An Integral Part Of All Modern Societies - 1011 Words

Nikolay Kolev Shakir Ghazi Humanities 2 Dec, 15, 2015 Written works have been an integral part of all modern societies. This is even more so true with the Puritans, whose life was governed by their religious principles. It is crucial to realise to what degree religion is nested inside the Puritan mindset. Their faith was not simply common ideas they shared. For them their religion was the only thing that could be important, it was the basis of their values and communal structure. For example - they left on the journey to america so they could freely worship their religion and to show the rest of the world the moral high ground it represented. This was because of the definite way their faith was structured. They believed in the concept of†¦show more content†¦Consider the fearful danger you are in: It is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God†. As is to be expected from their religion Puritan writing can be divided into three major categories - religious literature, poetry and journals.All Puritan writing had a common goal - â€Å"To transform a mysterious god - mysterious because he is separate from the world† while also glorifying him. Another important thing to notice that is common between all Puritan writing is that it always has a clearly defined purpose.Looking at their religious literature it’s easy to see that it is actually in fact influenced by their religious devotion(...). Their sermons were usually plain in style as to stay with their original idea and purpose without losing coherency, while also appealing to the common listener as straight to the point and convincing. There are a couple of main themes a sermon could have. It could be preaching to the people who do not share their beliefs with the Puritans. Such a sermon would describe the danger in which nonbelievers are while urging them to rethink their way of life and understand that fleeing to christ is their only salvation. An example of such a sermon would be â€Å"Sinners in the hand of an angry god†. Its structure is simple and

History of Alexandria Ancient and Medieval Period

Founded in 332 B.C. by Alexander the Great, Alexandria was intended to supersede Naucratis (q.v.) as a Greek centre in Egypt, and to be the link between Macedonia and the rich Nile Valley. If such a city was to be on the Egyptian coast, there was only one possible site, behind the screen of the Pharos island and removed from the silt thrown out by Nile mouths. An Egyptian townlet, Rhacotis, already stood on the shore and was a resort of fishermen and pirates. Behind it (according to the Alexandrian treatise, known as pseudo-Callisthenes) were five native villages scattered along the strip between Lake Mareotis and the sea. Alexander occupied Pharos, and had a walled city marked out by Deinocrates on the mainland to include Rhacotis. A few months later he left Egypt for the East and never returned to his city; but his corpse was ultimately entombed there. His viceroy, Cleomenes, continued the creation of Alexandria. The Heptastadium, however, and the mainland quarters seem to have been mainly Ptolemaic work. Inheriting the trade of ruined Tyre and becoming the centre of the new commerce between Europe and the Arabian and Indian East, the city grew in less than a century to be larger than Carthage; and for some centuries more it had to acknowledge no superior but Rome. It was a centre not only of Hellenism but of Semitism, and the greatest Jewish city in the world. There the Septuagint was produced. The early Ptolemies kept it in order and fostered the development of its museum into the leading Greek university; but they were careful to maintain the distinction of its population into three nations, Macedonian (i.e. Greek), Jew and Egyptian. From this division arose much of the later turbulence which began to manifest itself under Ptolemy Philopater. Nominally a free Greek city, Alexandria retained its senate to Roman times; and indeed the judicial functions of that body were restored by Septimius Severus, after temporary abolition by Augustus. The city passed formally under Roman jurisdiction in 80 B.C., according to the will of Ptolemy Alexander: but it had been under Roman influence for more than a hundred years previously. There Julius Caesar dallied with Cleopatra in 47 B.C. and was mobbed by the rabble; there his example was followed by Antony, for whose favour the city paid dear to Octavian, who placed over it a prefect from the imperial household. Alexandria seems from this time to have regained its old prosperity, commanding, as it did, an important granary of Rome. This latter fact, doubtless, was one of the chief reasons which induced Augustus to place it directly under the imperial power. In A.D. 215 the emperor Caracalla visited the city; and, in order to repay some insulting satires that the inhabitants had made upon him, he commanded his troops to put to death all youths capable of bearing arms. This brutal order seems to have been carried out even beyond the letter, for a general massacre was the result. Not withstanding this terrible disaster, Alexandria soon recovered its former splendour, and for some time longer was esteemed the first city of the world after Rome. Even as its main historical importance had formerly sprung from pagan learning, so now it acquired fresh importance as a centre of Christian theology and church government. There Arianism was formulated and there Athanasius, the great opponent of both heresy and pagan rcaction, worked and triumphed. As native influences, however, began to reassert themselves in the Nile