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.
Peter Tatchell and Dominic Grieve debate whether it is acceptable to break the law. Peter Tatchell feels that there are occasions when it is not only acceptable but is necessary to do so. In contrast Dominic Grieve believes that breaking the law is always wrong.
Peter Tatchell: says YES, there are times and valid reasons for protestors to break the law:
Our democratic traditions are full of brave people who have broken the law to achieve change and fairness – women such as the Suffragettes, and others who campaigned for civil rights and for equal rights for gay people. Basic human rights are so important that any action to defend them is acceptable. Reform and change in society come about through the actions of law breakers. The media is now an increasingly important messenger highlighting and making important causes well known.
General elections by themselves are not enough to achieve changes needed. They occur only once every five years or so and they do not reflect the wishes of the people in the UK. Indeed, many political parties that win an election do not keep the promises they made. Protesting and breaking the law is justified if this represents the wishes of most people. Protests and demonstrations may be a nuisance, but this is a price we pay for living in a democracy. In many ways we must admire the courage of people who break the law, showing their beliefs and bringing change for the good of others.
Dominic Grieve: says NO, there are no occasions when it is valid for protestors to break the law:
The law is there to protect all of us, and we all have to obey it – otherwise disorder and chaos would break out if we just obeyed the laws we liked; you cannot run a society on those principles. We must accept that there are competing rights which means that different groups conflict. However, the one side which causes more damage or inconvenience should not become the winner – that is not justice. We cannot allow law-breaking protest to escalate – it is a type of blackmail, they are saying ‘do this or else…’. How can this be considered democratic? Many actions of law breakers are selfish and expose others to harm.
Society works on compromise and at times we all must accept that leaders take necessary but difficult decisions; we cannot rebel at every action we do not like. Widespread and illegal actions break down the way we live in society and break the rule of law. The media is a powerful and influential tool but, all too often, it glorifies lawbreakers and this cannot be tolerated and should not be encouraged. The ballot box and voting is the way to achieve change. Protesting is acceptable, but it must be done legally.
"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. He says that it is a valid reason to break the law to achieve change. He uses the Suffragettes as an example of brave people who were law breakers but they achieved fairness for women. He also says that elections are not enough to bring change because politicians break their promises. On the other hand, Dominic Grieve says there are no occasions when it is valid to break the law. He argues that we must all obey the law to protect us. He says that protesting illegally is not democratic and is selfish and can expose others to harm. He thinks change should only be achieved through voting. In conclusion, I think Tatchell is more correct. His view is better because history shows that protest works and sometimes you have to break the law for the greater good.
"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’s argument that there are valid reasons for protestors to break the law. Tatchell’s view is that when democratic processes like elections fail to deliver necessary change, direct action becomes necessary. He argues that the fight for 'basic human rights' is so important that breaking the law is 'acceptable' to defend them, pointing to the historical success of groups like the Suffragettes. This suggests he believes the moral case for justice can sometimes be more important than the legal case for order. However, I can also see the validity in Dominic Grieve’s counter-argument. Grieve’s main concern is for the rule of law, which he believes protects everyone in society. His argument is that if people simply choose which laws to follow, society would descend into 'disorder and chaos'. He views illegal protests as a form of 'blackmail' which is undemocratic because it allows the loudest and most disruptive group to win, rather than what is decided through the proper channel of voting. In conclusion, while Grieve's point about chaos is logical, I find Tatchell’s argument more convincing. Grieve’s ideal of achieving all change through the 'ballot box' seems unrealistic for minority groups who may be consistently ignored by the majority. Tatchell’s view acknowledges that history has proven that sometimes breaking an unjust law is the only way to achieve a fairer society. Therefore, the risk of temporary disruption seems a necessary price to pay for securing fundamental rights.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer referring to arguments made in both parts of the source."
