“Take it on the chin and (…) allow the disease (…) to move through the population” Boris Johnson advised last week, when he was asked how he intends to facilitate public health strategy to tackle the outbreak. How those words must now be ringing in the ears of our Prime Minister after one of his own party members, Health Minister Nadine Dorries, tested positive for Coronavirus yesterday.
Despite urgent concerns regarding the rising seriousness of the outbreak, with the number of cases in the UK rocketing from 54 to 382 yesterday, only now can we expect to see some significant action on the matter. Now that the virus has come to affect those responsible for making these decisions, we can expect parliament to be shut in a matter of days. Meanwhile, only yesterday was deep cleaning of the London Underground initiated – a public transport system which sees 2 million people step onto its platforms and into its carriages every single day.
London Underground; Source: www.standard.co.uk
Whereas countries like Vietnam, who have witnessed no fatalities as of yet, have taken more active measures – suspended flights from 8 European countries, closed all schools and utilised the armed forces in dispatching masks to all homes – the UK have had a more laissez-faire approach. The GOV.UK website recommends ‘isolation of early cases’ in its delay phase guidance, but other than that has made little interventions to delay the spread of the virus. Policies which require little action on behalf of the government and leave the onus on the public to reduce the risk of contamination and protect themselves, are reflective of the type of government we have in power – one that is anti-welfare and harbours a culture of individualism.
Vietnamese residents have been quick to receive free preventative care from their government; Source: Manan VATSYAYANA / Getty Images
We can see that both Trump and Johnson have adopted a similar passivity regarding policy interventions and this is inherently down to their conservative stance. Right-wing governments which strip public healthcare systems of their funding, advocate for privatisation and facilitate the austerity packages lack not only the capacity but the compassion to confront a health epidemic.
One huge oversight in the prescription of self-isolation are those individuals who cannot afford to self-isolate and miss shifts, those balancing working exploitative zero hour contracts and making ends meet and those who depend on food banks, which are now running out of supplies due to unnecessary stockpiling. Those same vulnerable populations who have been most affected by austerity will now be most at risk of contracting the disease. It is a privilege in the current economic climate to be able to afford to take sick leave and by having this as the primary recommendation from government, it means that working class people are forced to choose between risk of ill health or worsened financial instability. The British government’s stance on Coronavirus is another example of how public policy is weaponised to further disregard those who are most vulnerable in society.
UK food bank; Source: International Business Times
Public health is inherently political, especially preventable diseases and how they are allowed to manifest within populations. Only now have the government decided to act on the matter, announcing today that they have taken the action to implement a £30 billion package aimed at dealing with the pandemic. It is unfortunate that it has taken 6 deaths and hundreds of cases; but an MP testing positive was what it took to shake some urgency into the government. How the government deals with this going further will prove a test of morality, and until now they have failed to demonstrate their initiative, as well as their humanity.
Coronavirus, officially known as COVID- 19, has gripped parts of the world in the last two weeks. The UK government has outlined emergency legislation that could come into effect as early as this month. New cases are being reported daily, and whilst it is the media’s job, including us at The Common Sense Network, to inform the public – is it possible for the public to be provided with too much information? How do we uphold our duty of reliability and sensitivity, and avoid scaremongering?
According to stats by Worldometer at 14:30pm on Sunday 8th March, there have been 107,802 cases of COVID- 19 worldwide, with 3,661 deaths so far – which means that 94% have recovered from this virus across the world.
However, COVID- 19 has hit a bit closer to home, with 273 people testing positive in the UK – this is the UK’s biggest jump in cases. Only 2 people have died as a result in the UK, and they both had underlying health conditions. With the death rate being low both nationally and internationally, you may wonder why many shoppers in the UK have gone into panic-buy mode – and whether this frenzy is justified fear or has come as a result of media coverage.
No pasta at Tesco in Horsham yesterday… the hand soap, toilet paper and eggs shelves were the same. Why?! You don’t need 20 bottles of hand soap, leaving others with none, in order to save yourself. Everybody needs hand soap to stop the spread of #coronavirus ??♀️ #panicbuyerspic.twitter.com/NW8rfmOdF4
You only have to search for #panicbuyers on Twitter to see hundreds of accounts, with pictures of empty shelves in supermarket chains such as Tesco.
To all the panic addicts clearing the shelves of soap and sanitiser.
You do realise that in order for you to not catch #cornoravirus everybody needs to be able to use these products? If you #panicbuyers take it all then you increase the chance of transmission. Bloody idiots!
Twitter user tweets opinion on the frenzy of panic buying in the UK
Furthermore, hand sanitiser as well as other related hygiene products, have been listed on sites such as eBay for prices as high as £14.99 for 60ml and key retailers such as Boots have limited hand sanitiser purchasing to two per person. This move seeks to limit the case of consumer stockpiling, in order to allow the product to be distributed to all that need it. The NHS have compiled a list of Do’s and Dont’s – advising people to wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds to “always wash your hands when you get home or into work,” and to “use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available.” This is why it is vital that the public have access to these products.
Purell hand gel. Source: Flickr
Although, there are many different factors that drive most of the UK’s media outlets, such as competition and political agendas, the media works as a service to the public, providing information that is of and in the public interest. It is important that the public are kept up-to-date with news regarding COVID- 19 – especially those who are most at risk like the elderly and those with respiratory and/or immunodeficiency disorders. However, could the constant coverage have pushed the public to where they are now – clearing off supermarket shelves in panic mode?
Nick Ferrari, presenter of Sky’s The Pledge, opened the programme on the 6th March with the following introduction.
He said: “Meanwhile as schools close, airlines cancel flights and collapse, stock exchange around the globe wobble and stores run out of product such as hand gel and face-masks – the media is under attack for running so-called scare stories. Surely it’s our job to tell you what’s going on, or have we unwittingly added to the chaos?”
This is an extremely tough question to answer – it could be argued that the media have little to no control over how an individual or group of people decide to react to information. Fear is a response often seen in crisis – for example, re-visit the panic that ensued the global pandemic of Swine flu. However, the media is one of, if not the most influential powers in the world – although the debate of whether the media truly influences the public or is simply a mirror of society, is age old.
Panelist Greg Dyke said, “I don’t think the media are exaggerating. In my own life, 5 things that I was supposed to be doing in the next 10 days have been cancelled. I do think that there is a degree of panic going on and I’m not sure whether it’s right or wrong.”
Nick Ferrari went on to ask if the markets have been spooked because of the global news coverage.
Panelist Michelle Dewberry responded; “Yes, and when you look at people’s accommodated share prices, you’re seeing loses and declines in many areas so yes of course it’s impacting the market – but to a central point, is the media fuelling this chaos? Absolutely! What’s missing for me is context. So absolutely the media should be reporting and updating us on what’s going on with Corona, but minute by minute, second by second, tallies of who’s contracted the virus?”
Regular updates could result in people fearing a virus that has a very favourable recovery rate – one that has not yet even been declared a pandemic. However, if the media were to hold back or delay certain information, it is highly likely that we would be accused of deception and not carrying out our duties. The Editor’s Code of Practice states that “the public interest includes, but is not confined to protecting public health or safety,” as well as other points.
It is hard to measure whether the public’s response to recent news is indeed justified or not – especially as we are yet to see if and how COVID- 19 will escalate. However, we as journalists must work to report factually and clearly, without the sensationalism that is inherently dangerous in these circumstances.
In honour of International Women’s Day, instead of reminiscing over our collective achievements so far as women, I felt it necessary to reflect on a movement many of us 21st century women spend an excessive amount of time and energy defending and explaining: feminism.
I conducted a poll on my Instagram story asking women what they feel are the most common misconceptions surrounding being a feminist. Out of all the responses, 75 percent listed ‘hating men’ and 50 percent listed ‘wanting more power than men’. Whilst all social movements have their extremes, which can branch off into mutations of the core beliefs and true motivations, my poll results demonstrated perfectly how feminism is one cause which is frequently viewed in terms of extremity. As feminists, we are often regarded as irrational, violent, sad or angry. Sure, we can at times be one – or all – of those things – but that is because we are human, not because we are feminists.
The results from my Instagram poll asking women what the main misconceptions are around being a feminist
The word was first seen defined in the Oxford Dictionary in 1852, reads “Advocacy of equality of the sexes and the establishment of the political, social, and economic rights of the female sex; the movement associated with this”. However, the term has undoubtedly become burdened with stereotypes and misconceptions. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, reknowned Nigerian writer, highlighted in her brilliant essay ‘We Should All Be Feminists’ that the word “feminist is so heavy with baggage, you hate men, you hate bras, you hate African culture, you think women should always be in charge, you don’t wear make-up, you don’t shave, you’re always angry, you don’t have a sense of humour, you don’t use deoderant.” These are just a few of the images which the word ‘feminist’ provokes in the minds of many – especially for men.
