A 'Projected Grade' is an estimate of the final grade you might receive if the full essay is completed in the same style as the work assessed.
This highlight shows analysis of View A (Peter Tatchell).
This highlight shows analysis of View B (Dominic Grieve).
This highlight shows your own Evaluation, where you weigh the views or make a judgment.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Peter Tatchell's claim on yes, there are times and valid reasons for protestors to break law. This is because showing how passionate you are in protest does result in change for example 'reform and change in society comes about through the actions of lawbreaking'. This tells us that fighting for what is believed to be right will create change. General elections aren't enough to achieve changes as they only occur once every five years, this means there isn't any daily change taking place. However not all law breaking is valid as the law is here to protect us and other ways it just results in disorder and conflict. This leads to innocent civilians being hurt and causing commotion, rebelling at every action doesn't just cause change it brings consequences as there are alternatives for protesting like peaceful.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Peter Tatchell because throughout history the only way that the oppressed retrieved justice was by speaking the language of their oppressors - violence. The suffragettes, civil right fighters and other marginalized groups all recieved their justice not by simply sitting back and agreeing with the compromises made by those in power, but instead by taking charge. However, you could argue for Dominic Grieve because allowing people to recieve what they want for their project reward violent protest.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Dominic Grieve. I think there should be no occasions for protesters to break the law. This is because if people are allowed to break the law to protest then people will break the laws for other things as well. Furthermore writer B states how chaos would break out if people only followed the rules they liked. I agree that we shouldn't make exceptions as there should be some sort of structure in the legal system instead of making exceptions for certain things or people. For example, when Boris Johnson was not exempt from laws, as during quarantine Boris Johnson had a party at Downing Street during a period of time where no one was allowed to meet. This shows how the law does not make exceptions for any body not even the Prime Minister and they should not be made for protests.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree the most with Peter Tatchell because he believes that there are certain times where you can break the law while protesting. This is because the government won't pay attention to the cause unless there's conflict while protesting. An example could be the suffragettes, they were known for fighting for women's rights. There was a group who did more militant actions to gain the attention of the government. These actions were tying banners onto the royal horses, tying themselves to buildings and having hunger strikes. Eventually, they managed to gain the attention of the government. Their protests are an example of what we can do to spread awareness about a cause to the government. Another reason why I agree with PT is protesting is a human right. For example, we citizens have the right to protest. Also protesting is a democratic principle, if we were to stop protesting and vote instead, like Dominic Grieve says, it would make the country less democratic and potentially not allow everybody's voice to be heard. Lastly, I agree with PT because general elections can not determine when change will happen. For example, general elections happen every 5 years, if we were to vote like Dominic G said, change will most certainly not occur. Moreover, I agree with PT because nothing will change if you don't.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Peter Tatchell because like he said general elections occur only every five years meaning that the people won't be able to share their views quickly. Also even though people vote maybe... the political parties they vote for often break their promises and if they can break promises why can't we break the law. Without protesting people's views won't be taken seriously. However I agree with Dominic that protest shouldn't be illegal but if their views haven't been heard by the Government I believe they have the right to protest in an illegal way.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Dominic Grieve as his evidence makes more sense and he is clearer on how we shouldn't break the law. For example, he states how the law is there in order to protect us and we have to collectively obey or else there would be disorder and chaos all across the world. Evidence for this would be real-life riots which is when people illegally protest on the street destroying shops, windows, buildings and seriously injuring people (or killing them). This can't be tolerated as it makes it harder for police to catch law-breakers. Another reason I agree with Dominic Grieve is due to the fact that he shows how the media can influence and glorify law-breaking. He also tells us that protesting for change is acceptable however, it must be done fairly and legally. On the other hand, I can understand Peter Tatchell's point of view as he gives examples of when brave people break the law and it leads to change.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Dominic Grieve this is because he believes there should be no occasions were protestors should be able to break the law. I agree with this because I believe if protestors are able to break the law then it would just be huge riots and people would be scared to go outside because they could potentially get harmed. However I still believe protestors should be able to break small laws such as like sit-ins or jay-walking, small things like that should be allowed, other than that no laws should be broken. On the other hand, it can be argued that there are times and valid reasons for protestors to break the law, this is to show that the protestors aren't a joke, for example harassment, protestors might harass the police to get their point through. This could be seen.