Home Blog Page 22

What Is The Fourth Industrial Revolution And Why Should You Care?

The fourth industrial revolution has ushered in a new wave of technology-based living, which is growing rapidly day by day – but some say that it could lead to a dark future for the world. Unless you are passionate about technology and the economy, you may have not noticed the major ways in which society is changing, and why the fourth wave is so special. The UK government has said that the fourth industrial revolution is “characterised by a fusion of technologies” – namely artificial intelligence and biotechnologies, which they say has the “power to reshape almost every sector in every country.”

To realise the full potential of where we are as a society today, it is best to look at what has unfolded before.

The first industrial revolution started in Britain during the 18th century. It began with the process of moving away from an agricultural and handcrafted economy. Instead, the economical focus became one where wealth became based on industry – enterprises or organisations that produce or supply goods, services, or sources of incomes – and machine manufacturing. It can only be described as the ultimate upgrade to the way that Britain had lived before, and it kickstarted everything that we know about technology and industrial services today. Although Britain was the pioneer, the rest of the world soon followed.

During that first industrial revolution, British workers moved from handweaving textiles, to working in cotton mills – thus began mass production. It could be argued that the majority of our British economy – in fact the global economy – relies on mass production. Britain also began to make use of iron and steel during that first wave, and they also discovered new energy sources such as coal. This led to the creation of the steam engine, electricity, petroleum, and other resourceful inventions. It sped up the pace of a life that was usually a bit dull, restrictive and slow, up until that point. New machines were also invented and the factory system – another key on which a large majority of our economy still relies.

The second industrial revolution was a step-up from the first – during the 19th and 20th century, Britain began to utilise natural and synthetic materials such as plastic, and they discovered more energy sources. Although we have come to discover how harmful single-use plastics can be today – this was a massive development for humanity when it was first created. Furthermore, ‘top’ nations such as Britain began to move from mass production by hand, to automatized production, which produced important materials such as weaponry.  This provided a sense of economic freedom, as these technological shifts provided several jobs – from the factory line worker to the ‘big boss’. An example is the famous Henry Ford, who created and produced the famous Ford cars.

The third/fourth industrial revolutions are where it gets a bit tricky – experts continue to argue about whether we are currently in the third or fourth revolution. Whatever you believe, experts do agree on one thing – the fact that the creation of the internet marked the start of life as we now know it. The invention of the most powerful network permanently shifted nations from high-level manufacturing and producing, and even being technologically based – to being digitally based. A clear example of this is our reliance on digital technologies, especially during the current pandemic – some will argue that the pandemic has led to increased digital reliance, but it also shows how ready we were to do so.

The economist describes this best – “the old way of making things involved taking lots of parts and screwing or welding them together. Now a product can be designed on a computer…” This is a gain for Britain and the rest of the world. The online shift has meant that possibilities are endless, and creativity has virtually no limits – for example, a person who dreams of owning their own shop, but struggles to rent out space, can start an online shop in the comfort of their very own home. Instead of factory workers, we see IT specialists, designers, marketing and media staff, and the like. The rise of new crypto technologies – new currencies such as Bitcoin, and opportunities to own stocks and shares in a variety of company, suggests that wealth is becoming more accessible.

Technological development has always signalled a revolution historically; the smartphone that you hold in your hand, and the computer you work on – the car that you drive and the smart meter that you use – they can all be traced back to that first revolutionary wave. This hasn’t changed.

However, we do know that the benefits of the industrial revolutionary wave that we are living in are sadly, not experienced by all – socioeconomic factors play a large part. Many suffered as factory workers during the first and second revolutions – with poor pay, bad conditions and even child labour – and we may not be as far removed from that today. Furthermore, the reduction of human hands at work means fewer jobs or jobs that are difficult for everyone to attain. There is also the threat of data mismanagement as more and more people share their lives online.

However, there may be much to look forward to as we increase in productivity and efficiency – possibilities could be endless, and hopefully, we will live in a world where everyone begins to benefit.

How Achievable Is Khan’s Vision For London?

Sadiq Khan won a second term as London Mayor in a tight race against the Conservative candidate Shaun Bailey.

After two rounds of voting, Khan won 1,206,034 votes to Bailey’s 977,601.

In his election victory speech, Khan declared that he wants to “build a better and brighter future for London after the dark days of the pandemic and to create a greener, fairer and safer city for Londoners”.

He also addressed the poor performances of Labour during the local elections, in which the party lost eight councils while the Conservatives gained 13 councils and 235 councillors nationwide.

However, the victory of Khan in London and Andy Burnham in Manchester showed that Labour is attracting voters in major cities, despite the party being in a so-called crisis.  

As we move past election day and, Khan starts his second term, the question is, what is he bringing to London?

Khan’s vision for London    

London has felt the full brunt of the pandemic and has experienced economic fallout that is worse than any other region in the country. It is expected that the Mayor of London will have a £19 billion budget, and the biggest focus for Khan will be to try and get London moving back to its pre-pandemic self. The the most pressing agenda for the Mayor is trying to help more than 300,000 Londoners who lost their jobs during this unprecedented time find work again.

Sadiq Khan has outlined that he is focused on turning London into this green city, as he plans to invest £50 million to support more than 170,000 green Jobs. He also wants London to be zero-carbon by 2030, to have a zero-emission bus fleet by the same year and for the city to have zero-waste through “reusing, recycling or recovering”. Regarding transport, Khan wants to introduce 4G across the transport network, open Crossrail, and transition Transport for London (TfL) into a more “sustainable” funding model.

Issues such as crime, policing, and housing have been in the spotlight during Khan’s leadership as Mayor of London since 2016. During the run-up to this year’s mayoral election, Bailey was one of the many outspoken candidates of Khan’s leadership and felt that Khan did not do enough on these issues during his first term. However, according to a YouGov poll, only two in five people felt that housing and crime were the most urgent matters to address within London. In response to this, Khan hopes to hire 6,000 extra police officers, to establish a drugs commission that will look into the effectiveness of drug laws and maintain the city’s programme that prevents violence against women and girls.

According to City Hall, London needs 66,000 new homes a year to address the demands of Londoners, and Khan hopes to build 10,000 new council homes, give essential workers priority for new “intermediate homes,” and establish a 50% target for all new homes to be “genuinely affordable”.