More results from my poll
‘White feminism’ and its redundancy
‘White feminism’ has become a mainstream term to describe liberal white women who practice feminism in an exclusionary way – particularly when their actions undermine the lived experiences of black and brown women and trans women. They are feminists who view their cause through a uni-dimensional lens, due to having the privilege which enables them to do so. This overlooks the complex and intersectional nature of forms of oppression, thus ignoring countless lived experiences in the process. As systems such as white supremacy and patriarchy are strongly embedded within societal norms and certain cultures, they intersect to create layered forms of oppression that go beyond one feature of one’s identity.
This is a prime example of one of those branches of a social movement where the fundamental principles of equity and empowerment has been compromised, and the success of the movement, and its reputation, damaged in the process. When a video of a group of women from Russia pouring watered-down bleach on mens’ crotch areas on the subway as some kind of ‘activism’ went viral in 2018, the anti-feminist backlash at these women – and all women – was immense. It was later found out to be a staged video, created with the exact aim of undermining the feminist movement.
Of course, these types of videos gain views and shares in abundance due to their click-bait content triggering armies of trolls, but the day-to-day grassroots level activism that millions of women take part in worldwide can often go unnoticed. It is easier for us to generalise than to understand, as understanding takes active work and interest in the reasons behind a cause. Nevertheless, it is essential for us to demystify the misconceptions surrounding identifying as a feminist and dismantle the taboos that burden being a woman who advocates for gender equality.
Source: www.arosecast.com
What it does mean to be a feminist
In celebration of International Women’s Day I thought I would use this space to spotlight some inspiring women and what it does mean to be a feminist to them.
Instagram @kelechnekoff
“Feminism is just the beginning of the journey to me. The work that women have done before me allows for me to decide on how much I want to show up in the world and I am grateful for that.”
Kelechi Okafor, Podcast Host for Say Your Mind, Pole Fitness Instructor, Writer @kelechnekoff
“Feminism to me is standing strong & proud regardless of anyone’s opinion.”
Rhea Ellen, Youtuber and Content Creator @rhea.ellen
Instagram @mikaelaloach
“Being a feminist to me means disrupting patriarchy, white supremacy and all oppressive forces, in all their forms through the way I chose to live. Choosing to empower those of all genders.”
Mikaela Loach, Climate Activist and Ethical Fashion Influencer @mikaelaloach
“Being a feminist is about equality for all. It’s about being aware of the injustices faced by the most vulnerable in our society. Feminism has taught me that through understanding my own rights and experiences in this world, I’m able to fight for the rights of others.”
Diyora Shadijanova, Podcast Host for Your Broccoli Weekly and Journalist @thediyora
It means leading a life of resistance to injustice and inequality and taking on the challenge of unearthing the complex and nuanced intersections between race, class, gender, sexuality, nationality and ability. These connections are not always obvious but social justice feminism requires us to construct a feminist imaginary, theory and practise that is dedicated to dismantling not just shifting power hierarchies. To do so we must engage in uncomfortable conversations which bring to bare the complex relationships between different identities, beliefs, and positionalities. In the last few years I have come to realise on a much deeper level the impact of structural but also everyday violence on marginalised groups and women of colour in particular. These realisations have impacted my practise. So while my feminism is dedicated to radical political change it is also rooted in a politics of empathy, kindness and gratitude to others who are struggling towards similar goals and fighting the same obstacles and the same violence though that may look different depending on space and place.
Dr. Althea-Maria Rivas, Lecturer at SOAS University of London
Instagram: @mukundwa_
“Intersectional feminism is a fantastic framework that provides the tools and lenses through which to consider equity and autonomy. It’s a starting point and not the end goal, because as with any movement, it has its limits and its scholastic nuance cannot stretch beyond our practical lived experiences. Perhaps the measure for successful feminism is eventually outgrowing the label entirely in the direction of compassion and self-determination.”
Mukundwa, Podcast Host for I Said What I Said and Content Creator @mukundwa_
Instagram @sholamos1
“Feminism is the freedom for all women to be who and everything they potentially can be.”
Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, Lawyer and Political Women’s Rights Activist @sholamos1
“Feminism to me surrounds the rights of all women, especially trans women, black women, brown women and disabled women. For me I see it as quite a different movement to the earlier years of feminism, where dismantling barriers for all women has become important, not just one specific group. I also see inclusivity as a large overlap of feminism however, not just at surface value, but with women integrated within establishments and moving away from tokenism.”
Alice T, Content Creator and Biomedical Science Graduate @alxcext
“For me to be a true feminist is to be 100% unapologetic in initiating dialogue surrounding the issues and achievements of women.”
Amelia Mya, Podcast Host for VICE UK, President of Woke Surrey and Blogger @ameliamya_
“Starting my journey as a mother at the young age of 16, I was always told ‘your too young’ and was ‘bound to fail’… comments like this made me so determined to prove everyone wrong. Life didn’t deal me the easiest of paths and when I became a single mother with 3 young children, I was determined as a ‘woman’ and a ‘single mum’ to do everything I could to better life for me and my children. I studied hard and qualified as a social worker with a first class honours degree in 2016, I now work hard to provide a happy and stable life for my family and I did this all on my own! I despise the stigma around single and young mothers – the sleepless nights and hours of studying were certainly not easy but it was definitely worth it! I want women all around the world to believe that we are strong independent humans and if we stay focused and determined we can achieve anything we want! Strong independent women… may we know them, may we be them, may we raise them.”
Stacey Claire, Social Worker and Mum of 3
And last of all, the woman who brought me into the world and continues to inspire me daily, my mum.
“Equal rights for women in terms of their civil rights; societal, economic, educational, moral, and ethical rights. Their place in society, their value and contribution being valued and rewarded, women being able to access education, work, have all the freedoms and privileges male population have. When I was 7-8 I told my dad I wanted to earn money (and) be a trader like him so he bought me a box of lemons and I sold them on my own at my village market. I was determined to stay in education, I was determined to wear trousers and not skirts I was determined not to do cross-stitch but read instead.”
I am aware there are countless women who won’t be heard today due to not having the access to fundamental human rights, let alone such platforms, particularly poor women from the Global South. We must recognise that today is a day for all women and demand that these women are heard and acknowledged. Feminism means caring about all women, not just those around you.
I am a Feminist; Source: www.calmmoment.com
Be proud to wear the label
In a society where systems of oppression are further consolidated by unequal power dynamics that have been in place for centuries, allyship is key for social movements to induce transformative change. On my Instagram, I also asked men what they think about feminism. Despite having over 2,000 followers, only 4 men replied to my poll. I found this very telling of the nature of today’s society; more often than not people are significantly less active in supporting causes that they perceive as not directly affecting them, and this is especially worse if they have misconceptions about the aims of a movement. Patriarchy systematically shames those of us who engage in feminism in order to maintain the status quo. We must form allies, but in order to do so, everybody who believes in equality for women must make efforts to demystify the moral baggage around being a feminist and wear the label proudly, whatever gender they may be.
Everybody around the world knows about Russia’s history of meddling in the 2016 US elections, so it doesn’t come as much of a shock that they would try it again in the 2020 elections. Of course, Russia favors pro-Russian candidates, and it was clear early on that then Presidential Candidate Trump was forming a relationship with Russia when he mentioned Russia in numerous rallies. Trump essentially beckoned Russia to interfere with the US election by poaching them to investigate Hilary Clinton’s emails. In addition to helping Trump in the election, Russia undermined and fragmented faith in the US election process. More importantly, Russia will do the same thing in the 2020 election, but the US hasn’t seemed to put tactics in place to fight against the interference and sadly, the President sees it as a joke.
The 2016 Interference
Politcal comic by Dave Granlund
Throughout the course of the 2016 election, a large group of Russians hacked into state voter databases; probed Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic National Committee; released politically damaging information on the internet; spread propaganda on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram; set up meetings with members of the Trump campaign and its associates; and created business proposals in Moscow to the Trump Organization. Russia did all of this to not only help give Trump an edge during the 2016 campaign season and damage the Clinton campaign, but to invoke distrust in the legitimacy of American democracy. Russia’s interference became so suspicious that it ultimately led to the infamous Mueller investigation after Trump was elected.
By now it is no surprise that Russia favors President Trump and hopes that he is re-elected in November 2020. In a briefing last month, lawmakers were warned that Russia are helping re-elect Trump in 2020. While U.S. intelligence officials have told lawmakers and the Trump administration that Russia continues to Interfere with US elections, there has been a new astonishing revelation that Russia intends to interfere with the 2020 Democratic primaries, as well as the general election. One of the ways Russia intends to meddle is by aiding Bernie Sanders’ campaign.
