Will We Remember Them?

Two minutes of lost time seemed more than some customers could handle.

Observing a two minutes silence for the war fallen each year seems a logical and traditional manner to commemorate and remember the sacrifice of our countrymen. Two minutes in which to take solace, stock and thank those who gave up their lives so young is, in fact, not very much by way of a remembrance.

Yet, whilst at work on Sunday, I couldn’t help but notice customers agitated by the two minute delay to their day. It seemed unthinkable that men who had died in a country not so far away, in a part of the world we are quite accustomed with, could roughly rob them of 120 seconds. Many shuffled around, sighed, and launched forward at the till points once an announcement declared the time 11:02.

Watching people behave with such disregard shocked me. How have the British become so desensitised to the Remembrance Sunday tradition, and unobservant of this most remarkable occasion to honour the dedication and service of veterans, old and new?

Could it be that the idea of war has become synonymous with twenty-first century lifestyle? Internet access and dedicated news channels have ensured that conflicts over the past decades are under constant scrutiny from a plethora of different outlets and sources. The conflict in Syria is believed to be the most reported news item this year. Whether on social media, the radio, television or in newspapers, scenes of warfare have come to dominate from all around the globe: be that in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or countless other territories torn by fighting.

The inundation of information is as confusing as it is unending. In his work, ‘A Tragic Legacy’, Glen Greenwald reasonably argues that “The fact that war is the word we use for almost everything—on terrorism, drugs, even poverty—has certainly helped to desensitize us to its invocation; if we wage wars on everything, how bad can they be?” 

Greenwald’s extension as to how negative war actually is may be a push too far, but it does reflect on an interesting phenomenon. There is increasingly less support for war, and consequently we often try to completely distance ourselves from the events. 

Following the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that have dominated the first decade of the 21^st century, support for intervention in the Syrian conflict has dwindled. While a May Gallup Poll of the US found that 59% and 82% of the population supported those respective wars, only 36% are in favour in the case of Syria, versus 51% against. The sentiment is echoed by Britons, with 56% believing that military intervention in the area is not the answer.

It is difficult to imagine then that the World Wars drummed up so much support – of course, largely through propaganda. The threat to the public in the UK was a very real and very palpable one, with attacks on the country a constant reminder of the ongoing fight for freedom. With such little first-hand interaction into modern warfare in the last 50 years, it would appear that Britons have forgotten how crucial an army is to maintaining freedoms.

David Cameron is calling for some change to that, announcing plans for a larger remembrance on the centenary of World War One. However, Jeremy Paxman branded the PM a “complete idiot” as a result of this suggestion, arguing that “people [will] get the idea that somehow this is going to be celebrated. Well, only a complete idiot would celebrate such a calamity.”

Downing Street have demanded an apology for the comments, and rightly so. Indeed, celebrating war itself would be a calamity, but celebrating the lives of young men and boys who died for their country is nothing short of justified. There is much to be said for the courage and valour of men who, with little knowledge of the war and not wholly in support of the fighting, still went to meet certain death.

Only last week, we have seen the remarkable act of remembrance for unifying a nation under a single emotional banner as hundreds of strangers turned up to mark the funeral of soldier Harold Percival. It demonstrates our resolve to stand up for what is right and to intervene to protect social and cultural liberties. It is our respect for these men that unites us every 11 November as a testament to British resilience under adverse pressure; something that resonates with many nations following a century pocketed with war.

After all, while only a complete idiot would celebrate the calamity, it would be a far greater fool who did not remember history and commemorate its lessons.

Why Should We Continue to Send Aid to India?

Indian Government Spending and Aid contribution figures have been blown sky high.

The launch of an Indian Mars Mission is a giant leap for mankind. It marks another step in a global space age, once the reserve of the US and Soviet Russia.

Not only does it stand as a statement of India intent, but it demonstrates that here is a country slowly building its way out of great economic deprivation.

However, it is slowly. Public perception of India’s Mars Mission has been largely confused, with many claiming it to be a demonstration of wealth from the country. The evidence shows that the country is taking off quite literally and so aid contributions are no longer needed, many have suggested.

In reality this is a gross miscalculation that confuses the difference between growth and wealth in the Indian subcontinent.

Since the 1990s, the area has experienced its greatest period of growth in the country’s history, with many companies tapping into the wealth of resources that India can offer. Whilst it has helped to bring many millions out of poverty, there has not been a significant reduction in the percentage of people who live below the line. Around 40% of children are malnourished, and adults fare little better. The country is still renowned for its slums, with more than 500 million Indians living without electricity.

