As Fortnite continues its reign as a pop culture juggernaut, hip-hop artists like 2 Milly and Chance the Rapper are wondering why creators haven’t been credited or compensated for the signature dance moves used in the game.
2018 has been a big one for video games. Major releases included God of War, Spider-Man, Red Dead Redemption 2. Smaller, indie games like Florence, Dead Cells and Celeste also came to the forefront. All good video games which garnered large audiences and critical acclaim. However, it was a video game released last year that dominated in terms of revenue and cultural impact. 2018 was about one game and one game only, and that game is, of course, Fortnite.
2018 was the year Fortnite went stratospheric, and it’s difficult to pinpoint precisely when this happened. Was it the time Drake played live and online alongside Twitch superstar Ninja and broke all sorts of online viewing records, or was it the moment Antoine Griezmann, with 900 million people watching worldwide, scored a penalty in the World Cup final and celebrated with Fortnite’s “Do The L” emote dance? Whichever one it was, Fortnite owes much of its success to staying cultural relevant by adding dance moves which the players can purchase for their online avatars.
— T̷R̷O̷Y̷ ̷H̷U̷G̷H̷E̷S̷ (@TommySledge) July 15, 2018
GOAL FRANCE! Griezmann doesn't miss those! Bring on the Fortnite style celebration and #FRA go into the lead again via a VAR assist. #WorldCupfinalhttps://t.co/YLBAygBSk0
— Belfast Telegraph Sport (@BelTel_Sport) July 15, 2018
These are called emotes.
Several of Fortnite’s emotes are based on moves created by hip-hop artists – ‘Tidy’ is a move Snoop Dogg used in his 2004 number one hit “Drop It Like It’s Hot,” and ‘Swipe It’ is pretty clearly 2 Milly’s ‘Milly Rock.’
The dance moves in question have all become viral sensations in their own right, and they’ve spread among hip-hop artists and through pop culture writ large. Fellow hip-hop artists have used them in their own videos or even during Super Bowl performances.
Since its launch a year ago, Fortnite has made an estimated $1.2 billion USD in profits. In August, Fortnite broke its own record. 8.3 million people were playing Fortnite concurrently. At the exact same time. For perspective, that was more than the number of people playing every other video game on Steam at that time.
The scale is unprecedented and, quite frankly, mind-boggling. Over the course of August 2018, almost 80 million people played Fortnite. In its first 200 days on iOS as a mobile app, analysts estimated Fortnite was making $1.5 million per day. Across all its platforms Fortnite made over $300 million in April 2018, a single calendar month.
Who gets the credit?
Such high recorded profits have led people to ask whether Fortnite is crediting those responsible for the popular dance moves that have added greatly to its success.
Within the community, the dances’ viral spread is usually understood as fandom or, in the case of fellow artists, as nods to the moves’ creators. Fortnite’s use of the dance moves is a bit different because the game is making money by selling them to players. This move has also recorded because of the racial element at play. Some have labelled Fortnite’s action as cultural appropriation because it features a large, white organisation profiting on the hard work of black creatives, without giving due credit.
Popular rapper Chance The Rapper weighed in saying
Fortnite should put the actual rap songs behind the dances that make so much money as Emotes. Black creatives created and popularized these dances but never monetized them. Imagine the money people are spending on these Emotes being shared with the artists that made them
— Chance The Rapper (@chancetherapper) July 13, 2018
Can dancers copyright their dance moves?
According to American intellectual property law, the U.S. Copyright Office doesn’t grant copyright for individual dance moves. They are treated more like words or phrases, and copyrighting them could infringe on other choreographers’ creative expression.
That means it’s probably a tough proposition if 2 Milly or other hip-hop artists try to sue Epic Games for using their dances in Fortnite.
However, the ethical question remains: is it right for Epic to re-appropriate and monetize popular hip-hop steps, using them for profit and to gain cultural relevance?
Holding another referendum on the EU would “break faith with the British people”, Theresa May will warn MPs.
Theresa May will move to dampen calls for a new Brexit referendum by warning a fresh vote would do “irreparable damage” to the integrity of British politics.
After reports at the weekend that Downing Street was preparing for another poll to break the deadlock over her deal with Brussels, the Prime Minister will tell MPs on today that the move would send a message to millions of voters that “democracy does not deliver”.
Last week she called off a Commons vote on her Brexit deal, admitting it was likely to be heavily rejected.
Mr Blair said last week that while he admired Mrs May’s determination to get her deal through, with so many MPs opposed to it there was “literally no point in carrying on digging”.
He said after 30 months of negotiation, and with the government in “a mess”, giving the final say to the people would become the “logical” outcome if every other option were to be exhausted.
Nigel Farage at a Leave Means Leave rally on Friday – PA READY NEWS UK
But Mrs May will tell MPs on Monday: “Let us not break faith with the British people by trying to stage another referendum.
“Another vote which would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics, because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy, that our democracy does not deliver.
“Another vote which would likely leave us no further forward than the last.
“And another vote which would further divide our country at the very moment we should be working to unite it.”
May is set to address MPs after a bruising EU summit in Brussels last week during which European leaders largely rebuffed the PM’s calls for reassurances on her Withdrawal Agreement.
The statement to Parliament will follow days of speculation that some Cabinet Ministers and key aides to the PM are manoeuvring for a fresh Brexit poll.
May’s de facto deputy, Cabinet Office Minister David Lidington, and the PM’s chief of staff, Gavin Barwell, both dismissed reports they are planning for a new referendum.
The Prime Minister also became embroiled in a highly personalised war of words with one of her predecessors, Tony Blair, over his calls for a fresh Brexit vote.
May accused the ex-Labour PM of insulting the British people, and undermining Brexit negotiations, with calls for a new referendum. Blair then called May’s stance was “irresponsible.
Labour former foreign secretary, and prominent People’s Vote campaign supporter, Dame Margaret Beckett, said the case for a new Brexit poll was “becoming overwhelming”.
Dame Margaret said: “It is highly significant that Downing Street felt it had to issue these advance extracts of her statement to the House of Commons on Sunday night because officials know the prospect of a People’s Vote is being discussed not just in Westminster but in the corridors of Whitehall too.
“The case for the public being given the final say is becoming so overwhelming that people from all parties and of none now recognise that this is the best way forward for our country. A new public vote would be different from the referendum in 2016 because we now know more about what Brexit means.”
It’s finished.
Mrs May said on Friday that her talks with EU leaders had shown that “further clarification and discussion” was possible and that the UK would be “working expeditiously over the coming days to seek those further assurances I believe MPs will need”.
But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said her deal was now “dead in the water” and the prime minister had “utterly failed in her attempts to deliver any meaningful changes”.
Labour says it will put pressure on her to hold the vote on it this week. The government says the vote will now be held before 21 January.
The last few months of UK politics have been objectively and absolutely s shit-storm.