While Dominic Grieve presents a compelling case for the necessity of the rule of law, I ultimately find Peter Tatchell's argument that law-breaking can be justified more convincing. Grieve's primary concern is that society would descend into 'disorder and chaos' if individuals could pick which laws to obey. He argues this is undemocratic and a form of 'blackmail'. This is a valid point, as a society needs stable rules to function, and widespread disobedience on every issue would be unsustainable. However, Tatchell’s argument is grounded in historical reality. He points to the Suffragettes and gay rights campaigners as examples of 'brave people who have broken the law to achieve change'. Tatchell argues that 'basic human rights are so important that any action to defend them is acceptable'. This view is more persuasive because it acknowledges that the law itself can sometimes be the source of injustice. If we follow Grieve's logic rigidly, significant social progress may never have occurred. For example, the US Civil Rights Movement, led by figures like Martin Luther King Jr., relied heavily on civil disobedience – breaking segregation laws – to expose deep-seated injustice. Grieve’s suggestion to simply use the 'ballot box' is insufficient when a minority group is oppressed by the majority, as elections may never reflect their needs. Therefore, while Grieve’s fear of 'anarchy' is understandable, it is an overstated risk. Tatchell’s argument is stronger because it accepts the uncomfortable truth that progress sometimes requires radical action against an unjust status quo. History shows that law-breaking in the name of human rights is not 'selfish', as Grieve claims, but can be a courageous act for the collective good. It is a necessary, albeit risky, tool in a functioning democracy.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with keeping the statue because if you don't keep it people will be forgotten how they looked when they were alive and if someone made peace for us people will want to be like him. And it is also a bad reason because people can pray to them as their leader or god which is very bad. So statues are very bad because so of them can offend people like if you do a statue of a slave so they should forbid things that are racism, sexism. So in my opinion it is kind of both but I agree more with not having statues so they will not be trouble of people.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with the point statues should remain as they are part of our history, identity and culture to some extent. Although statues sometimes tells us things about the past that we might not wish to know, it shows the truth in depths of history as there isn't going to always be a hero in a situation, there is also an opposer too as well. For example many statues from ancient rome tells us about life in ancient rome and we have to be thankful they survived to tell us a story. However I also agree with the claim that they should be removed if attitude changes this is because if a statue was to show appreciation of cultures and history why then involve the people that hurt and put them through pain and torture. For example Edward Colston had been involved...
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
To some extent I agree with that Statues should be removed because the past use to remind people of what happened which can be bad or good. Another point is that for example there was a statue representing a white man who had black slaves and I think that is wrong because it is showing the world the bad thing that has past. However, I also agree that statues should remain as they are part of our history, identity and culture. This is because the people that done something good or important for the world should be recognised for their action however I do not agree that people who done something bad should not be recognised and should not have a statue. At last I agree that statues should be removed as they make people fear depending on what the person did.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I mostly agree with the writer who says statues should remain as they are part of our history, identity and culture. This is because statues show our history and important people who changed our society today, and also great stuff which we should remember and it can also help us about our past. However, some statues should be removed as it shows us some negativity in the past that should be forgotten. For example the statue of 17th Century slave trade owner, Edward Colston's statue was taken down as he was a slave owner and during that time it was a BLM protest.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
Some may agree with that statues should be removed if attitudes change because some people may be hateful and despise the values these statues hold. For example the people of Iraq successfully toppled his statue as a symbol of ending former oppression. This shows some people think that we should leave our past and not celebrate the lives of disgraced former leaders and their values. Some may think that statues should remain as they are part of our history, identity and culture. They believe this because statues are about the identity of peoples and regions, these statues may mean a lot to peoples religions and communities. For example many statues from Roman times tell us about life in ancient rome and we should be thankful they survived their story. In sum, ultimately, I believe that we shouldn't break down statues as they hold great value and show many different beliefs and meanings.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with the writer that says they should remain. This is because I think that statues represent the history and culture of our country. If we remove them the people as the statues would of put in all that work for nothing. Well some people would agree with me because statues are seen as memories and history of what happened in the past, like they said "They cast a light onto our history." This symbolises statues are an important part of a culture and put happiness and joy into our society. For example Nelson Mandela is known as a modern hero for what he done and for what he accomplished. Whereas some people might disagree with me because they think statues should be removed if attitudes change.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