Here is a tale of two cities, twoIndias.

The growth of skilled labourers, scientists, doctors and other professionals is redefining the landscape of India. The space missions are far from a new project: they date back to the 70s. In fact, China’s space missions are more recent than India’s. Therefore, the willingness to invest in these enterprises shows a keen dedication from the Indian government not to be backfooted once again. Here is a nation that was forced into submission by British and French forces, which made the lands part of their empire and irrevocably damaged development there.

Never again says the space mission.

This is not a declaration that India does not need aid. India still remains home to the world’s largest poor. After all, aid is about poor people and not poor countries.

In Uganda, for example, aid packages from the UK are now not being sent to the government, but instead to agencies that will ensure the people will benefit from the money sent to the country. A similar review of expenditure in India should be brought forward, especially since there have been previous examples of India declaring that they do not need British aid.

Whilst this is a gross underestimation on the part of a country still in need of sufficient sanitation measures for a vast percentage of its population, the space missions do mark a step in the right direction.

Withdrawing from India at this stage would not be right; it would be a fiscal rerun of independence. The support from Britain ensures that India can now be seen not as an economically undeveloped country, but somewhere for companies to invest. Indeed, Pepsi Cola have recently announced a larger investment into the country’s infrastructure.

Aid merely needs readjustment: instead of packages, India now needs business legitimacy amidst its Asian rivals. The space mission is merely a manifestation of this Indian capacity. Providing these economic opportunities will ensure a strengthened British-Indian relationship, profits for both countries, and slowly reduce Indian dependence on aid.

India’s space revolution ushers in a new era of economic strength that needs commercial and corporate support if it is to transform and reform India as the international player that the country craves to be, surrounded by Arabian prominence and China’s technical drive. Acknowledging the injustice of colonial expansion, and supporting the Commonwealth evolution from a business table will launch the country to the stratosphere without much more help.

The Work Experience Conundrum

Are internships now so commonplace that value should be found elsewhere on the young person’s CV?

“Make sure that you go into the offices and sit there until someone comes and sees you. Don’t move. Don’t let them move you. Go in with a box of chocolates. Any journalist worth their salt will wonder what you are doing sat there, and, of course, be intrigued thanks to their irrepressible desire for those chocolates just sat there.”

This was some of the first advice I had regarding work experience and internships. The bold ‘Don’t-Hold-Back’ approach to get you through the door and into the chairs upstairs. It is one of many methods often advised for all young graduates and students pursuing any number of given career paths: send endless emails, update your LinkedIn profile, and shamelessly tweet away at important professionals until they notice you. As long as by your early 20s, you can boast a plethora of experience in the industry, an unrivalled portfolio of work and relevant employment.

The importance of experience and internships should never be doubted. Nowadays, any job application is underlined with phrases like ‘must have relevant work experience’, or ‘must demonstrate a working knowledge of the field’, or ‘must be able to provide examples of previous employment in this area.’

The myriad of means by which this same vague and crippling statement is recycled and reused is a seemingly virtual slap in the face, even to those with previous background in their chosen area.

The High Fliers’ graduate job survey reinforces this stigma, announcing that the modern graduate stands ‘little chance’ of success without this work experience.

Yet is this prerequisite a restricting and increasingly unfair method to assess applicants? A little over two decades ago, the very idea of work experience was practically unheard of, and now it is ubiquitous on the CVs and cover letters of the recently graduated.

In the same manner that a degree has fast become no real indication of whether the candidate is suitable for employment, could the endless amounts or experience really be a similar mirage, that needs to be culled? Employers are increasingly faced with shiny internships that scream ‘dedication and determination’. Yet for all the bolstering experience provides on a CV, it is not necessarily an indication of how one would fit permanently into a team.

Overcoming this new crisis is something that should be tackled. Of course, it would mean that other valid arguments against work experience – such as the limits of working for free restricting access, and the increasingly competitive nature meaning there are fewer chances for such work – would be vindicated. But the real measure would be to realign the work experience balance, and reintroduced other focuses, prominent before the mid-90s.

Part time jobs and student employment should be regarded just as beneficial as direct involvement in a chosen area for a limited period of time. The skills and competencies gained from these activities are often a more direct indication of the long term ways a person works in a team and reacts to different situations – like the time I accidentally managed to spill a new bottle of milk over a customer for whom I was making a coffee.

