Romelu Lukaku makes his long-awaited return to Chelsea, this time with the revered number nine instead of eighteen. After a two-year stint in Milan, the Belgian striker returns a leaner, meaner and deadlier scoring machine, ready to take the mantle of Chelsea’s main striker. Making his return, scoring inside the first fifteen minutes and getting a win, it is truly the things that dreams are made of. But what made his return so special, was it him, or was it purely down to Arsenal’s incompetence?
The perfect return
The Chelsea number 9 continued to wreak havoc against an Arsenal side who played right into his hands. On numerous occasions, he outmuscled opponents and rolled off them. He looked unplayable at the Emirates throughout the entire game and every time he was one-on-one versus either Arsenal centre-back, he looked like he would be the winner.
Jamie Carragher dissects Mikel Arteta’s failed tactics vs. Chelsea
For a striker whose strengths and gameplay has been well documented over the years including a masterclass with Jamie Carragher, he never looked like he would ever be stopped. Between Pablo Mari and Rob Holding, they looked like the Belgian’s whipping boys on multiple occasions and he was unlucky not to leave North London with more.
The Chelsea number nine’s stats in his man-of-the-match performance (source: Sporting Life)
What does this mean for the rest of his season?
Expect goals in abundance, having hit double figures in every league campaign since his loan season at the Hawthorns. Chelsea’s new number 9 is the last piece in the Tuchel puzzle and Chelsea now look ready for a title charge.
With a Chelsea midfield containing an embarrassment of riches, an injury-free season could mean filling his boots. In his club career so far he has an average of exactly a goal every other game and arguably in his peak condition, that will only improve. Last season also saw his first season with double figures for assists, showing how well he brings other players in too. Tuchel’s side should be brimming with confidence after Sunday’s win.
Incel has been in the spotlight for many weeks now, ever since the horrific shooting in Plymouth by Jake Davison.
There have already been eight mass murders since 2014 committed by those who have either identify themselves as incels or have mentioned incel-related content.
Governments and researchers have started to describe the incel ideology along the lines of a terrorist threat, but there are concerns that it is too simple to suggest this.
What is an incel?
The red, blue and black pill idea was related to the Matrix film and is heavily used within the incel community. Image courtesy of Wired
Those who identify as an incel define themselves as unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one and are part of an online subculture. Incel is short for involuntary celibate, and the term was founded in 1993 by a Canadian university student know as Alana. Since then, there has been a mass creation of an online subculture of these people on platforms like Reddit. Anyone can be an incel, but research points towards most incels being young men, predominately white, struggle with adult life and are unemployed. The size of the subculture is debatable, but people have estimated that the subculture has thousands to hundreds of thousands of members.
Within this subculture, many ideas have been expressed on forums, and they differ in many ways. Two sets of ideas are common within these places. This is where we get the “red pill” and “black pill” analogy. Regarding the context of these forums, the red pill analogy, which was first shown in The Matrix, is this idea that when you “take the red pill,” you will see the world where feminism has given too much power to women over men, and male privilege does not exist. Researchers have summarised the black pill analogy as a term part of or even a summary of the incel “ideology” or identity. It is the idea that incels will remain involuntary celibate forever, even if one tries and makes some form of self-improvement.
Other ideas like female hypergamy suggest that 80% of women desire the top 20% of attractive men and that incels are linked to men’s rights groups and, more sinisterly, the far right. In some discussions within these communities, there have been links towards misogyny, a sense of entitlement to sex, and even in some cases, the endorsement of violence against women and sexually active people. So much so, non-profit organisation Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) see the subculture as “part of the online male supremacist ecosystem.” And because of the shooting by Jake Davison in Plymouth, it has now put more of a focus around incels.
Jake Davison
The explicit motivations which triggered the attack remain unclear but Davison clearly had diverse grievances. That indicates the need for a broader conversation about how involvement with misogyny online, including the incel subculture, may interact with a person’s other personal problems. That will better help us understand how violent acts ultimately happen.”
Blyth Crawford and Florence Keen on the Conversation: “Incel culture: what we’ve learned from investigating Plymouth attacker’s digital footprint”
Ever since the awful attack in Plymouth, incel culture has generated a dialogue around Davison’s motivation, especially whether this online subculture poses a genuine concern to society. Davison had consumed incel related content and had referenced some of these ideas, like the black pill analogy and hypergamy. But, what makes this complicated was how he was also trying to better himself, like posting photos of his fitness journey and was actively trying to debunk incel beliefs. And not just that, he never said that he was an incel.
In doing so, as much as the mainstream media has tried to link the online subculture to the attack by Davison, it may be the case that it is far more complicated. Namma Kates on Unheard even went as far as suggesting that the media has overblown the link Davison had with the incel community and how “inaccurate and irresponsible” the commentary had been during the days after the attack. Going deeper into Davison’s online footprint, Blyth Crawford and Florence Keen on the Conversation found that that “the explicit motivations which triggered the attack remain unclear.”
Naama Kates speaking on Modern Wisdom with Chris Williamson
Indeed, it’s striking just how inaccurate and irresponsible some of the commentary by self-appointed incel experts has been in recent days. Take the claim, made in the Guardian a day after the tragedy, that incels “actively recruit” young men, recalling the tactics used by extremist groups such as ISIS. I’ve spoken to dozens of incels for my research, and not one of them has suggested this happens. Overwhelmingly, these young men find the content on their own, which isn’t difficult to imagine for young people with internet access.”
Naama Kates on Unheard: “What the media gets wrong about incels”
Should we be concerned by incels?
