David Beckham has avoided being prosecuted over a speeding charge on a technicality. Beckham was accused of driving at the speed of 59mph in a 40mph zone whilst driving a loaned car.
Mr Beckham enlisted the services of celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman, a man also known as Mr Loophole – a name he spent £20,000 to trademark in 2008, to defend his case. Freeman gained the nickname amongst the legal and media communities due to the fact that his signature move is to look for technicalities or loopholes to avoid prosecution on behalf of his celebrity clients. Freeman’s clients have been the likes of Charlotte Crosby, Jeremy Clarkson, Paddy McGuinness and Beckham’s former Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson.
Nick Freeman, aka Mr Loophole. (Getty Images)
Beckham admitted to driving at the speed he was accused of however he’s not set to face action. The loophole found in this case was that the notice of intended prosecution (NIP) was received by Bentley Motors Ltd, the owners of the loaned vehicle, one day after the 14-day time limit. The Judge therefore accepted the fact that since the ticket had arrived late, there were no grounds to convict Beckham.
Though Beckham did not attend the trial which took place on Thursday at the Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court his lawyer did tell reporters that Beckham was “very relived with the verdict and very happy with his legal team”.
This wouldn’t be the first time that Freeman and Beckham’s paths had crossed. It was Freeman who had argued the case that allowed Beckham’s 1999 8 month driving ban to be overturned by claiming that the footballer was attempting to get away from a paparazzi photographer.
This worrying pattern of behaviour from Beckham and his fellow celebrities has led to a call for accountability from the directors of campaigns Brake and the Safe Speed Campaign. They’ve expressed their disappointment in Beckham as he’s a role model for many other people and the clear contrast between how these situations are dealt when dealing with people with sufficient sums of money and those without.
Whilst some are shocked from what seems to be a lack of growth between the David Beckham of 1999 and the David Beckham of 2018, no one seems to be shocked by the behaviour of Mr Freeman.
Freeman who on Friday described his career as “better than sex” has often enjoyed media attention, not just for his clients’ sake but also for his own. From the fact that the lawyer known for getting celebrities off of their driving offences, was pulled over and fined £60 for failing to renew the MOT on his £200k Bentley to the fact that he refused to represent his own daughter in court when she was given a speeding ticket for doing 63mph in a 50mph zone as he wanted to teach her a lesson.
Adding insult to injury after his victory with David Beckham, Mr Loophole went on to the BBC’s today programme to say that from a “moral standpoint” Beckham should have been found guilty. He said, “Anyone who accepts that they were the driver and they were speeding, you would think in the normal course from a moral standpoint they should be convicted” and also stated that if more drivers are to be convicted of their crimes then “what parliament needs to do is it needs to change the law”.
Have your say below and let us know if you think there is a need to reform in the law or whether people need to be more responsible or both.
Comment below and make sure to follow us on all of our social media pages to keep up with discussions.
Sitting in my History class, our Professor urges us to watch the Kavanuagh case the week after, telling us that the case is reminiscent of that of Anita Hill. She sighs with exasperation about how history is repeating itself. At this point, both names are foreign to me but the notion of a woman having to retell traumatic events of sexual assault makes me uneasy, but I’m intrigued.
WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 27: Christine Blasey Ford is sworn in prior to giving testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill September 27, 2018 in Washington, (Photo by Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images)
I make it my mission to engage with the Kavanaugh case and after reading and watching the case, I too sigh. Will this be another tale of power and patriarchy undermining female pain and justice?
The Kavanaugh-Ford case began when allegations of sexual assault by supreme court nominee, Brett Kavanuagh emerged. Dr Christine Blasey Ford claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her 36 years ago when she was 15 and he, 17. She describes how Kavanaugh groped her, attempted to rip her clothes off and shut her mouth in the alleged encounter at a high school gathering. Kavanaugh denies all allegations, suggesting that it’s a ploy against his position as President Donald Trump’s nomination for the vacant seat in the US Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh gives testimony in the senate
The Testimony
Dr Ford recounts the alleged events stating “I was pushed from behind into a bedroom across from the bathroom. I couldn’t see who pushed me. Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. Ford goes on to explain how she was “pushed onto the bed” before Kavanaugh allegedly got on top of her and tried to take off her clothes. Holding in tears, Ford continues “I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. It was hard for me to breathe, and I though Brett was accidentally going to kill me”.
The most poignant part of her testimony was when Ford was asked about her strongest memory of the incident. Attempting to retain composure, she fights back emotion saying, ‘the uproarious laughter between the two and them having fun at my expense’. Watching the events unfold, one is forced to question if Ford will experience the justice system laugh at her expense once again
University of Oklahoma law professor Anita Hill testifies in 1991 before the Senate judiciary committee on the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. (Associated Press)
In 1991 Anita Hill accused Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual assault. It is frightening to see history repeat itself and it begs the question, what does the Kavanaugh-Ford case say about American society in the age of #MeToo? Tarana Burke’s Me Too movement, which was picked up by the mainstream media years later and used to spread awareness of the regularity of sexual assault and violence against predominantly women, but men also, was a breath of fresh air. With thousands of retweets, #MeToo and movements emerging across the globe women revelled in the joy of a new age where they could be vocal about their experiences and seek justice and personal healing. Celebrities rallied against Harvey Weinstein, prominent men were exposed for assaulting women and the Time’s Up movement was birthed. This was the making of a revolution, one that would etch its name in history freeing women and changing cultural norms.
However, the world watches with held breaths as the Anita Hill case clones itself 27 years later. It’s a scary reminder that no matter how progressive things may seem women are still fighting for justice to be served.
No one knows the truth. Kavanuagh was impassioned saying ‘my family and my name have been totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false additional accusations, I was not at the party described by Dr FordKavanaugh He speaks with passion and emotion calling the allegations a ‘calculated and orchestrated political hit’.
‘If looks could kill’ Bret Kavanaugh gives testimony to dismaying looks from women sat behind him. (AP)
He seems to have compassion towards Ford, but he denies all allegations vehemently. Seeing the case progress is agonising. Recent updates show that the Republicans and the White House have agreed for an FBI investigation of the alleged sexual assault meaning a one week delay. The Kavanaugh-Ford case hangs in the balance, we can only hope that justice will be served.
Itunu Abolarinwa is a writer who is passionate about creating content that challenges thoughts and initiates change. Her work has been featured on several platforms including MTV, Gal-dem and This Day Nigeria, where she covers a range of topics from race and gender, to representation in the media. As founder of award winning student radio show Identity UoB, and past Chair of the University of Birmingham’s Black and Ethnic Minority Association she sees the importance of amplifying the voices and experiences of BME students. She is a youth ambassador for youth empowerment organisation Joined Up Thinking and Head of marketing for entertainment company IA Entertainment. Itunu is a Political Science and International Relations student at the University of Birmingham currently in her third year of study.
Should students who have not handed their assignments still be given a 50% grade for them?
A teacher in Florida is claiming that she lost her job due to the fact that she would not give students half-credit for assignments that they had not handed in.
52-year-old teacher Diane Tirado, posted a photograph on her Facebook page of a message she had left her students on a whiteboard letting them know that she had been fired. The post achieved viral status with over 1,600 shares in in less than 48 hours.
Tirado, who worked at West Gate K-8 School in Port St. Lucie, wrote “Bye kids. Mrs Tirado loves you and wishes you the best in life! I have been fired for refusing to give you a 50% for not handing anything in.”
Tirado had given students a notebook assignment and after the two-week deadline some students had still not given in the work it was upon grading the assignments that she was made aware of the school’s “no-zero” policy. A policy that requires teachers to give a minimum of at least 50% on all assignments. Tirado claims that when she enquired with administrators about what to do when students don’t hand in an assignment that she was told “we give them a 50” and that she was terminated for not complying.