Customer service, tactful dealings with difficult or awkward customers and initiative all come to the forefront in a permanent job, where one’s own direction, business skill and awareness of the area come into play, independent of the ‘experience’ umbrella. These candidates have seen first-hand how to operate a business, integrate fully into a team and deal with customer complaints or queries that leaves them better equipped to handle unusual situations in the future.

Of course, experience in your own area of interest is vital, and should remain important in the application process. But now that companies are inundated with almost comparable experiences as well as similar degrees, other practical experience needs to be reinstated as an essential recruitment tool.

Not that I will deny how far a box of chocolates can get you in breaking the ice with a prospective employer.

Street Smart for Street Art?

Has Banksy’s latest New York stunt proven that we are all slightly ignorant to culture?

An old man laid out his art stall this weekend and sat through a bright, yet slightly chilly autumnal day in New York.

His stand, much like those that lined not just the same street, but boulevards and promenades in London, Paris and around the world, presented a hot-pot of artistic pieces of intricate detail, selling at just $60 (roughly £38).

Few people took notice of whatappeared to be an ordinary stall. It took hours to sell his first painting. Even then, it was at a discounted price of 50% off.  Total takings for the day only came in at $420, not even £300.

But this was not just a street vendor. These were 100% originally Banksy paintings. It is estimated their true value may be in the region of £20,000. A bargain for the savvy few that bought the pieces; for the rest of us, this is a truly saddening indictment of society.

The questions raised by the experiment are just as interesting as the spontaneous sale itself: “Are we too busy?”, “Are we ignorant?”, “Are we uncultured?”. And, seemingly, the answer would be a yes. At least based on Banksy’s approach.

A similar experience befell world renowned and talented violinist, Joshua Bell, a few years ago at a Metro station in Washington DC. The musician, who had but two nights before sold out a theatre in Boston for an average of $100 a seat, earned just $27 in the stunt, which saw thousands of naïve commuters pass by unawares.

Such unusual tactics obviously catch us by surprise. But is the reality that we are becoming less observant and increasingly driven by a busy society? We no longer give time to consider the value the art in front of us until a bystander informs us of what we have missed. The old school of thought that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” has never rung truer, yet been so underappreciated.

If an artist paints his work, but no one stops to consider it; does the painting remain true great art? Of course it does. The legacy and testament of artists such as Van Gogh proves this. But in the modern world, with internet, mobile technology and greater access to information, it strikes as ignorance that so many could walk past unaware as to the achievement in front of them. It goes to show that increasingly, it is not talent, but marketing and reputation that sell artwork: a sign of a culture that has become dependent on others to tell them what art is, and by extension, how to think and live.

Seneca noted the problem over two millennia ago: “There is nothing the busy man is less busied with than living” he mused. He concluded that it left little space for man to successfully consider everything because his mind was too busied. The sentiment was echoed last century, when W. H. Davies penned the immortal words “What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare”.

Now, with television adverts, billboards, the internet, social media and an increasingly diverse number of mediums by which to disseminate information and opinion, are minds have never been so busy sifting through information. The result is that we are immune and numb to art and talent, because we have become hardened by the apparent need to strive for achievements in work, glamorised by society.

The art debate has raged fiercely throughout history: is art representing fact or an opinion or an emotion or all of these?

The Banksy project does not show that we are incapable of recognising beauty. Rather, people have the wrong priorities: the art seems irrelevant to them at the time. If it were housed proudly and resplendently in a museum or gallery, then we can be sure that people would queue eagerly to snap a photo and admire the detail up close. If we took time to stop, would we realise we have been missing a wealth of culture every day?

Society will have to pay for its ignorance several times over before the month is out. Banksy’s ‘Better Out Than In’ project promises new street art in NYC each day throughout October. And whilst art buffs and fans alike race the streets of Manhattan to find the artwork each day, they have already found the works defaced and altered by other taggers, artists and property owners, unaware they are covering a thousand dollar masterpiece.

The Day After Shutdown

America’s greatest challenge only comes to light now the shutdown is over.

The United States of America, considered by many to be one of the greatest examples of Western democracy, has been in shutdown for over two weeks. In this time, America’s global standing has certainly been undermined each day with its allies, whilst its enemies have looked on in a mocking triumph, as if this is the proof of everything wrong with the American way of life.

Dysfunction within a nation considered a bastion of power and democracy is always going to challenge international relations, but, more so than ever before, this government shutdown has reeked of ego massaging, in a scenario akin to a child walking away from his team because they’re losing a game. Reopening the house is now a mammoth and multifaceted problem.