There is a need for concern regarding this online subculture, especially its links to the far-right, extreme violence and eight mass murders. After the attack in Plymouth, it has made us even more aware of these issues, but the bigger question is the level of concern we should have. This is a question that the United Kingdom needs to think about and the world as a whole. Already, teachers in England have been encouraged to tackle incel content, like hatred to women, in the classroom, which shows that there is indeed a high level of concern for these kinds of ideas.
What is still up for debate is if we can consider incels as terrorists, with Keen suggesting that there needs to be a level of caution when applying such black and white connotations to a complex subculture.
But despite this, the attention on incels has brought us social, moral and political dilemmas that many of us should at least consider.
The Taliban take over in Afghanistan left many countries worldwide shocked and worried about the next chapter for the country. At this time, it is still unclear what the Taliban envision for the country and its citizens but If their previous occupation is anything to go by; people are right to be terrified. Although Taliban leaders have stated numerous times that it is a new day and that they will forgive the citizens that fought against them, many citizens are sceptical of this new government and its promises. Amongst the sceptics are women. Older generations remembered the Taliban’s severe restrictions on women and girls before the 2001 attack on America. While the next steps for the Taliban might be unknown to the masses, one thing that is for sure women’s rights will shift in the country and not be for the better.
From No Rights to Rights…
Taliban shooters control in 2001
It is not the first time the Taliban has taken over Afghanistan. From 1996 to 2001, the Taliban ruled all of Afghanistan. While the Taliban’s strict interpretation of Islam affected everyone, women and girls faced the most scrutiny during those times. Under the Taliban regime, women could not leave their homes without a male escort, were required to wear a burqa, could not visit health centres, attend schools, or work. Moreover, the Taliban executed severe punishments for violators such as public executions, chopped hands for thieves, and stoned women to death for adultery accusations. After the U.S. invasion in 2001, the Taliban government toppled, and women’s participation in the public sphere rose. There was a steady increase in women in the legal, medical, and political fields after 2001. By 2017, there were over 150,000 women elected in local offices.
We must not believe Taliban Spin
Under the PR Machine is a theocratic and fanatical regime that between 1996 and 2001 oversaw the erosion of pretty much every civil liberty Women and children are meant to enjoy.
Women and children being home after Taliban takeover.
As much as the Taliban would like to portray things are different and their regime will be better for everyone, not much proves true for women. In a matter of days, the Taliban has forced the closure of beauty shops, forced women to leave work, and girls to go home from school. It is an all too familiar sight for women who remembered how life was thirty to twenty years ago. Their worse fear is coming to light as the life that they grew to love is being snatched away in a matter of hours.
I am fearful of the future – it seems so fragile unless we consistently call out misogyny, terrorism and become woke to the injustices we witness.
Many girls only know of a life where they could get an education and be anything they want to be, and to see a dramatic shift in such a short time is painful to watch. Their lives are uncertain. After all, they have no idea of the individual rights that will be restricted because they were born female. Their hopes and dreams are in upheaval because of an uprising government that considers them second-rate citizens. The main problem with the takeover is not certain groups taking back their country from foreign influence. The problem lies in their extreme conservatism that isolates a core group of people who love their country and want a say in a government that affects them. Women are just as important and have a voice. Unfortunately, with the turn of the past events, the Taliban will silence their voice once again.
The Olympics foster sportsmanship across the world and provides a platform for elite athletes to gain global recognition. However, more than just an international competition, the Olympics is a huge business. The broadcasting television network NBC recently paid $7.7 billion for broadcasting rights to show the Olympics up until 2032. The games also generated over $1.5 billion in ad revenue prior to the broadcasting. Similarly, the sheer popularity of the Olympics also means that host countries are likely to experience a surge in GDP as incoming spectators spend their money on local businesses. Yet despite this year’s lack of live viewers, an NBC executive has dubbed Tokyo 2020 as the most profitable Olympic games yet.
Olympic Costs
It is clear that the Olympics is a lucrative spectacle but the prestige associated with competing in the games often overshadows the fact that athletes are not given a cut of this profit. It is a well-known fact that athletes like Simone Biles, Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt have used their Olympic fame to launchpad their own businesses and multi-million dollar endorsements – resulting in massive networths and notoriety. However, the same cannot be said for the 11,000+ others who have made similar sacrifices to pursue their Olympic dreams.
Recent examples include Riley Day, an Australian Olympic runner who worked at Woolworths for three years to fund her Olympic campaign. Day came to the Olympics with no corporate sponsor funding her travel and training expenses. Much like Day, US Olympic figure skater Adam Rippon admitted in 2018 that he used to ‘steal apples from his gym’ because he was so broke in the lead up to his Olympic win. It is clear from these examples that lesser-known athletes struggle financially. A study of 500 elite athletes found that 60% would not consider themselves to be financially stable. This figure is better understood when the costs of being an elite athlete are taken into account. 5x US Olympic runner and bobsledder, Lauryn Williams, estimates the total cost of conditioning therapies, coaching expenses, nutritionist salaries and equipment to be upwards of $124,000 – way more than the average athlete can afford.
Source: Instagram. Riley Day.
How do Athletes Make Money?
Olympic wins undoubtedly bring much coveted ‘glory’ to the countries whose elite athletes outperform their competitors, but the idea of bolstering national pride has not motivated many governments to fund the Olympic careers of their budding talent pool. The US government does not directly get involved in funding the Olympic team and the US Olympic and Para-Olympic Committee instead provide a stipend to support American athletes. However, as stated by US Olympic rower Megan Musnicki, her total stipend amounts to a meagre $2000 a month and for athletes competing in less mainstream sports such as fencing it can often drop to as low as $300 a month. Another source of funding is prize money. The following shows the amount each country awards its Olympic gold, silver and bronze medalists.