NOW IT’S WAR! screams the web front-page of the Daily Mail this morning – although they’re a bit late to catch on, aren’t they?
So what’s really changed in the last few days? Despite all the noise, precious little, perhaps. May won’t be leaving (yet), today has seen consecutive EU leaders state that the deal May made will not be re-opened or changed, Labour continue to flail along producing absolutely nothing of significance – and the Lib Dems cannot be heard unless you happen to be following them on Twitter.
May won her vote of no confidence last night 200 votes to 117. Over a third of her party voted for her to leave. Why would she even want to stay?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucJ6RPez06s
To get her grubby hands on ‘my-y-y-y-y Brexit’, as this grim Gollumy-May suggests?
Originally a vicar’s daughter, with a renowned reputation for stubbornness, perhaps May really does feel a sense of duty compelling her to get her deal through.
If Brexiters who no-confidenced her were to claim that 33% ‘no’ vote should bring their opinion into consideration, provoke an intense disparity in their willingness to discard the 48% of Remain votes from June 2016 ! Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested May had lost her ‘moral and political authority’ after gaining just 60% of the vote.
‘War is a state of armed conflict between states, governments, societies and informal paramilitary groups, such as mercenaries, insurgents and militias. It is generally characterized by extreme violence, aggression, destruction, and mortality, using regular or irregular military forces’ says Wikipedia.
This Brexit mess i.e. May’s deal, no deal, a people’s vote – involves everyone and is clear-cut for no-one, except possibly the Lib Dems (they’re anti-Brexit, pro second referendum) but (tear-jerkingly) no-one really cares about them.
I'm in Brussels today meeting heads of other European liberal parties to discuss the recent Brexit developments – here's my update on how things have gone today pic.twitter.com/ZBf40dYRcu
There is no obvious policy that parliament would support. The Labour party frankly lack a clear position. Remoaners don’t all back a people’s vote. And what do the ‘general public’ want? What would a second referendum ballot paper ask the public? Would the people turn out to vote?
Would people really just like to stumble backwards out of this mess?
A Dancing Queen?
Yougov told us May would have been backed by the public 40% to 34%. There is, according to the well-informed and British public, no better alternative leader. This isn’t that surprising considering the crew May resides amongst – Rees-Mogg, BoJo, Dominic Raab, Michael Gove…
Even the unreliable British public can recognise May’s advantages in amongst a crowd such as that.
Jacob Rees-Mogg told the Todayprogramme that, ‘nobody was tougher than Mrs Thatcher and the next day she resigned. So, it’s not impossible’. As it was radio, the listener wasn’t able to see him rubbing his hands together with glee whilst anticipating his party’s potential to dismantle the leadership of their second female leader.
The targeted online abuse of women in public life is simply unacceptable. https://t.co/iPC7TefFgT
There is something to lament in the treatment of Theresa May throughout this Brexit shambles. I think the public generally feel a certain amount of empathy for her. It’s been uncomfortable to watch her struggle through the toxic oils of legislation, ‘ready to compromise’, self-promoting as a ‘bloody difficult woman’ in the lengthy and painful compromises that yielded in a deal she couldn’t bear to even pose to parliament in the end.
Most of this sympathy lies in the fact that May appears very alone, and surrounded by a pack of wolves – sorry, men – trying to undo her.
How long she survives is the question many are asking – but for now she rages on whilst Britain slowly burns in the backdrop.
An eerie calm hangs over today’s unfruitful conversations with the EU after yesterday’s high-drama. She’s trying though, that much is certain
A model of the new Emmeline Pankhurt Statue in Manchester
Incidentally, the Emmeline Pankhurst statue is finally being unveiled tomorrow in Manchester – a chance to increase public recognition of women’s pursuit of suffrage. If you’re in the area, you can join the march at 10:30am outside the Whitworth Art Gallery.
Lucy Kenningham is a recent graduate of the University of Manchester with a BA degree in English Literature. Originally from South London, she now lives and works in (South) Manchester. Her interests include philosophy, gender and international affairs. She co-founded and -edited the young person’s political and cultural magazine, Scuffle, from 2014-16.
In modern times, it almost feels natural to find yourself opening the comments section of a post on Facebook. Or tapping, to read the replies to a tweet. The same goes for a long list of platforms: Reddit, Instagram, YouTube, LinkedIn and so on. If you’re particularly curious, you might even look up the comments section of an article on its original news website. It is a natural human instinct to be curious about what others think. Whether this curiosity is fueled by a desire to understand other opinions, a need for affirmation or a search for conflict is immaterial. Modern social media aims to cater to all the above.
“Trump”, is all you have to see in a post to predictthe comments. Polarising on both sides, and both equally forceful in their conviction. As a detached bystander, you’d be justifiably confused in your assessment. Is Trump our saviour or is he to blame for all that is wrong in the world? Such is his depiction on these platforms.
This example sits as a metaphor for all social media commentary. What was first built as a well-intentioned outlet mechanism for users has developed into an arena of bitter and polarising talking points, no matter the context. Comments are used as joustings to contradict, antagonise and embarrass one another, all in the hope for likes. You might be left wondering if these commenters even believe what they are saying, or if they are just ruthlessly vying to become the top comment.
As a result of this regression, every political issue seems to find itself minimised into a left vs right battle. Football posts become a blind loyalty game to prove who can defend their own team the most senselessly. Tech discussions are Apple vs Android, and the list goes on.
No longer can users with public facing profiles in a public facing forum, converse naturally; free of bias and prejudgment without feeling as though they have given away ground to the opposition.
To begin to tackle this issue, we must first identify the contributing factors. In the comments sections or timelines found on social media platforms, users are craving for attention and affirmation from their fellow users through likes/retweets/upvotes. Whether this is for the right or wrong reasons, for the purpose of this debate, I argue that it does not really matter. These forms of interaction lay the foundation for polarisation. To begin with, in order to get likes, one must write something that you know will be supported.
To achieve this you find yourself using a commonly used talking point, or playing up to stereotypes, as opposed to expressing your honest and genuine view. In turn, getting likes and retweets gets you more visibility because of the way that the algorithms function. This increased visibility invites replies… and so the cycle continues. In this environment where attention can almost be compared to real money by the way it is sought after, it becomes a question as to whether this format of commenting can ever wield more positive results.
This construct does not allow for the vulnerability often required to have a conversation. Algorithmically, however, it goes so far as to punish attempts by downgrading these comments to the depths of your feed. This is not to say that social media platforms are at fault, so much as to say that it is simply the nature of the beast that we have created over time.
Social affirmation is something that we will never free ourselves of because of its truly engrained nature. It is also what allows social media to thrive to a certain extent. However, the mechanism of the ‘comments section’ can be adapted into something that does allow for more free thought, conversation, debate and banter, without fear of judgement. At present, most users will find themselves reading comments and replies but would never actually write one themselves. This is somewhat due to the construct of the comments sections as mentioned above. It is partly due to the time inconvenience of writing a comment and then being attached to it for the rest of the day while you wait for replies.
