saying that we don't treat refugees correctly. I agree. Mr Miliband also said that the NHS is going backwards; and Ms Sturgeon bought up the issue of the work visa, saying we deprive of economic contribution. These were all fair points. Mr Farage then decided to bring up HIV-Positive immigrants, as he did in the ITV debate. I think this is unbelievably unfair and disrespectful. British people can have HIV too and it isn't someone's fault if they unknowingly contract it.
Hung Parliament?
This was the most interesting part of the debate. Every single party is very focused on getting the Tories out of parliament; but they had several opinions on how it should be done. Mr Miliband is very focused on believing that a mainly Labour government is what's right for the country - because that went so well last time - but the debate actually initiated a response from Ms Sturgeon saying that she would happily enter her party into a coalition with Labour. She was shot down with a laugh; because "we disagree on too much, Nicola".
Interestingly enough, earlier during the debate, I'd written down that if they mixed a few policies around and got off their high horses, the two parties could be okay-ish for the country.
Final Words From Me
Each party had a minute to sum up their argument, as is a normality during debates, and they didn't say much different to what had already been said.
It was interesting for me to see each party leader try to eloquently slander the others; particularly adding their little digs about Mr Cameron who wasn't there. I have a lot of respect for the three women in the debate for holding there own against very obviously sexist Mr Farage. I was also very surprised to see that Mr Miliband can actually hold the floor very well, which I didn't think he could.
I feel like Mr Farage needs to work on his skills in "How to Get People to Want to Vote For You 101". I don't think degrading your audience is the way to go. And he really needs to find some other policies that aren't about immigrants, because we can't blame everything on them, and they aren't the ultimate issue.
Thank you for reading my little summary with added opinions - I'm also very sorry if you're a UKIP supporter. But if you didn't realise that it was UKIP I was against in my introduction... well. Sorry.
-Charli
Now, I have no "alliance" to any party - so there won't be any biasty, except against one party. I'm sure many will guess which. However, I am "left wing". We also must take into account that most of the things said during the debate are probably irrelevant, as at this point, they all just want votes.
DISCLAIMER: I don't claim any of these views are right, and yes, I am fourteen, which OBVIOUSLY means I don't know anything about politics, so feel free to huff and sigh.
The Opening Act
The debate opened with the opening speeches, Ms Wood from Plaid Cymru talking about wanting a post-austerity society and that she "won't apologise for speaking up about Wales". She was followed by Mr Farage, already banging on about immigration and the fact that "ONLY UKIP ARE PREPARED TO TALK STRAIGHT". No comment there. Mr Miliband, who it turns out can hold a stage pretty well, discussed mansion tax, the freezing of energy bills and putting working families first. Mrs Sturgeon of the SNP followed, with her talk of a higher minimum wage and NHS protection, as well as progressive change for ordinary people. Finally, we had Ms Bennett, Green, wanting to "challenge the establishment" and create a sustainable world.
The structure of this debate was to be simple: 5 questions, 1 minute uninterrupted on it each, 10 minutes or so of pleasant debate. Of course.
Debt and the Future Generations
So our first question was asking whether it was fair to increase government spending when we will be left paying it off. Ms Sturgeon and Ms Wood spoke of wanting to tackle the debt, and create an alternative. Ms Bennett also spoke of reducing or eradicating tuition fees. Mr Miliband wants to clamp down on tax avoiders and cut deficit, and ultimately raise standards of the working class. He also had a fair amount of digs at Mr Cameron (whom was not present, along with Mr Clegg). Do I even need to go into what Mr Farage spoke about? No prizes - CUTTING FOREIGN AID. So unpredictable.
On this one? I agreed with pretty much all of them, because they talked about cutting the debt. I also wouldn't complain at my uni fees being cut. The only thing I disagree on is the foreign aid being cut too much.
The Lack of Affordable Social Housing
By this point, I was sick of Mr Farage's voice already, but I battled on. Mr Miliband spoke first about this lack of social housing, and his want to build 20,000 homes. He would like a "use it or lose it" policy for large developers. Ms Wood, whom had been slightly quiet in the debate of the last question, spoke of tackling homelessness, building more council homes and putting on rent caps. Plaid Cymru would also like to double tax on holiday homes; which makes sense to me, because a lot of the time they aren't being used.
Next came the beautiful voice of one certain Mr Farage; blaming this lack of housing on only one set of people... Immigrants. HIS plan to tackle the demand of housing was not to build more houses, but to reduce immigration. Oh wait. He does want to build more homes... but only for UK nationals. Fabulous.