valley, Alexandria gradually became an alien city, more and more detached from Egypt; and, losing much of its commerce as the peace of the empire broke up during the 3rd century A.D., it declined fast in population and splendour. The Brucheum, and Jewish quarters were desolate in the 5th century, and the central monuments, the Soma and Museum, fallen to ruin. This document is part of an article on Alexandria from the 1911 edition of an encyclopedia that is out of copyright here in the U.S. The article is in the public domain, and you may copy, download, print and distribute this work as you see fit. Every effort has been made to present this text accurately and cleanly, but no guarantees are made against errors. Neither N.S. Gill nor About may be held liable for any problems you experience with the text version or with any electronic form of this document. On the mainland life seems to have centred in the vicinity of the Serapeum and Caesareum, both become Christian churches: but the Pharos and Heptastadium quarters remained populous and intact. In 616 it was taken by Chosroes, king of Persia; and in 640 by the Arabians, under Amr, after a siege that lasted fourteen months, during which Heraclius, the emperor of Constantinople, did not send a single ship to its assistance. Notwithstanding the losses that the city had sustained, Amr was able to write to his master, the caliph Omar, that he had taken a city containing 4000 palaces, 4000 baths, 12,000 dealers in fresh oil, 12,000 gardeners, 40,000 Jews who pay tribute, 400 theatres or places of amusement. The story of the destruction of the library by the Arabs is first told by Bar-hebraeus (Abulfaragius), a Christian writer who lived six centuries later; and it is of very doubtful authority. It is highly improbable that many of the 700,000 volumes collected by the Ptolemies remained at the time of the Arab conquest, when the various calamities of Alexandria from the time of Caesar to that of Diocletian are considered, together with the disgraceful pillage of the library in A.D. 389 under the rule of the Christian bishop, Theophilus, acting on Theodosius decree concerning pagan monumcnts (see LIBRARIES: Ancient History). The story of Abulfaragius runs as follows:-- John the Grammarian, a famous Peripatetic philosopher, being in Alexandria at the time of its capture, and in high favour with Amr, begged that he would give him the royal library. Amr told him that it was not in his power to grant such a request, but promised to write to the caliph for his consent. Omar, on hearing the request of his general, is said to have replied that if those books contained the same doctrine with the Koran, they could be of no use, since the Koran contained all necessary truths; but if they contained anything contrary to that book, they ought to be destroyed; and therefore, whatever their contents were, he ordered them to be burnt. Pursuant to this order, they were distributed among the public baths, of which there was a large number in the city, where, for six months, they served to supply the fires. Shortly after its capture Alexandria again fell into the hands of the Greeks, who took advantage of Amrs absence with the greater portion of his army. On hearing what had happened, however, Amr returned, and quickly regained possession of the city. About the year 646 Amr was deprived of his government by the caliph Othman. The Egyptians, by whom Amr was greatly beloved, were so much dissatisfied by this act, and even showed such a tendency to revolt, that the Greek emperor determined to make an effort to reduce Alexandria. The attempt proved perfectly successful. The caliph, perceiving his mistake, immediately restored Amr, who, on his arrival in Egypt, drove the Greeks within the walls of Alexandria, but was only able to capture the city after a most obstinate resistance by the defenders. This so exasperated him that he completely demolished its fortifications, although he seems to have spared the lives of the inhabitants as far as lay in his power. Alexandria now rapidly declined i n importance. The building of Cairo in 969, and, above all, the discovery of the route to the East by the Cape of Good Hope in 1498, nearly ruined its commerce; the canal, which supplied it with Nile water, became blocked; and although it remained a principal Egyptian port, at which most European visitors in the Mameluke and Ottoman periods landed, we hear little of it until about the beginning of the 19th century. Alexandria figured prominently in the military operations of Napoleons Egyptian expedition of 1798. The French troops stormed the city on the 2nd of July 1798, and it remained in their hands until the arrival of the British expedition of 1801. The battle of Alexandria, fought on the 21st of March of that year, between the French army under General Menou and the British expeditionary corps under Sir Ralph Abercromby, took place near the ruins of Nicopohs, on the narrow spit of land between the sea and Lake Aboukir, along which the British troops had advanced towards Alexandria after the actions of Aboukir on the 8th and Mandora on the 13th. This document is part of an article on Alexandria from the 1911 edition of an encyclopedia that is out of copyright here in the U.S. The article is in the public domain, and you may copy, download, print and distribute this work as you see fit. Every effort has been made to present this text accurately and cleanly, but no guarantees are made against errors. Neither N.S. Gill nor About may be held liable for any problems you experience with the text version or with any electronic form of this document.

