The 11th Commandment

Recently, the Church of England opposed a movement to allow women to become bishops within their religious community. With the failure to accept this modern move, the church only makes itself even more seemingly outdated and outmoded precursor to 21^st century living.

The proposal, rejected on the 20^th November, refused the ordination of women bishops largely on the grounds of tradition. However, in an era where tradition is often disregarded for the latest in innovation, and equality is always at the forefront of Western democracy, this argument does not appeal to the public en masse.

Perhaps you might cry that this in itself is blasphemy and indicative of how far Western civilization has moved away from religious doctrine.

Yet, religion is, by its definition, a system of personal beliefs (“The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God”). If we are to galvanise a generation to return to God, then we need build out from the belief that God is all understanding, all knowing and all forgiving.

Surely, this God in all his wisdom would not allow for women bishops if he thought it sacrilege. You may deem that statement something akin to a religious nut. But the inverse argument is being upheld in practice. God has not given a sign, so let’s not move forward.

A Christ-like prophet today would surely amend a great many of the practical sides of the Christian doctrine. The fundamentals would of course be the same: but, restrictive and outdated views, informed by gender, orientation, race and other discriminatory factors would be all but removed.

The ‘example’ of Christ who had 12 male disciples is often used as a staunch argument for preventing women entering these positions in the church. However, Jesus, an outsider in the message he preached, needed male figures to continue to carry his message if it were to last and survive. Women of the 1^st century, through to women of the 20^th century, hardly held social influence at large. Women weren’t sidelined, just fulfilled roles that social positioning would allow them.

Now, social equality means that stigmas attached to the fairer sex are not at all restrictive. Why would religion keep up this pretence.

More, can someone please explain this decision with any rationale when a Queen can be supreme dictator (or whatever the official term actually is) of the Church of England, and well, the same one has been for the past 60 years. There is no logic. At all.

Besides, if we’re all wrong about this equality for all (which from just about every teaching ever, I’d say we’re not), our all merciful God will forgive us, because the omnipresent being will comprehend that we did it with the best of intentions.

All that has been achieved is a further zone of religious exclusion. And if anything, surely that is the larger of these two sins by any measurement.

#Demo2012: Demolition of University As We Know It?

Today, a third year of student protesting descended on London. However, the crucial difference is that participants will be amongst the first to actually pay the increased 9k tuition fees that came into force this academic year. Whilst the previous efforts have been dismissed in cavalier fashion, put down to rowdy or disrespectful students, here for the first time in the campaign process will the voices of those directly affected be added in force to the fight.

Westminster need face these demonstrations and their impact with an open mind, because the increase in fees may have quietly ushered in a new era in the history of the English University institution.

Now that the fees have been implemented, it would be unbelievably difficult to reduce them once more: there would be riots over those penalised, a further reorganisation of the Student Loans Company, endless paperwork for universities to reassess its student population.

Yet, the 9k barrier doesn’t even proffer the solutions that many politicians advocated it would. A report by the Higher Education Policy Institute, a highly respected think-tank, professed that the new system was actually due to cost taxpayers more money in the long run, proclaiming the possibility of a £1billion a year black hole.

Possible ‘solutions’ only sound like fuel for fire in another possible student rebellion. Besides, can youth culture stand another such mass movement without galvanising some sort of modern 21^st century revolution?

It hardly seems as though any young adult will be pleased with either the prospect of having to pay more back on their university loans (with what money you may ask in such an economic climate with rising youth unemployment?), or satisfied with the possibility of fewer university places (the UCAS system already limits universities: how can fewer places be fairly allocated? And how will this affect overall employability prospects?). It’s hardly motivating or economy-saving stuff. What austerity drive Nick Clegg?

The Hepi report describes civil servants as having made "highly uncertain and optimistic assumptions" on funding. Findings cite that the assumption of an average net fee charged by universities would be £7,500 a year, but the true figure is nearer to £8,300, thus forcing students to borrow more. Further, questions the assumption that the average male graduate will be earning £75,000 a year in 30 years, the period by which loans have to be repaid (already a 25% reduction on earlier projections).

The higher fees regime also adds 0.2 percentage points to the Consumer Price Index – thus triggering larger rises in state benefits and civil service pensions of between £420m and £1.14bn a year.

Oh and then fees are only recuperated when graduates find employment of course. Please sort out the economy in a forward thinking manner, rather than taking a backwards approach. Jobs first; less economic turmoil. Hell, I’m an English student and this makes sense.

David Cameron and co may face a heavy backlash not only in these immediate costings, but how students approach their university careers.

Picture the scene: it’s the middle of September, I’m unpacking my boxes of student life essentials, hanging up posters of some indie band and quotes from my favourite popular comedy series. Sounds like your typical moving in day.

But no: I’m unloading everything into the dorms of a prestigious American university (college, whatever). The reason? For a much similar annual cost, I can study for my degree, whilst living in a different country, experiencing their culture, seeing many of the famous sites; from New York to Washington, Florida to Vegas. I can make contacts and friends abroad; links that can prove invaluable when searching, fruitlessly, for a job in the UK.

The appeal of this is all too apparent: students, young, free and with a world to experience, are at the first point in their lives without their parents, and that can offer a whole lot of new lifestyle choices!

