# data[].attributes.body
P11

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this latest, completely revised Women Travel anthology, Rough Guides present a whole new crew of writers, journalists, travellers, dreamers and escapists, each with a journey to share and a tale to inspire.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Being poor is about far more than lacking money or resources. To be poor is also to be shunned and stigmatised. "Lunch shaming", where children in some school districts in the US who can't afford a hot meal are publicly humiliated, in some cases by being made to clean canteen tables in front of other pupils to pay off their food debt, was thrust into the spotlight recently when the state of New Mexico passed a landmark law outlawing the practice. The law, spearheaded by local anti-poverty groups, is a welcome rebuttal to such callous practices.

Other reported incidents of shaming include a child in Alabama whose arm was stamped with "I need lunch money". Canteen workers have been instructed to throw out the meals of youngsters unable to pay.

That children from poorer backgrounds have to deal with such degrading tactics speaks volumes about wider attitudes and a toxic political climate around poverty. And there is an unsettling resemblance in the latest US episodes to the stigma experienced by poor children in the UK. After years of bashing "the poor" as lazy or feckless, many political leaders seem to think it's OK for the poorest children to go without having the most basic of needs met, including nutrition, but to also endure a crushing shame for being in a situation that they cannot control. Attacks on the poorest in society rest on a deeply flawed narrative that we can't afford them yet we can still line the pockets of the rich with tax cuts, as Donald Trump plans to do in what he called last week the "biggest tax cuts in history".

It is this twisted logic that has made it possible for austerity cuts in Britain to pummel poorer families, and why 30% of children - that's 4 million - are growing up in poverty. Prior to 2010, thanks to targeted policies, child poverty in Britain was being reduced. Anti-poverty measures have been shown to work in the US too. As a report from the Shriver Center in Illinois put it : "Poverty, like economic and social injustice more broadly, is not an inevitable or intractable force. It is something we can end through the decisions we make at the public policy level."

This is why the latest initiative from the Living New Deal, a US non-profit project that commemorates and documents one of the most successful anti-poverty drives in history, deserves attention. This month the Living New Deal has a series of events to mark the rollout of a New York map that spotlights the thousands of public works in the city, including community parks and schools, that exemplify the legacy of Franklin D Roosevelt's extraordinary response to the Great Depression triggered by the 1929 stock market collapse. (A San Francisco map is already complete with Washington DC and LA next in line.)

For more than 10 years researchers and volunteers around the US have collaborated to make visible to as wide an audience as possible the (all too often forgotten) achievements of the New Deal. The project reminds us that as well as large-scale building of roads, bridges, schools and libraries, FDR's New Deal ushered in an unprecedented array of social programmes. These included job creation for millions of unemployed people as well as national public health and child nutrition initiatives that transformed the lives of the poorest people.

The New Deal embodied an approach whose starting point was to make attacking poverty - not the people who live in it - a first principle. This makes it especially salient today.

The writer and scholar Gray Brechin, a driving force behind the Living New Deal project, argues that at a time when Republicans in America and Tories in Britain behave as if there were no alternative to shrinking welfare states, and when "the dominant meme is that government just wastes money", it is important that this ideology is exposed for the fiction that it is.

In Britain, the stakes couldn't be higher. If the austerity narrative peddled by the Tories triumphs and helps Theresa May's party to win the snap general election, we will be consigning an entire new generation of children to the stigma of poverty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lunch-shaming in schools has no place in the battle against child poverty | Mary O'Hara

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Being poor is about far more than lacking money or resources. To be poor is also to be shunned and stigmatised.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the post-Christmas credit card bills roll in, most of us would say that a little more money wouldn't go amiss. In fact, according to research for the Guardian in 2015, money is the greatest source of anxiety for Britons.

But would more of it really make us happy? It's a question that fascinates - and divides - psychologists.

One survey of 1,000 Americans, conducted in 2010, concluded that money does make us happier - but only up to a certain point. The findings, by psychologist Daniel Kahneman and economist Angus Deaton, both from Princeton University, showed that self-reported levels of wellbeing increased with salary up to $75,000 (roughly £50,000) a year. But after that, increasing amounts of money had no further effect on happiness.