Ms Sturgeon said this was one of the biggest issues; and want to build 30k homes by 2016; as well as put on rent caps. She referenced to Mrs Thatcher and said Tory policies were wrong. I was also very happy when she then shot Mr Farage down slightly, telling him that he can't blame everything on immigrants. Thank goodness.
Trident and Nuclear Weapons
Admittedly, this isn't a topic I particularly understood before the debate, I looked it up afterwards; and there were only two main opinions really, so I won't go to into this one.
Surprisingly, UKIP and Labour actually agreed on something - that we can't afford to let go of Trident. They didn't agree about working with Europe, of course, but hey! They weren't completely biting each other's heads off. Oh wait. Then they did. About the idea of a "European army". It was nice whilst it lasted.
The SNP, Green and Plaid Cymru all spoke against Trident; calling it unnecessary and that we should just increase conventional defences.
As I said, I don't enough to comment too much, accurately - but I did get the point that the money could be spent elsewhere; and that the money for renewal can't really be justified in current economy.
Immigration and Putting Public Services at Risk
I was SO LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS TOPIC. Of course I was. Who wouldn't, with it being on the tip of one man's tongue for every sentence?
Ms Bennett opened; saying that everyone contributes to the British way of life and that it isn't immigration putting the services at risk, it's austerity and privatisation that have - this was met with a cheer from the audience, and me. Ms Wood later said this too. Ms Sturgeon also argued that we need to put more money into them, and pointed out that a lot of immigrants work - our society would probably collapse without them, also said by Ms Wood.
Mr Miliband didn't have much to say in his minute on this one, so we swiftly went on to the man himself. As soon as he opened his mouth, I knew I was in for a long minute. I don't need to go into what he spoke about - "fair and ethical" ways of choosing who comes into the country, that we shouldn't be in the EU, etc etc etc.
Ms Bennett - an immigrant from Australia herself - talked of wanting a fair, humane system, and saying that we don't treat refugees correctly. I agree. Mr Miliband also said that the NHS is going backwards; and Ms Sturgeon bought up the issue of the work visa, saying we deprive of economic contribution. These were all fair points. Mr Farage then decided to bring up HIV-Positive immigrants, as he did in the ITV debate. I think this is unbelievably unfair and disrespectful. British people can have HIV too and it isn't someone's fault if they unknowingly contract it.
Hung Parliament?
This was the most interesting part of the debate. Every single party is very focused on getting the Tories out of parliament; but they had several opinions on how it should be done. Mr Miliband is very focused on believing that a mainly Labour government is what's right for the country - because that went so well last time - but the debate actually initiated a response from Ms Sturgeon saying that she would happily enter her party into a coalition with Labour. She was shot down with a laugh; because "we disagree on too much, Nicola".
Interestingly enough, earlier during the debate, I'd written down that if they mixed a few policies around and got off their high horses, the two parties could be okay-ish for the country.
Final Words From Me
Each party had a minute to sum up their argument, as is a normality during debates, and they didn't say much different to what had already been said.
It was interesting for me to see each party leader try to eloquently slander the others; particularly adding their little digs about Mr Cameron who wasn't there. I have a lot of respect for the three women in the debate for holding there own against very obviously sexist Mr Farage. I was also very surprised to see that Mr Miliband can actually hold the floor very well, which I didn't think he could.
I feel like Mr Farage needs to work on his skills in "How to Get People to Want to Vote For You 101". I don't think degrading your audience is the way to go. And he really needs to find some other policies that aren't about immigrants, because we can't blame everything on them, and they aren't the ultimate issue.
Thank you for reading my little summary with added opinions - I'm also very sorry if you're a UKIP supporter. But if you didn't realise that it was UKIP I was against in my introduction... well. Sorry.
-Charli
26/11/2014
Dear Society.
My name is Charli and I am 14. I am a white, cissexual girl
and I have never had the experience of racism upon myself. I have seen it
occur, repetitively, and I have been the victim of sexism. I have seen my
friends slandered for being a sexuality other than heterosexual.
Our generation, bright and beautiful, so full of hope, have
been bought up by racists. By homophobes. By sexists. Our parents and teachers
tell us that we are becoming a more tolerant society; but this is so untrue.
All I see before my eyes is an increasingly dystopian
society, where I am scared for my black friends, my best friend and her
girlfriend. I am sick of hearing “I can’t wear that, I’ll get raped” coming
from the other side of a changing room.
