type here...
Home Blog Page 83

Shooting at YouTube HQ – Massacre after Massacre. Will things ever change in America?

Mike Omoniyi
-
4
Shooting at YouTube HQ – Massacre after Massacre. Will things ever change in America?

You probably opened this article with a healthy level of cynicism; this is, after all, not the first time you’ve heard about a mass shooting in America. In fact, if you pay close attention, they happen every day. The New York Times reports that serious shootings happen in America on average more than once a day. That is how often shootings that leave four or more people wounded or dead occur in the United States, according to a compilation of statistics. The shooting at YouTube HQ yesterday was, therefore, the latest instalment in a sequence of mass shootings that have become all too common in the USA. This came days after one of the largest national campaigns ever for gun control which begs the question – are we on the brink of change regarding gun law in America?

A Crisis At YouTube

Yesterday’s shooting took place at a beacon of American industry and ingenuity. YouTube’s office in Silicon Valley, better known for wide-open spaces and creative designs, is now an active crime scene. Police have named the suspect as Nasim Aghdam, 39, and say they are still investigating a motive.

The suspect is reported to have approached an outdoor patio and dining area at the offices in San Bruno, near San Francisco, at about lunchtime and opened fire with a handgun.

San Bruno Police Chief Ed Barberini said officers arrived at the offices at 12:48 (19:48 GMT) local time to find a “chaotic scene,’ with numerous people fleeing.

Images broadcast on local TV stations showed employees leaving with their hands raised. Other footage showed evacuees forming a queue before being individually frisked by police.

YouTube product manager Todd Sherman reported live on Twitter of people fleeing the building in panic as the shooting unfolded.

The three people wounded in the attack were taken to Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. Officials said a 32-year-old woman’s condition was serious, while a 27-year-old’s condition was fair. A fourth person was also taken to hospital with an ankle injury sustained while trying to escape, Mr Barberini said.

Have I read this before?

If all of this sounds familiar, it’s because it is. Shootings are common in America and a contentious gun debate has been raging for many years. Like any subject that weaves its way around corpses, gun control discussions easily ignite the worst parts of us. Whether it’s a descent into name-calling, insults, ad hominems and similar lazy, childish tactics, or a dismissal of anyone other than those on “our” side, attempts at objectivity are often scarce. However, many of us, including myself, are in the advantageous position of ignorance: it is advantageous since it means we have no excuse not to encounter and contemplate the best arguments on both “sides” of the debate.

Gun picture stats – Sources: 1. CIA World Fact Book 2. UNODC 2012 3. Small Arms Survey 4. Everytown Research (as of 11 November 2015) 5. Gun Violence Archive 6. Home Office, Police Scotland.

Those that support gun ownership often advance the argument that if that only “good” people acquired guns, were well-trained, and were regularly checked up on by independent bodies (the same way we are tested for drivers, for example) there would be few problems with gun ownership. These people use guns responsibly and it sits well within their constitutional rights (more on this later). But, this argument is merely a chimaera. It is not remotely close to the state of affairs in the USA. Mass shootings are on the increase, gun show loopholes are growing and the refusal to implement greater background checks means that situations are far from ideal.  The problem is deciding who should and should not own guns: the kind of universal liberty that gun owners claim to support would be undermined if the state picked and chose exactly who was eligible for gun ownership. This is not to mention the fact that even “good” people can become enraged, drunk, and out of control, and easy access to a gun can escalate a mere drunken brawl to the kind of murder spree we have seen in recent years.

A spectator into American democracy might be wondering why things haven’t changed despite obvious and solvable problems in the current system.

Since the public want change, why don’t things change?

Public outcry over these issues is certainly not new. However, there has been renewed vigour over old campaigns and momentum seems to be on the side of those lobbying for change.

Polling indicates that public support for such a move is at its highest point in two decades – although Republican support is soft, making an act of Congress less likely.

March for our lives

Just five weeks ago, a gunman killed 17 of their friends and teachers at school and changed the course of their lives. In the wake of this, the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School led a historic march for gun control, what they called a March for Our Lives.

A GoFundMe campaign to support the rally raised more than $1.7 million in three days on top of $2 million in private donations from Hollywood personalities including George and Amal Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg. A few days later, more than 42,000 people had donated nearly $3.5 million to the online fundraiser.

More than 800 groups marched in cities across the US and internationally, including in London, Madrid, Rome and Tokyo.

You’d be forgiven for thinking such widespread support for gun control should lead to change – isn’t that the crucial hallmark of a good democracy? One that changes when, the values and the opinions of members in demos change? Well you are wrong.

If we look at the facts and public opinion, the direction America should move in is clear. However, it is important to note that facts don’t line the pockets of local senators, the NRA does.

The NRA

NRA stands for National Rifle Association. The group was founded in 1871 as a recreational group designed to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis”.

These days they are better known by the left as the authors of everything evil or as a “domestic terrorist organization.” In October, actor Lucas Neff of the Fox sitcom “Raising Hope” tweeted that the NRA was a “domestic terrorist organization,” following a shooting at an Oregon community college.

In 1975, it began attempting to influence policy directly via a newly formed lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. In 1977, it formed its own Political Action Committee (PAC), to channel funds to legislators.

The NRA spends about $250m per year, far more than all the country’s gun control advocacy groups put together. But the NRA has a much larger membership than any of those groups and disburses funds for things such as gun ranges and educational programmes.

The NRA has lobbied heavily against all forms of gun control and argued aggressively that more guns make the country safer. It relies on, and staunchly defends, a disputed interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which it argues gives US citizens the rights to bear arms.

It vociferously opposes most local, state and federal legislation that would restrict gun ownership. For example, the NRA recently has lobbied for guns confiscated by the police to be resold, arguing that destroying the weapons is, in effect, a waste of perfectly good guns.

Likewise, it strongly supports legislation that expands gun rights such as “open-carry” laws, which allow gun owners to carry their weapons, unconcealed, in most public places.

The Constitution

The Second Amendment has become a badge and bumper sticker, a shield for gun activists and scripture for much of the American right. But like other cherished texts, it is not as clear as many make it out to be.

This right is inherited from the militias who rebelled against the British during the American Revolution of 1776, and it allows Americans to own and use a firearm to this day

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It is this that gun supporters argue gives them an inalienable and undeniable right to own firearms.

However it is worth considering the context of this section of the constitution. The Founding Fathers wanted to protect their newly independent nation from the tyrannical rule of the ‘old world’. With the constitution in one hand and a rifle in the other, pioneers claimed the Wild West, and a new kind of citizenship was born.

