On the 28th of September 2018, known right-wing provocateur, Tommy Robinson was invited to appear on Sky TV, an international media channel to shine a biased and negative light on the one group he loves to hate; Muslims.
The Interview
https://youtu.be/iYA3Wyes6As
Tommy Robinson’s Interview with Sky News
Why Is This A Problem?
Robinson’s supporters will say that he is using his right to freedom of speech and expression, as set out under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, whilst this is true, he is also further sowing his agenda of hatred, division and islamophobia onto the British people against Muslims, something he doesn’t seem to care about.
During his
interview, Robinson made it clear that he does not care if his message ‘incited
fear’ of Muslims. Yet according to the Racial and Religious Act 2006, stirring
up hatred against an individual on the basis of his/her race or religious
background can land a person for up to seven years in prison. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/introduction
The words and
actions of Robinson is not the work of a delinquent or football hooligan but
can have a much deeper impact. For example, last year’s Finsbury Mosque attack
terrorist, Darren Osborne, appears to have been inspired by right-wing
material, including that of Tommy Robinson. With this in mind, why should we
not hold Robinson in the same ‘’esteem’’ as hate preachers like Anjem Choudary,
Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada and many others. Why he is not held in this regard and
why the media continues to provide him with a platform is beyond me? There is
no rational basis for such people to be allowed to negatively impact society.
BIRGMINGHAM, UNITED KINGDOM – FEBRUARY 6: Tommy Robinson, former founder of the English Defence League, addresses the crowd during the ‘silent march’ organized by Pegida (Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the West) UK supporters in Birmingham, England on February 6, 2016. (Photo by Lee Harper/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
Rising above the atmosphere of hate and division, is UK-based Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the fifth Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. On the subject of the role of the media in fuelling hatred, he said ‘‘there is no doubt that the media plays a huge role in influencing public opinion and so the media should use this power responsibly – as a force for good and as a force for peace.’’ He further argues that ‘‘Publicity is the oxygen sustaining most terrorist or extremist groups’’
The media possess a vast amount of power and Tommy Robinson was, and will no doubt continue to be, given the opportunity to speak his mind and gain more support for his cause, by speaking on National media platforms, which indirectly legitimise his cause.
Through fair and ethical reporting, the media, unquestionably, has power to change the narrative and present the public with a more accurate lens through which it can view society. However, on this occasion, as we are increasingly seeing, large swathes of the mainstream media have sided with the far-right and fed into their propaganda by spreading their material on National television.
Umar Zeshan Bhatti is currently studying Law and is interested in Human Rights. He is trying to challenge the negative perception of Muslims in the media and he is part of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association. Follow him on Twitter @UmarZBhatti97
Lohan Tries To “save” Children From Being Trafficked
Have you ever wondered what you would do when faced with a serious moral dilemma? For example, what would you do if you thought you saw some children being kidnapped and you were certain that those children were about to be trafficked? Well, look no further because Lindsay Lohan has answered the question for us all.
Lindsay Lohan
The 32-year-old actress was in Moscow when she took to Instagram Live to show people a family that she had met. In doing so, Lohan introduced them as a Syrian refugee family that she was concerned about. Whilst still on Instagram Live, Lohan started asking the children if they wanted to come with her and saying that she would put them in a hotel. Lohan went as far to say “Do you want to watch a movie? It would be so cool to watch a movie on a TV or a computer”.
The actress was still streaming so some of her fans were sending concerned messages whilst others were more concerned about the fact that Lohan seemed to have adopted a new accent whilst she spoke to the family. It seemed as if she was “attempting” to put on a Syrian accent, whilst speaking English.
Of course at this point, the parents of the children declined her offer and the conversation took a nasty turn. Suddenly Lohan decided that the mother had been mistreating the children. She told the mother “You should not have them on the floor. You should be a hard working woman and you should be doing what you can for your children so they have a better life”.
She went on to say that “if someone is offering them a home and a bed, which is me at the moment, give it to them. They will come back to you”. When it became clear that Lindsay would not leave the family alone, they decided to move from where they had been set up in order to get away from her.
Unfortunately, this didn’t deter Lohan and instead she followed the family shouting down the street that the parents were taking the children away in order to traffic them. She followed them, still recording her live video and was telling them that what they were doing was “ruining Arabic culture” and that “the whole world” was seeing what they were doing.
Eventually the mother appeared to have enough. The situation appeared to turn physical with it looking like Lohan was either slapped or pushed and then she turned the camera on herself whilst holding her face as she said “I’m in shock.”
Her long-time publicist Hunter Frederick is flying to Paris to check in on her as sources are speculating that Lohan’s sobriety may be in question.
Let us all learn a lesson from Lindsay Lohan and understand that whilst there is a time and a place to be a good Samaritan, there is also a time to mind your business.
October is known as the month of autumn, the fall, whether that be of leaves falling from branches with weakening grips or possibly traditions of celebrating black history. Could the start of the end of summer also be the start of the end of a month celebrating the political, cultural, economic and social contributions black people have made to the United Kingdom?
Black History Month’s origins are planted in the US during the late 1960s to early 1970s. Carter G. Woodson, a student studying for his masters at the University of Chicago and at a PhD at Harvard University and during the course of his studies realised that black people were greatly underrepresented in the country. Shortly after this revelation, in 1969, him and his associate Jesse E. Moorland started the “Association for the study of Negro Life and History” (which is now called Association for the Study of African American Life and History).
As of recently, a rebranding of Black History Month becoming “diversity month” has been suggested and pushed by several councils and establishments. It is wrong to incorporate different cultures into a highly inclusive month of ethnic historical celebrations? Here’s why.
Black History is already large, diverse, multilateral and rich. One month is already not enough.
In schools in the United Kingdom it seems as though black history (and studies including black people at all) starts with slavery and ends with civil rights, sparing not much detail of many events in-between prior and post. Perhaps there will also be some extra research done on Windrush and migration into the country in the seventies/eighties. All in all the range of black history (in its entirety) taught in the national curriculum is sparse.
The current UK system fails to acknowledge the presence of black people in the country prior to World War One and very rarely addresses that African and Caribbean people have contributed to many aspects of our present through philosophy, music, architecture, literature, art, science, the list goes on and on.
Black History month creates a space where black history can be discovered, observed and honoured in all its glory. Speaking from personal experience, I wouldn’t have known the importance (if it weren’t for the month) of Mary Seacole, a black Jamaican pioneering nurse who is known for her work in aiding the wondered during the Crimean War; Sarah Forbes Bonetta the adopted (or argued as the bought) blackgod daughter of Queen Victoria; Dido Elizabeth Belle a black British heiress in the 1700s and many, many more who display that black British presence precedes the 1900s and Windrush. Black history obviously expands past Britain and exists in other countries of Africa, Asia and almost every part of the world.
Mary Secole
Already black history is greatly varied, so to lessen the purposeful studies of the race in this month would be doing a great disservice.
What Is Diversity, Exactly?
Firstly, this supposed “diversity” month doesn’t acknowledge what diversity actually is. Is it just different races and cultures? What about people of different religions, classes, abilities, sexualities, genders the list goes on! So in order to create a true diversity month that is truly inclusive of the range of diverse people this country has to offer we would have to study and acknowledge each and every divergent group in the country in one month. Impossible? Absolutely.
However, let’s say the goal here is to just reduce this month into simply a month celebrating cultural diversity, those of different ethnic backgrounds. October, a month celebrating black people (African, Caribbean, African American, Afro-Latino, Black British, Afro-European… you may begin to see the point I’m making here) as well as Asian people (South and East), Middle Eastern and Arab people, and others from every other corner of the world’s achievements and history?