How achievable is Khan’s vision?

Beyond the mayoral elections, we have to assess if Khan can achieve his plan for London. His plans are very ambitious to some people, but some may disagree. There is even the perspective that the plans that Khan is proposing is not enough to address the various issues that Londoners have. Already bosses from multiple sectors in London have pleaded to Khan to support them, and climate activists and Labour youth groups have called Khan to cancel plans of building a four-lane road under the Thames river.

As Mayor of London, Khan has a big job on his hands to try and please the variety of individuals who live in London and have various concerns. Khan wants London back on its feet again, but in trying to do so, he may risk not fulfilling his promises that he has made during this recent election. Can the Mayor make London a zero-waste city while also trying to support a post-covid recovery? Is Khan’s zero-carbon by 2030 commitment too ambitious, or is it a fair target to achieve? With some Londoners believing that housing and crime need to be addressed urgently, will he handle this demand, or will he fumble under pressure?

Khan hopes to be in this job until 2036 as long as Londoners support him.  

But for this dream to come to fruition, Khan must stick to his promises.  

What Liz Cheney’s Ousting Means for the Future of the Republican Party?

Liz Cheney is the latest GOP member under fire for publically disagreeing with Trump.

Recently, Republicans held Liz Chaney to the fire for her comments about Trump. These comments caused her much scrutiny within her political party. More importantly, it showed Trump’s politics made a lasting impression, that has set a precedent for the future of politics.

Since the upset of the 2020 elections, Republicans far and wide have contested the election results. Some even question the legitimacy of the win, making claims that there was some fraudulent activity. However, very few Republicans have spoken out against Former President Trump’s actions.

Cheney has been vocal about Trump’s actions in the past, stating “There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution”

There is a two-part reason why many of Cheney’s colleagues are asking for her exile. First, she was one of the very few Republicans that blamed Trump for the Capitol Riots in January. In short, she stated Trump summoned the mob and betrayed the Constitution. She even went as far as to vote to impeach him for his second impeachment. While members of her party were dismayed at this outright action, they still did not call for her removal. However, this was compounded on the fact that she would not accept Trump’s false claims about the election. She called him out and blatantly stated no one stole the 2020 elections and perpetuating the lie is a disgrace to democracy. It was then that her party called for her quick removal from Republican leadership in the House of Representatives.

GOP Congressmen speaking agaisnt Nixon during Watergate

Liz isn’t the first Representative to go against their party leader, Cheney did nothing new. Since the beginning of America, politicians have spoken against their party’s leaders. Whether it be the impeachment trial of President Nixon or President Clinton’s promiscuous actions, Congress had called out their top party leaders when they disagreed with their actions. Liz Cheney only followed the guide her father, Former Vice President Dick Cheney, and countless other conservatives left before her.

Republicans are starting to move away from politics during Dwight Eisenhower and move to a new era.

In all honesty, she did nothing wrong. She saw a problem and went with her moral compass, asking for her colleagues to move forward and accept the election. The real issue with Cheney’s direct deposition is that it forces the party back to previous politics that both parties are trying to move past. The first election of Donald Trump was a revolt of previous Republican administrations and old-time politics. The Republican Party has transferred from Dwight Eisenhower’s beacon-of-freedom politics to a party that has challenged democracy with words even if they fell short with action.

Republican Party is still Trump’s Party?

Trump has shaped the Republican Party forever

Over the last five years, the Republican Party has struggled behind its leader. President Trump by no means was perfect and many GOP leaders were wary of his leadership. However, despite hesitations, the Republican Party was Trump’s Party. Republican congress members stood behind his actions, even if they felt moral convictions, and allowed these actions to continue. Even when Trump made a mockery of the republic, the GOP continued to support his efforts. Very few Republicans have shown the courage to follow their consciousness and speak out against blatant lies. Senator Cheney took a bold move by going against the popularity of the GOP. while she is holding on to old-time politics that her father supported, the party is parting with politics of the past and maintaining the Trump model.

While this may not be “Trump’s Party,” Trumpism made a lasting impression on the Republican Party. Trump’s actions have infiltrated American politics for good. It gave the blue-collar conservatives a voice in the Republican Party, which was previously geared more toward the White Collar Conservative.
The future for the Republican Party is uncertain, but one thing is clear, and Liz Cheney is quickly realising, the old era of the Republican Party all but done.

Noel Clarke: Trial By Public Opinion Or Due Process?

British actor, screenwriter and director Noel Clarke has been accused of sexual misconduct by 20 different women, less than a month after receiving a BAFTA for Outstanding British Contribution to Cinema.

The 45-year-old rose to fame in 2005 for playing the character of Mickey Smith in Doctor Who, before starring as roadman Sam Peele in his feature film Kidulthood, and its subsequent sequels Adulthood and Brotherhood.

Clarke has previously won the BAFTA Rising Star Award in 2009, and the Laurence Olivier Award for Most Promising Performer in 2003.

In April 2021, the Guardian published allegations from 20 women, accusing Clarke of verbal abuse, sexual harassment and bullying. Amongst these accusations Clarke allegedly filmed a nude audition by actress Jahannah James without consent, and then showed it to his producers.

James has also accused Clarke of unsolicitedly exposing his genitals to her in the back of a limousine and then groping her in a lift.

https://twitter.com/realadamdeacon/status/1389520183212089346
Actor Adam Deacon supports the allegations against Noel Clarke.

Actor Adam Deacon, who played the character of Jay in Kidulthood, supported the accusations against Clarke in a statement.

He said, “I myself have been a victim of Noel Clarke for 15 years. My career was continually sabotaged, and the gaslighting became so severe that it lead to the complete breakdown of my mental health.”

In response to the aforementioned claims, BAFTA suspended his award pending further investigation. The following day, ITV announced that it was ‘no longer appropriate’ to broadcast the final episode of Viewpoint, in which Clarke starred. International distribution of the show was suspended.

Industry Entertainment declared they would no longer be representing Clarke and Sky immediately halted his involvement in any future productions.

Clarke said that he would be seeking professional help to “change for the better”, and denied “all accusations of sexual misconduct or criminal wrongdoing” bar one, with him admitting to commenting on the buttocks of an employee.

Once again, society finds itself in an awkward position, where it has to balance the increasing intolerance towards sexual assault and the fight against the culture of silence with the principle of due process and the presumption of innocence.