Source: CNBC
Many countries such as Singapore award huge cash bonuses to their gold medalists and remunerate them for participating in the games. Kazakhstan, Malaysia and The Philippines also dish out hefty bonuses however the same cannot be said for countries such as Japan and the US which currently holds the most gold medals.
Sponsorship Problems
Prior to the 1970s, Olympic athletes were considered to be amateurs competing solely for the ‘love of the sport’. Since then, rules have been relaxed to compensate athletes in correspondence with their training efforts. Yet many aspiring Olympians are still hamstrung by Olympic sponsorship rules that restrict them from utilising the huge advertising platform they are given every four years. The IOC has used ‘Rule 40′ to control how much exposure individual sponsors get in the Olympics – the rule states that only official Olympic sponsors are able to take full advantage of the platform. The use of athletes’ names, performances and personal images is severely limited under Rule 40 and they are often prevented from using Olympic language and symbols when addressing their individual sponsors. US athletes can only post 7 thank you messages referring to their individual sponsors and are limited to receiving one post of congratulations per sponsor.
Source: Vox
Source: Vox. Olympic athletes cannot address their personal sponsors by using Olympic intellectual property.
The debate over whether Olympic athletes should be paid is not new. The same sentiment has been rife in countries like the US where college athletes have also been campaigning for a base salary and the ability to cash in on sponsors and viral performances. This is explained in the following video of college gymnast, Katelyn Ohashi.
An explanation of the NCAA rules.
Should Olympic Athletes be paid?
Rules that prevent athletes from touting their personal endorsements on the Olympic stage are seen by the IOC as reasonable because they stop the official Olympic sponsors from being subject to ‘ambush marketing’ but such regulations undoubtedly hinder athletes financially. Many Olympians (and other athletes) have sidelined their careers to achieve their goals as training and conditioning is a full-time commitment that takes time, money and energy. Bearing in mind the massive physical, financial and personal sacrifices these sportsmen and sportswomen make, proper remuneration and an ability to capitalise more freely off their personal brands is arguably their right. Over the years, following campaigns like #WeDemandChange (started in the London 2012 Olympics), sponsorship regulations have been gradually relaxed and the IOC are allegedly working towards creating a more balanced system of remuneration that benefits athletes and maintains Olympic profit margins.
The 2020 Olympics was the year of black girl magic. One person who shined bright and made history in the 2020 Olympics is Allyson Felix. She made history, winning her 11th career medal in the 2020 Olympics, becoming the most decorated track and field athlete in Olympic history. Her contributions to the sport and fierce advocacy for maternity rights have allowed her to make a household name for herself. Her decade-long career deserves celebration. Here is a look at her remarkable career.
2004 Olympics: Athens and World Championships
Felix at the 2004 Olympic Summer Games in Athens
At 18, Felix participated in her first Olympics at the 2004 Summer Games in Athens. She competed in the 200-meter race. Her fierce competition in the 2004 games gave her notoriety and earned her a silver medal. The following year, Felix became the youngest champion to compete at the World Championships. She became the second female to win three gold medals at a single World Championships two years later.
2008 Olympics: Beijing and 2012 Olympics: London
Felix competing at the 2012 London Olympics
The 2008 Olympics catapulted her running career even further. At the Beijing Olympic Games, Allyson ran her personal best record of 21.93 in the 200 meters but took her second silver medal. However, she earned her first gold medal at the Beijing Games in the women’s 4-by-400 –meter relay team.
United States’ Francena McCorory, Sanya Richards-Ross, Natasha Hastings, and Allyson Felix pose prior to the Women’s 4×400 relay final during day nine of the 15th IAAF World Athletics Championships Beijing 2015 at Beijing National Stadium on Aug. 30, 2015, in Beijing, China.
Furthermore, at the 2012 London Olympic Games, she finally won her first individual gold medal with a time of 21.88 seconds. Allyson then went on to win her second gold competing in the 4-by-100 meter relay, along with teammates. During the 2012 Olympics, Allyson won her fourth gold with the 4-by-400-meter relay team in her third event. Allyson’s first-place victories in London made her the first American woman to win three gold medals at a single Olympics since Florence Griffith-Joyner at the 1988 Olympics.
2016 Olympics: Rio
Running at the 2016 Olympics in Rio
In the 2016 Summer Games, Allyson continued to make history in Rio. Her silver medal in the 400-meter race made her the most decorated woman in U.S. track and field history with seven awarded wins. During Rio Games, she broke her tie with Olympic legend Jackie Joyner-Kersee, who had won six medals. Despite a bittersweet silver medal in the 400-meter, she would proceed to win two gold medals in the 4 x 100-meter relay and 4 x 400-meter relay, along with her U.S. teammates. At the end of the 2016 Summer Olympics, Allyson became the most decorated woman in U.S. track and field history. She tied with Jamaican sprinter Merlene Ottey for the most decorated woman in Olympic track and field history.
Advocate for Maternity Rights
https://youtu.be/tNdw7q_LkiY
In 2017, she became pregnant with her first child. Her contract with Nike was up, and they were coming up with new negotiations while she was pregnant. Nike offered a 70% pay cut and failed to support Allyson’s requests in the contract concerning maternity protection. Ultimately, this severed the line between the two parties, and Allyson signed with Athleta. The company gave her more maternal support and started her shoe and lifestyle brand called Says. She has called Nike out for being unsupportive towards pregnant and new mothers. This altercation drove Allyson to advocate for mothers and fight for companies to protect mother’s rights.