Russian state sponsored messaging has spoken about the Sanders’ campaign over the past six weeks. Their coverage has started to mirror pro-Sanders talking points first used in his 2016 presidential campaign. While it is unclear the amount of help Russia is giving the Sanders’ campaign, there is definite aid towards his him. Sanders’ has stated in various interviews that he does not want Russian involvement in his campaign, and vowed to do something about foreign election tampering when he is office. However, this aid has the aim of ensuring that Sanders is the Democratic nominee, as Sanders is regarded as the least concerning competition for Trump. National security officials recently warned that social media agitation and false information has already been spreading throughout the presidential race.
President Trump; Source: amac.us
The Response to The Interference
While it is a known fact that Russia continues to interfere with American elections, American politicians have done nothing to counteract the foreign involvement. To go further, President Trump has made a mockery of the interference and has not done anything to prevent the attacks. When information surfaced that Russia were interfering with the 2020 election, he immediately became upset and berated the then acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, over the conclusions from intelligence briefings. Although the facts regarding Russia’s involvement so far have been presented to Trump, he disregards it as Democratic propaganda. There has been blatant disregard to the concern over foreign interference in US elections and it doesn’t seem like a solution in sight.
Democracy; Source: speed-new.com
Why Does it Matter ?
Free and fair elections are the epitome of the US’ moral compass; they pride themselves on the “trusted” Democratic process elections hold. Russian interference in the American elections has exposed how defenseless America is against cyber-security threats. Additionally, it doesn’t begin to acknowledge how badly Putin has wounded the American system. More importantly, foreign tampering sends a message to other foreign entities that America is uninterested in stopping the interference, and its passivity is in fact welcoming the interference.
Russia meddling in the election helped dismantle American Democracy and create a divide within the country. Over 41% of Americans do not believe the US is ready for another election and does not have trust in the election process. Americans do not seem to trust the process and while it may take significant strides to regain that trust, lawmakers must start to rebuild the election process. The rebuilding process probably won’t happen until the next administration enters the White House, considering the current administration has shown little interest in reversing the damage caused by Russia’s meddling. However, it is a task that needs to happen if trust is to ever be restored from the information bomb that exploded on American democracy.
Civil servants are essential to how the UK government system works – both locally and nationally. However, with a potential lawsuit on the cards, and accusations of bullying, we explore how this could affect the special relationship that the civil service has with the government.
The British government has received quite the shaking after Sir Philip Rutnam, now former senior civil servant, resigned from his position in Home Secretary Priti Patel’s department. He was the most senior civil servant within the department, and he resigned after accusing Priti Patel of bullying.
Philip Rutnam has expressed his wishes to pursue legal action for constructive dismissal, Source: flipboard.comhttps://flipboard.com/
As the Guardian reported, one of his accusations was about the Home Secretary allegedly “shouting and swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands – behaviour that created fear and that needed some bravery to call out.” Sir Philip Rutnam has said that he intends to take legal action against the Home Office, accusing them of constructive dismissal – this is when an employee resigns due to the employer allegedly creating a hostile working environment.
In even more recent news, BBC journalists have revealed that whilst Priti Patel worked as a minister at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), she was accused of bullying by a former aide. This aide, who is also a woman, received a £25,000 payout from the government – the DWP did not admit liability and the case did not come before a tribunal.
BBC journalists also revealed that they have seen legal correspondence that contains details of an alleged incident that happened in October 2015 – “on that day in October 2015, Ms Patel had shouted at the woman in her private office and told her to ‘get lost’ and ‘get out of her face’ “. The aide was dismissed from the department in October 2015, and the legal correspondence also alleges that she took an overdose of prescription medication in the office and “lay with her head on the desk for some time.” The £25,0000 settlement was reached in 2017 after the aide threatened to bring a “legal claim of bullying, harassment and discrimination on the grounds of race and disability against the department, including Ms Patel who is directly named.” However, the aide had also allegedly experienced work place bullying before in 2014, before Priti Patel was a minister.
These are incredibly serious allegations. I welcome the announcement that the Cabinet Secretary will be holding an inquiry into the Home Secretary’s conduct. However, we need assurances that this inquiry will cover Priti Patel’s entire career as a minister. https://t.co/yHiiRjcE8o
Labour leadership contender Keir Starmer tweets about the allegations against Priti Patel
The historical allegations are just as important because, if they are indeed accurate, they not only reveal a pattern of bullying within senior government departments, but more importantly allegedly carried out by those in some of the most senior roles. If the allegations prove to be true, then it also points to a lack of accountability and it is problematic when those in power are not held accountable for their actions.
In recent years, UK charities and activists have persistently campaigned against bullying – online and in person – the UK’s annual anti-bullying week and the more recent #bekind campaign, inspired by former Love Island presenter Caroline Flack’s suicide, demonstrate the national commitment to stopping unfair treatment.
Legal correspondence alleges an official told the female staff member Ms Patel wanted to remove her because she "doesn't like your face". MPs were told Priti Patel rejects all bullying allegations against her & has the PM's full support. Cabinet Secretary will investigate.
BBC Journalist Danny Shaw tweeted about the current events
However, it is important to remember that these are allegations and not proven facts – an inquiry is to be held into these accusations and we will have a more definite picture after this is completed. Prime Minister Boris Johnson continues to support his Home Secretary, calling her a ” fantastic Home Secretary”.
Regardless of the outcome of this inquiry, this could have a profound effect on the relationship between those in the civil service and ministers in the government.
The Government’s Civil Service code lays out their 4 core values: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. They state: ‘integrity’ is “putting the obligations of public service above your own personal interests”, ‘honesty’ is “being truthful and open”, ‘objectivity’ is “basing your advice and decisions on rigorous analysis of the evidence” and ‘impartiality’ is “acting solely according to the merits of the case and serving equally well governments of different political persuasions.”
Civil service workers are required to be able to serve regardless of the ruling political party – they aide the local governments and the national government in all that they do – they impartially implement the ruling government’s policies and laws, working in sectors such as health, education, work and pensions.
The “Political Impartiality” section of the code further demonstrates this, as it says that a civil service worker must “serve the government, whatever its political persuasion to the best of your ability in a way which maintains political impartiality and is in line with the requirements of this code, no matter what your own political beliefs are,” and “act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of ministers”, as well as other requirements.
However, with recent events, could it be that a culture of silence, gagging, fear and bullying is developing, or indeed, has already developed? How can a civil service worker find the balance between “serving impartially” and being able to have a voice – outside of the influence of politics – when they need it the most?
When it comes to a civil service worker having a concern over the “actions of others which you believe conflict with this code” the government suggest that they report this to their “line manager or someone else in your line management chain; alternatively you may wish to seek advice from your nominated officer.” It goes on to advise that “if you have raised a matter in accordance with the relevant procedures, and do not receive what you consider to be a reasonable response, you may report the matter to the Civil Service Commission.” Finally, it states “if the matter cannot be resolved using the procedures set out above, and you feel you cannot carry out the instructions you have been given, you will have to resign from the Civil Service.”
Civil service workers aide the local governments and the national government in all that they do – they impartially implement the ruling government’s policies and laws, working in a diverse range of sectors. There could be many more stories of alleged hostile work environments, but the governmental code of conduct for civil workers both restricts them as individuals with subjective needs, whilst reinforcing the uniform objectivity needed to carry out their work.
The public and key figures have expressed varying opinions on the recent events involving Home Secretary Priti Patel.
This account suggests that this aide was seriously mentally unstable and had experienced workplace bullying before she even met Priti Patel. All very sad for the woman concerned but #strawsbeingclutchedhttps://t.co/wl9VUrXj8z
talkRADIO presenter Julia Hartley-Brewer gives her opinion
More reports suggest that allegations about Priti Patel's misconduct are not a one-off. If they are true, she must be sacked. This is no way to run one of the UK's most important government departments.https://t.co/8dcjwrDcUo
Labour MP David Lammy calls for Priti Patel to be sacked if the allegations are true
Ultimately, like Sir Philip Rutnam, situations like these could end in resignation – but Rutnam seems to be seeking retribution. It may be in the government’s best interests to think about the vital relationships that ministers have with their civil service workers – and whether the latest accusations of bullying put these relationships in jeopardy.
Following an ongoing social media witch-hunt, 40-year-old TV presenter Caroline Flack was found dead in her North London flat on the 15th of February a few weeks before her trial. The prominent TV hostess, who was renowned mainly for her role in presenting Love Island, X-Factor and I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here, committed suicide by hanging, as found at an inquest in London. Her death has fuelled outrage and raised questions regarding what ultimately compelled her to take her own life.
Gaining insight into the lack of mental health support available for people in the limelight, the mainstream media and the increasing prevalence of cancelled culture can strengthen our understanding of Flack’s final fleeting thoughts and the cultural outlook we as a nation have developed towards celebrities and public figures.
An Imperfect Victim
Prior to her death, Flack had been subject to intense scrutiny by the tabloids and the general public following her arrest on Thursday 12th December where she was subsequently charged for domestic assault.
