READING QUESTIONS (Foundation Tier)
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL (Search and find)
 List details or Make a list or Find specific information
 What evidence does the writer/text use …?
 Explain why…
IMPRESSIONS
 What impressions do you get of the writer or a place or an organisation
or people?
 What do you think and feel about …..(person, place etc)
 What do you learn about…?
VIEWPOINT/ATTITUDE
 What are the writer’s attitude to …
 What are the writer’s opinions of …
 What are the writer’s thoughts and feelings about …
ANALYSIS OF PERSUASIVE TECHNIQUE
 How does the writer try to encourage or interest or argue?
 How does this text try to persuade or show or sell or influence?
COMPARISON OF TEXTS
 Compare and contract these texts.
 Using information from both texts, explain why or what you learn …
 Find examples or information from both texts
READING QUESTIONS (Higher Tier)
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL (Search and find)
 Explain how and/or why (What explanations/reasons are given ….?)
 What evidence does the writer/text use….?
IMPRESSIONS (Personal Response)
 What impressions do you get of the writer or a place or an organisation
or people?
 What do you think and feel about …..
 What do you learn about…?
VIEWPOINT/ATTITUDE
 What are the writer’s attitude to …
 What are the writer’s opinions of …
 What are the writer’s thoughts and feelings about …
ANALYSIS OF PERSUASIVE TECHNIQUE
 How does the writer try to encourage or interest or argue?
 How does this text try to persuade or show or sell or influence?
COMPARISON OF TEXTS
 Compare and contract these texts.
 Using information from both texts, explain why or what you learn …
 What do you learn from these texts about …
Q1
(a)
The reason that foxes have become so popular is because of two reasons.
Firstly John Masefield wrote a popular poem and it showed that the fox is an
amazing creature. Secondly the media as foxes were made into lovable
characters like Basil Brush and Robin Hood. This has made them more
lovable to the people.
(b)
Adam Edwards claims the reason that foxes have become so common in
towns is because he was protected by the Animal Liberation Front. Also he
was fawned over by animal charities and bunny-huggers, but then saved by
persecution by the law, so in conclusion they grew more in common areas.
Q1
(a)
Foxes became popular because the poet John Masefield wrote a very popular
poem ‘Reynard the Fox’. Also they were seen as the lovable Basil Brush. This
gave the fox an image makeover. They were no longer known for killing
chicken or other animals for pleasure. By giving the fox a makeover they
were considered lovable and friendly.
(b)
According to Adam Edwards foxes have become more common in towns as
each generation of foxes get more able to deal with traffic. They have no
shortage of food. They have no predators ‘except man’. Foxes are regularly
seen in daylight not just at night. They are regularly seen in supermarket car
parks.
Q1
(a)
Foxes became popular in the twentieth century after their image changed.
The fox grew in popularity as it was portrayed in a humorous way in
television programmes such as ‘Basil Brush’. Described as ‘as cute as a
Disney character’, the fox became loved by many for the appearance of the
animal.
The fox went from being ‘despised’ to a ‘victim of oppression’. This had a lot
to do with the poet John Masefield. His poem ‘Reynard the Fox’ created
sympathy for the animal and many felt ‘compassion’ for it. The fox also grew
in popularity due to a public relations campaign that ‘any X Factor contestant
would die for’. The fox was portrayed as ‘an amusing fellow’ in
advertisements and Disney used him as ‘heroic’ figure in cartoons.
(b)
Foxes have become so common in towns for many reasons. They are
protected by law and they can find ‘shelter’ in people’s gardens. They are
used to the ways of the town and they can rummage through bins so there is
no shortage of food. Traffic is not a problem for them anymore so fewer are
killed on the roads. As the fox has no predators except man it is easy for
them to look for food without fear of being hunted.
Q2
Edward tries to tell his readers all the bad things that fox have done in 2010.
He does this to try and turn the readers against foxes. In the extract Adam
says ‘the urban fox is more fearless than ever’. He says this to try and
frighten his readers. By doing this the readers wont like the fox. ‘Fearless’,
‘cunning’ ‘trickery’ this semantic field sums up how horrible the fox is.
Q2
Adam Edwards tries to turn his readers against foxes. He uses the word as if
it was single fox that done loads of bad things. Whos to say it might not of
been a couple of female foxes. Adam Edwards says all the bad things foxes
have done such as ‘he crept into London zoo and killed 11 penguins’. He says
words like ‘bit and mauled’, ‘killed….for fun’ ‘savagely bitten, ‘cunning’ and
he also says that foxes ‘symbolised trickery and deceit’.
Q2
The text tries to show the fox as a criminal. The writer does this by using
simple sentences and opposites. These bring a bigger impact to the reader in
his text.
Firstly the writer uses simple sentences to exaggerate what the fox is doing.
We can see this in the line ‘For fun.’ This line demonstrates that the writer is
trying to explain his point more fully. He uses alliteration in this line which
also adds to his point. This line contrasts with the first half of the text by
saying that he is killing animals and injuring humans for fun. This point and
how it’s put across to the reader makes them want to change their attitude
to the fox.
Also Edwards uses opposite to try to change the attitudes of the reader. We
can see this when he says ‘Basil Brush has a beastly side’. This demonstrates
that the once loved fox has now changed to a horrible monster. Again
Edwards uses alliteration to add to this point and push it further towards
swaying the reader to think that they are horrible animals.
In conclusion Edwards uses simple sentences, opposites and especially
alliteration to push his point about foxes being beastly. These techniques
push his point to make the reader feel disgusted at the way the animals are
acting to us as humans.
Q2
Adam Edwards tries to turn his readers against foxes by telling some true
facts and incidents the fox have been in. He starts by saying ‘he bit and
mauled baby twins as they slept’. Already he starts with such a horrible fact
this will make the reader hate the fox straightaway. He then goes on ‘he
crept into London zoo and killed 11 penguins’. This also brings hatred as not
only does he hurt humans but kills other animals as well. Adam Edwards also
mentions ‘he decapitated the Queen’s flamingos at Buckingham Palace’. This
makes it clear that he is a danger to every animal no matter where the place
is. This turns the reader against the fox so Adam Edwards was successful.
Q2
Adam Edwards tries to turn his readers against foxes as he lists the tragedies
that they have caused, ‘In 2010…Last month’ The way he describes the fox
killing penguins ‘for fun’ almost frightens the readers.
The separate, quite short paragraphs are effective, as it emphasises the
severity of the foes ‘charge sheet’.
As Adam Edwards refers to foxes as a ‘he’ it strikes fear with the readers as it
seems as if they are all one and they are all cunning.
The harsh way that things are said, ‘it has not deterred him’ suggests that
foxes are relentless and this would turn readers against him. Edwards
mentions several attacks on ‘young’ victims and this also strikes fear and
turns the readers against foxes as they wouldn’t want anyone to experience
being ‘savagely bitten’ or ‘mauled’ whilst asleep.
The generalisation that ‘across London’ there are ‘cries’ for ‘urban hunts’.
This would turn readers against foxes as it seems that it’s a ‘surprise’ that
foxes were ever thought of like ‘lovable in the first place’.
Q2
Edwards turns readers against foxes by talking about the attack on baby
twins. He uses the word ‘maul’ to suggest a gruesome, savage attack. He
walks about Basil Brush’s beastly side’ to suggest an untamed, savage animal,
as opposed to the lovable Disney character. A ‘feral chav’ which ‘breeds
indiscriminately’ creates an image of a disgusting creature and Edwards goes
on to list recent attacks against humans and animals. The fox not only
attacked a woman in Fulham and a baby boy in Dartford but also ‘crept’ into
a zoo and killed 11 penguins. ‘Crept’ suggests cunning and ‘for fun’ also
shows that the fox kills ruthlessly and for pleasure rather than for food. The
Queen’s flamingos were ‘decapitated’ which creates a horrible image in the
reader’s mind.
