1. please take this into consideration when dong the presentation, this is a msg from my tutor, The presentation is NOT about presenting ‘information’.  There is a

difference between  Knowledge,  Understanding,  Information

“Information becomes knowledge when it is organised into fruitful patterns, and knowledge yields understanding when careful, clear-eyed appreciation of what it means

and what its uses are have been attained” . (AC Grayling, Independent, 17.2.06 p.8- )

“Abundantly available information…leads to diminished capacity for understanding”.  (Tsoukas,  2005, p24, in  Complex Knowledge: Studies of Organisational Epistemology

OUP)

The aim of the exercise is to make links between the prompt material and wider themes we have looked at in the course. So, instead of having the same perspective as

the journalist, you are able to use your learning from this course to put the problem in a wider context and to think about why things are framed as they are in this

particular prompt of article.

Here are some questions to guide your thinking and approach.

1. How is the problem you have chosen framed?
2. Why is it considered to be a problem? Is it a problem?
3. What does it tell us notions of childhood and the times we live in that it is thought of as a problem?
4. How might ideas from the course illuminate the way in which we think about and conceptualise the issue? (You can draw in ideas from sociology, criminology, child

development, social policy, psychotherapeutic understanding).

It is not, repeat NOT, about collecting ‘information’ but rather about understanding and synthesizing it – and having something to say about it from an informed

perspective

My chosen topic for the presention is this
13 January 2014 Last updated at 04:20
Parents ‘should go abroad to avoid family courts’
Parents suspected of child abuse should flee the country rather than face justice in the family courts, one MP has told BBC Panorama.
Liberal Democrat John Hemming, chairman of the Justice for Families campaign group, said parents should “go abroad”, if it is legal. But the courts advisory service,

Cafcass, said going abroad did not solve the problem for most parents. The government said family justice reform was a “critical priority”. In 2012, local authorities

made a record 10,218 applications to take children away from parents.
This figure was 11% higher than in 2010-11 and 61.6% higher than in 2007-08, according to Cafcass, which said applications had been rising since the case of Baby P in

2008.
In some high profile cases where children died, local authorities were criticised for not acting quickly enough and for believing what they had been told by parents.
But John Hemming, MP for Birmingham Yardley, said the system had become unfair to parents. He has been contacted by hundreds of parents suspected of harming their

children who are going through the family courts. He said the process was so unfair that parents should leave the country to avoid social services and the courts. “All

the cards are held by the local authority. It has large resources to fight the cases – it does all the assessments,” he said. My advice to people – if they can afford

it – is just to go abroad. You can’t get a fair trial here, because you can’t rely on the evidence being fair. It’s best simply to go if you can, at the right time,

lawfully.”
But Cafcass, the organisation that looks after the interests of children in the family courts, said the rise in care applications meant that more children were being

protected.
“We can’t play poker with children’s safety, we’ve got to have a system that plays it safe to begin with,” said chief executive Anthony Douglas. I do think we have a

responsibility to make our family courts better, to make them more transparent, to build public confidence in them. To advocate leaving altogether doesn’t solve the

problem for the vast majority of children and parents who need our courts to be as good as they possibly can be.”
When the child protection system makes a mistake it can have devastating effects for the family involved. Amy Howell, from Bristol, took her six-week-old baby boy,

Harrison, to hospital because he was unwell in February 2008. X-rays taken to assess him showed he had multiple fractures that Amy could not explain. Blood tests

showed Harrison had severe vitamin D deficiency, a condition that can lead to rickets and weaker bones. But medical experts said the fractures were evidence of abuse

and Harrison and his older sister were taken into care.
The children were placed with Amy’s mother, but Harrison continued to be unwell.
The court eventually allowed Amy to appoint an alternative expert, a professor of genetics, who discovered that the family had an unusual history of broken bones and

fractures.
Harrison was treated for rickets and a genetic bone disorder. The professor convinced the court and 18 months after they were taken away, Amy got her children back.
“We weren’t even aware it was going to happen,” said Amy. “I phoned social services and they dropped in, ‘Oh, by the way, I suppose we better tell you that we’re

actually going to drop the case against you’.
“I sort of fell to the floor and everyone stared at me. I just sat there crying with the phone in my hand. Obviously things do happen, people do abuse their children,

and I’m not denying that, but at the same time they need to be being vigilant because these conditions can go unnoticed.”

South Gloucestershire Council said: “We have a duty to ensure that children are safeguarded until the circumstances are clear. The children in this case were always in

the care of their family. “We regret the distress this investigation caused to the family, but we do not enter into this sort of action lightly and we do so on the

basis of the evidence we have.”
Family Justice Minister Lord McNally said the reform of family justice and child protection was a “critical priority” for the government. We are changing the system so

there are new standards for expert witnesses, more effective court processes and more efficient provision of advice for families. We have also been clear that there

needs to be more openness in the family courts.”