Instead of creating an all-inclusive history month, what the supposed “diversity month” does is lump different groups into a non-white subgroup, it’s non-white history month. The issue is that is purposely exclusive to people of colour instead of a black history month that is not only for black people to learn about their history but also a time where others can learn more about contributions of black people!
This is not to undermine the importance of other races in the world! Every culture should be celebrated, however as Dawn Butler MP of Brent Council puts it, there are eleven other months in the year that can be used to celebrate other interesting and greatly integral to our society histories’ of other ethnic groups. One doesn’t need to erase the celebrations of one group’s history to make space for another.
The Importance Of Representation
“If a race has no history, it has no worthwhile traditions, it becomes a negligible factor in thought of the world, and it stands in danger of being exterminated” ~ Carter G Woodson and Jesse E. Moorland
History is a bloodline, who you are, one’s identity. A tree with no roots falls, dies and withers away. Representation is important because without it, black presence is underrepresented, and underappreciated.
Shameful that the Prime Minister either doesn’t know or doesn’t care how many people from the Windrush generation lost their homes, their jobs, and were denied NHS treatment.@Theresa_May’s hostile environment policy is a disgrace and Labour will scrap it. #Marrpic.twitter.com/25AwBLuRBl
Earlier in the year the Windrush scandal plagued the news as Caribbeans who had been living here for the majority of their lives were stripped of their national identity and labelled illegal immigrants despite their great contributions to a post-World War Two Britain which was in dire need of their aid. Why? Because those who don’t know history, well, don’t understand how important Caribbeans have been to the country’s infrastructure and social development.
Music genres such as Rhythm and Blues, Jazz, Rock, Soul, Gospel etc. were all founded by black people but now is enjoyed but people of all different colours and ethnicities all around the globe!
A lot of the modern medicine and medicinal practises are thanks to the (non-voluntary) use of slave bodies used for practise surgeries, (without anaesthetics) so people training could study the human body. Even right now, where you are currently reading this article, the place might have been built by slaves or loosely based on similar structures built by ancient Egyptian slaves.
I could go on to talk of names and events by black people throughout history but really it is this month for you to be finding out more about black history, researching, exploring being inspired by the wealth of the past of les noirs.
So Who Exactly Is Opposing Black History Month?
Some local authorities are choosing not to mark Black History Month at all or prefer to call it Diversity Month. Reporter Valley Fontaine spoke to @DawnButlerBrent MP pic.twitter.com/4tGcNcK5yL
Several Councils such as Hillingdon Council in West London and Wansworth Council in South London have either decided to not participate, specifically, in Black History month or make it an all-inclusive “diversity month”. Statements have been made that they’d like to be more inclusive of all the cultures and ethnicities that represent the boroughs and have held events that aren’t restricted to one month like celebrating WW1 and 100 years of the royal air force (the latter paraphrased from Hillingdon and the former from Wandsworth). However, the irony is that the history celebrated is superbly white British-centric or in trying to be inclusive of all in one month they are minimising the very different achievements and histories by trying to squeeze so much culture and history into a twelfth of a year.
However, many people aren’t taking to this supposed black history month very well. Statements in retaliation are being made by people over twitter (i.e the general public), MPs such as Dawn Butler, and even well-known people such as Nikesh Shukla writer of “The One who wrote destiny” and editor of “the good immigrant”. This uproar is currently underway.
Also as it’s now October, it’s now Black History Month (not Diversity History Month or BAME History Month).
Of course, the goal in the future would be to have black history completely incorporated into the UK (and frankly every) national curriculum, for black history to be taught in schools, colleges and universities richly and densely so that Black History Month stands just as a remembrance of a time before black people were integrated into specifications and schools of study. But the UK is far from being a post-racial society and so Black History, just Black History (not colour month or let’s be inclusive of every single person in the world) Month stands as integral to the country for the foreseeable future.
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, society and culture. Benedicta also takes pleasure in acting and travelling.
Today in her Conservative Party Conference speech, Theresa May announced a change in direction for the conservative government.
After a decade of contractionary fiscal policy on the back of the UK financial crisis, May explained today that the programme of austerity is “over”. She then said that after Brexit the government will boost investment in public services while continuing to reduce debt, a promise she has made before. May promised that “support for public services will go up” and called for the party to unite behind her Brexit plan.
She said people should know that “their hard work has paid off” and that the Conservatives would not allow “a return to uncontrolled borrowing” but that secure public finances “are not the limit of our ambition”.
The Times Are A’Changing
This announcement will be viewed by many as a major departure from conservative policy in recent years.
In a lengthy passage of her speech marked “end of austerity”, May told the conference in Birmingham: “We are not just a party to clean up a mess, we are the party to steer a course to a better future.
“Sound finances are essential, but they are not the limit of our ambition.”
“Because you made sacrifices, there are better days ahead.”
“So, when we’ve secured a good Brexit deal for Britain, at the Spending Review next year we will set out our approach for the future.”
She added: “Debt as a share of the economy will continue to go down, support for public services will go up.
“Because, a decade after the financial crash, people need to know that the austerity it led to is over and that their hard work has paid off.”
May warned “there must be no return to the uncontrolled borrowing of the past, no undoing all the progress of the last eight years” but added: “But the British people need to know that the end is in sight. And our message to them must be this: we get it.”
Two New Policies
She also used this speech to announce two new policies that will signal the end of austerity.
She said the government would scrap a legal cap that limits how much councils can borrow to build new homes – a move No the officials admitted would increase public sector debt.
May explained in her speech, “The last time Britain was building enough homes – half a century ago – local councils made a big contribution.”
“At last year’s conference I announced an additional £2 billion for affordable housing, but something is still holding many of them back.
“There is a government cap on how much they can borrow against their Housing Revenue Account assets to fund new developments. Solving the housing crisis is the biggest domestic policy challenge of our generation.
It doesn’t make sense to stop councils from playing their part in solving it, so today I can announce that we are scrapping that cap.
The prime minister also announced a new cancer strategy that will focus on early detection in a bid to improve survival rates.
It will be funded through the £20bn a year NHS cash boost that ministers announced earlier in the year. May said: “Through our Cancer Strategy, we will increase the early detection rate from one-in-two today, to-three-in four by 2028.
“We will do it by lowering the age at which we screen for bowel cancer from 60 to 50, by investing in the very latest scanners, and by building more Rapid Diagnostic Centres – one-stop-shops that help people get treatment quicker.
“This will be a step-change in how we diagnose cancer. It will mean that by 2028, 55,000 more people will be alive five years after their diagnosis compared to today.”
Labour said there would be no end to austerity as long as the Conservatives remained in power. Ian Lavery, chairman of the Labour Party, said: “While the country is crying out for real change, all Theresa May and her party offer are pinched ideas and tinkering around at the edges, relying on petty attacks to cover up their lack of vision.
“Austerity is not an economic necessity. It is a political choice made by the Conservatives to hack away at our public services and communities, leaving workers worse off while gifting huge tax cuts to big business. And as long as Britain has a Conservative Prime Minister, we’ll never see an end to austerity.”
In what has become characteristically common, Boris Johnson today renewed his attacks on the Prime Minister’s Brexit Strategy, the ‘Chequers Deal’ today. He ditched the newspaper columns and chose a much grander stage to make his case; The Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham.
What Happened?
