type here...
Home Blog Page 91

Values vs Interests : The Fight For The Next Big Politician, Continues

Common Sense Contributors
-
0
Values vs Interests : The Fight For The Next Big Politician, Continues

by Muhammad Oleolo

There’s always been a Russell Brand-like flame of dissent within me that’s wished to torch our political class and start again from scratch. If our Politicians don’t represent our values and continually vote based on party or corporate interests, we’ll never have a candidate we can have any hope in. This week has made me swallow some of my anarchist pride and see slivers of hope shine in the political system.

It was Bernie Sanders who once said:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes”.

Donald Trump, the Current President of the United States of America

As much as a lunatic lefty like myself would agree with the sentiments above, I must admit that I have just dabbled in the promoting of fake news as such a statement never came from our beloved Bernie. Nor did it come from our loveable local socialist, Jeremy Corbyn. This fair indictment of an instance of Capitalism running amok against public good came from none other than decorated war general, free market capitalist and Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower

* Scratches Record* Yeah. I said Republican. In a world where Roy Moore and Donald Trump are currently the popular faces of the party, Eisenhower’s farewell address could be the last Republican politician you could call a ‘good person’.

If you only mildly follow politics (let alone US politics), this might seem a horrible thing to say. And I concede that there is something deeply unfair (even as a joke) when some of us on the left conflate belief in free markets, smaller government and social conservatism with disregard for the lives of those outside their sphere of influence. Conservatives have the same capacity for compassion. Our principles may be different but values such as justice, equality and freedom should be universals that we all honour regardless of where we fall on the spectrum.

That being said, I’m old enough to only remember two Republican Presidents and two Conservative Prime ministers. I’ve seen Donald Trump close the biggest arms deal in history with the nation he accused of orchestrating 9/11. Theresa May also castigated Saudi Arabia for using the weapons Britain had sold them and David Cameron boasted about his role in Saudi arms exports, scarcely allowing his beloved EU Parliament to breathe as they casted votes to ban arms to the Gulf Nation the very same day.

Does this represent a lack of values? Democratic values are the qualities and standards that are essential for the continuation of democratic policy. I would define Political interests as the individual motivations that influence individual policies.

Some political commentators write as if it is difficult to point out which of the Islamic Kingdom’s exports poses the greatest threat to western, idealistically plural, liberal democracy. But let me tell you, it’s not camels! Saudi’s cold and unwelcoming brand of Islam backed by its oil wealth has trickled innocent bodies on to the streets of the Middle East and more increasingly on to the secular free markets (that the various centre-right parties claim they are conserving). And we are left to remember that supposed liberal parties of the west, Obama’s and Blair’s parties, fare no better in defending their values against profit-hunting policies.

Anyone who holds values such a democracy, freedom and liberty wouldn’t give a belt buckle to that nation let alone a Typhoon fighter jet. So long that is, that our elected officials really and truly represent the values that underpin democracy above any interests, be it corporate, activist, pragmatic or whatever. We’ll be ok.

Leader of the Liberal Democrats

This does mean that we have to vote for people better than the average guy. We need our Tim Farron’s, who while deeply religious and unwavering in his belief that homosexuality is a sin (probably – he’s yet to answer the media’s badgering question on the topic), advocates for LGBT rights because self-determination is the same value that allows him to identify as a Christian and practice his faith. We need more Stephen Hammond’s one of the Conservative MPs voting against his government today (losing his job as Tory Vice-Chair in the process), saying “Tonight I put country and constituency before party and voted with my principles to give Parliament a meaningful vote”. We need less of the attitude that allowed 80% of white evangelicals in Alabama to vote for Roy Moore, someone who shares their conservative interests but quite clearly, as an accused sexual predator cannot share their values.

(Embed tweet).

 

Doug Jones’ win and the Conservative rebellion in the UK Parliament gives me hope. Party politics doesn’t look to be going anywhere. The party will always have its interests, and we shall have interests as voters. We can’t let any of the various interests in the political games cloud our values; I have no reason to believe that my political opponents have different values.

Young Evangelicals were more likely to vote for the democrat in this week’s elections, again a deep source of hope and a lesson for the millennial generation, the future deciding vote. We can’t vote for individuals who won’t fight for the values that make democracy great. We can only vote for individuals who represent the best of what we are. Eventually we’ll all figure out that these kinds of people don’t always have to agree with us on the policy issues.