Make no mistake about it; sexual assault in all its forms is completely and utterly unacceptable. If it transpires that Clarke is in fact guilty of these accusations, then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

BAFTA, Sky and other media companies were correct to suspend him. Due to the serious nature of the accusations (especially as a man), they would morally wrong to continue to employ a person with such serious allegations.

However, it is important to realise that at this moment in time, the allegations against Clarke are exactly that: allegations.

Being accused of something without due process to prove guilt should not be enough to change a person’s opinion on Clarke, or anybody for that matter. To be accused in and of itself should not imply guilt.

It should not be that simple to define a person’s future and reputation merely by accusations. Such a law or attitude would be unjust and would have the potential to be easily weaponised.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXzWyVzNlIw
Safeguarding minister Victoria Atkins said on LBC radio that organisations should look carefully at people’s conduct before giving them awards. Video credit: The Telegraph/LBC

Whilst it’s important to recognise and acknowledge the climate we live in (regarding male/female politics and power dynamics), it would be wrong to write him off before legal proceedings have even begun.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and opinions will certainly be formed as time goes on and more evidence and legal proceedings take place.

Nevertheless, public opinion and trial via social media should not be enough to determine Clarke’s future. That’s for the courts to decide.

To believe either party without due process is to call the other party a liar; either Clarke is lying, or the women are. There is no grey area.

It seems that society cannot have it both ways when deciding between automatic belief of women and due process. There is no middle ground, or at least none that wider society is willing to accept.

We now have to wait and see what becomes of this case, and have faith that justice is served. The presumption of innocence must be preserved.

‘Believe women.’ Two simple words, yet they cause so much protest among those who are desperate to downplay how prevalent sexual assault and abuse is. 

To concede that sexual assault is, indeed, a horrific stain on our society, we must commit to believing those who brave enough to speak up and tell the truth, in spite of the backlash they receive.

I’m not here to deny that false allegations of sexual assault happen. However, the frequency is incomparable to the rate of actual sexual assault and rape allegations that pass without conviction. It’s strange that whenever a well-loved – or even well-hated – celebrity comes under righteous attack due to their past indiscretions, so many are quick to defend them, without personal knowledge of their character.

And it goes further than the incomprehensible willingness to defend these star-studded idols from individuals. Society itself shrinks from acknowledging these allegations until they are unsurmountable, as they expose the normalisation of violence against women in our society. Yet, we are forced to place our trust in institutions such as the police force, the government, and the criminal justice system.

We expect the media to hold these institutions to account, so that we can go about our daily lives in fictitious peace. However, when brave victims, and those in the media with the backbone to advocate for them, actually do speak up, they are met with animosity and incredulity.

Consider this. You are a woman (or any other gender), and you pluck up the courage to contact a journalist to share your story. You’re struggling with the desperate fear that your own industry will condemn you, yet you are physically sick at the thought of allowing someone who abused you to calmly continue their career, accepting accolade after accolade, as you battle with depression, anxiety, and guilt, day after day. You don’t provide your real name. You are just driven by the desire to ensure that others do not suffer what you have suffered.

So, no. We cannot wait, in transfixed silence, for the months-long ‘due process’ of the justice system to determine Clarke’s guilt before we start acting for the victims. We cannot allow those who have heroically come forward to be censured and bullied by the tabloids. We cannot allow young, impressionable members of our society to be influenced by the public response of disbelief or contradiction.

Even disgust, an emotion that many may initially feel, is inadequate. It all too quickly becomes overshadowed with the weary lack of surprise that so many of us feel, when we hear these stories ‘yet again’. Wasting our energy picking holes in Clarke’s accusers’ accounts detracts from the energy we should all be spending to ensure that structures are put in place for victims to report sexual assault. The justice system, as it is today, serves no one – women, men or non-binary. Instead of letting it take control, as it always does, we should be designing mechanisms for the future; those that prevent sexual assault from getting so far that a story like this becomes ‘relevant’ to our media, and provides us with the permission to discuss it.

We don’t need permission, and perpetrators don’t need fame. Victims need justice.

‘Breakthrough Party’: A Political Vehicle For Young People?

Mainstream parties in the United Kingdom have been unable to address the variety of interests that young people have and position themselves as political vehicles for this generation.  

Instead, these parties are too busy with corruption allegations, awful election defeats and resignations of party members.

What this allows is the chance for a new party to snatch onto this situation.  

The Breakthrough party is already doing just that and intends to become this political vehicle that young people desperately want and need.  

What is Breakthrough

This is a party led by young people who work with various organisations that include trade unions, anti-racist organisations and social movements. Breakthrough defines itself as left-leaning along the political scale, emphasising ordinary people and grassroots action. The motivation behind Breakthrough was to appeal to the millions of young people that the major political parties have abandoned. Alex Mays, the party’s founder and the many volunteers behind the scenes, wanted to provide hope for young people and an alternative away from a political, social and economic system that they feel is collapsing.

Breakthrough wants to transform the world of work and magnify the struggles of workers. They want to focus on changing the economy by offering shorter working hours, a real living wage, and the right to organise. The housing crisis is another key issue that Breakthrough wants to address, and they want to do this by taking on landlords through working with tenants’ unions and housing organisations. Ever since the government has increased their powers against dissent, Breakthrough has been one of the many actors strongly opposing this. Resisting the police state is part of their plans, and they want to do this by fighting for racial justice, LGBTQ+ rights, women’s safety and action on climate change. Speaking of climate change, Breakthrough has been very vocal on this issue. Rather than relying on the top CEOs, the party wants a global working class and climate justice organisations to lead this issue.    

The Breakthrough Party is a new home for those determined to disrupt the failed status quo and build an alternative: a society that uses its considerable wealth to provide dignity, security and justice for all.”

Taken from the Breakthrough Party
Alex Mays, the founder of Breakthrough

The Journey

Since the summer of 2020, Breakthrough was in the works and wanted to appeal to those demanding social change, specifically young people. Starting a party is a very long process where you have to submit an application to the Electoral Commission that includes having a financial scheme, which shows how a party will take donations, a constitution and a logo. After this lengthy but necessary process, Breakthrough was founded in January 2021. A month later, the party was put on the electoral register, meaning they could put forward candidates for elections.