Paralysis in the US means that other nations have learnt their own power. State Department deputy spokeswoman, Marie Harf, blasted what she called a “damaging” shutdown that “negatively impacts [US] standing abroad.”

Council on Foreign Relations president, Richard Haass, mimicked the sentiment, expanding that “This sends a message to allies that they're somewhat on their own.”

Indeed, you would be forgiven for forgetting the trouble across the pond. Following the initial week of turbulence, the shutdown seems largely disappeared from our news channels. With little action for negotiation on either side, the rest of the world could hardly wait around for America to splutter and kick start its way back to life.

In 1995, the last government shutdown, the economy was better equipped to deal with this sort of mass reduction in activity. Now, the economy is volatile.

Consequently, resolve within the American government, however, ushers in a new series of crises waiting to befall what appears an ailing regime of democracy.

Cancelling his important trip to Asia, with the intent of fostering better Chinese-American relations, Obama has allowed China to expand its global influence. The long planned trip was cut immediately to attend to the American crisis; a crisis fuelled and fired from the inside, on an issue triply settled in Congress, the courts and ballot.

The budget battle seriously risked sending the world into another recession, should the US default on its debts. This would provide China with grounds to claim that the US Dollar is not a secure currency, and to switch internationally to the Yuan, creating inflation in the US and leaving China able to manipulate exchange rates. China has a heaven sent opportunity to portray itself as the image of stability once peddled by US citizens.

Reopening government will be haunted by questions not only of reliability, but efficiency and how effective America is as a world power.

Not too long ago, America was the flexing power by which Syria was a crisis that would soon be resolved. Instead, the state now appears hypocritical at best for not even being able to hold control of its own house. Iran’s nuclear programme, one of the most controversial aspects of news, is legitimised by the US shutdown: how can one country in a turbulent period comment on another’s right for nuclear power?

The ramifications are more than economic and political then: they shake the very foundations of opinion on Western democracy and its impact. Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed his disappointment at not being able to meet with Obama over these key international issues that have been played out on a world stage for the past year. His spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said, “There is a great need in our bilateral relations for a dialogue at the highest level.” Yet the only dialogue is that of the Russians.

Ironically, not only does this strengthen the Russian position, but seriously gives credence to those who believe the Russian President is a viable candidate to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This nomination the result of what is now viewed the most effective plan to initiate peace in Syria, spearheaded by Russia alone during shutdown.

Uncle Sam awakes to find a nation not only questioning its own importance, but one that has shot itself, and is now bleeding internally. It will be a slow and painful process to recover, but never heal fully. Being held to ransom by its own government, the US continues to lose money every day with hundreds of thousands of people out of work, tourism and national monument sites closed, and Head State funded programmes cancelled without notice, as it slowly hits restart. Not only will this be an international debacle, but a case of national humiliation. Americans will need to learn to have faith and trust in their own system again. When controversial popstar Miley Cyrus manages to mock the shutdown with panache, one wonders whether the people responsible realise the true extent of the extravagant spectacle.

What ‘Obamacare’ is highlighting is a chronic condition: an illness with little chance of treatment. Raising the debt ceiling and reopening the government isn’t the last of the turbulent American issues: it just kicks a proverbial can of worms a few months further down the line. This is a disease that has become malignant.

The latest poll suggests that almost three quarters of American’s leave the blame with the Republican Party. Essentially, the minority are trying to gain the upperhand through a form of extortion, and Obama is not willing to give into that. So, as government is reopened, the logical solution would be to pass an amendment to stop such petty squabbles crippling the US in future.

Well, this is where America comes to its ultimate Catch 22. This is the nation that declares itself the land of the free. This is the nation of modern democracy. To change the freedom enjoyed by Americans in the House is to admit that the system was wrong. It is unlikely that the government will risk this ultimate humiliation. Ideologically and, more importantly, in all practicality, this is a battle for freedom of speech that neither side can win.

Frankfurt's Forgotten Riots

“Look at you, stood protecting your blood money! You’re no better than politicians. You’re bribed by the money that is making your nation weak and is stealing from us every day and you don’t even realise it!”

Over the past two years, the Arab Spring has seen revolutions and demonstrations sweep Northern Africa in a hot fury that has both shocked and been viewed in awe within Europe. Corruption, economic hardship, and threat of wars all contributed to the radical movements that have unseated governments and autocrats alike.