Perhaps the only way to counter such a move would be the rise of private universities in the UK, which would undercut the national average cost and appear much more cost effective. But then, of course, there would be the problem of whether these institutions would deliver reputable degrees to its graduates, and whether employers would believe these universities to offer any valuable qualifications.

Essentially, the system either restricts students and the taxpayer in its costs and fees, or restricts the choice of education through conventions.

But while there are students empowered by the movement to reject 9k, and if the general public were more educated on the gaping financial hole that threatens to consume their income, there stands resolute chance for a government U-Turn.

Then again, what turmoil would that entail for the economy and public faith?

Stuck On Repeat?

Recently, the BBC ran a feature, posing the question "Can You Shape your Children's Taste in Music?" It is certainly a goal that many parents aspire to achieve, even for the selfish reasons that they can continue to listen to their own favourite albums from yester year, and can have some ‘decent music’ in that traditional five hour car journey to see the family for the holidays.

Every time I return home from university, my parents comment (without fail) on how nice and quiet the house has been without me within approximately two minutes of walking through the door. Hell, I haven’t even had a cup of tea yet. Great welcome, guys.

But mainly, this is due to the instant welcome I get from my siblings, with whom there is an instant need to trade the latest gossip, jokes and musical trends.

Loading up my phone to browse YouTube, the groans of ‘Remember when we were in charge of the music in this house?’ hang heavy in the air.

Perhaps for a good reason. This summer, a Spanish headed report published its findings on modern pop music, only to conclude that, basically, everything sounds the same. Yes, punk and prog-rock happened. That was the 70s. Now, each assault on the chart is bound up in some squiffy basslines and a vapid string of lyrical spew, probably formulated by some questionable tin of value alphabet soup.

No wonder parents try to influence their children’s taste in music. The prolific back catalogue of British music has somehow become an untapped mine of musical sincerity and ingenuity in an age of increased music video circulation thanks to the internet.

You may think that the world wide web would have broadened our horizons, but simply clicking onto YouTube brings up the trending and popular videos that we all just have to watch. Few tracks from the 70s or 80s, hell even the 90s, feature in that promotion list. And thank god for the John Lewis adverts eh? If it weren’t for their constant covers, maybe half the population would never discover the old classics.

I’m not expecting teenagers to suddenly blare out Queen or Duran Duran with the same arbritrary excitement as Gangham Style (admit it, you’re dancing in your head now, aren’t you?!), but it is somewhat surprising in light of the Spanish (music) inquisition that people remain interested and invested in the charts, right?

Well, I find that these articles simplify the plethora of styles afforded by modern pop music. There has certainly been as much diversification as there has been industry monotony over the past decade. R’n’B, hip-hop, rap, dubstep have all come into the mainstream in the past ten years or so alone.

While these appear staple sounds to the modern day chart, their relative time spent being blasted from radio stations is still quite short. How long did the flavour of The Beatles last? Queen’s rock? The Clash’s punk? All these genres have proliferated the charts for short periods, around 10 years at best. Then the next musical innovation is adorned as quick as in the previous era.

Okay, I’ll admit. There’s a lot to be said in favour of the diversity of past musicians. Lyrics are so often more intuitive and reflective of society; instruments are used to convey meaning, not just drive a beat. Finding a classic Red Hot Chili Peppers album, or an Oasis gem is sometimes much more exciting than any new material on the charts.

But then, it’s popular music for a reason. It takes all the popular elements and twists them into a conformist notion of what we all like to listen to. Again and again.

Many of the iconic bands are heralded as true musicians because they allowed their audience a sense of rebellion against the mainstream, and, perhaps more importantly, against their parents.

Well, perhaps there is room for more apathy in a Western civilisation that has undergone a massive change in political and social rights since the mid-60s. But a 21^st century life culture, plagued with social media, increased peer pressure, recession, consumerism and wars is certainly the type of place for musical revolutions to continue. The assault of pop music is not something ‘throwaway’ and repetitive: it is something that in this slightly more apathetic era, the masses can utilise to forget the extent of their problems, before being galvanised into action by the next prog-rock wave.

Besides, my grandparents have expressed their like for Maroon 5, No Doubt, Calvin Harris and even Riri before now. There’s no reason that children shaping their parents taste in music is something that shouldn’t be encouraged.

The Value of Work Experience

Originally written for The Guardian Comment is Free.

Another busy week is ending at The Guardian. A busy week which I've experienced first hand, taking up a placement opportunity at the newspaper. I've covered activist Malala, sleuthed James Bond's espionage hot spots, and been deluged with storm waves following Sandy on the live blog. But I'm not about to walk up to the news desk and demand a pay cheque for the week. When I leave the office this afternoon there will be no cash in hand for my hard work, but experience, the value of which is immeasurably greater.

Experience is a compulsory element of the graduate CV, even on a tight budget. Gone are the days when fresh faced University leavers could walk into an office with a smattering of A Levels and a role of paper from a Red Brick institute: education is no longer indicative of employment.

In the wake of the indiscretions of Blair's office, my friends and I soon found ourselves discussing the inevitability of unpaid experience as the only means by which to further our career prospects in a stormy recession. Rising youth unemployment and an increase in degree holders makes it almost impossible for companies to commit to contracts and long term employment without some proof of previous relevant work.