Throughout my life, I have been passionate about making the
change. About making people understand, about making sure everyone can live
their life without constant fear. And maybe in Britain my black friends won’t
get shot; but they are constantly insulted. And maybe gay marriage is legal in
Britain; but it doesn’t mean everyone’s okay with it.
In the last two days, my Tumblr blog went from “let’s all
squeal about people on youtube” to all about Ferguson. I have not seized in reblogging
everything I can; signing petitions and trying to explain it all to people who don’t
understand.
They fleetingly mentioned Ferguson on the radio this morning.
No passion; an extremely small amount of context. My stepnan said it was a good
thing the police were trying to stop the riots; that Mike Brown was rightly
shot. She wouldn’t hear me out. She wouldn’t take it that they were shooting
the protestors, she wouldn’t listen to what happened.
You can tell me that it’s “not about race” as much as you
want to, but I will never believe you.
We need to stop saying “but
not all white people are bad”. That’s true; but irrelevant. This isn’t about
proving that a few of us are good. This is about justice, about a man who
brutally murdered a man and has not received a sentence.
There are protests in so many parts of the world right now;
for so many varying reasons. Our society may be trying to turn itself around,
but it is to no avail. There are too many people covering it up.
The British media isn’t covering it as much as it should. If
a black man had murdered a white man, it would be everywhere. It would be
considered racism in itself; they would be called violent and disgraceful.
Something else that I heard on the radio yesterday was new
policies for “girl empowerment”. I instantly thought it would be good news; but
all I heard was a new teaching method of teaching our girls rape culture.
Society, I plead. Stop teaching “Don’t Get Raped” and start teaching “Don’t
Rape.” Stop the victim blaming; stop acting as if it’s a small matter.
Yesterday I walked out of the house having lost my faith in
my society; my future. Today, I am empowered once more. I want to be one of
those who make the change. Our generation will
be different. It will.
29/05/2014
Follow Up to "An Open Letter to Mr Gove"
Since my letter to Mr. Gove went live, several things have happened.
Over 40 thousand people have read it, because of it being posted on the Huffington Post here.
From this, I have had around a 100 people tweet me with such lovely comments and gained 200 followers.
It's been amazing. And I can't thank you all enough.
However, there has been the negative side of it, too.
Mr. Gove posted this article on The Telegraph. So a few people have been all like "oh take it down it's not true". Personally, I find it odd that it was posted after all the outrage, in another newspaper to the original article.
A lot of people are saying that I said he was going to ban TKAMB and OMAM. I never said that; because that wasn't what was going to happen. I said he was going to take them out of the GCSE curriculum, because that is what he said was going to happen.
On being thirteen
I'm a truthful person. I am 13 years old. I have had a lot of comments that say it has been a parent, or anyone, just not a 13 year old. Well, I am. I'm sorry to ruin these illusions, but I am.
At this very moment, depending on when you read this, I am either at school, listening to music on my bed, reading, doing homework, at Scouts, or doing various other activities that I do.
I know it's hard to believe. Okay, I'm articulate. When I wrote the letter... it didn't come across as that articulate or eloquent to me. It was just me. But okay, yes, I am rather eloquent. Is that the reason it is hard to believe I am 13? I have had a passion for reading and writing since the age of 2 or 3 years of age, and I read about 100 books a year; my vocabularly is large. I go to a grammar school; I took a test to get there, and I was classed as gifted and talented at literacy long ago.
I'm also a debater. I am part of my school debating club and was in a competition with Sixth Formers, as the youngest in the competition, last November. We didn't place; but it was an achievement to be there, for me.
I won't lie. I am 13. And although I do find it a bit funny, and a bit of a compliment, that people don't believe I am 13, I'm too eloquent... eventually it hurts. It does! I wrote this! And I'm not vain, but I'm proud of the piece that I wrote.
"Huffington Post" comment responses
"If Charli, aged 13, is real; then Mr. Gove will hold no fears for this articulate young person. She obviously comes from well educated parents; pushing her cause for a future...But I would say you raise many questions...What is your concern; bearing in mind you maybe reading far more than your peer group... I find it strange that a 13 year old should worry about reception classes and what they are taught? Excuse me if I have misread your post; but in my day we did not acknowledge the ones younger than us at all. Question; would I be incorrect in assuming your parents are teachers? One statement before finishing; Mr. Gove is not out to harm the ones achieving, but to push the teachers to better standards..."