Crowds packed into the auditorium to watch the speech delivered by former foreign secretary Boris Johnson at the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham. Some even queued hours before the event started. After weeks of attacks and dissent through newspaper columns, many expected Johnson’s speech to be the big peroration where he would confirm a future leadership challenge; they were not disappointed
Boris Johnson warned that Theresa May’s “cheat” Brexit plans would leave the UK in “manacles” and lead to the dominance of the far right and far left in British politics.
The ex-cabinet minister made the claims as he also launched a broader attack on the prime minister’s policies on Brexit, crime and taxation on the third day of Conservative conference in Birmingham. The speech in front of a packed-out hall of supporters has widely seen as a pitch for the support of Tory members, ahead of an expected leadership bid in the near future. His speech was wide-ranging, covering tax plans and house building goals however, the focus of the speech was Brexit where he more explicitly called for the government to ditch the Chequers plan that led to his resignation from the government in July.
He denounced the proposals – at one point suggesting the PM risked being prosecuted under a 14th century law saying that “no foreign court or government shall have jurisdiction in this country” – describing it as an “outrage”.
Big Blow
In his most stinging attack yet on Ms May’s plans for Brexit, he said: “What the Chequers proposals show is that the United Kingdom, for all its power and might and network of influences around the world, for all its venerable parliamentary history, was ultimately unable to take back control.
“And instead of reasserting our ability to make our own laws, the UK will be effectively paraded in manacles down the Rue de la Loi like Caractacus.”
Caractacus was a first-century British chieftan who led the resistance against the Roman Empire, but was ultimately defeated, captured and taken to Rome as a war prize.
The ex-foreign secretary went on to warn that Mschieftain May’s Brexit deal would embolden those who are campaigning for a second referendum and was a “recipe for further acrimony”.
He rejected as “total fantasy” the idea that it would be possible to “bodge” Brexit now and then negotiate a better deal after leaving in March 2019.
He said: “If we cheat the electorate – and Chequers is a cheat – we will escalate the sense of mistrust.
Mixed Reaction
Reception Even-though Johnson’s speech drew applause and favor from those in the room, It drew mixed responses from those outside the conference.
Here is some more comment on the Boris Johnson speech.
From the New Statesman’s Stephen Bush
Johnson’s speech was, from a technical perspective, v good I thought. But at-the the way he’s become a candidate perfectly-designed to win over Tory activists and no-one else: https://t.co/5d3sp59Xjw
From Sky’s Faisal Islam
An MP, Boris ally in 2016 asks me: “what was new in that speech??”. I say eg the words “constitutional outrage” re Chequers. He says Nothing. He carried that fringe room spectacularly – but it’s Tory MPs he needs to get him on any ballot.
From the Spectator’s James Forsyth
Fundamental problem for Boris, and those who agree with him, is what Bonar Law said almost a century ago: ‘The party elects a leader & that leader chooses the policy, & if the party does not like it, they have to get another leader’. But they don’t have the numbers to replace her
From Sky’s Adam Boulton
Boris Johnson’s #ConservativeConference fringe speech. PM style tour d’horizon packed with sly jabs at May (& Hammond) main purpose to undermine her Brexit Strategy. If it fails that’s his best chance to takeover
From the Observer’s Michael Savage
All things considered, that was on the tame end of the damage Boris could have inflicted. A repeat of Chucking Chequers, but an imminent leadership bid? Seems unlikely. More like prep work for an “I told you so” argument.
That was a very comprehensive speech and beginnings of a leadership bid from @BorisJohnson. Wide ranging with a clear case for conservatism, effective evisceration of Corbyn, lapped up by the crowd. His best speech in years. So if/when does the challenge to May emerge? #cpc18
From LBC’s Iain Dale
Just been to see the Boris speech. Utterly lacklustre. Nothing new. He just can’t make a good speech when he’s trying to be statesmanlike. Couple of good jokes, ritual ‘chuck Chequers’, but where was the beef? Still at the butcher’s shop… pic.twitter.com/mkJ2U8twK6
From HuffPost’s Paul Waugh
My take on Boris Johnson’s Big Speech. Be warned, includes a NSFW T-shirt slogan. https://t.co/yJqAaihp2m
The Uxbridge MP went on to warn that Ms May’s blueprint – which ties Britain to a common rulebook with the EU for trade in goods – would be “politically humiliating for a £2tn economy” and would prevent the UK from making its own laws and subject it to the directives of Brussels.
If 24 hours is a long time in politics, then 4 years may feel to some like a lifetime. Just think where we were in 2014. Donald Trump was most famous for being a television personality, while Jeremy Corbyn was an obscure backbench MP. ‘Brexit’, the single term that currently defines politics in the UK, would have held no literal or figurative meaning. Perhaps most eye-openingly of all, the Liberal Democrats were in government. Has it really only been 4 years?
The reason for this trip down memory lane is that in 2014 the main event on the political calendar was the Scottish independence referendum. Having been in power in Scotland for several years, the Scottish National Party (SNP) finally managed to force the government in Westminster to allow them an independence referendum. As with many other votes in recent years, the result was expected to be a foregone conclusion with Scotland likely to back remaining in the UK by a comfortable margin.
The ‘Yes’ campaign in favour of independence was ultimately unsuccessful, but not before it gave the UK government a genuine scare (Source: PA)
Though Scottish voters did opt against leaving, the margin of victory was only 55% to 45%, far closer than anyone expected. Despite defeat, the SNP had the wind in their sails as more and more people seemed to be won over to their cause. In the general election held the following year, they took 56 of the 59 seats available in Scotland. If all this was not enough, the Brexit vote seemed the perfect pretext for a renewed campaign for independence – the UK as a whole was dragging Scotland out of the EU against Scots’ own wishes. It appeared to many a potent illustration of Scotland’s unhappy subservience to the union as a whole. Another independence referendum seemed to be a matter of when, not if.
Fast forward a few years, however, and amidst the chaos of Brexit Scottish independence appears to have been put firmly on the backburner. The SNP, while still the biggest party in Scotland, has lost seats in both the Scottish and the UK Parliament, matching its declining share of the vote. Opinion polling is almost unanimous in showing Scots substantially opposing independence while plans for a second referendum have been shelved for the time being. Questions are being asked as to why, at such a key juncture, the SNP and its key issue are both losing momentum.
The answer to this strange case may lie, as politics often seems to at the moment, in the public’s ideas of elitism and anti-elitism. It is fair to say that a certain degree of Scottish identity (though certainly not all of it) stems from Scots’ perceived differences with the traditionally more powerful English south of the border, who historically have often tried to ride roughshod over Scottish interests. To their credit the SNP exploited these circumstances effectively, portraying themselves as the voice of the Scottish people, taking it upon themselves to stand up to an English ‘elite’ – in Westminster and elsewhere – unwilling to give Scotland its rightful say in how its own affairs are run.
This is all well and good, and is certainly among the reasons for the party’s success, but there is only so long any anti-elitist political grouping can remain in power before it begins to become an elite itself. After over a decade in power, the SNP seems, in the eyes of many Scots, to be turning into the kind of establishment party is has previously railed against. Indeed, throughout the recent years of political change in the UK, SNP leader and Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon remains one of the few familiar faces to have remained at the forefront of national politics, becoming a member of the establishment almost by default. In any democracy even the most formidable of political parties can only remain in power for so long before voters start to seriously consider the alternatives again.
Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP suffered disappointing losses in last year’s general election (Source: Inquisitr)
At the same time, and partly as a consequence, the SNPs main competitors are gaining ground. Those backing an anti-establishment left-leaning party are increasingly being drawn back towards the Labour party, given its changing identity under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. Meanwhile, older voters who retain sympathy with the idea of remaining in the UK have turned towards the Conservatives, who have been given a new lease of life in Scotland largely thanks to their leader in the country, Ruth Davidson. The SNP is having its dominance eaten away at both sides.