However, it is more so to do with the exposure and commitment that it takes to write a comment or reply. Reacting should not take courage, it should be second nature. And asking for people to engage, in public, with a constant audience is simply not to everyone’s liking and limits the accessibility of social media commentary to the minority, rather than the majority. Incidentally, this is also why you find that on Twitter users tweet an average of 4.4 times per day, while Facebook users only post 0.6 times per day. Twitter gives the illusion of a less public, more intimate setting with less exposure compared to Facebook, which in turn allows users to feel more comfortable in sharing their opinions.
In terms of alternatives, live streams have recently been proposed as a more exciting and real-time option for users to engage. However, part of me can not help but question the scalability of it. By design, live streams can only work for a handful of people at any one time. If you doubt this statement, I invite you to try and read or even reply to a user in a busy live stream.
What’s left? Whatsapp.
The only remaining option for users excited to chat about something that they have seen or read is to share directly with their friends or groups on Whatsapp. You can understand why – it’s private and comfortable, and they already know whether or not their friends will be interested. No need for a leap of faith. The social media landscape has evolved into a place where the majority do not feel comfortable airing out their thoughts to the public and their “friends” (most of whom they don’t really know). So it is no real surprise that messenger applications have become the primary outlet for these users. The regular, every day, social media users.
The only issue with this phenomena is that you are restricted to your closest pool of friends. What if your friends are not as interested as you are about the latest tech product launch? What if you’re bored with their same old opinions that never change? What if they don’t share your sense of humour? What if they take forever to reply? Finally, what if you just want to talk to someone who knows a little bit more about the topic?
We are talking about platforms that were not built for purpose. You might say that these are problems that you are always going to have but perhaps we could think about what an alternative solution would look like.
To begin with, we want to consume and react to news in the same place. We want to talk about something while we’re excited and in the moment, without having it drag out. We want to chat in a protected environment that’s detached from our profiles, real-life friends and of course, the general public. We want to chat in small groups in real time just like a normal conversation. We want to chat with people who are just as excited to talk about what we want to talk about.
The ideas described above would require an outlet that is time sensitive and instant to cater to a user’s immediate reaction when reading or discovering something for the first time. This would also solve the issue of a comments section debate that drags on and on to consume hours of your time; hours that most cannot afford to spend. The outlet would also have to be limited by the number of participants to avoid the overcrowding that causes users to vie for attention and instead allow users the space to actually engage with one another in a back and forth dialogue. Finally, users would have to be anonymous. Anonymity is too often oversimplified and only associated with negative and irresponsible behaviour. However, applied to a focused and intimate group, it could prove to be the catalyst for honest and free-flowing conversation to thrive.
Together, I think that these elements would form an ideal framework for having an engaging and free-flowing conversation between strangers brought together by a common interest. And whether it be a quick chat about a trending topic to see how others view a situation or the most niche of subjects where you suddenly find yourself embroiled in a fierce debate about a topic that you’ve never been able to talk to your friends about. You would finally have a place to go and talk about the things that matter to you.
As the founder of Springchat, Khalid is on a mission to offer users a new way to chat online about the things that matter most to them. As a graduate software engineer, Khalid enjoys tackling tech-related issues and reads anything that’s tech related. This is actually where his concept stemmed from. Khalid would read articles from the tech world but didn’t have many friends who were as passionate about the subject to allow for a good discussion…and so it began. Khalid finished off his studies with a business masters from University of Manchester Business School. Aside from sitting behind his computer, you may find Khalid practising Taekwondo or watching Manchester United (as hard as that is these days).
This week, the Brexit saga descended into future chaos, a move few thought was possible. The country watched in shock as we saw major developments in the Brexit Withdrawal Bills’ journey to parliamentary ratification
The Lady is for turning
Prime Minister Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement was scheduled to face the vote of Parliament today. However, yesterday in parliament she called off the vote. She called it off so that she could go back to Brussels and ask for changes to it.
As it stands the deal “would be rejected by a significant margin” if MPs voted on it, she admitted. But she said she was confident of getting “reassurances” from the EU on the Northern Ireland border plan.
In response to the developments in the UK, European Council President Donald Tusk said the remaining 27 EU countries would not “renegotiate” the deal.
I have decided to call #EUCO on #Brexit (Art. 50) on Thursday. We will not renegotiate the deal, including the backstop, but we are ready to discuss how to facilitate UK ratification. As time is running out, we will also discuss our preparedness for a no-deal scenario.
While EU leaders would be willing to “discuss how to facilitate UK ratification” of the withdrawal agreement at Thursday’s summit in Brussels, he suggested the controversial Northern Irish backstop, which the DUP and many Tories want removed, would remain in place.
Whats the next step?
May and her team made the decision to call off the vote because the option of a horrendous defeat was more grim than the humiliation of delay. Cabinet ministers were arguing that even in these strange political times, some of the traditional political rules do still apply, one should never call a vote that one cannot win.
The act of postponing the vote further weakens trust in Theresa May and her leadership, it is another knock to the Prime Minister’s credibility. Anyone listening to even a fraction of Monday’s debate, while the PM stood there taking question after question after question, could not help but conclude that.
Will Corbyn capture the moment?
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn must call a vote of no confidence in Theresa May “as soon as possible”, the cross-party People’s Vote campaign has said.
Mr Corbyn has ruled out such a move, which could trigger a general election until he can be sure of winning it. He is similar to May in this move, he is unwilling to subject the country to another vote until he is sure he can win.
The People’s Vote group (those campaigning for another referendum) want him to get on with it so he can fulfil his pledge to back a further referendum if he can’t get an election. The group is also urging the government and the EU to plan for a referendum.
Asked in the Commons by the SNP’s Pete Wishart if he would “do the right thing” and table a no-confidence vote to get rid of “this shambles” of a government, Mr Corbyn said: “We have no confidence in this government. “We need to do the appropriate thing at the appropriate time to have a motion of no confidence in order to get rid of this government.”
Leading figures from the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru – all parties that back a further referendum – set out their demands at a press conference in London earlier. They were joined by Labour’s Dame Margaret Beckett and Conservative MP Anna Soubry, leading figures from the pro-referendum wings of their parties. The MPs argued that a referendum was the only way out of the “chaos” caused by Theresa May’s failure to get her MPs to back her Brexit deal – but they also argue that Brexit will harm the people that voted for it in the 2016 referendum.
Whats May’s big idea?
Today, Theresa May is meeting European leaders and EU officials on Tuesday for talks aimed at rescuing her Brexit deal. She has held talks with Dutch PM Mark Rutte and Germany’s Angela Merkel after postponing a Commons vote on the deal.