CRIMINOLOGY

Order Description

SUBJECT: CRIMINOLGY (University level)

Using the following example below of a crime that appeared in the newspaper on 1 April 2005, answer the following 2 part question.

PART A
Apply the concept of sociological positivism by giving an overview of how sociological positivism can be used to explain the crime.
(850 words)

PART B
Use the sociological positivism perspective to provide possible explanations for and insights into the crime that you have described (around 450 words).

NOTE
You don’t need to include every single element of sociological positivism! Rather provide a broad overview then use some of the ideas to explain the crime.
Sociological Positivism includes:
Durkhiem, Merton, anomie, strain theory (in its various forms).

THIS IS THE ARTICLE
AUS: company director jailed
WMLR Newsdesk
Friday 01 April 2005
A company director has been jailed for fraud
Mr Jeffrey Lucy, Chairman of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), today noted the sentencing of Mr John Phillip Gorcilov of West Lakes, South Australia, to five years” jail relating to fraud offences totalling over AUD8 million. The charges arose from a joint investigation by ASIC and the Major Fraud Section of the South Australia Police.
Mr Gorcilov was sentenced in the District Court of South Australia to five years” imprisonment with a non parole period of three years, after pleading guilty on 23 September 2004, to six charges.
It was alleged that between 1 December 1999 and 1 June 2000, he used a number of false names including John Tomaras, George Tomaras and John Sharpe at various banks in Adelaide. Mr Gorcilov and his father, Mr Filip Gorcilov who also used the false name of Peter Tomaras, fraudulently sought funding from these banks for transactions relating to proposed purchases of a major motel complex, shopping centre, residential premises and a luxury cabin cruiser.
It was also alleged that Mr Gorcilov used false identities and false company records, and lied about assets he and his father owned personally or through alleged off-shore companies, to obtain over AUD2.39 million from various banks and attempted to obtain over AUD6 million.
The jailing of Mr Gorcilov sends a strong message that neither ASIC nor the community will tolerate persons who act dishonestly and break the law for their personal gain”, Mr Lucy said.
People who are tempted to act fraudulently should take note of the sentence imposed on Mr Gorcilov today”, he added.
The matter was prosecuted by the South Australian Director of Public Prosecutions.
Charges jointly laid against Mr Filip Gorcilov, of Fulham Gardens, South Australia, have been withdrawn due to his present mental capacity.

CRIMINOLOGY

Order Description

SUBJECT: CRIMINOLGY (University level)

Using the following example below of a crime that appeared in the newspaper on 1 April 2005, answer the following 2 part question.

PART A
Apply the concept of sociological positivism by giving an overview of how sociological positivism can be used to explain the crime.
(850 words)

PART B
Use the sociological positivism perspective to provide possible explanations for and insights into the crime that you have described (around 450 words).

NOTE
You don’t need to include every single element of sociological positivism! Rather provide a broad overview then use some of the ideas to explain the crime.
Sociological Positivism includes:
Durkhiem, Merton, anomie, strain theory (in its various forms).

THIS IS THE ARTICLE
AUS: company director jailed
WMLR Newsdesk
Friday 01 April 2005
A company director has been jailed for fraud
Mr Jeffrey Lucy, Chairman of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), today noted the sentencing of Mr John Phillip Gorcilov of West Lakes, South Australia, to five years” jail relating to fraud offences totalling over AUD8 million. The charges arose from a joint investigation by ASIC and the Major Fraud Section of the South Australia Police.
Mr Gorcilov was sentenced in the District Court of South Australia to five years” imprisonment with a non parole period of three years, after pleading guilty on 23 September 2004, to six charges.
It was alleged that between 1 December 1999 and 1 June 2000, he used a number of false names including John Tomaras, George Tomaras and John Sharpe at various banks in Adelaide. Mr Gorcilov and his father, Mr Filip Gorcilov who also used the false name of Peter Tomaras, fraudulently sought funding from these banks for transactions relating to proposed purchases of a major motel complex, shopping centre, residential premises and a luxury cabin cruiser.
It was also alleged that Mr Gorcilov used false identities and false company records, and lied about assets he and his father owned personally or through alleged off-shore companies, to obtain over AUD2.39 million from various banks and attempted to obtain over AUD6 million.
The jailing of Mr Gorcilov sends a strong message that neither ASIC nor the community will tolerate persons who act dishonestly and break the law for their personal gain”, Mr Lucy said.
People who are tempted to act fraudulently should take note of the sentence imposed on Mr Gorcilov today”, he added.
The matter was prosecuted by the South Australian Director of Public Prosecutions.
Charges jointly laid against Mr Filip Gorcilov, of Fulham Gardens, South Australia, have been withdrawn due to his present mental capacity.