Shamima Begum who is now 19 years old, ran away from school in Bethnal Green to join ISIS in 2015 just aged 15. Now Ms Begum wants to return to the UK. Ms Begum, who has just given birth to a baby boy, but previously has lost two children due to illness and malnutrition, is married to Yago Riedijk, a Dutch foreign fighter, who currently is in the Syrian Democratic Forces custody. This has sparked mass controversy as the question remains should someone who has been radicalized by ISIS be allowed back into the UK?
What is Isis?
ISIS started as an al Qaeda splinter group. It aims to create an Islamic state otherwise known as a caliphate across Iraq, Syria and throughout the world. The group is enforcing Sharia Law, whose origins are rooted in 18th century Islam, which would establish a society that reflects the regions 18th century past. ISIS is infamous, known for mass murders, alongside public executions, crucifixions and other inhumane acts.
The UK has suffered at the hands of ISIS and so many believe Ms Begum should not be allowed back to the UK. Although Kurdish officials have pleaded with the government to uphold its “legal and moral duty” to repatriate British citizens for trial, The Home Secretary has insinuated Ms Begum’s return to the UK will be blocked.
What is worrying is that Ms Begum is not the only girl to left the UK for Syria, alongside Kadiza Sultana and Amira Abase also from the same school (Bethnal Green Academy), left for Syria in February 2015. Unfortunately Ms Sultana was reported to have been killed in 2016 due to an air strike.
Ms Begum has asked for forgiveness “I have done nothing wrong”, she says. She deeply regrets leaving the UK to join the Islamic state. However, Ms Begum also believes that the Manchester Arena attack was justified, because civilians in Syria have died due to airstrikes. This is rather concerning and the British public are fearful of her lack of remorse. She claims her experiences (in her own words) “made her stronger”. Perhaps it is time Britain was just as strong in its refusal to let her back into the UK. Will this open the doors for others to return? What of Ms Abase and her views? how we deal with Shamima Begum will set a precedent for potential future cases.
Under the fear of further radicalisation it seems then that the UK shouldn’t let her back into the country.
Some may argue that she deserves a chance and that is reserved for the optimists, who see the tender age of 15 as the main contributor as to why she should return back home. The cynics will not want this conversation to go any further than it already has. Will criminal charges be sufficient punishment for someone who left for 3 years to live with ISIS?
Prevention is better than cure. Why would we allow her back into the UK, and open ourselves up to risk? Ms Begum could esentially be a trojan horse and letting her in could open a can of worms, one the UK could not handle – especially in light with all the energy the Brexit negotiations are taking. No matter how young someone is or how much they have matured, they still pose a risk due to the psychological residue left by extremism and radicalisation. Let us not take our chances.
This week kicked off with a bang as journalists flocked to Westminster on Monday morning for an event from a group of Labour MPs relating to ‘the future of British politics’. What ensued was the resignation of no less than seven Labour MPs (as of 4pm Monday). The seven will now sit in parliament as a new, independent group, somewhat creatively entitled ‘The Independent Group’.
The group includes some of Labour’s biggest names, with Luciana Berger, Chris Leslie, and Chuka Umunna standing beside Angela Smith, Gavin Shuker, Ann Coffey and Mike Gapes. This split, although wildly exciting for a political nerd such as myself, was long-anticipated and hardly surprising. What Labour has become under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has been a point of contention for many existing Labour MPs, and this discontent has been exacerbated further by Brexit.
Luciana Berger, one of the MP’s who has recently left the Labour Party.
Luciana Berger, who has been at the receiving end of many anti-semitic attacks in recent years, led the MPs in stepping forward individually to explain their reasons for leaving the party. Each speech was imbued with emotive rhetoric and rather heart-wrenching stories about what first inspired them to join the Labour party, and how painful it was for them to leave. While they presented themselves in varying degrees from speech to speech, the four most prominent reasons for their decision to step down were: Labour’s handling of Brexit, the ongoing allegations of anti-Semitism against Labour since Corbyn took office, disbelief in both the Labour and Tory parties to lead effectively, and the inevitable shift further left that came with Corbyn being elected.
Their subsequent call-to-action seemed to have all the stirring intent of King Theoden’s rallying speech in The Return of The King. The group nodded in somber agreement as Umunna criticised a broken British political system that has ‘saddled’ the public with an ‘appalling choice’ between two flailing parties. Gavin Shuke then chimed in that ‘this is the moment to build something new’, while inviting everyone to make small donations to the group on their new website – which broke down a mere 24 minutes later due to the volume of traffic.
I am disappointed that these MPs have felt unable to continue to work together for the Labour policies that inspired millions at the last election and saw us increase our vote by the largest share since 1945.
Corbyn himself has expressed ‘disappointment’ at their departure. He, along with Sadiq Khan, Tom Watson, Emily Thornberry and many other Labour MPs have expressed their concern that this development could be deleterious towards Labour’s efforts to get into Number 10. Such a blatant display of division could lead to less scrutiny towards the Tory party (currently bungling their way through Brexit with all the grace of a newborn moose navigating an ice rink), as well as a loss of Labour voters if there were to be a general election anytime soon.
When asked about their plans for the future, The Independent Group members kept their answers suitably vague. They are to have their first formal meeting in the coming days where, we can assume, they will discuss the possibility of a leader and their potential for growth. What with their statement laying out their goal to “reach across outdated divides”, it would seem that they will not limit their membership to disillusioned Labour MPs, but people from across the house. Is this the misjudged attempt to criticise British politics that could have inadvertently solidified Tory leadership and austerity? Or the biggest challenge to British political bureaucracy in recent history? I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
In the meantime twitter seems to coping by dragging Angela Smith (who also left today) for calling members of the BAME community a ‘Funny Tinge’.
Ellie is a recent graduate in History and Politics from the University of Manchester. Originally from Bristol, Ellie moved to Manchester in 2015 and has no intention of leaving any time soon. She spent the final year of her degree as Editor of the university’s only historical publication, The Manchester Historian, and continues to present/produce weekly news videos for a Manchester startup, Student Inspire Network. She has dreams of becoming a journalist and hopes to embed her passion for politics and popular culture in all of her work.
The government has openly admitted that the new benefits system has directly contributed to rising poverty and yet, surprisingly, there is little outcry and the solutions offered are scant.