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree more with writer Peter Tatchell, who states that although the law is there to guide and protect us, sometimes it can be just to disobey the law in order to stand for what is right. Peter presents this through the quotation "Our democratic traditions are full of brave people who have broken the law to achieve change and fairness". One example of groups who have broken the law to protect their human rights are the Suffragettes. They protested against the government in the early 1900s because they opposed the fact that women weren't allowed to vote and men were. Their protesting later influenced the UN's idea to make the human right titled 'the right to vote'. One reason why someone may agree with writer Dominic Grieve is because he is strict about the law and people obeying it. He states "We cannot allow law-breaking protest to escalate - it is a type of blackmail.". Ultimately Dominic is arguing about how breaking the law to protest is unacceptable because he sees it as blackmail towards government or police. On top of this if the police were to let people protest and the protest turned violent, people could get hurt or traumatised.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Dominic Grieve mostly and more than I agree with Peter Tatchell. This would be because I think that even if you want something to change or to have a say you shouldn't use violence to grant you that wish. Dominic Grieve says this when he says "The law is there to protect all of us, and we all need to obey it." He is trying to suggest that the law was put in place for a reason and is not to be broken. Whereas Peter Tatchell thinks that there are times that protestors can break the law. He proves this when he says "Our democratic traditions are full of brave people who have broken the law to achieve change and fairness." He says that in severe cases where something like a law is something you and others disagree with for the government to listen and reinforce the rules of this country for example freedom of speech.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I mostly agree with writer Dominic Grieve this is because if we was to not have laws, rules, or rights we would all be just as bad as each other. This explains that if we never had them the society would be chaos. This explains we need to accept the fact we have laws since breaking the law leads to punishment and compromise society. Breaking the law will make people learn from there mistakes but if they don't have laws it will give people the courage to do crimes. On the other hand some rules will cause people to have protests this is because they disagree with the governments choices. This persuades others to join in and causes a chaos of a protest. Back on the government and do what they want since they believe disobeying the government is going to help there struggles.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with the statement that is not allowed to break the law when you protest. For example when you protest you could hurt other people and this is selfish. However it is okay for protestors to break the law. Real change is made through protesting. For example the Suffragettes campaigned for civil right and for equal right. Because of this, woman have the right to vote. In conclusion I think it's not ok to break the law when protesting.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Dominic Grieve this is because he says there are no valid reasons for protesters to break the law as the laws are in place to keep everyone safe and breaking the law whilst protesting could give them the opposite result they are looking for. On the other hand you could argue that peaceful protesting doesn't raise as much attention as violent protesting as violent protesting might get more media coverage which will be helpful as it will reach a bigger audience. Many people would admire the lengths that people would go just to get their opinions heard.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Dominic Grieve more because we live in a democracy. We voted for who we wanted to be our government so if they make a position we do not agree with it shouldn't mean we should break the laws. Protesting illegally can put others in danger because of your opinions and lead to death. So there should be no occasion or valid reason for protesters to break the law whilst protesting. However I also agree with Peter Tatchell because 'democratic traditions are full of brave people who broke the law' such as the suffragettes, who fought their way during a time of an unjust political society. So those women also broken laws to make a change to the current laws of their time. Basic human rights are so important that any action to defend them are acceptable. So in conclusion I agree with Dominic Grieve more.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with writer A because they cannot allow law-breaking protest to escalate - it is a type of blackmail. Also there is many actions of law breakers and selfish people who harm each other. For an example protesting or showing bad influencing, they could end up in prison and people around you might disagree because they are doing wrong things that could cause problem, and also people might get hurt because people who protest or break the law can easily get bombs thrown at them. In my opinion I think breaking law is wrong because law is that people should follow. Also if people don't like the law they must follow the rules or they could get in serious trouble and bad consequences.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Dominic Grieve. This is because there is no acception for breaking the law unless the reason is valid. This can be proven as the 'Just Stop Oil' protestors disturb the peace, vandalise and ruin events which could lead to prison time or even a huge fine. However, protests against war is a valid reason to break the law as many people suffer life-threatening injuries or death. Also protesting against an unjust government or a dictatorship can also be an excusable reason to break the law as their human rights are partially restricted like voting rights.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I personally agree with Peter Tatchell. Although laws are put in place to prevent harm to the public, people like the Suffragettes and equal rights campaigners didn't make change by following the law, they made change by defying it to achieve equality between gender, race or sexuality. They did this due to their system not being enough to achieve equality, so they broke the law to bring good change for everyone. Although this is true, people could agree with Dominic Grieve as he describes this as being just a way to force the government to change stuff to make them happy. Sometimes political parties don't follow their promises which is why these things happen. So breaking the law may not change much. Protesting and breaking the law should be justified if no change is actually being made.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with the first argument because it makes more sense. All laws are here to protect us, keep us safe but if anyone breaks the law chaos will breakout and you cannot run from it. There is a lot of danger to it when breaking the law.