Sturgeon and her party clearly need to find some way of revitalising the independence movement. Whether it be through a new leader or the introduction of more radical policies, the SNP have to find some way of reasserting what makes them so different from the other parties on offer. Otherwise, it could be a lot longer than four years until the next independence vote.
Everyone agrees on one thing; History was made yesterday at Supreme Court Nominee, Brett Kavanaugh’s conformation hearing. On the back of two allegations of sexual assault and a testimony by Dr Ford, the senate went to vote yesterday.
The Senate took its first step toward formally confirming Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination on the floor of the US Senate on Friday evening.
Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh is sworn in before testifying during the Senate Judiciary Committee, Thursday, Sept. 27 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP)
In a voice vote, lawmakers passed the motion to proceed on Kavanaugh’s confirmation, meaning there would be no Saturday session (today), although the future of Kavanaugh’s nomination now lies in the hands of an FBI investigation.
How Did We Get Here?
You could cut the tension in the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday as voting began.
‘If looks could kill’ Bret Kavanaugh gives testimony to dismaying looks from women sat behind him. (AP)
Just as Republicans were on the verge of their 11-10 vote to favourably recommend the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake had a change of heart.
Flake voted for Kavanaugh to move out of the committee. However, he also made clear that he would not vote for Kavanaugh on the Senate floor without an FBI investigation of the sexual assault allegation against him — an accusation that the nominee has vehemently denied.
Alone, this doesn’t mean much. If Republicans only lost Flake’s vote, they would have 50 votes in favour of Kavanaugh’s confirmation when the scheduled vote would happen on Tuesday. That would allow Vice President Mike Pence to break the tie, and Kavanaugh would be confirmed.
However, Flake as well as Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar suggested in the moments before the 11-10 vote that there were other Republicans who felt the same as Flake. As in, they would not support Kavanaugh’s confirmation unless and until the FBI investigation happens. Those senators are, presumably, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
None of what Flake did was binding until the White House and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell weighed in. McConnell formally requested the White House to instruct the FBI to do supplemental background check, which “would be limited to current credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today.
The Senate Judiciary Committee announcement means that McConnell, as expected, has bowed to the fact that he does not currently have the votes. Presumably, Flake would not have a) made the one-week FBI investigation request and then b) voted for Kavanaugh to move favorably out of committee unless c) he knew that he had Murkowski and/or Collins (or some other Republican) was with him. (Murkowski confirmed to reporters after the session that she supports Flake’s proposal.)
President Donald Trump conceded to the inevitable on Friday afternoon, ordering an FBI investigation.
Where Are We Now?
Brett Kavanaugh has cleared the first hurdle. It isn’t a win (unless he is innocent). Yesterdays vote means that his nomination moves to the next stage where the whole senate will vote.
The procedural motion means the Senate will officially be considering Kavanaugh’s nomination while the FBI investigates sexual assault allegations against the judge.
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh arrives at the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2018, in Washington, to begin his confirmation hearing to replace retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders issued a statement from President Donald Trump in a tweet Friday afternoon, announcing that he had officially asked for the FBI to “conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file.”
“I’ve ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file. As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week,” Trump said in the statement.
Are Women Finally Being Listened To?
It can be said that both sides of the debate got their preferred outcomes in yesterdays vote. Kavanaugh cleared the initial senate vote, something he seemed desperate for. However, the FBI investigation, demanded by some senators as well the American Bar Association, initially dismissed by republicans at large, is now taking centre stage in this hearing.
The move comes after a week of uncertainty surrounding Kavanaugh’s nomination as the nation watched both the judge and the woman who has accused him of sexual assault testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday about the alleged incident.
Christine Blasey Ford is sworn in by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 27. (AP)
Christine Blasey Ford had accused Kavanaugh of committing sexual assault against her more than three decades ago when both were at a party in their high school years. Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied the allegation.
“The supplemental FBI background investigation would be limited to current credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today,” a Friday statement from the Senate Judiciary Committee said.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., cries as Christine Blasey Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 27. (AP)
More Allegations To Come?
Rumours around Washington are that the impending FBI investigation will unearth many more accessions however that is to be seen. Two central allegations have shaped this investigation so far. These were on
September 16, 2018 – The Washington Post published an article about a California psychology professor who accuses Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her when they were both teenagers at a house party during the early 1980’s. Christine Blasey Ford says she initially sent a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein about the incident when Kavanaugh’s name was included on a shortlist for the Supreme Court. Ford tells the newspaper she initially did not want to go public but she decided to talk on the record because her letter to Feinstein had been leaked to the media. Kavanaugh categorically denies that such an incident ever took place.
September 23, 2018 – The New Yorker published a report about a second allegation of sexual misconduct, prompting Feinstein to call for a postponement of confirmation proceedings. The magazine article centers on a college classmate from Yale, Deborah Ramirez who says Kavanaugh exposed himself to her while a group of students were drinking at a party in a dorm during the 1983-1984 academic year. Kavanaugh denies the allegation and a White House spokeswoman dismisses the claim as uncorroborated.
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, Ashley Estes Kavanaugh, and their daughters stand by President Trump after the president announced Kavanaugh’s nomination on Monday (Getty Images)
The Investigation Rages On
In her Senate appearance on Thursday, Ford spoke about her foggy memory but offered up a clue, an encounter with Judge at a supermarket he worked at, an estimated six to eight weeks after the alleged attack.
“It would be helpful with anyone’s resources if — to figure out when he worked there, if people are wanting more details from me about when the attack occurred,” Ford said.
Still, with 36 years between the night of the alleged attack and the forthcoming background investigation, the agents in this background check have their work cut out for them.
They are going to be dealing on fading memories which makes this case an uphill battle and a daunting task.
David Beckham has avoided being prosecuted over a speeding charge on a technicality. Beckham was accused of driving at the speed of 59mph in a 40mph zone whilst driving a loaned car.
Mr Beckham enlisted the services of celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman, a man also known as Mr Loophole – a name he spent £20,000 to trademark in 2008, to defend his case. Freeman gained the nickname amongst the legal and media communities due to the fact that his signature move is to look for technicalities or loopholes to avoid prosecution on behalf of his celebrity clients. Freeman’s clients have been the likes of Charlotte Crosby, Jeremy Clarkson, Paddy McGuinness and Beckham’s former Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson.
Nick Freeman, aka Mr Loophole. (Getty Images)
Beckham admitted to driving at the speed he was accused of however he’s not set to face action. The loophole found in this case was that the notice of intended prosecution (NIP) was received by Bentley Motors Ltd, the owners of the loaned vehicle, one day after the 14-day time limit. The Judge therefore accepted the fact that since the ticket had arrived late, there were no grounds to convict Beckham.
Though Beckham did not attend the trial which took place on Thursday at the Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court his lawyer did tell reporters that Beckham was “very relived with the verdict and very happy with his legal team”.
This wouldn’t be the first time that Freeman and Beckham’s paths had crossed. It was Freeman who had argued the case that allowed Beckham’s 1999 8 month driving ban to be overturned by claiming that the footballer was attempting to get away from a paparazzi photographer.
This worrying pattern of behaviour from Beckham and his fellow celebrities has led to a call for accountability from the directors of campaigns Brake and the Safe Speed Campaign. They’ve expressed their disappointment in Beckham as he’s a role model for many other people and the clear contrast between how these situations are dealt when dealing with people with sufficient sums of money and those without.