Since the party’s birth, Breakthrough has been growing in support. People are joining the party as members, and the party’s social media presence is growing on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Breakthrough has even launched a YouTube channel and has started a series called Breakthrough Chats, where Mays talks to current and former MP’s, activists and people within politics to talk about current issues facing the United Kingdom. Mays has spoken to “This is England” actor Andrew Ellis and the National President of Bakes Food & Allied Workers Union (BFAWU) Ian Hodson.

What’s Next for Breakthrough?

Breakthrough is very ambitious and has big plans for the next five years. They want to become a real political force on the left in the United Kingdom and offer a radical alternative away from the mainstream parties of Labour and the Conservatives. Breakthrough also wants to support unions and campaign groups, have local councillors within their ranks and have candidates standing across the country in general elections.

The party is open for people to join and for people to donate wherever possible. 

Regardless of how new their party is, Breakthrough is growing fast and is worth keeping your eyes on. It won’t be long until this party breaks through other major news outlets that will cover their future success and mission, not just here at Common Sense.    

Alastair Campbell Could Never Be Piers Morgan

Good Morning Britain has announced that Alastair Campbell will be a guest host from 10th May to the 12th May, which some are as a replacement for Piers Morgan.

The breakfast show has been looking for a co-host ever since Piers left in March after he questioned the suicidal thoughts of the Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle which she revealed during a highly controversial interview with Oprah Winfrey.

Morgan said that he ‘didn’t believe a word of it’, this, in response to Meghan’s revelations of her suicidal thoughts and the treatment she received during her time as a royal family member. Ofcom received 57,000 complaints because of these remarks, and Mind, a UK Mental Health charity, issued a statement criticising Piers remarks. The day after his comments and whilst the show was going on, Alex Beresford criticised Piers remarks. Alex’s comments made Piers walk off the set, which went viral across the internet. Soon after, Piers announced that he would be leaving Good Morning Britain and has since reiterated his remarks about Megan.  

Piers Morgan walking off stage after Alex Beresford criticised him over Megan Markle comments

Since that controversy, Good Morning Britain has been searching for a new host to go alongside Susann Reid and have decided to bring in Alastair Campbell as a guest host. The former aid to Tony Blair and well-known journalist will be hosting during Mental Health Awareness Week. Campbell has previously spoken about his mental health troubles in the past and has since written for the Independent saying that he hopes that he and Good Morning Britain can “do something big on the issue.” He is also looking forward to interviewing politicians from all political spectrums and questioning government ministers. Since this announcement, Piers has warned the new host to hold back, urging him to be cautious due to what happened to him a few months ago. Some people have compared Alastair with Piers, but the former aid has since tweeted that he is not the new Piers Morgan.

“We look forward to welcoming Alastair as a guest presenter on the GMB desk this May. He of course has a huge appetite for the world of politics and hard-hitting news but we’ve also seen his vulnerable side, such as his personal struggles with mental ill health.

Good Morning Britain Editor Neil Thompson 

Alastair Campbell is as dry as Walkers Ready Salted Crisps

Good Morning Britain relies on entertainment, which is why they are where they are. Without a doubt, Piers Morgan has been the mastermind behind such success, and the show is not the same without him. Television is about ratings, and if GMB wants to beat their rivals that include BBC Breakfast and the upcoming GB News, hiring Alastair Campbell as a co-host is a terrible decision.

He is a well-known individual, author and journalist, but he is also bland, unoriginal and dry like Walkers Ready Salted Crisps. He also has the same old left-leaning liberal perspective that many of us are getting sick of hearing. The TV space is so heavily satirised with these types of opinions, and as much as Piers crossed the line with Megan Markle, at least he wasn’t like every other TV host. He was a breath of fresh air away from the overly left-leaning, woke and politically correct obsessed perspective that is persistent within talk shows.   

Alastair is the polar opposite and isn’t someone who makes people jump out of my seat and makes me want to get up at an ungodly hour and tune in. If people want to see journalists holding members of parliament to account, they should tune in to BBC Breakfast rather than ITV. GMB had the chance to find a co-host that would excite viewers, but they are left deeply disappointed. GMB should find someone else if they want to continue their upward growth, and that person needs to be someone who isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, someone who is going to speak their mind and someone entertaining. Alastair Campbell doesn’t fit this bill, and GMB must find someone else; otherwise, they will fall into irrelevancy.

Are Police Body Cameras A Deterrent?

Since the 21st century, cameras have progressed society and showed the world in a different light. Cameras have been shown to be highly beneficial in excessive force cases concerning the police. Derek Chauvin’s trial was a prime example of how body cams and cameras, in general, can hold police accountable. In a recent University of Chicago study, researchers show the critical benefit of how body-worn cameras reduce the use of police force.

While body cameras may deter some police officers from using excessive force, it is not the complete answer to eliminating police brutality.

The Start of Police Cameras

22 states in the U.S. with pending body camera legislation

Despite this new rush to implement body cameras in every police precinct, this is nothing new. For the last twenty years, politicians have tried to implement policies to enforce body cameras.

In the United Kingdom, the police started experimenting with body cameras. In contrast, the U.S. fell behind in enforcing their police officers to wear them. In 2016, 22 states in the U.S. have either passed legislation implementing body cameras or considering the proposed bill. Proposals for body cameras increased after a white police officer killed Michael Brown, an 18-year-old black teenager, in Ferguson, Missouri.

After the Mike Brown Shooting, many police departments started adopting police body cameras because they did not want another Ferguson incident. Even though police departments wanted to enforce this change, close to 3,000 deadly police shootings have happened since Ferguson.

Body Cameras & Accountability

Derek Chauvin’s trial was one of the first cases where the police officer was held accountable for their actions

The Derek Chauvin trial set a precedent for holding police officers accountable. It’s common around the world to see police acquitted on accusations of excessive force. It’s very rare to actually see justice. In the Chauvin case, a significant piece to the prosecution’s argument relied heavily on the camera and body cam footage which shows their impact.

It is hard to disprove excessive force when the whole world saw a police officer’s knee on someone’s back for nine-plus minutes. Although Chauvin’s trial was a turn in the right direction, it still is one case to the overall bigger picture. Chauvin’s case was not the first case to have video footage expose excessive behaviour to the public. Philando Castile, Alton Sterling, Jacob Blake, Breonna Taylor, Ma’Khia Bryant, Adam Toledo, Daunte Wright, and countless others have died or place in critical conditions over excessive force where body cams were present.