Eight years after its inception under Iain Duncan Smith in 2011, a Member of Parliament has finally conceded that Universal Credit may not be working in its current form. Initially scheduled for a UK-wide roll out in 2017, the much maligned scheme is currently not expected to be fully available to all until 2022-23. This week, the current Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd came clean to the House of Commons by saying there had been ‘challenges’ to the roll-out. She then went one step further and conceded that it had led to a rise in food bank use.
“The main issue which led to an increase in food bank use could have been the fact that people had difficulty accessing their money early enough”
Amber Rudd
Credit must go to Rudd, for saying what her predecessors could not, despite only being in the job since November. Despite this however, it was a shocking admission from a government minister and the figures surrounding Universal Credit make for grim reading. What is the government doing to rectify this and should we all be more concerned?
Teething Problems Or A Flawed System?
As a general concept, Universal Credit has been praised, albeit before the difficulties of the last 18 months. The general feeling was that the UK benefits system desperately needed reform. For claimants, the previous system could be viewed as a highly confusing web of endless bureaucracy. The change was meant to eradicate these difficulties, not unlike those seen in Ken Loach’s anti-austerity film I, Daniel Blake.
Its potential to cut out benefit fraud was also championed, with a centralised, combined payment approach supposedly easier to track. The problem is that restructuring an entire £63 billion pound system, to be used by 7 million people is not a simple task. Previous Chancellor George Osbourne’s seismic cuts to work allowances in the wake of Universal Credit had complicated the matter even further.
The issues have subsequently been far-reaching and complex since the roll-out began. Claimants have struggled to access the exclusively online system, people are also being forced to wait five weeks before receiving any payment and there has been fierce criticism aimed at the fact it is only paid to one person per household. What this all means, is that despite the original promises, 3.2 million UK families are expected, on average to lose £48 per week under Universal Credit. That’s £2496 a year and yet the silence is deafening in terms of government action.
The Butterfly Effect
The problem isn’t just that Universal Credit has led to an increase in food bank; there is the potential for Universal Credit to soon be linked with a rise in homelessness too. Some claimants have been waiting so long for payments, that they have naturally built up rental debts that they are then unable to cover. It has now reached the stage where some private landlords are refusing to deal with anyone on Universal Credit. Obviously this directly affects those in need, but the landlords themselves also face a difficult moral decision. If they decide to deal with claimants, they face the possibility of their own knock on effect; a painstaking legal battle to receive any money they are owed.
A rather disturbing consequence of all the problems has been around the fact that households with more than one occupant will only receive a single payment each month. Currently, this is the arrangement for couples, but the lack of thought put into this is quite staggering. It has been criticised for being thoughtless at best and misogynistic at worst. There is a growing feeling that the DWP could have unwittingly given potential abusers an advantage, while the most vulnerable men and women in society will suffer.
We must not forget Universal Credit staff in all this, who have themselves been deeply affected by everything that has happened. Due to a lack of staff and severe number of complaints, they are struggling to cope. Four years after a previous walk out, staff announced this week that they would be voting on whether to hold another strike in March. Add to this the disastrous effect Universal Credit is set to have on Britain’s elderly, and the fact that any parents under 25 will automatically lose £15 a week, it seems the scheme is not working for anyone. On the face of it, this is not strictly true, as government figures show 2.2 million families will be better off. However, these numbers are representative of those who may have savings or just need a quick fix, not the 3.2 million who rely on benefits most of all.
A Paradox Of Indecision
When digging down to find out what is being done to address the failing system, the bare facts suggest not a lot really. After Amber Rudd’s admission, it seemed the government may be taking drastic action on Universal Credit, but the fact is that none of the core policies have been changed. Labour have long been calling for a scrap to the system, or at least a halt of the roll-out, but this suggestion has created a paradox. Scrapping Universal Credit at this stage would not just put millions of claimants at risk of further damage, but throw away billions in public money and be a humiliating defeat for the government.
It needs clear reform, even if that just means rectifying the individual roll-out issues mentioned above. Amber Rudd and the DWP may well implement these in the near future, but even after Monday, the roll-out still continues, as do single household and monthly payments. Despite some words and empty promises, nothing has changed. This is part of the government’s self-titled ‘Test and Learn’ evaluation, which leaves a very nasty taste considering recent events.
It is a wonder to some that there is such a lack of outrage at it all, but in truth it can be seen as summative of a wider problem. That this affects a British ‘underclass’ who are not worth talking about in the national conversation. Perhaps it’s no coincidence that Rudd’s comments came in the same week she knew full well Channel 4 would be airing their Skint Britain: Friends without Benefits series. If no further action is taken in the coming weeks and it was simply a PR move, this must all be treated for what it is: a national disgrace.
In the last few years, there has been a campaign for greater inclusivity in nearly all sectors such as film, fashion and now education. A global movement starting from the US has inspired other western nations including the UK to demand for the decolonisation of higher education. But what does that mean? Destruction of whiteness, the end to “British” history? The matter of fact is that it can have an array of different meanings. For many decolonisation is the removal of plaques and statues that commemorate institutional sponsors who rose to fame and fortune through the exploitation of “colonies”. At Oxford University and The University of Cape Town the campaign “Rhodes must fall” aimed to have the statues of imperialist Cecil Rhodes removed. Numerous US Universities requested that buildings founded on the financial legacy of the slave trade should be renamed. Other campaigns took a different approach, for example, SOAS University of London campaigned for the broadening of the curriculum in which minority writers and the works of non-Eurocentric philosophers would be included.
Fight for Inclusivity & The Importance of Representation.
Campaigns such as “Why is My curriculum white” aims to dismantle the idea that Eurocentric ideology, philosophy and learning within academia should be seen as the universal standard or as superior. The request to broaden reading lists, and subjects to include minority writers and philosophers stems from the need for greater representation in an increasingly diverse society. Rewind 50 years ago this conversation may not have been relevant but it is of important value now. In the US the minority share was at approximately 17% but in 2010 it was at 40%. In the UK the proportions are not as extreme but still follow a similar trend with people of Asian background increasing by 400,000 since 2001. Decolonising the curriculum enables self-understanding of those groups who very rarely see themselves portrayed in conventional learning. UK society comprised of people from different races. knowledge and culture have been collectively formed through the work of minorities. Rightfully ethnic minorities have just as much right as white elite males to see how they have contributed to artistic and intellectual understanding.
ethnic breakdown
It’s More Than Just About Higher Education
Whilst the movement itself centres around university education, I think it is equally important to talk about how colonial history and culture are rooted in the very basics of primary education. Let’s take history for example, British history is always at the forefront and of course, being that we live in the UK it makes sense to learn about the history of this country.