Who are the homeless Will they always be with us Free Essays

Who are the homelessWill they always be with us? Introduction The aim of the following essay will be to construct a profile of who the ‘homeless’ people are and show how the changes in governmental policy on housing and tackling homelessness have proven counterproductive over the long run, leading to a state where the homeless and their problems have become an inseparable part of contemporary society. To begin with, the ‘homeless’ are a broad social group, ranging from temporary sofa surfers to street sleepers. Indeed, many studies seem to concentrate their interventions on this street population rather than the more significant group known as ‘hidden homeless’ who stay with family/friends (Hilton and Dejong, 2010). We will write a custom essay sample on Who are the homeless? Will they always be with us? or any similar topic only for you Order Now In general, many are a potentially chaotic group who struggle in decision making, and who have or experience (a combination of) relationship difficulties, drug and/or alcohol problems, mental health issues and are often in significant debt. The process by which many become ‘homeless’ can often be through temporary stays with friends or family, which depending on circumstances, can drift into street sleeping if those networks are exhausted (Briggs. 2012). Many also lose their dignity and self-respect in this process which increases their sense of shame, and this makes them quite a difficult group to work with should their circumstances deteriorate. This is why by the time many of those who live on the streets come to the attention of various social services, their problems, including financial, social, individual and emotional are already incestuously entangled and difficult to manage (Briggs et al., 2009). Many develop increasingly unpredictable lifestyles and are sent from service to service; more often than not, they can’t manage this and drift further from contact from services and develop increasingly fatalistic thinking. It is often at this stage that many become targets of punitive systems which often work against their complex circumstances (Leibow, 1993) and, since the 1990s, subject to social control through aggressive social policies and law enforcement because they are seen as blighting community life (Matthews et al., 2007; Matthews and Briggs, 2008; O’Connor, 2007). The inclination towards punishing the homeless population for deviance and transgression is one that is deeply embedded within the fabric of the British society (Carlen, 1996). Increasingly, a tendency to blame the economically and socially marginalized sections of society for their own problem has been noted (Jordan, 1996) and the popular image of these in the public imagination has changed little over time (ibid.). The presence of the homeless population has been rendered as being ‘out of place’ in public space, as it disturbs the otherwise aesthetic and economically ‘revitalised’ urban landscape (Cresswell, 1996; Mair, 1986; Ruddick, 1996; Snow and Anderson, 1993). This has led to the exclusion of the homeless from ‘prime’ city space (Duncan, 1983) because of their ‘spoiled identities’ (Goffman, 1968) and the fear that their existence might in some way infect the former or its inhabitants. This has required the ‘purificatio n’ of public space (Sibley, 1995) either through the criminalisation of basic street survival strategies (Mitchell, 1997) or the re-design of inner-city environment (Soja, 2000). Arguably, this has also led to changes in the way which the homeless are treated. From an earlier ‘malignant neglect’ (Wolch and Dear, 1993) this has grown into a large-scale punitive regime, making life on the streets next to impossible unless one is criminalised and is processed through the criminal justice apparatus (Mitchell, 2001). Having outlined several of the problems which the homeless population has, the next section will provide an overview of the services available to the homeless. The homeless and the services available to them Parallel to the social exclusion of the homeless, a tendency of increasing charitable care has been documented – an increased number of night shelters, hostels and day centres as to provide sustenance and temporary shelter for the disadvantaged (MacLeod, 2002). In the UK, as the British government and urban managers have adopted an increasingly aggressive stance towards street homeless people, this had led to a significant increase in the number of night shelters and ‘direct access’ hostels (May et al. 2005; May et al. 2006). These represent ‘spaces of care’ (Conradson, 2003) in an otherwise hostile environment (Parr, 2000, 2003) and their numbers have been on the increase over the past two decades (Fyfe and Milligan, 2003) as a result of the social welfare restructuring