The Bridge Theatre’s production of Shakespeare classic A
Midsummer Night’s Dream is a hilarious evening of entertainment which keeps
its audience enthralled through its interactive staging and refreshingly diverse
cast.
The production is set in the round, with a seated audience
surrounding the perimeter of the pit and those standing being in amongst the
rising platforms where the action takes place. It is a truly immersive
experience as actors jostle past theatregoers into position or the acrobatic
group of fairies swing down above the audience’s heads. David Moorst artfully portrays
Puck, balancing a magical charm with a menacing deviance, as he similarly
swings from an aerial hoop, or bursts across the standing audience demanding
they part ways for him, despairing humorously as he exclaims “Londoners!”.
David Moorst as the tattooed and sometimes sinister Puck Source: London Evening Standard
Titania (played by Game of Thrones star Gwendoline Christie) and Oberon’s parts are swapped, meaning it is Oberon who falls in love with donkey-eared Bottom. This makes for laughter as the pair coo over each other in topless bathtub scenes sound tracked by Beyoncé’s “Love on Top”, soap bubbles tenuously covering certain areas. Hammed Animashaun as Bottom, and Oliver Chris as Oberon, have the audience in stitches with their perfectly accurate comedic timing. Felicity Motangu endearingly heads the rude mechanicals, whose final performance is carried out in Britain’s Got Talent style, the members gloriously kitted out in matching purple hoodies. The group’s determination to get a “portrait” of themselves (a selfie on an audience member’s smart phone) also evokes this modern connection which pleases the crowds, without becoming a cringe worthy farce of Shakespeare. Director Nicholas Hynter transforms the intimidating (and, dare it be said, boring) nature of Shakespeare into a genuinely enjoyable experience rather than a cultural chore, repeating the success of his formula after year’s hit production of Julius Caesar.
Hammed Animashaun hilariously plays Puck Source: The Guardian
Amongst glitter, love potions and slick technical changes, the production still honours the sombre undertones that lead in to the play’s plot of a forced marriage. Doubling up as Hippolyta, Christie opens the play rising from the ground in glass box, immediately signalling her entrapment under ownership by Theseus. The four young Athenian lovers (Tessa Bonham-Jones, Isis Hainsworth, Paul Adeyefa, and Kit Young) who enter the forest are wonderfully played, all four actors managing to express the frustration of their societal marital and sexual constraints while maintaining the omnipresent hysterics of the production.
The immersive pit Source: Broadway World
A Midsummer Night’s Dream is a complexly themed Shakespeare play, but even if you do find yourself getting lost by the language, the strong semiotic symbolism of this production and awe-inspiring visuals means you will still enjoy the unique immersive experience. It is certainly worth securing a ticket before the end of the run on the 31st August – be sure to select ‘pit’ when booking for a standing ticket if you want to hold hands with strangers and unashamedly dance with the actors!
Prime Minister Boris Johnson vows to crack down on crime by extending Section 60, allowing for more stop and search powers for the police.
Under the new government’s plans announced on the 11th of August, an existing pilot project, which allows police to deploy stop-and-search powers in an area without the authorisation of a senior officer will be extended to cover an additional 8,000 officers in England and Wales.
Due to the enhanced power announced in March by the Home Office, the authorisation required for section 60 was given. This will allow police to search anyone in an area if they anticipate serious violence. Young black youth will suffer even more consequently in this new extension.
The New Prime Minister has also announced the creation of 10,000 more prison places at a cost of £2.5bn. Also 20,000 new police officers over the next three years.
How will the new laws affect the black community?
In 2017-18, figures showed that black people were 9.5 times more likely to be searched by the police. Black people are no more criminal than other race so these statistics should raise alarm bells.
The black community has heavily protested and been in uproars in regards to stop and search, as young black males are typically viewed automatically as a suspect based on the colour of their skin. Discrimination is entrenched in the police force after the MacPherson report released on On 24 February 1999, accused the Metropolitan Police Service of institutional racism. The MET has not been the same ever since.
MET POLICE Commissioner Cressida Dick
On 12th July MET Police Commissioner Cressida Dick said the MET Police force was no longer racist, and the term given by the Macpherson Report was ‘toxic’, ‘outdated’ and ‘unhelpful’ as the Police force had been ‘utterly transformed’. Critics have declared this to be untrue as in 2017/2018, there were 23 deaths in police custody and 5 were black highlighting the stereotyping and handling of black suspects in police custody.
The stop and search will remain an issue in the black community, what other alternative do we have to prevent issues such as knife crime and drugs which have ravaged the black community. Maybe its time we created our own police force.
A Possible alternative outside all alternatives
The current conversation surrounding knife crime, stop and search is one limited to poor socioeconomics, the crumbling household, declining youth centres and underdiagnosed PTSD. The black community have enough purchasing power, to pool economic resources to create something similar to the ‘Shomrim’, Hebrew for “Custodians” or “Guardians”.
The ‘Shomrim’ is a Jewish neighbourhood watch group which patrols the streets of North East London. Their aims to reduce crime, and protect the Jewish population in Stamford Hill, Hackney.
Shomrim Jewish Neighbourhood watch group with former Met Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan Howe
In the North East London area, which is around 2 square miles, situated are more than 50 synagogues, dozens of Orthodox schools alongside various Kosher, bakers, supermarkets, and butches.
Due to the Second World War, refugees fleeing Nazi Germany and Holocaust survivors found refuge in Britain which created a mass concentration of the Jewish population. The rise of the Jewish Population created a rise in anti-Semitic attacks. Coupled with late noughties police cuts, the economic crisis, and crimes escalating, the sense of safety in the Orthodox Jewish community was one of insecurity.
The Shomrim was founded in 2008, by President Rabbi Herschel Gluck. In 2016 the Shomrim facilitated 146 arrests, 22 which were for anti-Semitic offences.
Founder of Shomrim President Rabbi Herschel Gluck
The US Black community previously created a system similar to this in the days of the black panthers, where they protected the community against police brutality and structural oppression. They used guns to protect themselves highlighting the severity of the brutality. The Black Panthers policed the US police, held them accountable and responsible. They would follow the police around, jumping out of their cars with guns drawn if the police made a stop. They would observe the police and make sure that no brutality occurred, the police lived in fear and were aware they had to perform their job in a legal and appropriate fashion.
Black Panther Founders Huey Newton (left) & Bobby Brown (right)
Various pictures and videos circulate the internet, and we need a community force that will ensure the safety of the children, the community in general against threats within and outside the community. I believe it could be a solution that needs deeper exploration. A Black British community watch similar to that of the Jewish ‘Shomrim’ could be a tangible solution, built and sustained in the community. It will hold the destructive internal fractions in our community to task. It will also create a sense of solidarity. A narrative in which can be autonomously created, monitored and dictated.
Boris has made a right old Boris mess of it
The police force has an immense racial mountain to climb up. Community relations with the police continue to disintegrate into a shallow pool of nothingness. Us and them mentality has filled the void instead of a harmonious relationship to help prevent crime.
Stop and search does not help young black men, it reinforces the idea simply that the police are stereotyping and victimising them. In many cases, it leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy where the youth will carry weapons to protect themselves against others.
Boris should invest more money to prevent these youths from having to be stopped and searched. Austerity destroyed youth clubs and built new prisons instead. More police officers as well on the streets do not correlate to less crime either. Boris in his out of touch sentiment has extended Section 60 which in turn will further harm black youth.
Last month, US Attorney General William Barr instructed the Bureau of Prisons to schedule the execution of five inmates. This move represents a dramatic reversal in most recent federal use of capital punishment, which is being federally reinstated in the US after 16 years.