This fire seems to have sparked a new European movement in itself, and this was certainly ablaze in Frankfurt last weekend. Whilst Turkish riots in the corner of Europe spread across the news as the most interesting and harrowing examples of recent protest in the Western world, the demonstrations at the Economic Central Bank of Europe went seemingly unreported in comparison.

There is no doubt that there is an economic boss in Europe, and she wears the name Angela Merkel. Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe, has earned her place to dictate economic measures across the Eurozone, providing the backbone of the European economy. But disruption and distrust of the system sow seeds of further weakening across Europe.

Riots in Greece and Turkey are no mere trifle. The countries face growing rates of unemployment, restricted economic growth and limited financial trades. The former is set to accept a set of stringent measures by which it is to be provided with a bail out that by no means appeases the nation, who are baying for European blood amidst the onset of a further downturn.

However, when the Germans themselves come to contest the Euro, the writing really is on the proverbial wall. Here, where Berlin is seen as a symbol of democracy, the population is not likely to sit and be ignored regarding the running of their country a second time. Whether a wall is physical or fiscal, the outpouring of resentment from within the European banking capital in Frankfurt is concerning.

The force of the German police certainly took the threat seriously, regardless of the world opinion. Shutting the main financial district and sending in excess of 70 police vans to line the boulevard, forces were armed in full riot gear, lining the streets with barbed wire, and sending water cannons in to assist on the ground, helicopters to monitor from the air.

European economy is not just centred on Germany, it arguably thrives from Germany. While there have been numerous capitalist crises in the past, the gravitas of the current financial situation has still to show its boundaries. This permanent state of crisis has now come to disillusion new generations of activists and unemployed as the central countries of Europe and the US see credit ratings slash and further recession despite never ending political will to slow the rate of cuts and boost markets.

The austerity measures proposed by the so-called troika, consisting of the ECB, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Commission have not reduced the national debts of the European countries. An increase of taxes and cuts of governmental social programs they promote have actually worsened the situation, deepening recession and increasing unemployment in the EU dramatically.

Since protests are now igniting not as isolated European events, but increasing in frequency and local, it shows that there are deep roots to these problems. The ‘fad’ of Occupy London is called to mind. At once, the threat doesn’t seem so unique: removed from isolation, the plight of all those that were at once both strong and desperate enough to ‘siege’ the London banking district for weeks in search of resolve is both revered in new merit and feared in equal measure.

In previous years, riots have all too often appeared incoherent and inchoate. With all but limited aims and reasons, most of these disruptions have garnered little support. But the controversy begun with ‘Occupy’ continues to threaten in new forms. The controversial 2011 riots in the UK may have started as a peaceful protest against a shooting, but an abhorrent mix of social problems ignited the violence that followed.

Sweden now faces nights of unlawful action, as the unemployed take to the street to violently protest at the state of the economy in their nation. Despite being amongst the richest nations in the EU, there has been a significant increase in the level of youth unemployment here, as with many other parts of Europe. As with the London riots, the trigger seems to have been a police shooting that has opened the floodgates of national resentment. Once topping OECD rankings for low poverty, the country is now slipping further and further down the table, with Europeans crying out for change.

Of course, things could be worse. Sweden has the EU’s lowest percentage of low-wage earners. The honour of largest low wage earners goes to Germany, with 22.2% of employers receiving minimum wage. This is possibly part of the reason for the massive outburst in Frankfurt.

There appears large discrepancy between the image of Germany, the European Powerhouse, and the economic wellbeing of its residents. Looking in, the country surely has fared better than most in the recession. But the cracks are self-evident. Low wages coupled with increasing inflation and continued bailouts, funded by the German public en masse if protesters would be believed, seriously weakens the economic standing of the EU giant and its residents.

Austerity measures on EU citizens are just scratching the surface of the potential violence of the masses. When the 99% drive the economy itself, their voices can certainly impact the future of fiscal measures, but would 99% control solve any problems in itself? Probably not, and the face of uncertainty only makes us worry and riot all the more.

The Independent (Work Experience): Live on £53 per week? Try a student loan, Iain Duncan Smith...

This article was originally published by The Independent on 5th April 2013. It is available online here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/student-life/finances/live-on-53-per-week-try-that-on-a-student-loan-iain-8561459.html

In a couple of weeks, we students will be able to stop the thrifty spending and strict budgeting.