The almost universal problem in accessing this experience though transcends from the fact that a large proportion of the most established and reputable internships will be placed in London. I, like many of my friends, do not live in the capital. (Un)surprisingly, London just so happens to be expensive and out of many budgets. This fact severely limits and disables the options of many undergraduates searching for that big break. Yet talking with a friend who just started an internship in London last month, she said that “there was no alternative” to coming to the city, “no matter the cost”.

According to Intern Aware, not only are the majority of placements in London, where the cost of living is the highest in the UK, but The IPPR estimated in 2010 that there were around 100,000 unpaid internships in the UK. Of course, the problem is that unpaid internships are corrosive to social mobility and opportunity in a number of circumstances. If you cannot afford to support yourself for the period of the placement (fortunately for myself, this was achieved cheaply by bribing my aunt with some chocolate and leaving her a bottle of wine this morning), then there is little chance of substantial opportunity to further your horizons. Perhaps one placement is justifiable, but two or three consecutive stints of unpaid work leave students add a gaping hole to their already spiralling debt.

However, for my part, work experience is something that every student needs to acquire, regardless of wage. This is probably a divisive and contentious view, but let's be clear, I'm not one of these stereotyped students that can ring up mummy and daddy and ask for some money to be transferred so as I can enjoy London. My parents can't afford that additional expense, and frankly, nor do I expect to put that burden upon them. The student loan is also not the endless pot of Irish gold it appears to be in Freshers Week.

Yet, work experience and internships completed for free say a great deal more about the competency and dedication of the young employee. In a climate where companies continually bemoan the problem of telling applicants apart, those who have volunteered themselves to complete placements with minimal monetary support display a vivacity so essential to the work place (especially in the media).

Companies provide these placements to people entirely untrained, with little experience. Despite the brevity of the work, paid staff will have to take time out of their schedule to train, advise, guide the intern and is probably under constant supervision. Not to be condescending, but it's hardly realistic to expect to walk into The Guardian and land the front page whilst on placement.

Just as you pay for the service of university, work experience is something you pay for by making sacrifices of sorts. It's a privilege, not a right. Not that this statement should detract or act as an exoneration of Tony Blair's office. It's just, from the student outrage, you'd be forgiven for thinking this was a new problem.

Working for free is inherently integrated into the system of employment. I've covered some big issues this week for The Guardian: do I feel exploited? No: I feel privileged to be given this opportunity, to have some world renowned and respected journalists that lead their field have faith in me to turn out a piece suitable for publication.

Rewriting my CV this weekend, I'll be able to send out my portfolio with a massive boost to my prospective employers. For a short term inconvenience now, I stand to benefit enormously in the future. No one had really questioned this practice until now.

Perhaps a system in which work placements offer means-tested assistance, in a similar way to the student finance service, would proffer a much more accessible work place and encourage a larger number of students who believe their backgrounds hinder their progress to look into experience. I've hardly had to pay for anything this week, but it would be nice to go up to the news desk editor, bung a load of Oyster card receipts in his hand and get £30 back. For a student, that's a two-week food shop. My train fare would feed me until New Year's.

Unpaid internships may present themselves as social engineering in another format because of their obvious limitations, but they are social characterising. Hand in hand with the experience comes invaluable training and character building by observing the tough post-university world through a different, direct lens.

The comments of my friend in a London bar earlier this week strike a chord: “no alternative, no matter the cost.” If we expect employers to take young new employees seriously, we should first demonstrate our dedication to our crafts. The school of “something for nothing” is no longer a sustainable attitude for any graduate.

Driving To The Brink

It’s probably a fair assumption that even in Britain there remains some low-level of gender discrimination, a mark of a bygone era of patriarchies. More often than not, this continues to manifest itself in various forms of slanderous remarks, wittingly made acceptable by terming it a joke. Perhaps most prevalent amongst these ‘joking’ insults is the seemingly innocent observation that “women drivers can’t drive”.

Yet, there are places where this same phrase is taken more literally: women in Saudi Arabia are actually banned from driving as part of the law. And a law that seems without any reason to support it, with the King of Saudi Arabia repeatedly professing that “there will come a time for the law to change.”

Women of the state appear to have gotten bored with the deliberation over when to lift the ban. Today, females staged a mass protest in its most demonstrative form: those that held an international licence were urged to get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and drive.

Punishment for the offence is more sever than a Westerner might anticipate. Violaters are subject to a wide range of possible outcomes, from prison sentences to public lashings. More, these women are often subject to suffer the wider implications for their actions: they can lose their jobs, receive hate mail, threats online and lose their friends. Simply for taking control.

Imagine having to find a dependent to ferry you everywhere all the time. Not exactly the violation of human rights that is foregrounded by most, but a slight on freedom none the less.

Yet, I find myself wondering whether it is not a slightly hypocritical view for the West to suddenly be outraged by actions that these very countries condoned just 150 years ago (and even more recently). The ban reads to me as though a draconian, Victorian measure: and after all the Victorian era was the golden era of modern enlightenment. Perhaps this discrepancy in gender equality is something that each region and country must contend itself with in order to reach a cosmopolitan attitude.

Of course, the reasons to leave all laws as they are strike a reader immediately. Saudi Arabia is in the centre of a hot bed of political unrest and uncertainty. The Middle East has this past year ignited with uprisings and revolts that have marred the region with destruction and death. In a country that remains prosperous and with relatively low crime, there is no sense in disrupting the current politics in case it proffers the spark for wider social revolutions. Besides, a large enough proportion of the population seem so acceptant of the driving ban that their instant reaction is to shun those who make a stand.