and the decline of statutory service provision for marginalised groups. Even though under the New Labour substantial improvements were made in terms of the services provided and a si gnificant reduction in the number of rough sleepers was made, those remaining on the streets were increasingly perceived as an anti-social behaviour problem (Fitzpatrick and Jones, 2005). What is more disturbing, however, is that among those living on the streets, drug use seems to be prevalent and widespread (Fountain et al. 2003). But even in cases there the homeless have had access to services – day centres or night shelters, it appears that in some circumstances, these might also have a damaging effect (Jones, 1999; Fitzpatrick and Kennedy, 2000; Jones and Higate, 2000). The day centres, to begin with, have been one of the most relied-on services by both the ‘visible’ and ‘invisible’ homeless people (those living on the streets and those staying in hostels, night shelters, relatives or friends) (Llewellin and Murdoch, 1996; Reeve and Coward, 2004; Robinson and Coward, 2003). Historically, the responsibility for operating these and the provision of emergency accommodation for single homeless people has been placed on the voluntary sector as the neo-liberal form of governance took over the welfare state and a crisis of street homelessness ensued (Saunders, 1986; Anderson, 1993). Created as an alternative to the hostels, emergency accommodation also has its own problems to resolve. Shelters, for example, are an important part of the suburban social service delivery system, as they meet the short-term needs of the homeless. At the same time, however, such programs ultimately set up some of the most vulnerable to fail, especially those addicted to alcohol and drugs (Hick-Coolick et al. 2007). In some cases, the shelters could also be perceived as a resemblance of ‘total institutions’ (Goffman, 1961) as far as the deterioration of personhood and self-autonomy is concerned (DeWard and Moe, 2010). In cases where this type of emergency accommodation has succeeded in assisting homeless people with finding accommodation, it has been documented that the housing costs paid by the formerly homeless can be quite high,(Glisson et al. 2001). But the provision of housing services, and places at hostels in particular can at times be inadequate and subject to strict regulation, often leading to the exclusion of those most at risk(Carter, 1999; Fitzpatrick and Kennedy, 2000). To summarise this section, even though the services provided to the homeless by the non-governmental sector serve as a safety-net in order to prevent further marginalisation and social exclusion, their operation too needs to be reformed, as in many cases it is counter-productive. Therefore, their approach and strategy should be coordinated by a national policy which takes tackling homelessness at heart. Unfortunately, as the following section of this paper will show, the current policy approach adopted by the Coalition government has done exactly the opposite – it has laid the foundation for a future social crisis. The contemporary governmental policy on housing and its impact on homelessness In the wake of the global financial crisis, the newly elected Conservative-Liberal Coalition Government announced ?2.5 billion of cuts in housing benefit, most of which affect LHA recipients, to be introduced over a three-year period from April 2011. These cuts will progressively exacerbate the affordability problems faced by many private tenants in receipt of the LHA. The government has implicitly acknowledged that the cuts are likely to produce financial hardship and explicitly accepted that they may result in increased overcrowding and homelessness (DWP, 2010). Despite the fact the housing market has had a significant impact on the reshaping of the welfare state (Malpass, 2008; Lowe, 2004; Malpass, 2005; Mullins and Murie, 2006), the current governmental policy will likely have serious long-term negative effects on the poorest sections of the population, for whom welfare benefits, social housing and the private rented sector have played the role of a safety net (The Guardian, 26th May 2010; Fitzpartick and Pawson, 2007; Kemp, 2011; Hills, 2007; Kemp, 2004). According to the DCLG, between July 1st and 30th Sept 2012, 13,890 were accepted as owed a main homeless duty – an increase of 11% since the referral for the same period in the previous year. In temporary accommodation, 52,960 households were accepted until 30th Sept 2012, an increase of 8% when compared to the previous year. The Number of households in BB hotels rose to 4,350, an increase of 29% since the previous year (DCLG, 2012). The housing charity Shelter also released statistics that indicate a sharp increase in demand for help among people who are at risk of being homeless – the organisation has