After the incident, Flack was at the receiving end of a cascade of intense criticism from fans and the general public who, after her arrest, reviled the TV star publically on her social media channels. With a recently disclosed history of domestic abuse (as revealed by her ex-fiance), many were beginning to doubt Flack’s credibility as an individual and her professional suitability for the role of Love Island presenter. This led her to eventually step down from the role.
The conversation, therefore, follows on from here – did Flack’s own flawed decisions warrant this influx of abuse? Was the online hate the overarching cause of her death or was it a potential history of mental illness? What can be gathered from this discussion is that a complicated personal background should not detract from the tragedy of an individual’s passing. Yet despite this, as human beings, we inevitably judge others based on their actions and evaluate our own character through judging our intentions. This mentality has ultimately lead to increasingly untenable and critical reactions to celebrities and influencers.
A ‘far from perfect victim’ can be considered a victim nonetheless. The barrage of scrutiny and hateful comments – compounded by an anxiety-ridden waiting period from the delay in her arrest and potential conviction – could evidently be seen to contribute to Flack’s fragile mental state – as confirmed by her family and close friends.
Measures to reduce the stress imposed on defendants through shortening waiting periods between trials has been considered by the CPS as the implications of Flack’s death have accelerated reform regarding how defendants with underlying mental health issues are dealt with. It can, therefore, be seen, that Flack’s deplorable and somewhat volatile personal background was used as a springboard for many to initiate a campaign of online bullying that further deepened pre-existing mental strains which have been speculated to have eventually led to her death.
The Question of Cancelled Culture
Alongside her personal situation, the tabloids and social media can be perused in their role in causing Flack’s death. As a result of being a household name, Flack’s dominant online presence was indisputable.
The digital age in which we are living has made disseminating opinions, facts, lies and stories easier and more accessible. The prevailing trend of cancelled culture has added further legitimacy to this new phenomenon – as ordinary social media users take it upon themselves to condemn the actions of public figures. This has revamped the scope of mob mentality in the current era and has somewhat increased its detrimental impact. Cancelled culture in action can be seen today mainly online, affecting not only legitimate TV stars such as Caroline Flack but also other influencers who have grown to become prominent in their respective industries and communities such as James Charles. As a result of a torrent of abuse on social media following a scandal for which he was ‘cancelled’ by the online community, the social media make-up artist subsequently alluded to his fragile mental state and suicidal thoughts.
Furthermore, irresponsible reporting used by more traditional media outlets such as tabloids have also contributed to mob mentality by circulating inflammatory headlines and somewhat advocating hateful abuse for profit. Both these components can be seen to have further intensified the general sentiment regarding Flack around the time preceding her trial.
Cancelling Love Island: an Obsolete Solution?
The final leg of the debate instigated by Caroline Flack’s death revolves around the future of Love Island. With a controversial history of exacerbating the mental health of its participants, Flack is the third individual associated with the show to have taken her own life. This has called into question how suitable the programme is from not only a viewing standpoint but also from the perspective of the participants.
After the cancellation of The Jeremy Kyle Show in 2019 following the suicide of Steve Dymond after a failed lie – detector test, action to match such drastic measures with Love Island have been called for. Since this hasn’t yet materialised it can be argued that there is a conflict of interest when considering the cancellation of the show as it has procured a steady fanbase over the years and a substantial viewership. However, the question still remains: to what extent did the inherently toxic message projected in Love Island attribute to Flack’s death?
From a surface view of the facts and an understanding of the general context of Flack’s personal situation – Love Island’s controversial reputation doesn’t correlate with her passing. Despite this, the underlying detrimental effect it seems to have had on the mental health of its participants aligns with the overriding themes in Flack’s personal narrative.
Questions over how to safeguard mental health, improve social relations and potentially advocate for a more regulated digital environment are all therefore important considerations and conversations to be had in the wake of this tragedy.
Meghan and Harry are stepping down as senior members of the Royal Family on March 31 2020, in favour of a private and financially independent life. Their plan to create a new life in North America has been an area of thorough commentary in global media, and in the latest development, the couple are to stop using the word “Royal” in their branding. With the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’ new way of life already coming under attack, will the couple’s brand survive?
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will stop using the word “Royal” in their branding from Spring 2020, including changing their previous plans to name their non-profit organisation the Sussex Royal Foundation.
The Duke of Sussex speaking at a summit he co-hosted with Travalyst : Source: @sussexroyal Instagram
A spokeswoman for the couple reportedly said: “While the Duke and Duchess are focused on plans to establish their new non-profit organisation, given the specific UK government rules surrounding use of the word Royal, it has been therefore agreed that their non-profit organisation, when it is announced this Spring, will not be named Sussex Royal Foundation.”
“Therefore, the trademark applications that were filed as protective measures, acting on advice from and following the same model for The Royal Foundation, have been removed.”
Just Royal popularity?
The loss of this trademark will surely hit a sore spot for the couple as their existing reputation and following is tied heavily to their Royal status, as demonstrated by as their Instagram page “@sussexroyal”, which has a commendable 11.2 million followers.
The Royal couple’s official website ‘sussexroyal.com’ was registered in March 2019 and the site has been used to relay information from the couple to the public throughout this transition period. With regards to the latest update, the site states that “while there is not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’ or any iteration of the word ‘Royal’ in any territory (either within the UK or otherwise) when the transition occurs Spring 2020.” It will be interesting to see whether their following sustains itself with the work they go on to do, or whether their exit will impact their popularity.
Britain’s Prince Harry and his fiancee Meghan Markle pose for photographers during a photocall in the grounds of Kensington Palace in London, Monday Nov. 27, 2017. Source: Matt Dunham
But what about public opinion?
A few people have displayed their dislike of Meghan and Harry’s actions – Meghan’s father Thomas Markle being one of them.
According to the Evening Standard, he recently was filmed commenting on the current saga. He reportedly said: “I’m very upset with Meghan and Harry right now. I don’t think they have the right to use the word Royal. I don’t think they have a right to speak to the Queen in the way they have spoken to her – I think it is an insult to the Queen and to the British public.”
It is important to bare in mind that tensions are bound to be high due to the steps that the Duke and Duchess have taken. It is understandable that Meghan and Harry would want to defend themselves – after all, Meghan herself has faced incredibly harsh headlines and racism, sexism and misogyny, depending on who you are talking to. Their struggle started with Harry expressing his agony at Meghan’s treatment by the press.
Anonymous abuse and unapologetic insults.
Huffington Post journalists Nadine White and Neil Macfarlane have explored the alleged abuse that Meghan has received on social media since making the announcement. Digital journalism analysts revealed that “400 tweets were captured in the the most severe category of abuse, containing sexist and racist insults.” Phrases included “self-loathing race traitor”, “trailer trash”, “Meghan the queen, of monkey island”, “the woke Meghan bint” and “poisonous cow”. You can read this here.
FYI Piers #HarryandMeghan don't need 'Royal' to be successful. They can brand it with their names & be a success!
#megxit The recent Sussex "Royal" announcement reminds me of this quote: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and to remove all doubt" (attributed variously to Mark Twain and Lincoln)
This whole Harry/travel/environment thing is really quite simple. If public figures want to preach to the public about stuff, they have to practise what they preach. Otherwise, pipe down. This is not me being 'mean' or 'unkind', it's just a self-evident truth.
Public opinion may be divided, but it is clear that in order to forge their new desired life the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will have to recreate themselves – and apart from the Royal Family. Their official Royal exit is looming and both the world and the rest of the Royal Family will have to adjust – as Meghan and Harry do what has never been done before.
Take a good look around Britain’s workforce, and one thing becomes uncomfortably apparent: workers of black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds are not thriving as well as one may expect. It’s the 21st century after all. ‘After all’- a phrase which itself is usually used to despair at the failure to reach an expected level of progression. The truth is that 2019 was simply the latest in a series of racially volatile years in the UK – and while UK workplaces are certainly more pacified than the streets, the image there is no less bleak.
BAME workers in the UK are battling against the tide when it comes to job applications, settling into a new workplace, and going for promotions. Just 6% of the working BAME population in the UK – itself thought to comprise 14% of the British workforce who are in managerial positions. That’s 0.75% of everyone working in the country. Further statistics show that at the time of writing, only 36 of the most powerful positions in the UK are held by a BAME person. A failure to see career success amongst people that look like you can have a hugely detrimental effect on levels of self-belief. For BAME millennials who are starting out in their careers, it is hugely important to have both role models to aspire towards and mentors to be guided by.
The underlying cause for this underrepresentation and underachievement of BAME workers is not necessarily nefarious. In many cases, it is both deep-rooted and passive, characteristics that make it challenging to tackle. You may have been asked by an employer to attend an ‘unconscious bias’ workshop; ‘unconscious bias’ is the unwitting preference towards people that one feels will be similar to them.