Edwards suggests that the fox targets humans and animals which are
defenceless and more gruesome images are used such as ‘savagely bitten’
which suggests brutality.
He mentioned that the fox symbolises ‘trickery and deceit’ in the Bible and
even Roald Dahl presented him as a ‘thief’.
Q2
Edwards uses a lot of unpleasant and disturbing facts and language to turn us
against the fox, beginning with ‘he bit and mauled baby twins.’ The harsh
‘mauled’ evokes a disgusting image and the fact that it was ‘baby twins’
make the reader think it is even more detestable.
Edwards also says a woman was ‘savagely bitten’ and the word ‘savagely’
suggests the fox intentionally meant to hurt the woman, increasing our
dislike. It then says a ‘baby boy was attacked’ and this suggests that the fox
is a vicious coward for choosing such a vulnerable and helpless victim.
To add to the cruel and brutal image, Edwards describes the fox as a ‘feral
chav’ and this has negative connotations as ‘feral’ suggests savage and
uncivilised and ‘chavs’ intimidate people. The fox is presented as a scavenger
and a parasite as it ‘feeds off discarded buckets of KFC’ and also ‘breeds
indiscriminately’.
Edwards uses words such as ‘crept’, deceit’ and ‘thief’ to suggest that the fox
is not to be trusted and the attacks on the penguins and the flamingos are
horrible. The word ‘decapitated’ suggests that dark and disturbed mind of
the fox as he kills ruthlessly and ‘for fun’.
Q3
Stephen Harris tries to prove that foxes ‘have a place in our hearts’ by
explaining that even though they rip up our bins, when we see them we stop
and watch them. Also Harris has found that ‘as many as one in ten
households regularly feeds local foxes’. He also explains that they might nip
a small child but nothing serious has ever been reported.
Q3
Stephen Harris tries to prove that the urban fox has found a ‘place in our
hearts’ by describing how these ‘red-coated invaders’ are gentle and quiet
creatures. He starts by saying ‘we adore’ these creatures. This will make us
change our heart because everyone else adores them. Then he goes on
about the story of the fox who goes to the lady every night. This makes us
feel we could be that woman and that they’re nice enough to stroke. Finally
he says that ‘no serious injuries have ever been recorded’. Again it makes us
trust the foxes as he finished by saying they belong in our hearts.
Q3
Stephen Harris tries to prove that the urban fox has found a place in our
hearts by showing the fox positively and using positive language to describe
the fox. The writer defends the foxes’ littering and noise by saying it is ‘just
an act’, trying to convince the reader that the foxes aren’t horrible. He uses
an example of homeowners taking the time to watch a fax in their gardens
and that people ‘marvel’ at the animal. He describes the fox as ‘intelligent’
and ‘resourceful’ which are positive words to try to convince the reader of
their love for the fox.
He says people must have a place in their hearts for foxes otherwise ’one in
ten households’ wouldn’t deliberately leave food out for them. He describes
a bond between a woman in Bristol and a fox as ‘cosy’ and that the fox was
‘calm’ and ‘didn’t panic’ when it was in the woman’s company.
Finally, the writer compares the fox as less dangerous than a dog to show the
reader how tame and relaxed it is compared to a domestic animal.
Q3
Firstly Professor Harris tries to prove that the fax has found a place in our
hearts by stating that ‘we city dwellers love our urban foxes.’ He goes on to
prove this by simply overlooking the point that they rip bin bags and disturb
our sleep by barking by saying that ‘secretly we adore these red-coated
invaders.’ He mentions that we all stop and stare at these ‘resourceful’ and
‘intelligent’ animals and we ‘marvel’ at the sight of them in our habitat.
He goes on to prove his point by mentioning that we feed them and that half
their diet comes courtesy of us humans, suggesting we love the urban fox.
Professor Harris goes on to mention the story where a fox became so
accustomed to urban life he sneaked into a house and ate the cat’s food and
then casually napped on the owner’s lap. This proves they have a special
place in our hearts.
He also states that they are so common in our lives that we have grown used
to seeing them so they have become embedded in our lives.
Q3
Professor Harris tries to prove that the fox has found a special place in our
hearts by saying that ‘all this hostility is just an act’. He says that ‘secretly we
adore these red-coated invaders’. He proves by our typical response to
spotting one which is to ‘stop for a moment and stare’. People are in awe of
the fox and they ‘marvel’ at the sight of such a resourceful and intelligent
animal. People enjoy seeing a fox as it is ‘like a little bit of countryside has
suddenly come to town’. He proves it also by saying ‘many of us feed them’.
This proves townspeople accept and care for foxes by feeding them. He uses
figures such as ‘one in ten households regularly feed local foxes’ which shows
evidence of just how many people care for foxes.
He tells a story of a woman in Bristol who would feed a fox and it would
climb up onto her lap and have its head stroked. This creates an image of a
pet-like animal rather than a wild, feral animal and this proves that people
have a soft spot for foxes as they treat them like pets. He says stories like
this prove they are ‘totally at home’ in our cities and they have ‘little fear
from humans’. This proves we don’t hate them and they have been accepted
by people. They are so accepted they will take a rise on an escalator and
Professor Harris suggests there is no reason why our ‘love affair’ with foxes
should not continue. There isn’t any evidence why the fox shouldn’t be
loved.
Q4
The threat foxes are to humans are they can bit and maul us in our homes at
night during our sleep. This will make us very wary of what can happen.
They can tear apart our hearts by ‘chomping’ on our pets for example ‘guinea
pigs and even kittens. Although foxes have done so many dreadful things
they do have good points. If you don’t do anything to them then most times
out of ten they will leave you well alone. Most of the time they are only
looking for food and that is essential for them to live. The threat foxes are to
other animals are foxes will east anything as long as it keeps them alive and
this is shown when a fox crept into London zoo and killed eleven penguins
and then the Queen’s flamingos at Buckingham palace. Foxes are very
dangerous animals so what out but if you see one don’t disturb it and you’ll
be alright.
Q4
In ‘The rise and fall of Mister Fox’ the threat foxes are to humans is that they
bite and attack people. They also take food and make a mess. In ‘Fantastic
urban Mr Fox’ the only threat to humans is that they will nip a sleeping child
left in a garden.
The threat foxes are to animals in ‘the rise and fall of Mr Fox’ is that they kill
a number of animals each year and they even sneak into zoos to get animals.
But in ‘Fantastic Mr urban fox’ the threat foxes are to animals is that while
barking in the night, they might frighten small animals such as kittens,
rabbits, rats and guinea-pigs.
Q4
The threat foxes are to humans
During ‘The Rise and Fall of Mr Fox’, foxes are described to have a ‘beastly
side’ and they are ‘feral’. Also, the descriptions involving a fox that ‘mauled
baby twins’, another killing ‘for fun’, show the reader the sheer threat that
these foxes are to humans.
Also, as the foxes are described as ‘more fearless’ than ever before, they are
an obvious threat to humans.
The fact that shooting is the ‘most effective’ way to control foxes proves
their threat to humans.
During ‘Fantastic Mr Urban Fox’, there’s mention that foxes ‘nip’ at babies,
therefore they are capable of being quite a threat to humans.
The threat to other animals
During ‘Fantastic Mr Urban Fox’ it is mentioned that ‘small pets’ such as
rabbits, guinea-pigs and even kittens are in danger and are threatened by
these urban foxes.
Edwards mentions that foxes are a clear threat to other animals as one ‘killed
11 penguins’ and the Queen’s flamingos were also ‘decapitated’ by a fox.
Foxes are clearly a threat to pets as ‘a number of pet rabbits’ were also killed
by foxes.
Q4
The extract by Edwards shows that foxes can be a huge threat to humans
because they have hurt people of all ages by bites or mauls.
However, in the part by Professor Harris we see how foxes and humans can
get along and that they can be a lot less of a threat as a woman had a fox as a
visitor with no problems.
In the part by Professor Harris we see that foxes may be a tiny threat to
animals by only killing rabbits or maybe a guinea-pig.