2020 Olympics: Tokyo
TOKYO, JAPAN – AUGUST 07: Sydney McLaughlin, Allyson Felix, Dalilah Muhammad, and Athing Mu of Team United States celebrate winning the gold medal in the Women’ s 4 x 400m Relay Final on day fifteen of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games at Olympic Stadium on August 07, 2021, in Tokyo, Japan. (Photo by David Ramos/Getty Images)
Going into the 2020 Olympics, Allyson came into these games with something to prove. The Summer Games were her first Olympic Games since she gave birth. She went into the games beating Usain Bolt’s Record as the most “successful athlete in history” just ten months after she gave birth at the World Championships. Riding the high from motherhood and World Championships pushed Felix to give her all to her final Olympic games. Felix gave the Summer Games everything she had and made history once again. By winning bronze in the 400-meter race and gold in the 4-by-400-meter relay, Felix solidified her position as the most decorated athlete in the U.S. track, with 11 Olympic medals, surpassing Carl Lewis.
Allyson Felix accomplished so much in her ten-year career and made history during it. While Tokyo was her final Olympics, she made her footprints in the sand, leaving a long-lasting legacy for the next generation to follow.
Sadiq Khan has come out and has suggested that it should be an illegal offence not to wear a face mask on public transport.
He is the latest person to support the idea that people should wear face masks or face coverings in public areas, despite there being no legal requirements to do so.
Some support his statement on the Newscast podcast, whilst others disagree with the idea.
This creates a debate about whether it should be an offence not to wear a face mask.
Sadiq Khan a few days before Freedom Day wanting Transport for London (TFL) to enforce masks on transport. Courtesy of The Telegraph.
The Facts
Since 19th July, all covid restrictions have been eased including mandatory face masks in public areas like transport, shops and restaurants. However, businesses like Uber and Sainsburys have suggested that they would like customers to continue wearing face masks when using their services. Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, has now joined these businesses encouraging people to continue wearing masks on public transport and other public areas. But not only that, he has gone a step further by suggesting that not wearing a face mask should be an illegal offence. He said this on the Newscast podcast, where he said that he is trying to lobby the government to bring in a bylaw that would mean that the police would be able to fine people who don’t wear masks on public transport.
We are trying to lobby the government to allow us to bring in a bylaw, so it will be the law again, so we can issue fixed penalty notices and we can use the police service and the BTP to enforce this.”
Sadiq Khan on the Newscast podcast
He cited evidence that face masks make a difference in stopping the spread of the virus and were useful for those with asymptomatic infection. Since saying this, there have been mixed reactions from many across the political spectrum. Patrick Christys commented that Khan was taking a stronger stance on mask-wearing than on knife crime, and Gillian McKeith called the London Mayor mad for mentioning the idea. It has been reported that 64% of adults in the UK support the idea of people wearing face masks indoors like in public transport and shops.
Since the easing of restrictions on Freedom Day, there have been mixed reports of people wearing or not wearing masks in public spaces.
But what is important to understand is if failing to wear a face mask should be considered an illegal offence?
We turn to our journalists to see what they think of this question.
Sadiq Khan is right to say not wearing a face mask should be a criminal offence
Sadiq’s attention to the issue of wearing face masks highlights the needed collective and individual responsibility in continuing the fight against an endlessly mutating virus.
Sadiq is right to say refusal to wear a face mask should be a criminal offence, solely for the reason that the introduction of the by-law legally mandates the British Transport Police (BTP) to enforce the law. The current enforcements since July 19th have been “conditions of carriage” – i.e. not legally enforceable, and therefore neither policied nor non-compliance resulting in penalties. A couple of factors unique to London provide a solid grounding for BTP enforcement; the population density of the city (highest in the UK) and migrant/foreign-born population and the increased likelihood of introduction of new COVID strains (35% of the UK migrant population is in London). Given the grievances of the past year, Londoners owe it to each other to minimise the unprecedented spreading of foreign strains in a densely populated city – which in the worse case, could become a virus breeding ground.
Perhaps Sadiq should have led with a softer approach; Instead of stern conditions of carriage and a subsequent by-law – in effect, refusal of entry and asking to leave if a mask is not worn – London transport authorities should ensure sufficient availability of daily-use masks in public transport junctions in the interest of ensuring high compliance rates and provide necessary recycling facilities for disposal of daily masks. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), wearing masks alone is not sufficient to suppress transmissions; other measures should also be taken, for example, frequent deep cleaning of carriages.
Sadiq is right in ensuring individual and collective responsibility, yet he would have been wise to reiterate the measures London authorities are taking too.
The cost is hardly tremendous for the UK’s wealthiest city.
Sadiq Khan’s contribution isn’t needed
The Face mask debate has been drilled into our heads and it has become hopeless, divisive, and annoying.
And with Sadiq Khan saying that it should be an offence for someone not wearing a mask on public transport, his contribution to this dry, over-the-top, and dull debate isn’t needed.
He needs to tell us how he will get London back on its feet and recover from this virus.
Londoners have lost their jobs, livelihoods, and their will to live and having a mayor talking about a bit of cloth over your face is a kick in the teeth. Masks protect Londoners, which is true, but there are more outstanding issues at hand. These include the economic fallout of the virus, the housing crisis, and the skyrocketing knife crime. Those issues deserve way more attention than a bit of cloth, and Khan even said himself that 86% of Londoners have continued to wear masks after the 19th of July. So why add more fuel to this unnecessary debate when a large majority of Londoners are wearing masks anyway?
