Democracy Occupied.

The closure of the Occupy London camps is a closing down of democracy.

Police and baliffs in charge of evicting the protestors moved in on the St Paul’s site last night, February 27^th, and continued to clear the area of demonstration this morning. The move comes following a court ruling to have the camps and occupants disbanded.

Appeals to the decision were denied in a move that only adds to the gravitas and reasoning behind the goals and aims of those in charge of the movement.

Occupy London set up shop against capitalism in October last year and has remained a permanent fixture just a little way off the London Stock Exchange for more than four months. Following the example of protests in America, the sit-in phenomenon took off worldwide, and had established itself as part of the landscape outside St Pauls in the capital.

However, the clearing of the sites took little time last night, as many simply moved on as a large force of police closed in on the area. Some were resolute and built a small structure to stand their ground, but within a few hours, this too was dismantled. All that remains of the proud symbol of anti-corporation greed is being ‘cleansed’ in a deep clean. I say ‘cleansed’ because the root of the issue has not been dealt with.

Mayor Boris Johnson took the opportunity to say that he is “glad that finally the law has taken its course”. It would appear that the mayor oversteps his position as a leader of a free government, by suggesting that this prevention of free demonstration is a positive act.

Within the first week of its occupancy, the demonstration had been contained and caused little, to no, disruption in the area: instead blending into the background, heckling peacefully at professional businessmen and women who were the cause of their misery.

London’s trade remained undisrupted.

Now, with the removal of tents and sleeping bags from the St Paul’s steps, but a claim that “The corporation made it very clear that they have nothing supposedly against protest”, there is all the more ammunition to mount daily assaults on the London Stock Exchange area.

Moving the protesters from their camp simply provides the motivation for the activists to move onto the next stage of campaigning, more disruption, more force and presence outside the buildings of the exchange. After all, the only part of the protest with which the law took umbrage was the make shift settlement and sanitation.

Daily demonstrations provides more of the furore and direction needed to ensure a more noticeable effect occurs, a more positive change. After all, if the people working in the Square Mile are disrupted daily, so trade is impacted.

Although there is nothing of the physical camp remaining, certainly its ideas and ideals are still bubbling with zeal around the streets of the capital. The greatest achievement of the camp came in its early days, when there was realisation that those regulating the money, the trade, the jobs, could be wrong-footed and undermined. If the removal of the camp is to reignite this spark, then the authorities could have unwittingly done more harm than good for their cause.

Whilst I do not agree with the removal of the camp, as it brings with it a sense of oppression, or underhand court dealings, there was certainly for the most part no cohesion between public and protestors. Within ten days, the public interest had dimmed and the camp was not necessarily speaking for a majority.

With undefined goals, the next step for the campaigners should be to regroup and outline some aims before continuing. Whilst the group had noble sentiments in the time of credit crunch, recession and high unemployment, there was no long-term solution to capitalist flaws.

Even if the Occupy movement was not wholly formed, it is the closure of camps that is the most striking in a country of free speech. As a society broken by capitalist misdemeanours, even should we not agree with what is said, we should defend the right to say it.

The Syria Crisis Continues...

Tensions continue to mount in Syria following further bombings in Homs, and around the country, as voting on a referendum was held yesterday.

The city of Homs remains under fire and troops are reported to be firing artillery, mortars and anti-aircraft weapons at several towns in the Idlib circumference.

Syria is the latest in a string of Arab countries to be tipped into turmoil and the threat of revolution. Whilst the events have not yet been classified as either a civil war or as an uprising, there are threads of similarity to the revolts seen in Libya and Egypt in 2011.

The protests pose the greatest threat to four decades of Assad family rule in the country and a strong military force since March 2011 is starting to fail. While the eyes of the world were on other pressing revolutions in the area over the course of 2011, action was sparked when citizens wrote “The people want the downfall of the regime” on several buildings in the city of Deraa. When protesters were set upon with army force, they accidentally sparked a wave of national movements.

As a great many Westerners remain ignorant of the initial causes and reasons behind the revolutionary action due to more violent unrest elsewhere, here is a summary of some key concerns for Syrian citizens:

·          

•     Fall of the regime: no step down has been forthcoming from Assad.
•         End to the 48-year-old emergency law: although revoked, Syrian forces still open fire at will.
•         Immediate end to extrajudicial killings and torture: the president has revoked claims of crimes against humanity.
•         Release of political prisoners and detained protesters
•         Transition to a democratic, free and pluralistic society

Yesterday saw a mobilisation towards the final objective: a referendum was held across Syria for a new constitution. Of course, whilst the voting was opened and ran according to predetermined regulation, there is concern not only that there will be tampering with results, but that as many significant cities with revolutionary zeal were under fire, the results will be skewed with too few voting in favour of change, either being scared or unable to leave their homes.