However, in the part by Adam Edwards we see that the foxes can be a
serious threat as they can sneak into zoos to kill animals and also animals
outside like the Queen’s flamingos.
Q4
The threat foxes are to humans
Edwards tells us of how ‘a woman had her ear savagely bitten’ and ‘a baby
boy was attacked’. This text shows the real danger of foxes and the many
attacks on humans.
However, Harris speaks very little about the attacks on humans. He says a
fox ‘may occasionally take a curious nip at a baby’. He claims ‘no serious
injuries have ever been recorded.’ This greatly contrasts with Edwards who
says ‘a young girl had her arm mauled’.
The two articles are a clear contrast. Edwards shows us the severity of fox
attacks but Harris says they are almost harmless and that nothing serious has
ever happened.
Q4
The threat foxes are to humans
Edwards tells us of how ‘a woman had her ear savagely bitten’ and ‘a baby
boy was attacked’. This text shows the real danger of foxes and the many
attacks on humans.
However, Harris speaks very little about the attacks on humans. He says a
fox ‘may occasionally take a curious nip at a baby’. He claims ‘no serious
injuries have ever been recorded.’ This greatly contracts with Edwards who
says ‘a young girl had her arm mauled.’
The two articles are a clear contract. Edwards shows us the severity of fox
attacks but Harris says they are almost harmless and that nothing serious has
ever happened.
The threat to other animals
Again the two articles show different opinions on the threat foxes are to
other animals. Edwards says the fox ‘killed 11 penguins’ and ‘decapitated the
Queen’s flamingos’. However, Harris only suggests that the fox ‘occasionally’
takes a small pet such as a rabbit or a guinea-pig that has been ‘inadequately
protected’. This suggests it wasn’t really the fox’s fault that the pet was not
protected from him.
Edwards also states that the fox killed a number of rabbits so both articles do
show that foxes can attack and kill small animals.
However, the killings are much more serious and violent in ‘The Rise and Fall
of Mr Fox’.
Q1
In the early stages of Charles Starmer-Smith’s life he enjoyed cycling very
much, he enjoyed pedalling among villages in search of bread and adventure.
So as a young boy he seemed very enthusiastic I would image that he was
one of the Tour de France greats.
In the stage of his life which was his adolescence years, he unfortunately got
distracted by cars and girls and cycling no longer seemed to be cool. He
preferred the stereo playing Pearl Jam with a girl in the passenger seat of his
Mini.
As a man he pursued his young boy’s dream and became a cyclist.
He cycles for the new Sky Team and has done much to inspire a new
generation of Britons onto their bikes. He enjoys that he does a sport that
helps the environment as he admires the landscapes of Britain. He enjoys all
the journeys he takes each day.
Q1
Charles Starmer-Smith’s thoughts and feelings about cycling changed
throughout his life.
When he was a boy he thought of going on adventures and his freedom. It
seemed like a part of his life. He used it to pick up food and have fun and
explore which is important to a child.
When Charles gets to an adolescent his thoughts change because it’s not
‘cool’ to ride a bike. He thinks it was a lot more important to be with a girl,
some music and a car that seem a lot more grown up than just a bicycle. It
seemed to limit what you can do and where you could go especially
compared to a car.
As a man his feelings had changed. Once he had bought a special outfit to
wear cycling it was like a new him to cycle. Even though his wife thought the
outfit was funny he really wanted to look good and feel like a sportsman.
He feels smug as he is in front of the traffic then it contrasts him turning and
it going to silence. He then embraces the weather, views and noises around
him and realises how ‘precious’ moments like that are. This shows how
important cycling is to him. He then mentions the views he has earned. This
shows he’s glad he’s worked hard to see these views and it means a lot to
him.
Q1
When Charles Starmer-Smith was a boy, he enjoyed cycling, remembering
‘childhood holidays in France’ when he would ‘pedal among the villages in
search of bread and adventure.’ He talks about the ‘freedom of pedal power’
and imagining he was one of the ‘Tour de France greats’.
As an adolescent, cycling was ‘no longer cool’ and along came ‘girls and
guitars and cars’. On a bike he was unable to ‘play Pearl Jam on the stereo’
and do other like things like have the roof of a car down and a pretty girl in
the passenger seat.
As a man, he has an ‘inflated sense of his sporting prowess’. When cycling in
Richmond Park, he felt like a man on an ‘epic ascent of some legendary
Alpine peak.’ He spent a small fortune on a new cycling outfit and felt
‘streamlined and ready for anything’. As he weaves through the traffic, a
‘wave of smugness’ washes over him as he is able to avoid the ‘noisy
commuters and choking traffic’.
Q2
Charles Starmer-Smith thinks cycling is a popular and enjoyable activity
because he describes his time on the track as ‘precious moments’. He says ‘a
string of champions on the track’ which shows that a lot of people take part
in cycling and its popular. He says cycling is done anytime of the day. In the
article it says ‘mornings, evenings, weekends and holidays are all about pedal
power.’ This would show that cycling could be enjoyable at any time. It also
says there is a charity called ‘cycle to Work’. This would show cycling is
popular. The article shows that cycling across Britain has a lot of routes. It
says ‘more than a million journeys on these routes.’ This shows that cycling
is a popular sport.
Q2
Charles Starmer-smith thinks cycling is a popular and enjoyable activity
because he continuously mentions the landscapes that he encounters on his
journeys and mentions the lack of delay ‘no deadlines, no delays.’ There
have been a wide string of champions on the cycling track, these people have
inspired so many Britons to go out and cycle for themselves.
Aided by an overpriced and overcrowded transport system and savings from
the ‘Cycle to Work’, the cycle has now become an answer to rising carbon
emissions. He says that you don’t need to be the world’s greatest athlete to
contribute to this revolution.
The National cycle network covers an amazing 10,000 miles and enjoy the
many routes they take each day.
Q2
Charles Starmer-Smith thinks cycling is a popular and enjoyable activity
because of the ‘escapism’ it offers. When cycling, he forgets the cold as he
listens to the ‘hum of the tyres and the whirr of the chain’. He can see a
beautiful view – ‘the patchwork of green fields’ below him. He has ‘no
deadlines’ and ‘no delays’ and cares for little but the ‘verdant hills and
plunging valleys’, speaking of the ‘panoramic views’ he can enjoy. He says
‘travel is not just about the destination but the journey there.’ He talks
about how ‘the bicycle is now seen as the answer to rising carbon emissions’
but adds that it is the ‘escapism’ that is ‘the real draw’. He tells us that the
British landscape is ‘perfect for cycling’ and reminds us that ‘we are clocking
more than a million journeys’ across the ‘mind-boggling’ 10,000 mile cycle
network every day.
Q2
Charles Starmer-Smith thinks that cycling has now become a popular and
enjoyable sport firstly because he feels that cycling is not about the
destination but ‘the journey there’. Cycling has ‘no deadlines’ and ‘no
delays’. He also mentions the rewards that come with cycling, explaining
how his efforts had gained him ‘panoramic views’. He also puts the risein the
popularity of cycling down to the success of medal winning Olympians such a
Chris Hoy and Victoria Pendleton. He feels that the success of these people
has ‘inspired a new general of people to adopt the ‘cycle to work initiative.’
He tells us that cycling has become a solution to the problem of ‘rising carbon
emissions’. He also explains that cycling is for everyone and you don’t have
to ‘circumnavigate the world’ to be a part of the cycling ‘revolution’. Finally,
he ends by informing us that Britain is ‘perfect for cycling’ giving us no excuse
not to give it a go.
Q4
Deborah Moggach tries to prove that anyone with sense will cycle by using
inclusive pronouns – ‘you’, ‘ourselves’, ‘we’. These pronouns involve the
reader and make them feel as though they are part of the article. This in turn
allows them to be persuaded by her much easier as they are now part of the
text.
