Friday, March 20, 2020

Timeline of the Viking Age

Timeline of the Viking Age This Viking timeline is a part of the Guide to the Viking Age. 793: Norwegians attack Lindisfarne monastery, England795: Norwegians run assaults on monasteries in Scotland and Ireland799: St. Philibert Monastery (France) sacked800: Norwegians settle Faroe Islands810: Danes under King Godfred attack Frisia 814: Charlemagne dies834: Danes attack Dorestad, now in the Netherlands841: Norwegians over winter in Ireland850: Longphorts established in Ireland 850: Danes spend first winter in England852: Danes spend first winter in Frankia853: Norwegian Olaf the White established as king at Dublin865: Danish Great Army arrives in East Anglia866: Norwegian Harald Finehair subjugates Scottish Isles870: Danes rule over one half of England880s: Norwegian Sigurd the Mighty moves into the Scottish mainland873: Ingolf Arnason founds Reykjavik, Iceland 902: Vikings expelled from Ireland917: Vikings retake Dublin930-980: First Norse invaders in England become established as settlers954: Eirik Bloodaxe dies and Vikings lose control of York959: Danelaw established98 0-1050: Newly established Norwegian and Danish kings launch attacks on England 985: Norse farmers led by Erik the Red settle Greenland 1000: Leif Erikson finds North America 1014: Vikings defeated at Clontarf by Brian Boru1016: Danish King Cnut named king of England, Denmark and Norway1035: Cnut dies1066: Norman Harald Hardrada dies at Stamford Bridge This glossary entry is a part of the Guide to the Viking Age and part of the Dictionary of Archaeology. See the Viking Age Bibliography for sources.

Tuesday, March 3, 2020

4 Pieces of Career Advice You Should Ignore

4 Pieces of Career Advice You Should Ignore I hope you’re coming to this site because you’re seeking solid career advice- and more importantly, that you’re finding it! However, not all career advice is created equal. You should feel free to ignore â€Å"advice† like the tips below. They can seriously hamstring your career path progress or get you stuck in a job that makes you stressed and unhappy.1. â€Å"Do your best to fit in.†Everyone wants job security, and conventional wisdom often tells us that to get it, you should be a cheerful and accommodating member of the team. While being a good team player is going to be necessary in every job you have, that doesn’t mean you have to be a drone who looks, thinks, and acts like everyone else around you. Don’t be afraid to speak up (while still being professional and considerate about it) and be yourself.If you’re afraid to be honest about who you are, or express your ideas, that could be a symptom that the job or the company j ust isn’t the right fit for you. Trying to flatten yourself in the name of getting along will definitely shortchange you in the long run. There could very well be a better fit out there, where the authentic you will be welcomed with open arms.2. â€Å"Follow the money.†To an extent, we’re all mercenary creatures- we have to be, if we want to provide for ourselves and our families (and in my case, a dog with extravagant taste in kibble). That doesn’t mean salary should be the only consideration when accepting or staying at a job. If you’re unhappy or unchallenged at your job but you find that you’re staying there because you’re afraid of earning less elsewhere, that’s a red flag. Think about the minimum salary you’d feel comfortable accepting, if it meant doing a job where you felt the work was meaningful and in line with your goals.3. â€Å"Never turn down an opportunity.†If you applied and interviewed for a job, there’s a good chance you want it. But it’s also possible that during that process, you discovered that the position might not be as great a fit as you expected. They offer you the job anyway- what do you do?It can be hard to say no, especially if it’s a profitable or prestigious upgrade for you. This is a case where you need to listen to your gut. If an opportunity just isn’t right for you, it’s okay to turn it down. Your best interests aren’t just served by your bank account or your job title.4. â€Å"Do what you’re passionate about.†This one sounds great. Who doesn’t want to love their work? In reality, it can be kind of a rabbit hole, where you’re chasing a career path that will never bring you much in the way of fulfillment or stability. If you love music, â€Å"rock star† isn’t the most realistic career goal. If you have an idea for a novel, quitting your job to spend all day at a coffee house with your laptop might not be the wisest decision.If you can find tangible job opportunities in your ideal field, great! Otherwise, maybe a freelance career on the side is the best way to go. Having your passion projects separate from your main career path will help give you balance, while also making sure you can pay the bills.When it comes to any career advice, make sure you’re looking at it in the light of whether it’s best for you. What works for my professional life might not work for yours, and vice versa. It’s always okay to say â€Å"This just isn’t right for me,† and find the strategies that get you where you want to go.