“The Department of Justice has sought the death penalty against the worst criminals, including five murderers, each of whom was convicted by a jury of his peers after a full and fair proceeding,” William Barr said in a statement. Currently, thirty US states allow capital punishment, however in four of them, governors have issued a temporary ban on the death penalty. Twenty states have totally abolished capital punishment, with New Hampshire become the latest US state to do so in May 2019.
An Eye For An Eye?
Though widely unpopular, there are number of reasons as to why supporters of the death penalty believe agree with its federal reinstatement. Barr said: “We owe it to the victims and their families to carry forwards the sentences imposed by our justice system.” This argument could be seemingly depicted emotionally fuelled than rational, though justice is and should be served appropriately, the eye-for-an-eye argument could be regarded as oversimplistic and of course, should be treated on a case-by-case basis.
Jeffrey Dahmer was an American serial killer and sex offender who committed the rape, murder, and dismemberment of 17 men and boys from 1978 to 1991. He was also a cannibal, and due to the horrific nature of his crimes – the families of his victims argued that he was deserving of the death penalty, though he was only sentenced to life imprisonment. Dahmer was bludgeoned to death by a fellow inmate in 1994. Former Ohio Representative, James Traficant, said Dahmer “should have been sentenced to death by a jury, not by a bunch of thugs in a prison”.
However, if asked why Dahmer should have been sentenced to death, it’s likely Traficant would have given a response relating to the retribution owed to victim’s families, essentially the justice argument. Though our emotional and moral compass is an appropriate guide to justice, when it comes to the death penalty, rationality has to take the wheel.
A Hopeful Deterrent?
Colleen Long, journalist for Japan Today, stated: “President Donald Trump is calling for a new death penalty legislation as answer to hate crimes and mass killings” in the hopes of deterring potential mass shooters and murderers. However, death penalty psychologists say killers that are often motivated by a particular ideology are highly unlikely to be deterred by punishment in general, let alone the death penalty.
“In fact, in the case of terrorism, it might be worse than that because you have the very real possibility of creating martyrs” stated Gary LaFree, head of Criminology at the University of Maryland. Earlier this year, in April, John William King was executed in Texas for the murder of James Byrd Jr. in a racist attack. In 1998, he and two other acquaintances tied Byrd Jr. to the back of a pick up truck and dragged his body for three miles along as asphalt road, before dumping the remains of his body in front of a church. In 2015, white supremacist Dylann Roof was sentenced to death for killing nine people during a church service in South Carolina.
White supremacist, Dylann Storm Roof, stands burning the American Flag.
“Look at Dylann Roof”, said Miriam Gohara, a Yale University law professor who studies the death penalty. “He has been sentenced to death, and that clearly did not dissuade people.” Evidently, this proves that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent for mass shootings, and may even encourage people who are prepared to die for their radical causes.
Opponents argue that the death penalty is a violation of the eighth amendment of the US constitution, which states that US citizens are free from “cruel and unusual punishment”. In a tweet, Kamala Harris states that the death penalty is “immoral and deeply flawed”. Whether states decided to impose or to ban the death penalty, its important to assess whether their decision will serve well-deserved justice and whether this decision is more emotionally fuelled than rational.
The ITV breakfast show, Good Morning Britain, has been slammed by viewers for its hosts problematic questioning of Curtis Pritchard’s sexuality.
Since leaving the villa, the Love Island star’s sexuality has made headlines after revealing that he would be open to a relationship with a man, adding that ‘love is blind’. During his appearance on Good Morning Britain, Curtis was forced to address these comments with hosts Adil and Kate.
Despite his insistence on not wanting to put a label on himself, both presenters tag-teamed in pressuring Curtis to clarify his sexuality with Adil even alluding to Curtis becoming a role model for bisexual men.
Though quite uncomfortable to watch, the Good Morning Britain interview is an excellent example of the narrow view that society still holds on male sexuality.
Good Morning Britain viewers were left “cringing” and uncomfortable on Thursday 8 August, when the show’s presenters started ‘interrogating’ Love Island star Curtis Pritchard about this sexuality.
Whilst sexually fluid women do face a similar experience of intense scrutiny over their sexuality, generally sexual exploration among women is becoming more accepted by society. In contrast, a stigma is attached to men who do not label themselves as monosexual (gay or straight). Repeatedly finding their identity being dismissed by both the heterosexual and LGBTQ+ community, men like Curtis are accused of either being sexually confused or just plain greedy.
‘I never want to label what the future is going to be because I don’t think anyone can really ever do that.’#LoveIsland's Curtis Pritchard addresses rumours about his sexuality. pic.twitter.com/RsAPJxo6sY
The very fact that his partner, Maura Higgins has been asked to comment on his sexuality is dangerous. This type of questioning plays into the assumption that (i) women do not find men who are sexually attracted men attractive and (ii) Curtis himself must be ‘faking his attraction’ to her.
Maura Higgins and Curtis Pritchard have been gushing for each other over social media (Image: @maurahiggins/Instagram)
We do not live in a liberal society that is accepting of everyone’s sexual orientation and gender identity thus a bit of sensitivity should be included when discussing a person’s sexual orientation. Curtis should not feel pressured to have to throw a label on his sexuality nor have to become a role model for bisexual men and lastly it is none of our business!
In an extraordinary move, Bristol City’s manager Lee Johnson spoke to all Championship clubs this week, letting them know that his team would not be putting the ball out of play for injuries. So what does this change mean and is it a good idea?
Anyone who has been to watch their football team play will know the feeling. Your team are on the attack and are looking dangerous, only for an opposition player to fall over in ‘agony’, and your team feel obliged to stop play to let that player receive treatment. Yet in doing so, said player’s injury has miraculously healed within seconds. It doesn’t take much to see that this grey area of the game – one which is meant as a sporting gesture of goodwill – is an ample opportunity for gamesmanship and time-wasting.
Some of Neymar’s infamous tactics could be a thing of the past in the Championship Source: EPA
But this may not be the case for Bristol City this season. In a bid to cut out these tactics, their manager Lee Johnson has instructed all 23 other Championship teams that the Robins’ new official policy is to play on. During their opening match with Leeds United on Sunday, this led to a disagreement between the opposing benches. With reference to the tactical element, Johnson explained that it was about giving responsibility back to the referee.
“We just decided as a club that we’re going to make a rule for the 46 games that we’re going to let the referee manage the game…. If the referee sees a head injury he will stop the game but if it’s not a head injury he will play on”
Source: BBC Sport
But will it work?
The knee-jerk reaction to Johnson’s pledge is that this is just double-standards and he won’t let the same happen to his own team. It was certainly the social media response, but this is not what Johnson has promised. He claims that he is fully prepared to deal with any consequences facing his own team and has even trained his players to play with 10 men. This, therefore, poses an interesting question as to the potential benefits and exactly what Bristol City games might look like this season.
Leeds got the better of Bristol City on Sunday despite the incident Source: Sky Sports
With Johnson being so upfront this early in the season, in a perfect world at least, players might actually take note and not feign injury. While this could sound naive, in reality, no opposition player will want to be responsible for potentially letting their team down, already knowing full well Bristol City’s intentions. The Leeds game was, of course, an exception, but Johnson’s statement should also prevent any more farcical situations like those seen in the play-off semi-final between Aston Villa and Leeds last season.
The incredible scenes between Leeds and Villa
What are the drawbacks?
One immediate concern is in gauging the level of injury and whether a player is seriously hurt. As Johnson makes clear, this is ultimately the responsibility of the referee and refs in the UK are well trained to stop the game for head injuries. Concerns over concussion are paramount in this day and age, so the footballing procedure has improved dramatically in this sense. When it is a broken leg, however; or a ruptured ACL; or a dislocated shoulder, this becomes much less clear. Arguably it could just be too risky to leave these potentially serious injuries up to the referee’s discretion.