However, a more recent study, published by researchers at the University of Michigan in 2013, challenged the idea that the positive effect of money plateaus. After comparing life satisfaction and happiness levels in both rich and poor countries, and rich and poor people within a country - with "rich" being defined as an income greater than $15,000 (roughly £10,000) per person - Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers concluded: "The relationship between wellbeing and income ... does not diminish as income rises. If there is a satiation point, we are yet to reach it."

This would strike a chord with actor Bo Derek, who once claimed: "Whoever said money can't buy happiness simply didn't know where to go shopping."

Anecdotal evidence is just as conflicted. In 2015, analysis of data from the Office for National Statistics' Wealth and Assets Survey showed that for Britons aged 16 and over there is a clear link between household wealth and happiness, life satisfaction and personal sense of worth. Yet when Markus Persson, creator of Minecraft, sold his gaming company to Microsoft for £2.5bn in 2014, it didn't give him the huge happiness boost you might expect, as his tweet from August 2015 showed: "Hanging out in Ibiza with a bunch of friends and partying with famous people, able to do whatever I want, and I've never felt more isolated."

Similarly, billionaire John Caudwell, founder of Phones4U, admitted on the BBC programme Britain's Spending Secrets that there are times when he would put his happiness level at just one or two out of 10.

The creator of Minecraft, Markus Persson, said selling his gaming company to Microsoft for £2.5bn didn't give him the huge happiness boost you might expect. Photograph: PR

Some would argue that the effect of money, whatever it is, can only ever be minimal because individual happiness is based on completely different criteria. According to psychology professor Sonja Lyubomirsky, author of The How of Happiness, about 50% is down to our baseline happiness level, which is something we're born with. In other words, some people are just naturally happier than others. By contrast, life circumstances - which would include income levels - account for just 10% of our total reported happiness.

The final 40% is about "intentional activities", or things we can do to make ourselves happier. Money does play a part in this - but not in the way you might expect.

For example, being generous makes us happy. Michael Norton, of Harvard Business School, talks about "pro-social spending" - in other words, spending money on others - and how it is linked to wellbeing. In a 2008 study with fellow researchers Elizabeth Dunn and Lara Aknin, he gave 46 participants either $5 or $20 and told some to spend it on themselves and others to give it away. He also recorded their self-reported happiness levels before and after the task. Those who had given their windfall away showed a greater increase in wellbeing than those who had spent the money on themselves.

Meanwhile, researchers at the US's National Institute of Health demonstrated a link between charitable giving and activation in the part of the brain associated with pleasure, triggering the release of endorphins or "happiness hormones", which cause what scientists refer to as the "helper's high".

And if we spend on others in a way that builds relationships, so much the better. Harvard Business School's Aknin did an experiment in which she gave people $10 Starbucks gift cards and asked some to spend the card on themselves, others to give the card to someone else, and still others to use the card to take someone out for a coffee. The happiest group was the one that had been able to spend on others while spending time with them - the combination of altruism and connection upped their happiness levels.

So does money make us happier? Well, yes and no. We need enough to cover our basic needs, and a rising salary can impact our wellbeing, but we also need to remember the positive effects of generosity and building relationships. Perhaps our focus should be less on how much money we have, and more on how we use it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the post-Christmas credit card bills roll in, most of us would say that a little more money wouldn't go amiss. In fact, according to research for the Guardian in 2015, money is the greatest source of anxiety for Britons. But would more of it really make us happy?

# data[].attributes.headline
Article that can be used for assignment 3

# data[].attributes.subject
Article that can be used for assignment 3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When I campaigned for animal rights as a teenager in the 1980s, anti-fur campaigners produced an iconic poster. Alongside an image of a smartly dressed woman holding a bloody fur coat was a cracker of a slogan: "It takes up to 40 dumb animals to make a fur coat. But only one to wear it."

Even as an angry teen I could see the complexity of some animal rights issues. Vivisection was sometimes used to save human lives. Nutrients can be gained by eating meat. But fur? Fur seemed a no-brainer. Why should animals die to produce a ridiculous-looking coat? If you'd have told me back then that we'd still be discussing this three decades on, I wouldn't have believed you. Surely the industry would have been eradicated?