Sunday, February 16, 2020

Bonaventures art - Christian artists Assignment

Bonaventures art - Christian artists - Assignment Example The essay "Bonaventure’s art - Christian artists" discovers Christian artists and focuses on the art of Bonaventure. Bonaventure strived to have a personal meeting with Francis’ companions; still alive as early as in 1260. Although Bonaventure really sought for the Saint’s companions, it is hard for one to conclude that Bonaventure’s intention was to present a trustworthy figure of Francis the Saint. A school of theology has argued that Bonaventure’s effort was to realize a theological history, that made him an icon of Francis’ background; this was the Bonaventure’s intended paint; â€Å"a stigmatized saint.† Additionally, Bonaventure brings out Francis as the founder of â€Å"a new religious order.† He also presents a conformity image between Francis the Saint and Christ. According to Bonaventure, St.Francis had a visionary experience while praying on top of a mountain in alone. During the experience, St.Francis was impr inted the wounds of Christ at the crucifixion; Christ’s wounds were referred to as the stigmata, while the experience the stigmatization. Consequently, Bonaventure a Franciscan’s leader wrote about St.Francis, and thereby making St.Francis canonical. This piece of work can also be analyzed by dividing it into three sections: foreground, middle-ground, and the background. Every figure, symbolically communicates to the observer. Additionally, the positioning of each figure is an important attribute of the artist. The wall painting and the panel painting reveal similar features.

Sunday, February 2, 2020

Benefits and limitation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 1

Benefits and limitation - Essay Example It is worth to note that health information system adoption constitutes benefits and limitations towards planning and implementation of hand hygiene compliance re-education program (Peter, 2010). Some of the benefits include health information system’s ability to enables access to comprehensive, legible, and organized patient data and reference literature at the point of healthcare service. This boosts compliance of the nurse as far as hand cleaning compliance is concerned. Health information system constitutes networked computers that are located in each exam room and physician’s office; a provider can also access data over the Internet which is effective in promoting re-education program. The main limitation concerns set-up and training. The time to set up and learn to use a system is often a challenge. However, users share common lists, data entry templates and text macros to decrease start-up time for users. This means that much time should be allocated at the beginning of the re-education program so that the nurses can master how to use the health information system. The planning must also constitute extensive outlay of the training shifts and adjustable time frame that allow for smooth transition from the paper charts to health information system (Carroll, 2009). The overall goal of adopting health information system is to improve on the compliance on hand hygiene which is the main cause of hospital acquired infections. Time is the central resource that will be taken into consideration when implementing the adoption of health information system (Peter, 2010). In the acute setting, the patient requires immediate attention and this puts significant pressure on the nurse. In this regard, it is appropriate to allocate much time in training the healthcare providers on how to apply health information system in hand hygiene compliance so that once they assigned a patient in ambulatory condition, it would be easy to work. Availability of