Conversely, leaving the decision entirely in the hands of the referee could have an adverse effect from what Johnson is hoping. Every Championship match official will now know that they are responsible in these games and could, therefore, overcompensate, by calling a halt to the game after every injury instead, in a bid to ensure safety. No referee would want to feel culpable for a player’s career being ended. All this leads to is an extremely stop-start style of football, which ultimately pleases no one and defeats the point of the exercise.
The future?
In truth, it is difficult to speculate over what this decision will mean until later on in the season. There is a very real possibility that, for whatever reason, it is a total disaster and Bristol City scrap the policy before the season is out. On the other hand, you only need just a handful of other teams to follow suit and you’re looking at potentially changing the way the game is played indefinitely. The current policy is one which has aggravated fans, players and managers for years, yet no solution has ever been found. Are we on the cusp of one here?
Some believe the stock market lies the key to riches. Others, the currency markets. Some just prefer sports betting or casinos. For the baby boomer generation, a rising stock market, the golden standard of pensions and housing boom in the UK has led to their demographic hitting the jackpot. For their children, many of whom are the millennial generation, they have not been so lucky.
Baby boomers bought when the property market was comparatively very affordable against annual salaries. They were able to afford deposits and pay them off over 25 to 40 years. If you have no mortgage, then there is no reason to move. Many have gone on to buy a second home to move into or a holiday home and ended up not selling their original property because they didn’t have to, becoming accidental landlords in the process.
Many retired and didn’t move out. This reduces the supply of houses for sale, causing more buyers to chase after fewer properties, and hence, prices rose. Rising prices were also influenced by waves of Middle Eastern petrodollars, Russian oligarchs, corrupt despotic dictators and regimes throughout the world, Chinese, Malaysians, Indians and London reinventing itself as a World City with a large financial hub ‘The City’.
This rise in real estate in the 1980s 1990s and early 2000s has not been maintained. Deposits are harder to save for based on the rise in earnings, and rent erodes that which can be saved by potential younger homeowners. Generous pension arrangements have been scrapped. We have had the Great Recession and the Dot Com bust. So where lies the answer to financial security?
Business Insider/Andy Kiersz
Millennials entering the inflated property market also suffered from slow to negative growth in property values. While rents continued to rise, straining capacity to save for a deposit, the stock market may have the answer for this lost generation of childless, pet owners living with their parents in their 30s.
What is achievable?
For most individuals, reality falls short of expectations.
Speaking with some friends, they believed mutual funds could earn a steady 14 per cent over the long term. They thought this would be adequate to generate some serious dough through compounding.
If you want to get rich, starting with minimal capital, you need more along the lines of double this annually. This would generally require direct investment in stocks.
Young investors seem to crave and almost demand the elusive cliché of overnight success.
Mutual funds are good enough to help attain financial goals and given enough time will make you financially independent. For shorter-term ambitions, without the necessary funds, mutual funds are unlikely to achieve those results.
Be under no illusions, you are very optimistic if you think you can earn 30 per cent from the same stock market that your mutual fund manager only achieves 14 per cent on.
Real estate or stock market: Which is the better investment? Joe Raedle/Getty Images
What is the difference?
Stocks are just single companies, while mutual funds hold several investments anywhere up to hundreds of stocks being part of a single fund.
Stocks share in one company’s profits. The best way to invest via these is to build your own portfolio by selecting specific companies. Fees paid will be commissions on the trades when you buy and sell.
Mutual funds can be passive Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track benchmarks, index funds or active mutual funds managed by a professional. Passive funds simply buy and sell holdings based on what is in the underlying index, like the FTSE 100 – the UK’s largest 100 companies by market cap. These are best for quick, easy diversification to gain access to many stocks through a single transaction. Fees come as annual expense ratios. These may be sales loads, short-term redemption fees and/or transaction fees. ETFs trade like stocks, with trade commissions when bought or sold.
PROS MUTUAL FUNDS
Easy to diversify because every single fund owns small pieces of numerous investments
Personal management of funds is available through actively managed funds
Investors can avoid bearing the trade costs
It is less time-intensive and more convenient for the investor
Low ongoing fees
CONS MUTUAL FUNDS
Yearly expense ratio
Many funds have minimum investment sizes, e.g. £1000 or up.
Mutual funds can trade only once each day
Less tax-efficient than stocks
Stocks can be treated as “Bed and ISA”. This is a double transaction to shelter non-ISA investments from capital gains tax and further tax on dividends. It is done by selling or “bedding” investments which the profits are taxable. The proceeds can then buy them back immediately within the tax-efficient wrapper of the ISA. Shares cannot be moved “in-specie” (as holdings), they must be sold, and cash transferred before they can be repurchased. Profit generated in step one is still subject to capital gains tax and cash balance transferred is deducted from your annual ISA allowance (£20,000 UK adults).
PROS STOCKS
They can be highly liquid in nature
They do not contain any ongoing or annual fees.
Stocks are ownership, so investors can influence management and company direction.
Stocks can be very tax-efficient, with the investor controlling capital gains returns.
CONS STOCKS
Stocks typically carry more risk than mutual funds.
Have to hold many individual stocks in different sectors, phases and size to adequately diversify.
Time-intensive, as investors must research and follow each individual stock in their portfolio.
Being an investor, you will have to pay a commission each time you buy and sell.
Some individual shares require stamp duty to be paid and other levies like Panel of Takeovers and Mergers (PTM).
When selling and rebuying shares to realise a tax gain within annual allowances, there is a risk of a price movement while you’re out of the market. Therefore, a difference in sell and buy price between the open and close of the trade. This can result in buying back fewer shares than you originally held. By using the ‘bed and ISA’ process, this risk is capped at between either £30 or £50 spread per line of stock by most brokers.
As a retail investor, it is very difficult to pick multi-bagger stocks as there are various factors influencing the stock price. Macroeconomic, technical and fundamental are just three facets of this.
Investment bankers or mutual fund managers’ roles are to keep track of these factors and handpick the right stock for the fund.
Diversification in a mutual fund investing in a pool of stock reduces the risk. If ABC Ltd goes bankrupt, there would be other stocks with stellar returns to compensate and offset the loss.
Another consideration for the retail investor is irrationality. Put simply, your average retail investor will be unwilling to buy a stock bought at £100 that rises to £200 at the £200 level. Buying it would reduce their percentage gain.
Should the same stock fall to £50. The unrealised loss is -50 per cent. It may have the potential to achieve £300 in the future, but again, fear and lack of courage to take the risk of buying the stock at £50.
Mutual fund investments have options to regularly invest at intervals. In a fund that rises over the long term, this benefits from pound-cost averaging. This is where purchases are made in the troughs and at the peaks throughout the volatility cycle in the share price. This smooths out the average purchase price over time
Mutual fund managers are experts who deal with millions and billions of assets under management. Unless you’re willing and able to dedicate 2-3 hours a day toward research and stock analysis, it may prove best to let them take the headache of investing your money.
However, if you have enough knowledge, can ride the tumultuous ups and downs and have done adequate due diligence and analysis, you can also invest in quality stocks.
The reality remains, if you want to be really successful, you have to become really good at what you do.
Your best chance of making a ton of money is via your own profession and not by saving and investing.
People who have become multi-millionaires or billionaires by investing are people who made investing their profession and devoted their lives to it.
You can potentially make 30-40 per cent from the stock markets but for that you have to become exceptional at picking stocks – in the top 1 per cent of all stock pickers and better than the best Mutual Fund managers – and for that you need to make it your life’s pursuit, essentially making that your primary occupation.