seen an increase of 80% over a three-year period in the number of people who have used its hotline. Of these, 23,086 were assisted in some way by the hotline in the 12 month period to the end of September 2012, compared with 12,852 in the twelve month period leading up to September 2010 (Evening Standard, 30th Nov 2012). The recession has also had an impact on the mainstream housing market. A report by Shelter (2013) indicates that the number of people who have experienced difficulties in paying their rent or mortgage each month has risen by 44% over the past year, reaching 7.8million. Of these, short of a million people used payday loans in order to pay their rent or mortgage and another 2.8 million people used an unauthorised overdraft in order to pay their rent or mortgage, with 10% of all doing this every month. With this in mind and the cuts in government funding to councils, it is hardly surprising why London is experiencing such as severe crisis in terms of housing, a problem which has led to the adoption of radical measures. A research by the Guardian (4th Nov 2012) showed that many councils in the metropolis are acquiring properties across the UK for vulnerable families – among those areas being Luton, Windsor Slough, Margate and as far away as Manchester, Derby, Hull and Birmingham. Similar are the findings of a report by the Child Poverty Action Group and Lasa, which predicts that 124,480 London households will be hit by a combination of Local Housing Allowance and under-occupational penalties. Seventeen of all London councils were already in the process of outsourcing families from the metropolis and had secured or were considering temporary accommodation outside of London for future use. Among these were Kensington and Chelsea, which had moved homeless families to Manchester and Slough; Waltham Forest, which acquired properties in Luton, Margate and Harlow; Brent, which had relocated several households to Hastings; Tower Hamlets, which had relocated a handful of families to Northampton; Hackney, which was also ‘reluctantly looking to procure accommodation outside London’ (Landlord Today, 6th Nov 2012) and Newham (Newham LBC, 5th Nov 2012). The restricted funding of councils has led to a significant reliance on the third sector to provide a temporary solution to the problem by transferring the homeless in other boroughs and to the hands of private landlords. Some of the boroughs, however, have been hit worse than others, or so it seems. The assumption that many asylum seekers and economic migrants move to Croydon has led to the transfer of ‘problematic populations’ into another borough – Lewisham, which is in the process of building more council homes in order to meet the demand (East London Lines, 14th July, 2012). The total number of homeless families in Croydon by the end of 2011 was 1,600, of which 300 were living in BB accommodation (East London Lines, 29th Nov 2011). If these statistics are correct, then, a third of all homeless families that are put in BB for longer than the recommended six-week period in London are situated in a single borough! (London 24, 30th Jan 2013). What has caused the problemAccording to councils, it is the withdrawal of private landlords from the social housing market which has forced them to place more and more homeless people in bed and breakfast accommodation (24 Dash, 30th Jan 2013). Thus, the search for affordable housing outside the boroughs is justified, as the budget allocated for temporary housing cannot be stretched to cover an increasing demand – in Croydon, the number of families living in temporary accommodation has increased by 30%, compared to an overall 5% increase in London over the past year (East London Lines, 23rd Jan 2013). Even though some attempts are made to improve the current situation – bringing abandoned properties back in use or the conversion of redundant council properties (The Information Daily, 22nd Jan 2013), such measures will hardly solve anything in the long-term, especially when working families, ex-servicemen, and community volunteers are considered of priority need for council accommodation, and not the homeless or the destitute (Guardian, 9th Nov 2012). In the words of Kay Boycott, the CEO of Shelter, ‘the fact that councils are offering people homes hundreds of miles away – uprooting families from schools, communities and jobs – is testament to the scale of London’s housing crisis’ (East London Lines, 29th Nov 2011). Conclusion The aim of this essay was to provide an overview of the profile of homeless people, draw attention to their problems and demonstrate how the recent changes in governmental policy in terms of housing and welfare provision have not provided a solution to homelessness, but have rather contributed to the problem, ultimately leading to a state where the homeless and their problems