As well as this Moggach uses triplets to describe the advantage of cycling in
London; ‘misery of the Tube’, ‘wall-to-wall buses’ and ‘the hopelessness of
driving’. The use of this triple really pushes her point across that London is a
horrible place to travel around and emphasises how every other form of
transport is nothing compared to cycling.
Also Moggach uses rhetorical questions such as ‘how friendly is London to
cyclists?’ This question provokes a response from the reader and makes
them think about what is being said in the article.
Therefore they will see the point that cycling is the best way to travel around
London and that anyone with sense will choose to cycle.
Q3
Deborah Moggach tries to prove that ‘anyone with any sense’ cycles in
London because she thinks ‘nothing beats weaving through the rush-hour
traffic’ on her bike and she claims ‘everyone I know with any sense bikes’
because it is the only way to ‘free ourselves of the misery that is the Tube’
and the other methods of transport in London.
She goes on to proclaim cycling is ‘free, non-polluting and a wonderful way to
keep fit ‘as knowledge everyone should have but goes on to talk about the
lesser known efficiency; any other form of transport entails allowing for
delays which she describes as ‘a waste of life’.
Moggach expands, saying that ‘no longer are you at the mercy of bus drivers’,
indicating that cycling puts you in charge of travel.
She goes on to point out that a cyclist can do errands en route and that ‘once
you start cycling the city opens up for you.’ Her final point is that on a bike
‘it’s you who owns the city’ and of course nobody with any sense could
ignore these reasons.
Q3
Moggach effectively proves that ‘anyone with any sense’ cycles in London by
showing that ‘everyone’ she knows, including her children, bikes. This is
effective as if the reader does not cycle in London they will feel silly as the
implication is that if you don’t cycle, you don’t have any sense’. She makes
cycling seem like the obvious thing to do as she paints a grim picture of other
forms of transport as an ‘eternal gridlock’, ‘misery’ or ‘hopelessness’. She
shows that ‘nothing beats weaving through the rush-hour traffic’ or
‘whizzing’ while others are stuck in traffic jams.
She shows the advantages of cycling such as ‘it’s free, non-polluting and a
wonderful way to keep fit’, proving that cycling is good for your pocket, the
environment and your health. She uses a rhetorical question to prove how
ridiculous it is that people ‘take the Tube’ then ‘spend their lunch hour’ on an
exercise bike when they could have cycled to work. Moggach proves that
other forms of transport have ‘endless waits’ and uses a punchy sentence for
effect ‘What a waste of life!’
She shows the other advantages such as doing ‘errands on impulsive’ and
having the city ‘open up for you’, showing that you have control. She uses
repetition of ‘no longer’ to reinforce the point that when you cycle, you have
more freedom as you aren’t at the mercy of the city. She also disproves
people who believe cycling in London is ‘scary’ as you can ‘always get off’,
reassuring people who may be worried about cycling. On a bike you ‘own
the city’, suggesting you have control and power, rather than ‘the city owning
you’. This shows anyone with any sense would cycle.
Q4
Deborah Moggach has a much direct approach to getting people to cycle
compare to Charles Starmer-Smith.
Moggach uses phrases like ‘with any sense’ and ‘scandalous lack of facilities’
to show her view on a direct note, whereas Starmer-Smith gives his views by
saying how it gives a sense of ‘freedom’ and he describes the ‘amazing’ views
of the landscape around him to get people to start cycling.
Both Moggach and Starmer feel that cycling has its benefits of a healthy
lifestyle. Starmer says how it shows your ‘sporting prowess’ and Moggach
says it’s a form of ‘exercise’ and will get you fit.
Moggach and Starmershow the negatives of biking in very different ways.
Starmer hardly uses any negatives and only uses them whilst he talks about
his journey through adolescence. He says how things got in the way of his
biking, not that he didn’t like it anymore. However, Moggach displays her
view on the negative aspects of cycling in a rather aggressive manner ‘falls or
damaged’.
Q4
Charles Starmer-Smith
For most of this article Charles Starmer-Smith focuses on how cycling has
impacted his life positively. However, he does mention a few problems with
cycling. He reveals that as an adolescent other things were more important.
He says ‘cycling was no longer cook and the limitations of a bike, rather than
its freedoms, became all too apparent’. He also mentions the impracticality
of a bike eg he could play music, or a girl couldn’t sit in the passenger seat,
unlike his car. He also shows as an adult how cyclists can sometimes look
silly because of the Lycra outfits some wear. But he brushes it aside and
makes a joke out of it, calling it the British Lycra Brotherhood.
Deborah Moggach
Deborah goes into more detail about the problems and disadvantages of
cycling than Charles, but does have a lot of advantages too. She mentions
how a cyclist can arrive at their destination ‘sodden with sweat and hideous
helmet hair’. She also mentions how sexy clothes and cycling don’t go
together and so you would have to change in an alleyway.
However, like Charles she makes a joke out of it and keeps the article
lighthearted.
Q4
Charles Starmer-Smith
He does not mention a lot of disadvantages about cycling but he says that as
an adolescent he realised the ‘limitations’ of a bike – he was unable to ‘play
Pearl Jam on the stereo’ or have a ‘pretty girl’ next to him on the passenger
seat. He also shows that cycling can be difficult if out of practice, saying that
while ‘tackling the gentle contours of Richmond Park’ he was ‘puffing like a
man on an epic ascent of some legendary alpine peak’. He also mentions his
wife making fun of his outfit. He tells us that she said he looked like
‘a Village People tribute act’. He also says it can be cold in the early morning
as he began looking ‘enviously’ at the thick coats of the sheep.
Deborah Moggach
Moggach speaks about London’s ‘aggressive drivers’, saying cyclists find
them ‘scary’. She also says you may arrive at your destination ‘sodden with
sweat’ and with ‘hideous helmet hair’. Admitting that ‘sexy clothes and
biking don’t go together, she says she has to ‘pop into an alleyway to change’
and can end up ‘looking a bit of a twit’. Like Starmer-Smith, she mentions
the weather, saying that cycling is no fun in ‘torrential rain’. A big
disadvantage of cycling in London is the ‘scandalous lack of facilities’ and
how there are few places to park.
Q1






There were 2400 kids competeting
He began ballet dancing at two and a half
Ballet Tap Jazz
Practising ballet, tap and jazz
There were 22 places every year
They are delighted and believe he will become famous
Q2




There were 2400 kids competing to win a place
He started ballet at two and half
He practises ballet, jazz and tap dances
He will have eight hours of dancing lessons and four hours of general
education per day
 There are 22 places available
 The boys all started clapping at his success and asked for autographs
when he is famous
Q2
From the article you learn that they are very supportive of Keenan’s dream.
Mr Faulkner plans to take a second job so he can pay the tuition fees. From
this you can tell that they are willing to do anything for their son. Mr
Faulkner also plans to appear on ‘Deal or No Deal’ to try and earn a small
fortune to help pay for the tuition fees.
‘the couple hope to have raised most of the cash before Keenan leaves
Barnsley behind’. This shows me that they are kind and supportive of
Keenan’s dream and are determined to get the money and they will not let
an opportunity of a lifetime slip away.
Q2
In the article Mr Faulkner shows his urge for his son by explaining he will
obtain a second job for his tuition fees. This shows he is a caring parent
whom wants the best for his son. Furthermore, he is also going to take part
in ‘Deal or No Deal’ so he can earn a ‘fortune’ to pay for the tuition. He is
described as a ‘proud’ father also. His further commitment is shown by him
saying ‘I’ll work Saturdays and Sundays’. This shows he is keen his won will
go far and that he is a faithful father.
Next, Mrs Faulkner shows her effort and courage to make sure her son gets
‘the opportunity of a lifetime’. This shows she knows how important this is
for Keenan and she wants to help him reach his target. She says we’re not
going to deny him that chance’. This shows she is committed to her son gets
what he loves and that is dancing.
Q2
When reading this article, we learn a lot about Keenan’s parents and they are
proud of him for getting a place.