‘UK Office’: Source: Drew Beamer, Unsplash
A real-world example would be a white British manager hiring or promoting a white British candidate from a pool of equally qualified but ethnically diverse candidates, simply because they would be considered a better fit- or, more bluntly, someone in the manager’s own image, in terms of culture, ethnicity, or faith. Rinse and repeat this method of employment, and you end up with workplaces that suppress BAME numbers and prospects.
Personally, I can think of one example where a friend with a traditional Muslim name felt it necessary to change his first name to a ‘more Western’ one, and to adopt his European wife’s surname to improve his chances of employment in a highly skilled sector. It’s a sad state of affairs- especially since his strategy paid off.
Unconscious bias, though, is just one branch of the difficulty tree; and it doesn’t account for the sheer range of other difficulties that BAME workers have to face. These can be as severe as unequal pay in comparison to white peers, or outright racial harassment. The fact that workplaces are asking their staff to attend unconscious bias workshops is certainly a step forward. But the path ahead is still immensely challenging.
A popular solution to the problem of mono-ethnic workplaces- one also championed in a review by Baroness Ruby McGregor-Smith- is the idea of BAME role models. Naturally, a young worker of any ethnicity will be emboldened by witnessing the success of someone with a similar background.
The idea is that seeing BAME staff in positions of real influence offers hope that opportunities are not only there for everyone, but are not intangible goals. Meanwhile’ similar staff in managerial positions at the next level up offer more short-term encouragement. This further branches off into the notion of mentoring, a scheme offered by several forward-thinking companies, such as Google, Virgin Money, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and Sainsbury’s; where a BAME individual in power invests their time in a younger candidate, offering support in making their way to the top.
However when approached for this article, a BAME manager was not enamoured by the prospect of being seen through this prism. “Surely I’m more than just that, though,” this manager stated. “I understand the role I can play here, but I don’t want to be seen as just BAME, and BAME workers should not need this additional support from trailblazers in order to succeed.”
It’s a valid point; workplaces may offer a hand to help climb the ladder, but it just serves to prove that the ladder is difficult for BAME individuals. Further to that, any of those that do make it to the top may now be additionally required to forge a path for those behind.
The goal is to create opportunities for BAME workers without ethnicity becoming a defining feature. Positive discrimination, though positive, still defines an individual by their background; a job opportunity afforded through a BAME-specific scheme may be seen as a token gesture.
‘Workplace’: Source: Pixabay
To start with, visibility of successful BAME individuals is a must, and those in powerful positions that wish to proactively help the next generation should be able to do so without feeling it a requirement. If a BAME manager feels that their junior colleagues won’t succeed without their additional assistance, then there’s a problem. People of all backgrounds, be they BAME, European or from outside the EU, must be given an equal chance to flourish in employment.
When it’s not necessary for a young Asian to see an older Asian in a position of power to feel they have to succeed; when an African manager does not feel obliged to take part in mentoring schemes to make sure an African intern can progress; and when managers and employers do not consider it important to have a team that shares the same background as them- only then will the UK experience legitimate diversity and fairness in its workforce.
The Gypsy and Roma communities have long been a community historically under-represented and marginalised by governments and the political process, due to their cultural practices and nomadic lifestyles. Nomadic people are communities who live highly mobile lifestyles moving from place to place, rather than settling permanently. Modernisation and the commodification of labour has witnessed this lifestyle compromised and deemed ‘abnormal’ or ‘backwards’ and has put pressure on these communities to assimilate totally or be abandoned.
The rise of xenophobia and right-wing politics in Europe has had a detrimental impact on all ethnic minorities, experiencing rising rates of hate crime, workplace discrimination and structural racism and has exemplified this issue for Gypsy and Roma communities. In 2010, French President Nicolas Sarkozy expelled Roma communities from France and in the same year in Turkey, Çingene (gypsy) communities were finally recognised as a group officially deserving of rights and political status despite being a part of society since the 9th century. The oppression and silencing that these communities experience, as well as their lack of political, cultural and social status, undermine their fundamental human rights and their ability to realise a decent quality of life.
Caption for the photos: Syrian Dom children photographed in the South of Turkey, a community who are of Romany descent (Selin Ayaes/ http://www.ka.org.tr)
One particular area of concern for these people is access and integration into education for their children. I spoke to Education Advocate for Roma and Gypsy communities and mum Kerry Brennan to find out more about the painful neglect that these communities face. She told me:
‘I’ve come to realise the horrific trauma behind a lack of educational achievement. How can we learn with our culture being attacked from every angle?’
‘We are given small local authority support so they can fill tick boxes to say they have tried to engage with us and it hasn’t worked and that’s why they pull funding. The government have stopped legal aid for us so we can’t fight back because we can’t afford legal representation (…) We have no rights’
Why Are So Many Gypsies Killing Themselves? – VICE
In 2017 and 2018, Gypsy and Roma and Travellers of Irish heritage experienced the highest school exclusion rates in the UK – both permanent and temporary. It is no coincidence that black children also witness extremely high rates of school exclusions, and they too face systematic racism and normalised discrimination in the UK. The education system is just another sphere where the structural inequalities existing within society are reproduced. Since 2010, there has been rising pressure on social services to provide, with diminishing resources as a result of cuts to funding by Conservative governments. The disparities in exclusion rates and the varying attainment rates of children from different backgrounds demonstrate a culture that attempts to homogenise over integrate and a system where local councils are being forced to meet ever-tightening budgets and are resorting to neglecting communities’ needs.
NEARLY 80% OF TRAVELLERS EXPERIENCED DISCRIMINATION IN PAST 12 MONTHS www.southeastradio.ie
Recently, devastating figures found that since 2009 the number of children being taken into care from Gypsy and Roma communities has risen by 933%, whilst the number for children in the UK overall was an average of 19%. This amplifies concern for how existing decision-making processes witness the marginalisation of people from different backgrounds. There is an immense need for a system which does not prescribe ‘one size fits all’ policies, but adjusts to recognise and prioritise differences in values and needs.
The Gypsy and Roma communities’ nomadic lifestyle sets them apart as a community with diverse social norms, but fundamentally their needs to have a decent quality of life remain the same – decent housing, access to education and employment, and acceptance in society.
Chief political aide Dominic Cummings and PM Boris Johnson clashed this week over scrapping the obligatory license model for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Johnson believes it needs a “good pruning back” while Cummings is after doing away with it altogether and forcing it to stand on its own under a “subscription model”.
Similar calls have been made by Sweden’s conservative moderate party against Sweden’s public broadcasters because of waste, unaccountability and left-wing bias. Matilda Ekblad, Östergötland representative complained, “I don’t want to pay for overweight dogs or how priests find love.”
What is the BBC?
The BBC is a publicly financed broadcasting system in Great Britain, operating under royal charter guaranteed until 2027. It once held a monopoly on television in Great Britain from its introduction until 1954 and on radio until 1972. It is largely financed via annual television licensing fees. These are paid by those who watch or stream live TV.
It offers five radio networks in Britain, ranging from popular music to news and information services, as well as national television channels.
Under its charter, the BBC may not advertise or broadcast sponsored programs. It is required to refrain from broadcasting any opinion of its own on current affairs and matters of public policy and to be impartial in its treatment of controversy.
Why do we need the license fee?
BBC’s TV broadcasting sector employs 25,000 people, with a further 50,000 in the wider TV production sector alone. This doesn’t include the 5 radio channels and online media.
Globally, the BBC is seen as a beacon of British values, with a unique ability to showcase those to the world. It is one of the most recognised and trusted brands, reaching over 400 million people around the world every week. There is value to providing British cultural content that wouldn’t be provided by the market. As a foreign policy tool, it exports both entertainment and news services.
Its content has shaped British and world culture for nearly 100 years. It exists in a world of ever-faster technological, social and economic change. But it serves unique audiences to inform, educate and entertain that would not be provided under free-market competition.
Pay TV subscribers, infinite choice at their fingertips // Tivo
At home, the BBC can take risks that may not be possible for other, more commercial broadcasters. This enables it to produce programmes that commercial channels cannot afford to make. Either because of the upfront cost, or the niche nature of the audience generating too little in advertising revenue. In doing so, it can support the commercial sector with a pipeline of new talent and creativity and open our eyes to issues and experiences we may not otherwise see.
It is worth recognising that in 2018, the BBC still spent over four times as much on original UK programming as Netflix, Amazon Prime and all the other subscription streaming services put together. Blue Planet, Sherlock Holmes, Line of Duty, Peaky Blinders, Silent Witness, Luther, Ashes to Ashes to name but a few.
The impartiality prevents private interest influence via advertising or ownership by global media conglomerates. It needs funding, and the tv licence has been that means of keeping the lights on.