Cristo: "You'll be manhandled off the tube if your mask isn't right, but not if you're carrying a knife."
Khan isn’t a mad mayor or incompetent, especially when you compare him to other politicians like Boris Johnson.
However, when you can speak about issues that matter, like on a podcast, and you decide to talk about a piece of cloth covering someone’s face, that is where we need to question Khan’s priorities regardless of how you think of him.
Twitter’s data stands in contrast to that from the UK Football Policing Unit which said that of 207 social media posts deemed to be criminal, 34 came from accounts in Britain and 123 in other countries.
The social media company added that 99% of the accounts which it suspended over the abuse were not anonymous.
It follows suggestions by England manager Gareth Southgate that much of the abuse was originating from abroad.
Following the tournament, Southgate described the abuse as “unforgivable” and said: “I know a lot of that has come from abroad. People that track those things have been able to explain that. But not all of it.”
Today, We want to share an overview of our analysis of the abhorrent racist abuse directed at England players during the Euro 2020 Final last month, and an update of the ongoing steps we’ve put in place since February to protect the public conversation in the UK.
Following the Tournament, we undertook our own analysis of the Tweets removed and accounts suspended. This is to ensure we have a comprehensive understanding of the behaviour we encountered and the users involved, and that the steps we take going forwards can be as effective as possible. While that work is continuing, we wanted to share some initial findings.
Given the international nature of the Euro 2020 Final, it was no surprise to see that the Tweets we removed came from all over the world. However, while many have quite rightly highlighted the global nature of the conversation, it is also important to acknowledge that the UK was – by far – the largest country of origin for the abusive Tweets we removed on the night of the Final and in the days that followed.
We also wanted to better understand the users we had permanently suspended over the course of the tournament. While we have always welcomed the opportunity to hear ideas from partners on what will help, including from within the football community, our data suggests that ID verification would have been unlikely to prevent the abuse from happening – as the accounts we suspended themselves were not anonymous. Of the permanently suspended accounts from the Tournament, 99% of account owners were identifiable.
We also continue our work on reducing the visibility of this kind of content, ensuring fewer people see it. Indeed, only 2% of the Tweets we removed following the Final generated more than 1000 Impressions (Impressions are the number of views a Tweet receives before being removed). This highlights the importance for us of focusing even further on finding ways to make sure these Tweets are seen by as few people as possible – or prevent them from being sent in the first place.
Racist behaviour does not reflect the vast majority of people who use Twitter to participate in vibrant conversations about football in the UK. Critically, the word “proud” was used more often on the day following the Final than on any other day this year, as people expressed their support for the England team.
Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka alongside England teammate Raheem Sterling ( Image: Getty Images)
Two major requests were made of social media platforms, firstly: “Messages and posts should be filtered and blocked before being sent or posted if they contain racist or discriminatory material.”
And secondly that “all users should be subject to an improved verification process that (only if required by law enforcement) allows for accurate identification of the person behind the account”.
In a blog post published on Tuesday, Twitter argued: “that ID verification would have been unlikely to prevent the abuse from happening”.
The company said this was because “the accounts we suspended themselves were not anonymous. Of the permanently suspended accounts from the tournament, 99% of account owners were identifiable.”
Twitter said that it removed 1,961 abusive tweets during the final and in the days that followed using automated tools, with just 126 removed following reports from users.
Only 2% of these tweets had generated more than 1,000 impressions – something the company shared as an indication of its efforts to “quickly identify and remove racist, abusive tweets targeting the England team”.
As the world begins its slow pivot from managing the COVID-19 crisis to recovery and the reopening of economies, it’s clear that the period of lockdown has had a profound impact on how people live.
In this episode, M.T. is joined by entrepreneur David Elikwu as they discuss all the ways COVID has changed the world.
Join the conversation online #CommonSensePod
Like what you watched? Click here to join our community for free – https://csnetwork.substack.com/
We are an independent news outlet. We were founded by 500+ ordinary people who saw a problem with the mainstream media and did something about it. This means we are not solely driven by profit margins or vested interests. We are a platform kept alive by our community who we exist to serve. In a digital age, where the news cycles move at dizzying speeds, news has become noise.
The Common Sense Network is a platform our readers visit to discover stories that matter. To discover stories from across the political spectrum, local stories, stories that hold power to account, that uncover wrongdoing, that empower the forgotten and the unheard. We are on a mission to build the broadest coalition of diverse commentators in the UK. Our articles are well researched, well written and straight-talking. We remain committed to providing multiple perspectives on issues because we believe, there are two sides to every story….
It’s important that fans can continue to watch sporting events over the autumn, which is why we’re exploring the role vaccines might play in this. This will not only allow full capacity stadiums but has the added bonus of incentivising people of all ages to go and get their jab.”
Government source, courstey of Sky News
The Facts
After seventeen months and forty-eight rounds of fixtures, Premier League stadiums are fully open again for fans. The caveat however is that fans may have to be in receipt of both COVID vaccine jabs in order to be admitted, which poses the question to fans “why were they not needed for the Euros?” but that is another question for another day. For today, football fans are just happy that the season starts in less than a week.
Brentford Community Stadium will play host to the season’s curtain-raiser. But by the end of September, it could be COVID passports and double vaccinations as additional requirements for entry at stadiums which might be the topic of discussion.