The chief communications officer for St Lucie Public Schools, Kerry Padrick denied such a policy existing. Padrick stated that “there is no District or individual school policy prohibiting teachers from recording a grade of zero for work not turned in. The District’s Uniform Grading System utilises letter grades A-F, numerical grades 100-0 and grade point averages from 4-0”. Padrick went on to explain that the whilst Tirado’s claims about why her employment was terminated were false, the termination itself was very much true.
A statement released by the district to WPTV said that Tirado had been “released from her duties as an instructor because her performance was deemed sub-standard and her interactions with students, staff, and parents lacked professionalism and created a toxic culture on the school’s campus” they also added that though Tirado was only employed at the school for a short period of time “the school fielded numerous student and parent complaints as well as concerns from colleagues” and that “based on new information shared with school administrators an investigation of possible physical abuse is underway”
Tirado has denied the school’s criminal allegations and has stated that she is “looking forward to suing the district for defamation”
Is it fair for students who did not hand in their assignments to get 50%? Should this practice be adopted within schools in the UK? Or do we need a stricter system in the UK?
For the past few years, it seems as though trains have built up a reputation of cancellations or delays for one reason or another. This has caused passengers to be furious with rail companies.
Last week Northern Rail announced there will be further disruption to commuters as 24-hour strikes will occur over the next month. This is in dispute of whether guards will continue in their traditional roles.
After all the strikes and cancellations and replacement bus services, nationalisation has been a topic of discussion amongst passengers and political parties for some time now.
After the Labour Party Conference it was reported that Virgin Trains had some delays. Which was rather ironic seeing as Nationalising railways was part of Jeremy Corbyn’s speech.
There are currently 18 train operating companies in England, Scotland and Wales. Britain’s rail network was first nationalised in 1948 and then privatised in 1993. Now 24 years later Labour says our railways have become inefficient and expensive. In Labour’s 2017 General Election Manifesto, they promised to bring the private railways companies into public ownership as current franchises expire.
According to the Office of Rail and Road, since privatisation railways have seen an increase in users from 735 million between 1994/1995 to 1.7 billion in 2015/2016.
The government pay for the subsidies to the rail industry and this might be needed to deliver services in areas that would otherwise not be commercially viable, such as some rural areas.
Last year a YouGov poll found that 60% of people think the government should run the railways and only 25 % support private ownership.
More than 10 Northern and Thames link trains were cancelled after the introduction of new timetables in May.
Transport Minister, Chris Grayling declined to take person responsibility for this summer’s rail chaos, a regulator’s report concluded. The report into the fiasco that left thousands of railway passengers stranded earlier this year concluded that nobody took charge. He also declined to point the blame at any rail operator saying “I think each of the organisations involved need to look at how they, themselves are organised. I am not going to point the finger at individuals today. It’s a system problem. It’s the way the whole industry works. That’s what the review says.”
My first train today stood at Whitehaven for an hour due to problems in Cornwall*.
*the rostered signaller for St Bees was on holiday in Cornwall
Grayling did reject the idea of renationalisation “The reality is, it’s not about ownership, it’s about the pressure on the system, it’s about ways of working. In a sense, that would be like saying, let’s go back to the days of British Rail, and I don’t remember British Rail being a great paragon of success, either.”
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) chair, Stephan Glaister said Network Rail did see a developing problem with the May timetable changes “But they did not take sufficient action to manage the risks or the consequence.” The ORR blamed individual companies, GTR and Northern, for not preparing in advance and not doing enough to keep passengers informed of disruption.
I’ve worked in the industry for almost 40 years, both in the public & private sector, both have their pros & cons. But nationalising train operations from where we are now will end up costing ££bns and deliver almost nothing for passengers. /more
At the time I didn’t want to see the railway privatised either. But the issues the industry faces now are aboust structure, not ownership. Nationalise the TOCs and what we get is even more state control. We’ll be well down the queue for any gov’t funding, behind NHS, defence, etc
So it seems that there is a possibility if Labour win the next general election that railways will be nationalisation. And Brexit should make it much easier for this to happen. The government would not be able to stop a private company from operating their own trains on Britain’s railway lines as it is EU directives that ensure open access operations for private companies
Dolline is a traveller, journalist and blogger who has palate to try new things. She is a very spontaneous person; you might find her skydiving over the Kenyan coast to kayaking on Lake Como. She can be an over thinker who thinks of every outcome but if she doesn’t she welcomes the change that wasn’t planned. However, she is a very simple person who is up for a good laugh or a book and enjoys living the moment. Dolline also writes for her small personal blog called ‘Swatches of Beauty’ and is currently a production journalist trainee at ITV Border.
On June 23rd, 2016, the UK held a referendum which shook the nation; the outcome was a decision by the electorate to leave the European Union.
This decision will have a great impact on the United Kingdom and the future of our international relations. However, large cohorts of the public are misinformed and confusing over the meaning of terms means they are excluded from the debate. This article will clear up what terms likely to be used in Brexit proposals actually mean
Customs Union
A group of states that have agreed to charge the same import duties as each other and usually to allow free trade between themselves. The customs union reduces administrative and financial trade barriers such as customs checks and charges, and boosts economic co-operation.
The advantages of leaving the customs union are that Britain would be able to negotiate free trade deals with non-EU countries.
The disadvantages are that, although the UK could still trade with EU countries, it would face tariffs and other non-tariff barriers such as rules of origin checks, and vice-versa – which could push up the cost of goods.
It covers four areas: economic partnership, security partnership, future areas of cooperation such as aviation and nuclear power, and the frameworks needed to enforce the agreement.
It is “aimed at ensuring trade cooperation, with no hard border for Northern Ireland, and global trade deals for the UK”
Single market
An association of countries trading with each other without restrictions or tariffs. The European single market came into effect in 1993. It accounts for 25% of global GDP and is, by far, Britain’s biggest trading partner.
Currently, 45% of the UK’s exports are to the EU while 50% of imports are from the EU. Access to the single market is based on countries signing up to the core principle of the free movement of goods, people, services and capital.
White Paper
White papers are documents produced by the government that set out their policy proposals. They are published with the intent of further consultation before the plans are later finalised in legislation.
European Economic Area
The area that provides the free movement of people, services and capital within the European single market. Membership is open to member states of either the EU or the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).
EFTA states which are party to the European Economic Area Agreement participate in the EU’s internal market without being members of the EU. However, they must adopt most EU legislation concerning the single market, except on laws concerning agriculture and fisheries.
European Court of Justice
This is the judicial institution of the EU. It deals with disputes between parties and ensures that European law is interpreted and applied in the same way in every member state.
Brexiteers say it interferes with British justice and want to remove the UK from its jurisdiction. But those who stress the need for the UK to keep close trading ties with the EU say this would inevitably mean the ECJ will continue to have influence over British laws.
World Trade Organisation
The global organization that deals with rules of trade between nations. WTO agreements are negotiated and signed by most of the world’s trading nations. Britain joined the WTO as a member of the EU and it is expected that it would have to negotiate new and updated terms of its membership.
This could be a long process because the UK would need all the other WTO members to agree on these terms. A “hard” Brexit often refers to leaving the EU without future trading arrangements in place and instead relying on WTO rules. The Treasury has warned this option could cut the UK’s GDP by 9.5% and trigger a loss of tax revenues of £66bn a year.
Facilitated customs arrangement
The government’s plan for post-Brexit customs arrangements with the EU. A facilitated customs arrangement (FCA) would see goods coming into Britain but destined for the EU charged an EU tariff.