Saturday, January 25, 2020

Evidence of Witness Statement

Evidence of Witness Statement The evidence that the prosecution wants to adduce at trial is the police statement made by Bennie which shows that he had seen Avril dealing drugs many times. This evidence wants to be used by the prosecution to prove Avrils involvement with the dealing of drugs as well as her involvement with the Black and reds local gang. Before the prosecution can adduce the evidence, there are a series of factors that needs to be considered and the first is relevance. What can be regarded as relevant is something that applies to the matter in question; affording something to the purpose and something that is legally sufficient.[1] Bennies evidence can be said to be relevant because it does apply to the matter in question which is Avrils drugs offence. The second factor the prosecution needs to consider before adducing Bennies evidence is the competence and compellability of Bennie. In the issue stated Bennie can be seen to be Avrils husband which puts him under the category of a spouse. A spouse per Glover is a person who is lawfully married to the accused at the time when he or she is called to give evidence.[2] In the issue, it was seen that Bennie and Avril had recently separated. They are still legally married regardless of the separation factor. It was not stated that they were divorced or the marriage was annulled, therefore Bennie still falls under the category of a spouse. There is a general rule which can be found in s53(1) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (YJCEA) 1999[3] that all witnesses are presumed to be competent[4]. In the application of this rule there is a presumption that Bennie is a competent witness for the prosecution. In regards to compellability, a spouse is generally not compellable for the prosecution unless the exceptions that are set out in s80(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984[5] are met. Relating the exceptions listed out in s80(3) of PACE 1984[6] to the issue, the type of offence that Avril is being charged with are drugs offences and as such Bennie does not fall under any of the exceptions which make him a non-compellable witness to the prosecution. It has been established that Bennie is a non-compellable witness which means he is not legally obliged to give evidence but has the choice to do so. This shows that he can choose to testify in court, however the prosecution can admit Bennies police statement as evidence through a hearsay exception which can be found in the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003. The case of R v L [2009][7] can be used in regards to this issue. In this case the Witness who was a spouse could not be compelled to testify against her husband however a pre-trial statement which was a police statement was admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule[8]. According to LT choo hearsay evidence is an out of court statement that is being adduced in court as evidence of the matter stated in the statement.[9] Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible unless it falls under the exceptions in CJA 2003[10]. For the evidence to be admissible under the witness unavailability exception three conditions must be met which can be found in Section 116 (1)(a) (1)(c) CJA 2003. It is important to note that S116(1)(c) shows that hearsay evidence can be admissible if it satisfies any of the five conditions stated in subsection 2[11]. One of the conditions that is shown in subsection (2)(e) of the CJA 2003 relates to fear of a witness. In relations to the issue, Bennie refuses to testify in court and leading up to his refusal it was seen that he had a bruising to his face. An assumption can be made that he is refusing to testify because of fear and as such the prosecution can adduce Bennies evidence under s116 as a hearsay exception provided all the cond itions are satisfied. Other than the hearsay exception, the part for Bennie could also make an application for a special measure direction (SMD). Bennie refuses to testify and has a bruising to the face. This brings about an assumption of fear which makes him a vulnerable witness and vulnerable witnesses can make applications for SMDs. There are three stages in which SMDs can be granted. The first stage is looking at the eligibility of the witness which can be found in s16 17 YJCEA 1999[12]. The second and third stage can be found in s19(2)(a) and (b) YJCEA 1999. Looking at Bennie he could be eligible for an SMD on the grounds of fear or distress about testifying[13] which falls under s17 YJCEA 1999[14]. If the courts are satisfied that Bennie meets all the stages, the application will be successful and Bennie will be able to testify through an SMD. SMDs that are available to Bennie are screening[15] which is stated in s23 YJCEA 1999 or video recorded evidence in chief[16] which is shown in s27(1) (3) Y JCEA 1999. In conclusion, Bennie is a competent and a non-compellable witness and as such he has no legal obligation to testify in court. However, the prosecution can pass Bennies police statement through the hearsay exception