In my opinion, I think the statues should be kept as part of who we are and our history. Statues like Anne Frank, Winston Churchill, Mandela or even fictional heroes like Peter Pan shouldn't be removed as it shows our history as British citizens and fictional heroes like Robin Hood or Peter Pan evoke a feeling of safety and recognition in people especially children. Although some people feel that some statues should be removed following change in attitude as they celebrate people who did bad things but not all statues share the same faults. In conclusion I think statues should be kept as a tribute to our history and British citizens and to celebrate our culture.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with writer A that statues should be removed if attitudes change. An example of this would be in 2020 when a group of people toppled the statue of 17th Century slave owner, Edward Colston, into the harbour in Bristol. This showcased that Black people weren't happy with his involvement in the slave trade and believed that the statue was an insult to former slaves. However, on the other hand, I can understand the other writer's point of view as statues are a symbol of respect to legends who have passed away and they are there to remember their legacy and what they stood for. An example of this would be the statue of Anne Frank which is there to remember her and her families bravery during WW2. In conclusion, I agree with writer A as they shows us how the world is evolving and we need to become more aware of our surroundings.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
The argument is that statues should be removed. I personally disagree with this statement; this is because statues commemorate our past and I believe that some statues should remain, only ones which helped develop society for the better; people may look up to some statues since it gives them hope for a better world. However, some people believe that statues should be removed if attitudes change; I somewhat agree with this, because these are some statues of bad people for example a group of people illegally toppled a statue of 17th Century slave-owner (Edward Colston). I believe that this was valid this is because he did nothing but make the world worse. Statues tell us things about the past which we might have not known about.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree more with writer A who believes that statues should be removed if they represent past actions that could trigger or offend modern world citizens. An example is the statue of Edward Colston who was involved in the slave trade, the statue was taken down by Black Lives Matter activists likely because the idea of involvement with the slave trade offended those of coloured skin. This proves that past actions can effect modern.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with the view that believes statues should remain as they are a part of our history. I agree with this point because although certain parts of history may be triggering for some, it is still important for us to know about historical figures who made a historical change in our world. The writer states how 'statues sometimes tell us things about the past we might not wish to know - but these are better revealed than concealed'. I massively agree with this statement as we should be able to know who caused harm to our world and who caused good in order to understand how we ended up here today. On the other hand, some may agree with the other writer who believes statues should be removed if the attitudes of the world change. This writer states how, 'we should not use our streets and squares to celebrate the lives of disgraced former leaders and their values'. Unlike the first writer who believes we can learn from the statues, they believe having leaders who caused harm to our world shown on our streets could lead people to think that what they've done is honourable.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with writer number 1. Although a statue may have been built at a time where the person the statue was made for actions may have been condoned. With changing times there are changing morals and upholding a statue made for a person who upheld disgusting behaviour is publicly praising and justifying their behaviour. For example, Edward Colston the slave-owner having a statue commemorates his behaviour and is a slap in the face to all descendants of slaves. It also goes against British morality to praise a slaveowner. However, it can also be argued that holding historical figures to modern-day standards is unfair and that all these figures of the past are simply products of their time.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with the statement that says statues are important as they are part of our history, identity and culture. For example, statues are used to honour those who have done good or brought peace to society. E.g. Anne Frank wrote her day to day life during the holocaust in her diary, which helped reveal the treatment that Jewish people received during the Holocaust. Also it allows us to learn of past events like the Holocaust. This is important because it allows people to learn more about their past and connect more with their roots. Another reason why, I agree is it's against the law to damage statues and release your anger as they are property. For example, you can't release your anger because you supposedly disagree with the person's news and opinions. If they were to destroy or topple a statue it would go against the human rights act - Right to property. Therefore, I agree with this statement because statues are important for helping people educate themselves and help people connect with their roots, not only that it's illegal to topple and destroy statues, because it goes against our right to property.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree the most with that statues should not be removed. This is because they represent the history of others and what they had to live through. In my opinion the statues should also be kept up as they allow people to remember daily what others suffered through to get to where we are today.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with writer 2 more that statues should remain as they are because they have done something significant and they tell us something about the past such as an Holocaust victim Anne Frank reminding us of the strength of the human spirit and what the Jewish people had to go through. On the other hand some people would argue that statues should be removed if attitudes change because for example Jefferson Davis he supported having black slaves.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
In my opinion we should keep on statues of our past. Since it helps us remember what these people did for us but we can remember. Another example of this is Nelson Mandela...
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with the writer who believes that statues should remain as they are part of our history; identity and culture. Reason is, due to the historical imaging that these statues hold, they act as a role model for the younger generations plus they also cast a light onto our history and help us learn about our past. It is also a way to pay remembrance to the ones who have risked their lives for the greater good of the country and those who died heroically. Many statues act as a source of knowledge...