There have been reports that some Premier League clubs may oppose these plans, saying that they are “unworkable”, especially as these plans were announced a month before the season was going to start. The Shadow Sports Secretary has criticised the government for being indecisive and having a lack of strategy regarding vaccine passports for sporting events.
To insist on vaccine passports less than a month before the start of the season will cause major disruption, especially at the lower end of the pyramid. The government has chopped and changed their advice, making it impossible for people and businesses to plan.”
Jo Stevens, shadow sports secretary
Vaccine passports are not just looking like they are going to be used in football stadiums. There has been confirmation that vaccine passports will be used in nightclubs from the end of September, which has sprung a similar debate around if this should be allowed.
We turn to our journalists at Common Sense who we asked if it should be a requirement for football fans to be double vaccinated when going to football matches.
The argument for this is valid, especially with concerns of a fifth wave rife not long after our emergence out of wave four. The capacity management over the Euros was especially catastrophic. Allowing over 50,000 fans to attend Wembley for both semi-finals and the final proved to those who were unsure that the government will always put the health of the economy over the health of the public.
Now is the perfect time to show that Health is actually the priority by implementing these passports across the board and lowering the threshold. Of the twenty Premier League sides, only one falls below the 20,000 figure that has been touted. Right now, daily average case numbers are greater than that.
On top of this, the other 72 professional clubs will have the same restrictions placed upon them. With a straightforward approach based on stadium capacity, all stadia with a capacity of less than 20,000 could be limited to a maximum capacity of 50%, while those larger are capped at 20,000 for the first half of the season, then restrictions are eased or tightened after the January transfer window.
What has to be remembered also, these passports also enable you to enter if you can prove a negative test result, so the anti-vaxxers could still utilise it.
Many see vaccine passports as the way forward for us to go back to our way of living, and I, for one, was supportive of this near the beginning of the year.
But as the months went by, times have changed, we have new information, and we have seen that many of us have been vaccinated.
So much so, I have changed my mind on this topic.
And with the decision that football fans must be fully vaccinated to go to matches from October, even though fans will be in the stadiums before this point, this decision will bring more harm than good to clubs, fans and sporting culture. If you bring in vaccine passports, why bring them in when there have already been pre-season friendlies and two months of the season played? It makes no logical sense! How do you expect the government to pull off vaccine passports when they couldn’t get a track and trace system to work? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. It is insane to expect an incompetent government to be competent when all you see is incompetency.
Back to football, lower league teams need money to stay afloat, and they need fans desperately. Vaccine passports will add another barrier to clubs and fans that is unnecessary when looking at how most people are vaccinated. By restricting fans who, for no choice of their own, are unable to get vaccinated for health reasons or are unable to show that they have been vaccinated, we start to turn football into an exclusive sport.
Covid or no Covid time, Sport isn’t supposed to be exclusive.
Sport is all about uniting people, and vaccine passports go against this message.
Highstreet footfall has flatlined since the beginning of the pandemic. The government’s response to this, plus a swathe of other issues that have been expedited by the pandemic, has come in the form of the “Build Back Better” scheme – A radical push to restart the ailing economy, generate jobs and develop infrastructure across the UK. Prime Minister Boris Johnson said about the push to reignite the economy,
“This plan for growth is a call to arms to put this right. Our mission is to unleash the potential of our whole country and restore the energy and confidence of the Victorians themselves.”
Boris Johnson
As bombastic as ever, Johnson never fails to inject a sense of flailing hopefulness in the face of his ever-lacking leadership.
Meeting The Mound
On one of my first post-lockdown excursions into London city centre to meet my colleagues non-virtually for the first time, I sat on the 390 bus as we dipped through the grand streets of Mayfair.
As the bus rounded the bend past Marble Arch, I noticed something unsightly had consumed the structure. At first glance, I assumed it to be some stage, vast struts of scaffolding propped up vaguely grey-green tarps, its unfinished exoskeleton revealing a hollow shell beneath. I believed at the time that, whatever it was that I was looking at, was far from finished.
It wasn’t until stories began flooding Twitter that I put two and two together. The strange heap overlooking Hyde Park was, in fact, the inaugural opening of a temporary installation commissioned by Westminster City Council – The Marble Arch Mound. Kay Buxton, chief executive of the local business group the Marble Arch London BID, said this about the project:
“Marble Arch Mound is a much needed shot in the arm for the recovery of London’s hospitality sector, as we expect hundreds of thousands of visitors to come back to the West End to see this spectacular attraction. With international tourism still on hold, the sector is relying on domestic tourism to boost income, and Marble Arch Mound offers UK visitors something truly unique and remarkable, and a reason to venture to the capital once again.”
Kay Buxton
At best, The Mound feels like a fleeting attempt at stimulating a pandemic-riddled economy; at worst, it is excruciatingly out of touch. At the heart of the capital, the faux-natural installation does nothing to consider what may bring life back to an entirely disconnected London – a public space that engages positively with the unbuilt environment, free of transactions. So much space in the capital is privately owned and built upon that green spaces are mostly confined to protected segments of land that day-outers flock to in hopes of escaping the claustrophobic highstreets of Soho, Marylebone and Mayfair.
Better spent elsewhere
Homelessness, privatised land, and costly commutes are but a few endemic issues that can make navigating the city an unsavoury experience. Once you pass the monetary threshold to enter the city, you are greeted with grand examples of London’s eclectic architectural history. Beautiful facades, if not private housing for the rich and famous, usually conceal shopfronts. Boutique coffee spots, luxury apparel outlets, and sprawling apartment stores overlook gated communities and private gardens. A closer look, however, reveals ugly truths that are all too commonplace in most major cities. Those without proper accommodation are forced to take shelter in alcoves where they won’t be shooed employees or, worse still, aggressed upon by police.