Consider the alternatives
A subscription to Sky channels is far more expensive. Their most basic bundle comes to £22 monthly with the most comprehensive over £100, against the annual licence fee £154.50. While they offer more variety, it opens the door to the exclusion of viewers who cannot afford such premiums. When you have the Murdoch’s buying Formula 1, football and cricket rights and forcing customers to pay for access on different channels – one for weekdays, another for weekends, it really starts stacking up. Cricket test matches are multi-day affairs, forcing customers to cough up or go without.
A ‘soft’ repeal of license fees could merge the Netflix, Disney+, Sky subscriptions with a new levy when people buy any package in the UK (Amazon to Formula 1) so people would pay by default. This would prevent advertisements but would also include stripping back the BBC to focus on remaining the respected, go-to source of factual news reporting and quality documentaries globally as its principal raison d’etre.
Sweden’s Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson on their new tax measures, including flat levy on over 18’s for state broadcasting // STV
For its quality reporting and diligent fact-checking, the BBC deserves a degree of special treatment. One only needs to spend a few days in the United States to see the watermark for where we would end up if we pander to outside financing and advertising agencies. What will it be: Fox News or CNN?
Why do some people want to scrap the license fee?
Most people in the UK are quite happy to have advertising-free television broadcast on the BBC. For those who live outside large cities like London and Manchester, they feel it has a metropolitan liberal bias that doesn’t align with their views or only delivers watered down comedy that wont trigger anyone.
No longer 1954 one channel monopoly // Freesat
Question Time and the Today Programme have descended into being confrontational rather than informative. The BBC website courts low standards of journalism. If people are forced to pay for something, they want the service delivered to be first-rate, especially with the heritage of an institution like the BBC.
When 13.3 million UK households in 2019 were now subscribed to some popular TV streaming platform, a growth of 19% on 2018 according to Ofcom report, it isn’t surprising many people feel they are double paying. When you buy a TV, it comes with subscription packages in which the BBC channels are few among many. This can lead to viewers feeling they are paying two subscriptions, one compulsory, the other voluntary.
The TV licence is marred by a bad rap. Enforcement officers regularly check-up on households and issue threatening letters, and up to £1000 fines under civil offences.
If people do watch live-streamed television, even via other providers, this may be using the BBC infrastructure. The transmitters used and maintained by the BBC are also used by other broadcasters. That’s why paying for watching television makes a lot of sense. Just like any other service, you pay if you want to use it. Otherwise, with too many free riders, the model breaks down and so too does the quality of service.
Bringing the BBC into 21ST Century
There needs to be a better way of funding in a world of Netflix with multitudes of channels that were not available last century. Britain only had two channels in 1960, BBC and ITV. BBC 2 arrived in 1964.
As with many other things that are disposed of by reactionary minorities, the BBC’s loss would be an irreversible catastrophe for British standards of television broadcasting. Who makes the best drama series, finest documentaries and most neutral news reports? The BBC. Wildlife programmes? Attenborough wasn’t commissioned by any US station to make his ground-breaking Life On Earth series in 1979, and the other subsequent series, each better than its predecessor. The standard he set is being followed by a newer generation of brilliant talent working for the BBC, all paid for by the TV licence fee. The licence fee is a modest cost to pay for all the above. Could it be managed better? Undoubtedly. Could it be funded differently or reformed? Likely. Should the license fee remain, concessions toward greater transparency and accountability to payers must be at the heart of the BBC’s funding model? The fee has been rising as the number of cancellations increases. There will come a tipping point when rising premiums mean the payers are insufficient to finance the wide array of media.
Is a subscription-based model the answer?
The government’s own report into the license fee shows moving to a subscription-based service would cull a lot of BBC services. Many of these are cherished by their audiences. Concerns abound that such a move would drastically reduce the quality of services that remain.
It becomes hard to justify the fee when BBC is not the only broadcaster anymore. With only ITV, it was tolerable. But today, with more broadcasters than you can shake a stick at, it is insupportable. Not only that, but with the ability to watch television online, it is also unenforceable. The TV licence is living on borrowed time.
Comparison European nations TV License fees 2019 // Statista
Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at the IEA, posted a tweet viewed millions of times, stating “supporters of the BBC make mutually exclusive claims when they say that the organisation produces world-class, universally adored programmes for a bargain price but that it would be financially ruinous if the licence fee were replaced by a subscription (in which those who pay can watch and those who don’t are locked out).” He believes a business that is confident in its product does not require legal compulsion. If £154.50 is voluntarily paid for the privilege of Attenborough, Panorama, Eastenders and the like, then it is fine. But, if not, it would be immoral to force those who don’t want to watch the BBC to subsidise those who do.
Christopher Snowdon’s controversial tweet // Twitter
If not subscription or license, then what?
Alternatively, with no TV license or subscription, the only means of funding the BBC as a “public service” is through income tax, and that would be subject to cyclical budget cuts. You could picture it now: NHS or BBC, which do we fund? Bureaucracy and collection costs would fall as it integrates within the remit of income taxes and such regulatory and punitive supervision would no longer be needed.
Swedish flat levy every adult over 18 for Public Broadcasting // Voices of Europe
Those voicing the BBC subscription service will be fine if their content truly is “world-class” as they claim, rather conflate popularity with quality. Do people tend to pay for high-quality journalism when the Sun is the newspaper with the highest readership in the country?
This is rather apples to oranges with the different business models and price points. It would be equivalent to saying Ferraris are terrible because Ford sells many Fiestas.
What if the licence fee was abolished altogether?
We are in an age of streaming. Terrestrial channels may have their place, but at what cost? If the BBC truly is a lot more than a public service broadcaster, but a useful soft power foreign policy tool to keep Britain relevant in the modern world; then so be it. But it ought to remain high quality and the deadwood removed. An open World Service would be a good advertisement overseas for potential customers through its history of journalistic rigour garnering global respect. After all, BBC World Service is 1% of the BBC budget and paid for by the Foreign Office, not the licence fee payer.
Mutually Exclusive
The BBC cannot simultaneously be ‘world class’, and not survive on its own two feet without legalised extraction of fees. With the large income from publications, merchandise, selling programme rights and access to transmitters; there is a strong case for the public not to subsidise the BBC anymore. Competition in TV and radio markets has allowed consumers a wider choice, often at lower comparative prices. The BBC should adopt or be forced to trim right back.
The BBC should set itself up not as an entertainment channel but as the factual source and the world leader in news and journalism, restoring its preeminent place in World Press Freedom rankings, rather than it’s current place of 33/180. Where Netflix or the new Disney channel fill us up with content, the BBC has the potential to do the same for our core competence.
Undoubtedly, the BBC has lost some of its aura. For the BBC to improve, it needs less controversial viewpoints and an impartial digest, expressing less emotive, borderline clickbait headlines to keep up with the Sun’s or Daily Telegraphs.
Anti Competitive, Socialised Cross Subsidising
If the BBC had to depend on being popular for more money, it would actually be pressured to make better content.
What’s more, technology has rendered the public good argument obsolete – one can exclude people from watching if they do not pay, through digital decoders. In other words, broadcasting has become a ‘club good’. People can be excluded from its services and different organisations can provide different bundles of services which we can choose to purchase or not.
The only real justification for maintaining a public service broadcaster would be for things the market could or would not otherwise provide. Children’s television has been killed off by advertising regulation, a handful of news and current affairs and radio shows which older people use to feel relevant and stay connected to wider society are such examples.
In fact, in many areas the BBC uses its privileged position of guaranteed revenues to directly compete in areas where commercial provision works well, from bidding to show movies and sports programmes, to cross-subsidising its news website and the provision of local news in direct competition with increasingly hard-pressed local newspapers. There is no real mechanism for consumers to hold the BBC to account for the quality and content of its output and it is undermining other organisations that also contribute to the building up of social capital.
Public Sector Crowding Out
In conclusion, the BBC has crowded out private investment into various media forms with its government and legal backing where it really has no right to be. It is pandering in trying to placate too wide an audience. The regressive nature of the payment structure means the cost of such socialised cross-subsidising models does more harm to disposable incomes of less affluent households. We need a different model and not one that tries to appease all potential viewers in order to justify itself.
A slimmer, trimmer BBC would free up consumers money that could more efficiently deliver wider media access – from better-funded local news stations to sports access – in a world where it is unnecessary for one broadcaster to be the “go to for everything”. Just as Ferrari isn’t in the business of mass production a la Henry Ford “you can have any colour you like, so long as it is black.”
Forcing others to contribute towards a service you like but they are unwilling to pay for via government is just another cloaked form of rent-seeking. People should be free to opt-out or at the very least be able to integrate their payments with their subscription of Netflix, Disney+ or Sky.
Guilt tripping and coercion – TV licensing threats London Underground // TfL
Lionel Robbins once described the capitalist competition as the process by which ‘thousands of people cast their votes for the hundreds of products and services on offer, and from the competition to win their votes, better and better products and services arise.’