Ethnic minorities have played important roles in UK history but we do not learn about this. We learn to respect White war veterans during remembrance day but nothing is said about the 87,000 allied Indian Soldiers who died fighting to liberate this country. We learn about the White female “home force” but nothing about the Black Windrush Generation who helped rebuild this country after WWII. My point is that the two examples above are just as much part of UK history as Henry VIII was. This is why a more inclusive curriculum is needed.We need to learn topics that reflect the diversity of this country as ethnic minorities have equally contributed to its History.
Is Dismantling Statues and Plaques Erasing History?
I do wonder if the removal of statues and plaques almost washes away history in itself? It’s one thing to campaign for more inclusivity but removing memorials almost sets us back and says these people and their actions did not exist. On the contrary, do these statues really tell the full story of history? More than often plaques and statues of slave owners and imperialists celebrate the actions of these people marking their controversies as achievements rather than atrocities. So as you can imagine seeing the monuments in celebration of your exploitation is a reminder of pain rather than history to many minorities. What I’d like to see is a compromise in which the statues are removed and perhaps put in museums. While I understand why they should no longer be glorified by our institutions I do think they hold important lessons and shouldn’t be erased.
Tanya is currently studying Biomedical Sciences at the University of Manchester. She is a lover of fashion, travelling, history and has a keen interest in racial/social issues. She enjoys learning languages and is fluent in two.
Great Britain have advanced to the World Group II play-offs and set up a home bout against Kazakhstan in April.
The preliminary group stages of this years Fed Cup saw Great Britain top the group A table beating Slovenia, Greece and Hungary in the process. This set up their match against group B winners Serbia.
Britain number two, Katie Boulter, continued her form by clinching her fourth singles win of the week, beating Ivana Jorovic in straight sets. Following her performance Katie said, “I’ve put everything into this week. I tried to do the best that I could and today it was enough. To go out there and get four wins is more than I could ever ask for.”
Brit number one, Johanna Konta, played a heroic match and put on a fantastic, inspired display in front of a sold out Bath crowd. Playing world No.57, and Serbia number one, Aleksandra Krunic, Konta took the opening set but was forced to play a deciding set when Krunic fought back in the second with a 3-6 win. Konta collapsed in between the second and third sets and was seen helped to her feet.
“I progressively just started feeling more and more unwell, feeling light-headed, shaky, feeling a little bit out of body,” the 27-year old world number 39 said.
“It got the better of me at the end of the second set. I really just tried to not panic, and just assess what I could do and basically do the best that I could with that.
“I had to quickly assess what my limitations were. I tried to zone in on the ball and time it as well as I could and try to direct the ball as well as possible, and I was able to do that, which made it difficult for her to do what she wanted with the ball, which I think is what basically enabled me to come through.” She took an emphatic 6-2 set to win the match and send Team GB into the World Group II.
Johanna Konta in the Fed Cup tie against Aleksandra Krunic. (Source: The Independent)
Team GB’s Chances
Team GB last qualified for the highest tier of the Fed Cup – the World Group – in 1993. Beating Kazakhstan can see them advance, and repeat the heroics of 1993. In terms of match-ups, Konta would face Kazakhstan number one, Yulia Putintseva, who ranks similarly to Konta at world level. However, Putintseva has her clay advantage taken away as Team GB captain, Anne Keothavong, opted to stage the showdown at the Copper Box Arena in London. Team GB will be hoping to fully exploit the support of a highly anticipating home crowd against Kazakhstan, and further stake their claim as real contenders for the cup.
It will be the first meeting between two nations who are both equally determined to move up into the elite tiers of the Fed Cup. Great Britain have languished in the Zone Groups for the past 26 years, with multiple, but unsuccessful trips to the World Group II playoffs. Kazakhstan have competed across Zone Groups I and II since making their debut in 1995, bar two trips to the World Group II play-offs in 2013 and 2017.
Team GB are well prepared and in high spirits; they have even been undertaking team bonding exercises including motorsports styled pit stops. This included a staff meeting at Stoke Park Country Club featuring LTA’s head of women’s tennis, Iain Bates, another former pro-turned-coach, Jocelyn Rae, and performance science and medicine expert, Dan Lewindon.
“We use a technology called Dartfish which is an online platform and Hannah uploads a lot of content around the opposition that we face,” Scottsman, and newest member of staff Colin Fleming explained. “So the coaching staff are able to look at that and it’s all tagged and we can drill down into specifics around the opponents to prepare the players.”
“Three of the values that we’re living by came out of Stoke Park,” Fleming revealed. “First, being honest with each other and being open. Second, inspiring people, especially young girls who are playing tennis in this country. And, third, to embrace the opportunity.”
Celebrate Britain’s result and a Home match up in April for now in a time when light is needed post the Andy Murray era.
The match up between Team GB and Kazakhstan will take place at the Copper Box Arena in London, set for the weekend of April 20-21!
Rutvik Bhaskar Perepa is a student at The University of Manchester working towards a MEng in Mechanical Engineering hoping to be on a placement after Year 3. He has had the privilege to travel around his home country, India and discover the rich heritage and diversity. His personal interests include Food and travel, history, Sport among many others. Often found in discourse on various issues ranging Engineering to Religious Practices, he never shy’s away from being expressive. He believes in being open minded, empathetic and analytical is the key to problems posed on a daily basis.
Adam McKay’s latest film vice is seen to be a film that criticises establishment malpractices in modern-day America. McKay’s most recent success was the critically acclaimed The Big Short, exposing the Wall Street workings behind the financial crash of 2008. The Big Short was an admirable and largely successful attempt at making otherwise bafflingly complicated material accessible and palatable for a wider audience. This was a huge achievement for McKay, and one that has not been surpassed in Vice.