Indeed, the powerful Shura Council have widely promoted a highly propaganda based study on the effect of women driving in society and claim that any licence for women to get behind the wheel is a full throttle approach to an increase in divorce, prostitution, drug abuse and child baring out of wedlock. How should the women make themselves heard against such controversial views?

A starting block would be ensuring the incoming choice to vote: 2015 set to be the year in which women are included in the voting system for the first time. King Abdullah, at 87, may not live to see such an event however, and there are worries that any possible successor may revoke the right.

The worry is that anarchy can come from the smallest of changes in one of the most volatile areas of the planet at the moment. Yet surely this fevour for activism is more likely should changes not present themselves as in the offing? It will only be a certain amount of time before neighbouring action causes enough friction to instigate action, and that would bring about the very scenario the government are trying to avoid.

Whilst Saudi Arabia is not a Western country, and does not want to be perceived as adhering to Western norms or culture, some lenience may be the only way to ensure a continued peace and stable state.

The Full Food Picture

If the worldwide events of the last 18 months in particular have taught us anything, it is that social media should no longer be under-estimated as a medium of leverage and influence. From the Egyptian revolution, to the London riots, to the continuing Greek debt crisis, the internet sphere of communication is sure to pioneer social revolutions from here on out.

This idea is evidenced as one youngster’s blog is banned in Scotland, with the effect that the already popular NeverSeconds site has become an overnight sensation and many have rallied behind the posts.

The premise behind the blog is a primary school child taking pictures of her school dinners each lunchtime, uploading them to her blog alongside health ratings, mouthfuls, pricing and other details about the meal.

In the past month, the blog has managed to secure support and interest around the world, young Martha – known online as ‘Veg’ – has been inundated with images of school meals from across the world, with those who forward photos applying the blog’s standards of information about each meal.

Such an easy concept, the blog has not only risen to prominence on the internet, but has caught the attention of important chefs, such as Jamie Oliver.

Yet, the Argyll and Bute council banned the youngster from uploaded pictures of the school food to her blog following a local newspaper article on the site with the headline “Time to fire the dinner ladies”. The council issued a statement in which it explained that since coverage of the blog had raised issues and concern for the jobs of catering staff at the school, a decision had been made to stop photos being taken. In addition it suggested that “The photographic images uploaded appear to only represent a fraction of the choices available to pupils”.

Controversially banning the blog has sparked an internet wide rally to arms to lift the ban on Martha’s blog, which not only worked, but has generated many tens of thousands of pounds for Martha’s chosen charity, Mary’s meals. The amount raised at the time of writing is in excess of £30,000, up from just £2,000 (a mean feat for a primary school child) on Thursday.

Banning the blog appears to have been a rash and ill-considered decision by council officials. Whilst their claim that the subjective opinions of Martha have caused concern and worry to the staff need be considered, the child and her father had previously sought permission to start up the blog, which the school granted. Withdrawing that right only seems to spark concern over the quality of food on offer all the more, as if the catering companies and canteen staff have something to hide (Martha never found any hair in her food at least!).

Over the course of the blog, the quality of the food that Martha has photographed appears to gradually be improving, which suggests that the school were considering the impacts of the site and changing their services for the better – a move to be commended if anything.

Moreover, it appears to me that the council have failed to capitalise on a unique opportunity of cultural exchange. The blog, receiving international hits and interest from youth to adults alike, could have promised to be the hub of a revolutionary scheme for school meal exchanges. With interesting dishes from Taiwan to Finland uploaded, schools nationwide could have used the blog as a sharing centre to encourage children to try and sample foods from across the globe, teaching about different cultures, healthy food choices and why diets differ to accommodate lifestyles worldwide. In addition, Martha’s blog could have been used as a social tool, allowing users and researchers the opportunity to investigate foodstuffs available to different parts of the world.

A Mary's Meals spokesman said: "We are overwhelmed by the huge response to her efforts today which has led to so many more people donating to her online donation page.

"Thanks to this fantastic support, Martha has now raised enough money to build a kitchen in Malawi for children receiving Mary's Meals as part of our Sponsor A School initiative and has broken the record for hitting a Sponsor A School online fundraising target in the quickest amount of time".

Freedom of opinion and speech needs to be extended to the internet, and it strikes me that this was a grave infringement on the very purpose of the expressionist mode of the blog. Fortunately, in this case, the block backfired and promoted further visits to the site in question; but should the internet become a zone of censorship, there could be grave implications for freedom of expression.

In this case, the collective communities of blogs, Twitter, Facebook and social medias used the arsenal at their disposal to repeal the ban and this is testament to the way in which these domains are becoming more integrated into society not only as a record of our lives, but a historical record of our times, our generation and the momentous occasions to which we bear witness. 

Jewel in the Crown

This weekend sees the country celebrate the rare occasion of a monarch reigning for 60 years, with Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee.

Events to mark the historic moment have been held nationwide, and it is difficult to escape from the bombardment of programmes across the television and radio that proffer discussion and debate on the past six decades.

Similar to the glorious era that saw Queen Victoria on the throne, the Queen’s reign has seen revolutions in lifestyle, communication, opinions, fashions, economy, politics, society and any other aspect of life that one might care to mention.