of witness unavailability if he can satisfy all the conditions set out in the provision. B. The evidence that the prosecution wants to adduce are Avrils two previous convictions for theft and two previous convictions for drugs offences involving possession of marijuana with intent to supply. The prosecution wishes to use this evidence to prove that Avril committed the drugs offences she is being charged with. The evidential issue that this raises is bad character evidence. Bad character is defined is s98 of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003. The key factors of the definition are evidence of, or a disposition towards misconduct on his part, other than evidence which (a) has to do with the alleged facts of the offence charged (b) is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence.[17] In assessing the two previous convictions of theft for Avril the evidence has nothing to do with the alleged facts of the current offence that is being charged. The previous offence and the alleged facts are not so closely connected as defined in the case of R v Tirnaveanu [2007][18]. Also, it is not in relations to the investigation or prosecution of that particular offence[19] which is the drugs offences. This shows that her two previous convictions for theft is a bad character evidence which can be admitted through one of the gateways under s101(1)(a) (g) CJA 2003 and expanded on in s102-106 CJA 2003. The first gateway that should always be used is gateway D which can be found under s103 CJA 2003. Gateway D is the relevance to important issue between the defendant and the prosecution[20]. The prosecutions evidence of a defendants bad character is admissible based on its relevance to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution[21]. An important matter means a matter of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole[22] as defined in s112 CJA 2003. Section 103(1)(a) is in regards to propensity to commit the offences of the kind that the defendant is being charged with. In the application of this provision to Avrils previous convictions for theft it could be said that she does have propensity for theft but the crime of her previous convictions are not relevant to the matter in issue because they fall under different categories of offences. A case that relates well to s103(1)(a) is Hanson (Gilmore) [2005] [23]. The defendant was charged with theft of goods from a shed, and he had three previous convictions for shoplifting which were admitted on grounds for showing propensity[24]; the offences were similar. Section 103(1)(b) also does not apply to her previous convictions because the provision refers to the propensity to be untruthful which has no obvious similarity to her previous convictions. Therefore, the bad character evidence cannot be admitted through gateway D. If this cannot be admitted through gateway D then Gateway C can be looked at which is under s101(1)(c) CJA 2003. Gateway C is the important explanatory evidence[25]. This gateway reflects the common-law rule which permits background or explanatory material where the account otherwise to be placed before the court would be incomplete and incomprehensible.[26] This simply means in order for the jury to better understand the facts in issue the background evidence should be allowed. A case that refers to this is Phillips [2003] [27]. In Phillips[28], the evidence of the defendants previous threats to kill his wife when he was on trial for her murder were admissible as background evidence[29]. Referring to Avril, her previous convictions for theft cannot be allowed as background evidence to the drugs offences because they fall under different categories. Therefore, her previous convictions for theft is inadmissible under the gateway D and C. It was seen that she also had two previous convictions involving possession of marijuana and intent to supply. Her two previous convictions for drugs offences was seen to be done in the year 2011 and 2014. Her previous convictions have nothing to do with the offence charged. Firstly, the evidence is relevant. The previous offence and the current offence is not so closely connected because there is quite a gap between the years of her previous offence and the current offence; no nexus in time. It is also not an evidence of misconduct relating to the investigation or the prosecution of the offence, therefore it is a bad character evidence. Going through gateway D her previous convictions involving drugs offences show propensity to commit the kind of offence charged.[30] The test for propensity was established in R v Hanson.[31]Where the propensity to commit the offence is relied upon there are three questions to be considered. (i) Does the history of conviction(s) establish a propensit y to commit offences of the kind charged? (ii) Does that propensity make it more likely that the defendant committed the offence charged? (iii) Is it unjust to rely on the conviction(s) of the same description or category; and, in any event, will the proceedings be unfair if they are admitted?