Goods intended to remain in Britain would be charged the UK’s own tariff, which could be set differently to that of the EU’s. The plan would also rely on technology to identify the end destination of goods arriving in the UK and, it is hoped, avoid customs checks on the island of Ireland.
It has been proposed by Downing Street as a “third way” customs arrangement after ministers failed to decide between two other alternative models. Brexiteers claim the FCA is unworkable and would effectively push the UK into a customs union with the EU and threaten Britain’s ability to sign independent
Common rulebook
EU member states follow the same standards and regulations for goods. The government wants to follow a “common rulebook” with the bloc by aligning UK legislation on goods with the EU’s standards and regulations.
This proposal led to the resignation of former Brexit secretary David Davis and ex-foreign secretary Boris Johnson. The latter dubbed the plan a “semi-Brexit” and argued the UK will be left as a rule-taker from Brussels but without any say over those rules.
However, the government hopes the plan will protect the supply lines of firms such as car manufacturers, while also reducing trade frictions at the UK-EU border, such as in Ireland.
Withdrawal agreement
The UK and EU are negotiating a withdrawal agreement that will cover all parts of Britain’s exit from the bloc, including the financial settlement (or “Brexit bill”), Irish border and citizens’ rights.
It is separate from any treaty on the UK’s future relationship with the bloc, with the withdrawal agreement to be voted on by MPs at the end of the Brexit process. The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier has said the withdrawal agreement is 80% agreed.
This week we finally saw Jason Kidd inducted into the Hall of Fame.
Jason Kidd’s way to the NBA title he deserved, took longer than people expected. Kidd was raised by an African-American dad and a Irish-American mother living an upper middle class life in Oakland, California. He was a star in his early years, making ‘passing’ his significant trait. He attended the East Oakland Youth Development Center where he met mentor and future Hall of Famer, Gary Payton – who coincidentally was a point guard himself. Kidd was under the coaching of Al Payton, Gary’s father. As Kidd improved, he started playing with the older boys including Gary (who went to OSU at the time).
An Early Achiever
Jason Kidd went to high school and dominated the competition under the guidance of coach Frank LaPort. He averaged 25 points, 10 assists, 7 rebounds and 7 steals his senior season receiving a host of individual honors, including the Naismith award as the nation’s top high school player, and was named Player of the Year by PARADE and USA Today. The all-time prep leader in assists (1,155) and the state’s seventh-highest career scorer (2,661 points), Kidd was voted California Player of the Year (for the second time) and also an All American.
It was Kidd’s choice of college that shocked the nation. Considering the number of awards he bagged, his recruitment was a very public affair for its time. Inspite of offers from the prestigious Kansas Jayhawks, Arizona and Kentucky Wildcats among others, he chose to play for the California Golden Bears at UC Berkley. He set records for most steals by a NCAA freshman and broke the school record for consecutive years. A notable highlight in his college career was upsetting the Duke Blue Devil’s team his freshman year. He not only got his team into the NCAA tournament in successive years but he also put College Basketball in California back on the map. He would turn out to be a savior every step of the way in his career and was one of the early front page news grabbing recruits.
Gary Payton said that Jason Kidd at 6’4”, had an NBA-ready body and made comparisons of J-Kidd to Magic Johnson and Bob Cousy.
NBA Draftee and Early Career
The 3 J’s at Dallas, From left to right; Jamal Mashburn, Kidd and Jim Jackson
Kidd was drafted by the Dallas Mavericks with the Number 2 overall pick ahead of co-inductee and co-rookie of the year Grant Hill from Duke. Kidd’s arrival in Dallas along with a budding on court chemistry with Masburn and Jackson saw Dallas improve to a 36-46 record, exactly one year from a 13 win season.
It went downhill for the Mavericks the following season as Mashburn was out with a knee injury after playing 18 games and Kidd did not get along with Jackson. Kidd did go on to get selected in his first all-star game contributing 10 assists in a 118 to 129 loss to the East. The next season Kidd was dealt to the Phoenix Suns for Micheal Finley, Sam Cassell and Iron Man A.C Green which meant the promising 3 J’s combo never took off.
Kidd’s time in Phoenix saw him improve even more. He led the league in assists in the 1997-98 season, triple doubles and saw his PPG improve to 16.9. The Suns were a very exciting team to watch as they played a Small Ball lineup (a team that sacrifices height and physicality for speed and agility by passing a lot more and using 3 pointers). These lineups utilized his greatest asset – passing, floor awareness and racking up steals by utilizing mismatches in size. So in other words, a lineup the Miami Teams with LeBron James and the Warriors teams of today use on a nightly basis.
His on court handles and playmaking were far better than his style choices
Kidd’s playmaking earned him an all-star appearance each year barring 1999 (due to the NBA lockout it was not held) and an All NBA First team selection. His teams did make the playoffs only to get knocked out in the first round barring 2000, when the Back court 2000 tandem of Kidd and “Penny” Hardaway eliminated the defending Champions, San Antonio Spurs in the first round. Kidd also learnt to be more selfish in order to score more points ( predictably on encouragement from team mates).
Finals Appearances with Nets
Kidd doing his signature Free throw routine in Nets colours
Kidd cemented himself among legends when he arrived at the struggling New Jersey Nets team, removed from their title days with Julius Erving in the 70s in the ABA and their misfortune in the years after. Kidd was the golden signing made by the man (Rod Thorn) who selected Micheal Jordan in the 84′ draft. Kidd along with Kenyon Martin and a much younger team turned into yet again one of the most exciting teams to watch in the league. They led the east with a 52 win record. In the payoffs they beat the Indiana Pacers led by Reggie Miller in a tense series that featured the only game in NBA history to have every quarter tied. This followed by a 4-1 win over Charlotte and a 4-2 win over the Boston Celtics saw them meet the fancied LA Lakers led by the monstrous Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant.
The now infamous sweep resonates in fans hearts, but many people ignore the fact that what Kidd did with those Jersey teams was special and he went down fighting against an immovable force (in Basketball terms, they had no answer to O’Neal at Center in the low post and on both ends). The following year again, the Nets were even better sweeping the Boston Celtics and the Detroit Pistons to reach the finals face off against the Spurs led by Duncan. The first 4 games were split but the decisive game 5 saw the Nets lose at home by 10 point. On the road, the Nets lost the title chance when the Spurs scored at will with a 19 point run to nothing. Tim Duncan got a Quadruple Double( or did he?) and he outpassed Kidd while doing it.
The reason Kidd did not win could be put on failed signings with Dikembe Mutombo and Alonzo Mourning, as each of them missed entire seasons due to badly timed injuries or situations outside their control. This meant that the Nets had no answer to the physicality and imposing presence of O’Neal in the post and surrounding areas in the first finals. Tim Duncan and David Robinson out rebounded the entire Nets team in game 6, 37 to 35 in the second Finals that resulted in the loss for the Nets. It didn’t help that Kenyon Martin who matched with Duncan went down with a stomach ache and was forced 8 turnovers mostly by Duncan in the crucial home game. A combination of bad luck and lack of another rebounding presence to go with Martin and Kidd when needed the most cost them and New Jersey a chance of holding both the NHL and NBA title in the same year.
The Vince Carter experiment did not produce expected results as Carter with Kidd as a floor general won division titles but failed to win beyond the conference semifinals bowing out to the eventual champions Miami Heat in 06′ and the Cavaliers in 07′. The highlight reels however did set newer and much higher standards for fun and in game entertainment.