According to Streets Of London, “More than 11,000 people sleep rough on the streets of London every year.”
Many have fallen by the wayside in the wake of the pandemic. As Boris Johnson’sgovernment continually fails to protect its most vulnerable, and utterly unnatural “experience” has been erected in the name of stimulating the economy. The estimated cost of The Marble Arch Mound totals £2 million, a figure that pales in comparison to the estimated £10 billion it would take to end homelessness in the UK, but would nonetheless have made a tangible impact on so many lives. If only it were invested in helping London’s most vulnerable.
Instead, we are left with The Mound, a sarcastic grin diminishing green and free spaces in the city, a poor attempt at stimulating the city centre’s long-broken economy.
Living in a studio apartment, three flights away from solid ground, no private or public outdoor space in sight, the thing I craved most throughout 2020 was, beyond reconnecting with loved ones, reengaging with the physical environment.
The built environment constricts us and tricks us into thinking we can freely navigate the world when, in reality, every city street in central London carrels us down estuaries to our designated location like GPS. If your destination is The Marble Arch Mound, you’ll pay a rapidly falling rate of £4.50 to climb 130 stairs like a theme park rollercoaster, slowly ticking along the track while you take in the sights of a sordid landmass, barren highstreets, a person with no shoes or shelter.
Reviews of The Mound
Is there any catharsis at the top of the mound? Some new vigour to experience the city, to spend, to consume? Let’s see how those who visited the mound reacted on their trip to the manufactured spectacle.
If you’re ever in the area, ticking along to your pre-approved destination for shopping or food or spectacle, break free from the time-money matrix to go and marvel at The Mound. In my fleeting glimpse at its heavy presence casting shadows over Hyde Park, I didn’t find anything “remarkable” about it other than the mere fact of its conception.
I put it to the decision-makers behind The Mound, and perhaps the decision-makers full stop that there may well be many a tangible “reason to venture to the capital once again.” However, The Mound isn’t one of them.
It is instead a decaying reminder that those who make decisions on your behalf in the name of profit don’t know you at all and don’t care enough to find out.
Mass demonstrations have erupted in Cuba, with these demonstrations going on since the beginning of July.
Reports suggest that the country is experiencing a lack of essential goods, power outages and the health and economic consequences of the pandemic.
The Cuban government have also curbed civil liberties during this time, which adds to the many reasons why these protests are occurring.
DW News talking about how the protests started
How did this start?
Cuba’s economy contracted by 10.9% in 2020, and in the first six months of 2021, the economy contracted again by another 2%. Not just that, but Cuba has had less financial support from the likes of Venezuela and United States sanctions have also played a part in what we see in the country regarding the protests. Donald Trump imposed more than 200 sanctions during his time as President of the United States, and Joe Biden has not lifted these sanctions. However, some argue that the way the Cuban government is set up has played a part in the current protests.
Abraham Jiménez Enoa, a Cuban Washington Post columnist, has stated that the country’s political system has promoted the protests more than the United States embargo. Cuba has a Soviet style-centrally planned economy, and to some people, it has started to become inefficient. Lillian Guerra, a Cuban scholar, has suggested the government has focused on building hotels and tourist facilities rather than focusing on addressing the needs of the Cuban people. These needs include living standards being reduced.
Since the beginning of protests in Cuba, the US corporate media have been peddling false narratives and outright lies about the country.
The relations between the United States and Cuba are like a spider web. On one side, it’s true that the embargo is not a myth. It really affects the people of Cuba. But it’s obvious, as well, that the embargo is not the only thing responsible for the current state of the country. I’d say the embargo is, like, 30% of the problem, and the other 70% is the ineptitude and management of the Cuban government and its authoritarianism.”
Havana-based Washington Post columnist Abraham Jimenez Enoa
Since the protests have started, there has been many arrests and reports of protestors disappearing. According to a Spanish NGO called Prisoners Defenders, more than 178 people have gone missing during the protests. Those reported missing include José Daniel Ferrer, who is the figurehead of the dissident movement in the country. The UN Working Ground against Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances has sent a request to the Permanent Representative of Cuba to the United Nations to act regarding the alleged disappearances.
Joe Biden’s Robust Approach
Historically, the relationship between the United States and Cuba has been one of hostility, mainly due to the ideological differences between these countries. Yet, this relationship took a massive turn when Barack Obama become president of the United States in 2008. The then-president initiated an era of détente with Cuba, which meant that all sanctions were relaxed. Obama eased travel restrictions that enabled Cuba-Americans to send funds back to Cuba and for people to visit the country for religious and educational purposes. He also removed the country from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, embassies of the United States and Cuba reopened in both countries, and Obama visited Cuba in 2016- becoming the first sitting president of the United States to visit the nation in nearly 90 years.
However, as Obama’s time as president came to an end, Trump soon reversed much of what Obama did, especially with Cuba. Trump reinstated travel and business restrictions on the country, cut United States embassy staff in Cuba, and put the country back on the terrorism sponsor list. With Biden becoming president of the country near the end of 2020, there was anticipation that he would reverse much of what Trump did regarding Cuba, but this has not occurred.