[32] Relating this to Avrils two previous convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to supply, her history of her past convictions does show a propensity to commit the kind of offence charged. This is because in 2011 she was convicted for drugs offences as well as in 2014 for the same crime. Avril being in possession of marijuana and intent to supply has a strong similar link to her drugs offence that she is currently being charged with. It can be said that her propensity makes it more likely that she did commit the offence charged because they all share similar features which means there is a strong MO link. Similar features such as the type of offence, the possession of illegal drugs and intent to supply. It will be just to rely on her previous convictions because it shows a high possibility of reoffending based on her propensity. Avrils previous convictions meet all the Hanson criteria which means her previous convictions shows a propensity for her to commit the kind of offen ce charged therefore gateway D is applied. In conclusion, Avrils previous conviction for theft is bad character evidence but it could meet the threshold for gateway D and C which shows the evidence to be inadmissible. Nonetheless, her previous convictions for drugs offences met the criteria for gateway D which means it can be admitted as bad character evidence for the prosecution. C. The evidence is Avrils confession and the prosecution wants to adduce this evidence to prove that she committed the drugs offence that she is being charged with. The evidence is relevant because it is in relations to the issue and the drugs offence charged. The evidential issue that this raises is the admissibility of confession. Section 82(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 gives definition to a confession. According to McAlhone and Stockdale A statement is a confession if, whether oral or written or made by conduct (e.g by video re-enactment), it is at least in part, adverse to its makers interests.[33] It is important to note that confessions are an out of court statement that the defendant made and the prosecution wants to admit it for its truth. This makes the evidence hearsay and as such it is generally inadmissible but there are exceptions to the hearsay rule which is contained in two provisions. The statutory provisions that regulates the admissibility of confessions is s76 and s78 of PACE 1984. S76(1) of PACE lays out the admissibility of the confession made by the defendant as evidence against him/her. The key factors for admissibility under section 76(1) of PACE is (i) the confession should be relevant to any matter in issue and (ii) it is not excluded by the court in pursuance of s76.[34] The court have a discretion to exclude a confession if it falls under the provision of s76(2) of PACE and it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession does not fall under s76(2) of PACE[35]. S76(2)(a) refers to a confession being obtained by oppression. Section 76(8) of PACE explains what constitutes oppression but this is only a partial definition. In R v Fulling[36] oppression was given the oxford dictionary meaning; the oxford dictionary defines oppression as prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.[37] While Lord Lane in the case of Fulling[38]gave a description of what s76(2)(b) covers. He believed that the confession must be shown to be voluntary in the sense that it was not obtained by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage, excited or held out by a person in authority[39] s76(2)(b) looks at the unreliability of a confession, hence looking at the circumstances of anything said and done on the occasion of confession that would make it unreliable; it also includes things not said and not done which could include omissions, breaches of PACE and associated Codes of Practice[40]. There needs to be a causal link between what was said and done in the circumstance and the confession. Relating this to the issue, Avril made a confession which could be admissible under s76(1) of PACE 1984 because the confession is relevant to the matter in issue. The second factor is the no exclusion by the courts. S76(2)(a) does not apply to Avrils case because it can be seen from the facts of the issue that her confession was not obtained by oppression; there was no exercise of authority or torture or inhuman and degrading treatment done to Avril. Since Avrils confession does not fall under oppression s76(2)(b) can be used. The first fact of the issue was that P.C. Pumpkin forgot to issue the police caution before she was interviewed. The failure to give a police caution is a breach of code C under PACE 1984 as seen in Doolan [1988][41]. The second fact of the issue was Avrils solicitor was not called because of the confusion in the change of police shifts. The right to a solicitor for the accused is found in s56 of PACE 1984[42]. Failure to provide access to a solicitor as required by this provision could lead a person of low IQ who knows little about the process to confess but this may have less effect upon a person who can cope with an interview situation and is aware of his legal rights[43] as seen in R v