Title with Dallas
Mavericks take on a declining Jason Kidd in 2008 trading with JerseyTeammates at Dallas, yet on opposing teams. That years All star game featured a Western conference player on the East team as Kidd was voted in prior to the trade
Jason Kidd was brought in after a trade Dallas made with the Nets prior to the All Star break in 2008. Kidd was a presence that Dallas needed as they choked away their advantage in the 2006 Finals against the Heat and have since needed a presence to bring the talent together barring franchise superstar, Dirk Nowitzki (pictured in the 2008 all star game for the West).
Kidd brought 3 point shooting and his experience as a floor general that Dallas desperately needed in the post season. Since he was on older legs, his outstanding rebounding did decline as did his PPG.
But a 38 year old Kidd proved otherwise literally torching Portland by shooting 9-of-14 from the field, 6-of-10 from beyond the arc and finishing with 24 points in Game 1. He scored 18 points on 7-of-11 shooting, made 50 percent of his three-pointers and the Mavs had another impressive win in Game 2. Part of it was being guarded by a much slower Point Guard compared to Chris Paul and Chauncey Billups the previous years. Kidd along with teammate Terry led the league in 3 pointers attempted and made in the post season. Kidd also led the league in number assists and steals in the post season. His points assault was the biggest surprise in games 1 and 2 as he didn’t score over 20 in over a year.
Kidd as a floor director vs the Thunder.
Kidd as we saw with the Vince Carter tape was a human fast break, grab the rebound on one end by slipping or jumping ahead of the opponent on that end and igniting the break after grabbing the board. It is a quintessential definition of excitement. Kidd transitioned into an anchor of the half court offense, which was the Basketball problem of the Dallas team built around Nowitzki. His defense on Kobe Bryant in games 1 and 2 proved key (Gary Payton would be proud.)
His teammates JJ Barea, Jason Terry, Shawn Marion, Peja Stojakovic and Tyson Chandler ably supported Nowitzki against LeBron James, Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh in a 4-2 series win to give Kidd, Nowitzki and the Mavericks their only championship to date.
Withthe man cometh the Controversies
But this latest turn of events has done nothing to diminish his reputation as a tricky character.
Here’s a history of Kidd’s past incidents:
• Coaching: When he was a freshman at Cal, Kidd reportedly instigated a mutiny that led to the coach’s firing. In 2004, Kidd ‘may’ have been involved in running Byron Scott(showtime Laker great and Nets coach from 2000 up until that point). The point guard screamed at Scott during a December 2003 locker room tirade. In 2010, Kidd intentionally ran into the Atlanta Hawks coach on the sideline during a game. He drew a technical foul on Woodson as a result. The move essentially won the game for the Mavericks. Gamesmanship or something else? Smart but seemingly devious, crafty and a strategist you don’t want turning against you.
• Teammates: In the First Dallas tenure, Kidd feuded with Jim Jackson supposedly over Toni Braxton which led to him demanding a trade. Kidd ultimately ended up in Phoenix.
• When his teams fail: In January 2001, Kidd was arrested for assaulting his now ex wife Joumana. He pleaded guilty to spousal abuse and was fined $200 and ordered to take anger management training. He was eventually traded to the Nets. In December 2007, Kidd reportedly complained of a migraine and missed a game against the Knicks. He then asked out and was traded back to the Mavericks. In the summer of 2012, Kidd gave Dallas a verbal commitment to re-sign. But he later decided to spurn Dallas Kidd to sign with the Knicks on a similar contract.
• A little more than a week after joining the Knicks, Kidd was charged with driving while intoxicated after he crashed his SUV into a utility pole on Long Island. He eventually pleaded guilty and was suspended the first two games of his coaching career..
The TCS Take
Ray Allen, Kidd, Steve Nash and Rod Thorn( Nets GM)
Jason Kidd emphasized on winning, that commanded his mood. Half of his off court issues stemmed from the frustrations of not Winning. While physical abuse is a sin and crossing all lines it sadly is seperated from his on court achievements which is what the Hall of Fame recognizes.
He more than made up for his Achilles Heel (the lack of good shooting) by working tenaciously on his craft later on in the end of his Net days. Most players never even master a certain skill set.
“One of the greatest point guards to ever play, one of the smartest basketball players to ever play,” Chris Bosh told Yahoo Sports on the 10th anniversary of the Redeem team. “Just seeing his leadership style and what he was trying to improve on, that was the biggest thing I took away. You’re with all these great, great players, and everybody is trying to improve on something. I remember J-Kidd was working on his shooting relentlessly after every practice. He was just working on basics and fundamentals to shooting, and I mean, he was relentless with it. Just seeing those guys and how easy it was to play with them and how good they were, and then the fact that, ‘Oh, man, they’re just like me, they want to improve.’ That’s Jason Kidd, man, and he’s controlling the floor.”
One only needs to look to Jason’s childhood years playing against the “Glove” Gary Payton to see that he developed his generational passing and rebounding ability to get around the best defensive Point Guard to play the game. It also instilled that toughness and win or die attitude as well.
Jason Kidd teaches us to put perseverance, hard work and dedication into the work of making you the best version of yourself by aiming to minimize the affect of your own shortcomings, or in other cases make your own shortcomings your greatest asset. In addition a lesson to learn from all his off court dramas and controversies is to never let failure affect life away from work and your relationships with people.
Rutvik Bhaskar Perepa is a student at The University of Manchester working towards a MEng in Mechanical Engineering hoping to be on a placement after Year 3. He has had the privilege to travel around his home country, India and discover the rich heritage and diversity. His personal interests include Food and travel, history, Sport among many others. Often found in discourse on various issues ranging Engineering to Religious Practices, he never shy’s away from being expressive. He believes in being open minded, empathetic and analytical is the key to problems posed on a daily basis.
The composition of Sweden’s next government has been thrown into severe doubt following the results of the country’s parliamentary elections, which have left the two main political blocs almost tied. Each is around thirty seats short of an overall majority, with the remaining seats made up by the rising far-right Sweden Democrats party. Both blocs are uneasy about forming an alliance.
To make sense of the results, it is important to understand how Swedish politics works, and is different from our own here in the UK. Most of the major political parties in Sweden are organised into large-scale, long-term alliances or blocs, which can be thought of as a bit like pre-made coalitions. Although voters still opt for an individual party, with specific values and views which are distinctive from any other, they are also in practice voting for the bloc of which that party is a member. The leader of the largest party in the winning bloc conventionally wins the office of Prime Minister, meaning that in essence voters who back smaller parties in these blocs are supporting a Prime Minister hailing from a party other than their own.
Jimmie Åkesson, leader of the Sweden Democrats, talks to the press (Source: EPA)
Still with me? Good. Of the two current blocs, one (‘Red-Green’) is left-leaning and led by the Social Democratic Party, perennially the largest single party in Swedish politics, who are currently in power under Prime Minister Stefan Löfven. The other bloc, ‘Alliance’, is led by the Moderate Party and ideologically is of a centre-right persuasion. The bloc system, however, has been shaken up in recent years by the rise of the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, who have not affiliated with either side, but have made steady gains since the beginning of the decade.
That brings us to this election. In the months leading up to it, there was a lot of hype about the potential gains to be made by the Sweden Democrats. Following the apparent trend for far-right parties’ increasing popularity throughout western Europe, many expected big things of the Sweden Democrats, with some saying they could receive an unprecedented 30% of the vote as voters moved away from the centre ground. Such a result never quite materialised for the party. They made substantial gains, winning 13 seats to take their overall total to 62, but fell some way short of a result that would have overhauled the political system, as some predicted.