Progress has been made - fur farms were banned in the UK in 2003, and selling cat, dog and seal products is also illegal. But imported fur from other species, including fox, rabbit, mink, coyote, raccoon dog and chinchilla, is still allowed. And this week an investigation by Sky News found that supposedly "fake fur" products, including gloves, hats and shoes, at leading retailers actually contain real fur from cats, raccoon dogs, rabbits, mink and fox.

This discovery has upset shoppers who thought the fur they were buying was synthetic. Never mind the labels, they assumed the cheap price tags alone meant the fur couldn't be real. The shopper who sparked the investigation when she realised that the "faux fur" pom-poms on her pink stilettos were actually made from cat hair said the discovery was "really hurtful, really shocking", because her "life is basically animals".

But why would anyone who cares about animals want to wear fake fur? True, its fluffiness can have a certain sensual appeal, but the cruelty involved in producing the real thing is such a horrifying business, I wonder why an animal lover would want to be associated with it. Why connect yourself, even symbolically, to such barbarity?

Commercial fur often comes from China, where it's produced very cheaply, frequently due to ghastly conditions. The animals, who spend their whole lives in wire cages, often succumb to anxiety-induced psychosis, gnawing away at their own limbs and hurling themselves repeatedly against the cage bars. It's a horrific life all the way to the end. The animals are finally grabbed from their cages and bludgeoned or strangled to death - if they're lucky. Undercover investigators from Swiss Animal Protection/EAST International found that in many cases the more unfortunate ones were still alive as they were being skinned.

Even after the skinning, when their hairless, bloodied bodies were tossed onto a pile, some were still alive, gasping for air and blinking. In a harrowing video, one skinned raccoon dog found the strength to lift his bloodied head and stare into the camera, as if to ask us why we have done this to him.

But it's not just in China that horrors occur. An undercover investigation into a farm in the United States produced a video nasty of its own. Animals bred for their fur there often spend their entire lives in cages too, before being slaughtered by gassing, neck-breaking, or electrocution of the genitals.

It's time we consigned this peculiar trend to the history books, allowing future generations to read with disgust and bewilderment at how badly their predecessors treated animals. There are precedents: in March Berkeley became the second city in California to ban the sale of any fur clothing, following in the footsteps of West Hollywood, which outlawed it in 2013.

But what about the fake stuff? Banning fake fur would seem an over-reaction (though it would certainly avoid any future confusion for well-meaning shoppers). More sensible than a ban might be a boycott. Wearing fake fur endorses a place for fur of any kind in the fashion industry, and given that we now know some "fake" fur is in fact real, and the product of great suffering, the vain hope that it could be separated from that cruelty in our minds has probably been extinguished.

So leave fur, real or imagined, on the shelf and build your look on something other than animal cruelty. There's nothing beautiful about pretending to be wearing an abused animal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If you wear fake fur, you are dressing up as an animal killer | Chas Newkey-Burden

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When I campaigned for animal rights as a teenager in the 1980s, anti-fur campaigners produced an iconic poster. Alongside an image of a smartly dressed woman holding a bloody fur coat was a cracker of a slogan: "It takes up to 40 dumb animals to make a fur coat.

# data[].attributes.body
Letter to the editor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
iGCSE Cambridge Assignment 3 Response to Reading Part 1.mp4.ns.mp4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A pupil prompt for assignment 3 of the iGCSE Cambridge coursework.

# data[].attributes.body
exam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy my revision guides: GCSE English Language paperback http://amzn.eu/fqqLiH2 GCSE English Language eBook http://mrbruff.com/product/mr-bruffs-guide-to-gcse-language/ GCSE English Language Kindle edition http://amzn.eu/51H6EMn GCSE English Literature paperback http://amzn.eu/gtz1PX9 GCSE English Literature eBook http://mrbruff.com/product/mr-bruffs-guide-to-gcse-literature/. GCSE English Literature Kindle edition http://amzn.eu/2Ekp3Z2 And 20 other eBook guides at mrbruff.com

# data[].attributes.body
DAFOREST

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English GCSE Language - Writing to Persuade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
English GCSE Language - Writing to Persuade Follow on Twitter - @eLectures_ and visit our website - www.electures.webs.com _____________________________________________________ Covers everything you need to achieve an A* Grade in your GCSE Language exam if you are writing to persuade.