What Does Fury’s Return Mean For The Heavyweight Division?

Common Sense Contributors
-
1

Tyson Fury announced his return to the sport of boxing wearing a £9,000 chinchilla fur jacket, sitting in a Range Rover singing ‘Return of the Mack’ by Mark Morrison.

It is safe to say that he has truly been missed. Tyson Fury, the self-proclaimed ‘Gypsy King’ and the former undisputed heavyweight champion, yesterday was cleared to fight again by the British Board of Boxing Control (BBBoC). But how did we end up here? And more importantly, what does this mean?

Image result for fury vs klitschkoTyson Fury outboxing the great Wladimir Klitschko back in October 2015 (Source: Getty Images) 

In October 2015, Tyson Fury defeated Wladimir Klitschko to become the unified heavyweight champion of the world. Having fought his way into a mandatory title shot, he defeated the long-reigning Klitschko in a style to earn a unanimous points decision. It was here when Fury’s life started to take a downward spiral. Within 48hrs of winning 3 of the 4 world titles available in boxing, he was stripped of the belts for not choosing to participate in his mandatory title defence. Instead, he had signed a contract to fight Klitschko again. Ironically, this is the first belt Anthony Joshua won. Next, the BBBoC charged him, alongside his fellow boxing cousin Hughie, on the grounds that they tested positive in a drug test.

The Fury’s claim that the nandrolone found in their urine samples was due to eating an uncastrated boar. In fairness, Nandrolone is a chemical which can naturally be found in boars. After this, depression and cocaine usage followed. His rematch with Klitschko was cancelled and his remaining belts were relinquished. He blew up to over 18 stone. His relevancy in the division dwindled. In the meantime, a certain Anthony Joshua rose up the ranks. 

Image result for joshua klitschkoAnthony Joshua battled against Klitschko to secure a world title in front of 80,000 at Wembley Stadium. (Source: Action Images/Andrew Couldridge) 

Joshua is well-spoken, media-conscious and an advertiser’s dream, all opposites of Fury. He has been well known for calling fellow boxers like Tony Bellew and David Price ‘gay lovers’. His views on women are vulgar. In an interview with iFL TV Tyson was caught saying  ‘a woman’s best place is in the kitchen or on her back’. Joshua is pitted to win the BBC Sports Personality of the Year, while Tyson has become a Twitter and Instagram cult hero for his funny videos and unrestrained tweets.

The contrasts between them are strong. If Tyson fury can return to the form he produced against Klitschko, a fight between him and Joshua would be the most competitive heavyweight fight we have seen in a generation. A true 50/50. It has shades of the classic Ali-Foreman bout. With Joshua being the powerful strong George Foreman with a knockout streak of legend. While Fury takes the role of Ali, returning for a long-term ban, donning flashy skills and light on his feet. They really form the antithesis to each other. Boxing is one sport where you need to pit a hero against a villain to truly become great. Floyd needed Pacquiao. Tyson needed Holyfield (Ear biting fight). And Joshua needs Tyson Fury. When you add Deontay Wilder, Joseph Parker, Dillian Whyte and Daniel Dubious to the equation, you realise that we have once again entered a golden generation of heavyweights who will entertain us for the next 10 years. Along the way, controversy will come. Doping tests will be failed and memories will be branded onto the minds of the masses. These are the nights I cannot wait to witness.

 

Democrat Jones defeats Moore in Alabama. Anti-Trump momentum?

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
Democrat Jones defeats Moore in Alabama. Anti-Trump momentum?

You might be forgiven for smiling. This does sound like long awaited good news for those, all over the world, hoping Donald Trump may come down a peg. However, this democrat victory at best is a mixed bag of giveaways.

On Tuesday 12th of December 2017, Doug Jones, a Democrat, won the Alabama senate race, filling a seat vacated by Jeff Sessions, now the attorney general. This seat hadn’t been won by a democrat in over 20 years, namely because of Alabama’s deep conservative leanings.  The race reached a nail biting conclusion where the difference between the totals was just 1.5%, far above the 0.5% margin, which gives either candidate a right to request a recount if they are prepared to pay the costs.