This film’s main objective is to unpack and explore the character and story of formidable ex-vice president, Dick Cheney. However, McKay shines light on his most insurmountable obstacle in the opening minutes of the film. Cheney himself is notoriously private particularly regarding his actions as vice president. As a result, the intricacies and details of his alleged misdeeds and malpractices during his time as vice president are shrouded in mystery. This is a content issue with which the film is constantly wrestling, employing humour, narration, symbolism and direct audience communication an attempt to fill in the gaps. These stylistic decisions, however , are communicated with varying levels of success, and ultimately leave you wanting more.
At points, the self-awareness surrounding the lack of reliable information surrounding Cheney’s time as vice president is handled in an intelligent and depressingly funny way. One shining example of this being a scene in which Cheney and his closest allies sit in a lavish restaurant, with the waiter reading out the many methods available to them in pursuit of legal forms of torture. This particular scene not only expertly displays the entitled flippancy with which Cheney seemed to regard human suffering, but also the emotional distance between Washington and the reality of their consequential decisions as a whole (a political observation that is not lost on today’s presidential establishment).
There are, however, some slightly more peculiar approaches that were less successful in their efforts to navigate Cheney’s alleged misdeeds. One such peculiarity is the sudden outbreak into Shakespearean script between Cheney and his wife, Lynne (Amy Adams), another being the excessively over-used motif of Cheney fly-fishing. Fish bait is displayed so frequently throughout the film that it felt almost patronising, OKAY, he has everyone in Washington hook, line and sinker, WE GET IT
Despite these content qualms, there is no denying that this film is littered with exquisite performances. However, it has to be said that, while most critics have been heaping (well deserved) praise onto Christian Bale for his portrayal of Cheney, the unsung hero of this piece is Amy Adams as Lynne Cheney. She expertly displays the all too commonly stifled strength of women in Washington. She has a character arc that is far more succinct and notable than Cheney himself. As her husband declines into the ruthless manipulator you always knew was there (established early on when he displays utter indifference to a co-worker’s serious injury), Lynne transforms completely. The first act of the film sees her struggling with the lack of opportunity her gender allots her, inciting a deep empathy from the audience.
The second act displays her finding her voice and carrying her husband through local elections, which inspired feelings of empowerment and pride. By the final act, however, she displays a delicate, heart-sinking danger that causes you to wonder why you would ever have wanted to root for her in the first place. It is this self-doubt that emulates the excellence of Adam’s portrayal.
Overall, despite its issues, this film is imbued with a sense of humour and fun indicative of McKay’s directorial style. The editing is exquisitely executed, causing the film to progress with an unpredictability of pace that renders it impossibly interesting. While the content issues are abundantly clear and not necessarily overcome, this film is a fun watch. And, given the solemnity of the subject matter, that is quite the achievement from a directorial standpoint.
Ellie is a recent graduate in History and Politics from the University of Manchester. Originally from Bristol, Ellie moved to Manchester in 2015 and has no intention of leaving any time soon. She spent the final year of her degree as Editor of the university’s only historical publication, The Manchester Historian, and continues to present/produce weekly news videos for a Manchester startup, Student Inspire Network. She has dreams of becoming a journalist and hopes to embed her passion for politics and popular culture in all of her work.
Protests organised by some of Spain’s leading right wing parties attracted almost 45,000 people standing against the Spanish Prime Minister’s decision to hold negotiations with Catalan Separatists. With only days before the controversial trial of a number of separatist leaders, will the Spanish Government be able to calm swelling criticism before tensions rise?
Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, made clear after his election in the Summer of 2018 that one of his priorities would be to hold negotiatory talks with Catalan Separatists. These promises have now been put into fruition following a proposed framework by Sanchez. Whilst it was rejected by the Catalan parties on the grounds that it did not include an independence referendum, the unpopularity of these talks is most evident from the Sunday protests, attracting an estimated 45,000 Spanish attendees calling for a united Spain and an early election.
Pedro Sanchez, Spanish Prime Minister
With the protesters accusing Sanchez of treason, and the centre-right Popular Party (the PP) joining far right calls for the 2020 elections to be pushed forward, the government’s position as a minority government is being increasingly threatened with the rise in popularity of opposition parties. The ruling power of Sanchez relies on the support of other Spanish parties, and with a key vote surrounding 2019 budget proposals in just 48 hours, it is unclear how the Sanchez government will be able to complete a full term in the midst of a growing political crisis if the budget is not approved. The rejected talks were proposed on the basis that they would act to secure the Catalan parties vote for the budget proposal; Whilst this further undermines Sanchez, it is a move that benefits the PP, Ciudadanos, and Vox, the parties most represented at the protest. Polls show that the three parties would win a majority in a general election and thus gives them the political power to legitimately overthrow Sanchez if an early election was to be called.
Tensions are further catalysed by the trial of twelve key separatist leaders, under a main charge of rebellion, which starts tomorrow (Wednesday). Charged in relation to their role in the 2017 failed Catalan Independence elections, many are dubbing this the “trial of the century”. Whilst former Catalan President, Carles Puigdemont, has fled to avoid charges, the defendants include Vice President Junqueras, and Catalan Minister of Interior Joaquim Forn. With a combined time of 200 years being at stake if given the maximum sentence, the trial threatens to cause vast unrest and demonstrations across the Catalan population – if the twelve are found guilty.
This week will be a hugely decisive week for the future of Catalonia and the stability of Sanchez’s government. Not only does the trial of Catalonian key figures significantly increase tensions, but the Prime Minister’s growing unpopularity amongst the Spanish population threatens an early snap election if the 2019 Budget proposals are not met with enough support. The long running political crisis shows no signs of improvement, but instead is made increasingly complex by internal turmoil and disagreements between the leading Spanish political parties.
Is the backlash over Billionaire David Harding’s £1m contribution out of £100 for BME students at Cambridge University an accurate representation of the imbalanced distribution of wealth or a reality simply misunderstood?
On Thursday
6th February, The Guardian released an article penned by freelance
journalist Marthe de Ferrer titled ‘£100m
for Cambridge? Give it to universities that need the money’, a highly
popular opinion which no doubt reflected the amassed outrage over the £1m out
of the £100 the university will use to encourage BME students to apply.
Despite
the sentiment of the general consensus, a good journalist must remain in the
seat of objectivity in order to present the facts. Sentiment generally tends to
cloud the sense in people and the simple fact remains that finding common ground
doesn’t always mean finding common sense.
So, how is the £100m planned to be
broken down?