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Dominic Grieve the most because of the negative political dangers it will have on the society. It is not acceptable to break the law during protests as it will even make you look foolish in front of higher figures (MPs, Monarchs). We cannot rebel every time we do not like something. This means us democrats need to learn to peacefully present and sometimes detest parliamentary ideas instead of breaking the law to try and achieve it. Furthermore, Peter Tatchell's idealisation of a democratic society through law-breaking proves incorrect. This is because it is stated in the text 'protesting and breaking the law is justified if this represents the wishes of most people'. This shouldn't be seen as justice and shows exactly how collective decision affects the UK.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I mostly agree with Peter Tatchell, not Dominic Grieve. This is because he states, 'YES, there are times and valid reasons for protestors to break the law'. A reason why I agree is the Suffragettes. In this country we have the right to vote and receive what we want for our country. And when people do protests it means they didn't receive what they wanted and since they're just normal they have to do something extreme to achieve change and fairness.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
On one hand people may believe that breaking the law is unacceptable as you can't control people without any laws. For example if smoking was legal, people with asthma may be seriously harmed or die. However people may believe Peter Tatchell as he says that breaking the law had bring freedom, for example for the women suffragettes. Another example is the black rights movement as people for example Rosa Parks broke laws to allow black people to sit wherever they want. Another reason why people agree with Dominic Grieve is because he says that people who protest illegally is a type of blackmail. This is because if large amounts of people cannot be controlled by police, leading to chaos by breaking the law.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Dominic Grieve more than Peter Tatchell. This is because the law is here to protect us from crime and we can't pick and choose what laws we'll break. For example, protest from groups such as the suffragettes broke the laws with their violent protests. This shows that with the breaking of the laws comes with injustice, but in this case many suffragettes got arrested. If justice isn't served other groups would believe its ok to commit a crime. Although, the democratic traditions are full of brave people who have broken the law to achieve change and fairness. The society care about through actions of law breakers, this shows the protestors have valid reasons to break the law as the general elections by themselves are not enough to achieve change needed. Since the election is every 5 years, it doesn't represent the wishes of the people in the UK. Therefore, protesting and breaking the law reflects the true thoughts and ideas of the people.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I mostly agree with Peter Tatchell as yes if we don't make action most political leaders won't listen. As Tatchell said, general elections by themselves are not enough to achieve changes needed. If we don't make a scene they will just ignore us, it isn't fair we should be able to express our feelings. It shows how dedicated people are for change yet those who have the power to do so, don't. Although, on the other hand, as Dominic Grieve said not all violence is acceptable as causing harm to other people isn't acceptable. We shouldn't cause harm nor death amongst others. Some people do go too far and as Dominic Grieve said how can this be considered democratic? There is a point we should cross as you could harm/kill other innocent people.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Peter Tatchell because we have protesting as one of our human rights. For example, we have the right to protest. Dominic Grieve is initially trying to revoke that right that we humans fought for. Also if the right to protest was taken away, it would be less democratic as protesting is a basic principle of a democracy. Therefore, I agree with PT because being able to protest is a valuable right and we should be able to protest in any form possible. However, I understand why others might agree with Dominic Grieve as some protests can get rather violent. For example, if someone started to harass or harm a bystander about their cause. Although, there are some occasions where this might happen, we shouldn't let it reflect on everybody else, only those who become violent. Moreover others might agree with DG as protestors tend to get physical with bystanders.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
Some may agree with Dominic Grieve the most because without laws there would just be chaos. Protestors should not be able to break the law because they want. There are laws in place to keep peace and make sure everyone is safe. Protestors may think going around damaging things and using violence is proving a point but all it does is promote violence. So you cannot just break laws for decisions you don't like. Some examples are the Southwark riot in 2012, that riot did nothing but break rules and promote violence, which did not bring any changes to the society. Some people may believe that you have to break the law in a protest. This may be true because most violent protest have made a change to society. One example is the suffragettes which made...
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Peter Tatchell as he believes that there are valid times and reasons for protesters to break the law. Protesters break the law to be able to see a change. Many people from the past such as suffragettes and those who fought for equal human rights also broke the law whilst protesting. Protesters don't break the law so people can fear them, they break it for the good of others. Those who break the law to fight, risk themselves being punished so others will be able to have it better. So as Peter Tatchell states, 'we must admire the courage of people who break the law showing their beliefs and bringing change for the good of others'. On the other hand, some may agree with Dominic Grieve as he feels that there are absolutely no occasions where violence during protesting is allowed. Dominic explains how the law is there to protect all of us, and we must obey it. Dominic acknowledges the fact that laws aren't always able to benefit everyone, however if everyone was...