New York Times reporting on voter share

Despite Jones being declared the winner by most of the mainstream media and a concession by Donald Trump himself, Roy Moore has refused to concede the election stating simply that “its not over”.


What are the implications?

This victory has pretty significant ramifications for the US Senate, for republicans on Capitol Hill and also Donald Trump’s post election mandate.

The divide

The victory is particularly stunning because of history. At another point in history a Republican candidate would have won in Alabama by close to 32 per cent. No Democrat has won in a statewide election in Alabama since 1992. However on Tuesday, with over 1.2 million vote cast, the election was decided by less than 10,000 votes.  According to TWP (The Washington Post) an exit poll showed  97 per cent of black women supported Democrat Doug Jones, who made his name prosecuting the murderers of four schoolgirls, killed in the infamous bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963.

At the same time 74 per cent of white men supported Republican Roy Moore, who stands accused of seducing and sexually assaulting schoolgirls in the 1970s and ’80s and believes homosexuality should be illegal.

White women were still overwhelmingly in favour of Judge Moore by 65 per cent to 33 per cent, but among women who have a daughter under 18, 65 per cent said they supported Doug Jones.

These voting lines reveal something about the conservative skew among older, white Americans, but also something about their preparedness to believe their candidate is a paedophile.

The Senate

Republicans in the senate must brace for impact. Although the victory may not have a major legislative impact, it makes life and indeed some decision making more difficult for Republicans.

The election will reduce the Republican majority in the Senate to 51-49, meaning Republicans can only afford to lose one vote – in the event of a 50-50 split, Vice-President Mike Pence will have the casting vote.

US State Senate in session

The party will still have time and majority needed to pass through controversial pieces of legislation like the tax-cut bill, however decision making after that will become considerably brittle and rigid.

Luther Strange – the Republican appointed to replace Mr Sessions as an interim senator in February – is likely to remain in the seat until early January.

What about Donald Trump? 

Perhaps the biggest impact this election has will be on Donald Trump. Now, it is probably too early to declare the coalescing or even beginning of an anti-Trump wave because Moore was in many ways a very flawed candidate.


Some have framed the election as a battle between decency and bullying, where decency won. However for Donald Trump, who threw the full weight of his support behind Moore, held campaign rallies for him, even when other leaders in his party were hesitant, this defeat has to be disheartening. The two candidates he supported in Alabama this year — first Luther Strange, and now Roy Moore — have lost, both rejected by the public.

The defeat could be seen as representing a rejection of Trumps politics and his approach in dealing with allegations made about him. It suggests that allegations of past sexually predatory behaviour cannot just be dismissed in a kind of numb, nonchallannt manner we have come to know Trump for. If Roy Moore had won the seat, it would have been a vindication of some sort that American voters don’t care about such things. This line has become harder to argue.

Whilst this is far from anti-Tump momentum, it is indicative of a shift in attitudes, at least in Alabama. If this can happen in Alabama, then it can happen anywhere. People are waking from their numbness to these issues.

Jones’ victory has evoked fresh optimism and anticipation of the congressional elections in November 2018 and even the presidential race of 2020.

It seems as if we just might make America great again after all.

Most Expensive Football Game Ever: A Review

Fidelis Olaniran
-
0

Widely labelled as the ‘most expensive football-game ever’, Manchester City faced Manchester United at Old Trafford on December 10th 2017. Broadcasted in over 190 countries, the Manchester Derby was poised to be the most watched game in premier league history. The total worth of both teams was an estimated £650 million! Accounting for players like Paul Pogba, Eric Bailly, Benjamin Mendy and John Stones.

The game had its fair share of controversy, from penalty claims to huge defensive errors made by both sides. Manchester City took an aggressive attacking approach; Raheem Sterling and Gabriel Jesus having a plentiful amount of shots at David De Gea’s goal. Most of City’s attacks were being orchestrated by both David Silva and in-form Kevin De Bruyne. City went in front via a set-piece, as they took advantage of a defensive error made by Romelu Lukaku, who failed to clear his lines enabling Silva to score from 6 yards out.