Thank you for your kind comments and questions. My parents are split, though my mum is extremely well educated. My concern? I want everyone to read; to enjoy English; to want to achieve in English. I don't care if I can go to any library and pick out those books; I have the initiative, though many don't. I worry about reception classes because I have siblings, and my friends have siblings, and generally, I believe the reception classes need to be taught culture. Within this letter, it is just an example; I wouldn't suppose Gove would go that far.
Neither my mum, dad or stepfather work in teaching. My mum works in birth and helping women; my father in retail, and my stepfather is a landscaper. Law and politics have been MY passion, since I was 10, particularly in the last year and a half. Reading and writing was just encouraged by my mum.
I don't think Gove is trying to "push the teachers". Taking out books they have been teaching for years and probably know back to front, studied themselves, etc, will only harm their standards.
" Can't anybody see it! The only way for the Conservatives to retake control after last week's shenanigans is to get Michael Gove to say something stupid. Any publicity is good publicity."
This is very possibly true. That doesn't mean I can't be angry though; does it?
"The correct headline should be a 13 year olds dad wrote a letter.Stienbeck ,salinger etc are not necessary you can read tortilla flats etc in your spare time whether you are examined on Jane Austen or mark Twain is irrelevent the fact is the breadth in English lit alone is staggering and these are your heritage"
That isn't the correct headline because I am 13. I understand I can read them in my own time; but I want to study them. I want to learn, understand their meanings, and what they teach. Also; I wonder why you say "13 year olds dad". Why couldn't it have been a 13 year old's mum? And please, sort out your capital letters.
Many have said it is no longer true.
At the time I wrote it, it was. I will not be taking it down. At the time, it was true. It could still go ahead. We don't know. It is Mr. Gove, after all.
I cannot reply to all the comments and tweets I have received, though these responses cover what people wanted to know. I desperately want to respond to the lovely, supportive comments and tweets, but I just don't have that type of time.
To wrap it up.
I just want to thank everyone again for the support I have received. It's been amazing and if I could respond to you all I would.
Over 40 thousand people have read it, because of it being posted on the Huffington Post here.
From this, I have had around a 100 people tweet me with such lovely comments and gained 200 followers.
It's been amazing. And I can't thank you all enough.
However, there has been the negative side of it, too.
Mr. Gove posted this article on The Telegraph. So a few people have been all like "oh take it down it's not true". Personally, I find it odd that it was posted after all the outrage, in another newspaper to the original article.
A lot of people are saying that I said he was going to ban TKAMB and OMAM. I never said that; because that wasn't what was going to happen. I said he was going to take them out of the GCSE curriculum, because that is what he said was going to happen.
On being thirteen
I'm a truthful person. I am 13 years old. I have had a lot of comments that say it has been a parent, or anyone, just not a 13 year old. Well, I am. I'm sorry to ruin these illusions, but I am.
At this very moment, depending on when you read this, I am either at school, listening to music on my bed, reading, doing homework, at Scouts, or doing various other activities that I do.
I know it's hard to believe. Okay, I'm articulate. When I wrote the letter... it didn't come across as that articulate or eloquent to me. It was just me. But okay, yes, I am rather eloquent. Is that the reason it is hard to believe I am 13? I have had a passion for reading and writing since the age of 2 or 3 years of age, and I read about 100 books a year; my vocabularly is large. I go to a grammar school; I took a test to get there, and I was classed as gifted and talented at literacy long ago.
I'm also a debater. I am part of my school debating club and was in a competition with Sixth Formers, as the youngest in the competition, last November. We didn't place; but it was an achievement to be there, for me.
I won't lie. I am 13. And although I do find it a bit funny, and a bit of a compliment, that people don't believe I am 13, I'm too eloquent... eventually it hurts. It does! I wrote this! And I'm not vain, but I'm proud of the piece that I wrote.
"Huffington Post" comment responses
"If Charli, aged 13, is real; then Mr. Gove will hold no fears for this articulate young person. She obviously comes from well educated parents; pushing her cause for a future...But I would say you raise many questions...What is your concern; bearing in mind you maybe reading far more than your peer group... I find it strange that a 13 year old should worry about reception classes and what they are taught? Excuse me if I have misread your post; but in my day we did not acknowledge the ones younger than us at all. Question; would I be incorrect in assuming your parents are teachers? One statement before finishing; Mr. Gove is not out to harm the ones achieving, but to push the teachers to better standards..."