This is a far cry from arguments advanced by gun advocates today. In fact, some gun rights campaigners go beyond the constitution, with former vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin stating on the campaign trail that “Jesus would fight for our Second Amendment”.

On the other hand, President Barack Obama has admitted that he views his failure to pass “common sense gun safety laws” as the greatest frustration of his time as president.

‘Times They Are a Changing’

The more cynical reader might look at the situation in America and deem it hopeless. They may argue that gun ownership is far too entrenched in the American identity to change and that any hope that things may change is nothing but false. To those people, I might offer a statement made by then-presidential candidate Obama on the campaign trail: “In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.” The truth is that those who want regulation in the form of common sense background checks have a fight on their hands. Whilst legislators may be too stiff-necked to change, the March For Our Lives campaign showed thousands of young people, personally affected by gun violence and aware of the ills that exist in the system. These children will be legislators, senators, campaigners in the future. This means the NRA may slowly lose its grip on legislators and over time attitudes and values may change. Maybe the times ‘they are a-changing after all’.

Spurs Finally Break Curse at Stamford Bridge

Common Sense Contributors
-
0

By Jireh Antwi

The April’s fools Premier League Game between Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur at Stamford Bridge ended 3-1.  What looked to be another Chelsea victory halfway through the first half, quickly turned around to be an awakening call for possibly the new best team in London being Spurs.

Chelsea took the lead with a goal from Morata as Victor Mosses with time and space whipped in the ball that went over Hugo Lloris’ hands and centre back Davidson Sanchez unto Morata‘s head and into the back of the net. This makes Morata the player with the most goals scored from headers this season with a tally of 7.

 

Eriksen’s strike to equal the scores is a contender for goal of the season, from first glances it seemed to be placed into the top corner, however, it actually went over Willy Caballero swerving and dipping. Upon refl he should have done a lot better in hindsight. It came from a poor clearance from Victor Moses as he tried to be too clever, allowing Davies to pass the ball inwards to Eriksson who was just outside the box. 

Eriksen celebrates his goal to level the scores – Photograph: Glyn Kirk/AFP/Getty Images

The game in the second half was an amazing watch for a neutral fan as Spurs upped the intensity and were relatively quickly rewarded.  Dele Alli scored 2 in 4 minutes (62nd and 66th minute) to seals Chelsea fate. His first goal was truly a beauty, with a long ball pass between 2 centre backs from Eric Dier in his own half, you would have thought what could Alli do there? Well frankly with a worldly first touch and a quick strike into the goal it was a spectacle to behold with a celebration in front of the Chelsea fans to go along with it. His second goal showed composure as he picked his shot and placed it into the net coming from a couple of deflections from Caballero against Son’s strike who was able to get past Marcos Alonso to be through on goal. With now a 100 premier league games under Dele Alli’s belt he’s managed to score 36 goals and 25 assists.

Dele Alli celebrating his wonderful first goal putting Spurs – Photograph: Glyn Kirk/AFP/Getty Images

Surely questions about him being out of the England starting eleven will be more pressed. And his critics would have to be silent. Comparable to the player who’s keeping him out at the moment Jesse Lingard who is also on form at the moment, who would be better for England in the summer?

 Antiono Conte from the touchline giving out his instructions – REUTERS  

All the records Chelsea once had, have been broken under Conte – Tottenham hadn’t won a game at Stamford bridge in 28 years, Manchester United hadn’t won in 5 years against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, nor had Lukaku and Messi ever scored against Chelsea.

It is clear that Chelsea are desperately missing the defensive influence of David Luiz, who still seems to be out of favour with the Chelsea Manager. With Christensen frequently making more mistakes as time passes it might better suit him to have a rest and work on the mental side of his game since he is still a fairly young player with great potential which he’s already showing.

Conte’s late substitutions of forwards Olivier Giroud and Hudson-Odoi also seemed indicative of someone who’s not interested in attempting to look like he wanted to win the game or keep the fans happy. There are several rumours that he’s ready to go back to Italy to be with his family so possibly his decisions have been influenced as such. Although the blame can’t all be put on him as he made it very clear that he needed more players and depth to his team to maintain their winning ways but the boards reluctance to allocate such funds and support were not enough for Conte’s standards and in turn Chelsea standard. Furthermore, it’s becoming more apparent that transfers aren’t actually discussed with him nor does he get an influential say.

Now Chelsea’s chance of ending in the top 4 and securing a Champions League place is hanging in the balance with being 8 points from fourth which Tottenham Hotspur now occupy.  It looks like a rebuild of the Chelsea team is needed or at least they power through the remainder of their matches otherwise the Europa league could be knocking on their door by the end of the season.

 

Joshua Vs Wilder: Time to be Undisputed

Common Sense Contributors
-
6

By James Miller.

The battle for bragging rights in Boxing’s heavyweight division is firmly on after Anthony Joshua was victorious once more in Cardiff at the Principality Stadium. In doing so, Joshua extending his record to 21-0. Saturday night, British sensation Joshua went the distance for the first time in his career as he beat Joseph Parker via unanimous decision inflicting on the Samoan-New Zealander his first defeat, whilst also adding the WBO world heavyweight title to his collection. Joshua known as ‘AJ’ unified the division, now leaving him in possession of three major world titles out of four. He currently holds the WBA, IBF AND WBO world titles. The quest now will be to become undisputed world heavyweight champion. The man in his way… Deontay Wilder.

The American Wilder holds the final piece that Joshua will be looking to add. The WBC world heavyweight championship. Speculation over a potential bout for the titles has been lingering for a while now and it certainly intensified after Joshua claimed in a post-fight interview Saturday night, “Get him in the ring and I knock him spark out” referring to Wilder. Both teams have seemed to indicate in the past that they feel their potential opponent is trying to avoid the fight. Joshua’s promoter Eddie Hearn, accused Wilder of ‘not wanting it’. While in a video back in November 2017 of Wilder addressing Joshua, he questioned whether there was a hidden agenda on the Watford man’s part. Although now however, it does look like the talking may soon stop after the American confirmed he accepts the challenge put forward to him by ‘AJ’ Saturday night.

They will each be eager to prove that they are the best. Obviously, both fighters will still have years left in the ring but a loss for either could be a huge setback, with the looser being left empty handed. The heavyweight division is reaching its most exciting times in recent years, neither will want to be left red faced with a chance for substantial glory.
This is definitely the fight that will be the main talk in the upcoming months, but it is certainly far from a sealed deal. The financial aspects of course must be agreed but there could still be other complications regarding other possible fights. There are of course question marks as to whether Dillian Whyte might be made a mandatory for Wilder to defend his title against. Just last week Whyte claimed a brutal knockout victory over Lucas Browne, he then went on to send a message to the WBC world heavyweight champion in stunning fashion. Whyte was clearly hyped up after his emphatic win as he screamed, “I’m ready, let’s get it. Deontay, let’s go, no more excuses. Forget Joshua, Joshua’s not going to be ready in time. Let’s do this. June, live at The O2, let’s get it. I’m No 1 baby. Let’s go, let’s go.