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with No-Statues because they cast a light onto our history and help us learn about our past. Oliver Cromwell, Winston Churchill and King Richard I have celebrated the status. Such as the one in Belfast commemorating the sinking of the Titanic. People struggled with for an example being racially accused, harrased, and people treated black people like slaves because I believe that people always did the right thing. I disagree with yes status because in the summer of 2020, a group of people illegally toppled the statue of 17th century slave-owner Edward Colston. For an example it took place during the Black Lives Matter Protests. However removal should be agreement and not done illegally. Arguments continue over the statue of confederate leader, Jefferson Davis in Virginia.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I mostly agree with Renata [Grieve] because statues remain as a source of influence, ambition and courage which therefore shows its positive and motivational message of famed people's contribution to the world. It also symbolizes the fact that 'statues are about the identity of peoples and regions'. This provides us with the idealisation of motivation and guidance through statues and the values they embody and bring to the world, 'Reminding us of the strength of the human spirit'. This also portrays statues as a source of mental expressing and could increase innovations. However, statues could also change societies views on historical breakthroughs. 'Edward Colston had been involved in the slave trade and many people thought it was an insult to former slaves'. This presents statues of slaves as more of an insult due to the slave trade carrying such embarrassment which made society dislike it from a social perspective, made them believe this statue was a means of embarrassment and seen as the social laughing stock.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with not removing statues that commemorate our past, as the keeping of statues can be used for indication and for memory of the past events that changed many lives. For example, the statues are about the identity of people and regions. These statues cast a light onto our history which helps us learn about our past. Also statues tell us things about the past that we might not know, therefore statues are critical to stay revealed. For example, modern heroes such as Nelson Mandela and Anne Frank are people who fought against oppressors and expressed their feelings against them. Therefore, these statues cast a light on important individuals in history, which helps us learn about our past. So for people to topple those statues are both illegal and immoral because these are individuals who changed the society. Although, people like Edward Colston who represented immoral and inhumane beliefs was legally toppled. This took place in the BLM protest. Edward Colston was involved in the slave trade, therefore when we learn more about our past, the truths, it is wrong to reflect them.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
In source A they talk about why statues should be removed whereas source B says they remain a part of our history, identity and culture. On one hand, source A depicts statues to be broken as they resemble values of slavery for example the statue of a slave owner Edward Colston. Because of this past statue it doesn't show the change we've gone through for an equal society today. On the other hand statues of people such as Nelson Mandela as it shows the perseverance of Nelson Mandela for equality. The statues should stay to encourage us to persevere and fight through. However, another reason why statues should be removed is to show our change for the greater good. For example after dictator Saddam Hussein fell from power the people of Iraq toppled his statue. In conclusion, I believe statues of cruel people such as slave owners should be destroyed whereas statues of people who sacrificed for better should stay.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with that statues should remain as they are part of our history, identity and culture to an extent as we should remember and celebrate people have made a huge, good impact to the societies that have come up to make today's society. For example Nelson Mandela who struggled to achieve a multi-racial South Africa and in Amsterdam seeing the statue of Holocaust victim, Anne Frank, reminding us of the strength of the human spirit. We should be able to learn the history behind the statues. I also disagree with yes-statues should be removed if attitudes change to an extent as if the past about the person is representing something bad about the past and causing problems and disrespect many people it should be taken down. For example in summer of 2020, a group of people illegally toppled the statue of 17th Century slave-owner.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with writer B the most. This is because he says that "statues are about identity of people and religion." This tells me that people can do anything they put their mind to and the statues are able to inspire the community to make better decisions and become better people in society and to have a successful future. So however some people may disagree as people wouldn't want to celebrate what happened in society.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
In slave trade and many thought the statue was an insult to former slaves. This results in people feeling insulted and their ancestors getting mocked. This is then results in people rebelling and taking their own power to do anything to get the statue down.
"Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to the differing arguments made in both parts of the source."
I agree with the writer that say statues should remain as they are a part of our history. This is because it gives historical figures who may not always be celebrated a chance to be celebrated and to show a part of history's journey. This allows us to see how they are celebrated for their actions that may help the world and it motivates them to do better. Furthermore, it gives the younger generation a better perception of figures and it can help them idealise them. This may help them become a better person... For example aspiring young footballers look up to Ronaldo as he is one of the greatest footballers of all time. This allows them to strive to be the best version of themselves. On the other hand one may believe that they should get rid of statues as it allows protesters to topple them and to promote their attention to their protests. For example in the summer of 2020 a group of people illegally toppled the statue of slave owner Edward Colston into the harbour.