Mr Faulkner earns £15,600 a year by working at ‘an engineering factory’ but
needs to raise £100,000 to he is planning to take a second job so they can
raise the money quicker. The father will do anything to raise the money so
he is going to appear on; ‘Deal of No deal’ and is even looking to ‘remortgage the family home’. Mr Faulkner is willing and determined to raise
the money and says he will work ‘Saturdays and Sundays and every day of
the week’ so Keenan won’t ‘miss out’ on the big opportunity.
Keenan’s mother works as a ‘hospital records clerk’ and also wants to raise
the money because she is thinking about her son’s opportunity later in life
and how this will set it out.
She doesn’t care what others think when they ‘think we’re mad trying to
raise such a huge amount of money’ because she knows it will help Keenan
and help him in the future. Mrs Faulkner doesn’t want this opportunity to
‘slip away’ because they don’t have the money so she is trying everything to
raise the money. She is ‘forming a committee’ to set about raising the funds
and by doing this she makes her son happy and is fuelling his future. She
knows she will be ‘permanently poor’ but is willing to take the risk to help
her son live his dream and ‘he’s not going to miss out now’ so near the end.
Mrs Faulkner is worried that the other boys would ‘take the mickey’ because
she is protective but was surprised with the responses.
Both parents are glad their son has this opportunity and are willing to let him
live his dream.
Q3
The impressions I get about Ambreen Sadiq from the article is that she is a
very strong person inside.
I get this impression because the reader mentions her culture and religion
and that they disapprove of her boxing. However, ‘Ambreen paid no
attention to those who disapproved of her boxing.’ From this you can tell
she is determined to do what she wants even if it is not approved by her
culture making her a strong person.
Also I feel that she’s upset that she doesn’t have the support of her parents
and people go to mum and dad and say ‘Tell your daughter not to box’. This
upset her because her parents say it brings shame to the family when all she
wants is there support. Also for them to except her for who she is no matter
what she’s doing.
Q3
From reading the title ‘Ambreen Sadiq, Muslim girl boxer, aims to combat
prejudice to succeed in the ring’ I get the impression that she is a dedicated
girl to boxing and wants to go far with the sport even though it’s not the type
of thing that is expected as a girl in her religion.
She shows a lot of commitment to the sport as she has won the national
female championship for her age and weight and has now been nominated in
the female category of the junior sports personality of the year for the British
Asian sports awards.
Ambreen gets on with her boxing even though people disagree with her
doing it because of cultural reasons. She has two completely different
personalities. She is a shy Muslim girl but transforms into a ‘rapid-fire
fighting machine’
The impression most shown is that Ambreen loves boxing and trains hard
even though it’s not cultural for her to do so and the write has shown she is
dedicated by the way he describes her ambition in life.
Q3
I get the impression it has been hard work for Ambreen to get where she is
but she is proud of herself and wants to continue.
She is strong and has ‘overcome opposition’ to get where she is.
This shows she will do anything and fight anything in her way.
She is aiming for the 2012 Olympics and is determined to get there.
This demonstrates the fight and willpower she has to get to her dream.
This article states that she has ‘already won’ big fights which shows that
Ambreen is good at what she does. She gets ‘mixed feedback’ from the
community but takes on the chin and gets through it. She is willing and
wants to win.
Ambreen paid ‘no attention’ to those that disagreed and carried on because
she wants to be a boxer and will do anything to get what she wants.
She is a ‘dedicated boxer’ and in the ring shows how talented and ‘strong
and determined’ she is to get her goal because she really wants it. She blocks
out ‘negative feedback’ because she knows it affect her so she shows her
strong side.
The writer describes her as a ‘rapid-fire fighting machine’ which shows she is
good at what she does and she wants to prove the people that she didn’t
believe in her that they were wrong.
Q4
The way Keenan is unusual is that he doesn’t do or enjoy the things his
classmates do eg playing video games or football.
The ways Ambreen is unusual are that she doesn’t do what her friends do.
She also does a sport that most boys would do and doesn’t do what most
girls would do.
However they are both similar they both do something they want to do and
are determined to do it no matter what they will do it.
Q4
Keenan is unusual because he has been chosen from 2,400 children to go to
the royal Ballet school. Also few boys like Keenan do tap or ballets,
especially in a town like Barnsley.
Ambreen Sadiq is unusual because boxing isn’t an Asian sport at a
competitive level. Few girls let alone Muslim girls are expected to fight.
Being nominated in the female category of the junior sports personality of
the year at the British Asian community is an unusual and unique
achievement.
Keenan and Ambeen are similar in that they are both ambitious to pursue a
sport not caring what anyone else thinks, following their dreams and ignoring
nasty comments of why they should stop doing the sports they love and a
career in.
To whom it may concern
I am writting today to express my views on TV talent shows.
I think these talent show, such as X Factor are Just there so other people can
laugh at other misfortune and lack of any talent ability. Even though the
winner earns a big sum of money many views are lost after the auditision
are over as there is nothing to laugh about people being Good. I think there
should be secret auditision as many people don’t like being laughed at,
personaly i don’t think shouting ‘Off! Off! Off!’ on one of the TV talent shows
is very kind.
Please change something about these tv talent shows i hope you concider my
views.
Yours sincerly
Dear Mr X
I am writing to you to give my opinion on tv talent shows.
My name is Katy and I am a teenager from Wales. There isn’t anything better
than sitting at home on a Saturday night watching shows like to X factor and
britains got talent with your mates and a slice of pizza.
Yet its obvious that there aint that much talent. Apart from the odd singer
with a troubled background. Mostly on these talent shows it just fools
thinking they are living the dream.
Even if singers are okay at singing, they still have to have a certain look, don’t
they? Unless their beautiful and skinny there aint much place for them on
these ‘talent shows’.
Some people view that talent shows like the X factor are ‘giving unknown
people a chance’ A chance of what? Become famous. Some of these people
dont deserve a chance just because you have been blessed with a angelic
voice you deserve to be famous? What about people who need a chance at
life. They deserve a chance.
Maybe im being to harsh, I guess there are genuine people out there who
have worked really hard to achieve their dreams. And well done to them.
If these talent shows are meant to be serious, if there intention is to achieve
some poor souls dream then why do they spend hours humiliating people.
Over 60% of people who audition for talent shows cant sing or don’t have
talent, just think they do. It’s cruel setting someone up for public
embarasment .
Anyway my view of talent shows are that although there entertaining to
watch and there something to watch on a Saturday night, there not really
that great. I think the newspaper don’t print enough real stuff of talent
shows. I would like to see more of the effects the laughing at someone can
have to there self-esteem. This would potentially stop people from laughing
so hard. Thank you.
Yours truly
Dear The Sun
I am writing to you in reply to your article expressing the views
of TV talent shows.
TV talent shows, mostly run by Simon Cowell, are a incoherent bore;
humourless; and mean. They deliberately bully innocent people who are
passionate about singing. They forget pentioners like myself and give them a
stage to entertain people like animals in a zoo. The judges point and laugh
and have little respect for the auditioned that long for their ‘expert’ opinion.
After a fix to win Christmas number one the winner disappears and
sometimes just want to ring them up and say, ‘There’s a reason you weren’t
a pop singer in the first place!’ The singing industry is hard and it takes more
than several boring Saturday night shows to conquere the industry. I think it
is the thought of being famous they long for. Why? I’ll never know. Drugs;
alcohol; rock and roll, it’s not all it’s cracked up to be.
Admitedly, there has been a few diamonds in the rust and they have done
quite well. One Direction. Susan Boyle. Leona Lewis. But would you want to
remember it was a talent show that made you famous?
One thing that really bothers me about talent shows is the hidden auditions
before the ‘real auditions. Don’t be fooled to think that the awful, but
apparently entertaining, singers just turn up to face Simon Cowell and the
forever changing judges. A previous round of auditions divides the
entertaining from the talented, giving false hope to those who may be
passionate but not gifted.