Or you could stick to what you are already good at and like doing and continuously become better at it.
That’s where the biggest opportunity for getting rich lies for all of us – in our own work.
Work up that company, look for shifting jobs, go do that course or attend that networking event or join a promising start-up early. These will help you level up in your career. Invest in yourself so the markets can preserve your capital, letting it grow with low risk to outpace the prevailing rate of inflation.
Not the be all end all
Being successful isn’t necessarily the hardest thing in the world. It takes equal parts of luck and hard work. But, adding value to something is a lot harder.
Albert Einstein’s quote is a good reminder for those finding themselves blinded by the hunt for success. There’s nothing wrong with success, but it is easy to lose sight of who you are when you’re successful. As Thomas Paine reflected: character is easier kept than recovered. If you keep a watchful eye on your own values, you’ll end up both successful and a good person, which is both a noble and fulfilling pursuit.
It is no secret that President Donald Trump thinks the UK and the US will enter into a ‘phenomenal’ trade deal. Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, believes that whenever Brexit eventually happens, the US will be ready ‘pen in hand’ to sign a trade deal at the earliest possible time.
Brexiteers will also be keen to make any deal work, as the US-UK trade deal was a key promise made to the public during the campaigning for the 2016 referendum. Promises of a prosperous and mutually beneficial trade deal between the two nations were put forth by the Leave campaign, alongside the promise that the UK will be free from the rules and regulations of the EU.
(Image: GETTY)
What Trump and Brexiteers have not factored is opposition to the trade deal due to one of the most controversial aspects of the Brexit thus far – the Irish backstop. The backstop is a contingency plan which ensures that there is no ‘hard border’ between Northern Ireland and Ireland. It is commonly believed that if there is a hard border between the two countries, we will see unrest in the two countries and a return to ‘the troubles’.
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the house, has recently told Irish Parliament that “if the Brexit deal undermines the [Good Friday Agreement], there will be no chance of a US -UK agreement.” This isn’t a new sentiment, Pelosi has gone on record on several occasions to make clear that any Brexit which threatens peace in Ireland/Northern Ireland will result in the House of Representatives moving to block the trade agreement. What this means is that if Boris Johnson, current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, continues with his plans to head towards a no-deal Brexit (which almost guarantees a hard border), the UK may be left without a trade deal with the EU and the US.
Pelosi’s sentiment is likely to be shared with many American
politicians. The Irish diaspora has a heavy influence in the United States (according
to the US Census Bureau, 10.1% of the American population is Irish or of Irish
descent) and at least five American Presidents were of Irish descent (including
John F Kennedy and Barack Obama). So it makes sense that Irish interests will
be considered and protected in US relations with the UK.
Brendan Boyle, a democrat in the house of representatives, also
referred to a quick trade agreement between the US and UK as a ‘fantasy’,
making it clear that the trade committee is focused on the US-China and the
US-Mexico-Canada trade deal and will not ‘drop everything’ for a ‘market of 60 million
people.’
It seems that regardless of whether the United Kingdom
leaves the EU with or without a deal that considers the Irish border, it faces
an uphill battle to quickly come to an agreement on a US-UK trade deal.
On the 3rd of August 2019, America woke up to a tragedy. A mass shooting occurred at a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas, in the early morning of that Saturday where a lone gunman killed 22 people and injured 24 others.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is investigating the shooting as an act of domestic terrorism and a possible hate crime. The Justice Department is also “seriously considering” billing it as a federal hate crime and bringing federal firearm charges, which carry a possible death penalty, US Attorney John Bash said in a news conference.
EL PASO, TEXAS – AUGUST 06: Yamileth Lopez sits while holding a photo of her deceased friend Javier Amir Rodriguez at a makeshift memorial for victims outside Walmart, near the scene of a mass shooting which left at least 22 people dead, on August 6, 2019 in El Paso, Texas. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Patrick Wood Crusius, age 21, was arrested shortly after the shooting began and was charged with capital murder. Police believe that the suspect published a white nationalist, anti-immigrant manifesto on social media immediately before the attack. The post cites inspiration from the Christchurch mosque shootings and refers to white genocide conspiracy theories.
With 22 fatalities, this was the third-deadliest mass shooting in Texas history and the seventh-deadliest in modern U.S. history. At the time of the shooting, it was the deadliest mass shooting in the United States in 2019 and the deadliest in the United States since the Sutherland Springs Church shooting in November 2017.
FirstTake
Mass shootings have become commonplace in America, like the stars in their flag, mass shootings have become an all too permanent feature of Morden American Imagery. It has become an archetypical feature of what foreign observers think of when they consider America.
El Paso has become heartbreaking weekend of unspeakable tragedy and yet, one that feels disturbingly all too familiar. It has become impossible to deny that there is an epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings in America. El Paso serves as a sobering reminder of this. The shooting was an act of White supremacist domestic terrorism specifically targeting Hispanics. The spread of violent white supremacy has been fuelled by racist vitriol and careless or perhaps carefully crafted rhetoric from the President. This, combined with a lackadaisical approach to gun legislation, a bloated and lethargic Congress more concerned with pontificating than the death of the people they are elected to protect and an all-powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), has lead America to where it currently is as a country.
How Bad is the problem?
As of Sunday 4th of August 2019, America has had 251 mass shootings in just 216 days. This is alarming and reveals clearly that there is an obvious correlation between the number of firearms in American society and the number of gun-related deaths in the country. According to the Vox, “America has 4.4% of the world’s population but almost half of its civilians-owned guns.” For a country with such a small proportion of the world’s population, America is head and shoulders in front of every other nation in the world. It’s interesting to note that there have been more than 2,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook.
In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself. Since then, there have beenmore than 2,000 mass shootings.
This alarming number comes from the Gun Violence Archive, which hosts a database that has tracked mass shootings since 2013. However, since some shootings go unreported, the database is likely missing some, as well as the details of some of the events.
The tracker uses a fairly broad definition of “mass shooting”: It includes not just shootings in which four or more people were murdered, but shootings in which four or more people were shot at all (excluding the shooter). Even under this broad definition, it’s worth noting that mass shootings make up less than 2 per cent portion of America’s firearm deaths, which totalled nearly 40,000 in 2017 alone.
Among ‘developed’ nations, America is far and away the most homicidal — in large part due to the easy access many Americans have to firearms.
America odd relationship with guns
It is often said that America is a democracy built on guns and whisky. America’s “founding fathers” led an armed population against the British monarchy and won. It is understandable that they saw the way the country was founded as an example of how it should be organized. They were fighters who wanted the ability to keep fighting to preserve their independence. Thus bearing arms became a cornerstone for Americans across the political aisle.
Thomas Jefferson wrote this into the 1776 draft of the Virginia Constitution, the first such document of a state declaring their independence:
This seems pretty cut and dry until you consider that the second and third drafts of the same document added “within his own lands or tenements” to the sentence. It seems Jefferson seriously considered that there should be some limitations on the individual’s right to gun ownership. It makes sense to own a gun for self-defence on your own property, but a different set of issues comes up when this gun is taken into public spaces.
Another oft-used quote by Jefferson used by gun rights advocates is: “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” Here Jefferson states the basic principle behind rising up against the monarchy – while it’s harder to control and keep stable, a democratic society is preferable to being enslaved, though peacefully. And, as we all know, guns are an excellent instrument for disrupting peace.
However, these historic cases considered, America ought to note one thing; whilst guns are certainly useful in overthrowing monarchs, is individual gun ownership the best way to oppose monarchs or hypothetical tyrants?