Joe Biden hosting Cuban-American leaders at the White House and saying that he “stands with the Cuban people who have suffered decades under a failed communist regime”
Observing the current protests in Cuba, Biden has reacted robustly by making it clear that he supports the protests and has already sanctioned Cuba’s security minister, their police force, and two police leaders. This is due to how the government has handled the demonstrations, and Biden has stated that there will be more sanctions “unless there’s some drastic change in Cuba.” Miguel Diaz-Canel, the president of Cuba, hasn’t been too impressed by the United States position and has even blamed the United States for its current unrest. He has suggested the protests were sincere but have been manipulated by social media campaigns orchestrated by the United States.
What’s Next For Cuba?
The situation within Cuba looks like it will not improve any time soon, especially seeing how Biden and Diaz-Canel are taking a very zero-sum approach to this situation. Even though information around these protests has died down, there are still reports saying that people have gone missing. Reuters has also reported that fake news has been spreading regarding the protests, making the situation even more unclear. These stories included Raul Castro fleeing to Venezuela, protestors kidnapping a provincial Communist Party chief and Venezuela sending troops to Cuba, which are untrue.
Outside of Cuba, there have been marches of support for the Cuban people in Chile, places in the United States, Canada, and Spain.
Antigua and Barbuda’s ambassador to the United States wants the United States to end its embargo on Cuba, with China and North Korea supporting this position.
Meanwhile, countries like Canada, Spain and Mexico want peace within this country and support the protests.
The Olympics’ recent events have shown that society holds Black women to a higher standard than others. The world seems to forget that people of colour have feelings and deal with issues just like everyone else. Whether in a work setting or at the Olympics, there seems to be a sense of amnesia regarding Black women’s opinions and feelings. Black women are choosing themselves and being punished for it by certain public institutions and society. Black women should not have to explain why they choose to look out for their well-being.
The Unnecessary Pressure
Biles withdrew from several events at the 2020 Olympics, citing physical and mental health concerns.
For many Black women, there is an unspoken amount of pressure that society places on them. Simone Biles is one of the many examples of unnecessary pressure society puts on Black women. She is considered one of the greatest gymnasts of our time and was expected to defend her gold medals from 2016. America expected Biles to be their champion and bring back golds for the USA; however, when she chose to take care of her well-being, some supporters suddenly shifted their narrative, calling her a “quitter” and “selfish.” Biles is not the only Black woman who experienced this pressure from the outside world.
In 2019, Nike did not renew Allyson Felix’s contract after denying her request to honour her pregnancy terms and conditions and giving her a 70 percent pay cut from her last contract. Black women should not have to choose between motherhood and risking an endorsement. It is utterly disrespectful for society to place specific pressures on Black women.
The Playing Field is Not Leveled, Nor Was it Meant to Be
Controversy over Soul Cap’s swim cap after Olympics bans them.
Honestly, many of these rules set in place by society did not have Black women in mind. The Olympics is a clear indicator of that notion. For example, the Olympic Committee stated the Soul Cap swimming cap designed for natural African hair was not suitable because “it does not fit the shape of the head.” To go further, Judges penalized and deducted points from Simone Biles on moves she created; the Code of Points undervalues the movements she perfected.
In addition to the Olympics, other intuitions antagonize Black women for not conforming to the “status quo.” ‘1619 Project’ creator and Pulitzer-Prize-winning Professor Nikole Hannah-Jones refused a tenure position from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Despite strong recommendation and winning the Pulitzer, UNC dragged their feet concerning her tenure. According to UNC rules and procedure’s Hannah-Jones’ process was done differently than her white co-workers.
Black Women Deal With Mental Health Issues Too
Osaka, Biles, and Richardson faced scrutiny after expressing the importance of self-care.
Far too often, Black women have carried a stereotype as talking loud, having an attitude, or portraying the “Mad Black Women” persona when they display a hint of emotion. Society seems not to get the pain that Black women go through regularly and does not understand that their feelings are merit-based. When Naomi Osaka withdrew from the French Open, citing she wanted to focus on her mental health, people assumed her struggles were false or exaggerated. In 2018, Serena Williams was fined 17,000 US Dollars for an outburst at the US Open. Similar explosions may result in technical penalties in other sports, but Serena has always been targeted for solid emotion towards the sport she loves most of her career.
Recently, Sha’Carri Richardson was excluded from the Olympics because Marijuana was in her system during the Olympic Trials. Did she break the rules? Yes. Was the suspension justified? Yes. However, Marijuana is becoming legal in states around the US and is not a performance-enhancing drug. Regardless of the timing of the use, we as a society have no right to tell a person how to grieve.
The unnecessary pressure and changing the rules for Black women need to stop. Quite frankly, it is no one’s business how these women decide to live their lives. Black women should not have to explain themselves to anyone in their decisions that are best for them.
In this episode of No Borders, we sit down with experienced talent manager Bolu Bello. She and Torrin talk about her backstory into falling into the job role that she now loves, how her experience studying law in University has added to her arsenal of skills too. As well as this, they explored some interesting issues with the creative community and how individuals can start to thrive in the industry.
We are an independent news outlet. We were founded by 500+ ordinary people who saw a problem with the mainstream media and did something about it. This means we are not solely driven by profit margins or vested interests. We are a platform kept alive by our community who we exist to serve. In a digital age, where the news cycles move at dizzying speeds, news has become noise. The Common Sense Network is a platform our readers visit to discover stories that matter. To discover stories from across the political spectrum, local stories, stories that hold power to account, that uncover wrongdoing, that empower the forgotten and the unheard. We are on a mission to build the broadest coalition of diverse commentators in the UK. Our articles are well researched, well written and straight-talking. We remain committed to providing multiple perspectives on issues because we believe, there are two sides to every story….