Above: Silva scores the game’s opening goal in the 43rd minute. (Source: Getty Images)

 

However, City’s lead didn’t last long. The young United star Marcus Rashford managed to grab the equaliser in the 47th minute. This was Rashford’s first goal in a derby since scoring the winning goal at the Etihad 2 years ago. Rashford’s goal came from another defensive error, this time made by Fabian Delph who was playing as a left back, a position he is not familiar with.

Rashford celebrates with team-mate Lingard after scoring the equaliser. ( Source: Man Utd via Getty Images)

At halftime, the game was at a stalemate. The second half saw Manchester City attack with the same intensity displayed in the first half, with United attempting to counter-attack City. Rashford saw his second chance at goal but it was saved by the strong grasp of Ederson. Both teams attempted to break down each other’s defence until Manchester City got a free-kick which led to their second goal. This was the result of another defensive error by Lukaku after his clearance hit off the back of his teammate and into the path of Nicolas Otamendi. He fired it home to grab the game-winning goal.

Nicolas Otamendi celebrates as he takes City into the lead. (source: Getty Images)

This game ended Manchester United’s 40-game unbeaten run at home. It also created a new Premier League record for Manchester City , who have won their last 14 games. This victory puts Manchester City  11 points clear of United in the league table, giving them an extremely strong chance of becoming the new champions. In the post-match interview, Mourinho criticized the referee’s decisions. Conversely, Pep Guardiola felt proud due to the fact that he proved himself to be tactically superior. The attacking strategies he implemented at Barcelona have been transferred to this Man City team. Thus far, it has proven to be a success.  

Interestingly there have been reports of a spat between the two teams in the tunnel after the game. This led to Manchester City staff Mikel Arteta, suffering a cut on his head. The City players were viewed to be excessive in their celebration of the victory, supposedly triggering the United players into a brawl.

Both teams are back in action midweek. Man City are set to take-on Swansea and hope to continue their winning form, while United try to return to winning ways, as they look to host Bournemouth.

 

What is Bitcoin and Why Does it Matter?

Common Sense Contributors
-
1

Written by TCS Contributor, Kotei Nikoi.

We should’ve seen this coming a long time ago. Ever since banking became an online affair, the dawn of the virtual currency has been inevitable. Is this the beginning of the end for money as we know it?

Well, not anytime soon.

For starters, Bitcoin relies entirely on the traditional currencies as of 2017 – you need to purchase Bitcoin, like any other good. So you trade your hard earned cash for some matrix money. Although, this doesn’t sound too different to how we already use our money when you really think about it…

What is interesting about Bitcoin is that it has seen a sharp increase in public awareness and cost 9 years after it was launched. The interesting part is that it wasn’t the first, or the last virtual currency that popped up online, but it is by far the most popular. Why?

Well that previous statement is somewhat misleading. It isn’t the first currency online, but it is the first “decentralised” currency – The first whose price is not dictated by a bank/government. The legality of all of this is still up in arms, but like anything else that makes its way online, even money can be Rule 34’d (don’t look that up.).

The price of 1 Bitcoin rose dramatically between March 2016 and March 2017. This is a move from around $400 to near $1000. What does this mean to you? Well, if you had bought 1 Bitcoin back then, you could have sold it and made over $500 in profit 12 months later.

 

I know, this just sounds like some “in-hindsight” stock advice, but this in entirely not the case – Bitcoin is on the rise and unlike purchasing arbitrary stocks in oil that you have no use for, even if you didn’t sell the Bitcoin you bought at $400, you can actually use it to buy things online.

Even if you didn’t spend it, the price is on a constant upward average price increase.

Think of it this way: Bitcoin is still considered to be in its early days.

To get a bit more technical on this subject, a lot of studying should be done but I will keep it short – the production of Bitcoin is halving – therefore its value is increasing. (Now you know everything you need to know about macroeconomics.)

The reality as of 2017, is that Bitcoin still resides in the dark corners of the internet. As enticing as it might be to buy into a virtual currency which, we should add, can be used to buy products from forward thinking companies like Tesla (a company at the forefront of technology), it is also the currency of choice for sites that would otherwise show up as “not secure” in your URL bar. Websites like the (now defunct) Silk Road for example…(see: Modafinil.).