Elsewhere, there were also familiar trends being played out in terms of the nature of party support, with many voters opting for anti-establishment options as we have seen in many other countries. The two main parties, the Social Democrats and the Moderates, both suffered losses at the hands of smaller parties, with the Left party and the Centre party making gains alongside the Sweden Democrats.
Swedish election: With about three-quarters of the vote in, it certainly looks like public polls underestimated support for the center-left and overestimated it for the far left and far right. Still would be the Social Democratic Party's worst result of the post-WWII period. pic.twitter.com/UEFeuRxlLl
Overall, though, the Red-Green bloc won 144 seats (with the Social Democrats still comfortably the largest party with 101), while Alliance won 143, making it anyone’s guess as to who will form a government. The Sweden Democrats’ leader Jimmie Åkesson has gleefully announced that this makes his party kingmaker, as whichever bloc woos his party by agreeing to stricter controls on immigration will be able to take their place in government. This, however, is not necessarily true. The two main parties have both expressed grave concerns about working with the Sweden Democrats due to their extreme policies and rhetoric, and it seems that neither would enter into an agreement with them unless absolutely necessary. Perhaps more plausible is that the conventional bloc lines will be broken, with some parties appealing to members of the other bloc to work together for the good of the country. Pundits have specifically pointed to the Centre and liberal parties as possible contenders to work with the Red-Green bloc to ensure legislation is passed.
However the situation is resolved, it seems as though Swedish politics is going through a significant transition. Either the far-right will be accepted more and more as a necessary partner by governing parties, or the bloc system which has helped ensure the stability of governments will be fractured – if not both.
Not too long ago we saw that the number of girl’s self harming has doubled over the years, which could only mean one thing, a cry for help!
Now UCAS forms may soon require students to declare whether they have any form of mental illness such as an eating disorder or have self-harmed in the past. UCAS, Universities and College Admissions Service, operates the application system for British universities. The majority of the UK’s population uses this service to access a place in their choice of University after leaving college.
Universities UK has urged the University Admissions, process potential students, to tell institutions about their mental health before they arrive for fresher’s week. The current application form on their site puts off students from declaring their mental health condition because it is under the disability section. Professor Steve West told the Independent that there is a ‘stigma’ attached to it. Ministers have warned that institutions risk “failing an entire generation”. Disability implies that you have an impairment which is defined as being diminished, weakened or damaged either mentally or physically. Having a mental illness or having gone through it does not necessarily mean you are disabled, however you may struggle.
UCAS Application
Ten students from the University of Bristol and two from UWE have died in the past two years. A number of those have been confirmed as suicides.
Professor West who chairs the UUK mental health group said “any big transition is a time when mental health is going to be tested, so our job is to encourage students that have a history of poor mental health to disclose it, to declare it to tell us before they even arrive at the university. That will allow us to put in mechanisms that will help them through that transition period.”
At least 95 university students took their own lives in the last academic year and UUK said this week in new guidance on understanding and preventing suicides that there is no room for complacency.
We are assured that some universities have the care in place for those struggling at university that may need help. However, if people do reveal they have a mental illness, then pastoral care and support at these institutions should have better systems in place to accommodate the needs of those who walk through their door or declare it on paper.
will this really work though? most people who suffer don't want anyone to know and will be scared of the potential repercussions. Will uni's be offering support to those who declare it? If so how is this communicated to the students
Hugh Brady, vice-chancellor of the University of Bristol said, “I think a lot of work could be done by Ucas to highlight that declaring a mental health problem will not harm their application. I do not believe students fully appreciate that.”
In comparison to the years before 2014-2015, eighty per cent of UK Universities noticed an increase in complex mental health crises among their student population. This may be due to rising costs associated with higher education, a difficult market to find a job after graduation and the increase of digital technology – displaying their filtered selves as opposed to reality – dealing with day to day life.
I was terrified to state my mental illness on my ucas application and now im studying at the best journalism department in the country (look it up). I shouldn't have felt scared. #EndTheStigma ?❤
At the end of the day if you state your mental illness it should not be held against you that you want support throughout your time at university and the university should only disclose information with trusted personnel if they feel you are at serious risk.
Is it that important that applicants disclose their mental health on their application form; should every applicant fill out that section? The past doesn’t always affect the present and there may be people who have never had any problems until they get to University. Will they be properly looked after? Or will they be put on the bottom of the ever long waiting lists that the NHS already have.
for more information please see the NHS website: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/suicide/
Dolline Mukui is a traveller, journalist and blogger who has palate to try new things. She is a very spontaneous person; you might find her skydiving over the Kenyan coast to kayaking on Lake Como. She can be an over thinker who thinks of every outcome but if she doesn’t she welcomes the change that wasn’t planned. However, she is a very simple person who is up for a good laugh or a book and enjoys living the moment. Dolline also writes for her small personal blog called ‘Swatches of Beauty’ and is currently a production journalist trainee at ITV Border.
Steve Baker (former Brexit Minister) warns the Prime Minister to drop Chequers plan or face Conservative grassroots revolt.
Over the last few weeks, the initial murmurs of dissent in the Conservative party have grown to an all-out raucous which now threatens the future of the Conservative party – commentators say.
Steve Baker says the Conservative Party could “split” over the PM’s Brexit plan (REUTERS)
Dissent Over Chequers Deal
Steve Baker, a former Brexit minister, has warned that Theresa May may only have until the Conservatives’ annual conference later this month to drop her Chequers plan or face a “catastrophic split” in the party.
Her Chequers plan, the strategy for negotiating Brexit, was backed by the Cabinet back when they met in the PM’s country residence in July. The agreement, which led to the resignations of then-Brexit Secretary David Davis and the former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, sets out a blueprint for the future relationship with the EU once the UK leaves in March 2019.
Baker is the former chairman of the European Research Group (ERG), a Eurosceptic group, which plans to publish its own proposals for Brexit ahead of the Conservative Party Conference. He has said, May faced ”a massive problem” because Tory party members do not support her Brexit blueprint.
Theresa May’s cabinet agreed the Chequers plan in July, but it led to a number to resignations (CROWN)
He called the plan “not acceptable” and claimed the lack of parliamentary support, for it would undermine the UK’s position in negotiations with the EU.
The ERG is demanding May ditch her proposals and instead seek to negotiate a Canada-style free trade deal with the EU. Baker joins a slew of senior Conservative figures that have cast aspersions on Theresa May’s plans, her leadership and the future of the Brexit Deal.
There Might Be A Revolt
On the current plan, Baker said “As many as 80 Conservative MPs are prepared to vote against the Prime Minister’s Chequers plan”
In an interview with Press Association, Mr Baker said: “If we come out of conference with her hoping to get Chequers through on the back of Labour votes, I think the EU negotiators would probably understand that if that were done, the Tory Party would suffer the catastrophic split which thus far we have managed to avoid.”
He then said: “We are reaching the point now where it is extremely difficult to see how we can rescue the Conservative Party from a catastrophic split if the Chequers proposals are carried forward. It is absolutely no pleasure whatsoever to me to acknowledge that, but I look at the mood of colleagues and the mood of the Conservative Party in the country and I am gravely concerned for the future of our party.”
Mr Baker said he hoped the party would emerge from the conference “united around the idea that we can either leave having accepted the EU offer or we have to leave with nothing agreed.” But he said the Chequers proposal was “not acceptable as a lasting basis for our partnership”, adding: “What we need out of conference is a new resolve that these are the choices before us.”
Baker said they the ERG would give the government “absolutely every support” in forging a free trade deal. However, with 80 MP’s from her own party willing to vote against her Brexit plan, and Labour indicating they will as well, he said it would be “fanciful” to expect her to secure parliamentary approval.
Boris: The Gift That Keeps On Giving.