Whilst some are shocked from what seems to be a lack of growth between the David Beckham of 1999 and the David Beckham of 2018, no one seems to be shocked by the behaviour of Mr Freeman.
Freeman who on Friday described his career as “better than sex” has often enjoyed media attention, not just for his clients’ sake but also for his own. From the fact that the lawyer known for getting celebrities off of their driving offences, was pulled over and fined £60 for failing to renew the MOT on his £200k Bentley to the fact that he refused to represent his own daughter in court when she was given a speeding ticket for doing 63mph in a 50mph zone as he wanted to teach her a lesson.
Adding insult to injury after his victory with David Beckham, Mr Loophole went on to the BBC’s today programme to say that from a “moral standpoint” Beckham should have been found guilty. He said, “Anyone who accepts that they were the driver and they were speeding, you would think in the normal course from a moral standpoint they should be convicted” and also stated that if more drivers are to be convicted of their crimes then “what parliament needs to do is it needs to change the law”.
Have your say below and let us know if you think there is a need to reform in the law or whether people need to be more responsible or both.
Comment below and make sure to follow us on all of our social media pages to keep up with discussions.
Sitting in my History class, our Professor urges us to watch the Kavanuagh case the week after, telling us that the case is reminiscent of that of Anita Hill. She sighs with exasperation about how history is repeating itself. At this point, both names are foreign to me but the notion of a woman having to retell traumatic events of sexual assault makes me uneasy, but I’m intrigued.
WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 27: Christine Blasey Ford is sworn in prior to giving testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill September 27, 2018 in Washington, (Photo by Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images)
I make it my mission to engage with the Kavanaugh case and after reading and watching the case, I too sigh. Will this be another tale of power and patriarchy undermining female pain and justice?
The Kavanaugh-Ford case began when allegations of sexual assault by supreme court nominee, Brett Kavanuagh emerged. Dr Christine Blasey Ford claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her 36 years ago when she was 15 and he, 17. She describes how Kavanaugh groped her, attempted to rip her clothes off and shut her mouth in the alleged encounter at a high school gathering. Kavanaugh denies all allegations, suggesting that it’s a ploy against his position as President Donald Trump’s nomination for the vacant seat in the US Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh gives testimony in the senate
The Testimony
Dr Ford recounts the alleged events stating “I was pushed from behind into a bedroom across from the bathroom. I couldn’t see who pushed me. Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. Ford goes on to explain how she was “pushed onto the bed” before Kavanaugh allegedly got on top of her and tried to take off her clothes. Holding in tears, Ford continues “I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. It was hard for me to breathe, and I though Brett was accidentally going to kill me”.
The most poignant part of her testimony was when Ford was asked about her strongest memory of the incident. Attempting to retain composure, she fights back emotion saying, ‘the uproarious laughter between the two and them having fun at my expense’. Watching the events unfold, one is forced to question if Ford will experience the justice system laugh at her expense once again
University of Oklahoma law professor Anita Hill testifies in 1991 before the Senate judiciary committee on the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. (Associated Press)
In 1991 Anita Hill accused Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual assault. It is frightening to see history repeat itself and it begs the question, what does the Kavanaugh-Ford case say about American society in the age of #MeToo? Tarana Burke’s Me Too movement, which was picked up by the mainstream media years later and used to spread awareness of the regularity of sexual assault and violence against predominantly women, but men also, was a breath of fresh air. With thousands of retweets, #MeToo and movements emerging across the globe women revelled in the joy of a new age where they could be vocal about their experiences and seek justice and personal healing. Celebrities rallied against Harvey Weinstein, prominent men were exposed for assaulting women and the Time’s Up movement was birthed. This was the making of a revolution, one that would etch its name in history freeing women and changing cultural norms.
However, the world watches with held breaths as the Anita Hill case clones itself 27 years later. It’s a scary reminder that no matter how progressive things may seem women are still fighting for justice to be served.
No one knows the truth. Kavanuagh was impassioned saying ‘my family and my name have been totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false additional accusations, I was not at the party described by Dr FordKavanaugh He speaks with passion and emotion calling the allegations a ‘calculated and orchestrated political hit’.
‘If looks could kill’ Bret Kavanaugh gives testimony to dismaying looks from women sat behind him. (AP)
He seems to have compassion towards Ford, but he denies all allegations vehemently. Seeing the case progress is agonising. Recent updates show that the Republicans and the White House have agreed for an FBI investigation of the alleged sexual assault meaning a one week delay. The Kavanaugh-Ford case hangs in the balance, we can only hope that justice will be served.
Itunu Abolarinwa is a writer who is passionate about creating content that challenges thoughts and initiates change. Her work has been featured on several platforms including MTV, Gal-dem and This Day Nigeria, where she covers a range of topics from race and gender, to representation in the media. As founder of award winning student radio show Identity UoB, and past Chair of the University of Birmingham’s Black and Ethnic Minority Association she sees the importance of amplifying the voices and experiences of BME students. She is a youth ambassador for youth empowerment organisation Joined Up Thinking and Head of marketing for entertainment company IA Entertainment. Itunu is a Political Science and International Relations student at the University of Birmingham currently in her third year of study.
Should students who have not handed their assignments still be given a 50% grade for them?
A teacher in Florida is claiming that she lost her job due to the fact that she would not give students half-credit for assignments that they had not handed in.
52-year-old teacher Diane Tirado, posted a photograph on her Facebook page of a message she had left her students on a whiteboard letting them know that she had been fired. The post achieved viral status with over 1,600 shares in in less than 48 hours.
Tirado, who worked at West Gate K-8 School in Port St. Lucie, wrote “Bye kids. Mrs Tirado loves you and wishes you the best in life! I have been fired for refusing to give you a 50% for not handing anything in.”
Tirado had given students a notebook assignment and after the two-week deadline some students had still not given in the work it was upon grading the assignments that she was made aware of the school’s “no-zero” policy. A policy that requires teachers to give a minimum of at least 50% on all assignments. Tirado claims that when she enquired with administrators about what to do when students don’t hand in an assignment that she was told “we give them a 50” and that she was terminated for not complying.
The chief communications officer for St Lucie Public Schools, Kerry Padrick denied such a policy existing. Padrick stated that “there is no District or individual school policy prohibiting teachers from recording a grade of zero for work not turned in. The District’s Uniform Grading System utilises letter grades A-F, numerical grades 100-0 and grade point averages from 4-0”. Padrick went on to explain that the whilst Tirado’s claims about why her employment was terminated were false, the termination itself was very much true.
A statement released by the district to WPTV said that Tirado had been “released from her duties as an instructor because her performance was deemed sub-standard and her interactions with students, staff, and parents lacked professionalism and created a toxic culture on the school’s campus” they also added that though Tirado was only employed at the school for a short period of time “the school fielded numerous student and parent complaints as well as concerns from colleagues” and that “based on new information shared with school administrators an investigation of possible physical abuse is underway”
Tirado has denied the school’s criminal allegations and has stated that she is “looking forward to suing the district for defamation”
Is it fair for students who did not hand in their assignments to get 50%? Should this practice be adopted within schools in the UK? Or do we need a stricter system in the UK?
For the past few years, it seems as though trains have built up a reputation of cancellations or delays for one reason or another. This has caused passengers to be furious with rail companies.
Last week Northern Rail announced there will be further disruption to commuters as 24-hour strikes will occur over the next month. This is in dispute of whether guards will continue in their traditional roles.
After all the strikes and cancellations and replacement bus services, nationalisation has been a topic of discussion amongst passengers and political parties for some time now.