Buuut whatever way you look at it, the list of websites is growing. And it will keep growing as long as there is internet, because as long as there is internet there will be virtual currency.

Whether that will be Bitcoin or not in future remains to be seen. As a matter of fact, there are multiple cryptocurrencies which we will be discussing in posts to come.

You should not be surprised when cash disappears entirely. With the recent calls for dispensing of the beloved 1 and 2p coins in the UK, calls from some corners of Europe to abolish cash altogether, it’s clear dramatic changes are on the way. And if you don’t want to regret missing the “Crypto-bubble” (just like you missed out the tech bubble, and the dot-com bubble before it, only to be rewarded with the Credit Crunch of 07-08) read a little and take a gamble.

This may be one of those opportunities that you thought you would never see again.

 

This article was first posted on The YP Zone. 

Before We Change Education, We Need to Re-Think Intelligence

Common Sense Contributors
-
0

by Claire Gillespie

Britain loves a hierarchy. If there’s one thing we do well, it’s maintaining a system of deciding who is better than who, and nowhere is this clearer than in education. The age-old competition between Russell Group universities and polytechnics, and Oxbridge and ‘the rest’ in general, has been part of university culture since time immemorial. Even as early as post-16 study, people are forced into boxes. You’re either vocational or academic, A Level or BTEC. But does this division still have any place in Britain in 2017? Does it really help our economy and workforce move forward if they’re more obsessed with where they study than what they study?

Somewhere along the way (around the time we decided polytechnic colleges needed to be renamed), we decided that it was university degrees or bust. We overloaded a system meant for a certain type of education and pushed tens of thousands of square pegs into round holes. We made subjects never meant to be constrained to libraries and lecture theatres and put them there anyway, then charged people who wanted to study them for the privilege.

With education funding contentious as ever, and barely mentioned in the Autumn 2017 Budget announcements, it’s worth looking at why we educate Britain the way we do, and the thinking behind it.

To do this we need to put away our own egos. Policy is typically made by people who are university-educated with the sorts of degrees these institutions were designed for. It is inevitable that they will want to defend the structures that gave them their privileges. It is wonderful to believe yourself intelligent, but it is not useful to have that attached to a piece of paper, or the name of an institution, especially not if you make the policies which define how other people study. So here it is: your degree does not make you smarter or better or even more qualified to do anything. What it does do is give you a set of skills and knowledge, but how you practise them is up to you, just remember that there are people without your education (bar doctors, lawyers and scientists etc.) who could probably do those things anyway.

Now that we’ve taken ourselves down a peg or two, we can get to work. The British education system is broken: it’s too expensive, too poorly funded and overburdened. We have created a society in which people do degrees they don’t want to do and have no use for, simply because they will give them the appearance of being educated. We lose people who could be busy innovating and creating because we’ve told them that studying classic French literature is the best way to show the world how smart they are. We don’t fund the institutions that could be helping them to develop entirely different skill sets which would really tap into their potential, and we tell everyone that going to these niche institutions is a marker of their inadequacy.

We want to be a country and an economy ‘fit for the future’, but we have to start by accepting that traditional forms of academic achievement have very little place in the future that technology and society are leading us towards.

Fight Night: Lomachenko Vs. Rigondeaux

Common Sense Contributors
-
1

Written by TCS Contributor, Akwasi Appiah.

Every now and then in boxing, the best fight the best. In the early hours of Sunday morning two men with a combined record of 893 wins to 14 losses, will go head to head in what is billed to be the most competitive boxing match of the year. It is the first time in boxing history where two men who are two-time Olympic Gold medallists will come head-to-head in the ring.

2017 has been an amazing year for boxing. We saw James Degale come off the deck to earn a draw with Badou Jack. Floyd Mayweather beat Connor Mcgregor in the highest grossing fight of all time. And last but not least, who could forget that night in Wembley stadium where Anthony Joshua knocked out Wladimir Klitschko in the 11th round. Unfortunately, the Lomachenko and Rigondeaux bout doesn’t carry the same attention as the aforementioned fights. But for the boxing purists, this event comes as an early Christmas gift.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Q4C5IuVng

Rigondeaux was the Golden boy of the Cuban boxing school until he defected in 2005. We see few pro-Cuban boxers due to the ban imposed by Castro in 1961 prohibiting professional boxing. Rigondeaux won Gold medals at both the Sydney and Athens games in the bantamweight division. After winning Gold twice, he took a speedboat through shark-infested waters to Miami to realise his dream of becoming the best pound for pound boxer of all time. On arrival, he proved his ability to adapt to the professional ranks and has amassed a clean record of 17 fights, 11 knockouts with no losses.