Thank you for your kind comments and questions. My parents are split, though my mum is extremely well educated. My concern? I want everyone to read; to enjoy English; to want to achieve in English. I don't care if I can go to any library and pick out those books; I have the initiative, though many don't. I worry about reception classes because I have siblings, and my friends have siblings, and generally, I believe the reception classes need to be taught culture. Within this letter, it is just an example; I wouldn't suppose Gove would go that far.
Neither my mum, dad or stepfather work in teaching. My mum works in birth and helping women; my father in retail, and my stepfather is a landscaper. Law and politics have been MY passion, since I was 10, particularly in the last year and a half. Reading and writing was just encouraged by my mum.
I don't think Gove is trying to "push the teachers". Taking out books they have been teaching for years and probably know back to front, studied themselves, etc, will only harm their standards.
" Can't anybody see it! The only way for the Conservatives to retake control after last week's shenanigans is to get Michael Gove to say something stupid. Any publicity is good publicity."
This is very possibly true. That doesn't mean I can't be angry though; does it?
"The correct headline should be a 13 year olds dad wrote a letter.Stienbeck ,salinger etc are not necessary you can read tortilla flats etc in your spare time whether you are examined on Jane Austen or mark Twain is irrelevent the fact is the breadth in English lit alone is staggering and these are your heritage"
That isn't the correct headline because I am 13. I understand I can read them in my own time; but I want to study them. I want to learn, understand their meanings, and what they teach. Also; I wonder why you say "13 year olds dad". Why couldn't it have been a 13 year old's mum? And please, sort out your capital letters.
Many have said it is no longer true.
At the time I wrote it, it was. I will not be taking it down. At the time, it was true. It could still go ahead. We don't know. It is Mr. Gove, after all.
I cannot reply to all the comments and tweets I have received, though these responses cover what people wanted to know. I desperately want to respond to the lovely, supportive comments and tweets, but I just don't have that type of time.
To wrap it up.
I just want to thank everyone again for the support I have received. It's been amazing and if I could respond to you all I would.
25/05/2014
An Open Letter to Mr. Gove
Today, some of you may have heard of Mr. Gove's changes to the English GCSE and A-Level curriculum. Now, I am going to write an open letter to Sir, keeping it as polite as humanly possibly, because I have had enough.
Dear Mr. Gove,
My name is Charli and I am 13 years old. I have been blogging about politics and law for nearly a year, particularly in the Save UK Justice campaign, against your good friend Mr. Grayling. I woke up this morning to an uproar about your changes to the English Curriculum.
Personally, I am disgusted about your new curriculum changes. I can imagine that there has been no democracy to this decision. Why should To Kill a Mockingbird, one of the most influential texts in the world, and Of Mice and Men, be removed from our curriculum?
In September, I will be in Year 9. That means I won't be starting my actual GCSE course, but in preparation to do so. I am an aspiring lawyer, and so both English Literature and English Language A-Levels were a possibility to me. Now, I am not so sure.
English has always been a passion to me. I have adored both reading and writing since the age of two. And now? Now, you are out to destroy that passion, of thousands. Yes, there are a lot of teenagers that don't give one about English, or their education, but some of us do.
I, as much as you, believe Shakespeare and Dickens should be studied. But I, apparently unlike you, believe other texts should be studied too.
I want to draw attention to a certain part of this article (right). " 'Of Mice and Men, which Gove really dislikes, will not be included.' ".
From the article, this is the phrase that may have shocked me the most. You "really dislike" it? I'm sorry, Sir, but you cannot just go around removing things from a curriculum just because you don't like it. If I was education minister and this was how you go about things, I'd be removing maths and science. But that isn't how it works, I'm afraid.
Another thing I'd like to pick up on is the fact that this "new and improved" curriculum only includes English authors. Not even Irish! The Government want us all to be more tolerant about other races, and then increases the fact that many children are not educated on other cultures. Personally, I grew up on books like Handa's Surprise and many others, and I love reading other books, and books from America. Are you going to change the fact that reception children read Handa's Surprise and do work on it? I can imagine it now.
As a Government, in this one decision, you are turning around all the things you want. You want us to be more tolerant as a society, and what was that other thing? Oh yes... Better results in English. I don't think boring us to absolute tears is the way to do this.
The Colour Purple, which wasn't on the curriculum but deserves a mention, is one of my favourites. I have previously attempted To Kill A Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men. I didn't understand them then, but I guarantee over my summer holiday this year they will be on my (extremely tall) reading pile, studied and written about in depth by me. Why? Because I want to learn. I want to learn about what these books have to give. About our society.