The UK PM has said she needs “further assurances” about the Northern Ireland border plan to get backing from MPs. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the EU would not “renegotiate” the deal but there was room for “further clarifications”.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn labelled Mrs May the “runaway prime minister” and said the trip was a “waste of time and public money”. The prime minister is understood to be seeking legal guarantees that the UK will not be trapped in the Northern Ireland backstop plan indefinitely.
Coming up next
Commons leader Andrea Leadsom said Mrs May was seeking to give the UK Parliament a vote on whether to enter the backstop – and an annual vote on whether the country should remain in it.
She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this could be done in an “addendum” to the withdrawal agreement, without changing the main text of it.
Downing Street has said a Commons vote will be held on the deal before 21 January and Brexit minister Robin Walker told MPs he hoped it “would be sooner than that”. Mrs Leadsom earlier suggested talks with the EU could go right down to the wire, saying: “The EU is always in a position where it negotiates at the last possible moment.”
Jean-Claude Juncker, who is holding talks with Mrs May in Brussels, said: “The deal that we have achieved is the best deal possible, it is the only deal possible.”
But he said there was “room enough to give further clarifications and further interpretations”.
It is not clear if that would be enough to win over Conservative Brexiteers and the Democratic Unionist Party, whose votes Mrs May relies on to win key votes in the Commons, who have called for the entire backstop plan to be dropped.
Since Saturday 17 November 2018, a protest movement with demonstrations began in France and has subsequently spread to neighbouring countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium. According to Business Insider “Diesel went from an average €1.24 ($1.41) per litre to €1.48 ($1.69,) according to UFIP, France’s oil industry federation, cited by CNN.” This new tax elevated prices by an enormous 16%. As a result of this, the French protest group “Gilets Jaunes,” or the “Yellow Vests,” have lowered Paris to its knees by rioting in the streets, burning vehicles, vandalizing stores, damaging national symbols, and conflicting with police officers.
Why The Yellow Vests?
The members of the Gilet Jaunes protest group wear high-visibility yellow vests ironically in reference to a French law enforced in 2008, requiring all drivers and motorists to have vests in their vehicles when on the road.
Karl Lagerfeld modelling the new vest. Image caption translation: “it’s yellow, it’s ugly, it doesn’t go with anything, but it could save your life”.
Why The Rise In Fuel?
President Emmanuel Macron’s government justified this increase in fuel prices as a go-green initiative – arguing that it is an environmental strategy necessary to help make the country a low-emission economy. However, protestors argue that he is out of touch and are now calling for his resignation.
The Riots
According to BBC News, these are the worst riots in Paris since 1968. The cost of the rioting could possibly go up to hundreds of millions of euros. The hostilities sent French politics and media into turmoil. The French government later scrapped the initiative, however, the protesters were still not appeased. The movement has issued more than 40 demands to the French government, a few of which involve pensions, reduced retirement age and numerous changes to the tax system.
Slate.com stated that many people, including the French, are confused about how three weeks of peaceful protests over a gas price increase turned into the worst riot in decades, beginning and a vehicle focused, rural working-class protest evolving into a “Hydra-headed autumn of discontent, with many objectives, no leaders”. It’s clear that the outrage comes from the fact that the environmental strategies implemented by Macron are an extension of his predecessor, former President François Hollande.
The US response
President Donald Trump responded to the French protests calling them a result of the alleged failure of the Paris climate change agreement, inadvertently supporting the yellow-vested protestors.
Trump tweet on the Paris Protests.
Vox.com claimed that Trump has used the riots in Paris as “an attempt to twist a major political crisis of ongoing riots which have led to hundreds of arrests, thousands of dollars in property damage, and multiple deaths, to his own advantage”.
President Emmanuel Macron has only been in office for less than two years and has had France on lockdown with French citizens calling for his resignation. He has relented on his environmental policies and citizens are still dissatisfied, demanding more change. It is unclear how this situation will come to an end, however, one this is clear, Macron has lost considerable respect from his citizens.
On the 10thDecember 1948 The United Nations adopted a historical document which enshrined into a piece of paper our fundamental freedoms, liberties and rights- the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 70 years on, it is something to appreciate and commemorate.
It has vouched for our everyday rights, which we unconsciously practice in our daily life. For instance, as a Muslim I am able to practice my faith freely around the world. I am able to think freely and express myself via the Common Sense Network giving me a platform to contribute. I know that I am able to live a free and happy life without being tortured or inhumanely or degrading treatment. I can participate in elections and cast a vote.
This year also marks 100 years since some women in the UK got the vote
These are just a few to mention which the majority enjoy around the world. But let’s not be hypocrites and suggest that we are living happily. Ignorance of what is happening around us can be dangerous, as humans we need to uphold the rights of everyone. We need everyone to enjoy the rights you and I do, too.
I always remind myself of a simple quote presented by His Holiness Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad at Capitol Hill in 2012, he said ‘the truth is that peace and justice are inseparable- you cannot have one without the other’. Simple yet important to highlight that for us to enjoy these freedoms, we cannot expect one mechanism to work without the other.
Nevertheless, let’s establish some of the worlds problem which are infringing the rights gifted to us.
Burma’s, Aung San Sun Kyi, who was once described by Amnesty International as a ‘symbol of hope, courage and the undying defence of human rights’ for resisting house arrest against a military regime, has not spoken out in favour of the Rohingya Muslims. This genocide has affected 700,000 Rohingya Muslims to flee from destruction and ethnic cleansing to neighbouring Bangladesh. ‘Entire villages were burned to the ground, families were separated and killed, and woman and girls were gang raped’. The world is watching and pleading for peace, whereas the country’s leaders including Aung San Sun Kyi are in denial.
Close to my heart, the Ahmadis in Pakistan constitutionally have been outlawed as non-Muslim and cannot practice the basic tenants of the Islamic teachings, such as calling their mosques a mosque, calling the call to pray or even saying the Islamic greeting of ‘Salam’. The constant threat they face every day due to a lack of safeguards by the law is demonising their existence by state sponsored persecution and hate-inciting clerics. One current example to use is an old gentleman named Abdul Shakoor is in prison for selling books. Pakistan was created on the foundation of religious freedom, but it is failing one of their own.
We perceive the Middle East as having a lot of problems culturally and religiously because people have taken it too far. But the ongoing problems do not look to fade away in sand. Peace has been shattered. Constant catastrophic conflict, invasions and bombing. The latest has come from Yemen. A humanitarian crisis. Saudi Arabia infiltrating and depriving the Yemenis people to hunger and death. Approximately 22.2 million require assistance with over 8 million thought to be at risk of starvation. “The worst man-made humanitarian crisis of our time” the UN called it, and the West stand still.
(Source: Amnesty) A Yemeni City after an attack
Women have historically struggled to gain any rights, classed as 2ndclass back in the day but even in 2018, this is the case in some countries. But now they are facing new and growing challenges which are slowly getting the limelight. For instance, getting sexually harassed, forced to get female genital mutilation (FGM) or married without choice nor at legal age, not getting education because they are girls, the gender pay gap. The list goes on.