Lomachenko’s journey was arguably easier. Born in Ukraine he started boxing aged 5. Trained by his father he displayed natural ability for the sport. His father, recognising the importance of footwork, pulled him out of boxing and sent him to the national ballet academy to hone his skills. His sublime footwork is now on display for all to see. With only 9 professional fights, he is already a two-weight world champion. It took Floyd Mayweather double the number of fights to win one title let alone two.

This is a spectacle which will intrigue all; the coming together of the two most–skilled fighters in the world. How will two men who hit and often don’t get hit, impose their wills on each other? The edge must be given to Lomachenko. Being the younger, fresher fighter, will help him in the later rounds as will the 8lb weight advantage. However, Rigondeaux brings an experience and confidence with him into the ring. He has come off the canvas to win. He’s gone to points. He’s fought abroad. But all of this won’t matter at 2 am Sunday morning. What will matter is who has the greater will and for that display, I cannot wait.

 

Donald Trump & Theresa May: BFF’s Forever?

Emmabelle Nwadikwa
-
0
Donald Trump & Theresa May: BFF’s Forever?

The so-called friendship between Donald Trump and Theresa May is something that confuses the majority of us. The 45TH president of the United States of America has been one of the most controversial candidates in history. During his campaign his win seemed almost impossible with all the different allegations coming out against him. This wasn’t helped by the fact that he seems to also be an extremely outspoken man, one who doesn’t necessarily think before he speaks as he often seems to respond on impulse, something we haven’t seen in other presidential candidates. Not to mention the fact that no one seems to be able to stop Trump from tweeting his every thought. Whilst his behaviour may frighten people like me, clearly enough people either loved it or found him the lesser of two evils because it didn’t stop him from achieving his goal.

If that wasn’t shocking enough, I’d like to believe the majority of the British public were shocked by pictures emerging of the Prime Minister, Theresa May holding his hand as they walked through the White House. It has since been revealed that the reason there were seen to be holding has was so that May could assist Trump but this was only the start of Theresa May’s Trump issues. After neo-nazi’s rallied in Charlottesville – a rally that resulted in death – the outspoken president made a statement to say that there was blame on both sides, as opposed to just rebuking the far-right group for their actions. When May was called upon to condemn her new friend’s actions she repeatedly avoided doing so, and so a pattern emerged. All things Trump related may as well have become off the table for any media interview.

We saw a recent change in this when May finally spoke out against his actions by saying that it wasn’t right of him to retweet various anti-Muslim videos from a British far-right group. This, of course didn’t sit so well with Mr Trump who decided to express his frustrations on twitter by tweeting

@Theresa_May, don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine!

I, for one, had been wondering when Trump and May would finally have a public disagreement and how it would play out. Especially seeing as while it may seem that Americans are fine with Trump’s over exuberant nature, we Brits are known for having a ‘stiff upper lip’. Of course, in true British form Theresa May didn’t respond to the president’s tweet but it does beg the question, how long will Donald Trump get away with his actions? Will he continue to provoke world leaders and expect to remain consequence free? Does presidency mean that Mr Trump is suddenly untouchable? Will Theresa May be as protective of his future actions as she has been over his past actions? Or, my personal favourite question, when will Donald finally be impeached? To know the answer to any of them, we’re going to have to stick around to find out. I’ll bring the popcorn.

 

Diversity: The New Buzzword

Emmabelle Nwadikwa
-
0
Diversity: The New Buzzword

When some people hear the word diversity, all they think about is the dance group led by Ashley Banjo that unfairly lost out in Britain’s Got Talent in 2008. For others, they picture a group of middle-aged white male executives that control the boards of their offices and for very few, they see that one person of colour, female or member of the LGBT+ community that they work with.