Many of the officers in these cases were acquitted and able to keep their jobs. The problem with this is they can do this to another person of colour, and the cycle of police brutality continues. Even though they have a body cam on their person, it will mean nothing if they could previously get away with the same brutal behaviour.

Something Different?

More training and restruturing the police environemnt needs to happen in order for true change to occur.

Body cams are great for the visual image in case something is wrong, but a police officer will use force whether the camera is on them or not. As seen in the Adam Toledo case, the Chicago police officers had body cameras and still used unnecessary and excessive force. True determent of excessive force comes from within the police departments and the training they receive. In general, the environment of the police force needs to hold their fellow police officer accountable for their actions.

Society treats police officers like they are above the law because they wear a badge and wield a gun. It is baffling how many police officers get away from irresponsible decisions because they are the police.

Body cameras are beneficial and should be used; nonetheless, more actions need to be taken to eliminate police brutality.

Is Biden’s Greenhouse Emission Plan Serious?

President Joe Biden speaks to the virtual Leaders Summit on Climate on Thursday after announcing plans for a 50% in U.S. emissions by 2030. Source Market Watch

President Joe Biden has made some big promises to the American people over his campaign and even more as he crosses his first 100 days in office. One of those significant promises is making America greener. President Biden pledged to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50% to 52% by 2030. This pledge is the latest push by the Biden administration to combat climate change. The ambitious target nearly doubles the 2015 goal of 26% to 28%. Biden is looking to see if he can put his footprint in the fight against pollution and hoping this plan progress America in climate control.

The announcement came during a two-day virtual summit with 40 world leaders.

Biden’s promise

The purpose of this plan is to get America back to leading the world on climate change. Biden is passionate about cutting greenhouse gas emissions. During a two-day summit, he explained how cutting greenhouse gas would set America on a path of a net-zero emission economy by 2050. The new pledge offers a glimpse of changes Biden wants to set in motion, such as decarbonizing America’s energy sector and phasing out gasoline-powered vehicles. In addition to creating a greener country, the administration claimed the massive investment in climate change would generate “good-paying” jobs nationwide, which would boost the economy.

Other countries have already made promises to cut greenhouse emission gases

Where does this come from?

Several scientists have claimed that the 50% goal is what is needed to limit global warming. Once the world reaches 1.5 degrees Celsius (around 3 degrees Fahrenheit), it will lead to catastrophic levels that will have deadly effects. The Paris Accords is a world effort to stop the Earth from reaching such levels. In attempts to regain respect globally, Biden has called on other world leaders to help fight climate change. By stating the U.S. will take leadership to solve the emission problem, Biden hopes other world leaders will do their part in climate control. Also, Biden is vigorously trying to make the U.S. look significantly better than it has been on the global stage in the last four to five years.

America has fallenshort of its goals in the past

Will it actually happen?

It is always interesting to see administrations make promises that will take decades to see actual effective change. For example, Biden’s promise in slashing greenhouse gas emissions consists of a decade prolonged decrease. Although nothing happens overnight, this plan might be overzealous. Administrations never consider their successors and their possible objections to the progress and their strategies. The U.S. is nowhere near the Obama Administration’s goal of 28%. America is not near the goal primarily due to the next administration undoing much of what President Obama did to combat the climate crises, such as removing the U.S. from the Paris Accord Agreement. Now that President Biden is in office, he is almost starting from the beginning in the fight for climate change.

It is excellent for administrations to talk about the long-term plan, which is a big guess within itself, but it does not give a good strategy for now. One election, state or national, can overturn a president’s plan and promise. More importantly, there is no actual detailed plan in place on how to achieve such a goal. When asked about details of this objective, White House officials have failed to give any but instead exclaimed they are going to do it in a “deliberate” way. All this sounds like a swell plan, but what would go a long way with the American people is having detailed plans to solve the problem than a grandiose plan that may not happen.

Why Did The Gov Take Away PPE Control From The NHS?

The David Cameron Greensill Capital Scandal has unearthed further allegations of “sleaze” as the Beeb published text conversations between inventor James Dyson and Boris Johnson at the start of the pandemic where he asked the Singapore-based entrepreneur for help developing ventilators. This comes after the public spending watchdog, the National Audit Office (NAO) report showed poor transparency, incomplete documentation, questionable processes for PPE procurement, stating the government failed to meet standards while spending billions of public funds on contracts. It also revealed a “priority list” referred by ministers and senior health professionals after the PPE procurement was taken out of NHS local trusts hands and into centralised government control in March of last year.

The PPE stories beggar belief. From receiving a fraction of the 400,000 unusable gowns from a Turkish t-shirt manufacturer with the Royal Air Force having to go collect; to 50 million unusable face masks in a £252 million contract from a currency trading company; to the Miami jewellery designer paid £21m consultant fee to broker a £250m PPE contract for the UK; and even a pest control company having £19,000 net assets was given a £108m contract for PPE. To know it was our public money for schools, hospitals, roads and pensions that was squandered; we have a right to answers.

The real question should be why our leaders took control away from the NHS. It is, after all, in the top 10 of worldwide organisations by staff numbers, behind the Chinese military. The NHS and its local trusts employ supply chain and distribution professionals and should have procured and distributed PPE themselves. The government, however, took PPE control away from the NHS and put it in a centrally controlled body and NHS trusts were ordered not to purchase PPE themselves. 

NHS trust managers don’t take manufacturers’ promises on supplying, they do due diligence. Storing materials risks contamination, wasting money as new equipment is needed. As we found out, sourcing reliable PPE when everyone else wanted it defeated the “as-needed” protocol.

Clearly the system was not suited to panic measures when every politician were rushing around trying to protect their backsides. Yet, in any disaster you will find opportunists buying up something in short supply or sell things they don’t own with the intention of finding it afterwards.

Slew of Mistakes

We shouldn’t have taken control away from an effective NHS framework. Devolved control may have taken Covid more seriously and requested higher precautionary budgets. Despite warnings from Italy, our centralised control failed to act timely. Meanwhile, they sent our PPE to China while knowing we had out-of-date PPE, dwindling stock and not taking up offers from UK firms who produce PPE. They also pulled out of the EU ventilator and PPE procurement scheme, later lied about it, removing the pandemic insurance plans drafted under Tony Blair for future global contagion risk, left borders open, didn’t screen nor have compulsory quarantine for arrivals until 2021 and so on ad nauseum. The trouble with organising a response of this magnitude by a small vanguard of decision-makers invites mistakes. At least when you have many inputs, someone calls out a bad idea for what it is.