A week is a long time though in the business industry and yesterday Whyte took to social media to suggest that he is now highly interested in a potential fight with Alexander Povetkin, which could open the door for Joshua to face Wilder. The Russian was also in action Saturday night on the undercard of Joshua against Parker, as he claimed a knockout victory over David Price in the 5th round. Povetkin was rather comfortable in his battle against the colossus Price, outclassing the lethargic scouser in truth. If Whyte could put in a good performance against Povetkin, he would surely do his chances of a future world championship challenge no harm. The Russian’s only career loss to date came against the one of the greats; Ukrainian Wladimir Klitschko (the only man to knock down Joshua). It certainly would be a huge test for Whyte.

A King Returns

Another thing that may put the almost inevitable clash between the two champions on the backburner could be the return of the ‘Gypsy King’ Tyson Fury. Another man, eager to stake his claim as the best heavyweight on the planet. Known for his awkward approach, silky style and entertaining nature, Fury is yet to feature since he unified the division back in 2015 after beating Klitschko via unanimous decision. Fury who stands at a massive height of 6’9, was banned due to testing positive for elevated levels of nandrolone in February 2015. He voluntarily vacated his titles in 2016, turning his attention to his own personal recovery after a tough time suffering from mental illness. He said at the time the decision to vacate was “only fair and right”. It had seemed that maybe Fury may not return at all but that has now been put to bed after he announced via Instagram back in October 2017 that he was coming back for the ‘Bronze Bomber’ Wilder and Joshua. The Mancunian accepted a back dated 2-year doping ban, leaving him free to resume his return to the ring. Providing he was successful in regaining his boxing licence, which he was. Since then, the attention has really turned to his physical state after he was pictured alongside former Boxer Ricky Hatton, in what has to be described as a poor condition. However, Fury has been working vigorously to step up his attempts to prove himself as the best again. The ‘Gypsy King’ is certainly confident of his chances ahead of his return and is out for a fight with Joshua or Wilder himself.

Tyson Fury (left) is dedicating himself to getting back in fighting shape as he looks to make a comeback. (Source: @gypsyking101/Instagram)

The next few months promise to be intriguing, as negotiations for heavyweight fights continue. Will the fight to become undisputed world champion be next for Joshua, what do you think?

 

James is a sports enthusiast from Teesside, who is currently studying sports journalism in Manchester at UCFB. He has a fond interest of sports, and music. James enjoys discussing varied opinions and trying to understand different interpretations. He currently writes as a Journalist for TCS Scribe.

Twitter: @_JimmyMiller

Languages Post-Brexit: Are We Très Screwed?

Common Sense Contributors
-
1
Languages Post-Brexit: Are We Très Screwed?

by Oli Dixon

In May 2000, a report published by the Nuffield Foundation condemned Brits for their ‘deplorable monolingualism’, whilst also claiming that our approach to language learning would require a major overhaul if we were to change this.

Just eighteen years later and, for want of a better expression, we’re just as shit at languages as we’ve always been. Well, to be brutally honest, we might actually be a bit worse now. For in spite of the British Council’s not-so-rousing call-to-arms that we should all make learning a new language our New Year’s Resolution, entries to Modern Foreign Languages degree courses have dropped 15% in the last decade alone and there are now approximately 100,000 fewer GCSEs taken in languages than in 2005.

But with the seemingly inevitable withdrawal from the Single Market threatening us with having to go out and fend for ourselves in the big wide world, the discussions surrounding our ongoing linguistic incompetence have been cast under a far more serious light. Why are we so bad at languages? And is our complete lack of language competency actually going to become a real cause for concern? Given that you’re reading an article written by a current languages student, you’re probably thinking that you’ve got yourself in for your daily dose of ‘Brexit bashing’ and ‘snowflake doom and gloom’. Fortunately for all, I’m going to try and take a more nuanced stance than that. You know what? I reckon we might just be okay.

Warning: the following video is a very uncomfortable watch.

As I sat on the tram a few days ago heading into the Eastern German kindergarten where I’m working until August, I noticed the woman to my right cracking into a German grammar textbook on a freezing Monday morning. Talk about a grim way to kick off your week, right? But that’s not the point. In actual fact, instances like this are not all too uncommon in Germany at the moment. Because between 2011 and 2017­­, the country received more than 1.5 million first-time asylum requests, with a recent survey of refugees of the country suggesting that around 85% would like to stay indefinitely (thelocal.de). Translation = that’s a lot of people who need to learn German if they want to integrate well into their local societies.

Keeping this example in mind, I would argue that, fundamentally speaking, it is necessity that is the true mother of invention when it comes to learning languages. Because no matter how much we love to complain that we ‘just don’t get them’, being British doesn’t just make you inherently bad at learning languages – you can kid yourself all you want, but you weren’t destined to bottle your GCSE French listening at birth. Here’s a quick hypothetical scenario to add a bit of context: if WW3 were to break out and somehow force you to rebuild your life in Brazil, necessity would require you to improve your Portuguese, and I’m almost convinced you would do that, no matter how terrible you claimed to be at languages.

Now the last thing I want to do is to oversimplify what is, in reality, quite a complex subject – it’s crucial to realise that our national language shortcomings can’t just be pinned down to one single factor, and so we can’t just expect a single solution. There’s no doubt that, at least in relative terms, we fund languages less than many of our European neighbours, but no matter how much government money we blindly pump into backing language classes across the country starting from nursery, you can’t just ‘buy’ a generation of young Brits akin to the young Germans who learn English as avid fans of Game of Thrones, Stranger Things, and Sherlock. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure none of us have ever felt left out of a conversation at school for not being up-to-date on the latest episode of a German TV series. Let’s be honest, the closest most of us have been to German language exposure in our social lives was when people started adding subtitles to the Hitler rant scene from ‘Der Untergang’.

This video has without a doubt been huge in fostering German listening skills up and down the country.

 

So how does this all tie into language-learning Brits post-Brexit?
You see, while I don’t want to give the impression of enabling the annoying culture of defeatism that certainly contributes to our problem, we should equally recognise that there are valid reasons for our predicament. For in spite of the rise of Mandarin and it being better to sell in your customer’s language, English shows no signs of losing its place as the language of international relations and business. We may severely understate the benefits of language on a personal level (it’s really fun eavesdropping on people when they don’t think you can understand them), but the fact of the matter is that there haven’t been any burning economic/political motives for having lots of Brits capable of speaking lots of other languages for a very long time.