According
to the University of Cambridge the money will be distributed towards three
specific categories comprising of two main components:
£79m will be given to The Harding Distinguished Postgraduate Scholars Programme to provide fully funded scholarships for the most talented PhD students.
The remaining £21m is earmarked towards supporting undergraduate students. In collaboration between the University and the Colleges, The Harding Collegiate Cambridge Challenge Fund, worth 20m will be used to encourage further donations from alumni for financial support to undergraduates.
The final £1m will be used to ‘stimulate innovative approaches’ in hopes of ‘attracting undergraduate students from under-represented groups.’
But should the University get £100m in the first place?
According to The Telegraph in 2012, with a staff and student population of 30,000 – at more than £130,000 per head, Cambridge was worth double the combined £2bn assets of Britain’s other universities. In 2018, its value stood at 4.9bn. Whilst the statistics are staggering, showing a clear gap in wealth and opening up the necessary discussion on existing inequalities between the bourgeoise and the proletariat, particularly within the education sector it fails to address the nature of this case.
And
that is; the donation is a gift. Harding is a physics graduate of the
university who became a successful hedge fund manager and billionaire. Yes, the
money could have been given to any other university but it wasn’t. It was given
to Cambridge, his alma mater, a place which probably contributed to why and where
he is today. Who’s to say he wouldn’t have given £100m to Nottingham University
if he had studied there?
In her article Ferrer references Serrata quoting ‘wealthy people should be socially pressured into making large charitable donations – but those donations should be grounded in a wider sense of social responsibility.’ The idea of social pressure interprets that there is a duty on the wealthy to distribute the money that they themselves worked for, which in turn implies the responsibility must be shared as a whole since we all have a ‘social responsibility’ and if that is the case then are we asking for a society set on socialism? That being said this remains a personal gift and not government property, therefore equality, as important as it is, must be left out of it.
David and Claudia Harding
“Claudia and I are very happy to make this gift to Cambridge to help to attract future generations of the world’s outstanding students to research and study there.”
– David Harding
Who do we place at the pinnacle of
the ‘blame game’?
There
are two parties involved, the donor, Mr Harding and the University of Cambridge,
the recipient. The pertinent issue on ground is to determine the exact intent
and purpose of the donor’s gift, did Harding specify which areas the money
would go to, did both parties discuss the what, where and why of the breakdown or
did Cambridge make the decision themselves. To avoid unnecessary conclusions
Harding and the university deserve the right to reply.
What actually are the facts and are
we misinterpreting them?
£1 million out of £100 to go to BME students sounds pathetic right, well hold that thought ? In 2017, The University of Cambridge’s Undergraduate Admissions Statistics revealed that only 291 Black or Black British – African home applicants actually applied to the university compared to a significant 7,679 White home applicants; a 7,388 difference. The table represented 17 ethnic groups in total yet when added up the entire amount of the 16 ethnicities that applied were 3,245, still less than half of the White home applicants. Needless to say, perhaps the university did their research and were one step ahead. The £1m is to ‘attract’ low income and BME students, because they simply aren’t applying.
Be your own Jury.
The facts
have presented themselves and the case has been made. Yes, there is a social consciousness
expected from Harding but it is his money and if giving money to BME students
means equality then what about disabled students, elderly students and where
does it end?
As a minority myself it is highly understandable why only 1% is going to people like me. Perhaps the money itself is not the problem but the internalised ideology that the colour of my skin or the degree of intellect I possess is enough to create a metaphorical barrier thus deterring myself from approaching a high-class institution such as Cambridge.
To Ferrer and the rest of the world I say, now, what moral compass do you choose to stand on and why?
The 1% giving 1% may not look like much but it shows me that a hand is reaching out, that the building of a bridge is being attempted. Yet it cannot be completed without me, without you, the minorities.
So, does 1% really mean 1% in this equation? And who says that Harding’s 1% isn’t 100% after all?
After a two-month hiatus, the Champions League makes a welcome return this week, with both Tottenham and Manchester United in action.
For the second season running, all of the Premier League teams in the Champions League made it through the group stages and into the round of 16. That was back in December, but this week, finally, the teams will be able to test themselves against Europe’s best once again. That is no exaggeration either, as bar Manchester City, the other three Premier League sides face games against difficult opposition. However, with current champions Real Madrid having a season to forget and other top European clubs not faring much better, there could be a real opportunity this year for an unfancied side to go the distance.
Rejuvenated Man United should be feared
The last time we saw United in this competition was in a dismal 2-1 defeat to Valencia back in December. It was a performance and result which summed up everything that was wrong with the Jose Mourinho era.
The post-mortem following December’s result
United had already laboured their way through the group by this point, but this loss ensured they finished behind Juventus and thus set up a potentially more difficult tie in the next round. Players and pundits alike knew how important this result could prove, especially considering the club’s performances under Mourinho. Fast-forward to February, however, and United look a totally different animal under Ole Gunnar Solskjaer. The Norwegian has got this side firing again, with Paul Pogba in particular finally starting to showcase some of the world class talent seen on display at Juventus and with the French national side.
PSG players after that infamous Barcelona defeat. Source: Michael Regan
Solskjaer is yet to taste defeat as United manager, with an outstanding 11 wins and 1 draw from his first 12 games. Although heavily rumoured, the caretaker boss has not yet been offered the job on a permanent basis. If they were to beat Paris Saint Germain on Tuesday and subsequently make it through, the job would surely be his. PSG meanwhile, are desperate to go the distance in this year’s competition, having failed to ever really impress since their big money Qatari takeover in 2011. With United’s current form, though, there are precious few places PSG would less rather go than to Old Trafford, with Gianluigi Buffon admitting that without the injured Neymar, it could be very difficult to get a result. Edinson Cavani has now been ruled out as well, and if United play like they did against Arsenal, this one could be over before the second leg.
Tottenham in the tie of the round?
Source: BT Sport
When the round of 16 draw was made on 17th December, Tottenham’s match up with Borussia Dortmund instantly stood out as one to watch. Two high-intensity, attacking teams seemed the perfect match up for neutrals. At the time, Dortmund were arguably playing the best football in Europe and were still unbeaten in the Bundesliga. So good was their form that some didn’t give Tottenham a chance in this one.