Nurses in PPE
SourceL PA Media

Chumocracy

 “Chumocracy”, or the privilege of having an “Old Boys Network” political connections may be rife, we just don’t know. Further clarification showed 10% of contracts were handed to this special “list”, which means 90% were not. And credit to the government, only 0.5% of the product was unworkable – a large sum in £ but as percentage failure not bad given the shambles other European nations faced. We succeeded in obtaining PPE, but at what cost? Far more than needed, much of which unusable and logistics were non-existent leading to 11,000 containers of PPE at Felixstowe port. All while healthcare workers were forced to make rudimentary PPE from bin-liners.

Context of Panic

Within the context of Spring 2020, this was at a time when nation-states were trampling on each other and multilateralism had collapsed. America bought out France-bound Chinese masks on the tarmac in China for 3 times the price in cash, as one of many such interventions creating mask shortages. Medical supply exports were blocked, spies sent to find tests on fears of shortages and health systems at the brink. Turkey even reneged on foreign mask sales that had been paid for and banned exports of protective gear. Preparedness was patchy despite warnings for years of global pandemic risk, as Italy could have used her neighbours ICU beds in February and reciprocated in April.

It would have been hard to imagine that medical supplies main transport means were in the cargo of civilian planes, showing a greater need for localisation of medical manufacturing.

For all the blame to go around, China “intentionally concealed the severity” of the novel coronavirus, while ramping up imports and decreasing exports of medical supplies. And we, the world, foolishly listened to the WHO’s Tedros Adhanom tell us not to panic.

Although it came at great expense, we are performing well in the vaccine department, with UK government-backed AstraZeneca offering doses at £3, versus Moderna $37 a dose, after opting to not profit on vaccine sales. Yet even now our neighbours are freely slinging mud with AZ faced with EU lawsuits on slow vaccine rollouts. While France’s Pfizer will make billions on her vaccine.

As with the Greensill Capital fiasco, sleaze shows us why we can’t let ministers have their way, regardless of the level of expediency at hand. Centralised, opaque contract tendering shows why we invite to tender and publish within 30 days for scrutiny and why we use the NHS devolved local trusts, both to save waste and conserve funding – even in emergencies.

Coinbase Goes Public: Here’s What You Need To Know?

Coinbase, a cryptocurrency exchange went public in a direct listing last week at a valuation of $100 billion. A reference price of $250 was assigned to Coinbase by Nasdaq on Tuesday even and the stock opened around $381 on Wednesday morning. Coinbase closed at $328.28 but not before peaking at $429.54 during trading on Wednesday.

IPO vs Direct Listing

Coinbase didn’t technically go public the traditional initial public offering (IPO) instead executives opted to go public via a direct listing. “But what is the difference?”. In the traditional IPO process Coinbase would have worked with an underwriter (think of investment banks) to sort out the terms and structure of the offering including share price. The underwriter then turns around and offers the shares to clients that include hedge funds. The direct listing involves the same process; however, the underwriters are not involved in the event. Coinbase is just the latest tech firm to go public via a listing instead of a traditional IPO. Coinbase executive probably chose this method of going public because the opening price reflects the long-term value of the stock and they would’ve raised more money this way.

Coinbase Global Debuts Initial Public Offering At Nasdaq MarketSite
Coinbase employees celebrate the company’s recent entry on the Nasdaq as cryptocurrency sees growing … [+]
 
© 2021 BLOOMBERG FINANCE LP

This is certainly an exciting period for anybody interested in cryptocurrencies. Coinbase is the first cryptocurrency company to list publicly and will probably lead other companies to do the same. Until recently, financial institutions have not been cautious or directly opposed to the societal adoption of cryptocurrency. This listing will go some way to prove that cryptocurrencies are not fringe investments; with Coinbase being more profitable and larger than a number of U.S. exchanges. However, this fact has placed a number of people, including myself at a crossroads. A report by New Constructs, a market research firm based in Tennessee, suggests that Coinbase is grossly overvalued. According to New Constructs research Coinbase would need to reach 1.5x the combined revenues of Nasdaq and Intercontinental Exchange, two of the biggest Exchanges in the U.S. New Construct also places Coinbase’s valuation closer to $20 billion.

Recently we have seen brokerages like TD Ameritrade cut their commission rates to 0% or close to zero. Despite Coinbase’s popularity, users have complained about the high transaction fees. Analysts suggest that cryptocurrency exchanges may head in the same direction, if that is the case Coinbase will need to cut their trading fees to match the competition. Considering that Coinbase makes 96% of their revenue through these fees they’ll need to either come up with a new monetisation strategy or growth strategy so that they can acquire new users to validate their market value.

I do believe that Coinbase is overvalued right now, however, with the cryptocurrency space being relatively new there will be plenty of opportunity in the not-too-distant future for Coinbase to validate their market value.

Tributes To ‘angelic son’ Who Died In River Thames Rescue Bid

0

The family of a man who died after jumping into the Thames to save a woman who had fallen from London Bridge have paid tribute to their “hero”.

Folajimi Olubunmi-Adewole, 20, known as Jimi, reportedly was one of two men who entered the water at 00:10 BST on Saturday after spotting the woman fall.

The coastguard and the Met Police’s marine unit rescued the woman and one of the men.

A body, thought to be Mr Olubunmi-Adewole’s, was found six hours later.

Formal identification has not yet taken place.

His father Michael Adewola, 63, told the Sun newspaper that his son deserved a medal for the bravery he showed by diving into the river to try to save the woman.

“He is a very unique and angelic soul, and I am proud of him, so proud, and I want the world to know he is the deepest and most wonderful man,” Mr Adewola said.

He added: “He is a hero, and always will be. I can’t bring him back but I want him to be remembered forever for what he did. It was just like him to want to always try and help others.”

Folajimi Olubunmi-Adewole
Twitter

Mr Olubunmi-Adewole was with a friend, Bernard, when they heard a woman had fallen into the Thames.