Today, #tokillamockingbird, #Gove and Of Mice and Men are all trending topics. #Govekillsmockingbird is also high up. People do care. This will not go unnoticed, Sir.
I could go on for hours, also talking about your changes in general GCSE's and summer holidays, but I won't, right now. All I will say, is I would watch your back. And your post box.
I don't suppose you will ever read this, but if you do, thank you very much.
Charli, age 13,
Justice campaigner who is very concerned for her education and future,
Lover of English
Dear Mr. Gove,
My name is Charli and I am 13 years old. I have been blogging about politics and law for nearly a year, particularly in the Save UK Justice campaign, against your good friend Mr. Grayling. I woke up this morning to an uproar about your changes to the English Curriculum.
Personally, I am disgusted about your new curriculum changes. I can imagine that there has been no democracy to this decision. Why should To Kill a Mockingbird, one of the most influential texts in the world, and Of Mice and Men, be removed from our curriculum?
In September, I will be in Year 9. That means I won't be starting my actual GCSE course, but in preparation to do so. I am an aspiring lawyer, and so both English Literature and English Language A-Levels were a possibility to me. Now, I am not so sure.
English has always been a passion to me. I have adored both reading and writing since the age of two. And now? Now, you are out to destroy that passion, of thousands. Yes, there are a lot of teenagers that don't give one about English, or their education, but some of us do.
I, as much as you, believe Shakespeare and Dickens should be studied. But I, apparently unlike you, believe other texts should be studied too.
 | ||
| "The Sunday Times" Article today, which has blown up on Twitter. |
From the article, this is the phrase that may have shocked me the most. You "really dislike" it? I'm sorry, Sir, but you cannot just go around removing things from a curriculum just because you don't like it. If I was education minister and this was how you go about things, I'd be removing maths and science. But that isn't how it works, I'm afraid.
Another thing I'd like to pick up on is the fact that this "new and improved" curriculum only includes English authors. Not even Irish! The Government want us all to be more tolerant about other races, and then increases the fact that many children are not educated on other cultures. Personally, I grew up on books like Handa's Surprise and many others, and I love reading other books, and books from America. Are you going to change the fact that reception children read Handa's Surprise and do work on it? I can imagine it now.
As a Government, in this one decision, you are turning around all the things you want. You want us to be more tolerant as a society, and what was that other thing? Oh yes... Better results in English. I don't think boring us to absolute tears is the way to do this.
The Colour Purple, which wasn't on the curriculum but deserves a mention, is one of my favourites. I have previously attempted To Kill A Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men. I didn't understand them then, but I guarantee over my summer holiday this year they will be on my (extremely tall) reading pile, studied and written about in depth by me. Why? Because I want to learn. I want to learn about what these books have to give. About our society.
Today, #tokillamockingbird, #Gove and Of Mice and Men are all trending topics. #Govekillsmockingbird is also high up. People do care. This will not go unnoticed, Sir.
I could go on for hours, also talking about your changes in general GCSE's and summer holidays, but I won't, right now. All I will say, is I would watch your back. And your post box.
I don't suppose you will ever read this, but if you do, thank you very much.
Charli, age 13,
Justice campaigner who is very concerned for her education and future,
Lover of English
24/01/2014
"I'm Only 12... Why Should I Know What's Going On?"
This post has been sparked by my history lessons at the moment. We're doing voting, and people who have died for the vote and for change.
So, we were doing why people don't vote. Here were some top reasons:
But what actually inspired this particular post was a conversation with my friend after the lesson (walking to the bus stop, if you're interested)
Anyway. I digress.
But I think that maybe, just maybe, we need to be educated some more on topics like this. But every vote does count, and my generation should know what's going on economically and politically. Legal Aid is involved with politics, on a general level, and we're going to be really affected by it. If you refer back to my post here about the amount of young people wanting to go into law, it goes to show how many are naive to what is happening but yet want to have a profession in such a passionate topic.
So what?
I'm passionate about law, about politics. I think all the women and men who have died for us to have justice, the vote, everything, should be honoured and everyone should vote, should have that justice, and it shouldn't be taken away! My generations and many generations to come need to learn on a more psychological level, as opposed to just historical, about what's happening, voting and Legal Aid.
So, we were doing why people don't vote. Here were some top reasons:
- Laziness
- Can't be bothered
- Don't understand politics
- Doesn't care
- One vote won't matter
- How the heck will it affect me
- All the parties are liars
- The weather (I found this one somewhat hilarious)
But what actually inspired this particular post was a conversation with my friend after the lesson (walking to the bus stop, if you're interested)
- Her: I don't think I'll bother. And this stuff bores me in the lesson. I'm 12. It doesn't affect me yet.