Mentioning all this has continued to flick fire inside me to uphold the fundamental human rights which were scribed 70 years ago. Therefore, to conclude, His Holiness Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad at the British Parliament in 2008, summarised everyone’s duty towards the establishment of peace and upholding the rights of others. ‘In this day and age when the world has literally shrunk to a global village in a way that could not have been imagined previously, we must realise our responsibilities as human beings and should try to pay attention to solving those issues of human rights that can help to establish peace in the world.Clearly, this attempt must be based on fair play and on fulfilling all the requirements of justice’.
Umar Zeshan Bhatti is currently studying Law and is interested in Human Rights. He is trying to challenge the negative perception of Muslims in the media and he is a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association. Follow him on Twitter @UmarZBhatti97
A possible chip in the armour could have been found on 8th December at Stamford Bridge, as Chelsea faced Premier league champions Manchester City. A game that had anyone who’s not a City fan feeling very elated and joyful due only to the result. It’s become a formality under Pep Guardiola’s City to expect a win before the game even kicks off. They possess a sort of aura that makes teams seem very fearful off them and rather than play their own, the football teams play in a manner of damaged limitations as they’re bound to score- its just a matter of how many really. Now, their unbeaten Premier League run – which dates back to April – is broken.
With a first-half domination, City, through possession and shots, failed to be ruthless in their conversions in front of goal. Chances came to Raheem Sterling and Leroy Sane but neither were able to produce the final products. This game definitely wasn’t a highlight for Manchester City, they played a t their usual best for the first 44 mins with what seemed to be talent bursting out of their seams, but for the first time in a while, they really struggled to get a goal. To top it off, at the last minute of the first half, Chelsea produced a quick goal against run of play from Kante by an Eden Hazard assist. This must have felt like a dagger to the heart for City. Hazard in the box dribbled the ball carefully before pulling it back into the open space missing quite a few players allowing N’Golo Kante to run into the centre box and smash it with his right foot into the roof of the net, it was a difficult goal for Ederson to save.
Kante this season has played in a new position that he’s not known well for especially for the skill set and technical ability he possess, but Sarri’s tactic to play him in a more advanced manner paid off in this game.
Kante fiercely battling out with Raheem Sterling, putting a Man of the Match performance.
As the second half went on, Chelsea gathered more confidence in their plays and momentum was on their side. City, even conceded a corner a goal from David Luiz in the 78th minute came – a light touch header that went into the far right corner by bouncing off the bar into the net, coming from another Eden Hazard assist. At first glance you wouldn’t make much of the goal and still would have thought that City were in the game to pull one back to at least salvage a point but when you could see the side net ripple you could well and truly tell the game was over, as all Chelsea had to do was sit back and shut up shop for the remainder of the game. Goals from unlikely candidates in Kante and Luiz gave Sarri his first ever win over Pep Guardiola. This now means Liverpool are currently sitting on top of the Premier League table with one point ahead of City. Liverpool are now also the only unbeaten side in the Premier League.
Pep Guardiola did signify that his team played exceptionally well and anyone who doesn’t think so didn’t watch the game. However it is evident that City missed Aguero’s killer finishing which has helped them out quite a few times over the calendar year. This defeat will most likely not set Manchester City back and will definitely regroup for their next game.
(source: Liverpool Echo) Mohamed Salah celebrates after scoring his team’s first goal with Virgil van Dijk of Liverpool during their game against Bournemouth
Title Race Starting To Open Up?
With City suffering a defeat in the first half of the Premier League campaign what does this mean for other teams in the league?
Well Liverpool who have been grinding out results seemed to have gained some form with their 4-0 win over Bournemouth with a hat trick from Mohammed Salah. Is this season the season that Liverpool win their first ever Premier League trophy?
Tottenham are also in contention of being able to win the league but being 5 points behind the juggernaut that is Manchester City might prove to be too much for them.
This loss could have been a new fuel source that City needed to be even more motivated to win their second consecutive title.
Much is made of Germany’s (usually) well-judged and ubiquitous recognition of its past. Going to Berlin, Munich, Dresden, a tourist wouldn’t be ABLE to evade monuments or tributes to its Nazi past. Even if you’re the kind of tourist who takes a selfie in an open-air Holocaust Memorial park. You are at least present. In fact, Bernard Schlink’s The Reader discusses the over-memorialisation of Nazi crimes and the psychological impact (namely, guilt) this can have on citizens. German literature has a whole genre dedicated to the struggle to come to terms with the past – Vergangenheitsbewältigung, by the way. Our equivalent? Historical fiction?
Britain, in my opinion, wholly lacks such a frank and upright approach to its own blighted past. In school, we learn repeatedly of WW2 (evil Germans), about World War One (evil Germans, encore), the Cold War (evil Russians this time), and guess who comes out tops each fight (literally and ethically?) – Britain!
We don’t learn about our colonisation of India which ended abruptly in 1947 aggravating a conflict in which two million people died and 14 million were displaced in the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh out of India – which the British wiped their hands clean of. We don’t generally learn of Britain’s role in the slave trade. If we do learn about the slave route, we learn of America’s role in it, rather than Britain’s own cooperation and participation.
We don’t, in most cases, learn about Britain’s relationship with Ireland.
The History of Ireland
Henry VIII was the first monarch to rule Ireland as well as England. From the mid-1500s, English Protestants started moving to live amongst and disturbing Ireland’s Catholic majority. Wars ensued, culminating in a Protestant victory abolishing the Irish Parliament in 1801 with the UK-birthing Act of Union.
What follows; the Potato famine killing one million and displacing two million, the Anglo-Irish War, the signs of ‘No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish’ splattered across English establishments suggesting the extent and encouragement of racist attitudes in Britain, the infamous Troubles, a Good Friday Agreement. And the situation as it stands which sees a partitioned country, each with a different currency and government – but a largely peaceful one.
Having just visited the Republic of Ireland for the first time, I get the impression it has remembered its history. Although in a vastly different manner than Germany, this has led to similarly beneficial result for both countries. People in Ireland struck me as being incredibly well-informed about contemporary politics and on history. An elderly cab driver, called Vince, in Dublin, who’s planning on retiring to Vietnam next July where he has a “lady-friend, gave his own complex (firmly negative) opinion on Michael Collins (an Irish revolutionary) and pointed out a Collins-named building, and monuments relating to the Famine, and to early 20th century struggles. Vince explained that, yes, Irish people were generally worried about Brexit and couldn’t see the benefits. But, he said (generously), Britain had the right to do what it wanted without fretting about its next-door neighbour.
A balding man called Michael, also a taxi driver – previously in the military, pondered with me, the possibility of army-presence at the border with Northern Ireland. This scenario was raised by, and scared, everyone I spoke to. Even more so than the prospect of huge and debilitating delays in movement between the two sides. Michael told a story of a man thinking of moving his entire factory across the border in order to avoid hours of delays which would ruin his milk and other fresh produce.