The new constitution calls for a multi-party parliamentary election within three months.

Even President Assad himself was seen voting, the leader claiming that he sees the new constitution as the key element in a reform process he says will make Syria a beacon of democracy in the region. Perhaps the president believes that if he is able to curb and appease the uprisings, he will be able to remain in power.

However, the process has been deemed a sham by some countries, who claimed that even the old regime was not too far off Western politics, but leaders chose to ignore its constitution.

Meanwhile, China dismissed US criticism of its Syria policy, branding the claims that continued trade with Syria was “despicable” as laughable; many officials stated that the US had no right to speak for the Arab world after the atrocities seen in the invasion of Iraq.

However, Europe continues to impose sanctions on the country, including:

• a freeze on the European-held assets of the Syrian central bank
• travel bans on seven close associates of President Bashar al-Assad
• a ban on cargo flights from Syria into the EU
• restrictions on the trade in gold and precious metals.

Although French President Nicholas Sarkozy believed that things in the area were beginning to move, and that there was an imminent solution in the offing, the situation remains extremely tense and it may only be with the pressure of sanctions that the country becomes pliable to the whims and demands of the West. Should China continue to support the Arab world however, the violence and unrest could gather a sudden momentum.

With hundreds of citizens killed in the new year alone, it would seem that there is still an equal resilience on both sides of the Syrian crisis, which only poses further confrontation with the Arab world as an example of the latest battle for a new independence.

The Brit Awards 2012

The annual Brit Awards ceremony took place in London this Tuesday night. Despite a questionable reputation, the occasion marks the high point in the British musical calendar, particularly recognising the achievements within the British industry as well as those worldwide. Here, I givesa run-down of the 2012 awards and the winners.

British Male was taken home by Ed Sheeran, who also bagged British Breakthrough. The singer-songwriter has had a fantastic 2011, with his album + going platinum and his gig tickets becoming something akin to gold dust. Whilst predictable, Ed deserved the recognition, particularly within the contenders from the British Male outlet (but Jessie J and The Vaccines were worthy nominations in the breakthrough category that merit recognition).

British Female was awarded to (dramatic pause, as if you couldn’t possibly guess), Adele. Without a doubt, the award ceremony was to belong to Adele’s triumphs in what has been a whirlwind twelve months for the star, starting with her performance of ‘Someone Like You’ at the Brits 2011. In addition, she bagged the British Album of the Year, the big Brit. If she hadn’t have won there would have certainly been a public outcry of sorts, which we shall come back to later when reviewing the show.

British Group was handed over to “We won’t win any Brits” Coldplay, the third time they have snatched the award. Yet this was an opportunity for the Brits to be edgier, with Chase and Status, or Elbow or even Kasabian having released material that, for me, interests the listener more than an enjoyable, but predictable, Coldplay album.

The real and most terrible shock of the night, however, came from the British public themselves. Hang your heads in shame, voters of the Brit awards 2012. British Single of the Year – One Direction: ‘What Makes You Beautiful’. The preppy, sickly pop number fended off the likes of ‘Someone Like You’ (which admittedly a number of people may now be bored of), ‘The A Team’, ‘Changed The Way You Kissed Me’ and even ‘Price Tag’. As a shameful moment in a Brit Awards ceremony, it is possibly only eclipsed by blundering over Adele’s British album (more later).

Elsewhere, Rihanna won International Female for the second year running, which reflects her achievements selling the most records of any foreign artist in the UK last year, and becoming the most watched artist on Youtube. Lana Del Rey picked up International Breakthrough and was wooden as ever in her acceptance of the award.

International Male went to Bruno Mars, which was generally a poor category for mainstream artists, but had the potential to give a voice to some largely unknown people (Bon Iver, Aloe Blacc). Alas, the Brits bosses voted for sales over substance in this case.

One of the toughest categories was probably International Group, which was claimed by the Foo Fighters. Thankfully one rock outlet won an award, otherwise it could have been some over the top sweet-pop fiasco affair. Most people thought Maroon 5 would blag it thanks to their inescapable ‘Moves Like Jagger’. A surprise Brit award, deserved nonetheless.

Outstanding contribution was awarded to Blur, and Critics Choice to Emile Sandé.

As far as the 2012 ceremony went, there had obviously been some effort to make the event seem polished and relevant. The awards were given a Union Jack lick of paint and the event was stylised around rainbows, flowers, suns and flags. All feeling very optimistic in the year of jubilees and Olympics.