However, whilst Elizabeth’s great-great-grandmother was a respected symbol of power worldwide, with Britain at the height of her Empire, our Queen does not appear to command the same sentiments from her peoples in this country, somewhat a figurehead of a bygone age.

Yes, congratulations to the Queen for being born of the right family and living for a very long time afterwards some might scoff. Well done on following up an ancient institution of praising a single figure sent from God in an increasingly agnostic populous. Kudos on ‘forming’ our governments, that are just as scandalous as the rule of a single monarch was to in the Tudor era. Hurrah. Cakes and ices all round.

Yet, perhaps such cynical pessimism should be locked away in the Tower.

Imagine being made head of state in almost 20 countries around the world, having a Commonwealth thrust upon you and suddenly being under the scrutiny of millions in an era of unprecedented media intrusion. And having that job for 60 years. Thought the proposition of retiring at 67 was a bad idea did we? I’m sure Elizabeth would have loved that privilege.

As Queen, her majesty is to represent a symbol of British resilience, strength and reserve. This fabric of humanity is something bred into the Queen from her childhood, that saw her father overcome impediments to lead a nation as a beacon through World War Two. She is not likely to give up her throne before death because her predecessors instilled a sense of pride and responsibility into her that few can understand. Integrity of the nation has shifted dramatically since the 1950s, but the Queen remains a stonewall symbol of old fashioned values integrating with modern man.

Admittedly, the power of the royal family is far from the absolute rule of those just a couple of centuries ago; but if anything the quintessential Britishness that the royals represent has grown in purpose.

Consider the French, who, in the middle of Eurocrisis, face a loss of identity to the mega-power of Germany and who look back on their own bloody usurping of monarchy with some gruesome horror. Or the Russians, who deposed of their Tsar amidst waging war, yet are left with a vast void, empty landscapes with no symbol of power.

Many European counterparts have no resolute figures that represent the proud heritage of their nation in the way that the royal family afford our country.

Modern society may deem that those in Buckingham Palace are relics of a bygone age; and yet their lives continue to provide a microcosm of social norms and wants. Never before has a cross-generation of imperial powers captured the public imagination as the current Windsor family. Perhaps Diana rocketed the royals to en vogue status, and her legacy is that the family are much more public property than before, an idea reignited by the marriage of Kate Middleton to William. Whilst the Queen is the staunch, strong and determined head of the family, she remains in the public eye and appears genuinely interested in maintaining links and visits to other Commonwealth nations. Her grandchildren are magnets of an eclectic mix of social respectability on the one hand, with numerous awards for their fighting and fundraising efforts, and extravagant parties on the other. Never has a previous century enjoyed such an intimate insight to regal routines.

As such, the jubilee is not so much a celebration of the power of the monarch, all but absorbed by government, but of the new generation of sovereign, who find themselves dedicated anew to the role of representing the sensibilities, morals and behaviours that are such causes for national pride.

A Greek Revolution?

Greek President Karolos Papoulias has faced difficult circumstances and situations in his short period in power in Athens.

Yet, it seems that his short spell as President may end sooner than had been hoped by international officials as last-ditch talks with various party members to secure support appear to have been fruitless.

Attempts to form a coalition and avert a further set of elections are Papoulias’ primary concern: even higher than economic issues. Should the Greek populace be put to the vote again, there is sure to be all manner of civil reactions from apathy to unrest.

Certainly, the Greeks will have lost all belief in the abilities of their leaders to govern and manage the state properly and efficiently. At best, politicians can hope for a resolution between party factions, for any further public disgrace could spell the end of Greek’s current political system.

In the event of an election, whilst a few may look with disinterest on a failing succession of Presidents and parties, the recent demonstrations and violence that have spread across the country suggest the possibility of widespread anarchism and potential revolution.

Of course, extremist positions that promote Greek exit from the Eurozone appear all the more enticing whilst faced with current alternatives. Riddled with debt, a persistently shrinking economy and mounting unemployment, Greece is certainly not the hotbed of industry and business that marked the new millennium.

Last week, a majority of Greeks voted for parties that want to rip up the country's bailout agreement with the European Union and International Monetary Fund (IMF) - including neo-Nazis.

The biggest winner was the leftist anti-bailout coalition, Syriza, whose share of the vote more than tripled and who describe the austerity imposed by the bailout as "barbaric".

Yet, the main problem that any incoming government could face is that there is no official guidance on a country exiting the EU. No, the naïve, bright brains behind the introduction of the EU did not foresee any member country wanting to leave the zone and so did not prepare for such an event.

Therefore, Greece could essentially issue a statement to Brussels stating its intent to leave the EU and then default on its debts. Its second default, that is.

The economic repercussions across both the EU and Greece however could be catastrophic as further member states could decide that restrictive measures on their economies are no longer suitable. As such, contributors such as the UK and Germany lose billions of euros in funds that have been pumped into these nations.

Meanwhile, a new Greek government could not guarantee the stability of any currency that it introduces or predict the volatility of markets towards the new position of the country.

Greece would probably have to impose capital controls to prevent all the money leaving, much as Malaysia did in 1998 after the Asian financial crisis.

So in the best-case scenario, Greece would have no buying power, and everything would be expensive: extremely expensive.

However, the play would be based around the hope that with such a weak currency, the economy would grow rapidly.