It is indeed important to consider where America has come from, however, gun advocates ought to invest as much energy in the future of America as they have invested in remembering the past. To become a developed democracy, America must do just that, become developed, change and evolve.
Trumps Rhetoric
In 1955 Till, a 14-year-old black boy from Chicago, was kidnapped, tortured, shot and then tossed into the Tallahatchie River attached to a 75-pound weight, for supposedly flirting with a white woman in Money, Mississippi. Till’s mother refused to accept her son’s murder. Amazingly more than 50,000 people showed up for his funeral in Chicago, and his death became a linchpin for the modern civil rights movement, inspiring the likes of Rosa Parks.
Months after Till’s murder, two brothers stood accused of the crime in what came to be known as the “wolf whistle” killing trial. Defense attorney John Whitten argued that no murder had taken place — that somehow, unnamed racial agitators had arranged for a dead body to be passed off as Till’s. Whitten told the all-white jury that he was “sure every last Anglo-Saxon one of you has the courage to free these men” in the face of “pressure” from “rabble rousers.” After 67 minutes of deliberation, the jurors proved Whitten right, exonerating the brothers.
The confidence that Whitten had in his jury is parallel to the confidence Donald Trump has in his so-called base and the trust they have in him. His supporters understand the importance of defending Anglo-Saxon supremacy against all threats (real or imagined). Trump has played to this base with numerous wolf whistles and outright racist statements.
Donald Trump has a decades-long track record of racism that includes everything from calling for the execution of innocent teenagers to breaking fair housing law. Most recently he told native-born women of colour who are often aligned with Rep. Ilhan Omar, a political adversary of his, to go back to their counties.
So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly……
….it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!
He has demonised undocumented immigrants as criminals and rapists, called migrants seeking asylum an invasion and called countries in Africa “shithole countries”. His statements are often humorous and laughable, however, they have a dangerous undertone and do real damage. As President, many Americans, rightly on wrongly look to him for moral leadership. They look for moral leadership in a President that has shown himself to be morally bankrupt several times. His racist vitriol and rhetoric adds to a toxic environment and continues to embolden white supremacists who no longer have to hide their ideologies but are now welcome on the mainstream. He exacerbates the adoption of dangerous views by setting the example he does in high office.
Smokescreen Smokescreen Smokescreen
Some Republicans have resorted to their usual tactics of trying to blur the lines on the debate of Gun control. Senator John Cornyn had this to say on twitter,
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. Sadly, there are some issues, like homelessness and these shootings, where we simply don't have all the answers.
This is a clear attempt to muddy the waters and is shameful. American politicians continue to pretend as if the mass shooting epidemic is an unsolvable problem, largely because they are beholden to powerful lobbies like gun manufacturers and the NRA. This is a major reason why when these political actors take the lectern, either on television or in speeches, they tick through the normal scapegoats like social media, video games and mental health. Whilst these do play a part in the issue, the willingness to ignore gun control is shameful.
Besides, most developed countries have video games. Japan, for instance, has one of the largest and thriving gaming industries and cultures in the world and has very few gun death. In fact, nowhere compares to the USA, therefore the issue cannot be one blamed on ‘violent video games’.
“It’s not the right time to talk about gun control”
Whenever a mass shooting occurs, supporters of gun rights often argue that it’s inappropriate to bring up political debates about gun control in the aftermath of a tragedy. This is an attempt to weaponise grief and is the most deplorable political tool.
If this argument is followed to its logical end, then it will just about never be the right time to discuss gun control, as Christopher Ingraham pointed out at the Washington Post. Under the broader definition of mass shootings, America has around one mass shooting a day. If lawmakers are forced to wait for a time when there isn’t a mass shooting to talk about gun control, they could find themselves waiting for a very long time. This is a moment that demands moral clarity from the President and urgency in action from political leaders.
Two months ago, the European Council bypassed the proposed candidates the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) had put forward before the European elections. As a result of this German politician, Ursula von der Leyen was nominated as the new head of the Commission.
According to a poll by German broadcaster ARD, 56% said they did not condone the appointment of the Ursula von der Leyen. The Independent reports that “another recent poll in Der Spiegel magazine found that she was the second most unpopular cabinet minister in Germany”. As a result of this, the European Union’s democratic nature has come under scrutiny. Manfred Weber, leader of the European People’s Party, “said the decision by leaders to reject all the candidates for European Commission president was ‘not the Europe I imagined’. Jean-Claude Juncker, who Von der Leye is appointed to replace, said that the process “was not very transparent”.
To many people, the EU is an impersonal and impenetrable bureaucracy that affects the lives of citizens without many opportunities for input by those citizens. However, according to the Guardian, “unlike the United Nations or the World Trade Organisation, only democracies can join the European Union. In theory, EU member states that slide back on democratic standards can be sanctioned, although this is easier said than done.”
Saying that a state or institution is undemocratic almost immediately implies a negative judgement, However, when a state or institution is underpinned by democracy it is seen as something positive. Having been created in 1979, The European Parliament was given the power to approve or reject EU legislation, for the purpose of making the European Union more democratic, but what it really needs, as an institution is accountability and transparency.
Today, journalists, remainers and brexiteers and politically apathetic citizens all share one thing in common – we’re all tired of hearing about the EU and Brexit on every screen we possess. During this time, the democratic integrity of the European Union is the last thing on people’s minds – more relevantly, the British public just want to know what in the world is going on. The UK has been in limbo for a long time with regards to its relationship with the European Union. An entire Prime Minister has come and gone and the only thing we’re aware of is how much still needs to be done and what we’re yet to achieve.
This is not to knock the idea that the European Union does need to be more democratic. The most effective, quick routed way to do this is to ensure that at least most people appointed in the European Council are directly elected by the relevant electorate. Having a ‘general election’ for the head of the European Commission would ultimately compel European Parties to be more transparent about what goes on within the Union. Brexiteer Kate Hoey claimed “the European Union has pushed Remainers into agreeing with Brexit because of the selection process to pick the new leader of the European Commission”. Speaking to Labour Leave, Ms Hoey said: “It’s interesting that very little has been tweeted by the Remain campaign, by the People’s Vote campaign about all of this”.
We’re tired of Brexit news. We appreciate any effort to strengthen institutional democracy, but what we need is a desperate increase in transparency and accountability. Any efforts to strengthen democracy without transparency will lead to increased political participation by an electorate with zero understanding.
What does the future hold for Labour? That’s a question that has been raging for many years and which has come under the spotlight most recently with the departure of New Labour giant Alastair Campbell.
Souce: BBC News
The long-standing member, most known as Downing Street’s Director of Communications under Tony Blair, was recently expelled for voting Liberal Democrat in the European Parliamentary elections.
Now the question concerning Labour’s future is a difficult question to answer. Post-Blair and Brown, the Labour Party was in disarray as previously stalwart voters turned their backs on the party in the aftermath of the Iraq War. Labour were thrashed in the 2010 general election – which resulted in a coalition government – then lost once again in 2015.
Enter Corbyn, who won by a landslide victory supported by an organised and dedicated youth movement (Momentum).
What should have been a renewed time for Labour has instead resulted in difficult elections, lost MPs and in-fighting. In 2017, despite losing to the Conservatives, Labour gained 30 seats – the first time is had gained seats since 1997. But it still lost.
(Image: GETTY)
Things got worse during
the European elections with many Labour voters switching to Greens or Lib Dems,
leaving Labour with a loss of 10 seats. Meanwhile Labour was fighting against
accusations of institutional anti-Semitism.
Corbyn’s detractors will point to these losses as evidence that he is dead weight, whilst his supporters see him as representing a radical shift to the left, with some losses necessary to split from the Labour of the Blair years.