However, James Corden received mixed reviews, his comedy appearing somewhat forced and based around song lyrics.

Many performances were bland alongside Corden’s presenting. Coldplay certainly went overboard with pyrotechnics, but that was about as elaborate as the staging was for any act. Adele dutifully performed the same song ('Rolling In The Deep') in the same set up as she had ten days prior at the Grammys. Rihanna blasted out ‘We Found Love’ for the umpteenth time on an award show, though at least she brought colour to the proceedings.

Blur’s performance in particular has divided opinion following the event. Some took to social networks in a frenzy slating the live set, saying they were past their best, drunk, shouting, loutish like a karaoke at a bar. On the other hand, a number, myself included, feel that the Blur set is unduly criticised. Fair play, the act wasn’t the best the band have produced, but there was some 90s pop-punk revival charm about their set that really captured the spirit and reason behind the band being awarded outstanding contribution. It was hedonistic; both reminiscent of inebriated summer evenings and a head pump of adrenaline at festivals.

Of course, stealing the light from all of the above was the shocking moment James Corden stepped over to the podium and cut Adele off as she was making her acceptance speech for British Album of the Year. How do I even begin to vent my spleen on this musical atrocity?

To begin, any sport related telebroadcast would be allowed to overrun by significant amounts of time: I'm pretty sure you could have spared an extra 30 seconds. This woman has made British music en vogue single handedly and continues to break records worldwide, let alone scooping six Grammys. Just a week before the Brits, she talked of her love for the ceremony. She began by saying she was proud to be British, and the organisers didn’t have the patience to let her prove what it means to be British.

More to the point, James Corden should not have cut her off. It’s his second year presenting the awards and both times to mixed reviews. It’s unlikely he’ll get them again: but he’s a comedian staring in an award winning West-End play. He doesn’t need that gig. He should have stood on the stage and let her finish: it wouldn’t have hurt him one bit.

Then, my issue with ITV is that similar mishaps happen each year. The key is to delay broadcast the show by half an hour and get less advertisers. To add insult to injury, this particular year saw segments highlighting the ‘Album of the Year’ category throughout the show. It is nothing but poor foresight and planning should there not be proper fruition of what has been built up and up for two hours.

The Brit Awards 2012 then? Another mediocre set of largely predictable awards, eternally remembered as the year that the most awarded singer to come out of the UK was ignored on her home soil.

How Should We Remember Our Fallen Stars?

25^th June, 2009. I’m relaxing at home after a stressful couple of weeks of exams. I get a text from my sister and, after opening the message, I don’t believe what I’m reading and instantly flick on a news channel.

Sure enough, Michael Jackson’s dead.

A similarly bewildering moment happened on Sunday morning, when, opening up my computer, social networks were trending Whitney. And another star had passed too soon.

One of the advantages of this modern society is that the integration of technology allows not only this quick relay of information, but in these cases, a sentimental outpouring of emotion when we lose an influential figure.

However, with these new mediums of information, what is appropriate decorum when talking of the deceased? When famous personas have had their lives taken under a microscope as public property, how should that public remember them?

Case in point: sitting with a friend in a café last July, the radio broke the news that Amy Winehouse had passed away. The reporter’s very next words were: “The troubled star, who was known for her drug addictions and love life…” as though her singing career did not merit a mention. Amy has been defined by her misdemeanours.

With the death of Whitney Houston, this act of remembrance is called into question once again. When looking back at such an iconic songstress, should we look to her rise or fall?

Without doubt, the talent of the young Houston cannot be denied. Hailing from musical genes, Whitney was signed at the tender age of 19 after a performance in a Manhattan night club. Her eponymous debut was the biggest selling album by a debut artist when it was released in 1985.

Houston enjoyed seven consecutive number one singles, surpassing the record set by The Beatles, and had notched up over 200million album sales by the late 80s alone. Yet eclipsing even all of these staggering achievements, the resounding number ‘I Will Always Love You’ is the biggest selling single by a female of all time (and is sure to notch up another batch of sales posthumously).

Serene images were shattered with Houston’s decline into abuse of crack cocaine and marijuana. Her tumultuous marriage to Bobby Brown constantly attracted headlines and her once famed voice was broken.

Yet, which era of the star’s life should the public focus on?

Unfortunately, intrigue and bad news are always awarded more coverage: these are the stories with more layers, more depth, high interest and, immorally, make people feel much better about themselves. Even if Whitney had not been signed, there is the possibility that she, or countless others like her, like Amy, would have made headlines for their solvent abuse. They would have been paraded as examples of a breakdown in society, without a saving voice, so to speak.