Alladice (1988)[44]. There is an assumption that Avril is aware of her legal rights because she has had past convictions of the similar offence, therefore her not having a solicitor has little effect on her confession. The third fact of the issue was that Avril was not given any food and drink for 24 hours and became claustrophobic in the police cell and is also diabetic. Her confession is unreliable because she was not given proper rest[45] which can also include the provision of food and drink. A police misconduct is not required. In Walker [1998] [46]the police were unaware of the mental condition of the defendant[47]. The police were unaware of Avrils claustrophobia as well as her diabetes so the police misconduct in regards to this cannot be relied upon. Nonetheless code C does require the police to attend to detained person if the need for attention is urgent. Another provision that protects the accused from unfair proceedings and unfair evidence is s78 of PACE 1984[48]. This provision shows exclusion of unfair evidence by the court if it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings[49]. A breach of PACE or the codes may lead to an exclusion, however the breach should be significant and substantial[50]. It will not be appropriate to exclude a confession based on a breach which is inconsequential, for example, failure to provide a solicitor[51]. It was clear that there was a breach of code when the police did not give Avril access to a solicitor but based on an assumption that Avril could handle an interview situation because she has had previous dealings with police interviews from her past convictions the breach may not be substantial enough for the court to exclude it. In conclusion, Avrils confession is unreliable under s76(2)(b) of PACE which can be excluded by the court. This shows that her confession cannot be admissible under s76 of PACE. Nevertheless, it can be admissible under s78 of PACE because her confession was not unfair evidence, therefore it is highly likely the courts will not exclude this, subsequently the prosecution may adduce the evidence through this provision. BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Andrew L-T Choo, Evidence (3rd edn, Oxford University press, 2012) Christina McAlhone and Michael Stockdale, Nutshells, Evidence in a nutshell (3rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 2002) Richard Glover, Murphy on Evidence (14th edn, Oxford University Press, 2015) CASES Hanson (Gilmore) [2005] EWCA Crim 824 R v Alladice (1988) 87 Cr App R 380 R v Davis [2008] EWCA Crim 1156 R v Doolan [1988] Crim LR 747 R v Fulling [1987] 2 All ER 65 R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824 R v L [2009] 1 WLR 626, CA R v Phillips [2003] EWCA Crim 1379 R v Tirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239 R v Trussler [1988] Crim LR 446 R v Walker [1998] Crim LR 211 STATUTES Criminal Justice Act 2003 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 WEBSITES Oppression, accessed 15 March, 2017, What is RELEVANT?, accessed 8 March 2017 [1], What is RELEVANT?, accessed 8 March 2017. [2] Richard Glover, Murphy on Evidence (14th edn, Oxford University Press, 2015) p 590 [3] Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s 53 (1) [4] Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s 53 (1) [5] Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 s80 (3) [6] Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 s80 (3) [7] R v L [2009] 1 WLR 626, CA [8] R v L [2009] 1 WLR 626, CA [9] Andrew L-T Choo, Evidence (3rd edn, Oxford University press, 2012) p 277 [10] Criminal Justice Act 2003 [11] Criminal Justice Act 2003 s116 (2) [12] Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s16-s17 [13] Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s17 [14] Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s17 [15] Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s23 [16] Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s27(1)-(3) [17] Criminal Justice Act 2003 s98 [18] R v Tirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239 [19] Criminal Justice Act 2003 s98 [20] Andrew L-T Choo, Evidence (3rd edn, Oxford University press, 2012) p 258 [21] Andrew L-T Choo, Evidence (3rd edn, Oxford University press, 2012) p 258 [22] Criminal Justice Act 2003 s112 [23] Hanson (Gilmore) [2005] EWCA Crim 824 [24] Hanson (Gilmore) [2005] EWCA Crim 824 [25] Criminal Justice Act 2003 s102 [26] R v Davis [2008] EWCA Crim 1156 [27]R v Phillips [2003] EWCA Crim 1379 [28] R v Phillips [2003] EWCA Crim 1379 [29] R v Phillips [2003] EWCA Crim 1379 [30] Criminal Justice Act 2003 s103 (1) (a) [31] R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824 [32] R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824 [33] Christina McAlhone and Michael Stockdale, Nutshells, Evidence in a nutshell (3rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 2002) p 82 [34] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s76 (1) [35] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s76 (2) [36] R v Fulling [1987] 2 All ER 65 [37] Oppression, accessed 15 March, 2017 [38] R v Fulling [1987] 2 All ER 65