Dortmund’s progress has slowed somewhat since, while Tottenham’s own recent domestic form has been superb. Both sides will be without their star players on Wednesday though, with Marco Reus and Harry Kane set to miss at least the first leg due to injury. So far in Kane’s absence, Tottenham have coped admirably and the versatile Heung Min-Son will again be vital for their chances against Dortmund. The spotlight will be on another England star at Wembley, however, with Dortmund’s Jadon Sancho returning to the UK for the first time in a club game since his move from Manchester City in 2017. Still only 18, Sancho is having an outstanding season in Germany and this could be a real opportunity to announce himself on the world stage.
Best of the rest
On paper, there isn’t that much to get excited about around this week’s remaining games. Last season’s semi-finalists, Roma, take on Porto in a game that they would probably be expected to win, but could go either way. The Italian side are a real threat going forward but have conceded 30 goals already in Serie A, so Porto should feel confident of getting an away goal to give them an advantage going into the second leg.
Real Madrid travel to Ajax in the other game, which could be one to keep an eye on. Madrid have had an up and down season and Ajax will know this is a real chance to record a famous knockout victory over the holders and record winners. Saying that, Madrid are just starting to hit form and it would be totally characteristic of the club to now go on a run and win the competition for the fourth year running.
Source: Yahoo Sports
We will have to wait until next week for more glamour ties, when some of the European heavyweights will face off. Liverpool face Bayern Munich in the biggest game of the week. This will be the first time the sides have met since 2001, but Jurgen Klopp knows what to expect, as he has faced Bayern more times than any other team in his career. Atletico Madrid and Juventus provide the other outstanding contest, with both teams boasting some of the meanest defences in world football. Manchester City will be licking their lips at the prospect of facing Schalke, arguably the worst team left in the competition. The final game sees Barcelona travelling to Lyon, a side that caused Man City plenty of problems before Christmas. If they put in a similar performance against the Catalan giants, this could be the story of the round. Sadly, all this will have to wait until next week.
It has been almost a year since we all had the absolute pleasure in watching the movie that is considered a breakthrough blockbuster with regards to black representation in Hollywood. Marvel’s Black Panther had us all tingling with pure pride and joy, having been the first time many black people could see themselves on the big screen being represented in a positive light. Finally! Although there were many scenes which sparked our interest and caused us to reflect on our own lives there was one scene, right at the beginning, that was far too familiar.
Erik Killmonger, played by the incredibly devoted actor Michael B. Jordan, is walking around the Museum of Great Britain admiring the West African exhibit and its artworks.
“How’d you think your ancestors got these? You think they paid a fair price? Or did they take it like they took everything else” Killmonger says directing an intimidating stare at the department specialist.
He knew he was right. For a villain, Killmonger had us all unequivocally rooting for him as he took control of West African goods. We understand him and his cause. All the artefacts there, or at least most of them, seemed to have been unrightfully owned by the British Museum or at least acquired under questionable circumstances. While most of us moved onto the next scene it begs the question. How many African colonial artefacts in this day and age does the UK currently hold in its possession? What exactly do this country have? And the biggest question of them all, will they ever be returned?
Benin Bronze currently in the British Museum, 1 of 69,000 pieces of african artefacts in the British Museum
One of the most unlikely advocates of this interrogation is Emmanuel Macron. In the winter of 2018 Emmanuel Macron, the current President of France, pledged that during his office, he would return the African Artefacts that are currently under French possession. These artefacts sit under strict laws of patrimony which deem them as French property. Macron pledged to make this “one of {his} priorities” due to the fact that while there is historical explanation for the possessions being there, there are no fully valid justifications for them to still be under French ownership. In 2019 he has vowed to return thousands of items and now African countries, in particular Benin, is waiting in anticipation of the return of around 3,000 items.
This has since inevitably brought forward a debate on whether other European countries will follow suit and begin to discuss whether to loan or return historical artefacts back to their rightful owners. According to several reports 90% of African cultural heritage resides in Europe, mostly in the UK and France, evidently due to the colonial history, but also Belgium and Germany.
Should Colonial Lootings Be Returned to Africa?
My initial response was absolutely! Surely it’s simple. The items were stolen and so they must be returned. Done. However, upon more research I realised that perhaps the whole process would not be that easy.
Asante Gold from British Museum Catalogue – Ceremonial hat, head-dress made of shells, gold, skin (deer), silver, hair
Morality
“When someone’s stolen your soul, it’s very difficult to survive as a people” ~Prince Kum’a Ndumbe III of the Dula people in Cameroon
As Prince Ndumbe III explains above, the obtaining of any art works or prized possessions of another’s community, no matter how small it is, attacks the heart of a society. A people’s history is integral to culture and the building of their own identities. So when the physical cultural heritage was removed (through military seizures, armed battles and/or swindling etc.) part of the people are taken too. I couldn’t imagine the devastation if the same happened here in the UK but with the crown jewels instead of Asante Gold and Benin Bronze.
Many countries have been asking for their items to be restored, and some are ready to get them back with the opening of The Museum of Black Civilisations in Dakar, Senegal in December 2018 which debuted under Léopold Sédar Senghor Senegal’s first President. His vision was to create a museum that would represent combined black history and contemporary cultures of black people all round the world. The opening of a new museum in Edo State, Nigeria in 2021 awaits the return of many art pieces.
But that brings in to question the practicality of it all when we stretch the idea of returning products to their rightful owners.
Senegal’s “Musée Des Civilisations Noires” (museum of black civilisations
Practicality
Some of the products that the west currently possess are old, and I mean really old. This doesn’t excuse not returning the items, but it does mean that the transportation and condition of them must be taken into consideration. These old artworks, require museums and exhibitions in top condition and the correct preservation tools and equipment to ensure the preservation of these objects of art. Unfortunately, as it stands some places (outside of the UK) may not be ready to be the home of such valuable creations.
In addition to this, there’s a long process in finding out exactly where everything belongs. Africa has reshaped many times and therefore something that was once owned by a Beninese community ethnic group (or tribe), for example, may now be a part of modern day Nigeria. Not only will there be long debates on where exactly they belong but also who they will go to, if they will be returned on part-time or permanent loan etc.
Another question is whether there is a need for the artefacts to be put back exactly where they were stolen from or whether there’s just a need to know where they are and have unlimited access to them.
Quai Branly Museum in France, Paris which houses around 70,000 sub-saharan African Artefacts
What is happening right now?