Campbell himself accused Corbyn of ‘unleashing a hard left, sectarian, nasty politics’ on the public. Whether you believe this or not seems to depend on a number of factors: age, political leanings,
Young Labour voters
tend to view Corbyn favourably; arguably this is down to their experience of
Labour being dominated by the Iraq War, and a decade of Conservative-led
austerity. Young people have borne the brunt of many austerity measures –
reliance on rental properties without the legal support when things go wrong,
the brief removal of housing benefit eligibility for under-25s, zero hours
contracts and insecure working conditions. They face a future without the
financial security of previous generations. Young people were also more likely
to vote Remain in the Brexit referendum and are now finding that their ability
to study and work abroad has been trashed, even as British emigrants enjoy
retirement in Spain.
A more left-wing political party therefore appealed to the youth movement. They utilised social media, became more politically active, even made memes about Corbyn. Whilst this fervour may have alienated more traditional Labour voters, it certainly motivated the youth more than previous political campaigns (i.e. Ed Miliband’s failure to eat a bacon sandwich).
For older groups, the
expulsion of figureheads like Campbell will sound alarm bells. Blair’s Labour
symbolised a more neoliberal position that often seemed to move away from its
traditional working class roots. Corbyn is anti-war, campaigned against
apartheid, is pro-nationalisation of public services, previously a trade union
representative. He should appeal to huge swathes of Labour members but his
leadership has been marred by the aforementioned losses in elections.
And that’s really the
crux. Labour has failed to win a majority in an election since 2005 and they
lost seats in the European elections as voters moved towards other left-wing
parties. If Corbyn is the saviour of the Labour party then why are we not
seeing the results necessary to win? We have ended up with Boris Johnson as
Prime Minister, voted in only by Conservative party members.
There may be no way to reconcile these facts. The more radical side of Labour will most likely continue to support Corbyn and will hope to see some positive electoral results from it. Meanwhile, more centre-left members will want to be rid of someone they see as a millstone preventing them from success. It seems like an impossible quagmire to navigate and it will only get more difficult.
The expulsion of
Campbell is emblematic of this dissonance in the Labour Party. For some,
Campbell is a reminder of supposedly better times – when Labour were in power
and seemed unstoppable. For others he is a symbol of the worst of Blair’s
reign: ‘sexed-up dossiers’, the Hutton Inquiry, the ‘special relationship’
between the US and UK.
As someone born in
1992, Labour came into power when I was 5 years old. New Labour, with its shiny
media-savvy image, defined politics during our early years. We’ve also lived
with austerity for a large proportion of our lives. Young people are desperate
for a radical change that listens to our concerns about the environment,
capitalism and the changing political landscape of the UK. Many of us will look
at people like Alastair Campbell as a relic, a shameful past we’d rather
forget. But the simple fact is that Labour cannot do anything to improve our
lives unless they win a general election. The next one will be in 2022; Boris
plans to take us from the EU this October,
whether there is a deal or not.
A lot can happen in a
few years. Labour faces the constant threat that it will lose more seats and,
eventually, more supporters to parties like the Greens and SNP. It desperately
needs to figure out a way to move on from its current stagnation – whether that
is through mediation or a radical and permanent break from supporters of New
Labour. It is a difficult task and the question remains whether Corbyn is up to
the job.
President of the United States Donald Trump in a Twitter rant on the 14th of July, told four congresswomen from minority backgrounds to “Go Home.”
In a string of tweets he directed at the four congresswomen who challenged his immigration policies, he had this to say,
So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly……
….and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how….
….it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!
President Trump’s comments were directed at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib. Otherwise known as the “Squad.”
(Far left )Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (Far right )Rashida Tlaib
Trumps latest comments were deemed racist and fascist with even Former British prime Minister Theresa May at the time speaking out calling his words “completely unacceptable.”
This has continued to spark fury as the President’s use of twitter, continues to be a war in itself.
GO BACK HOME
“Go Back Home!” are words that have been heard generationally by people of colour in the US. In this particular case, home for all four congresswomen is in the US; they are citizens. During Trump’s premiership, ‘The United States’ has become something an oxymoron. America, as a society could not be any more politically divided. Being united couldn’t be further from the truth.
American society is arguably raised and nourished in xenophobia and racism. Jim Crow laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States lasted up until 1965 and still and lingering effect today. The slaughtering of millions of Native Americans and the lynching of several African American slaves during the brutal period of chattel slavery also leave a stain on America. The Black, Latino, Mexican and Muslim population have been the brunt of these social diseases for far too long.
“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how…”
The ‘darker lands’ such as Africa continue to be hurt by neo-colonialism, the last stage of imperialism as stated by pan African leader Kwame Nkrumah in 1965.
In the book “Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of imperialism” by Kwame Nkrumah 1965 he explains how neo-colonialism disadvantages Africa. As an example,
“The result of neo-colonialism is that foreign capital is used for the exploitation rather than for the development of the less developed parts of the world. Investment under neo-colonialism increases rather than decreases the gap between the rich and the poor countries of the world.”
Neo-Colonialism controls the economic resources of the ‘third world countries’. Countries are controlled from the outside by monetary and economic means where the countries are unable to serve their own people. Adding to this issue there are corrupt leaders advancing their own agendas. Combined it adds to a cauldron of “totally broken and crime-infested places.”
That’s why they are unable to fix these “crime-infested places”. With a continued Western involvement advancing backhanded democracy across the world, these places may forever remain places infested with crime. Countries need to stand on their own two feet, and have their “corrupt and inept leaders” dethroned.
Typically those who challenge the president or openly voice their dissent are subject to the ‘You Hate America’ trope best characterised in the below picture.
Umberto Eco’s definition of fascism could best define Trump’s current behaviours against those who challenge him his management of the USA.
Umberto Eco OMRI. An Italian novelist, literary critic, philosopher, semiotician, and university professor.
“Disagreement Is Treason” – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
Obsession with a Plot” and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. This relates to the fear of Muslims.
Nancy Pelosi has since spoken out saying “When @realDonaldTrump tells four American Congresswomen to go back to their countries, he reaffirms his plan to “Make America Great Again” has always been about making America white again.
Our diversity is our strength and our unity is our power.”
I reject @realDonald Trump’s xenophobic comments meant to divide our nation. Rather than attack Members of Congress, he should work with us for humane immigration policy that reflects American values. Stop the raids – #FamiliesBelongTogether!”
I reject @realDonaldTrump’s xenophobic comments meant to divide our nation. Rather than attack Members of Congress, he should work with us for humane immigration policy that reflects American values. Stop the raids – #FamiliesBelongTogether!
A lot of the governments are failed and are inept. In the words of former Prime Minister David Cameron in 2016, some countries like Nigeria are “fantastically corrupt”. However, for a number of reasons, Mostly problems have been exacerbated by Western influence but these powers have denied their involvement. The countries are left reaping the consequences of such disastrous neoliberal agendas under neo-colonialism. They have fought to remain afloat, but many are still bathing with the poison chalice they have been handed. Brain drains, economic drains and political corruption are just a few to name. Many ethnic minorities have had to find new homes and forge new identities in foreign lands.
Trump wants loyalty. Americans first above everything else and the creation of a deeper entrenched nation-state. Slightly opposing and surrounding ideologies will not be accepted until America is put first above anything else. A homogenous America that does not prioritise anywhere else.
This is a primal human instinct at best, as the saying goes “Put your house in order, before attempting to fix another.” Trump wants to water his garden first before sharing his water with others. How do we draw a line between nationalism, xenophobia and racism? To some, it seems clear, but to nationalists, it’s a very thin line.