However, with ambiguous agreements looming and plenty of new deals to be made, it’s very foreseeable that we will need more and more British linguists. Concerns that polyglots are required imminently are very real and will have to go unanswered right now, but fears that we’re facing longer-term difficulties because of our linguistic incompetence are a step too far.

We might not be too great at languages right now – and the gestation period for a new generation of internationally mobile linguists is certainly not overnight – but with a well thought-out, well-funded, and multi-faceted approach that attempts to engage all levels of society, Britain could without doubt turn its ‘deplorable monolingualism’ around. One thing is clear though: this sort of dramatic change of fate will not just come about spontaneously; it will only happen if it is driven by real necessity. Though too much complacent self-righteousness is dangerous and insular, for the time being, it has to be said that our inbuilt mastery of the English language remains the ace up our sleeve at post-Brexit negotiation tables across the globe.

Let us know what your experiences with language learning are? Did you think your language lessons were notably worse than other lessons? What about the future? What do you think the best language would be to learn right now for British schoolchildren?

Oli is currently volunteering in a kindergarten in Eastern Germany as part of the third year of his Modern Languages degree at the University of Cambridge. In his free time, Oli is a keen sportsman – and especially loves football – but a lifetime of supporting England and Derby County has instilled within him a cautious pessimism. His wider interests are varied, spanning all the way from Music to Philosophy and Technology.

Did ‘Cheating’ Sway The Brexit Result?

Alex Davenport
-
0
Did ‘Cheating’ Sway The Brexit Result?

Allegations of misconduct during the European Union referendum campaign have been levelled at Vote Leave (the official campaign for leaving the EU). Whistleblowers Shahmir Sanni and Christopher Wylie have accused the organisation of breaching spending limits set under UK electoral law during the campaign by hiring a data analytics company with links to the controversial Cambridge Analytica.

For the referendum, the UK’s Electoral Commission imposed spending limits of £7 million on the official campaign groups for each side. However, other unofficial campaigns groups were also permitted to spend a further £700,000 on the condition that they did not directly co-operate with the official campaigns. Sanni has claimed that Vote Leave used this latter regulation as a loophole through which to exceed the £7 million limit, by channelling funds to an officially separate campaign group which in practice was under the control of Vote Leave.

Sanni was a leading member of the unofficial group in question, BeLeave, and was using it to target young, liberal-minded voters. According to him, Vote Leave received a donation of around £1 million late in the campaign, but it was of little use to the organisation, which had nearly reached its spending limits. Instead, he claims that the money was officially donated to BeLeave so it could still be used, but in fact Vote Leave leaders still controlled what was done with the money by spending it on employing Canadian analytics company AggregateIQ (AIQ). If true, this would represent a clear violation of the Electoral Commission’s regulation against co-operation; if BeLeave was truly independent, it would have been able to do what it pleased with the money.

To add to the controversy, Christopher Wylie, the former Cambridge Analytica employee who recently spoke out about the company’s activities, has told UK MPs of the link between Cambridge Analytica and AIQ. According to Wylie, AIQ was in essence a Canadian “franchise” of Cambridge Analytica, with both companies drawing upon the same databases when conducting their analyses. As a result, Wylie’s testimony threatens to implicate AIQ and by extension Vote Leave as being complicit in the kind of data harvesting of Facebook users’ profiles of which Cambridge Analytica stands accused. Wylie suggested AIQ may have used similar data to target “5 to 7 million people” who could be won over by the Leave campaign.

Both Wylie and Sanni have suggested that Vote Leave’s alleged misconduct could plausibly have altered the result of the EU referendum, with Wylie telling MPs that “I think it is completely reasonable to say there could have been a different outcome of the referendum had there not been, in my view, cheating”.

Whistleblowers Shahmir Sanni, left, and Christopher Wylie (Source: New Statesman)

Many pro-Remain figures have used these scandals to argue that the vote to leave the EU was invalid, and should be re-held. Gina Miller, the activist who led the legal challenge against Brexit being enacted without the approval of parliament, has written that if the referendum had been decided in a court of law, the recent revelations about the result would demand a retrial. Similarly, Labour MP Ben Bradshaw tweeted that the referendum result must now be called into question.

Leading members of Vote Leave, however, have protested their innocence and even poured scorn on the story. Dominic Cummings, the campaign director for Vote Leave, called Wylie a “fantasist-charlatan” and suggested his testimony changes every time he gives it. Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, meanwhile, have both denied their involvement in any misconduct and reaffirmed their beliefs that the referendum was won fairly and legally.

We are likely to gain a better idea of the truth of these explosive claims following the conclusion of an Electoral Commission investigation into them. If they do turn out to have any factual basis, though,  the fundamentals of British democracy may be called into question.

Blue Passports; an Icon of British Identity

Common Sense Contributors
-
1

By Dolline Mukui.

A deal is in the works for blue post-Brexit passports to be manufactured in France.

Gemalto, a franco-dutch firm will take on the £490m contract and according to the Home Office it will save taxpayers around £120m.

This is not Britain’s first blue passport; the first one was issued in the 1920’s whilst the burgundy passport was only issued in 1988. Some may say that Brexit simply represents the return of Britain to its own history and roots and so there needs to be a patriotic stance to signify this change. Brexiteers and Tory ministers have called for the blue comeback and that is what they are going to get. The blue and gold passports are therefore meant to convey Britain claim to their sovereignty.

Our current burgundy passports are issued by the British company De La Rue in Gateshead.

The chief executive of De La Rue has recently said ‘‘I’m going to have to go and face those workers, look at them in the whites of their eyes and try and explain to them why the British government thinks it’s a sensible decision to buy French passports not British passports.”

He also added “I would actually like to invite Theresa May or Amber Rudd to come to my factory and explain to my dedicated workforce why they think this is a sensible decision to offshore the manufacture of a British icon.”

If the passport is intended to translate that British people are powerful and taking control over their country without interference, then should Theresa May not make decisions that would affirm that to British nationals?  Simply stating that it’s saving taxpayers money, although it may be the truth, is deflects addressing the real problem people are considering. Is it not a contradiction at its very core to leave the EU yet become dependent on a service by a EU country that speaks to the very image of our ‘independence’.

Former cabinet minister, Priti Patel seems to agree with those who are shocked by the decision. She told The Sun “This should be a moment that we should be celebrating. The return of our iconic blue passport will re-establish the British identity…But to be putting the job in the hands of the French is simply astonishing. It is a national humiliation.”