Everything is now a matter of putting words to power. Law changes will be required, on-going discussions and an international conference planned by Macron about the return of African Artefacts this year will be taking place to decide the future of African Cultural Heritage in Europe. From there, other artefacts, from many other countries, which have been taken such as the Hoa Hakananai’a stauteof Easter Island will be pulled under heated discussion. It has been the object of decades of dispute between the inhabitants of the Polynesian island and the British Museum and this year we may see plans of the restoration of the culturally integral sculpture.
The matter of fact is that countries in Africa, and many other countries, have been cheated out of resources, their lives, land and goods for hundreds of years. The least that the west could do is return some of the artefacts which were unrightfully stolen back to their homelands.
But would this come at an expensive price?
Benedicta is currently studying Arabic and French at the University of Manchester and hopes to become a linguist and broadcast journalist in the future. In her free time, she enjoys learning about African development and issues to do with race and culture. Benedicta also takes pleasure in acting, travelling and promoting plant-based eating.
When the UK leaves the EU next month, a whole host of rights that UK citizens are entitled to will cease to be binding as before. Its important that you are aware of what will and will not apply to you, in the event of a no-deal Brexit and what may change even with a withdrawal agreement.
Mobile phone roaming
charges
Since the 15th of June 2017, it has been illegal
for citizens of member states to pay roaming charges for travelling within the
EU, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway. From the moment the UK leaves the EU next
month, as it stands, it will be up to your mobile networks discretion whether
you will be charged for roaming or not.
The UK has rejected the EUs proposal to continue to maintain the ban on roaming fees, as there will be nothing stopping European network providers from charging UK providers additional fees for their customers internet usage.
Travel
Once the UK leaves the EU, free movement of people will cease to apply to UK citizens. We will no longer be entitled to live, work, study or retire to one of the EU member states and will now have to apply for Visas in order to do so.
(Source: Matt Cardy/Getty Images)
Our right to unlimited travel within the EU will also come to an end. There are currently plans to allow UK citizens to travel to the EU for up to 90 days in a 180-day period, but these are dependent on the UK reciprocating a similar right to the EU in the event of a no deal Brexit.
There is also a strange provision in EU law that will now apply to UK national that only allows for the recognition of the first 10 years of a passport’s validity period. If your passport is more than nine and a half years old and you have more than six months remaining on it, you may need to apply for a new passport or risk being denied access to an EU state.
Health Care
Under the European Health Insurance Card programme, citizens of EU member states are eligible to receive any state healthcare benefits that local residents receive in the event of an emergency. Treatment would be free, or at a reduced cost.
Whilst it was officially recommended to get the EHIC
alongside travel insurance healthcare, it will now be imperative that you apply
for travel insurance as a precautionary measure.
Driving
Currently when driving your British car in the EU there is no need to take a ‘green card’ to prove that you are insured to drive in that country. Following Brexit, you may be required to carry one into the EU with you to prove you are insured.
You will also be expected to closely follow any road
regulation in member states. For example, in France it is a requirement that you
carry a reflective jacket in your car.
If you live in an EU country, you will also need to apply for a local driving licence. Currently, a British driving licence is recognised throughout the EU. If you reside in another country, you will be required to apply for a local driving licence to continue to legally drive.
Heathrow Duty Free (source:Istock)
Duty Free
However, it is not all doom and gloom. Duty free is actually one of the few areas to be immediately affected positively (for the UK national) by Brexit.
Currently, if you are travelling within the EU you pay taxes
on any product you buy in duty free stores. Following Brexit, you will be
exempt from paying tax when travelling to an EU country.
Also, if you go to member state and shop, you’ll be able to
claim for a VAT refund (provided the country allows non-EU visitors to do so).
Following the US Government’s public consultation to find out what organisations would like to see in the upcoming UK-US trade deal, lobbyists show up in force to demand the US government forces the UK to make regulatory exceptions and change to accommodate US firms.
It will not come as a shock
to many. We all have expectations that the US will push for the UK to relax her
regulatory regime and legislation in many industries and areas. Food,
pharmaceuticals, data protection and financial services, at the very least. Now
we can say conclusively that US corporations are seeking exemptions to allow
them greater and unfettered access to the UK market.
There were 135 responses submitted to the public consultation. The majority of these were from industry groups such as the International Dairy Foods Association, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the US Meat Export Federation.
Data Protection also seems to be high on the agenda for US firms. Since the General Data Protection Regulation came into force last May, firms outside of the EU have struggled to deal with the regulatory burden and have resorted to blocking the EU market from accessing their services. Therefore, it does not come as a surprise the American Property Casualty Insurance Association refers to the GDPR as “overly burdensome” and wants the trade deal to lessen the data privacy burden on US firms. Other parties want the UK to permit the “cross border transfer of data,” which is currently prohibited under EU/UK Law to countries that have not been deemed to have an equivalent data protection regime.
Some companies of note that submitted to the public consultation include The Pokemon Company International (TPCI) and the Recording Industry Association of America. TPCI is however advocating for the UK and US to start a consumer rights regime that will become the new gold standard and for UK professionals to enter the US for up to six years without needing a Visa.
It will be interesting to
see how the US-UK trade deal turns out in actuality, with formal negotiations
due to start following the UK’s exit from the European Union.
Dr Robert Hubbard, the co-inventor of the single most important safety device in Motorsports, died this week after a long battle with Parkinson’s disease, aged 75. The Head and Neck Support (HANS) device, released in 1990, saved countless lives, however, it was not actually considered for official testing in professional motorsports until after the fatal crash that killed Roland Ratzenberger in 1994.
The loss of Ratzenberger shook the paddock to its core (Source: CNN international)
Ironically, after being invented in USA with IMSA’s Jim Downing as a tester, the HANS device was never properly accepted by drivers until NASCAR legend, Dale Earnhardt, died in the final race of the 2002 season. Formula 1 mandated HANS from 2003, after extensive testing by Mercedes from 1996 till 1998, which showed exceptional results even using a broken version of the device!
Mercedes originally had an elaborate airbag system in partnership with the FIA that produced similar results to the HANS, but was extremely expensive.
The test was courtesy of Charlie Whiting who had arranged a meeting with Dr Hubbard in 1996, after Dr Sid Watkins took notice of the device when good friend, Senna, died along with Ratzenberger on that fateful weekend in 1994.