Many of those naturalised in the US and other former colonising nations live somewhat comfortable lives. They have evaded stagnant economies, poor health infrastructures and more. Well, its the least they could do, everyone deserves the right to good access to health, education, and jobs. Through their own comfort, they do still have a right to challenge the President where they see fit, without being branded as people who ‘hate America’.
By no uncertain means am I a Trump supporter, but indeed I see where Trump is coming from. To understand means to not necessarily agree either. He believes to those America has extended the hands of help they should be grateful. He feels the ‘squad’ are biting the hand that fed them democracy, freedom and education. He was wrong for telling them to go home, he highlighted his bigotry and attacked the wrong people in an outlandish, irrational, reductive and irresponsible anti-intellectual response.
They are not biting the hand of America instead they are challenging how America is run. Trump, if you want them to go back then they perhaps will go down the road to their state or simply continue to challenge you until you see the fascist error of your ways. His outward statements have landed in the so-called ‘immigrants’ back garden, which is in the United States of America.
A no-deal Brexit means we must now consider and independent Scotland and Wales. Our union is at threat because of Boris Johnsons self-described ‘war cabinet’
Credit: Channel Four
The Situation
March in Caernarfon taking place on 27th of July for Welsh Independence
On the 27th of July, a march took place within Caernarfon advocating for Welsh independence. Further up north, Nicola Sturgeon (First Minister of Scotland) continues to stir up independent sentiments stating Scotland ought to become independent “sooner rather than later”. These talks carry to Northern Ireland where a growing fraction are advocating and campaigning that Northern Ireland, in the event of a no-deal, united with Ireland to form a united Ireland again. In case any observer was in doubt, our union is under serious threat.
These marches and increased talks are an early indication of what could happen if the Conservative government continues to race towards no-deal Brexit. The drastic changes would change the UK irrevocably and so it is worth exploring and considering just what could happen.
Reports reveal that Boris Johnsons cabinet is preparing, at pace, for a no-deal Brexit. Many fear that a no-deal now seems inevitable. The question is now, considering the collateral is Brexit worth it. Is Brexit worth the end of the United Kingdom as things constitutionally stand?
Distressing as it may be for England to have endured perpetual talks of these countries leaving. It’s important now, more than ever to explore the reasons for this recent outcry for independence and some of the reasons behind it.
There is no denying that a large disparity exists between our three countries. Successive Westminster governments have often left Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland neglected. Lack of recognition from the government to provide support for regions, particularly Wales is reflected in a number of metrics and figures. Wales’ average GDP per capita is £19,002. England’s figure significantly trumps that with a GDP per capita figure of £42,986. An alarming difference in the fortunes of inhabitants of the two countries. The differences between infrastructure spending in Wales and England is a possible explanation between those contrasting figures in earnings.
I'm fed up to the back teeth of hearing "Now's not the time" with regard to #Welsh independence,
I would rather be a poor country in charge of our own destiny than a poor country ruled from London,
Figures relating to poverty are even more alarming. In Wales over 200,000 children living in poverty, combined with high unemployment and rising living costs; Wales is categorically worse off than to England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. ( Figures from http://www.poverty.ac.uk/report-wales-child-poverty/wales-has-worst-child-poverty-uk ) It is for this reason that welsh nationals are not convinced that they are benefiting for our so-called ‘union’
Looking at the stark discrepancy between economic growth between the different regions, it is clear that the Westminster government must do more to rectify this. Adding salt to the wounds on neglect, developments in infrastructure such as HS2, Northern Powerhouse Projects and potential Heathrow expansions always taking place within England. These projects received new life when Boris Johnson revealed that he plans to make them priorities after Britain’s exit from the EU. The negligence the Welsh and Scottish feel is understandable and the recent outcries for independence ought to wake up our government to consider more seriously the economic future of these countries.
#England took one more step yesterday towards #independence. It will no longer depend on stealing #Scottish and #Welsh assets to prop up its economy.
However, whilst the cries are understood, one has to wonder if the push for independence will be Wales’ undoing. Whilst their economy may be generally poor and stagnant, it is unclear whether pushing for independence would make anything better. Wales currently runs on a fiscal deficit of just under 25% of their GDP, compared to the UK’s deficit of 5%. The idea of Wales being able to survive on its own in the event of independence is questionable given the disproportion in expenditure and tax revenue received from the Welsh.
Welsh Conservative MP Guto Bebb- Voicing concerns with a Welsh independence
MP Guto Bebb stated that Welsh independence wouldn’t be ideal from an economic perspective. Reaffirming concerns that Wales is “too dependent”.
Is Brexit to Blame?
Shifting views towards the Prime Minister’s plan for a no-deal Brexit is making regions such as Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland concerned regarding their future if they remain in the union.
Scotland made it evident within the EU referendum their stance to remaining within the EU. With Scotland voting of 62 to 38 per cent to Remain in the EU. In comparison to England’s voting of 53.4 to 46.6 per cent to leave the EU. Wales who once advocated for a Leave vote, voting of 52.5 to 47.5 per cent (Figures from the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results)
Fast forward to August 2019 and less than 3 months before the United Kingdom departed from the EU, attitudes towards Brexit have shifted. Whilst Wales advocated for Brexit before, the potential repercussions of a no-deal Brexit has cased Wales to think otherwise.
Reports from the BBC’s First Minister Mark Drakeford reveal that current Brexit conditions are fuelling support for the call for Welsh independence.
Boris Johnson, as the Prime Minister, has the challenge of reassuring the people from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that he can maintain union within the UK. Nuance often alludes Boris and on this issue, he doesn’t showcase the sensitivity and his failure to harmonise relationships to lead to the Breakup of our union as we know it.
Recent visits to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by Boris Johnson have been met with hostility. Whilst meeting Nicola Sturgeon at the Bute House the Prime Minister faced criticism from the Scottish public. The ill support towards Boris Johnson echoes a lack of trust for this new Prime Minister and his ‘wartime’ cabinet. Boris Johnson wants to reassure the Scottish people about his plans for Brexit, however, Nicola Sturgeon has made it clear her suspicions for Boris’ concern for Scottish welfare, with his perspective for a no-deal Brexit.
Boris met similar reception during his visit to Wales which was opposed by protesters at Cardiff Bay as he met the First Minister Mark Drakeford. Boris Johnson’s misplaced optimism in protecting the farming industry in Wales, following departure from the EU hasn’t been received with open arms. Without a suitable deal to protect Welsh farmers, they will soon bear the weight of 40% tariffs from the EU. Which would be disastrous for the farming industry in Wales, as the EU is a major trading partner for farmers. Welsh farmers are rightly voicing their annoyance with a leader who is failing to recognise reality with this issue.
For a country which ironically was the greatest empire many centuries ago, the truth is today, Brexit combined with successive bouts of poor leadership is taking a toll on the UK.
Jalsa Salana: The largest Muslim Convention in the UK
A 200 acre Hampshire farm each year hosts a global village for the longest standing and largest Muslim convention in the UK. For 53 years, Ahmadi Muslims have gathered to pledge allegiance to the Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community who reminds the followers of the Islamic teachings of peace and tolerance. The Union Jack is raised to show loyalty to British values and commitment to integration. Besides the onsite bread factory and kitchens that produce 270,000 meals across the weekend for nearly 40,000 Muslims, there is an insatiable optimism and an unbridled resolve to redress the overwhelmingly negative presentations of Islam in mainstream media coverage.
Topics like how to tackle extremism, the role of women in society and the cause of unrest in the world was also discussed.
Hands raised, heads bowed, the British Union Jack raised. A prayer for peace and prosperity, and a belief in the mutually compatible British culture with true Islamic faith.