After the Labour Party Conference it was reported that Virgin Trains had some delays. Which was rather ironic seeing as Nationalising railways was part of Jeremy Corbyn’s speech.
There are currently 18 train operating companies in England, Scotland and Wales. Britain’s rail network was first nationalised in 1948 and then privatised in 1993. Now 24 years later Labour says our railways have become inefficient and expensive. In Labour’s 2017 General Election Manifesto, they promised to bring the private railways companies into public ownership as current franchises expire.
According to the Office of Rail and Road, since privatisation railways have seen an increase in users from 735 million between 1994/1995 to 1.7 billion in 2015/2016.
The government pay for the subsidies to the rail industry and this might be needed to deliver services in areas that would otherwise not be commercially viable, such as some rural areas.
Last year a YouGov poll found that 60% of people think the government should run the railways and only 25 % support private ownership.
More than 10 Northern and Thames link trains were cancelled after the introduction of new timetables in May.
Transport Minister, Chris Grayling declined to take person responsibility for this summer’s rail chaos, a regulator’s report concluded. The report into the fiasco that left thousands of railway passengers stranded earlier this year concluded that nobody took charge. He also declined to point the blame at any rail operator saying “I think each of the organisations involved need to look at how they, themselves are organised. I am not going to point the finger at individuals today. It’s a system problem. It’s the way the whole industry works. That’s what the review says.”
My first train today stood at Whitehaven for an hour due to problems in Cornwall*.
*the rostered signaller for St Bees was on holiday in Cornwall
Grayling did reject the idea of renationalisation “The reality is, it’s not about ownership, it’s about the pressure on the system, it’s about ways of working. In a sense, that would be like saying, let’s go back to the days of British Rail, and I don’t remember British Rail being a great paragon of success, either.”
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) chair, Stephan Glaister said Network Rail did see a developing problem with the May timetable changes “But they did not take sufficient action to manage the risks or the consequence.” The ORR blamed individual companies, GTR and Northern, for not preparing in advance and not doing enough to keep passengers informed of disruption.
I’ve worked in the industry for almost 40 years, both in the public & private sector, both have their pros & cons. But nationalising train operations from where we are now will end up costing ££bns and deliver almost nothing for passengers. /more
At the time I didn’t want to see the railway privatised either. But the issues the industry faces now are aboust structure, not ownership. Nationalise the TOCs and what we get is even more state control. We’ll be well down the queue for any gov’t funding, behind NHS, defence, etc
So it seems that there is a possibility if Labour win the next general election that railways will be nationalisation. And Brexit should make it much easier for this to happen. The government would not be able to stop a private company from operating their own trains on Britain’s railway lines as it is EU directives that ensure open access operations for private companies
Dolline is a traveller, journalist and blogger who has palate to try new things. She is a very spontaneous person; you might find her skydiving over the Kenyan coast to kayaking on Lake Como. She can be an over thinker who thinks of every outcome but if she doesn’t she welcomes the change that wasn’t planned. However, she is a very simple person who is up for a good laugh or a book and enjoys living the moment. Dolline also writes for her small personal blog called ‘Swatches of Beauty’ and is currently a production journalist trainee at ITV Border.
On June 23rd, 2016, the UK held a referendum which shook the nation; the outcome was a decision by the electorate to leave the European Union.
This decision will have a great impact on the United Kingdom and the future of our international relations. However, large cohorts of the public are misinformed and confusing over the meaning of terms means they are excluded from the debate. This article will clear up what terms likely to be used in Brexit proposals actually mean
Customs Union
A group of states that have agreed to charge the same import duties as each other and usually to allow free trade between themselves. The customs union reduces administrative and financial trade barriers such as customs checks and charges, and boosts economic co-operation.
The advantages of leaving the customs union are that Britain would be able to negotiate free trade deals with non-EU countries.
The disadvantages are that, although the UK could still trade with EU countries, it would face tariffs and other non-tariff barriers such as rules of origin checks, and vice-versa – which could push up the cost of goods.
It covers four areas: economic partnership, security partnership, future areas of cooperation such as aviation and nuclear power, and the frameworks needed to enforce the agreement.
It is “aimed at ensuring trade cooperation, with no hard border for Northern Ireland, and global trade deals for the UK”
Single market
An association of countries trading with each other without restrictions or tariffs. The European single market came into effect in 1993. It accounts for 25% of global GDP and is, by far, Britain’s biggest trading partner.
Currently, 45% of the UK’s exports are to the EU while 50% of imports are from the EU. Access to the single market is based on countries signing up to the core principle of the free movement of goods, people, services and capital.
White Paper
White papers are documents produced by the government that set out their policy proposals. They are published with the intent of further consultation before the plans are later finalised in legislation.
European Economic Area
The area that provides the free movement of people, services and capital within the European single market. Membership is open to member states of either the EU or the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).
EFTA states which are party to the European Economic Area Agreement participate in the EU’s internal market without being members of the EU. However, they must adopt most EU legislation concerning the single market, except on laws concerning agriculture and fisheries.
European Court of Justice
This is the judicial institution of the EU. It deals with disputes between parties and ensures that European law is interpreted and applied in the same way in every member state.
Brexiteers say it interferes with British justice and want to remove the UK from its jurisdiction. But those who stress the need for the UK to keep close trading ties with the EU say this would inevitably mean the ECJ will continue to have influence over British laws.
World Trade Organisation
The global organization that deals with rules of trade between nations. WTO agreements are negotiated and signed by most of the world’s trading nations. Britain joined the WTO as a member of the EU and it is expected that it would have to negotiate new and updated terms of its membership.
This could be a long process because the UK would need all the other WTO members to agree on these terms. A “hard” Brexit often refers to leaving the EU without future trading arrangements in place and instead relying on WTO rules. The Treasury has warned this option could cut the UK’s GDP by 9.5% and trigger a loss of tax revenues of £66bn a year.
Facilitated customs arrangement
The government’s plan for post-Brexit customs arrangements with the EU. A facilitated customs arrangement (FCA) would see goods coming into Britain but destined for the EU charged an EU tariff.
Goods intended to remain in Britain would be charged the UK’s own tariff, which could be set differently to that of the EU’s. The plan would also rely on technology to identify the end destination of goods arriving in the UK and, it is hoped, avoid customs checks on the island of Ireland.
It has been proposed by Downing Street as a “third way” customs arrangement after ministers failed to decide between two other alternative models. Brexiteers claim the FCA is unworkable and would effectively push the UK into a customs union with the EU and threaten Britain’s ability to sign independent
Common rulebook
EU member states follow the same standards and regulations for goods. The government wants to follow a “common rulebook” with the bloc by aligning UK legislation on goods with the EU’s standards and regulations.
This proposal led to the resignation of former Brexit secretary David Davis and ex-foreign secretary Boris Johnson. The latter dubbed the plan a “semi-Brexit” and argued the UK will be left as a rule-taker from Brussels but without any say over those rules.
However, the government hopes the plan will protect the supply lines of firms such as car manufacturers, while also reducing trade frictions at the UK-EU border, such as in Ireland.
Withdrawal agreement
The UK and EU are negotiating a withdrawal agreement that will cover all parts of Britain’s exit from the bloc, including the financial settlement (or “Brexit bill”), Irish border and citizens’ rights.
It is separate from any treaty on the UK’s future relationship with the bloc, with the withdrawal agreement to be voted on by MPs at the end of the Brexit process. The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier has said the withdrawal agreement is 80% agreed.
This week we finally saw Jason Kidd inducted into the Hall of Fame.