Living in England, Scotland, or Wales privileges one with no experience of what a hard border across land (not sea) is like. I think we thus find the hard border situation difficult to imagine and therefore don’t really get it..
The majority of Irish lived through the Troubles, which killed 3,600 people in thirty (very modern) years and spread paranoia, anxiety and trauma across both sides of the border and beyond. The Good Friday Agreement was made in 1997, only 21 years ago.
Brexit’s impact on Ireland itself
Dublin, Michael explained to me, is popping off financially! Google, Facebook and LinkedIn have their European HQs in the city. This creates jobs both in the companies themselves, but also in the city more generally; building new offices, accommodation (which Dublin badly needs), transport links etc. Undoubtedly, it generates money. Post-Brexit, the number of businesses plunking European HQs into Dublin could rise, as Ireland is the only other native English-speaking country. As Vince said, the trading language isn’t going to be changing to French anytime soon (!)
This sounds pretty good. In fact, the World Economic Forum this year placed Ireland 2nd in a list of highest growing economies. But what about the rest of Ireland? There is already huge disparity between the economic success of Dublin and the comparatively poor situation in the rest of the country.
The Peace Wall in Belfast
Worse off than the Republic is Northern Ireland. RoI’s GDP growth rate is 4.7% (which is great!) – the UK’s is only 1.4%. And Northern Ireland is one of the poorest regions of Britain already. Suggested, is the possibility of European firms moving from Belfast etc. to the Republic, or another country, embellishing these unsavoury inequalities.
Uma Mullahy wrote a convincing article in the Irish Times that a lack of self-examination has fuelled a Brexit inciting interiority- and superiority-complex amongst the British. Fintan O’Toole, another respected Irish columnist, has suggested that Britain’s ‘paranoid fantasy’ (which lies – in his humble opinion – behind the Brexit vote)’ stems from its psychological obsession with its history of not-being-invaded in either World War.
Such a grandiose sense of self-worth on Britain’s behalf (demonstrated in one dimension in the national history curriculum) has left the British public with a skewed sense of their place in the world. Thus, we vote to get rid of the EU because we think we can ‘go it alone’ with ease. Ireland’s example, the country’s overt memorialisation of its troubled past and present, has led to an appreciation of the peaceful and cooperative intentions of the EU. 77% of the Irish are optimistic about the EU’s future compared to the EU average of 56%. 82% of Irish actually feel like they are citizens of the EU. For the UK, the number was 54%.
These statistics point to the Irish public’s consciousness of political actualities, as a result of history lessons. Caitlyn, in a pub in Cork, told me of her daughter’s Gaelic fluency. Fluency isn’t the norm, but the language is compulsory in schools. Across the Republic, road signs, pub names and even train announcements are in Gaelic as well as English. Everyone knows some of the ancient language. This is just one other sense in which Ireland’s history drapes the landscape.
Of course, it may be less complicated to ‘remember’ if you are a victim of colonisation, rather than the perpetrator. But that’s no excuse not to do so. And without a fuller and more reasonable perspective of British history, our country will surely continue to make ill-informed, self-aggrandising decisions such as voting for Brexit.
Lucy Kenningham is a recent graduate of the University of Manchester with a BA degree in English Literature. Originally from South London, she now lives and works in (South) Manchester. Her interests include philosophy, gender and international affairs. She co-founded and -edited the young person’s political and cultural magazine, Scuffle, from 2014-16.
Ashley Nicolette Frangipane, better known to her fans as Halsey, has spoken out after the Victoria’s Secret fashion show aired. Halsey performed at the show which was recorded last month on November 8th and aired on December 2nd.
In the time between the recording of the show and the show being aired one of Victoria’s Secrets chief marketing executives Ed Razek and Monica Mitro, the executive vice president of public relations sat down with Vogue magazine and addressed why the Victoria’s Secret show hasn’t featured plus sized models or transgender models. Razek said “I don’t think we can be all things to all customers. It is a specialty business; it isn’t a department store”. In talking about why the show had not included plus sized models in the past he said that they had tried it 18 years ago and “no one had any interest in it” and that they “still don’t”. He said that he asks himself about the “reason” behind their actions before making decisions “Did we include them because it was the right thing to do or because it was the politically correct thing to do?”
Razek went on to address the lack of transgender models in the show while addressing some of the backlash the show has received in the past saying “Shouldn’t you have transsexuals in the show? No. No I don’t think we should”. He went on to say “Because the show is a fantasy. It’s a 42 minute entertainment special”. Of course Razek’s comments received massive backlash on social media with many people vowing to boycott the show and the brand itself.
Please read this important message from Ed Razek, Chief Marketing Officer, L Brands (parent company of Victoria’s Secret). pic.twitter.com/CW8BztmOaM
The brand has since issued an apology on twitter stating that the comments came across as insensitive and that whilst they have had transgender models come to castings, none have made the cut yet and the statement clarifies that this isn’t due to gender.
Model Kendall Jenner who had just made her return to the Victoria’s Secret show seemed to shade Razek’s comments on her Instagram story with a post that said “Celebrate trans women”. Caitlin Jenner openly transitioned from male to female in 2015. Rihanna was also seen liking comments that praised her brand Fenty x Savage whilst critiquing Victoria’s Secret for the comments and lack of inclusivity.
https://instagram.com/p/Bq6NQraB3jy/
Halsey took to Instagram to make it clear to her fans that she has “no tolerance for lack of inclusivity” and that “complete and total acceptance is the only ‘fantasy’ she supports.” She expressed that the show has been something that she has adored since she was young” and added that “as a member of the LGBT+ community, I have no tolerance for a lack of inclusivity. Especially not motivated by stereotype”. She also asked that people donate to GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network – pronounced glisten). She stated that GLSEN are “an organisation that offers services aimed at protecting LGBTQ+ youth” She also made a donation in honour of “those youth targeted by these comments in a world where they have been made to feel ‘other'”.
Halsey’s performance at the show can be watched here:
It goes without saying that we are living in a deeply historical time. With the vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal due this week, for 11th December, journalists are in the midst of a frenzied attempt to predict what comes next. The people themselves seem to be fluctuating between intrigue and completely disenfranchised exhaustion with the whole ordeal.
Opposition to May’s deal is possibly the most unifying display of British politics we’ve seen in years. All corners of the political spectrum have spoken out against her. She had three long days where a vote of no confidence was a distinctly viable possibility, and her right-hand man Michael Fallon has now also spoken out against her deal. Amid this chaos, the possibility of a TV debate between May and opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn has arisen.
Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn
As I write this, the debate itself remains an elusive possibility for yet more political fiasco to play out on live television. Both May and Corbyn have stated they would be willing to take part but, if these two were boxers, we would still be at the painfully-staged-recycled-twitter-insults-reeking-of-fragile-masculinity stage. But with one public poll revealing that two-thirds of Brits want the debate to take place, it seems to be increasingly inevitable. The debate itself is set to have a focus on Brexit, a reasonable focal point given the political climate, which leads me to wonder – what exactly is Corbyn going to say?