The convention draws the attention of its audience to a grave injustice done to Islam by the Western world. As has been well demonstrated, with reference to the teachings of the Quran and the injunctions of the Holy Prophet, Islam can only be described as a religion of peace.
The pledge of allegiance, known as Bai’at, that took place on Sunday afternoon, where the participants pledged allegiance to Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad as the Fifth Khalifa (Caliph) of the Promised Messiah (peace be upon him). The participants formed a human chain leading to the Khalifa as they repeated the words of the pledge in unison .
If the West presents Islam as a religion of terror and denial of fundamental human rights, the fault is not entirely theirs. It is largely shared, to say the least, by the clergy of various Muslim denominations. To talk of religious supremacy in all other areas of human interest and to maintain at the same time that Islam emphatically denies the internationally accepted concept of human rights, is enough in itself to blemish the image of Islam.
Aerial view of the convention, Alton, Hampshire // Makhzan Tasaweer
Instead of playing up our differences, it would be far more conducive if the religious leadership highlighted points of agreement. Consequently, it could lead to the reconciliation of the entire human race, regardless of country, creed or colour. If religions do not undertake this work no one else can because this is the only recognisable force capable of transcending national, geographic and racial barriers.
Cognitive Dissonance and Indoctrination: Western Press quick to paint “Muslims” as a collective, but not a “Christian terrorist” or a “Jewish terrorist”
The quest for peace is a matter of human survival, and as such, should not be taken lightly.
Proceedings
His Holiness, Mirza Masroor Ahmad, Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, says Islam champions human rights and condemns governments separating children from their parents.
The convention sought to challenge misconceptions around Islam and promote the religion’s peaceful teachings.
This comes after a ComRes poll found nearly half (48%) of the British public disagree that Islam is compatible with British values.
His Holiness said:
‘Critics allege that Islam does not
protect or cater for human rights. Yet this is completely contrary to the
reality…recently a survey was published that found religious people
contributed the most to charities and amongst them Muslims contribute the most,
whilst those who are irreligious are less inclined to even though they proclaim
they are standing up for the rights of humanity.’
His Holiness further said:
‘Islam teaches that all children must be treated with love and affection. It teaches that you must care even for the children of your most ardent enemies. This is Islam yet today there are governments who claim Islam to be cruel and unjust who are separating infants from their parents in the most inhumane way.’
His Holiness calls for peace, fortitude and understanding
What attendees had to say: Furqan Rana
Where have you come from? – Salam, I’m from London
What does this Jalsa mean to you? – Jalsa means a lot to me, and specifically, the brotherhood stands out to me. I’m able to meet brothers from all over the world, old and new friends and strengthen and forge new relationships.
What have you come to learn? – I’ve come to increase spirituality by listening to the addresses of His Holiness, and learn from senior members of my duty team, which is Press and Media.
Raising of the Ahmadi and Union Jack simultaneously, a symbolic gesture of good faith and compatible integration.
Do you think the media has helped the negative narrative of Muslims – Yes, by they have been doing this at quite a constant rate through publishing and televising negative headlines and calling Islam religion of terrorism.
Another attendee: Akram Khan
Where have you come from?– Salisbury, Wiltshire
What does this Jalsa mean to you? – This Jalsa provides me with the opportunity to see my Ahmadi brothers many of which I’ve never seen or haven’t for a long time, listen to speeches and learn how to be a better Ahmadi Muslim.
Misconceptions and misinterpretations of Jihad. The greatest Jihad is the internal battle we fight every day.
What have you come to learn? – I’ve come to learn how to be a better person, Muslim, and human being on a moral level. And also, through partaking in duty, I’m learning how to contribute to society and make myself a better citizen.
Do you think the media has helped the negative narrative of Muslims – Yes, to an extent. I believe this to be the case as it only really portrays extreme Muslims. These represent an extremely small proportion of the followers of people who call themselves Muslims, and yet they go against the true teachings of Islam. In addition to this, by providing them with the loudest voice, Islam is presented as a fundamentalist religion and so negative connotations are associated with us. Even educated people have a negative perception of the religion. However, we’re attempting to tackle that through getting through to local, regional and national media and promoting the true message of Islam, one of peace.
Over the last few years, the rise of synthetic cannabinoid use has destroyed many lives across the UK. Powerful, cheap and up to 100 times more potent than cannabis, spice appeals to many of the more marginalised members of society, such as people experiencing homelessness. Many users are introduced to it in prison, with the drug now endemically entrenched in the UK’s criminal justice system. Acting PPO Elizabeth Moody reported spice is “completely out of control now in prisons.”
Spice can be bought in appealing branded packets (Source: Filter Magazine)
The popularity of spice is unstoppable, even after The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 came into place banning ‘legal highs.’ In the documentary ‘The Darkside of Britain: Spice,’ Julie Boyle, Criminal Justice Lead at Lifeshare in Manchester, argues that the spice crisis has “got a lot worse” since its criminalisation. Boyle continues “you’re not getting sealed packets, so you don’t know what’s in them”. This makes the formula easier to tamper with meaning regulation over the drug has been lost. Many of the drug users featured in the documentary agreed that the drug was now less safe.
Shaun, a spice user who features in ‘The Darkside of Britain: Spice’ (Source: UniLad)
Despite spice increasing in danger since criminalisation, there are calls to change the legislation further and increase its classification to Class A from Class B. This was discussed in parliament last November. Ben Bradley MP argues “Changing the classification would mean tougher penalties for manufacturers and dealers.” With both the physical and mental potency at the level of heroin and crack cocaine, even users of these Class A drugs can very quickly become addicted. Visual effects of spice are shockingly visible as users fall into comatose states, or become dehumanised ‘spice zombies’. Bradley justifiably argues that comparing synthetic cannabinoids to cannabis is obsolete. As the drugs are already criminalised, perhaps increasing the classification is the next logical step if the seriousness of the spice epidemic is to be addressed.
Ben Bradley MP believes synthetic cannabinoids should be a Class A drug (Source: British Vogue)
People who use spice often have slipped through the net of other services, for mental health or housing provision, due to the continued impact of austerity measures. While the spice crisis needs to be urgently tackled, it is feared that stricter legislation will ignore the root cause of spice addiction, which is first and foremost a public health crisis. Reclassification might enable more action against dealers, but the appeal, and thus prevalence, of spice will remain. Ronnie Cowan MP suggests that criminals “will protect themselves and the people around them by increasing the levels of violence that they use on their people in their marketplace. That would mean that, yet again, it is the vulnerable people who would be the most punished by such a move.”
Passed out after taking spice (Source: The Economist)
On the streets and in prisons, possession of spice is treated as a criminal offence, rather than a health issue. There is no national data on spice usage, as local authorities are responsible for assessing local need for drug and alcohol treatment. However action in Sheffield shows us what can be possible with this approach. Since July 2018, a weekly drop-in clinic managed by trained recovery staff promote individual centred treatment including therapy which has meant that people laid out unconscious in the city centre is now a rare sight. With training for business owners and homelessness workers on how to deal with people under the influence of spice, police have reported a 35% decrease in crime rate.
If the classification increases, sentence penalties will increase, trapping addicts into a cycle of continued imprisonment. This is an expense the UK cannot afford in an increasingly stretched prison system. Increased classification may imprison more dealers, but with the rife availability of spice in prisons it will not decrease usage. History tells us that a policy of prohibition is always a failure and doesn’t try to understand the reasons behind a drug’s prevalence. The government should instead be focusing attention on investing in services for synthetic cannabinoid addiction recovery and those with complex social needs, to truly begin to alleviate the problem.