Resolution 217

This was the opening of the show. Not focusing on an article, the piece is about the creation of our parliamentary system and its current state. The opening sequence was devised by Jamie, and was a repeated set of movements, gradually performed by all of our form, based around a chair. Jamie got a lot of inspiration regarding the chairs from work by DV8 physical theatre troupe. The track we used was Wise Enough by Lamb, which questions the decisions we make as a society, and was fitting for the piece. The images jamie used showed the fight between power and justice for me, as there were moments of sinister confidence mixed with desperate grabs and quick movements. This sums up the history of our parliament, as we struggle to do the right thing in the face of corruption and power. As the piece becomes more frantic, some of us burst into a series of more complex moves that further show this careful balance of power and rebellion. Eventually, there is a form of organised chaos, and we e...

Article 10: Freedom of Expression This piece was set to Iron Sky by Paulo Nutini. The piece highlights our freedom to protest against something we don't agree with, and this was shown by the symbolic X sheets held up by the protesters. They created them, one by one, with such care and precision to show how much it means to them. The X was powerful as it is a clear sign to stop, however it was not specific so the audience could imprint what they wanted on top. They then created a wall of signs, almost like a Roman sheild wall, that engulfed them and showed only the protest, not the protesters. They then gradually started to build a series of chants, which rose into a roar. They joined hands in solidarity then stopped in unison. They then created the wall again and began to shake, in anticipation of the oppressors. We then devised a series of lifts, holds and throws with which we could disassemble the wall, after ripping apart the signs. One by one, we threw the protesters to the fl...

We wanted to start by giving some short historical context as to why homelessness began to rise over the last century, and we started at the end of the second world war. A generation of young men scarred by horrific sights, who then had to go back to the normality of everyday life. Little was known about PTSD at the time, and this meant many of these people did not know why they found it so hard to reintegrate. At first, this inability to reintegrate was not a problem, as the state had a safety net of support systems put in place after the war.This is why we then wanted to switch the focus to the changing political landscape throughout the 20th century, leading into the rise of Margaret Thatcher and the process of gentrification. Those people who found it difficult to reintegrate then were supported, those that are in the same position now are left to fend for themselves. The historical review in the opening started with us building a grave out of cushions. We then took each other...

Question: Does State negligence regarding providing homes for it’s population amount to breaking Article 1 - The Right to Life? “In England councils only have a duty to find somewhere for a person to live if they have a ‘priority need’ . This includes families with children, people in an emergency after a flood or fire, or who are “vulnerable” for various other reasons. In addition, they must not have deliberately done or failed to do anything that caused them to become homeless.” - https://fullfact.org At first glance this seems to say that the homeless crisis in the UK has improved since 1998/1999, however it does not include cases that are not considered ‘priority need’, therefore it supports our hypothesis as the state chooses to support less cases than it did in 1998. But in every other situation a single person will have to persuade the local authority that they are 'vulnerable' in order to be in priority need - NHAS.org.uk: Someone that has lost their h...

Amnesty international are a charity dedicated to solving injustice and combating human rights violations around the globe. 'Amnesty International is a global movement with more than 7 million people who take injustice personally. We are campaigning for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all. 'No government is beyond scrutiny. No situation is beyond hope' They are free of guiding factions such as political parties or ideologies, faiths, or corporations Started by a lawyer named Peter Beneson in 1961, after reading an article about 2 portuguese students jailed for toasting their freedom 'We speak out for anyone and everyone whose freedom and dignity are under threat