I hope to hear that I am not the only wife one who switches off TV ‘talent’
shows.
Yours sincerely,
Dear Editor,
I recently heard about a new talent show, ‘The Voice’, from my
children. They said it is ‘way better’ than the ‘X Factor’ because the show is
less focused on the appearance of the singer and more focused on their
talent. I must admit that initially I was quite interested in this – I thought
that perhaps the industry had finally taken a leap from Benny Hill-esque
showbiz to a higher form of culture. Unfortunately I found that I was quite
misguided. ‘The Voice’ does not promote a culture where people are never
judged on appearance – they are simply judged a little later than before.
I am not saying that ‘The Voice’ is the main culprit in this vicious industry. I
am merely highlighting it because it claims to be different to shows such as ‘X
Factor’. Quite frankly, I do not feel that they have anything to feel superior
about. It is not that ‘The Voice’ is particularly bad. It is just the nature of the
beast.
It seems that it is impossible for talent shows to refrain from indulging in the
glory of young, beautiful people who could be ‘stars’. But these people are
often so young that they have barely left school are led to believe that
stardom is just a step away. I believe this undermines the work of many
musicians who struggle for years to find fame. What is the point when you
can have it all in a week?
The problem is the sort of artists emerging from talent shows are all one
genre – pop. No blues or folk artist, no matter how talented, would ever
appear on such a contest because they do not appeal to the mainstream
audience. So we are stuck with anodyne, mindless performances that all
seem to be identical.
Perhaps these ‘artists’ should stop expecting that they can find fame in
minutes and realise that it takes hard work and dedication to make real
music. And maybe we should stop telling them that it is all right to appear in
these meretricious talent shows, because it is a long time since I saw any
talent come out of them.
Yours sincerely
Dear Editor,
It is with great exasperation that I have decided to pick up my
pen to at last vent my anger to you. I am writing about nothing than the
sickening TV ‘talent’ shows that ruin our primetime television schedule.
These shows were not designed to for the purpose of showcasing great
British talent, rather they are a cunning plot that some bright spark thought
up to increase the TV companies’ revenue. These programmes are a foul
waste of decent licence payers’ hard-earned cash, which is extravagantly
blown on tacky stage sets and unfunny, awkward presenters.
‘X Factor’ and ‘The Voice’ are not the fast tracks to stardom for undiscovered
musical geniuses, but a chance for the contestants to win over the audience
with their horrendous sob-stories about their partner’s drug addiction, seven
hungry mouths to feed and no hope of employment. Rather than judging on
creative brilliance, the audience use a pathetic ‘cute scale’ – the more
depressing the life story the better the contestant. This nauseates me every
time I glimpse a few seconds of these programmes as I flick through the
channels to seek respite in some intelligent, refined viewing.
Furthermore, instead of being the masterpieces of entertainment they are
portrayed to be in the media, they are cringeworthy flops that cannot be
seen as pleasure but rather as punishment for the viewers at home forced to
endure such misery.
And I’ve not even started on the judges. These so-called music ‘know-it-alls’
star on such shows for one reason only – to become rich and famous.
Depicted as stars, heroes, Gods, they are really just experiences punters
signing up to get a get-rich-quick scheme. It pains me to watch the fake
enthusiasm they put into giving doomed contestants false hope and advice.
These shows are an absolute abomination.
Yours faithfully,
Dear Editor,
I am writing to you to show my support for Mr Bialy’s idea of a
local outdoor music festival, a ‘showcase of our region’s prodigious talent’.
As far as I am concerned, any help we can give to the bands in our area
should be welcomed with open arms. They represent our culture, and bring
a vibrancy to the towns around here that attracts people from far and wide.
Many people have noted how amazingly talented many bands and singers
from our area are, and I think that showing this to anyone who cares to see
in a music festival would be excellent. Why not be proud of them.?
As well as being a good opportunity for bands around here, a festival of this
sort could help local businesses a lot. For example, it would be a wonderful
way to get people to try the amazing food from the area – what festival is
complete without food stalls? It would even showcase our beautiful location
– anyone who came would surely agree how stunning it is, which can only
improve the tourism on which this region depends.
And for the locals? It would be great entertainment, as well as a chance to
encourage people to get outdoors a little more. We have been enjoying
wonderful weather recently, and such an event would be a brilliant way to
spend a summer’s day.
Some have raised eyebrows over potential noise pollution as a result of this
festival. Firstly, can music be described in any way as ‘pollution’? Surely, our
usual symphony of roadworks, traffic noise and groups of people who have
just exited the pub is far worse? Plus, it would only be one day. Secondly,
the festival will hardly be held in the middle of town, so if you don’t want to
hear it, you simply needn’t go.
Also, there has been worry over whether such an event would attract the
‘wrong sort of people’. What a ridiculous idea! Any undesirable persons
would more likely be attracted to the vast array of pubs and clubs we have to
amuse our bored residents. An outdoor music festival would attract people
who love music, not hooligans! It would also benefit those in the hospitality
industry, as most visitors will need a place to stay.
Overall, as far as I can see it, this idea is a great opportunity for our region.
We would be able to showcase our amazing local talent, help tourism and
trade in the area and have a great day out. I simply can’t see the problem –
what’s not to like?
Yours sincerely,
Dear Ryan
Mum told me last week that you are thinking of taking up boxing. I
couldn’t quite believe it as you’ve never really shown an interest in it before.
You have always enjoyed playing football and you are really good at that.
Dad and I used to come and watch you play on a Saturday morning. You
were always by far the best player on the team and you always scored the
most goals. You never failed or disappointed us. Why don’t you carry on
with football? It’s much better than boxing.
Boxing can be such a dangerous sport, people get hurt all the time.
You would never have any free time as you would be training so much for it.
Your life would change drastically.
It will take months and months of training anyway so you’re definitely going
to get bored and lose interest. Personally, I think it would be such a waste of
time.
You would have to go on a very strict diet which would be hard for you. You
love your food way too much for that.
You could also end up getting seriously hurt and end up in hospital. Do you
really want to worry your family and friends? It wouldn’t be nice at all.
You might end up with broken bones or scars over your face. I know for a
fact you wouldn’t want that.
I can see why you would want to box. It would keep you fit and you would be
able to defend yourself properly. However, I think you should take some
time to think about this as I don’t think it is a very good idea.
As your sister, I am asking you to think about this properly. Please listen to
what I have said as it means a lot to me. Please write back soon.
Yours sincerely
Dear Eric,
We have been friends for a very long time. Now, I know this means I’m
supposed to support you in everything you do and always be there for you
whatever happens, and for our entire friendship, I feel I’ve done this pretty
well. Remember when you wanted to be a racing driver? I sat right next to
you in that car while you drove around the track for hours and I didn’t
complain once, did I? Even when you forgot to brake and we had to ring the
trainer for instructions over the phone, I said nothing even remotely
reproachful. Now I want you to bear that occasion in mind while you read
the rest of this letter. Also, I love you and you have really nice hair. OK?
Right, here goes. You CANNOT, absolutely ever, ever become a professional
boxer. I am not advising you on this. This isn’t a friendly, cautionary word.
This is a totally categorical ban on you going within three miles of a boxing
ring, a punchbag or a pair of boxing gloves. Now, I realise this would
unreasonable, but please hear me out.
Firstly, you can’t even beat your own brother at arm wrestling. He’s six, Eric.
And don’t pretend you let him win, because I saw that look in your eye on
the eight attempt. That wasn’t brotherly love. That was sheet
determination.
Having the arm strength, and I say this with love, of a slightly unwell toddler
will not be much of an asset in the boxing ring.
I would also like to remind you of your uncanny ability to trip over everything
and anything that lies in your path – books, chairs, rugs, unusually short
members of the public and your own feet, to name but a few. Clumsiness, I
feel, is not a desirable trait for someone who is trying to avoid injury on a
confined space!
Finally, I will mention the fact that very few people actually want to see you
get your face destroyed by big, aggressive men. I certainly don’t.