I myself have been a staunch Labour supporter since the day I started taking an interest in politics. As with any other political party, some of their practices beg analysis and invite disdain (to put it mildly). But it is their core values that I naturally held before I even began my attempt to understand the complexities of Westminster, so they have had my vote thus far. And, along with many other young Labour supporters, when Corbyn burst onto the screen of mainstream politics in 2015 I was imbued with a deeply impassioned sense of idealism and excitement for the country’s future.
2016 was the year that I fell out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. His behaviour during the Brexit referendum instilled a distrust in him that I am yet to shake. This man whom I believed so dedicated, outspoken and staunch in his political views was largely silent. At a time when he had the ear of most of the young people in this country, he refrained from making his stance either clear or understandable. In retrospect, and given his previous voting history, it is apparent that some wily PR employee knew that he wanted to vote Leave, recognised that that would alienate his youth support, so instructed him to remain silent. He stuck to this blatantly obvious attempt to protect his political image over voicing his political view. And, thus, my perception of him as ‘genuine’ and ‘different’ to your typical Westminster slime-bucket, was shattered.
This context begs the question of what exactly Corbyn and May hope to achieve in this TV debate. May is a Remainer who is pretending to want Leave and has managed to disappoint basically everyone with her feeble negotiating efforts. Corbyn is a Leaver who opted for silence rather than publicly rejecting Remain. So what can this debate lead to other than yet more political facade, insincerity and non-truth to add to the ever-growing pile of drivel that’s been fed to the British public since 2016?
Ultimately, I fail to see the point of this debate. There are better, more sincere candidates for Brexit debates on Question Time than a televised debate between the leaders of the two biggest parties in the country. This fact may be a bitter pill to swallow, but it is emblematic of this government’s painfully obvious inadequacy in navigating Brexit as a whole. I have to admit that I am minimally hopeful that Corbyn may take the opportunity to shine light on the domestic issues that have suffered from Brexit being the central point of focus in Westminster. Other than that, I fail to see what else either Corbyn or May could contribute to the discussion at this point.
Ellie is a recent graduate in History and Politics from the University of Manchester. Originally from Bristol, Ellie moved to Manchester in 2015 and has no intention of leaving any time soon. She spent the final year of her degree as Editor of the university’s only historical publication, The Manchester Historian, and continues to present/produce weekly news videos for Manchester start up, Student Inspire Network. She has dreams of becoming a journalist and hopes to embed her passion for politics and popular culture in all of her work.
Last month saw us celebrate Mental Health Awareness day I’d go as far as to say there’s a pretty gaping hole in society in terms of our discussion of autistic people’s rights. Universities and a number of media outlets in the UK are buzzing with talks on gender equality, consent, transgender rights etc. This is all good – none of those conversations should be tapered. But we need to broaden the list of equal rights movements that are being championed.
30 minutes until the latest installment from the jungle on #ImACeleb. Some autistic people need more processing time than others. Watch our video, 'Make It Stop' here: https://t.co/6XSh7MEosd
I only heard of neurodiversity through a discussion with a friend about the difference between the label ‘autistic person’ and ‘person with autism’. Whilst ‘person with autism’ could seem more desirable in its refusal to define a person by their neurological condition; those who favour neurodiversity tend to prefer ‘autistic person’ as they embrace their autism as a part of themselves. It is part of them in the same way that some people regard biological attributes such as their gender as a key component in self-identification.
So,what is neurodiversity?
Defined by the OED online as “the range of differences in individual brain function and behavioural traits, regarded as part of normal variation in the human population (used especially in the context of autistic spectrum disorders”.
#dyspraxia mentioned again briefly on @bbcdoctorwho again tonight and anxiety too over going down the chute.
Dr Who sparks conversation about dyspraxia (a term covering a wide range of neurological ‘differences’)
Essentially, neurodiversity views autism not as a disability, but a difference to be embraced as an irremovable dimension of one’s identity.
Specifically, the movement aims to reject the idea that autistic people deviate from ‘the norm’ by rejecting any possibility of a basic neurological normality. This makes sense; we’re often told autism is a spectrum. Throughout this ‘spectrum’ lie many varying intensities of mental ‘conditions’, which fluctuate greatly both within an individual’s experience and compared to the experience of others. So it is conceivable to imagine a world which considers autistic people as not deviations, but variants.
Is it controversial?
Yes.
The crux of the neurodiversity movement (and the point that its opposers most forcibly reject) is that there need be no cure for autism. Society has advanced and progressed because of not despite of neurological differences. That in itself is hard to argue with; one clear example is world-renowned scientist Temple Grandin who credits her success to an ability to, amazingly, ‘think in pictures’.
Temple Grandin
But does this really mean we can strike autism off any lists of impairments or diseases? Whose voices are we actually hearing? To some, this debate is dominated exclusively by the voices of high-functioning autistic people. Critics of neurodiversity argue that sure, for those autistic people who function with ease in society, acceptance and celebration of neurodiversity is great.
But, for those whose lives are hindered by severe autism, searching for practical solutions to quotidian societal challenges and searching for a ‘cure’ isn’t offensive, but rather, urgent.
What is autism anyway?
However – are these critics really just mixing up autism with learning disabilities? My contact, a student at the University of Sussex’s psychology department, explained that:
When a person has ‘low-functioning’ autism, it is more that they have autism and a learning disability. The lines are very blurred as to what is autism, and what is a learning disability, but autism in and of itself is such a broad spectrum, a cure is impossible.
Damian Milton’s well-received theory of ‘double empathy’ reassigns the familiar roles in the classic trope ‘autistic people cannot feel empathy’. Milton, an academic at Kent University, suggests rather that any two people with such different ways of viewing the world find it hard to empathise with each other. Empathy difficulties are a mutual problem, not simply the autistic person’s ‘handicap’.
The truth is that we define autism as an illness in order to ‘other’ the autistic person and not to recognise the non-autistic role in miscommunications that occur.
Where do we go from here?
Conversations about neurodiversity have to increase. This is crucial because a) a section of society pushing civil rights progression is being wrongfully ignored; b) considering how neurological differences interact with people’s identity can only help further society’s dialogue with not just autistic people, but anyone with an underlying mental ‘difference’. Which, quite possibly, incorporates a majority of the population.
There are many reasons the neurodiversity movement has been ignored; the awkward binary of ‘illness’ being one. We must make sure that we are not just avoiding these conversations because we find it difficult to listen to and understand those who differ from us. Their voices must be heard.
For more information on these key issues visit the www.autism.org.uk website.
Lucy Kenningham is a recent graduate of the University of Manchester with a BA degree in English Literature. Originally from South London, she now lives and works in (South) Manchester. Her interests include philosophy, gender and international affairs. She co-founded and -edited the young person’s political and cultural magazine, Scuffle, from 2014-16.