have become an inseparable part of contemporary society. As it was demonstrated, the ‘homeless’ as a social group has been considered a problematic section of society for a significant period of time. Although a safety-net of services exists and the majority of them are provided by the third sector, the pressure for meeting targets in order to secure funding could potentially lead to excluding those, who are considered to be of ‘high risk’. The current strategy adopted by the Coalition government has done little to tackle any of the causes which lead to homelessness, but has rather adop ted a reactive approach, which most likely will prove to be counterproductive in the long run (WCC, 2013). In order for the problem of homelessness to be successfully resolved, however, a new approach should be adopted, one that is drawn from good practice, informed by high quality research and does not prioritise the needs of its beneficiaries (in this case the homeless) over populist discourses. Bibliography 24 Dash, 30th Jan 2013. Available at: http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2013-01-30-Give-private-landlords-tax-relief-to-relieve-homelessness-crisis Anderson, I. (1993) Housing policy and street homelessness in Britain. Housing Studies 8(1): 17-28. Briggs, D. (2012) Crack cocaine users: High Society and Low Life in South London, London: Routledge. Briggs, D. Rhodes, T., Marks, D., Kimber, J., Holloway, G., and Jones, S. (2009) ‘Injecting drug use, unstable housing, and the scope for structural interventions’ in Drugs, Education, Prevention and Policy, Vol 15 (5): 436-450. Carlen, P. (1996) Jigsaw: a Political Criminology of Youth Homelessness. Buckingham: Open University Press. Carter, M. (1999), Falling Off The First Rung: Tackling Exclusions from Birmingham’s Direct Access Hostels, Birmingham: Birmingham’s Homeless and Roofless Partnership. Conradson, D. (2003) Spaces of care in the city: the place of a community drop-in centre. Social and Cultural Geography, Vol. 4: 507-525. Cresswell, T. (1996) In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Identity and Transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012. Statutory Homelessness. DeWard, S. and Moe, A. (2010) ‘Like a prison!’ Homeless women’s narratives of surviving shelter. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, Vol. 37(1): 115-135. Duncan, J. (1983) Men without property: the tramp’s classification and use of urban space (pp.86-102), in Lake, R. W. (ed) Readings in Urban Analysis: Perspectives on Urban Form and Structure. New Brunswick, NJ: Centre for Urban Policy Research. DWP (2010) The Local Authority Omnibus Survey – Wave 20, August 2010. East London Lines, 29th Nov 2011. Available at: http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2011/11/croydon-council-plans-to-relocate-homeless-is-refuted-by-northern-councils-who-dont-have-surplus-housing/ East London Lines, 14th July, 2012. Available at: http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2012/07/croydon-moves-homeless-out-of-borough-as-lewisham-builds-new-homes/ East London Lines, 23rd Jan 2013. Available at: http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2013/01/council-combats-homelessness-by-moving-families-outside-the-borough/ Evening Standard, 30th Nov 2012. Available at: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/homeless-surge-could-reach-1980s-levels-in-london-says-big-issue-founder-8371750.html Fitzpatrick, S. and Jones, A. (2005) Pursuing Social Justice or Social CohesionCoercion in Street Homelessness Policies in England. Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 34(3): 389-406. Fitzpatrick, S. and Kennedy, C. (2000), Getting By: Begging, Rough Sleeping and The Big Issue in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Bristol: The Policy Press. Fitzpatrick, S. and Kennedy, C. (2001) The links between begging and rough sleeping: a question of legitimacyHousing Studies, Vol. 16: 549–568. Fitzpatrick, S. and Pawson, H. (2007) Welfare Safety Net or Tenure of ChoiceThe Dilemma Facing Social Housing Policy in England. Housing Studies, Vol. 22(2): 163-182 Fountain, J., Howes, S., Marsden, J., Taylor, C. and Strang, J. (2003) Drug and Alcohol Use and the Link with Homelessness: Results from a Survey of Homeless People in London. Addiction Research and Theory, Vol. 11(4): 245-56. Fyfe N. and Milligan C. (2003) Out of Shadows: Exploring contemporary geographies of voluntarism. Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 27: 397-413. Glisson, G., Thyer, B. and Fischer, R. (2001) Serving the homeless: Evaluating the effectiveness of homeless shelter services. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, Vol. 28(4): 89-97. Goffman, E. (1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situations of Mental Patients. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Goffman, E. (1968) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Hicks-Coolick, A., Peters, A. and Zimmermann, U. (2007) How ‘deserving’ are the most vulnerable homelessJournal of Poverty, Vol. 11(1): 135-141. Hills, J. (2007) Ends and Means: The Future Roles of Social Housing in England. CASE Report 34. London: London School of Economics Political Science. Hilton, T., DeJong, C. (2010). Homeless in God’s country: Coping strategies and felt experiences of the rural homeless. Journal of Ethnographic Qualitative Research, Vol. 5(1): 12-30. Jones, A. (1999) Out of Sight, Out of MindThe Experiences of Homeless Women. London: Crisis. Jones, A. and Higate, P. (2000), Breaking Down Barriers: Meeting Housing and Support Needs in Swansea, Neath Port-Talbot, Bridgend and Carmarthenshire. York: Centre for Housing Policy, University of York. Jordan, B. (1996) A theory of Poverty and Social Exclusion. London: Polity Press. Kemp, P. (2004) Private Renting in Transition. Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing. Kemp, P. (2011) Low-income Tenants in the Private Rental Housing Market, Housing Studies, Vol. 26(7-8): 1019-1034. Landlord Today, 6th Nov 2012. Available at: http://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/news_features/London-councils-admit-to-shipping-families-miles-away Liebow, E. (1993) Tell them who I am: The lives of homeless women. New York: The Free Press. Llewellin, S. and Murdoch, A. (1996) Saving the Day: The Importance of Day Centres for Homeless People. London: National Day Centres Project, CHAR. London 24, 30th Jan 2013. Available at: http://www.london24.com/news/london_landlords_pulling_out_of_social_housing_market_1_1833239 Lowe, S. (2004) Housing Policy Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Lund B. (2011) Understanding Housing Policy. Bristol: Policy Press. MacLeod, G. (2002) From urban entrepreneurialism to a ‘revanchist city’On the spatial injustices of Glasgow’s renaissance. Antipode, Vol.34: 603-620. Mair, A. (1986) The homeless and the post-industrial city. Political Geography Quarterly, Vol.5: 351-368. Malpass, P. (2005) Housing and the Welfare State. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Malpass, P. (2008) Housing and the New Welfare State: Wobbly Pillar or CornerstoneHousing Studies, Vol. 23(1): 1-19. Matthews, R., Easton, H., Briggs, D., and Pease, K. (2007) Assessment of the Outcomes of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, Bristol: Policy Press. Matthews, R., and Briggs, D. (2008) ‘Lost in Translation: Interpreting and implementing anti-social behaviour strategies’ in P. Squires (Ed) ASBO Nation: The Criminalisation of Nuisance (pp 87-100), Bristol: Policy Press. May, J., Cloke, P. Johnsen, S. (2006) Shelters at the margins : New Labour and the changing state of emergency accommodation for single homeless people in Britain. Policy Politics, Vol.34(4): 711–29. May, J., Johnsen, S. and Cloke, P. (2005) Re-phasing neo-liberalism: New Labour and Britain’s crisis of street homelessness. Antipode 37 (4): 703-30 Mitchell, D. (1997) The annihilation of space by law: the roots and implications of anti-homeless laws in the United States. Antipode Vol. 29: 303-336. Mitchell, D. (2001) Postmodern geographical praxisThe postmodern impulse and the way against the homeless in the ‘‘post-justice’’ city (pp. 57-92), in Minca, C. (ed) Postmodern Geography: Theory and Praxis. London: Blackwell. Mullins, D. and Murie, A. (2006) Housing policy in the UK. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Newham LBC, 5th Nov 2012. Available at: http://www.lbc.co.uk/councils-ship-homeless-families-out-of-london-62375 O’Connor, E. (2007) The Cruel and Unusual Criminalization of Homelessness: Factoring Individual Accountability into the Proportionality Principle. Texas Journal on Civil Liberties Civil Rights, 12: 233-75. Parr, H. (2000) Interpreting the ‘hidden social geographies’ of mental health: ethnographies of inclusion and exclusion in semi-institutional places. Health and Place Vol. 6: 225-237. Parr, H. (2003) Medical geography: care and caring. Progress in Human Geography 27: 212-221. Reeve, K. and Coward, S. (2004) Life on the Margins: The Experiences of Homeless People Living in Squats. London: Crisis and the Countryside Agency. Robinson, D. and Coward, S. (2003) Your Place, Not Mine: The Experiences of Homeless People Staying with Family and Friends. London: Crisis and the Countryside Agency. Ruddick, S. (1996) Young and Homeless in Hollywood: Mapping Social Identities. London: Routledge. Saunders, B. (1986) Homeless Young People in Britain: the contribution of the voluntary sector. London: Bedford Square Press. Shelter, 2013. Available at: http://england.shelter.org.uk/news/january_2013/1.4_million_britons_falling_behind_with_the_rent_or_mortgage Sibley, D. (1995) Geographies of Exclusion. London: Routledge. Snow, D. A. and Anderson, L. (1993) Down on Their Luck: A Study of Homeless Street People. Berkeley: University of California Press. Soja, E. (2000) Post-metropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. Oxford: Blackwell. The Guardian, 26th May, 2010. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/26/coalition-welfare-reforms-duncan-smith The Guardian, 9th Nov 2012. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/09/deserving-families-council-housing-priority The Information Daily, 22nd Jan 2013. Available at: http://www.theinformationdaily.com/2013/01/22/croydon-council-announce-plans-to-tackle-london-homelessness Westminster City Council (2013) Rough Sleeping Strategy 2013 – 2016. Available at: http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/13%20to%2016%20RS%20Strategy%20DRAFT.pdf Wolch, J. and Dear, M. (1993) Malign Neglect: Homelessness in an American City. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. How to cite Who are the homeless? Will they always be with us?, Essay examples

Surrogate Decision Making

Question: Discuss about the Surrogate Decision Making. Answer: Introduction Every human being wishes to lead a normal life without disability. One reason why no one wants to be disabled is because of shame. Many at times, the society has been looking down upon the disabled because, unlike the rest of the people, the disabled are perceived as less important people who have no significant contributions to make to the community. This is exactly what befalls amputees after losing a limb. Apart from enduring agonizing pains, the amputees battle stress and trauma necessitated by the feeling of prejudice, neglect and loss of independence (Parvaneh, Grewal, Grewal, Menzies, Talal, Armstrong, Sternberg Najafi 2014). So, to improve the living conditions of the amputees, it is upon the society to come up and do something. This is why we, as an organization, have decided to inaugurate this project to challenge the status quo. However, to do so, we need a full support of all the concerned stakeholders. Project Objectives The major objective of this project is to introduce a highly developed artificial limb to improve the quality of life of the amputees. The organization is deeply concerned about the shame and stereotypes put on the amputees by the society as a result of limb losses. This is what the organization will put all the efforts to eradicate. Approach and Methods To ultimately address the plight of the amputees is not a simple task. It requires dedication, commitment and team work (Tanosaki, Shimizu, Lian, Jurchak Patel 2014). Since the main objective of the project is to bring happiness to the amputees, it is reasonable that we will adopt the following approach: Develop a device called LimbMaster that will be a break from the past. For a very long time, amputees have had to use artificial limbs that make them uncomfortable because of poor pain reduction and incorrect fitness (Yoo 2014). The poor status of the artificial limbs has been causing a lot of trauma to the amputees. However, with the coming of this project, amputees will get a lifetime opportunity to transform and improve the quality of their lives by using computer technology to design, develop and supply the easy-to-use, comfortable, safe and correctly fitted artificial limbs-LimbMaster (Newcombe, Dewar, Blunn Fromme 2013). Proposed Budget for LimbMaster ITEM COST (A$) Materials 400,000 Salaries and Wages 150,000 Computers and Software 150,000 Research 150,000 Marketing and Public Awareness 100,000 Logistics 40,000 Others 10,000 TOTAL 1,000,000 References Gaunaurd, I., Spaulding, S.E., Amtmann, D., Salem, R., Gailey, R., Morgan, S.J. Hafner, B.J., 2015. Use of and confidence in administering outcome measures among clinical prosthetists: Results from a national survey and mixed-methods training program. Prosthetics and orthotics international, 39(4), pp.314-321. Newcombe, L., Dewar, M., Blunn, G.W. and Fromme, P., 2013. Effect of amputation level on the stress transferred to the femur by an artificial limb directly attached to the bone. Medical engineering physics, 35(12), pp.1744-1753. Parvaneh, S., Grewal, G.S., Grewal, E., Menzies, R.A., Talal, T.K., Armstrong, D.G., Sternberg, E. Najafi, B., 2014. Stressing the dressing: Assessing stress during wound care in real-time using wearable sensors. Wound Medicine, 4, pp.21-26. Tanosaki, M., Shimizu, N., Lian, C.G., Jurchak, M. Patel, V., 2014. Purpura Fulminans Managed with Multi-Limb Amputation: Substituted Judgment and Surrogate Decision-Making in the Surgical Management of Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections. Surgical infections, 15(6), pp.853-856. Yoo, S., 2014. Complications following an amputation. Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America, 25(1), pp.169-178.