No stranger to controversy; Johnson’s column over the weekend in the Mail on Sunday, called the PM’s plan a “suicide vest”, with the detonator in Brussels’ hands.
Boris Johnson has criticised the Chequers deal in a number of newspaper articles (REUTERS)
These comments generate public discussion around Johnson, keeping him in the media, a key desire of his. However, they also further exacerbate the divisions in the Conservative party further heightening the likelihood of a split.
Just as senior leaders in the part are split around the PM’s chequers deal, they are also split around Johnson and his brand of Politics. Some strongly condemned his comments but other MPs leapt to Johnson’s defence, as dividing lines ahead of a possible leadership contest begin to take shape.
Sajid Javid, the home secretary said: “I think there are much better ways to articulate your differences.” He told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that the public wanted politicians to use “measured language” and that Johnson’s outburst was out of kilter with this.
Alan Duncan, a foreign minister who worked in Johnson’s team for two years, wrote on Twitter: “For Boris to say the PM’s view is like that of a suicide bomber is too much. This marks one of the most disgusting moments in modern British politics. I’m sorry, but this is the political end of Boris Johnson. If it isn’t now, I will make sure it is later.”
For Boris to say that the PM’s view is like that of a suicide bomber is too much. This marks one of the most disgusting moments in modern British politics. I’m sorry, but this is the political end of Boris Johnson. If it isn’t now, I will make sure it is later. #neverfittogovernhttps://t.co/rdI0FWQhbi
However, Senior Tory Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg told The Independent he thought Johnson’s “suicide belt” accusation was little more than “a characteristically colorful catchphrase”. He then added: “I agree with the sentiment. The criticism of Boris’s wording merely serves to highlight his point. It means more people hear of Boris’s criticism of Chequers and many will agree with him.”
Nadine Dorries, another Brexit supporter, said Mr Johnson’s opponents were “terrified of his popular appeal”, adding: “Don’t underestimate the vitriol that’ll be directed towards Boris today. He delivered the Leave vote, Remainers and wannabe future PMs hate him.”
Don’t underestimate the vitriol that’ll be directed towards Boris today He delivered the leave vote, remainers and wannabe future PMs hate him. If he becomes leader (and PM) he’ll deliver a clean and prosperous #Brexit. They are terrified of his popular appeal #BackBoris#Brexit
Although Tory Eurosceptics insist they are close to securing the signatures of the 48 Tory MPs needed to trigger a vote of no-confidence in May, there is little sign that the party is ready for the likely turmoil of a leadership contest. It would further spin the Conservative party out on control.
May’s allies insist she would in any event fight to stay on as Prime Minister and they are confident she would win; her critics would have to assemble 158 MPs — half the parliamentary party — to defeat her in a confidence vote.
Acknowledging the prospect of a split, Baker said he was “gravely concerned” for the future of the Conservatives if May pushes ahead with her plan, which he described as “not acceptable”. If things continue in the same trend, then the perfect storm that is brewing will in a few weeks rain on May’s Parade
Moments ago, in a stunning turn of events at the US Open Women’s Final, Naomi Osaka defeated Serena Williams. The ending was embroiled in controversy as Williams is once again treated badly by a sport she has given much of her adult life to.
Serena Williams and Naomi Osaka made history in the US Open final on Saturday.
The Match
The match ended with an Osaka victory, 6-2 6-4. Osaka won the first set as Williams struggled to find her serve. However, in the second set, things were far from conventional.
Serena Williams is given a code violation warning for coaching, with the score at 2-6, 1-0, which she fiercely disputes. “I don’t cheat to win, I’d rather lose,” she tells umpire Carlos Ramos.
After being broken by her opponent Naomi Osaka to make the score 2-6, 3-2, Williams is given a code violation for smashing her racket in frustration. Coupled with the earlier warning, this brings about a point penalty.
In response, Williams says: “Every time I play here, I have problems. I did not have coaching, I don’t cheat. You need to make an announcement. I have a daughter and I stand for what’s right. You owe me an apology.”
At the next change of ends at 2-6, 3-4 Williams unleashes a volley of abuse, saying: “For you to attack my character is wrong. You owe me an apology. You will never be on a court with me as long as you live. You are the liar. You owe me an apology. Say it. Say you’re sorry. How dare you insinuate that I was cheating? You stole a point from me. You’re a thief too. “
Williams is given a game penalty for verbal abuse, making the score 2-6, 3-5. She demands referee Brian Earley come on to the court.
She says to Earley: “You know my character. This is not right. To lose a game for saying that, it’s not fair. How many other men do things? There’s a lot of men out here who have said a lot of things. It’s because I am a woman, and that’s not right.”
Osaka holds her nerve to win 6-2, 6-4 for first major title.
Williams refuses to shake Ramos’s hand and demands an apology.
The Boos
Standing a few feet away from the Grand Slam trophy which she had just won, Naomi Osaka started crying. This should have been the happiest moment of her life, however, the tears flowing did not seem to be tears of joy.
The 20-year-old Japanese had just beaten her childhood hero Serena Williams, who was bidding for a record-equalling 24th Grand Slam title and her first since giving birth, in the US Open final.
Williams said women players are treated differently to their male counterparts in the sport. (AFP)
It was not clear whether the boos, were directed at the competitors, however, they seemed directed at a sense of injustice the 24,000 crowd felt towards Serena Williams. Their anger was familiar because they had been here before. This is not the first time Serena Williams has been a victim of a double standard that permeates the sport.
In short, Tennis, unfortunately, has a long history of treating men and women differently. The Male form of the game is littered with many ‘bad boys’ who swear, are aggressive towards umpires and even crowds. Its often called passion, ‘defending honor’ and Umpires routinely let things slide. However, an outburst in the woman’s game and particularly from Serena Williams may be been as more insubordinate.
All tennis fans have to do is cast their mind back to players like John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Ilie Năstase and others who routinely hurled insults at umpires. These players were known for their fiery temperament which helped the sport, drew crowds and invigorated games, They were seldom penalised for this, and most definitely did not lose games in grand small finals for it.
He’s “Mac the Mouth” both on and off the court — one of the most controversial and iconic players in tennis history,
“The men do it all the time.”
At the center of this controversy is whether Patrick Mouratoglou was coaching Serena Williams.
Later, Mouratoglou confirmed that he had been coaching Williams in an interview with broadcaster Pam Shriver, but insisted that everyone does it.
He also suggested that the whole schemozzle could threaten Williams’s career going forward. “I was coaching but I don’t think she looked at me,” said Mouratoglou afterward. “I am honest, I was coaching, Sascha [Bajin, Osaka’s coach] was coaching the whole time too. This is one of the rules that is ruining tennis. She [Williams] will struggle to come back from this.”
Patrick Mouratoglou admits to @PamShriver that he was coaching, that all coaches coach against the rules at Slams (allowed on @WTA tour). Can understand that @serenawilliams was upset because she may not have seen signal. But 3rd violation for talking back to umpire was too harsh
He asserted that in his whole coaching career, he has never been penalized for that action. The match commentators also agreed, making it clear that they had never seen anything like this, especially at a Grand Slam final. In her post-match news conference, Williams said she was she “was not being coached” and that she “did not understand” why Mouratoglou would say he was doing so.
“I just texted Patrick, like, ‘what is he talking about?’ Because we don’t have signals,” she said.
“We have never discussed signals. I don’t even call for on-court coaching [which is allowed on certain occasions in WTA events].”I’m trying to figure out why he would say that. I don’t understand. I want to clarify myself what he’s talking about.”
This has to stop.