A US Congressional committee will investigate Ivanka Trump, President Donald Trump’s daughter and a White House adviser, following reports she repeatedly used a personal email account for government work.
A White House review of her emails found she used her personal account up to 100 times last year to contact other Trump administration officials, the Washington Post reported on Monday, citing people familiar with the review.
Use of a personal account for government business potentially violates a law requiring preservation of all presidential records.
Are private emails illegal?
It is not illegal for White House officials to use personal email accounts for government business.
However, under the Presidential Records Act and Federal Records Act, government officials must forward any official correspondence to a work account within 20 days for preservation
.If this is not done reliably, the use of private accounts can put official records beyond the reach of journalists, lawmakers and others who seek publicly available information.
There are also rules against sharing classified or privileged information on personal email accounts.
White House to Investigate
President Trump, a Republican, repeatedly criticized his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election campaign over her use of personal email and a private server while she was secretary of state.
The panel will investigate White House communications when Democrats take over the US House of Representatives in January.
“We plan to continue our investigation of the presidential records act and federal records act, and we want to know if Ivanka complied with the law,” said a spokesperson for Representative Elijah Cummings, who is the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.
The current House Oversight committee chairman, Republican Trey Gowdy, also asked the White House for information related to Ms Trump’s use of private email in a letter yesterday. Republican Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate’s Homeland Security committee, also asked for a briefing on the topic.
Mr Trump said his daughter’s use of her personal email account was different from Mrs Clinton’s.
Mandatory Credit: Photo by Evan Vucci/AP/REX/Shutterstock (9896574k)
“For a little period of time, Ivanka did some emails. They weren’t classified like Hillary Clinton. They weren’t deleted like Hillary Clinton … She wasn’t doing anything to hide her emails,” Mr Trump told reporters. His daughter did not have a private server as Mrs Clinton did, he said.
Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Ms Trump’s ethics lawyer, Abbe Lowell, told The Washington Post the emails occurred before she was aware of government record-keeping regulations.
Since then, she has turned over all her government-related emails to be stored with other White House records, the newspaper reported. Ms Trump’s emails came to light when White House officials began reviewing them in response to a lawsuit from watchdog group American Oversight, according to the newspaper.
What about #LockHerUp
Mrs Clinton’s email practices as secretary of state prompted a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe in the run-up to the 2016 election that still draws ire from Mr Trump and calls from some of his supporters to “lock her up”.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton checks her PDA upon her departure in a military C-17 plane from Malta bound for Tripoli, Libya, in this October 18, 2011, file photo. An investigative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives will subpoena Clinton’s personal emails regarding the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the Washington Post reported on March 4, 2015.
REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/Files (LIBYA – Tags: POLITICS)
The FBI concluded that Mrs Clinton’s actions were extremely careless but did not recommend any charges be filed. Mrs Clinton expressed regret for her decision to use a private server but said she violated no rules. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat on the Senate judiciary panel, said there was “no way” Ms Trump did not know the rules after the 2016 campaign.
There were also larger questions about the Trump family’s mixing of private enterprise and government duties, Mr Blumenthal said. “It raises the issue of whether there has been anything improper. There should be some kind of investigation” either by Congress or the White House ethics office, Mr Blumenthal told CNN.
The White House began reviewing senior aides’ email use last year after reports that Ivanka Trump’s husband Jared Kushner, also a top White House adviser, used private email for government work.
The Netherlands beat France on Friday 16th November in their UEFA Nations League match and deservedly so, with Wijnaldum and Depay both getting on the score boards. It could have been more than just 2-0 win, but Lloris made a number of good saves to stop the bleeding. The Dutch had 18 shot attempts with 11 being on target, compared to France’s 7 shot attempts and 2 on target. France by no means had a weak team out on the field, but with Paul Pogba being injured the midfield didn’t tick as effectively and lacked creativity and technical presence, which was evident in the final possession stat of the Dutchmen holding 59% of the ball. Even with Pogba out, the likes of Mbappe, Griezmann, Kante, Matuidi should have been enough to secure them at least one point which is what they needed to secure the top spot.
Paul Pogba was injured and so sat this match out.
What is the UEFA Nations league?
The UEFA is a new national team competition that replaces friendlies with competitive matches, allowing nations to play against equally ranked teams. The four group winners of the top-ranked League A qualify for the UEFA Nations League finals in June 2019.
UEFA League Nations Official Logo
Within the first minute, the Dutch looked threatening and exciting. A nice through ball that split the French defence with ease allowed Depay to play it across the box allowing Wijnaldum to hit it but Lloris blocked it.
At the 44th minute mark, Liverpool’s Wijnaldum managed to parry his shot in the bottom left corner, after Ryan Babel’s right footed shot was saved by Lloris. But this was not enough to get it away from danger. Wijnaldum in the centre box was in the perfect position to put his team 1-0 up in Rotterdam ending the first half of the match.
Attempts in the second half were ramped up even more with Ryan Babel’s shot being saved again at the 50th minute mark. With Virgil Van Dijk narrowly missing the header assisted by Delay at the 60th minute mark and Denzel Dumfries header saved in the bottom right corner of the goal at the 62nd mark. It’s safe to say that the Netherlands really mounted pressure on the World Cup winners. As the second half went on, a greater number of attempts were made and at the end of the match Frenkie De Jong was awarded a penalty after a silly foul by Moussa Sissoko in the box. Depay stepped up to take the penalty kick and what a wonderful one it was, he dinked it right in the middle of the goal which made Lloris a world class goal keeper, look rather silly. This whole game was the Dutch really showing how dangerous they are and Hugo Lloris keeping his team in the game by the scruff of the neck.
With France beaten in a competitive match it now means their 15 streak unbeaten run has come to an end.
With a stellar performance from the Netherlands XI it begs the question: which individual players will now be on the teams’ radars and whether Memphis Depay’s return to Manchester United is a possibility. Depay regained his form which first got him the transfer move to the Reds at his now club destination Olympique Lyonnais in the French League. United fans are certainly calling for his buy back clause to be activated as the team needs a surge of new energy, however I personally believe that it won’t fix any of Manchester United’s problem and it’s more of a structural issue at every level.
31 year old Ryan Babel has been putting in a shift with his performances for the national side which could put his name back in the lights and of course one of the best defenders in the world and the captain of the Dutch side Virgil Van Dijk brings calm and stability to the defence and whoever he’s playing with, so the Dutch national Side looks to be in good hands under head coach Ronald Koeman.
France can still take top spot if the Germans beat the Dutch. But if the Dutch win they take top spot of group A. Overall there are some doubts surrounding the French team as they looked very stale and it’s evident that head coach Deschamps needs to rotate the quality that the French team posses a lot more because they sure don’t lack it in most departments on the pitch.
The UEFA Nations sure do bring back a bit of excitement to international football.