A spokeswoman for the Home Office stated that “We are running a fair and open competition to ensure that the new contract delivers a high quality and secure product and offers the best value for money for customers.

She added “All passports will continue to be personalised with the holder’s details in the United Kingdom, meaning that no personal data will leave the UK.”

We have already seen a number of decisions that are questionable leading up to Brexit but we shouldn’t be shocked when more trade deals are presented.

The new passports will be issued from October 2019.

Dolline recently graduated with an MA in Broadcast Journalism. She is a ITV Breaking into News finalist whereby she reported on the Manchester Arena attack. Currently she is a voluntary co-host/contributor on show called a ‘Chat with Elle Celeste’. She also has a blog, where she talks about her life and travels.

Twitter: @ceraz_x

The Manchester United Conundrum

Common Sense Contributors
-
1

By Jireh Antwi

Two weeks ago Manchester United were knocked out of the Champions League at Old Trafford by Sevilla; a club that had never won a champions league game in England previously, with three draws and a defeat.   

With the first leg being a goalless draw, Sevilla were in the prime position to take the game at Old Trafford. It would have been a simple affair for United, if Sevilla hadn’t managed to score the first goal. Essentially meaning that United’s chances of progressing to quarterfinals became exceptionally slim. However, it got much worse than that for Mourinho’s men. Sevilla managed to score another goal in quick succession. Both goals came from Wissam Ben Yedder when he came on as a substitute at the 72nd minute mark. Two minutes later and United had conceded followed by a second goal which narrowly crossed the line coming from Yedder with a corner kick just 4 minutes later. Game over.

 

All throughout the game , Sevilla looked more in control.  When you’re away from home this is less likely to happen, but Sevilla dominated the midfield with Steven Nzonzi, Franco Vázquez and Éver Banega masking sure their team was always primed for a counter attack or given the final passes to allow their strikers to take shots on goal, on total they had 21 shots on goal and 6 on target compared to Manchester United’s 17 with 3 on target.  

Jose Mourinho’s tactics with his initial team selection seemed very off for a must win game. It was almost like he was overestimating his team’s abilities in seeing the game out. On paper, United line-up was very capable and initially, such a tactic was plausible. A similar line-up managed to secure a win against staunch rivals, Liverpool a few prior days to the Sevilla match. However, in this game the team selection already had fans screaming with despair. Mata, Pogba, Martial were all on the bench and the likes of Fellaini and Lingard in the midfield meant things didn’t pan out the way it should have. With no lack of pressure and initiative going forward, Sanchez constantly getting dispossessed, things became very frustrating, very quickly. With the only goal coming from Lukaku at the 84th minute, which was 12 minutes too late, United’s Champions League hopes faded away. 

Sevilla were arguably the weakest team in competition yet managed to partially dominate a team that has overwhelming quality in their squad and starting 11 and spent 300 million in transfer fees under Jose’s reigns. Jose’s 12-minute monologue after the game looked to be damage control as he referred to United’s lack of success in recent years as ‘Football heritage” that is making his role more difficult. Adding more salt to the wound, Jose reminded everyone that 

“ we were knocked out by a side that’s had more success in Europe than United”, continuing on to say that “several Sevilla players could play on his team and he cannot name them”.  (Source: Independent)

 

Even with the 2-0 win over Brighton in the FA Cup with goals from Lukaku and Matic, it seemed United’s performance didn’t scream dominance. Jose left the match very unhappy with how the team played, citing certain players and the training he went over 2 days prior to this match. Luke Shaw, being one of the players Jose was eluding to, came off at half-time and was substituted for a much older Ashley Young who doesn’t provide a vast amount of difference to Shaw. Jose Mourinho’s said “we didn’t play as I wanted them to play we didn’t play as I prepared the team to play”, “a few other guys I saw them scared to play. I cannot say much more. It is in relation with personality, is relation to trust”.   

How Jose can get the best out of his starting 11 and improve his individual players is yet to be seen. There’s several players that aren’t yet at the Manchester United quality, however, there’s a difference to what fans think those players are and what Jose Mourinho thinks those players are. Certain players are sure to feel the pressure and look for an exit to another club. Despite positive performances from United players on their international duties. The burden ensuring the Red Devils’ long-term progression still looms over Mourinho’s head.

I have a dream that enough is enough! – Yolanda King.

Emmabelle Nwadikwa
-
2
I have a dream that enough is enough! – Yolanda King.

Yolanda Renee King, the 9-year-old granddaughter of Martin Luther King jr took to the stage during the March for our Lives protest to speak out against gun violence in America. She surprised the crowd by coming out to deliver a speech amongst the students impacted by the constant gun violence and stood with Jaclyn Corin, a survivor of the Parkland shooting.

Yolanda Renee King speaks out at the March for Our Lives rally that took place in support of Gun control.

“I have a dream that enough is enough”

Her 2018 speech beautifully echoed what were arguably the most famous words spoken by her grandfather whilst also including a fantastic twist of her own. She said “My Grandfather had a dream that his four little children will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream that enough is enough and that this should be a gun free world, period.”

She then went on to encourage the crowd to join her in an affirmation as she exclaimed “Spread the word! Have you heard? All across the nation, we are going to be a great generation.” After making them repeat it as though they “really really” meant it, twice, she hugged Jacylyn and the two of them left the stage together. Yolanda wasn’t the only King family member there. Bernice King, activist and daughter of Martin Luther King shared posts of herself at the rally on social media, expressing that her niece “truly represented the King family.” The 9-year-old also expressed in an interview with CNN, alongside her father Martin Luther King III, that her school practices a variety of lockdown drills and that “it’s unfortunate that people have guns and they use them to hurt people”. Her speech can be watched here:

No More Playing Ball With Putin: England Must Boycott The World Cup

Common Sense Contributors
-
4
No More Playing Ball With Putin: England Must Boycott The World Cup

 

Amongst English football fans, 32% think that the English National Team should boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia (The Times / YouGov). And while such a show of defiance on the part of the United Kingdom would surely be unpopular amongst football fans and the general public alike – such a move has 34% approval amongst the wider population – the truth, is that none of the options that British Prime Minister Theresa May has to stand up to Putin and Moscow are going to win her many friends at home or abroad.

Some have commented that endorsing the Russian World Cup would amount to the same tacit support that legitimised the Nazi regime during the 1938 Olympics.

“The West put on a show of unity last week,” said the Economist in response to the international reaction to May’s expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats and their families last Tuesday. French President Macron, German Chancellor Merkel and at-the-time US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson all supported May against what her government characterised as the Kremlin’s “breach of international law”.