For the government, it’s a historic moment which marks the end of the free movement of people. From January the 1st 2021, a new immigration system based on qualifications and earnings will operate in the UK. Under the plans, workers who don’t have have the equivalent of A Levels or Scottish Highers will no longer get visas. A salary for workers who want to come to the UK will be set at £25,600 but professions facing skill shortages such as nursing will be allowed in on a lower figure of 20,000 and a scheme to bring in seasonal agricultural workers will be expanded.
The Home Secretary Priti Patel says it will ‘boost the economy and attract the brightest and best.’ This is apparently what it looks like to take back control. The government says the new points-based system will treat EU and non-EU citizens equally and aims to attract people who can contribute to the UK’s economy.
But critics say the proposals could be an “absolute disaster” for the social care sector, and there are “serious concerns” about the impact on farming.
The new immigration system will come into force in January next year
Merseyside is one of the places set to be devastated by this new immigration policy. Industry experts in Merseyside have said the new cap, to be introduced from January 1, could mean not only spiralling numbers of unfilled vacancies in already struggling sectors such as care – but also opening the door for employers to operate “under the radar”. That’s despite the government saying there would be some exceptions for people earning close to the £25,600 figure and applying to shortage areas such as the NHS.
Sasiwimol Koenig/Dreamstime
Employment and business experts at Liverpool John Moores University have said the points-based system will present a “double jeopardy” for the city. Dr Patricia Harrison told the ECHO: “Stopping low paid immigration to Merseyside could simply exacerbate the already dire situation of unfilled vacancies in sectors like distribution, care, agriculture and manual tasks like labouring and car washing. “According to recent ONS figures, the Liverpool City Region has approximately 30% of workers in jobs paying less than £25,000 per year.
They said, “Our research shows that many of these jobs are low paid and insecure. Depriving local economies, like Merseyside, of capable and willing immigrant labour is not going to produce more money for wages.” When announced, the plans prompted an outpouring of fury from businesses and councils who warn sectors like social care face “disaster”. The Home Office, who said there will be some exceptions for people who earn £20,480 to £25,600, told businesses they should simply end their “reliance on cheap, low-skilled labour”.
In a Channel 4 interview, the Home Secretary Priti Patel said ‘there are 8.45 million British people in the United Kingdom that are economically inactive” and suggested that businesses ought to focus on them. However, fooled once by numbers on a bus, it is important to take a forensic look at the Governments numbers in order to ascertain if this policy really will boost the economy as forecasted. Of the 8.48 million people quoted, 27% are students in eduction, 26% are sick, 22% are carers and 13% are retired making the pool of what government statisticians call “discouraged workers” actually around 33,000 people.
Proposals to fill the gaps with British workers seem destined to fall short, with current vacancies in the care sector alone for example standing at 110,000 according to a Skills for Care report from October 2019. EU migrant workers make up more than 8% of the 1.8 million workers. With the average salary of a carer falling well short of the £26,500 threshold, and being classified as “low-skilled” work, many migrants who would fill these roles would be blocked under the new system.
Karolina Gerlich, the leader of National Association of Care And Support Workers, has already warned “there will be a human cost” to a fall in numbers and the human skills necessary that cannot be filled with the government’s arbitrary calls for wider use of technology.
The policy is bold and daring however still fails to address a number of contentions. Will immigration numbers go down? Will the policy increase wages as intended and boost the economy? We will continue to follow the developments.
Donald Trump’s impeachment is historic. We all watched the news coverage grow like wildfire ever since the House of Representatives decided to have an impeachment inquiry on Donald Trump. Following his subsequent impeachment, he adds to the small list of other U.S. Presidents who have been impeached. Nevertheless, the results of the impeachment trial were anything but shocking. Many knew he would be acquitted of the charges in the Republican-controlled Senate, but one thing that people did not expect is how well this helped Trump and will inevitably call for his reelection in the 2020 election.
Senate Trial
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff speaking during the impeachment trial
From January 21st to February 4th, 2020, the Senate trial included opening and closing arguments from the Democratic House impeachment managers and the President’s defence team, along with a 16-hour questioning by the senators. Thus, concluding with a vote that ultimately acquitted Trump on the final day.
Outside of the trial, several senators have had time to talk about the impeachment trial on the Senate floor. Amid the media circus and impeachment trial, the controversy over whether to have witnesses in the proceedings was a heavy and pressing topic. Senators voted not to have any at all.
The Vote
Senator Mitt Romney giving his speech on the Senate floor
Although the acquittal vote was pretty much set in stone before the trial even happened, there was still a slight chance for some Republican senators to sway. Throughout the trial process, key senators to look out for were Senator Susan Collins, Senator Lisa Murkowski, and Senator Mitt Romney.
All of these senators were on the fence about their vote, and made it known they were waiting to hear the arguments of both sides before making their final decision.
All it took was 51 Republican votes to acquit Trump. The two historic votes, 52 to 48 and 53 to 47, conclusively acquitted President Trump of two charges: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress )
In a shocking move, Senator Romney decided to be the lone Republican to vote for removing the president from office. He stated, “The president did in fact pressure a foreign government to corrupt our election process. And really, corrupting an election process in a democratic republic is about as abusive and egregious an act against the Constitution…”
The Aftermath
Ambassador Gordan Sondland (Right) and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman (Left)
After the Senate trial vote, it was to be expected that Trump would bask in his glory and gloat about the acquittal. In a prayer breakfast and press conference, he made several attacks against Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Mitt Romney. In typical Trump fashion, he used snide and crude remarks against anybody who is not for Donald Trump. To go further, President Trump moved vastly to clear his administration of perceived disloyal members in his cabinet. It did not take long for Trump to remove Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland after the impeachment trial. The two men were key witnesses in the impeachment hearings. This was a clear message to anybody who is for Trump that siding against him will not be tolerated.
The Effects of the Impeachment Trial
2020 Presidential Campaign
Despite several Republicans hoping the president would “learn his lesson” from the impeachment trial, the opposite holds true. President Trump has shown he has little remorse for what happened and believes he did nothing wrong.
Trump seems emboldened by his acquittal with the Republican-controlled Senate and is making moves to let the world know he is Commander in Chief. One of the main effects the impeachment trial seemed to do was raise his approval ratings. While the margin was slim on how Americans felt about Trump’s impeachment, 49% of Americans did not want to remove Trump from office. Furthermore, the impeachment trial has not changed the minds of Americans attitude towards Trump.
According to the latest Gallup Poll, Trump’s approval rating has risen to 49%, which is an all-time high since he has been in office. It did not matter how well the Democrats laid out the facts of the case. The reality of the situation is President Trump still has a strong base that will follow him throughout the election; and despite the candidates for the Democratic Party, it may not make a difference in November. Americans seem to turn a blind eye to corruption and will lower the standard of the presidency.
I am personally no stranger to the phenomena of getting mixed up with other black women. Right throughout my years in school despite there being less than ten black girls in a school of two thousand people almost every teacher never failed to call me by the name of some of female student with a similar skin tone to mine.
As an arguably unknown person in the wider society, I can’t help but feel a level of sympathy for those in the public eye who, despite their merits, face being called by and referred to as another known black person.
But what causes this? What causes non-black people, usually white, to continuously mix up ethnic minorities and especially black people. Is it just a common mistake? Or is there perhaps a serious issue with representation and the lack of exposure black people have on a range of public and private platforms?
“The Cross Race Effect”
It is argued that perhaps the mistake of getting two people of the same race mixed up has nothing to do with race-biases and stereotypes but simply just the fact that people of one race with no or little exposure to another ethnic group will tend to get them mixed up.
This psychological phenomenon was first notably studied in 1914 after Gustave Feingold wrote that “all Asiatics look alike, while to the Asiatics, all white men look alike”. This was later followed by some studies taken up by Heather Lucas and a group of colleagues at the Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory at North-western University to see whether this theory could have some scientific backing.
At first, the study showed steady evidence that in fact people from outside a specific racial group found it hard to distinguish one person from another. However upon being asked to remember to take in notable features and characteristics, participants of the studies were able to identify separate people in some cases.
A multitude of faces of different races (SOURCE: thisundeserevedlife.com)
Now whether this can prove that every race has undoubtable issues with differentiating people from the same ethic group one cannot be sure. On the other hand, it does indeed prove that without enough exposure to a specific race, mistakes will indeed be made.
The serious issue of mixing people up
Dawn Butler MP (left) and Marsha De Cordova MP (right) // Source gal-dem.com
Earlier on this month, Dawn Butler, the Labour MP who serves as a Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities since 2017 wrote into gal-demabout her experiences with being mixed up with fellow MP and Shadow Minister for Disabled People Marsha de Cordova, as well as other instances of being mistaken for a cleaner.
She wrote about how despite it being the job of journalists and news outlets to know what is going on in politics and the people involved, they still mix up people of African and Caribbean descent. The BBC on Monday 3th February used Butler’s name when Cordova took the stand in the House of Commons. The BBC apologised immediately after the mistake was spotted however this is in a line with other similar mistakes the BBC and other media outlets have made.