Whilst this route would be expensive and painful, it might appease those voters who feel manipulated and controlled by central authorities in Brussels who they believe have no appreciation of their situation. If the hypothetical economic reinvigoration were to pay off, to pardon the pun, it could be the lighting spark for further action in the EU zone and render relations difficult across the EU, ushering in a new era of European co-operation, or lack thereof.

Redefining Europe?

In a historic moment, this weekend saw a new president elected in France. But this is not a simple handover from one leader to another. French politics has been shaken and the results are clear to see.

Francois Hollande received around 52% of the vote to wave Sarkozy from office. But Hollande rise to President-elect was anything but smooth: yet perhaps the most overwhelming hurdle was the inherent psychology of French citizens, apparently predisposed in favour of right-wing politicians.

Sarkozy’s Union for a Popular Movement (UPM) party was a centre right organisation, and ever since the 90s, the French presidency has exclusively belonged to the right. More so, there is only one blemish on the right’s record of power since 1958: Francois Mitterrand, who served the country as president from the 80s till the mid-90s, is the only left wing leader in more than half a century. On top of that, Sarkozy is the first French president not to have won a second term in over thirty years. Certainly, the statistics were stalked in the incumbent head-of-state’s favour.

Therefore, whilst the media may be drawing attention to numerous bits of luck on the part of the incoming president, and a multitude of misfortune on the part of the departing, there was first and foremost a seeming political allegiance, a political bond, between president and people that needed to be severed.

Perhaps the legacy of Mitterrand still holds coinage with voters in the European country. After all, Francois successfully deployed a substantial economic turnaround, made sweeping technology changes, supported various activist movements and carefully balanced the power of France within Europe and the world. His period of power produced a France that was not only one of the strongest countries at the close of the twentieth century, but in its strongest position across the century as a whole.

As such, in times of similar economic failings, a possible identity crisis and continued French resistance and demonstrations against French rulings, Hollande appears a candidate very much in touch with his people, dubbed Francois II (signifying him as the second coming of Mitterrand). Other headlines proclaim him as ‘Mr Normal’.

Indeed, French presidencies of the late twentieth century were either held by old, hardened politicians, or apparent upstarts who had rose through their party ranks too quick for sufficient experience.  Here is an elect who not only has the fine-balance of experience and youth on his side, but is so seemingly straight-forward, if not a little reserved, that he has won the French people with his honesty and genuine persona.

A front-page "Letter to Mr President" by Francois-Regis Hutin in Ouest France wishes Mr Hollande "good luck". The paper says that "we count on you to arouse the dynamism of all the French... to reconcile the French, to help overcome the split between the included and the excluded, young people and old people, town and country, workers and pensioners, rich people and poor people."

Of course, this tackles the failings that are laid at the steps of Sarkozy’s regime. He was either despised as a friend of the rich by the left, or seen as the man that broke his word by the right, or by most as the man that promised reform, began to make steps in that direction and stopped far short of completion.

These issues need be addressed by the new President for sure. His period in charge will prove pivotal certainly to the shape of the French twenty-first century, if not for the most part of the next millennia. Hollande will govern a country where, as the historian and economist Nicolas Baverez says, "By 2025, we will know if France still ranks as a leading nation in the world."

Yet despite the new appeal of Hollande’s practicality and placidness, his offer of change and consolidation, there is remarkably little difference between the centre left and centre right candidacy campaigns. The deficit will be tackled slower under Hollande, and with more dependence on taxes, but otherwise, there is not too much that would rock the boat about this leader.

His trail, though igniting people with the promise of a zero deficit by 2017, has left little impression of the long term policies and positions of the President: rather, people have been swept along with the fervour of change, the promise of Mr Normal. After all, Hollande appeared less focussed on austerity measures that were favoured by his predecessor and Merkel. And with their policies only bringing about rising unemployment and debts, the public support has suddenly dried up for their strict measures.

All that is sure of Hollande’s term is that his decisions will carve out the path of future France: either rising like the beacon of the Eiffel from the storm of the Seine, or reaffirm dwindling power that would leave French surrendering to the mercy of Germans and Britons alike for the third time in a century.

Religious Misunderstandings and the Case of Cardinal Sean Brady

Religion is increasingly seen as outdated, outmoded and outranked by twenty-first century dilemmas such as politics, economics and the trivial but trendy fashion scenes. In fact, despite being classed a Catholic country, it gradually appears that we are perhaps more catholic in culture than by practice.

We distance ourselves from religion, which seems logical given that these organisations once proffering hope feature in our lives more and more through media stories, and negative media stories at that.

Whether it’s an anti-gay movement, or a slur on Islam, the religion crisis continuously rears its head and is so often something that twenty-first century paraphernalia attempts to shield us from.

Take, for example, the current case of Cardinal Brady, wrapped amidst a certain fervour concerning a, somewhat archetypal news piece, of paedophilia within the church.

On Tuesday, a BBC documentary revealed that in 1975, a 14-year-old boy who had been sexually abused by a paedophile priest, Fr Brendan Smyth, gave the then Fr Brady the names of other children who had been abused.

The scandal however is focussed on the fact that the Father did not then proceed to inform either parents or relevant police officials about the information that had been divulged to him.

Yet, whilst many people have suddenly jumped on the bandwagon, so to speak, in support of the Cardinal’s removal, that quick logic ignores cornerstone doctrine of the church itself that has been respected for centuries.