Cracks in this unity were exposed quickly as the aforementioned Merkel, US President Donald Trump and the EU Commission’s President Jean-Claude Juncker all came out congratulating Putin on his victory in the sham election on Sunday.  

 

Turning the rhetoric against Russia into action, especially when sanctioning its strong-arming on foreign soil, is going to be difficult. The Mail on Sunday pointed out that the diplomatic expulsions and the fact the Russians responded with their own expulsions have probably harmed the UK more than Russia. The Open Society that we have here is easily accessed from abroad; losing out on the network within Russia’s closed society will be a heavy price to pay for standing up to Putin. Even if the diplomatic repercussions of May’s fight with Russia aren’t painful enough, the games that Putin could play with oil and gas prices, especially with the UK’s weakened position during the Brexit negotiations could spell serious economic problems for the UK.

Corbyn’s call last week to be wary of a trade war with Russia should not be neglected but the principled way that Theresa May is acting must also be lauded. The Salisbury attack can only mean one of two things; that Russia authorized a nerve agent attack on foreign soil or that the Kremlin has been negligent in who has access to the stockpiles of the Soviet-era weaponry.

Being principled in this regard and standing up to the bully that Putin’s Russia is, is not going to be an easy road for the UK to travel, especially while it licks its post-Brexit wounds. But May is right “the Russian threat does not respect borders and is, therefore, a threat to us all (wider Europe). That’s a powerful indictment of the UK and Russia’s diplomatic status and it means that it must back up its words with bold actions. Does this mean giving up our place in the World Cup? It very much could…

The Iraq War 15 Years On: What Have We Learned?

Alex Davenport
-
3
The Iraq War 15 Years On: What Have We Learned?

This month marks 15 years since a US-led military coalition launched ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’, an invasion designed to topple the Saddam Hussein regime. The mission itself was undoubtedly a success, bringing an end to Hussein’s leadership of the country in line with the operation’s original aim. Yet in the long run the invasion has come to epitomise the eventual backfiring of George W. Bush’s ‘War on Terror’, and a decade and a half on politicians would do well to learn from the failing of the Iraqi situation.

Although there had long been movements imploring the US government to depose Saddam Hussein, it was 9/11 that changed everything. Almost overnight after the shocking attacks, the Middle East became a foreign policy priority for the US under Bush, whose main aim was to ensure similar scenes to those in September 2001 never took place again. It was, at least publicly, with this aim in mind that the US became concerned with Iraq as part of its War on Terror. Although Iraq was quickly ruled out as having any involvement in the attacks, there had long been a suspicion that Hussein’s government was producing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), potentially giving in the capability to launch a devastating attack on foreign soil. This meant Bush’s invasion could be framed as being in the best interests of his country’s security.

Except, as discovered following the invasion, Iraq did not possess any such weapons. While it did have WMD, these were only capable of being used in a domestic context – still brutal and horrific for sure, but not relevant to US national security in particular. In fact, the heavy-handed reconstruction of Iraq led by the US and the UK probably worsened the terrorist threat across the region, and by extension the world.

The region was destabilised, allowing sectional tensions between the country’s Sunni and Shia demographics to grow, with many Sunni turning towards jihadism to assert their cause most strongly. At the same time, many key members of Iraq’s political and military structures under Saddam Hussein were detained in US-run facilities following the invasion, where they were held alongside the radical Sunni jihadists. As a result, these facilities fostered a merging of ideological extremism with military and political competence which many see as forming the roots of what is now known as Daesh. According to the Iraqi government, 17 of the 25 most important figures in Daesh spent time in US detention facilities, where strong bonds appear to have grown among the disaffected inmates.

A group of Daesh fighters (Source: Express Tribune)

Only in the context of the Iraq War and its aftermath can we understand the nature of modern-day jihadis, given its impact in transforming terrorist organisations in the region. Where they were once stateless groupings of individuals constantly on the run from various intelligence services, like Al-Qaeda, they became a so-called ‘state’ with a geographic basis and the expertise to know how to conduct conventional military campaigns and administrate territories under its control. This territorial control over regions in Iraq and Syria allowed these extremists to spread their ideology far more directly and effectively than their predecessors, while new recruits knew exactly where to go to join up, making Daesh a formidable organisation. The repressive nature of Daesh’s regime in Iraq and Syria and its attacks on various other countries speak for themselves, and only now is it beginning to be overcome. Perhaps if Iraq had been handled differently 15 years ago, global security could have ended up very differently.

What You Need to Know About Trump’s Tariffs

Common Sense Contributors
-
4

By Shafiq Kyazze.

A tariff is a tax on imports and exports. The most popular reason for imposing tariffs is to protect the domestic producers of a certain product, however, this protection comes at a high cost that outweighs the benefits of enacting tariffs. President Trump is making the same mistake that Obama and many of his predecessors succumbed to; the mistake of instituting tariffs.
Let’s take steel as an example, when steel imported from China is cheaper than steel produced in USA, tariffs may be imposed. These tariffs will make steel from China more expensive hence forcing American businesses to buy the now less expensive steel from USA steel manufacturers. The price and demand for steel from US manufacturers will go up leading to an increase in the number of people employed in the steel industry. This point is where a lot of politicians stop to self-congratulate themselves on increasing employment in a given industry.
Hong Kong is one of the few nations that has existed with little to no tariffs. (Image Source: Starlit Voice)
But the story never ends here, as the price of steel goes up the American industries that need steel as a raw material will find it more expensive to operate due to an increase in the costs of production: these industries range from small scale industries such as cutlery manufacturers to large scale industries such as vehicle and oil rig industries. Since businesses won’t increase prices as it normally makes them lose customers and reduce their profits, they cut costs of production by reducing the people employed and some may move to different countries where they can import cheaper steel (with little to no tariffs). Moreover, for the country as a whole, businesses are lost, unemployment increases and income among the general population decreases as well. The country is singularly worse than it was before it enforced tariffs.
This is exactly what happened during the great depression in 1930. The unemployment in America fell from 9% to 6% from December 1929 to June 1930. When the Smoot- Hawley tariffs were enacted by Herbert Hoover, unemployment decline trend was reversed Unemployment rose to 11.6% in the subsequent 5 months and later increased to 15% a year after and hit 26% the following 2 years after the tariff imposition.
The tariffs passed by Herbert Hoover are blamed for the severity of the succeeding depression. (Image Source: pwhs.weebly.com)
In the 1980s when steel tariffs were levied, they led to a $240 million profit and saved 5000 jobs in the steel industry but they led to a loss of $600million in profits and 26,000 jobs in other industries that depended on steel as a raw material.
It’s invariably imperative to look at the whole picture of a policy as compared to jumping to first effect as many politicians and people have done in the past. Saving jobs in the steel industry is important, but life as we know it puts costs on everything and the cost of saving steel jobs is losing a lot more jobs in different sectors. There are simply no solutions in life but trade-offs.