Butler spoke of how these mistakes are not merely coincidental but point to the ignorance, minimisation and dismissal of black people by the media. Instead of seeing her as a person with distinguishing features and characteristics, others just categorise her by her race and so disregarded her as another black MP.
There’s black women coming into parliament by their own right. They deserve to be called by their name.pic.twitter.com/2ssptjRYwQ
Dawn Butler talks about the issue and consequences of getting black people mixed up (SOURCE: Twitter)
Just a week prior to this, the BBC again were compelled to apologise after mixing up footage of two basketball giants Kobe Bryant and LeBron James whilst reporting about the fatal helicopter crash which killed him and his daughter Gianna Bryant. Even in death it would seem that he didn’t receive the courtesy of being recognised as himself by the BBC, but as just another black face.
This was especially thought to be race-based as not once has it been publicly noted in the media that two white people were mixed up. Of course, anyone can make a mistake and these occurrences must be kept in perspective in terms of racism and hate crime.
Kobe Bryant and his daughter Gianna Bryant (SOURCE: people.com)
Journalist Gary Younge wrote to inews about the time he was confused with MP David Lammy in the street and discussed how despite the fact “minorities are hyper-visible; as human beings we are relatively invisible.” In the case of being black, are only noted for blackness and so can be painted as a monolith. This is perhaps what happens when people are reduced to their blackness instead of physical features, merits and distinguishing personalities.
As there has been work to try to tackle the lack of exposure, with more black people and minorities in politics, in leadership and in popular culture, people will see us being represented in all walks of life and become accustomed to not just recognising the blackness and nothing else. But there is a long way to go. By mistaking people’s identity, you further the idea they should not be there at all or that they are solely there directly due to their skin colour, erasing their political leanings, their interests and their values never-mind their actual qualities.
Why Representation Matters
At the end other the day most of this all goes back to representation and the interchangeability of other races. Racism operates in the process of misidentification as one sees the race first before anything else, and that can be especially dangerous for when it comes to things like eyewitness testimony and putting even people in prison for crimes they have not committed. It’s one thing for a politician to be mistaken as someone else on TV; how many times is this happening on the street, in workplaces and in police stations impacting people’s livelihoods.
A mistake, a slip, a blunder – something you do once and learn from. But repeated mistakes betray a wider context and mindset that make people justify their presence in spaces and can allow things far more life-altering to happen.
Millennials are the largest adult generation and make up the largest share (38%) of the workforce. Yet, the wealth accumulated by the median (or middle) millennial family is much lower than what we would expect based on previous generations. Because of this worrisome trend, the Centre for Household Financial Stability questioned whether a significant share of them will be able to meet long-term financial goals or if they will indeed become part of a “lost generation.”
Falling Short
Young people are struggling in record numbers to find work, leave home, and start a family, according to Pew Research. Many young Brits cannot afford to move out from their family homes. Employers have largely switched into employee-self-managed retirement programmes, doing away with the ‘gold plated’ final salary schemes.
Such is the wage stagnation that our grandfathers could go out to work without A Levels, working in factories earning today’s equivalent £80,000 where a young couple today would struggle to pull in £70,000 between them working full time.
Those born 1980-89 haven’t recovered net worth and income lost from the Great Recession // Survey of Consumer Finances
Perhaps the most startling finding comes from a 2017 paper by social scientists at Harvard, Stanford, and the University of California, Berkeley: economic mobility has decreased significantly since the 1940s. 90% of those born in the 1940s out-earned their parents by the time they hit 30. By the 1980s, this figure dropped to 50% among British and Americans.
Exponentially rising student debt makes college less affordable even as it has become increasingly necessary. Between 1993 and 2015, average tuition increased by 234% — when the inflation rate was just 63%. According to data from the Bureau of Labour Statistics, 46% of grads left college with debt in 1995, compared with 71% in 2015. According to the Young Invincibles data, even college grads with debt earn more than people without a degree.
Coming of Age
Millennials spent their childhood and formative years watching their parents struggle with joblessness and erratic income as a result of two recessions. All we are familiar with is the markets caused all that hardship. So, it is only natural that we don’t trust a market we know so little about.
People ought to be invested in stocks. Trouble is, we dislike the volatility and prefer the relative ‘security’ of property, bonds and even cash sitting idle in bank accounts earning a negative real return instead.
We participate less frequently in pension plans, scarred by the Great Recession, invest less and keep more than half our money in cash. Not a great long-term strategy, which is especially worrisome when combined with weak incomes and low net worth, as most of the wealth is concentrated in the baby boomer generation.
All of these make it decidedly harder for millennials to hit those traditional “adult” milestones, like having kids or buying a house.
The Ballooning Collective Debt
Longer term, rising national debt payments and increased spending on Social Security and health provisions for an aging population will inflict a tremendous financial burden on them, threatening their own prospect of receiving promised retirement benefits. Dependency ratio has gone from 2.2 during our grandparents in their working prime to over 14 dependents per working adult today.
Saddled with debt and thin pay checks, millennials are delaying purchasing cars and new homes, low mortgage rates notwithstanding. By June of this year, homeownership among under 35s fell to 34.8 percent, down from a high of 43.6 percent in 2004.
Just to complete a dismal picture, millennials will also be the victims of the irresponsible fiscal policies pursued in large part by members of the baby boomer generation. The massive budget deficits of recent years and projected needs to meet future obligations to retirees will result in a steady increase in national debt, from less than 80 percent of gross domestic product today to an estimated 181 percent of G.D.P. by 2090.
Amplified Wealth Redistribution
The Great Recession also amplified the trend of wealth redistribution from young to old families, which had been growing for many decades. The least wealthy 10% of households saw their real wealth rise by £3,000 between 2006-08 and 2012-14, versus £350,000 gains for the wealthiest 10%.
Concentration of wealth comparing 1989 with 2016. Those under age 60 today are comparatively worse off than their equivalents were 3-4 decades prior , while the opposite holds true for those 60+ // Survey of Consumer Finances
What happened?
Those with savings in bank and building societies watched as interest rates fell year on year to eventually turn negative.
Those families with large leverage exposure through leveraged stock market funds saw significant out performance.
While those fortunate enough to have small deposits and large mortgages could re-broke these after the crisis from 6%+ down to 2% as the Bank of England lowered the Base Rate to provide liquidity to the financial system. Relative to their equity invested, property prices rose with re-inflationary Quantitative Easing and foreign demand for UK property. Their assets rose in value, and so too did asset owner’s wealth.
Age 60 appears to be a demarcation point. Families with the household head near retirement age and older had higher expected wealth in 2016 than a family the same age in 1989. Younger families had less expected wealth in 2016 than in 1989.
Generation Z salvageable, Millennials perhaps not…
Future generations would benefit from mandatory investing classes for all high school students so they know where to invest and how to invest for the future.
It is evident that millennials are taking longer than previous generations to reach traditional adult milestones like gainful employment, marriage, and home ownership. Some of this is due to choice, for example no remaining stigma associated with premarital sex meaning people tend not to marry until they genuinely want to. But much of this is attributable to higher prices in real terms of property and education. Add to this, people living and working longer, sitting in jobs diminishing social mobility and promotion progression; this makes jobs less plentiful for young people and tends to make the climb up the corporate ladder longer.
However, we could stop short of saying living a few years at home or not being able to buy a home in one’s 20s or 30s necessarily means things are tougher for millennials.
You’ve never had it so good.
Harold Macmillan, British PM 1957-1963
After all, our great grandparents lived through the Great Depression, WWII and came back home to put their lives together in a world that lacked the vocabulary and willingness to talk about trauma.
The world we live in is far from perfect. But it is prosperous, statistically very peaceful (crime at near all-time lows), less racist, sexist, and homophobic than in the past.
Armed forces are voluntary and technology would have been unimaginable for their generations that has made life easier and better. We are on the verge of living in a world where even basic things like driving a car or going to the shops will be done for us.
So while we have our fair share of challenges today, the truth is every generation does. And the millennials today, while arguably have a tougher lot than some generations; is hardly the worst we have faced.
Many previous generations have become annoying with their castigations and aspersions. What softens the blow of our problems is that ours are by-and-large solvable on our own. This demanded discipline and diligent planning we have had to acquire ourselves through our 20s trying to make life work. Courtesy of the extreme mollycoddling and an expectation life would match our parents, it has stunted the normal course of our development.
When British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan addressed those gathered in Bedford with “you’ve never had it so good” in 1957, it was used to attempt to persuade the electorate that their fortunes were best served by the party in power. Maybe today, we are best served by ourselves undoing the complacency that the baby boomer’s prosperity has handicapped us with. In decadence lies our undoing, in diligence hard work and a little dose of perspective, we can find our generation’s salvation.