The idea that most probably held the Father’s tongue was that sanctity of confession, where the priest is not allowed to repeat, by oath, anything which he has been told over the course of the religious practice.

It is a fairly obstinate routine for twenty-first century officials, but it has well served various people across the millennia as a source of forgiveness and secrecy. Since it is not clear whether this confused teenager was more confused rather than angry, there is a problematic situation in deciding how far the priest is guilty of any wrong-doing.

This is not necessarily to read as an exoneration: from my perspective, the priest should have acted to protect those of his parish. However, it highlights that perhaps the now cardinal has risen to his current position by always practicing the letter of religious teachings. His mediation of his role has been taken extremely seriously and in fact he could consider that repeating something spoken in confidence would in fact injure his religious duties.

Different ideals between religion and other aspects of society are frequent cause for divide then, and there are calls for reformation of practice. Yet, it is interesting that this year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the inauguration of the Second Vatican Council which made profound reforms in the Church. The Roman Catholic mind-set is one in which admissions and revisions have been granted for this age of society, even if others think it needs to go further.

Whilst the 2001 census found more than 71% of people in the UK to deem themselves Catholic, a Guardian/ICM pollin 2006 found that just 33% describe themselves as "a religious person" while 82% see religion as a cause of division and tension between people. The Ipsos MORI poll in 2003 reported that only 18% were "a practising member of an organised religion".

Marred by a crisis of faith and a constant string of negative images from child abuse to supporting social inequalities, the Catholic church, and particularly the Roman Catholic church, has to come a considerable way towards twenty-first century life if it is to spark a revival and capture the imaginations of the majority.

To read more about various perspectives on the Cardinal’s position, see this BBC news report.

A Small Step for Internet Censorship

Earlier in the year, the internet came under attack from American government bills, with the infamous SOPA act to attempt to block and take down a number of sites believed to be infringing copyright laws. The result was a resounding victory for the public, who rallied support in order to save their most trusted and most visited websites.

Whilst a number of hosting services fell victim to pre-emptive attack on these streaming hosts, largely, the number of sites taken down was minimal and new domains have sprung up to plug the gaps left.

However, yesterday saw a new invasion into the internet’s freedom of ownership, speech and usage. High Courts in the UK ruled that major internet service providers had to block their subscribers from accessing file-sharing site The Pirate Bay. 

The Swedish based website has come under attack several times in the past, as it is currently one of the most recognised and most visited sites for sharing copyrighted medias. Indeed, back in 2009, Swedish courts ruled that the four founding members of the sites were guilty of helping people to circumvent copyright laws.

Despite this, the site has continued to thrive. Whilst the original founders are found responsible as being the powder-keg for this peer-to-peer service, the onus now rests with public demand.

Under the new laws, Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must all prevent their users from accessing the site. BT, meanwhile, has been asked for a further period in which to consider its position. Instantly, there is already fragmentation in how this act is to be carried out and monitored on a nationwide scale. Should even just one major provider fail to support the ban, then consumers with little conscious guilt about avoiding purchasing their music and video will simply switch provider.

Additionally, the idea of attacking The Pirate Bay alone is such a limited and naïve outlook from the British Courts. A wide network of these sites are active and removing the most popular offender will only provide the opportunity for another site to rise to prevalence. Consider the closure of the Limewire service, a group that were at one point synonymous with illegal file sharing.

Whilst I empathise with a wide selection of music and film industry persons who are losing money thanks to such services, there needs to be a greater understanding of the consumer demands. 99p for a single song on ITunes or Amazon does not provide great value for money. CD albums and movie releases, which have dropped in price considerably since the mid-90s as consequence of the sharing phenomenon, still need to be introduced to the consumer public at a cheaper price. Although such a suggestion may appear to damage these industries, if it would encourage and stimulate further legal purchases, then the overall effect could be to galvanise a higher gross income and reduce the popularity of these illegal services.

Yet, my own issue with the new court ruling is that which incited many to action back in February: the beginning of internet censorship could lead to a mass cull of websites and information deemed to be illegal or in need of restriction. Wikipedia, for example, is an online encyclopaedia database, where just a decade ago, people would have had to go to a library or purchase an almanac for such detailed results. Or even high street chains, put out of business by online giants such as Amazon. The array of services that could be deemed damaging to different groups are almost infinite.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, called the move "pointless and dangerous". "It will fuel calls for further, wider and even more drastic calls for internet censorship of many kinds, from pornography to extremism," he said.

The popularity of the internet is based on its public orientation, built to offer information and services at the lowest price in the easiest way. File-sharing sites blocked in this haphazard fashion are only piecemeal solutions and at best, short-sighted. Where the demand and software is available, new services will entice the public with offers of free media.

With the advent of free services such as Youtube and Spotify for music, and free film channels on TV, the problem of piracy is none too clean cut. These were seen as things that may kill off their respective industries, but instead provided another outlet to reach an increased demographic. Some may want to watch or listen to material to be sure they want to buy it; others wouldn’t buy the product even without pirate sites. The pros and cons of these institutions are diverse, and whilst it is certainly morally indecent to essentially steal a film or song, perhaps it is also wrong to force the hands of the public in a free state, utilising a free domain.