While diversity itself is known to mean ‘a variety of different things’ why is it that we no longer accept this at face value? We no longer look at a team of people with different skill sets and call them a diverse team. We no longer look at a panel with different backgrounds and agree that the panel is diverse, we only seem to acknowledge diversity when it is something we can see at first glance and not something we have to dig deeper to understand.

Nicki Minaj at the BET Awards

In 2016 we saw the issue become subject of popular debate when the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite arose. Interestingly, Stacey Dash went on to comment on the fact that people of colour had created exclusive spaces for themselves such as BET (Black Entertainment Television) in fact she said “Either we want to have segregation or integration. And if we don’t want segregation, then we need to get rid of channels like BET and the BET Awards and the Image Awards, where you’re only awarded if you’re Black. If it were the other way around, we would be up in arms. It’s a double standard”.
However, although people of colour are the face of BET, they are not the only people that are nominated for BET awards, nor are they the only people to have won.

Can true diversity be found in situations where everyone appears to look the same? Does diversity only exist when it’s inclusive? In what some may call a hyper-sensitive society we have seen that there is a constant desire to please everyone. Is the most qualified person the person being called for the job? Or, is it possible that the person that’s the most qualified is being passed over for someone who may not have the same qualifications but who fills some sort of quota?

Of course, both things are possibilities. However, it is getting harder and harder to tell the difference and whilst some people may see quotas as a negative thing (as it may mean that the someone is getting passed over), I for one, see them as a positive thing. Quotas have meant an increase of minorities in spaces that have formerly been closed off to them. Quotas have meant that people have a foot in the door when the same doors have formerly been closed in their faces. Quotas allow for increased representation across the board which is not only healthy for the state of society but it is also healthy for the future. By seeing people that ‘look like them’ in spaces that weren’t necessarily created for them, the next generation of young people are able to aim for things that others may not have ever thought to aim for. Quotas quite literally create hope for the hopeless and that in itself is a reason to be grateful for them.

So while diversity may just be a buzzword for some, the quotas that it brings with them literally changes lives.

 

UK Banks Stand Firm To a Hard Brexit

Common Sense Contributors
-
0
UK Banks Stand Firm To a Hard Brexit

Written by TCS Contributor, Takudzwa Gezi

The Bank of England has said that all the UK major banks are able to cope with a ‘hard’ Brexit.

This comes after the Governor of BoE Mark Carney, had announced that the UK’s biggest lenders had passed the Bank’s stress tests. The Bank’s Financial Policy Committee (FPC) is also “taking action to ensure the financial system is resilient to a very broad range of risks”.

Some of the key points, which Mark Carney and the Bank of England raised, in reducing the impact of a ‘hard’ Brexit on the UK household banks, included:

  • Regulatory frameworks
  • Strong trade deal
  • Strong legislation
  • Impact on capital requirements

Grant Thornton Financial Services Group has pointed out that UK banks such as HSBC, USB, and Lloyds, will benefit from a ‘hard’ Brexit, by avoiding burdensome EU legislations, which include the bonus cap, and the restrictive employment rights. Michael Snapes, financial services director at PwC said, “There is some comfort to be had in the knowledge that the UK banking system is strong enough to withstand severe economics deterioration”.

Since the financial crisis of 2008, all the major UK banks have passed their stress tests.

On the flip side, one has to look at the possible risks of a ‘hard’ Brexit on UK Banks. “What we have to do is look at the tail risk – what could go wrong – and to ensure that the core of the system has enough capital and liquidity to withstand a shock to the financial system”, Carney pointed out.

If the UK is to leave the EU in a ‘sharp, disorderly’ fashion, there is certainly going to be some economical consequences. Given the worst-case scenario, there will be a rise in interest rates from 0.5% to 4% within 2 years, and the unemployment rate will rise from its current rate of 4.3% to over the 10% mark.

The Bank’s Governor has emphasised that this is an ‘unlikely event’, which the UK’s banking system is working to avoid. “UK banks could continue to support the real economy even in the event of a severely disruptive exit from the EU” he added.

Despite the potential risks of a ‘hard’ Brexit, the UK’s biggest lenders have been ticking off the right places within the Bank’s stress tests. HSBC, Standard Chartered, Lloyds Banking Group, Nationwide, and Santander, have all maintained their capital levels above the Bank’s stress tests minimum requirements.