- Me: It will... Our generation's justice is on the line and we already have a messed up economy [Explains economy and recession]
- Her: But still. I don't care YET. I shouldn't, anyway, I'm just a kid.
- Me: Well, maybe not, but you need to know or you won't know when we're older, we only have 5 or 6 years before we're in that position.
- Her: But what does one vote count?
- Me: Every vote counts. If every person who said that voted, there would be so many more votes, so it does count.
Anyway. I digress.
But I think that maybe, just maybe, we need to be educated some more on topics like this. But every vote does count, and my generation should know what's going on economically and politically. Legal Aid is involved with politics, on a general level, and we're going to be really affected by it. If you refer back to my post here about the amount of young people wanting to go into law, it goes to show how many are naive to what is happening but yet want to have a profession in such a passionate topic.
So what?
I'm passionate about law, about politics. I think all the women and men who have died for us to have justice, the vote, everything, should be honoured and everyone should vote, should have that justice, and it shouldn't be taken away! My generations and many generations to come need to learn on a more psychological level, as opposed to just historical, about what's happening, voting and Legal Aid.
18/12/2013
The UR Boss Young People's Manifesto
The UR Boss Manifesto has been created by Young People about how the Criminal Justice System needs to change. You can view it here.
There are many aspects to the manifesto such as education, housing and relationships, but for this blog post I am going to focus on two of the sections: LEGAL AID and IT'S DIFFERENT FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS.
The Legal Aid section says...*
I think this definitely shows perfectly everything I am standing for; I believe that children need to be educated and know their own rights and all about fair treatment within the law. Legal assistance needs to be provided more, as does support: more goes on about children than we really see, and we do need the support! And, yes, we DEFINITELY need more support.
I can speak from a kinda experience. My dad and my mum had issues when they were splitting up, and we [My mum] used Legal Aid because she didn't know what else she could do and, for want of a better term, she was skint. And now, I am trying to decide whether to change my surname to my stepdad's, which my mum and siblings have. It's hard, and we need the support and the access; justice is something with a really wide definition and people only see the "oh justice means if they're guilty or not in court" side of it sometimes.
It is a massive assault on justice, the MoJ's plans, as we know; and for young people in prison it is absolutely no different.
And the IT'S DIFFERENT FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS bit says...*
There are many aspects to the manifesto such as education, housing and relationships, but for this blog post I am going to focus on two of the sections: LEGAL AID and IT'S DIFFERENT FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS.
The Legal Aid section says...*
I think this definitely shows perfectly everything I am standing for; I believe that children need to be educated and know their own rights and all about fair treatment within the law. Legal assistance needs to be provided more, as does support: more goes on about children than we really see, and we do need the support! And, yes, we DEFINITELY need more support.
I can speak from a kinda experience. My dad and my mum had issues when they were splitting up, and we [My mum] used Legal Aid because she didn't know what else she could do and, for want of a better term, she was skint. And now, I am trying to decide whether to change my surname to my stepdad's, which my mum and siblings have. It's hard, and we need the support and the access; justice is something with a really wide definition and people only see the "oh justice means if they're guilty or not in court" side of it sometimes.
It is a massive assault on justice, the MoJ's plans, as we know; and for young people in prison it is absolutely no different.
And the IT'S DIFFERENT FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS bit says...*
YES! Again. I'm a feminist, and I'm not ashamed of it, and this shows what needs to happen for women in criminal justice and in society in general. On the first point, I can definitely say it's true. Things like this aren't built for girls or women, particularly in pregnancy etc etc. It's VERY different to criminal justice, but I'm going to use a simile of Scouting here. Scouting went unisex in 2007/8 or so, and I love it. We're respected, if teased (I was the first and only girl in my GROUP, and now there is a ratio of 3 of us girls to about 20 of the boys), but little things like some of the activities and the uniform just aren't built for us as, well, young women!
There is definitely a lack of respect and equality for women in our justice systems, and it's horrible. It needs to change.
And so, I wholely agree with these parts and the rest of the manifesto created by UR Boss. You should read it, and I'm sure you will also agree.
Charli
*screenshots directly from the manifesto. It does not belong to me.
29/10/2013
My Second Consultation Response
Hi guys! Today I'm going to share my second consultation response with you... I don't have the highest confidence in it, but it's all open to interpretation. At least read the last paragraph, it may amuse you.