Bernard told Sky News they could hear the woman screaming “help me, help me, I’m gonna die”.

“Instantly Jimi looked at me and I said, ‘all right, we can look for her’. But we couldn’t see her, it was pitch black.”

Police have not said how the woman fell into the river.

A GoFundMe appeal to support Mr Olubunmi-Adewole’s family and pay for his funeral has raised more than £60,000 – double the £25,000 target – with more than 3,000 people donating.

“The best of us”

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan tweeted Mr Olubunmi-Adewole “was the best of us”.

“A true hero of our city who gave his life trying to save another,” he wrote.

“My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends at this time of tragic loss.”

Athenlay Football Club in south-east London, which Mr Olubunmi-Adewole was a member of, held a minute’s silence at all of their matches on Sunday.

Tony Underwood, from the club, later tweeted: “Saw my first swallow of the summer yesterday. Hope his family can also see his soul now as a beacon of warmth and hope for us all. RIP #JimiTheHero.”

Mike Pence’s Publisher Refuses To Cancel Memoir After Staff Protest

Simon & Schuster (S&S) have stated that they will continue their $3-4 million two-year book deal with Mike Pence, the former vice-president of the United States, despite protests from employees and more than 600 authors, editors and publishing professionals.

Last week, Jonathan Karp told his staff that they would not be cancelling the deal with Pence and stated that “we come to work each day to publish, not to cancel.”

Even though the publisher pulled of publishing Republican senator Josh Hawley’s book in January due to his involvement in the Capitol hill riot, this time around, the publisher feels inclined to proceed with Pence’s book deal, and the autobiography is expected to be released in 2023.

As a publisher in this polarised era, we have experienced outrage from both sides of the political divide and from different constituencies and groups. But we come to work each day to publish, not cancel, which is the most extreme decision a publisher can make, and one that runs counter to the very core of our mission to publish a diversity of voices and perspectives. We will, therefore, proceed in our publishing agreement with Vice-President Mike Pence.”

S&S president Jonathan Karp in The Guardian

The Facts   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5nIa6Hy8rw

The reasoning behind why Karp had to come and express his statement was because of an open letter that had recently been published by employees of S&S demanding for the book to be cancelled.

The number of employees who signed this letter is unknown.

Within the letter, the employees suggested that “by choosing to publish Mike Pence, Simon & Schuster is generating wealth for a central figure of a presidency that unequivocally advocated for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Blackness, xenophobia, misogyny, ableism, islamophobia, antisemitism, and violence.”

In the same letter, the employees demanded that the publishing house no longer signs book deals with former members of the Trump administration and stop distributing books for Post Hill Press, an independent publisher that caters to conservative politics and Christian titles. Post Hill is the same publisher that last week decided to publish a book by Jonathan Mattingly, one of the police officers who shot Breonna Taylor last year. That announcement caused outrage, and a petition was launched for that particular book not to be published.

The employees of S&S were not the only ones who wanted Pence’s book deal, and other book deals with Trump officials to be cancelled. More than 600 authors, editors and publishing professionals also wrote a letter to publishing companies demanding this book deal and any future or current book deals with Trump officials be cancelled.

Long before his Vice Presidency, Mike Pence made a career out of discriminating against marginalized groups and denying resources to BIPOC and LGBTQA+ communities. From advocating for legalized discrimination against LGBTQ+ people to eroding the teaching of science in favour of Christian theology in public-funded schools, to ending energy efficiency programs, to pushing for guns to be in schools and cars, to taking away funding for and shutting down clinics treating HIV patients, to promoting conversion therapy, to denying bodily autonomy to pregnant people, to abandoning a nation in crisis as the coronavirus ran rampant and killed more than half a million Americans. Mike Pence has literal and figurative blood on his hands. We demand you cancel Mike Pence’s book deal.

A statement from the workforce of S&S

A spokesperson for Pence declined to comment on the issue.

To Publish Or Not To Publish

Where is the line, and who defines it?      

Pence’s book deal has generated various standpoints, and this debate about what is or what isn’t allowed to be published will go beyond the news cycle.

The decision from S&S shows that they are willing to provide a platform for Pence, even if it means people will turn away from their publishing house. Some could argue that the publisher is only doing this for money, especially when you look at how much the deal is worth. It could also be that maybe the publisher is following its core message of publishing a diversity of voices, which Karp has come out and spoken. But, by publishing the former vice-president’s autobiography a person associated with Trump, it is no surprise that this would cause outrage. All of this outrage was seen by the letters demanding publishers not to sign book deals with Pence and former Trump officials.

However, those who believe in freedom of speech, against de-platforming and cancel culture, would argue that what the employees and those in the industry are doing is entirely out of order. Those defending S&S would suggest why should this publisher cater towards a minority that is trying to force the publisher into their world view, as much as it may be legitimate. Because I disagree with a book being published, does that mean I have the right to force a publisher not to publish that book? Go a step further; what if I wanted to get rid of a religious text because I disagreed with it, I am allowed to do that? All of those who practice a faith of some kind would be up in arms about this. There are varying opinions on what is and what isn’t allowed to be published, and these perspectives are valid.  

Still, if we only had books that we completely agreed with, then we would have absolutely nothing to debate on, nothing to talk about and nothing to challenge.

We would agree all the time, and there wouldn’t be much motivation to progress and go forward as a society.

At the same time, where do you drawn the line?

More importantly, who draws that line when it comes down to deciding what is and what isn’t published.

S&S have taken the standpoint that they will publish Pence’s autobiography book, even if it legitimises bigotry in some people’s eyes.

 

The European Super League – what happens now?

The Facts

On Sunday night, a piece of news broke that had the potential to change the landscape of European football forever.

Led by Real Madrid president Florentino Pérez and backed by investing bank J.P. Morgan, twelve top European clubs (including six Premier League clubs) announced their decision to join a breakaway league called the ‘Super League.’

Dubbed the ‘Dirty Dozen’ by the British media, the English clubs involved in the Super League are Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur.

The other six clubs are three from Spain – Real Madrid, Atletico Madrid and Barcelona – and Italy – AC Milan, Inter Milan and Juventus.

The move has been almost universally condemned by the football world. Fans have protested outside their club’s stadiums with placards. Former Manchester United right-back and Sky Sports pundit Gary Neville said he was ‘disgusted’ by the move.