The Chief Financial Officer of RBS concluded by saying that the UK banks “continue to make progress towards the stress-resilient bank we aspire to be and 2017 represented another year of material improvement”. At least we can look forward to some good news in the new year.

José Mourinho’s Uncertain Future

Fidelis Olaniran
-
0
José Mourinho’s Uncertain Future

In recent weeks, there has been a lot of speculation on the destination of current Manchester United boss José Mourinho. José has expressed that Manchester United will not be his last job and that he cannot compete with the likes of Sir Alex Ferguson or Arsene Wenger when it comes to longevity.

Image result for jose mourinho

So far, José Mourinho is having a successful season at Manchester United. (source: Reuters) 

This statement reflects his managerial career, where he has spent no more than 4 years at any one club. Before taking charge at Manchester United, Mourinho managed rivals, Chelsea for 2 years. José still hasn’t signed an extension or new contract, even though Manchester United are planning to offer him a lucrative deal aimed to keep him at the club for a longer tenure. However, the notion of Mourinho remaining at the helm of the club was thrown into the wind, when he openly praised Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) for being “Special”. This is leading many to believe that he will make a summer move the French capital. France poses a unique challenge for Mourinho. Ligue 1 is the only competitive league where Jose is yet to win a domestic trophy. Over the years, we have seen the ‘special one’ dominate in the top tier leagues of  Spain, England, and Italy. PSG’s recent summer transfers have resulted in the squad being labeled as one of the strongest in Europe. For José, this is possibly a very attractive proposition. However, José continues to vehemently deny that he has on the move: 

 

“I have no intention of joining Paris Saint-Germain”. José on PSG move (source: The Metro) 

The main question is if José Mourinho does leave for PSG next summer, which manager will have the ability to cope with the pressure that comes with being Manchester United boss? Individuals like Carlo Ancelotti, Frank De Boer or even a Manchester legend like Ryan Giggs are strong potential replacements. However, we are just reaching the halfway point of the season and a lot will change in the coming months. 

Female Genital Mutilation vs. Western Culture

Common Sense Contributors
-
0
Female Genital Mutilation vs. Western Culture

Female Genital Mutilation i.e. FGM is an ongoing topic for discussion that has brought to light a lot of controversy in the area of circumcision. FGM also known as female circumcision is a worldwide cultural practice carried out in over 28 countries in Africa such as Sudan and Somalia, where 98% of the females are subjected to carry out the practice. The practice is said to be a symbolic representation of female chastity. An assurance of safeguarding both a woman’s purity and the honour of her family. In some parts of Nigeria (and other parts of the African continent), female circumcision symbolically represents ‘the cutting out of the devil’ (the clitoris) because it is the most sexual pleasing part of the female genitalia. This to many sounds barbaric and in fact inhumane which is why it has been a criminal act in the UK since 1985, as it was seen as a form of violence against females.

FGM has become one of the most talked about topics in British politics which is why, for the general election that just passed in June, parties such as UKIP promised to confront and deal with the continuity of FGM in the UK. They announced plans for ‘mandatory annual medical checks for girls in ‘at-risk minority’ (read: black) groups in a bid to stop female genital mutilation in Britain.

UK Independence Party’s Integration Agenda

Statistics show that from April 2015 to March 2016 there have been 5,700 new cases of FGM in the UK, 18 of the cases where undertaken in the UK, including 11 women and girls who were also born in the UK.  FGM is an ongoing battle here in the UK as many families still get skilled cutters from their home countries to cut their daughters. This is against the law, which is where the major issue is. People with customs such as FGM feel it is fair and necessary for them to practice it wherever they wish, regardless of the law, but no cultural practice should be above the law. In years to come, this problem will hopefully be completely resolved as many movements and talks about FGM have risen over the last 32 years with the objective of re-educating the minds of the people in the UK and around the world. However, the major question still stands whether circumcision should be allowed at all for both males and females in the UK.

If you or someone you know is at risk of FGM, get in touch with charities such as NESTAC and FORWARD.

1...899091Page 91 of 91

Editor Picks

Must Read

Hot Topics

About Us

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

Contact us: hello@tcsnetwork.co.uk

Follow Us

© Copyright - Newspaper theme by tagDiv