Side note: I'm in a national debating competition this weekend! :D
Charli
Side note: I'm in a national debating competition this weekend! :D
_______________________________________________________________________________
Concerning: Mrs.
Annette Cowell
Dear Mrs. Cowell and the Ministry of Justice,
My name is Charli. I did respond to the
first consultation, and a few things have changed since then, both in my life,
and in yours. I am now 13 years old, I have decided I want to be a barrister,
and I, as I did before, run my political/law/campaign blog, Little Girl With
The Big Mouth, which you can find at thatgirlwholikespolitics.blogspot.com. As
before, I can’t say that I fully understand all of the questions in the
consultation, and perhaps my answers may come across slightly immature, but
please bare in mind the fact that I am
13 years old, and it’s rather impressive that I can campaign for such a topic
and write a consultation response (if I do say so myself).
Naturally, I still don’t agree fully with the proposed
model. I’ve written so many posts, so many opinions, that I don’t see the
proposals through rose-tinted glasses, though I can’t say I ever did.
“This would retain the same level of choice for clients seeking
criminal legal aid as now”. I can’t say that this is particularly correct. Shouldn’t
there be more? Perhaps it is ok now, perhaps the earlier proposals may have
made it worse, but maybe there should be more. I believe that every client
should have true freedom of choice in
their own rights. Perhaps I am wrong.
The fact that you’ve suddenly
changed your tune on prices is funny, though good. I’m being fair here, because
naturally, you’ll never be right, because you don’t actually listen to what the
people who know best, the lawyers, solicitors etc of the country, say. No
matter what you do or say, you at the MoJ are not lawyers. Maybe you know the law back to front, maybe you think
you know what people want. But you are not in the law profession… You are in
politics. They are linked, but they are not the same. And, no, I am not a
lawyer, neither, but I don’t dispute not understanding what is going on within
the profession. If anything, I appear to understand more.
I don’t agree with this
“determining” how many contracts for Duty Provider Work go out. We go back to
what we said only a few months ago- It. Is. Not. Fair. Granted, I may have
misunderstood you slightly, but the terms you propose really don’t appear fair.
In all honesty, it doesn’t look like you look at statistics of how many people
use legal aid and what is needed for this country to function!
I definitely don’t agree that you
have “correctly identified the extent of impact under these proposals”! Did you
even read the first set of responses? We’ve written about the impact; all of
us: barristers, solicitors, judges… schoolgirls,
badgers! We’ve said so much about how much these proposals will affect us,
but it doesn’t appear that you have realised that. If you had, the proposals
wouldn’t even exist. I, naturally, am mainly fighting for the next generation- my generation- because what you want to
introduce could, and will, ruin justice and legal aid for those who need it, in
the current and next generations, as well as many to come.
Following on
from my next point, I will reference to something that will come across as
slightly strange, to you. Apart from being an academic, law/politics blogger, I
am also a book worm and book blogger. One trend, that I rather enjoy, in the YA
(Young Adult) book world is dystopia. Dystopia-
if you didn’t know- is a term for a book talking about a horrific future
because of something that has happened. Examples you may have heard of are The
Hunger Games and Divergent. The Hunger Games is because of fights. Divergent is
because of disagreements in society. Now, I don’t want to live in a slightly
dystopic world because there is no justice, no legal aid. Because, let’s all be
grown up here, there isn’t really a Batman, Superman or Spiderman. We can’t
click our fingers and come to justice. That just isn’t how it works. And, as an
individual, as a young girl, I am honestly scared for what impact your
proposals could really have on the UK.
A lot of
this may seem like rubbish. A lot of it may be my misunderstanding and will be
wrong. But maybe it isn’t. Maybe, you should see your own proposals through
others’ eyes, perhaps a young girl’s who is concerned for her generation. And
who am I kidding; you probably won’t even read this, you’ll pass over it as a
young girl being silly, thinking she understands something. I am also sorry
that I come across as slightly sarcastic throughout my response; I am not
normally like this to my elders, but within the circumstances of this response,
of this fight, I think that it is fine for me to get my point across in such a
fashion.
Should you
want to ask me about anything to do with this response, you may contact me at charli-toanotherworld(at)outlook(dot)com,
but depending, you may or may not receive an answer.
Thank you
for reading my views, if you actually did.
Charli
The Little
Girl With The Big Mouth (Currently campaigning with Save UK Justice)
thatgirlwholikespolitics.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________________________________
Comments would be welcome guys! You can now comment without a google profile :)
Charli
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)