Forces free body illustration, at play during collisions (Source: Car and Driver.com)
The Motivation
Hubbard’s entire career revolved around automotive safety. He received his PhD from the University of Michigan, where he studied the physical and mechanical properties of the human skull at the school’s Highway Safety Research Institute. He went on to specialize in biomechanical engineering at General Motors, studying crash-related injury and engineering early crash-test dummies beginning in the 1970s.
Dr. Hubbard first partnered with IMSA legend, Jim Downing, following a fatal IMSA crash in 1981. Together, they began to develop what became known as the HANS unit in an effort to prevent fatalities caused by basal skull fractures, identified among a range of possible injuries as the most lethal.
In addition to receiving a US Patent for the device, Wayne State University also trialed the HANS device on crash test dummies which was the first ever recorded trial.
The HANS device. (Source: Autosport)
The device is a U-shape bend that settles on the shoulders of the driver and the neck settles onto a head-neck rest. It features two straps that go onto the helmet from the head-neck rest.
In racing categories, when the car crashes in a head on collision or on hard braking, the driver is thrown forward. The shoulder belts restrain the torso from moving forward. So the energy is transferred to the head via the spine causing the head to articulate forwards to a point where the bones and muscles at the top of the neck can no longer hold the skull without sustaining serious injury.
Testing by Wayne State University displayed stunning results. Where over 80% of energy during a crash is transferred to the head, the HANS device cut down this amount to a point of minimal head injury.
Series that adopted HANS
Formula 1 fully mandated the HANS device in 2003 with CART mandating it after the deaths of Gonzalo Rodriguez and Greg Moore in 1999. NASCAR, IMSA and NHRA all followed suit by the end of 2005, after losing legends and stars in their respective series.
Hubbard’s findings united various series across the globe to take a vested interest in improving safety. This won him the Autosport Pioneering Innovation award as an official way to recognize his contribution that saved thousands of lives.
Rutvik Bhaskar Perepa is a student at The University of Manchester working towards a MEng in Mechanical Engineering hoping to be on a placement after Year 3. He has had the privilege to travel around his home country, India and discover the rich heritage and diversity. His personal interests include Food and travel, history, Sport among many others. Often found in discourse on various issues ranging Engineering to Religious Practices, he never shy’s away from being expressive. He believes in being open minded, empathetic and analytical is the key to problems posed on a daily basis.
At 1:43pm on Thursday 7th February, a chartered Titian Airways flight landed at Kingston’s Norman Manley Airport. Carrying 29 individuals, some of which hadn’t been on the island since they were 3 years old – an age where immigration policies aren’t even a conceivable notion. They were allocated one suitcase, to carry (in some cases) decades of their life. As they landed, representatives from the Jamaican Constabulary Force went on board, and removed them one by one, forcing them to leave behind the life they once knew, 4,500 miles away.
Initially, this same flight was due to carry over 50 individuals, who were previously held in detention centres. Some were told a few hours before their flight that they would not be flying, some removed just moments before take off.
All of this is happening before the review is even complete, before any opportunity for a full report or compensation. But unsurprisingly, this isn’t new to the Home Office. Last year, it was revealed that 13 people had been ‘removed in error’ from the UK. Let us put this in context. 13 people were stripped from their family, friends and livelihoods; forced to rebuild a brand new life in a foreign home, due to an ‘error’. Kamina Johnson-Smith’s (Jamaican foreign minister) response? “The situation is unfortunate”. As of yet, not a single Windrush victim has received any compensation. It’s clear the Sajid Javid has learnt nothing from The Home Office’s previous mistakes.
Photo Credit: Youtube
In response, David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham, gave a powerful speech in parliament this week.
“36 British children will have their parents taken away by this chartered flight. Once enslaved then colonised. And now repatriated”.
He stated that this government is “pandering to far-right racism” and said that the incompetence of the Home Office “killed” at least 11 of those wrongly deported. He told the Guardian; “Britain stopped deporting British criminals to Australia in 1868… This forced repatriation is a scandal in itself, but to re-commence it before the compensation scheme for the Home Office’s previous abuses has been rolled out is an insult to the victims who have already been falsely deported or detained by their own government.”
When this scandal first broke, Home Secretary Sajid Javid told parliament “Every single person that will be on that flight that is being deported is a foreign national offender, they are all convicted of series crimes”. Javid is a second generation immigrant himself. When appointed home secretary, he pledged to the Windrush generation that he will do “whatever it takes to put it right”. He also disowned the term “hostile environment” attached to the government migration policy. The irony!
One of those “series” criminals, is 23 year-old Akeem. Akeem is registered blind and suffers from epilepsy after suffering a brain tumour as a young child. He migrated to the UK aged 5, to join his mother. He was sentenced an assault conviction which led to a four-month jail sentence, and has been detained pending deportation since October.
Another example is Twane Morgan, who was due to board that Titian Airways flight before being granted an injunction. Morgan joined the Army, a year after arrival to the UK, in 2004. Following two tours of Afghanistan over four years, he was discharged due to post traumatic stress disorder – not long enough to receive British citizenship. In 2011, Morgan was jailed for six years, on an assault. He served three. Twane Morgan put his own life at risk for the same country that is now attempting to abandon him.
At what point does a ‘criminal’ reach a point of rehabilitation?
Well, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974) states that “A person who has become a rehabilitated person for the purposes of this Act in respect of a conviction shall be treated for all purposes in law as a person who has not committed or been charged with the offence/offences subject of that conviction”.
I’m not suggesting we dispute that every crime should have an appropriate conviction, as well opportunity for rehabilitation. However, it is unjust for those who have served and rehabilitated for minor crimes to still be treated as criminals, it dehumanises these individuals. Despite what the legislation may say, and despite having served their time; those who are being deported are being given a life sentence – in an alien land.
Rather than abandoning those who have served, built and contributed to this country for decades, parliament must invest more into rehabilitation programs. Treating first time offenders (minor crimes) as criminals their whole life strips away any hope of them integrating into a functioning society. If anything, the process encourages repeat offences.
The term institutional racism was coined 20 years ago, following the Macpherson Review. And 20 years later, we are witnessing a shameless incarnation of institutional racism.
In the words of David Lammy, “why is it that, still in this country, black lives matter less?”.