Yesterdays final was a strong reminder of the problem that persists in the WTA circuit and the inequality that still exists. Many still see both sports through different gazes. This is understandable but must change. I myself have been guilty of looking at the WTA differently from how I see the ATP. When some fans look at the female game, they expect a more tame, less fiery affair. Big characters don’t do as well in the female game as they do in the male and this needs to change. Were we talking about Golf, where a dramatic and fiery outburst is uncommon, then the treatment of Serena by the Umpire, may have been justified. She would have been out of order and an outlier. This is, however, not the case. In fact, she was tamer than some in the male circuit. This double standard has to stop. This has to be the last time.
Sept 8, 2018; New York, NY, USA; Naomi Osaka of Japan (left) cries as the crowd boos and Serena Williams comforts her after the women s final on day thirteen of the 2018 U.S. Open tennis tournament at USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center. Robert Deutsch-USA TODAY Sports
American 12-time Grand Slam singles champion Bille Jean King: When a woman is emotional, she’s “hysterical” and she’s penalised for it. When a man does the same, he’s “outspoken” & and there are no repercussions. Thank you, @serenawilliams, for calling out this double standard. More voices are needed to do the same.
It’s the back to school/college/University season and with that comes the trends for autumn and winter this year. For those of you looking to revamp your wardrobe, and become the new and improved (atleast style wise) then you’ve come to the right place. I’m going to give a you a run through of the five biggest trends for this Autumn/Winter.
Female Empowerment
Women’s March on Washington -Credit to: Wayne Tromble
This one is close to the heart, and frankly I don’t even want to call this a trend, it’s more a movement if anything. The rise of the “Me Too” movement, numerous anti-Trump marches, and the focus on LGBTQ rights, have set president for another politically inspired runway. Whilst many would label fashion is simply materialistic and surface level, that simply isn’t the case. The clothes that designers make always have a story and this time the narrative was all around this politically fueled era we find ourselves in. This year the focus was around tailoring. Usually female empowerment and tailoring tend to take the route of androgyny; “the woman as the man” but this time, female empowerment was explored through strength in femininity; reflected in the shapes and silhouettes of the clothing. Stella McCartney and Alexander Mcqueen were just a couple of designer to jump on this trend.
Stella McCartney
The popular pastel suits of the spring and summer transitioning in to a more hard-lined black and navy. One thing I love about this is the meaning, secondly the fact that this trend well movement is one that will stand the test of time. Tailoring is really a classic staple of any wardrobe, and will keep coming back year after year, so you’re sure to get your money’s worth.
Animal Print
Animal print has been a trend that has seen no end on the catwalk. One year its in one year its out but you can be 100% sure it will always make a return. My favourite will always be the cheetah print- the sight of anything zebra makes me a little sick tbh and trust the zebra print leggings I wore in year five will be the last time you’ll ever see me wearing that print. Animal print has always screamed fearlessness and bravery to me; perfectly matching the rhetoric of female empowerment. But as I’ve said animal print isn’t something new, it’s been rehashed and reworked as since the raving 60’s, so what’s so special about it this time? Head toe is a must.
Dolce and Gabbana
Forget about a touch of cheetah print accessories here there, if your not fully dressed in animal print your not doing this trend justice. Remember the key message is power and confidence and wearing a print full body is really the only way to do that.
Silver is the New Gold
Fashion shows/ Collections Fall Winter 2018-19 / Balmain
Apart from the dreary bleak winter weather, there’s always something else I think about when it comes to these cold months – party season. Aside tom Christmas and the other religious festivities you might celebrate, what else is there to look forward to during this season, certainly not the bad weather and lack of sunlight. Wearing everything sequins and glitter is probably one of my favourite things to do, and winter party season is the perfect place to do it. Forget about gleaming gold, silver is the metallic of choice, because who doesn’t want to look like a disco ball?
Logos
Fendi
This is probably the most wearable, genderless, ageless trend. Logos on t-shirts and jumpers are making a comeback. It’s time to declare your allegiance Nike or Adidas? Fendi or versace? What’s best about this is the relative accessibility, you don’t need to spend pile of money on clothing a simple touch of accessories: bags, belts, jewellery are all easy ways to dip your toes into this trend. This is a trend for everyone because really and truly you decide which brand you want to represent and since there are so many out there it doesn’t matter whether you’re more inclined to the sheekness of Anna Winter or the edgy vibes of Virgil Abloh – there’s something for you to pick in this logo mania.
Leather
One thing that seems to set high end away from highstreet in the attention to detail when it comes to textures, this season is always so rich with variety. Beautiful lace, silks, sequins and tweed were just a few to name which made a repeated appearance on the runway but the material which ruled the roost has to be leather. This texture most commonly seen on accessories such as bags and shoes took a new stand in the clothing department instead. It was leather trousers, however which were the star but rather the leather dress seemed the most popular shape; holding parallels with the “strength in femininity” tailoring. Mui Mui provide us with the short and sassy style meanwhile Lowe take a more edgy route with a utility style. What excites me the most is the practicality, leather is going to provide great warmth, particularly through those bitter months, and what’s better then managing to stay sheek and on trend but also warm and comfortable.
Tanya is currently studying Biomedical Sciences at the University of Manchester and hopes to pursue a career science communication, media and African development. She is a lover of fashion, travelling and has a keen interest in racial- social issues. She enjoys learning languages, being fluent in two and is currently adding Spanish to her resume.
MP’s are set to vote this morning on an amendment to the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill proposed by MP for Walthamstow, Stella Creasy (pictured above), seeking to close a gap in the law and allow judges to jail offenders for up to two years.
Article 7 is to be discussed which addresses the intent behind acts of sexual harassment, namely misogyny. Misogyny is defined as a hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Should this law pass into effect, it could then be considered by judges and juries as an ‘aggravating factor’ in the offences and lead to more severe sentencing for offenders.
The obvious danger, is the capacity for women to weaponise misogyny to their advantage against men in select instances, should it constitute a hate crime after tomorrow’s hearing.
The CBB Punchgate Affair
Take Roxanne Pallet’s ‘punchgate’ allegations about CBB co-star Ryan Thomas, which led to 11,000 complaints to Ofcom and leaving her labelled ‘the most hated girl in Britain’ after camera footage revealed she lied to producers in the Diary Room where celebrities go to spill all. This leaves us to question: ‘where do men then stand when vindictive women abuse the amendment?’
Other celebrities like Lee Ryan, Blue’s singer, came to her defence that her ‘exaggerated’ claims could be down to mental illness. The defence of ‘mental health issues’ are frankly not good enough considering the damage Roxanne would have wrought upon Ryan’s life had the cameras not been on hand in a filmed show. Using mental health issues as an excuse precludes accountability for an individual’s actions.
What started as innocent playing around with Ryan feint-punching Roxanne, she skipped away accusing him light-heartedly of being a ‘women beater!’
Roxanne Pallet’s confession – A lucky escape for Ryan Thomas
Not long after, she was in the Diary Room where housemates spill whatever’s on their chest, she went full on attack, stating it “wasn’t a joke” and “how can you let somebody that’s done that stay here?” 21 of Roxanne’s former Emmerdale co-stars criticised her making a ‘mockery’ of real abuse victims and false accusations were a pattern of her troubling behaviour. The confessions flowed as she left the show and was subject to numerous interviews. The 35-year-old fantasist could have ruined Ryan’s reputation and life over her mistaken and malicious conviction that she had been “attacked, had her personal space invaded and was genuinely disturbed” by the incident.
Roxanne Pallet is a warning of what could be yet to pass. Febrile women being seen as vulnerable as a petal, needing protection from horrible, predatory men, all brought to light in the wake of #MeToo!