Economics Straight and True

Earlier this week, it became official that the UK was in a double dip recession; an announcement that had been softened somewhat by previous data that suggested the UK economy had once more begun to shrink.

Now there are calls for the government to alter their course of action so as to encourage growth before the new dive becomes irreversibly damaging to trade and economic prospects.

However, austerity measures already in place took some time and considerable budget planning to come into force and it is highly unlikely that a swift change of course will come by the end of the month, or summer for that matter.

No, the government will cling to a belief that whilst many other countries, both across Europe and the globe as a whole, were reassessed and had their credit ratings slashed a few months ago, Britain was spared in part thanks to these current policies.

It is no little truth. Of course, the trend of growth, strength of the sterling and increasing import/exports all had a swaying hand on the decision, but a key factor in the assessment process is the perceived overall management of a country’s finances. Fiscal priorities from Westminster over the past twenty-four months have been second to none and, whilst the hard medicine approach has drawn parallels with the unpopular measures of Thatcher, now (as then), there is still an overwhelming feeling of support for the government as they remain resolute in their course of action.

Indeed, polls at the beginning of the month, following the budget report indicated drops for the Conservative party, but these were immediate back-lash reactions and not measured voices who had considered the situation.

A situation that is, at best, precarious. Sudden shifts in strategy could in fact damage the overall economic efforts. Initial reaction to another statement of new measures would see widespread panic throughout the City that would in turn spark a weakening pound and a possible rush on banks.

Not to sound overly apocalyptic, but the trust that the public and businesses place in government policy is a fine balancing act. Even the slightest hint of disruption could threaten the stability that has slowly ebbed its way back into consumer and business life.

Moreover, with Spanish unemployment at a new high, continued Greek unrest, and further burdens on Germany as AAA lone ranger of the Eurozone, the British need to put support behind government efforts to consolidate progress so far achieved. With the costly problems facing Europe, our markets need to continue to prosper, or else both pound and euro will undoubtedly ride down the abyss together, so inherently linked are the two zones.

Whilst the budget measures are unpopular and few benefit from the changes, it would be unwise to declare the policies as inappropriate and unsuitable to the current climate. The phrase “we’re all in it together” still rings true in ears across the country: only in a resolute front of support can businesses emerge from the staggering financial crises and people become more liberal about their expenditure. Riots like last summer show the potential fragmentation that lurks underneath our society, and similar disruptions seen across mainland Europe in country’s with governments weaker than our own are testament to the need for a straight and steady course, perhaps even to protect us from ourselves.

That Budget is Crackers, Gromit!

Following the (unsurprising) budget announcements last Wednesday, there has been a great deal of debate as to whether it is a budget for the millions or for the millionaires, the effect of the supposed ‘granny-tax’ and heated divisions regarding the 50p tax rate.

However, there has been little talk of what the budget may mean for students and the younger generations, whose job prospects are bleak and whose applications are riddled with the ‘experience vs qualifications’ conundrum that blights so many in the 16-25 age bracket.

Indeed, the budget announcements appear to do little in the way of helping these frequently marginalised groups of society. So often do people talk of clichés that the young are the decision makers of tomorrow, and yet this truth does very little in our favour. In fact, the budget just serves to make us all the more cynical.

With the increase in the price of alcohol and cigarettes, no longer are the old havens of retreat safe: rather the stress-relief of students nationwide is in jeopardy of becoming another ill-affordable luxury. Alright, it may ensure a few less damaged livers and a couple of higher-capacity lungs, but these items symbolise a retreat from the embittered adult world that students sooner or later have to enter. So it stands to reason that many young adults may opt to still purchase the alcohol at the expense of proper foodstuffs. In an increasingly saturated graduate market, forgetting the misery of an ever more ‘worthless’ degree, spiralling debts and fewer job prospects is only facilitated by the odd pint or seven.

Besides, students will be all the more inclined to stay inebriated with the introduction of the pasty tax: no more sobering cheap foods to end the night out. That questionable imported meat, at questionable prices, that smells so aromatic at 3am will no longer linger around dorms the next day. Perhaps the next move would be to add extra taxes to beans and bread so as to capitalise off the staple beans on toast?

If sobriety sticks, the lonely nights in deliver the promise of, well, Wallace and Gromit, which is ever so entertaining and pivotal in the lives of 16-25 year olds. That’s smashing, Osborne (or crackers. Pick one).

However, rentals of everyone’s fave pooch inventor and his gullible owner may be all the pockets will stretch to with the freeze of minimum wage for 18-20 year olds. Of course, this decision follows the logic that with a stopper on increasing wages, more jobs will be created for the young people. Newsflash: The UK is back in recession. Scrap that last.

So dust off the old bottles of Jack for some measly measures that will hopefully make cartoon capers all the more appealing. Resounding cheers from the ‘enfranchised’ under-25s everywhere.

That is cheers from the under 25s when London is vandalised once again. Essentially, amidst the squashed bottom and the squeezed middle, there is the forgotten generation and this budget does little to help any of these groups. This is all the more concerning this week because inquests have ruled  overlooked families and youths as one of the key contributors to last year’s UK riots. And following this, some Westminster MPs decided that all of the above tax changes were a proper course of action. With growth in reverse and prospects for youths few, it’s no wonder this government is thought of as backwards.

At least we’re of a generation that deems the stamp irrelevant…

Work out the tax changes to your life here.