Friday, January 17, 2020

Cognitive- behavioural approaches to counselling Essay

This essay is written to compare the counselling relationship in person-centred and cognitive-behavioural counselling by outlining both the theory and practice of the counselling relationship. This will be done by outlining the theory of the counselling relationships and the theory in practice. Both person-centred and cognitive-behavioural counselling are widely recognised, successful treatments. There are however many significant differences between the two. Cognitive-behavioural therapy is based on scientific study taking two therapies, cognitive therapy and behavioural therapy, and combining the two. Behavioural therapy is based on the fact that people can learn behaviours through classical conditioning, which was first recorded by Ivan Pavlov at the end of the nineteenth century, and operant conditioning (Skinner, 1953. ) Therapists believed what the behavioural therapists were helping their clients to do, such as encouraging self- assertion and self-understanding to help develop new approaches to dealing with life, incorporate a wide range of cognitive processes including decision-making and problem-solving. Beck (1976) founded cognitive-behavioural therapy after becoming disillusioned by psychoanalytic methods. (McLeod J. 008) Person-centred counselling is a non-scientific therapy developed by Carl Rogers in the 1940s and 1950s. It is a humanistic approach where it is believed that the client needs to feel valued and understood for them to be able to develop a self-awareness so they are able to deal with any difficult situation they feel they are in, giving them the power to change their own lives. Person-centred therapy is non-direct approach where the therapist and client develop an equal friendship to develop trust between the two, creating a safe therapeutic environment which enables the client to figure out what makes them the way they are. When the client begins to trust their feelings and become emotionally confident they can begin to find the answers to their own problems within themselves. For this to happen a core conditions model is in place. Without these conditions this type of therapy would not be effective (Rogers, C. 1957. ) Therapist-Client Psychological Contact- A relationship which two people have impact on each other and the therapist needs to be engaged by the client. Client incongruence, or Vulnerability- The client needs to be in a state of incongruence, feel that their real self is not how they would ideally like be. The client is also vulnerable to anxiousness which means they will be motivated stay in the relationship. (McLeod, J. 2008) Therapist Congruence or Genuineness- The therapist needs to be congruent within the therapeutic relationship- needs to be genuine in dealing with the client and use their own experience to enable the relationship. Unconditional Positive Regard- The therapist needs to have unconditional positive regard for the client. Acceptance, empathy and genuineness without judgement, is needed for the client to feel a higher sense of self-regard so they can realise that their self-worth was distorted by others. The therapist needs to accept the client for who they are now, not what they could become. Empathetic understanding- accurate empathy on behalf of the therapist can help the client believe that the therapist has unconditional love for them. Client Perception- If the therapist communicates to the client their unconditional regard and empathetic understanding to at least a minimal degree this is effective. In contrast cognitive-behavioural therapy is a direct approach where clients are taught how to think and behave in ways in which enables them to obtain their goals. They are not told what it is they want, but instead how to achieve the goals they may have this develops a student (client) and teacher (therapist) relationship. In order for this to be successful, intervention techniques are used to ensure that the goals agreed with the client is met. (Haaga and Davison1986, Meichenbaum 1986) These include; Systematic desensitization- a relaxation technique is taught to help the client to overcome anxiety to enable them to extinguish their phobias. Once this has been learnt the client must use this to enable them to overcome these by using a fear hierarchy. Homework assignments- practicing techniques learnt in therapy between sessions. Experimenting with different self- statements in everyday situations. Thought stopping- instead of letting anxious thought take over the client learns to use something to interrupt these thoughts such as flicking a rubber band on their wrist. Challenging irrational beliefs- the therapist tries to identify the clients’ irrational beliefs that are causing issues in their life and challenges it so that the client develops a less extreme way they view the problem. Reframing the issues – getting the client to perceive a certain emotion as something different. An example of this is perceiving fear as excitement. In vivo exposure- going into highly fearful situations with the therapist whilst they are talking through cognitive-behavioural techniques to help you deal with the situation. Scaling feelings- placing present feeling of anxiety and rating them on a scale off 0-100 is an example of this. Rehearsing different self-statements in role-play in therapy sessions. Assertiveness or social skills training. Although a therapeutic relationship is important in both practices, cognitive -behavioural therapists believe this is not sufficient enough alone to help clients work through their problems, and while many therapists have different styles the main cognitive behavioural therapy programme have an outlined structure in place. (Kuehnel and Liberman 1986; Freeman and Simon 1989,) which is the main focus. Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy is more client action orientated to produce a change in the way they think which then will lead to a change in the way the client will behave. However in Person-centred therapy a therapeutic process is put in place as a series of stages. These stages help promote a therapeutic change in the client or a â€Å"process of greater openness to experience† (McLeod, J. 2008. ) (Rogers, C. 1951) considered the management of therapeutic growth as including the awareness of the clients of any experiences they have been denied. They stop seeing the world in a generalised view and begin to see it differently. This enables them to rely on their personal experience to create their own set of values. These personal developments lead to a â€Å"reorganization of self† (Rogers, C. 1951) and is vital to develop new behaviours. In conclusion although both approaches to counselling realise that a counselling relationship is important, person-centred therapists believe that the counselling experience and effectiveness of the therapy is determined solely on that of the relationship. Cognitive-behavioural therapists find, through past experiments other techniques, such as systematic desensitization and behavioural self-control, are equally important to the success of the therapy.

Thursday, January 9, 2020

Explaining And Discussing Dante s Vision Of Hell

Explaining and Discussing Dante’s Vision of Hell in The Inferno Dante’s explanation of Hell has fascinated many individuals by the way it is explained, and more than likely made many use their mind and overthink it. When readers confront The Inferno, they might be surprised or blown minded by the way Dante explains what he went through. Many people after reading this might have changed their way of thinking of Hell because of Dante’s lecture, or maybe some still thought the same. Not everyone thinks that there is a heaven nor a hell, everyone has different believes depending on their culture and most importantly their religion. Religion is what makes people decide what they believe in and what not to believe in. When Dante passes through the gates of Hell he knew right away it was trouble without a doubt, he explains that there is different levels in Hell depending on what that individual might have done on earth. Virgil is the one who leads Dante into the Gates of Hell, as soon as Dante enters he then hears countless cries from the many souls that lived on earth and lived their lives without being aware of their moral choices. Virgil leads Dante to Acheron, which was a river, and it marks the border of Hell according to the book. Across it there will be many dead souls waiting to be crossed. Charon was an old man who recognizes Dante and tells him to stay away from the dead in Hell but then troubles them no longer. Unexpectedly fire and wind rises up from theShow MoreRelatedEssay on Fall of Asclepius95354 Words   |  382 Pagesinfested areas. Everywhere was infested. There was no where anyone could go without encountering the walking plague. You know that phrase War is Hell? Well... its dead wrong. War at least has some organization to it. What was faced in the last days... by last days I mean the last days of civilization not life; itself. What was faced was hell. Everyone went ape shit insane. Everyone was killing and raping each other into oblivion, because we were under attack by creatures that was so beyond