Such is the backlash to the concept that Prime Minister Boris Johnson himself commented, as well as members of the Royal Family and even former UKIP leader Nigel Farage.

Manchester City boss Pep Guardiola says sport means nothing ‘if success is already guaranteed’. Video credit: Sky Sports Football

The Super League was seen by many as an attempt to Americanise a European sport, on a financial and cultural level.

Due to the format of the tournament, there would be no promotion or relegation for participating clubs, and the twelve founding clubs would never face any consequences for losing, irrespective of performance.

Therefore, many considered this to undermine the game, as the spirit of competition would be drastically reduced. Without the threat of relegation, clubs would have no incentive to improve. Clubs would be essentially franchises; nothing more, nothing less.

The European model is a combination of both financial interests and a meritocratic culture; the amount of money a club earns and the consequences of not gaining enough points correspond to one other. The American model is almost wholly driven by profit.

Put simply, many considered the Super League to be anti-competition, anti-community and anti-meritocratic.

The proposal collapsed after all six English clubs dropped out in the same evening, as well as Atletico Madrid and Inter Milan. At the time of writing, the only three clubs who have not officially dropped out are Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juventus.

Timeline of Events

Sunday, 18th April: News breaks out concerning the announcement of the European Super League. Twelve clubs announced their intention to join the ESL, including Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United.

Monday, 19th April: Following the night before, widespread condemnation across the football world.

UEFA announces potential punishments for clubs and their players who play in the ESL, including being banned from UEFA competitions (mainly the Euros, Champions League and Europa League) and FIFA competitions (mainly the World Cup).

Tuesday, 20th April: English fans take to the streets to protest against the ESL. Chelsea fans lay siege to Stamford Bridge, blocking the road so the Chelsea players could not enter for their game vs Brighton. Former Chelsea goalkeeper Petr Cech pleads with the fans.

Manchester City become the first club to officially announce their withdrawal from the ESL. By the end of the evening, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur all left. Arsenal release an apology on their website.

Arsenal admit their mistake on Twitter.

Wednesday, 21st April: Atletico Madrid, Inter Milan and AC Milan depart from the ESL. Liverpool owner John Henry releases a grovelling apology video to the Liverpool fans. ESL founder and Juventus chairman Andrea Agnelli admits that the ESL ‘can no longer happen’, due to the departure of 9 clubs.

The death of the ESL is confirmed.

Manchester United vice-chairman Ed Woodward resigns.

Thursday 22nd April: The Premier League urges certain figures who also work for one of the would-be breakaway clubs to resign from their positions on the committee board, and considers sanctions for those clubs.

Manchester United fans break into Carrington training ground, and successfully demand to speak with Ole Gunnar Solskaer and Michael Carrick about the ESL.

Friday 23rd April: Real Madrid president and ESL founder Florentino Pérez says that the project ‘is not over’. Arsenal fans demonstrate against Stan Kroenke and the Arsenal hierarchy at the Emirates Stadium on Friday, in an attempt to pressure him to sell the club.

So where do we go from here?

Owners of the six English clubs head back to the Premier League clubs with their tails between their legs (no surprise there) and their seat at the table in review.

With sanctions pending for these clubs, who knows what will happen? Will it be financial, will it be points docking, or will the actual individuals be punished (ie the owners)? One thing’s for sure (at executive level), the relationship between the big six and the rest will never be the same.

If there are three clubs that need this windfall more than anything, it’s the three clubs still yet to announce their withdrawal. Catalan giants Barcelona are nowhere near fit to be challenging for Europe’s premier prize, carrying astronomical debts, still owing clubs like Liverpool and Atletico payments for the purchase of their previously prized assets in Coutinho and Griezmann.

As for Real Madrid president Florentino Perez, he is clearly seeing nothing but green; so the European Super League may not happen, but in his own words, it is now “on standby”. There have since been murmurings of a Mediterranean Super League, bringing together La Liga and Serie A in a hope to keep the momentum alive.

United boss Ole Gunnar Solskjaer says he’s glad the ESL collapsed. Video credit: Sky Sports Football

If there is an ounce of truth in it, this could be the merge of all merges. A league with a roster of historically great clubs including both Madrid sides, Barcelona, Sevilla and Valencia coupled with the two Milan sides, the two Rome sides, Juventus and Napoli.

The cluster of “the best of the rest including Getafe, Atalanta, Villarreal and more, could prove to be the first real competitor to the Premier League’s global appeal.

One thing that he will have to negotiate with now, is where the financing will be sourced from, with the major announcement that J.P. Morgan have withdrawn their funding, a catastrophe for Florentino Perez’s power play.

If his stranglehold on the Real Madrid presidency over the 21st century is anything to go by, just know he’s got something else up his sleeve to rattle Europe that not even his former Super League counterparts will be ready for.

MI5 Joins Instagram To Become More Transparent

0

MI5 is to join Instagram as part of a drive to come out of the shadows and be more transparent, counter misconceptions about its work and reach out to a younger generation. 

In its first outing on the platform, the security service will describe missions from its past, promote career opportunities for operatives of the future, delve into the language of the intelligence world and “bust popular myths” about what it does. 

Material posted will include hitherto undisclosed archive documents from the Service’s basement museum, followed by an online chat, and questions and answers with serving officers about some of its most sensitive jobs like surveillance and agent running. 

Historical exhibits from MI5’s museum, located in the basement of the agency’s London headquarters, will also be shared for the first time.

In October new director general Ken McCallum said that he wanted MI5 to “open up and reach out in new ways”, particularly to communicate with younger audiences.

“Much of what we do needs to remain invisible, but what we are doesn’t have to be,” he said.

“In fact, opening up is key to our future success.”

Writing in The Daily Telegraph on Thursday, he said: “In an increasingly open and connected world, MI5, and any forward-thinking intelligence organisation, faces a dilemma.

“On the one hand, our ability to serve the public and keep the country safe depends critically on operating covertly.

“But the other half of the dilemma is that MI5’s ability to keep the country safe and resilient also depends on our reaching out to others who can help us, and whom we in turn can help.

“We owe it to the public to be constantly striving to learn and improve; and in our fast-moving world, with technology advancing at incredible speed, it would be dangerous vanity to imagine MI5 can build all the capabilities it needs inside its own bubble.”