Admittedly, some people you have tripped over in the past, and that driving
instructor whose car you broke, may enjoy the experience. But your family
and friends value your well-being and facial features, which will inevitably be
destroyed in a boxing ring.
So please, please do not ever bring this idea up every again, or I will be
forced to sedate you.
Lots of love,
COME TO CARDIFF
Come to Cardiff We have an old beautiful castle in the city centre, with
timeless history and rooms of natural beliefs. Come to the castle and watch
centurys of history float in front of your eyes.
Not only do we have a castle we have many shops and leisure faciltys for
relaxation and if you want a fitness work out we have loads of hotels for you
to stay in.
Cardiff bay: Cardiff bay is full of things to do from watching something at the
Cardiff Millenium centre to fine dining and boat rids, and even fishing. Just
one tram away we have the lovely barry island for the wonderful sunny days.
We always go to the beach because we get none-stop sun no matter what
month.
Why come to Cardiff town centre? Because Cardiff town is great! It has
everything you need to keep yourself entertained.
Cardiff is in the heart of Wales, were surrounded by beautiful scenery. You
really can’t miss it.
No matter what age you are, what gender you are or what ability you have,
Cardiff is suited to all. If you love shopping, male or female then our brand
new shopping mall is right up your street.
Go on have a quick indulge I wont tell. We have all the well known brands
like, Topshop, River Island, New Look, Burton Luara Ashley, Primark and
hundreds more. Cardiff is also full of unique shops, shops you wont find
anywhere but here! Cardiff’s mall is filled with lifts, escalators, automatic
doors, wheelchair ramps and many more helpful features.
If shopping is not your thing, then hop on a bus/train/waterbus to Cardiff
bay! If you come to Cardiff you must come to the Bay. It has developed over
many years it’s not just docks anymore it’s a whole community. There’s
restaurants, cafes, walks, entertainment skatepark, Coastal beauty, Famous
Norwegian church. It’s easy to park and easy to access. You will love it as
much as we do.
Cardiff is also perfect for the kiddies! There are plenty of activities for the
children to enjoy. We have a brand new swimming pool, jam packed with
slides and other fun activities. We have a new ice rink and a white water
rafting centre which is brand new and incredibly safe! There are many
cinemas for those days where the Welsh weather is being as predicted in
Wales. However with every cloud there is a silver lining, why not check out
the amazing museums, filled with intresting things. Kids would love the
museum, its not boring at all and its educational for them and you. There is
always the Doctor Who world and ten pin bowling down the Red dragon
centre.
Now where would Wales be if it wasn’t for the sport. We are famous for our
grand slam victory and our continuous finals at Wembley with our football
boys. And the Olympics is coming to Cardiff! An extra reason to come to our
glorious city.
I hope this guide has helped you finalise your decision to come to Cardiff and
espically our town centre. seriously you would be missing out. Thanks for
reading this guide. See you soon!
When most people think about Blaenau Ffestiniog they think about a dark
slate covered town thats always raining and has sheep here, there and
everywhere, causing havoc and mania. But it isn’t
Blaenau is a wonderful, exciting place with lots of welcoming people.
One of the misconceptions of Blaenau is that it’s always raining.
There’s even a famous Welsh song about it. But it doesn’t always rain in
Blaenau, it does 90% of the time in winter but in the summer the place lights
up with the sun, and Blaenau becomes a totally different place. You see little
children on their bikes, people walking their dogs and people swimming in
the local rivers or lakes. Why?
Because they can.
Blaenau has many attractions and many things to do. The mountains that
circle the town are great for walking or biking and the views when you get
there are extraordinary. You’ll see the sun glistening on the lake, the trees
dancing in the breeze and the different animal and plants you can see will
send nature-lovers wild.
One of the main attractions of Blaenau is the steam train that goes to
Portmadog. You’ll be able to go on the same train as the Olympic torch did
on the 28th May 2012. The views that you will see while going on the little
train are amazing, even to those who live in Blaenau. From waterfalls to
landscape and you will even see a massive wolf made out of branches. The
little steam train in this town is famous around the world.
The other main attraction in the area is the Llechwedd Slate Caverns,
bringing thousands of tourists every year from all corners of the globe.
The history in the caverns will blow anyone’s mind, it’s like it’s very own
movie including tragedy and happiness, love and loss. There’s even an
underground lake – that’s not something you see everyday!
Blaenau is one of the most interesting places you could go to, and you must
include it on your bucket list, or you’re going to miss out!
VISIT YORK
There are many layers to the historical city of York, and each one will hold
appeal for a different type of person. Fancy a quick shop?
York city centre has all you need and more! History more your thing? Then
visit the Dig or the Jorvik (say ‘yorvic’) centres. Do you thrive on fear? Then
enter the York Dungeons or meet with the Ghost hunters every Thursday
night in the Shambles. Not for the faint of heart!
Before entering the city, you should be advised that the locals speak a
slightly different dialect of English. All you need to know is that: Streets are called gates
 Gates are called bars
 Bars are called pubs
So, with your mastery of the York dialect now apparent, you will want to
know what is in York.
Probably the most famous attraction in York is the Jorvik Centre.
This is a ride on a slow-moving cart giving you a first-hand glimpse of the
sights and sounds and smells of Viking York. With an audio commentary in
several languages (including English, French, Spanish German and a simplified
English) Viking Jorvik has never seemed so real.
Some of you may, however, view all this as boring. If you are fed up of
hearing what other archaeologists have found, or you have children who
want to grow up to be archaeologists, you should go to the Dig Centre. Here
you can uncover ancient ruins from four different eras of York’s history
(Roman, Viking, medieval and Victorian). If you are worried about weather
or dirt, don’t be. The centre is indoor and you will not be digging through
mud.
For those of you a little more interested in the darker side of York’s history,
look no further than the York dungeons. It is an exhibition that interacts
with you. From criminals jumping you to an in-depth look at torture
instruments, this exhibition is not recommended for those of a nervous
nature.
If you want a little less history and a little more scary, you could try joining
the Ghost Hunt. Starting at 7.00pm every Thursday night in the medieval
street of the Shambles, who knows what ancient and tormented spooks still
linger in those streets when the sun has gone down?
On the other hand, you could just want to spend your time in York shopping
and that is just fine. There are many different shops in the city centre and if
you are unable to find that perfect item, there is a shopping mall just ten
minutes outside of the city.
York is well-known for its racecourse, and no guide to this fair city would be
complete without at least mentioning it. Even when races are not on, you
can still wander the course and occasionally bands will play there as well.
However, on some days you have just had enough. On such a day, why not
go down to the river and book a boat trip, relaxing to the sound of water all
around you as you gently bob on the surface?
These are just a few of the attractions in the great city of York.
For more information, please check the York website or just visit and see
what is there for yourself.
EXPERIENCE THE SIGHTS AND SOUNDS OF SHEFFIELD
Welcome to Sheffield! We are the greenest city in the UK and have more
trees per person than anywhere else in Europe. But if it’s not the lush,
verdant outdoors and close proximity to the Peak District National Park
you’re after, can we tempt you to the city centre to soak up the urban
masterpiece that is the 2012 European Capital of Culture?
A Triumph of the Arts
Home to a spectacular array of the bright museums in the north and art
galleries that would delight even the most hardened art buff, not to mention
the largest theatre complex in the UK outside London, Sheffield is a culture
vulture’s dream.
Here are some ideas to get you started:
 Weston Park Museum – recently developed, Britain’s first free
museum take you on a tour of the vibrant animal world and the funfilled history of Sheffield’s industrial superheroes.
 David Mellor Museum – British design icon, David Mellow was the
designer of modern traffic lights, not to mention a mind-blowing
selection of inspirational furniture and cutlery design, a hint towards
Sheffield’s bold industrial past.