Shafiq has a strong background in philosophy and history having been exposed to such issues at a very tender age. He has a voracious interest in economics, history, politics, philosophy and social issues. He is a Chemical engineering student at The University of Manchester. Shafiq is also an avid Barcelona fan and is currently a writer at TCS network.

Dissecting Colourism

Common Sense Contributors
-
1

By Mike Banks.

If you have been on Twitter over the last few weeks or so, you might have noticed that colourism has become a popular topic of discussion.

Colourism is a relatively new term; American writer and activist, Alice Walker, coined it in 1982 and she defined it as ‘preferential treatment of same-race people based solely on their colour’. Colourism is essentially the preferential treatment of the fairer/light-skinned members of a racial group or discrimination against dark-skinned members of a racial group, often perpetuated by other members of said group.

Alice Walker coined the term in 1982

Despite the term only entering our consciousness in the early 1980s, it is not an inchoate phenomenon and it is intrinsically linked with slavery, colonialism, and white supremacy.

During the transatlantic slave trade, slave owners often gave light-skinned slaves preferential treatment. This preferential treatment included being given an education and less grueling tasks to undertake, whilst dark-skinned slaves were subjected to arduous work outdoors. One of the main reasons for this preferential treatment was that their fairer skin meant they were viewed as more virtuous than dark-skinned slaves as they bore more of a similarity, in complexion, to their white slave owners.

This preferential treatment created animosity and tension between black people and colourism did not end following the abolition of the slave trade. In America following the slave trade, light-skinned black people enjoyed better employment opportunities than their dark-skinned counterparts and began climbing the social ladder. Eurocentric ideals of beauty were also internalised meaning light-skinned black women were more aligned to these ideals and many dark-skinned women began to covet Eurocentric features.

Colourism affects both dark-skinned men and women, but research in America has found that women are more likely to be psychologically affected by it. A 2012 documentary titled ‘Dark Girls’ gave some dark-skinned women the opportunity to shed light on some of the psychological effects of colourism, which include low self-esteem and a feeling of unattractiveness.

I believe that colourism has been exacerbated by mainstream media representation and popular culture, particularly in the case of women. Rap songs and music videos often glorify and heavily feature light-skinned black women, whilst demonising dark-skinned women. It is quite hard to think of an influential dark-skinned black woman that featured heavily in popular culture in the UK. There is also a lack of diversity in the representation of black women in the USA. Prominent black women in the USA include Beyoncé, Nicki Minaj, Halle Berry and Rihanna, all of whom are fair-skinned.  Dark-skinned women are less widely embraced however. For example, Serena Williams, one of the greatest athletes of all-time, is constantly derided for her Afrocentric features.

Earlier this year, Mathew Knowles, the father of Beyoncé, claimed that Beyoncé owed some of her success to her fair skin. Knowles added that he was conditioned to only date white or light-skinned black women and even claimed that one of the reasons he was attracted to Beyonce’s mother, Tina Lawson, was because he thought she was a white woman.

Lupita Nyong’o has spoken of her struggles as a dark-skinned woman, and how she would pray to God for fairer skin, while American actress and singer, Zendaya has gone on record to suggest that there is room for improvement when it comes to the representation of a diverse range of black women in entertainment. She also noted that as a light-skinned woman she does enjoy a level of privilege.

Lupita poses after winning an Oscar for her performance in Twelve Years a Slave

Colourism is not just a problem black people face, in the United Arab Emirates; fairer-skinned people are usually higher up the social ladder than their dark-skinned counterparts. In India, there is a huge market for skin lightening products, with fairer-skinned women viewed as more beautiful and virtuous. Skin lightening creams and soaps are also popular amongst women in Africa; in fact, the World Heath Organisation found that 77% of women in Nigeria regularly use skin-lightening products.

Black men and women of all shades should be celebrated and embraced. Black Panther was a step in the right direction as the film featured a diverse cast of black actors and actresses. The fact that the two leading female roles in the film were played by Lupita Nyong’o and Letitia Wright is hugely significant, as in the past these roles might have been played by fairer-skinned women.

Dark-skinned women should not feel under societal pressure to bleach their skin or relax their hair to adapt to European ideals of beauty. Mainstream media outlets need to do a better job at representing a diverse range of black people. It goes without saying that Black people also have a duty to stop reinforcing European ideals of beauty by celebrating all shades of beauty.

 

Mike is a Politics PhD student and takes a keen interest in social issues, all things British politics and Liverpool FC.

Twitter: @mxkes_

What You’re Not Told About Capitalism

Common Sense Contributors
-
7

By Shafiq Kyazze.

Have you ever been scrolling down your Facebook or Twitter timeline and alas, you came across a post or video ridiculing capitalism and how its evil. You might have liked or shared the video because the presenter might’ve made plausible arguments about the distress and destruction caused by capitalism. But what if I told you that this person was wrong about capitalism? What if I told you that capitalism has fueled the world towards better standards of living? Did you know that capitalism is the most efficient and best economic system known in the world?

Hong Kong is a region of China popularly regarded as the most capitalist place in the world. (Image Source: ezTravel)

Capitalism is an economic system. An economic system is a way scarce resources are allocated. Capitalism is an economic system that emphasizes freedom of people engaging in the market; a free market system. It advocates for your freedom to choose whatever you want to purchase and sell in a market. Other economic systems include Communism, socialism etc. By comparison, communism is an economic system where resources are allocated by the state according to one’s needs whilst socialism is an economic system where the means of production are owned by the state.

The fundamental problem with state-owned means of production is that the state purchases and sells products based on what it thinks the price is, not what the actual price is. Under a state planned economic system, the government body of a country would have to determine the prices of every product which is by far the least efficient way to set prices for every product given that an individual body does not posses all knowledge about all things.

Essentially, it’s impossible for the government to accurately set more than a million prices for a million or more products. Trading of products using wrong prices can lead to a massive decrease in the supply of the good which can lead to grave economic situations.
In capitalism however, the seller of the product determines the price of the product they are selling which is less strenuous and more efficient since the seller only focuses on setting the price for one product and has a lot of knowledge about what they are selling.

Numerous people talk about capitalism being the main cause of poverty and tragedy in the world. However, convincing evidence would suggest that such a statement is utterly false. It is crucial to note that other economic systems have been tested and yielded effects that are grievously deleterious i.e. socialism has caused a food crisis in modern day Venezuela and communism caused millions of deaths, malnutrition and famine in China under Mao.