Of course, perhaps without the fame, these people would not have resorted to drugs, without the attention, they may not have performed crazy stunts, such as hanging children over balconies. But whose fault is this? Are these people victims of self-nurtured decline, or of outer afflictions?

Society is constructed in such a way that we pressure a number of stars into depression, ruts, abuse. From music to film and beyond, pop culture means we are able to highlight the likes of Britney Spears, Macaulay Culkin, Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan as testimony to the breakdown culture that has been nurtured by modern life. Some, like Robert Downey Jr, make it back; other stars, like Kurt Cobain and Winehouse, never defeat their demons.

But do their devils add meaning to their work. In the case of ‘Nevermind’ by Nirvana, material dealt with lost loves, with ‘Back to Black’, the album can be seen as shaped from Winehouse’s indiscretions and media attention.

However, for the stars like Jackson and Houston, whose prime came before a spectacular fall, their records should be remembered and replayed without the clouds of rumour that have come to outshine their talents. For, certainly, these people became famous for their gifts, and should be thought of in this light.

In 2002, Houston told ABC's Diane Sawyer in an interview that: "The biggest devil is me. I'm either my best friend or my worst enemy."

Perceptive as this analysis is, perhaps the biggest devil to Houston, and to her fallen contemporaries, lies in public responsibility.

Just as we facilitate the rise of a star, we are compliant in their demise.

Remembering where I was when I heard of the deaths of these stars proves something: that these people touched our lives with their songs, their albums, or whatever their gifts. We have a public responsibility to keep that spirit of their talents alive.

A Greek Tragedy.

Shops looted, buildings blazing, a city in panic, mobs raging.

The scene could be London last August, or any major city with subsurface tensions. This is Athens, where friction has given way to violent protests amidst the latest economic deals from Brussels.

Despite the promise of an election in April, the Greek people are none the more encouraged to retain faith that their money is safe. There has been a rush on banks and cases of citizens sending money to accounts abroad. The economic crisis could make or break underneath the shadow of the acropolis, once a symbol of Greek might and myth.

Now, the dreamy myth is long since dispelled. The latest emergency relief package from the EU and IMF is projected to offer an injection of approximately €130 billion, should they receive proof that Greece is implementing its latest austerity measures.

However, the unrest and winter of discontent only breeds malaise amongst the Greek government. On Saturday night, parliament may have voted in favour of new spending cuts, but with almost 50 deputies rebelling, battle lines had clearly been drawn on an epic scale.

If the deal is not closed however, Greece could default as early as next March.

Therefore, the balance of power rests on the foreign leaders wanting a promise of austerity measures versus the Greek electorate, who resent the interference from the West and are seeing their country’s economy downsizing for the fifth year in a row.

In this second programme of cuts, ministers in Athens have pledged to slashing 15,000 public-sector jobs as part of a longer-term strategy to get rid of 150,000 civil servants. In addition, there have been moves to reduce the minimum wage level by an overwhelming 20%, whilst also altering the labour laws to ensure easier staff dismissal.

None of this is good news for the populous at large. Greek is already one of the poorest EU countries, with a low GDP per capita, and their borrowing has spiralled out of control, despite being burdened with a set of sweeping cuts last year.

If Greece were to heed to calls for the return of its Euro predecessor, the drachma, then there were be further turmoil across Europe, as funds pumped into the economy were annexed and other countries were made to subsidise the lost revenue. In addition, there would be mass movement of Greek Euros abroad, so as the people could capitalise on falling trade values and earn more money.

When concerns first started in 2009, Greece was burdened with debt amounting to 113% of GDP - nearly double the eurozone limit of 60%. Ratings agencies started to downgrade Greek bank and government debt and this has only led to stifled growth and the increase in debt. But how had EU regulations not picked up on the expenditure that saw such huge waste of resources?

The possibility is that Greece could be forced to leave the Eurozone so as there is not a continual stream of lost wealth. But whilst this might only disrupt Europe for a little while, the impact on Greece would ensure that it was hampered by debt well into the latter half of this century, with little consumer trust, economic growth, or trading partners.

The outlook is bleak then. With an uncertainty as to whether the Greek can meet Eurozone demands, public backlash and a potential run on more financial institutions, the recovery is far from certain. There are those who belief that another loan from Europe just kicks the inevitable further down the path and that reductions in deficit by 2020 are unrealistic.

Certainly, the play before the Acropolis today is a Greek tragedy.