Jason Kidd’s way to the NBA title he deserved, took longer than people expected. Kidd was raised by an African-American dad and a Irish-American mother living an upper middle class life in Oakland, California. He was a star in his early years, making ‘passing’ his significant trait. He attended the East Oakland Youth Development Center where he met mentor and future Hall of Famer, Gary Payton – who coincidentally was a point guard himself. Kidd was under the coaching of Al Payton, Gary’s father. As Kidd improved, he started playing with the older boys including Gary (who went to OSU at the time).
An Early Achiever
Jason Kidd went to high school and dominated the competition under the guidance of coach Frank LaPort. He averaged 25 points, 10 assists, 7 rebounds and 7 steals his senior season receiving a host of individual honors, including the Naismith award as the nation’s top high school player, and was named Player of the Year by PARADE and USA Today. The all-time prep leader in assists (1,155) and the state’s seventh-highest career scorer (2,661 points), Kidd was voted California Player of the Year (for the second time) and also an All American.
It was Kidd’s choice of college that shocked the nation. Considering the number of awards he bagged, his recruitment was a very public affair for its time. Inspite of offers from the prestigious Kansas Jayhawks, Arizona and Kentucky Wildcats among others, he chose to play for the California Golden Bears at UC Berkley. He set records for most steals by a NCAA freshman and broke the school record for consecutive years. A notable highlight in his college career was upsetting the Duke Blue Devil’s team his freshman year. He not only got his team into the NCAA tournament in successive years but he also put College Basketball in California back on the map. He would turn out to be a savior every step of the way in his career and was one of the early front page news grabbing recruits.
Gary Payton said that Jason Kidd at 6’4”, had an NBA-ready body and made comparisons of J-Kidd to Magic Johnson and Bob Cousy.
NBA Draftee and Early Career
The 3 J’s at Dallas, From left to right; Jamal Mashburn, Kidd and Jim Jackson
Kidd was drafted by the Dallas Mavericks with the Number 2 overall pick ahead of co-inductee and co-rookie of the year Grant Hill from Duke. Kidd’s arrival in Dallas along with a budding on court chemistry with Masburn and Jackson saw Dallas improve to a 36-46 record, exactly one year from a 13 win season.
It went downhill for the Mavericks the following season as Mashburn was out with a knee injury after playing 18 games and Kidd did not get along with Jackson. Kidd did go on to get selected in his first all-star game contributing 10 assists in a 118 to 129 loss to the East. The next season Kidd was dealt to the Phoenix Suns for Micheal Finley, Sam Cassell and Iron Man A.C Green which meant the promising 3 J’s combo never took off.
Kidd’s time in Phoenix saw him improve even more. He led the league in assists in the 1997-98 season, triple doubles and saw his PPG improve to 16.9. The Suns were a very exciting team to watch as they played a Small Ball lineup (a team that sacrifices height and physicality for speed and agility by passing a lot more and using 3 pointers). These lineups utilized his greatest asset – passing, floor awareness and racking up steals by utilizing mismatches in size. So in other words, a lineup the Miami Teams with LeBron James and the Warriors teams of today use on a nightly basis.
His on court handles and playmaking were far better than his style choices
Kidd’s playmaking earned him an all-star appearance each year barring 1999 (due to the NBA lockout it was not held) and an All NBA First team selection. His teams did make the playoffs only to get knocked out in the first round barring 2000, when the Back court 2000 tandem of Kidd and “Penny” Hardaway eliminated the defending Champions, San Antonio Spurs in the first round. Kidd also learnt to be more selfish in order to score more points ( predictably on encouragement from team mates).
Finals Appearances with Nets
Kidd doing his signature Free throw routine in Nets colours
Kidd cemented himself among legends when he arrived at the struggling New Jersey Nets team, removed from their title days with Julius Erving in the 70s in the ABA and their misfortune in the years after. Kidd was the golden signing made by the man (Rod Thorn) who selected Micheal Jordan in the 84′ draft. Kidd along with Kenyon Martin and a much younger team turned into yet again one of the most exciting teams to watch in the league. They led the east with a 52 win record. In the payoffs they beat the Indiana Pacers led by Reggie Miller in a tense series that featured the only game in NBA history to have every quarter tied. This followed by a 4-1 win over Charlotte and a 4-2 win over the Boston Celtics saw them meet the fancied LA Lakers led by the monstrous Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant.
The now infamous sweep resonates in fans hearts, but many people ignore the fact that what Kidd did with those Jersey teams was special and he went down fighting against an immovable force (in Basketball terms, they had no answer to O’Neal at Center in the low post and on both ends). The following year again, the Nets were even better sweeping the Boston Celtics and the Detroit Pistons to reach the finals face off against the Spurs led by Duncan. The first 4 games were split but the decisive game 5 saw the Nets lose at home by 10 point. On the road, the Nets lost the title chance when the Spurs scored at will with a 19 point run to nothing. Tim Duncan got a Quadruple Double( or did he?) and he outpassed Kidd while doing it.
The reason Kidd did not win could be put on failed signings with Dikembe Mutombo and Alonzo Mourning, as each of them missed entire seasons due to badly timed injuries or situations outside their control. This meant that the Nets had no answer to the physicality and imposing presence of O’Neal in the post and surrounding areas in the first finals. Tim Duncan and David Robinson out rebounded the entire Nets team in game 6, 37 to 35 in the second Finals that resulted in the loss for the Nets. It didn’t help that Kenyon Martin who matched with Duncan went down with a stomach ache and was forced 8 turnovers mostly by Duncan in the crucial home game. A combination of bad luck and lack of another rebounding presence to go with Martin and Kidd when needed the most cost them and New Jersey a chance of holding both the NHL and NBA title in the same year.
The Vince Carter experiment did not produce expected results as Carter with Kidd as a floor general won division titles but failed to win beyond the conference semifinals bowing out to the eventual champions Miami Heat in 06′ and the Cavaliers in 07′. The highlight reels however did set newer and much higher standards for fun and in game entertainment.
Title with Dallas
Mavericks take on a declining Jason Kidd in 2008 trading with JerseyTeammates at Dallas, yet on opposing teams. That years All star game featured a Western conference player on the East team as Kidd was voted in prior to the trade
Jason Kidd was brought in after a trade Dallas made with the Nets prior to the All Star break in 2008. Kidd was a presence that Dallas needed as they choked away their advantage in the 2006 Finals against the Heat and have since needed a presence to bring the talent together barring franchise superstar, Dirk Nowitzki (pictured in the 2008 all star game for the West).
Kidd brought 3 point shooting and his experience as a floor general that Dallas desperately needed in the post season. Since he was on older legs, his outstanding rebounding did decline as did his PPG.
But a 38 year old Kidd proved otherwise literally torching Portland by shooting 9-of-14 from the field, 6-of-10 from beyond the arc and finishing with 24 points in Game 1. He scored 18 points on 7-of-11 shooting, made 50 percent of his three-pointers and the Mavs had another impressive win in Game 2. Part of it was being guarded by a much slower Point Guard compared to Chris Paul and Chauncey Billups the previous years. Kidd along with teammate Terry led the league in 3 pointers attempted and made in the post season. Kidd also led the league in number assists and steals in the post season. His points assault was the biggest surprise in games 1 and 2 as he didn’t score over 20 in over a year.
Kidd as a floor director vs the Thunder.
Kidd as we saw with the Vince Carter tape was a human fast break, grab the rebound on one end by slipping or jumping ahead of the opponent on that end and igniting the break after grabbing the board. It is a quintessential definition of excitement. Kidd transitioned into an anchor of the half court offense, which was the Basketball problem of the Dallas team built around Nowitzki. His defense on Kobe Bryant in games 1 and 2 proved key (Gary Payton would be proud.)