Find where your dining room cutlery was made – it’ll just be a five minute
stroll …
Wandering the pavements of the city centre’s many seductive, twisting,
cobbled streets, you’re bound to encounter the once bustling hub of British
industry. The ‘little mesters’ populate the back streets in droves, some still
handcrafting and selling their wares today.
A Loud Music Scene
It only takes ten minutes on West Street to discover the unsigned groups of
tomorrow. The British rock legends of Def Leppard were born here as well as
more recent chart-toppers The Arctic Monkeys.
With ever-popular venues like the Motorpoint Arena, Plug, corporation and
Sheffield City Hall (which is Yorkshire’s largest most visited entertainment
venue), you can be experiencing the thrill of aw-inspiring live music,
whatever your taste.
Sheffield is the place to be right now. The modern developments and ultracook art galleries and underground music venues are at the forefront of the
UK’s 21st century renaissance.
Get thissen to Sheffield, tha’ll have a reight good do!
Music review
Whatever your tastes, there is no doubt that now is a very exciting time for
music. If you hear any nostalgic whiners, I have one piece of advice for you –
don’t listen to them. If you are trying to say that the modern music world
can’t live up to its past, then I suggest that you clean out your ears and listen
a little harder.
It’s not that we don’t have a lot to be thankful to the past for – far from it. In
this writer’s opinion, the most vital, exciting music is being made by artists
who are well versed in the vocabulary of pop music’s history, but who twist it
into dynamic, disfigures and utterly thrilling new shapes. Take, for instance,
the White Stripes. This is a band who are self-confessed Delta blues freaks (a
genre of music that couldn’t be more regressive and ‘authentic’ unless it was
being played at the Battle of Hastings), and their debts to seminal bluesmen
such as Robert Johnson are evident and worn proudly on their sleeves. Yet,
what could so easily be seen as a Luddite, deathly dull retreat into well-worn
influences somehow translates into a display of passion and fundamentalist
power that has no parallel in the history of music. Their punk version of the
blues is an explosion of such guile and ferocity that you have to catch your
breath after listening to them. Frankly, you need to hear their latest,
phenomenal album, Elephant. It is a raw, melodic and elemental display of
power that you will not find anywhere else.
Bands such as the White Stripes are sprouting up all over the place these
days, and it has been dubbed in many quarters as the rather illustriously
tilted ‘New Rock Revolution’. Whether or not the term ‘revolution’ is a bit
optimistic in a moot point, but there is no doubting the fact that somebody
has made guitars sound EXCITING again after a decade of entirely deserved
dance and rap dominance.
Bands like The Strokes, The Yeah Yeah Yeahs and The Vines (and yes, it is a
requirement of the revolution for the comrades to have band names
beginning with ‘The’ something) may not bring as much to the table as the
most daring and innovative electronica but they sure do present what they
have with style.
So if you’re tempted to hold your head in your hands and despair, please
don’t.
Review of ‘Reality Television’
As the eighteenth series, or so it seems, of Big Brother invades our screens
this June, it seems that we are drowning in a flood of reality television.
Back in the olden days, or so we’re told, there were two types of television:
news and sport. Then came dramas and discussion programmes and soaps,
and comedies until finally, in the 21st century, television bosses have decided
that what we really like watching on television is ourselves, or rather people
who could be us!
It was all very well when ‘Airport’ came out and it has to be said that Jeremy
made us all laugh, but ‘Hairdresser’? ‘Road Sweeper’? These programmes
have all hit the schedules recently and most of them suck like industrial
hoovers.
Take ‘I’m a has-been, look at me’. Apart from the loveable Phil Tufnell
, the ‘characters’ in the programme just came across as a sad bunch of
whining, overpaid D-listers, who couldn’t entertain us any more than they
could get in touch with the reality they claim to be showing.
However, my square-eyed disciples, there is still hope for us yet. There is still
television we can escape to, safe in the knowledge that it is about as real as
David Dickinson’s tax. Much of it has come from across the pond. Take ‘24’
which led the way in TV action with its groundbreaking time structure and
dialogue. Although it had a plot as believable as the Iraqi Minister of
Information, it wiped the floor with the competition. Another good example
is the surreal yet wet-yourself-laughing Six Feet Under, set in a funeral
parlour of all places. Despite its melancholy setting and kooky characters, it
has been head and shoulders above its more conventional stablemates in
sitcom, particularly the dismal Friends.
I’m starting to see a pattern here. In a return to the ancient fantasy classics,
like the dead goldfish it is and bringing back the iguana of zaniness, the
tarantula of oddity and the python of surrealism. No British programme
exemplifies this better than Bo Selecta. By taking the celebrities who tire us
with their drivel about stifled creativity and ‘mean’ contracts, and giving
them all the rubber mask, this programme has produced the funniest comedy
since Ali G’s early work.
So please, TV channel bosses, don’t show us grim reality TV, give us the
products of people’s imagination. After all, why would we turn on the TV to
see reality when it’s all around us anyway?
Good afternoon. I won’t ask you to raise your hands but I would like each
and every one of you to take a moment to consider whether or not you know
someone suffering from cancer. Not everyone will, I know but if you don’t ,
then someone sitting very close to you will.
There is nothing pleasant about cancer. It weakens, destroys and kills. For
many forms of it, there is still no cure. Every year, thousands of young
people such as yourselves are diagnosed with cancer. It’s everywhere. It’s
inescapable. It’s killing innocent people.
What would you do if your best friend was diagnosed with lung cancer
tomorrow? Or if your sister suddenly developed leukaemia?
Would you fight a losing battle with them? Would you say your farewells
then and there? Or would you do your best to make their lives as fantastic as
possible?
That’s where the Ellen McArthur Trust comes in. Ellen is a record-breaking
sailor. It’s her passion and its always has been. Her trust provides real joy
and adventure for young cancer patients. They take them out of hospitals,
spring them from their beds and take them for sailing holidays they will
never forget.
There are no pills, no hospital sheets and no painful treatments.
The Ellen McArthur Trust heals the hearts of these children with a happiness
some thought they would never feel again. Would you want your friend,
brother or sister to die, fading away in a hospital bed? Or would you want
them to feel the wind on their faces and the sun on their skin as they sped
out into the ocean, the most beautiful place of all?
At the Ellen McArthur Trust we don’t lie to our patients. We don’t tell them
a boat trip will save their lives, but we do show them the joy such an
adventure can bring. We do put smiles on their faces and gladness in their
hearts. We let them know that they can still enjoy life and in the end that’s
as great a gift as anyone outside the hospital can give them.
We don’t fund the treatment of cancer but we do pay to give sufferers all the
happiness we can, so please donate and be a part of that. After all, it could
have been your friend, your brother, your sister…or even you.
Smoking KILLS
So you smoke? Why? Maybe because:
 You think it’s cool
 Your friends do it
 You feel it relieves stress
OR maybe it’s because you want to die young?
FACT: Every cigarette you smoke five minutes off your life. If you smoked 12
a day, that’s an hour off your life every day. If you did this every day for a
year that’s 365 hours off your life. Most people smoke more than this.
Maybe it’s because you want cancer?
FACT: 60% of all smokers end up with some sort of cancer or serious organ
failure later in life. That could be heart problems, liver problems, kidney
problems or a series of other equally life-threatening things.
Maybe it’s because you want to be unattractive?
FACT: As you smoke, you are damaging your hair, teeth, nails, skin and even
your eyes become bloodshot.
Maybe you don’t want to find a partner?
FACT: Cigarettes cause seriously bad breath and make you smell awful.
Nobody is going to want to kiss someone like that.
Maybe you actually want to fill your body with poison?
FACT: almost every ingredient used to make a cigarette is poison.
The three main chemicals are lethal and you are putting them into your
body.
Have I guessed correctly yet? No? Well, how about this?
Maybe it’s because you want to kill those around you?
FACT: One in three people who die from smoking each year have never
actually smoked a cigarette.
So go on, tell me why do YOU smoke?
www.help2quite.com or phone our free helpline 70676867
Remember your decision could be affecting others’ lives.