Her excuse was textbook victimhood vocabulary – ‘fragile’, bearing connotations of needing protection and a general lack of responsibility for one’s actions. “I can’t prove a feeling” was how she sought to justify her malicious attacks against Ryan.
Career-ruining words: Roxanne claiming to be genuinely disturbed by the non-incident
And since we have to be inclusive of everybody in 2018, if the victim is convinced of this, then who are you to not validate their emotional distress?
Enter Stella Creasy, MP: Misogynist Propaganda Warrior
Labour MP Stella Creasy raised the proposal of making misogyny a hate crime. With her proposed amendments that would make hatred of women an aggravating factor in up-skirting cases today. If passed, courts will take evidence of misogyny into account when sentencing someone found taking sexually intrusive images. Police would have to record allegations and file reports of such abuses.
Stella Creasy, MP for Walthamstow, and ardent proponent of the amendment
There are currently hate crimes consisting of prejudice towards disability, gender identity, race, sexual orientation and faith. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said of Ms Creasy’s amendment: “We already have robust legislation that can be used to protect women from a range of crimes.”
Besides police having to take a break from solving other crimes, they would also have to interview Larry the Lurker at number 9 and his neighbours to verify accusations.
This is a slippery slope when the law is used to punish a state of mind, as opposed to an action. It opens the door to further abridgements of misogyny with catcalling, flirting, unwanted advances and misinterpreted compliments as all potentially being indicative of aggravated hate crime against women. Forms of power-play where men try to objectify and denigrate women.
This poses questions such as: “Do all flirtatious advancers hate women, or may they like them too much for their own good? And do all women oppose being chatted-up?”
Misandry vs Misogyny – Whatever happened to good old equality?
Who gets to decide the definition of misogyny and what is the equivalent position for men? What are the comparable misandry women may commit? Since these answers are intractable because of thoughts being private property, the conversation should end here, and we should focus on condemning actions in society that are sexist and repressive toward women.
MPs meet today after PMQs to debate the amendment put forth by Mrs Creasy
Women don’t need misogyny to be classified a hate crime. Progress is visible and alienating men as some imaginary enemies is counterproductive to the gains women have made in society. Whenever are laws abused?
The Roxanne incident on CBB proves just how easy it would be for such a law to be abused and how quickly the backlash may swing full-centre.
A trial run in Nottingham saw police resent the exercise that used up precious time and resources as they had to chase up all the reports of harassment across the city. While done with the best of intentions to encourage more women to come forward, officers called it a “vanity project”.
2018: Men are still from Mars and Women from Venus
It is confusing enough for men in 2018 about what they can and can’t say, do or act around women. It’s too subjective for a compliment to be misconstrued or lost in translation that can be deemed sexist or misogynistic, while the other way around it’s somehow perfectly permissible.
Those who commit actions like ‘upskirting’ are patently motivated by uncontrollable, repressed sexual urges. These are individuals who should seek professional sex workers or counselling. A war on hate is yet another in the long line of never ending undefinable nonsense confrontations: both meaningless and unmeasurable. If actions are motivated by hatred, then they are misogynistic, if not, then they are not. An offence based on someone’s opinion that cannot be measured is nonsensical.
It is like a weak attempt at Occam’s Razor, wherein the simplest explanation is taken as the most plausible, and accordingly for Stella Creasy, misogyny fits the bill: of course, its women hating that is the exclusive answer. Any sexual offence can be the result of a complex multitude of motivating factors. Stella Creasy’s attempts to frame misogyny as the solo, simplistic cause is ridiculous. Much of what is covered under this law is creepy, antisocial, incel invasive behaviour. Something women are as capable of doing too. In simpler terms, Creasy means that men mostly behave in ways women don’t like.
It should be noted that many sexual offences are acts of hate and power rather than desire, reducing women to a victim where the man can exert superiority.
A Law Against Misandry?
The question then becomes of the law, what is the equivalent law to protect men from misandry? And whether we believe the inadequate threat of unpunished misogynistic behaviour leads to more sexual harassment than would otherwise transpire? And thirdly, is the risk of this greater than the cost of women weaponizing this update to the Voyeurism Law against men and, by extension, ruining lives and careers?
Being catcalled or wolf-whistled are not comparable to a man losing his job, being shunned by the community, having to leave the area, ending up destitute, when he may have been wrongly accused and is in fact innocent.
Women are at their most powerful point in history and if they still consider themselves pitiful victims in a world that views them as objects to be used and potentially in danger and in need of protection, I wonder what the suffragettes would say. Victimhood is a convenient shelter. A shelter behind which sensitive or resentful individuals can play the victim card. Amendments like section 7 of this bill are poised to allow for being weaponised against certain men. To pass it is to subject the odd innocent man to abuse at the hand of another Roxanne.
MPs: All Male, All Guilty Anyway?
A further problem with MPs discussing this issue is they are likely a pretty guilty bunch themselves being mostly men not eager to self-incriminate. Not everyone should feel safe, but everyone should be entitled to respect. Just because some individuals feel perpetually at risk and unsafe is not cause for authoritarian clampdowns. People irritate, anger or scare others just by their presence, simply by virtue of being who they are.
It is not that nothing should be done to redress the imbalances in this area, but should one request favouring one party over the other when what we strive toward is equality, it doesn’t help the cause but further serves to alienate the parties involved.
It seems the tide may be changing on public opinion around Brexit. A collection of recent polls have been telling the same story. These polls seem to be revealing public anxiety and disdain about the Brexit process so far.
“69% of Britons say Brexit is going badly so far”
On the topic of who is to blame, this week has revealed that the political class is still interested in pointing fingers in all directions. A recent standoff between Boris Johnson and the Prime Minister showed this. On the other hand, a YouGov study showed that the answer is very different depending on whether you voted Remain or Leave in the referendum.
The largest figure of blame for Brexit going badly is to ‘the government.’ Two thirds (68%) of those who think Brexit is currently going badly say that it is the government’s fault. This includes three quarters who voted Remain (77%) and 58% of Leave voters.
While Remain voters are far more likely to blame the government than they are to blame any other group, this is not the case with those who voted for Brexit. Leave voters are just as likely to see fault with the EU (58%, compared to 25% of Remainers) and anti-Brexit politicians (59%, compared to 15% of Remain voters). For their part, 53% of Remain voters blame pro-Brexit politicians (only 11% of Leave voters do so).
This may have been expected, however, what has surprised pollsters, is the number of Brits who now support a second referendum.
For the first time, the majority of Britons now want a second referendum on the UK quitting the European Union (EU), according to a new survey. A YouGov poll found that more people support a second referendum
“42% of Britons think there should be a referendum on the terms of the Brexit deal, 40% do not”
When this question was first asked in April of last year only 31% of people supported a second referendum, compared to 48% who wanted the 2016 vote to be the final say on the matter.
A Survation poll drew a similar conclusion, Fifty-three percent of people would back a vote on whether to accept the terms of the final Brexit deal, with 47% opposed,
Theresa May is finding herself increasingly isolated, not least because of attacks by defectors, Johnson and David Davis.
Only 35% agreed with Theresa May that “no deal is better than a bad deal” in EU negotiations, the research for The Mail on Sunday found.
Global Future chief executive Gurnek Bains said: “The overwhelming majority of Labour voters want an open, outward-looking country which could mean staying in the single market like Norway and Switzerland already do from outside the EU. If political leaders insist on – or enable – an extreme form of Brexit that prioritises immigration controls by taking Britain out of the single market and the customs union, they risk being on the wrong side of the electorate.”
In light of these polls, The Inedepant have launched a #FinalSay campaign to demand that voters are given a voice on the final Brexit deal.