Interestingly after the death of Mao Zedong, the former leader of communist China, the country adopted a bit of Capitalism leading to higher incomes and better standards of living. It is estimated that 246 million people rose from living on $1 a day in China between 1990 and 2004. An article published in the Guardian in 2017 further illustrated the effects of the structural economic changes in China, the headline read “Obesity: the big, fat problem with Chinese cities.” Other statements in the article included:

“With an increasingly urban population, rising disposable incomes and a growing demand for international cuisines, it is no wonder China is home to a high number of fast-food brands.”

“Swelling waistlines are the most visible symptom. Even the state-run media outlet Global Times found that China now has the largest overweight population in the world – 20.8% of men and 14.9% of women in a nation of 1.4 billion people – bumping the United States to second place, according to a study published in the Lancet Medical Journal.”

“That’s more than 43 million men and 46 million women classified as overweight”

It is imperative to point out that a country which suffered heavily from a shortage of food, millions of deaths and extreme poverty under communism has now gone on to experience rising disposable incomes, less poverty and an overweight problem. I’m in no way saying that being obese is healthy, but rather, if I was given a choice to choose between obesity and famine as situations to affect a country, I would choose the former since it’s easier to improve one’s diet and become healthy.

Moreover, those in present day China have higher incomes providing them with a wider range of food options ranging from healthy to unhealthy food. These higher incomes enable them to purchase healthier foods than their predecessors who had fewer incomes consequently leading to little to no options.

Shanghai is a major city in China. Its progress was observed after implementation of capitalism in China. (Image Source: discoverchina) 

The argument for capitalism can be extended further, let’s take two countries Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana. As of 1960 both countries had just gained their independence, Ghana chose to embrace socialism and had a slightly higher real per capita and was more economically prosperous at that time than Cote d’Ivoire which adopted capitalism. After 20 years (1980) the results were in: Cote d’Ivoire had real per capita incomes that were 65 percent higher than those in Ghana. The bottom 20 percent in Cote d’Ivoire averaged higher incomes than the majority of the Ghanaian population. Ghana is a very mineral-rich country and was popularly known as the “Gold coast” because its richly endowed with gold.

Unfortunately, as Ghana stepped away from the free-market system economic policies, it lost a lot these benefits. What this shows is that capitalism is a necessary prerequisite for economic success.
This same pattern has been repeated around the world and can be seen between India and South Korea (as of 1960), Hong Kong and Mainland China (before China made part of its markets free).

Innumerable countries have experienced a vast increase in their quality of life and wealth such as Estonia, Japan, Sweden, Singapore, Chile, Rwanda and plenty more.

The next time someone tells you that we should embrace communism, ask them between North Korea (communist system) and South Korea (the capitalist system) which one has its citizens trying to escape from their country to join the other. It’s no coincidence that the wealthiest countries in the world are among the most capitalist countries. There is simply a strong and consistent positive correlation between wealth and capitalism.

 

Shafiq has a strong background in philosophy and history having been exposed to such issues at a very tender age. He has a voracious interest in economics, history, politics, philosophy and social issues. He is a Chemical engineering student at The University of Manchester. Shafiq is also an avid Barcelona fan and is currently a writer for TCS.

 

The Biggest Trends of 2018

Common Sense Contributors
-
2

By Tanya Mwamuka.

2017 was the year I finally found my style, and styles that featured on the runway definitely contributed to this evolution. The runway was hot with everlasting fashion trends and could quite possibly have been my favourite so far. For this very reason, I was left wondering, what did 2018 have to offer? I won’t lie to you I really wasn’t expecting much, but to my surprise the runways for Spring/Summer 2018 have left me saving every penny to buy clothes in ZARA. So, if you’re as obsessed with fashion as I am, then you’ve come to the right place. Here’s a run through of five of the biggest trends to grace our presence so far:

(1) Pastel perfect

Red ruled the roost last year, and no doubt won’t be going away anytime soon. However, there’s a new colour scheme making headway; pastels. Baby pinks, eggshell blues and pale purples are just some of the shades to note. Hermes went sunny with lemon sorbet outfits and pistachio green was the epicenter of Sies Marjan. Blogger and Youtuber with the stage name KarenBritChic shows you how it’s done in her video, where she shares the best ways to style pastels below.

KarenBritChic youtube video: How to style pastels

(2) Denim Re-done

Denim seems to be a recur-re year in year out. Copies of vetements patch work jeans were in every shop on the high street last year. 2018 has a more subtle style; light wash is out and the 2000’s dark and moody dark denim has made a return. With the addition of contrast stitching, who would have thought tailored denim would look this good?

Image: courtesy of Max Mara

(3) Barely There

With this bitter UK weather, we may have to wait a bit to fully embrace the organza explosion; as soon as a hint of heat comes, you can be sure that this trend will definitely flourish.

Image: courtesy of Preen

Perfect for the summer the ‘barely there’ trend, is an easy breezy style and paired with pastels is an extra feminine style that exudes ethereal spring vibes all day long. In contrast, Dolce and Gabbana took the took to the dark side, avoiding gelato shades and going punk rock with black.

Image: courtesy of Dolce and Gabbana

(4) Crayola Brights

Here is proof that red certainly isn’t dead. It’s strange to think that colour palettes on the opposite end of the spectrum, pastels and bright primary colours are both in this season, but that’s fashion for you. These bold, eye catching hues take me back to primary school days and are a reminder of how fashion can be so much fun.

Image: courtesy of whowhatwear.com

(5) 90’s baby

It’s not something new, the fashion industry has been known to take influence from the past. The 70’s was a big influence in 2016, and the 80’s power shoulders and balloon sleeves saw a return last year. 2018 is seeing maybe the biggest revival of one of my favourite decades; the 90’s baby. 90’s accessories have been the most notable, from micro and super cat eyed sunglasses to the classic beret.

Image: Kylie jenner via pinterest & popsugar

The list of trends goes on and on, plastics, pencil skirts and more. I see the styles above lasting a very long time, definitely longer than just one season, and perhaps they may become as timeless and classic as the beloved trench coat.

 

Tanya is currently studying Biomedical Sciences at the University of Manchester and hopes to get into science journalism and media after completing her degree. She loves fashion and travelling and enjoys learning new languages in her spare time; she is currently learning French.

1...828384...91Page 83 of 91

Editor Picks

Must Read

Hot Topics

About Us

Our mission is to make democracy healthier by creating spaces for people who disagree to have fruitful dialogue.

Contact us: hello@tcsnetwork.co.uk

Follow Us

© Copyright - Newspaper theme by tagDiv