His teammates JJ Barea, Jason Terry, Shawn Marion, Peja Stojakovic and Tyson Chandler ably supported Nowitzki against LeBron James, Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh in a 4-2 series win to give Kidd, Nowitzki and the Mavericks their only championship to date.
Withthe man cometh the Controversies
But this latest turn of events has done nothing to diminish his reputation as a tricky character.
Here’s a history of Kidd’s past incidents:
• Coaching: When he was a freshman at Cal, Kidd reportedly instigated a mutiny that led to the coach’s firing. In 2004, Kidd ‘may’ have been involved in running Byron Scott(showtime Laker great and Nets coach from 2000 up until that point). The point guard screamed at Scott during a December 2003 locker room tirade. In 2010, Kidd intentionally ran into the Atlanta Hawks coach on the sideline during a game. He drew a technical foul on Woodson as a result. The move essentially won the game for the Mavericks. Gamesmanship or something else? Smart but seemingly devious, crafty and a strategist you don’t want turning against you.
• Teammates: In the First Dallas tenure, Kidd feuded with Jim Jackson supposedly over Toni Braxton which led to him demanding a trade. Kidd ultimately ended up in Phoenix.
• When his teams fail: In January 2001, Kidd was arrested for assaulting his now ex wife Joumana. He pleaded guilty to spousal abuse and was fined $200 and ordered to take anger management training. He was eventually traded to the Nets. In December 2007, Kidd reportedly complained of a migraine and missed a game against the Knicks. He then asked out and was traded back to the Mavericks. In the summer of 2012, Kidd gave Dallas a verbal commitment to re-sign. But he later decided to spurn Dallas Kidd to sign with the Knicks on a similar contract.
• A little more than a week after joining the Knicks, Kidd was charged with driving while intoxicated after he crashed his SUV into a utility pole on Long Island. He eventually pleaded guilty and was suspended the first two games of his coaching career..
The TCS Take
Ray Allen, Kidd, Steve Nash and Rod Thorn( Nets GM)
Jason Kidd emphasized on winning, that commanded his mood. Half of his off court issues stemmed from the frustrations of not Winning. While physical abuse is a sin and crossing all lines it sadly is seperated from his on court achievements which is what the Hall of Fame recognizes.
He more than made up for his Achilles Heel (the lack of good shooting) by working tenaciously on his craft later on in the end of his Net days. Most players never even master a certain skill set.
“One of the greatest point guards to ever play, one of the smartest basketball players to ever play,” Chris Bosh told Yahoo Sports on the 10th anniversary of the Redeem team. “Just seeing his leadership style and what he was trying to improve on, that was the biggest thing I took away. You’re with all these great, great players, and everybody is trying to improve on something. I remember J-Kidd was working on his shooting relentlessly after every practice. He was just working on basics and fundamentals to shooting, and I mean, he was relentless with it. Just seeing those guys and how easy it was to play with them and how good they were, and then the fact that, ‘Oh, man, they’re just like me, they want to improve.’ That’s Jason Kidd, man, and he’s controlling the floor.”
One only needs to look to Jason’s childhood years playing against the “Glove” Gary Payton to see that he developed his generational passing and rebounding ability to get around the best defensive Point Guard to play the game. It also instilled that toughness and win or die attitude as well.
Jason Kidd teaches us to put perseverance, hard work and dedication into the work of making you the best version of yourself by aiming to minimize the affect of your own shortcomings, or in other cases make your own shortcomings your greatest asset. In addition a lesson to learn from all his off court dramas and controversies is to never let failure affect life away from work and your relationships with people.
Rutvik Bhaskar Perepa is a student at The University of Manchester working towards a MEng in Mechanical Engineering hoping to be on a placement after Year 3. He has had the privilege to travel around his home country, India and discover the rich heritage and diversity. His personal interests include Food and travel, history, Sport among many others. Often found in discourse on various issues ranging Engineering to Religious Practices, he never shy’s away from being expressive. He believes in being open minded, empathetic and analytical is the key to problems posed on a daily basis.
The composition of Sweden’s next government has been thrown into severe doubt following the results of the country’s parliamentary elections, which have left the two main political blocs almost tied. Each is around thirty seats short of an overall majority, with the remaining seats made up by the rising far-right Sweden Democrats party. Both blocs are uneasy about forming an alliance.
To make sense of the results, it is important to understand how Swedish politics works, and is different from our own here in the UK. Most of the major political parties in Sweden are organised into large-scale, long-term alliances or blocs, which can be thought of as a bit like pre-made coalitions. Although voters still opt for an individual party, with specific values and views which are distinctive from any other, they are also in practice voting for the bloc of which that party is a member. The leader of the largest party in the winning bloc conventionally wins the office of Prime Minister, meaning that in essence voters who back smaller parties in these blocs are supporting a Prime Minister hailing from a party other than their own.
Jimmie Åkesson, leader of the Sweden Democrats, talks to the press (Source: EPA)
Still with me? Good. Of the two current blocs, one (‘Red-Green’) is left-leaning and led by the Social Democratic Party, perennially the largest single party in Swedish politics, who are currently in power under Prime Minister Stefan Löfven. The other bloc, ‘Alliance’, is led by the Moderate Party and ideologically is of a centre-right persuasion. The bloc system, however, has been shaken up in recent years by the rise of the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, who have not affiliated with either side, but have made steady gains since the beginning of the decade.
That brings us to this election. In the months leading up to it, there was a lot of hype about the potential gains to be made by the Sweden Democrats. Following the apparent trend for far-right parties’ increasing popularity throughout western Europe, many expected big things of the Sweden Democrats, with some saying they could receive an unprecedented 30% of the vote as voters moved away from the centre ground. Such a result never quite materialised for the party. They made substantial gains, winning 13 seats to take their overall total to 62, but fell some way short of a result that would have overhauled the political system, as some predicted.
Elsewhere, there were also familiar trends being played out in terms of the nature of party support, with many voters opting for anti-establishment options as we have seen in many other countries. The two main parties, the Social Democrats and the Moderates, both suffered losses at the hands of smaller parties, with the Left party and the Centre party making gains alongside the Sweden Democrats.
Swedish election: With about three-quarters of the vote in, it certainly looks like public polls underestimated support for the center-left and overestimated it for the far left and far right. Still would be the Social Democratic Party's worst result of the post-WWII period. pic.twitter.com/UEFeuRxlLl
Overall, though, the Red-Green bloc won 144 seats (with the Social Democrats still comfortably the largest party with 101), while Alliance won 143, making it anyone’s guess as to who will form a government. The Sweden Democrats’ leader Jimmie Åkesson has gleefully announced that this makes his party kingmaker, as whichever bloc woos his party by agreeing to stricter controls on immigration will be able to take their place in government. This, however, is not necessarily true. The two main parties have both expressed grave concerns about working with the Sweden Democrats due to their extreme policies and rhetoric, and it seems that neither would enter into an agreement with them unless absolutely necessary. Perhaps more plausible is that the conventional bloc lines will be broken, with some parties appealing to members of the other bloc to work together for the good of the country. Pundits have specifically pointed to the Centre and liberal parties as possible contenders to work with the Red-Green bloc to ensure legislation is passed.
However the situation is resolved, it seems as though Swedish politics is going through a significant transition. Either the far-right will be accepted more and more as a necessary partner by governing parties, or the bloc system which has helped ensure the stability of governments will be fractured – if not both.