At last, the next instalment of our student loans has lined our pockets and topped up our bank accounts with endless fresh amounts of virtual money. As soon as the ominous ‘OD’ disappears from your cashpoint display, a world of leisure opportunities awaits: the doors of Jack Wills and Hollister are all the more appealing, the offers on Jagerbombs at Vodka Revolution instantly appear to be incredibly good value, and funds for a drunken sports tour, brimming with banter, are at last secured.

Budgeting is something that students easily endure without fear, their next loan a glimmering promise of free money: £1,581 per week on average.

Excuse me, I mean to say per term.

A pittance

My termly allowance, which has to last me four months, roughly equates to the amount Iain Duncan Smith pockets in a week on his ministerial salary, meaning that my budget is just shy of £100 a week, or around £14 a day, which is difficult enough at double what Duncan Smith boasts he can manage on.

When the money first floods in most excitable youngsters can be seen running off to pay that overdue library fine, stocking up on teabags that aren’t a budget brand and generally gallivanting around the town centre half-daring to dream of affording those second-hand clothes hidden at the very back of the charity store. Or hell, actually having that haircut.

Soon enough, however, the flush oasis becomes a dried-up puddle, leaving university goers moored in the middle of a desert. Perilous mountains of books need be bought on that dwindling budget, food has to be factored into the equation, and funds even need to stretch to clothes.

I’d say that I am reasonably tight with money whilst food shopping, yet I’ll spend an average of £30 a week replenishing the food cupboard, and taking stock of what I can eat and when to get by.

Then there are bills to cover. Internet, gas, electric, water, TV. The economy of a large student house means these come to just £10 for seven days usage, but it is still a significant 20 per cent of what Duncan Smith believes is a plausible sum to live on.

Then, put on a taxi to town and back along with two drinks, and your £53 budget is blown. That hardly supports the leisure time for which students are renowned.

Subsistence living

As a student, it's harder and harder to stay afloat. You’re alive, but you’re not living. In the turmoil of the economic climate, the thrifty student is learning a valuable life skill; perfecting their ability to shop wisely and live within their means, perhaps the most useful life-skill.

Bids to appear upwardly mobile alongside university, such as being involved in sports clubs to boost your profile, purchasing suits for interviews, and having just a mid-range phone, mean that the burden is impressive to behold. These items are no longer luxuries, but necessities.

Students are navigating a minefield of potential outlays in order to better themselves. I have just undertaken two weeks of work experience to the detriment of my bank account. Travel to and around the capital close to the £150-mark alone. We're learning that a degree is not enough of testament to our dedication. You have to speculate to accumulate, and students shell out far in excess of the ‘liveable’ £53 a week to make themselves stand out.

And of course, there's the rent. I pay £68 a week in rent (which is an extremely reasonable sum), blowing the welfare minister’s entire budget instantly. My personal weekly allowance rests at £30 after rent, just enough for food and not a lot else.

Perhaps Duncan Smith’s declaration was all an ill-judged April Fool’s Day joke. But, then again, if I could file my alcohol consumption under expenses, I suppose I could live on £53 a week too.

The Independent (Work Experience): Student Media and Leveson

This article was originally published by The Independent on Friday 22nd March 2013. Available here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/how-will-leveson-impact-student-journalism-8545630.html

At a City University debate this month, Neil Wallis, a former News of the World executive editor warned: "If there are any student journalists here: it’s your freedom and once it goes you won’t get it back." This advice strikes close to home for many students, as Leveson replicates an issue long-standing at university.

I joined The Yorker at university because the idea of the independent paper appealed to me over union-approved media. Our independence has stood firm since we launched; unlike the other major student papers on campus, we don't sign the YUSU charter and are not moderated. If campus papers adhere to union policies, then they are often subject to restrictions that leave many students without sufficient space for investigative journalism. Instead, papers become a mouthpiece of the authority figures as the university officials steer the direction of print.

You only need to look at recent censorship of student publications to see that Leveson is likely to compromise the young journalist position further. At Sheffield, The Forge Press was banned from distribution in halls after they broke a story concerning the exploitation of a pay loophole by the university. Elsewhere, in Leeds, the NUS attempted to prevent the publishing of an interview with infamous BNP leader, Nick Griffin. 

The most prolific example was probably in the case of Edinburgh University, whose student union served an interim interdict on the The Student paper after a story that could have potentially harmed their reputation was slated for front page. Instead, the students decided to leave the front page with the single word ‘Censored’, but it's still wrong that an article of such gravity should be restricted from student access, especially if rumours will circulate due to the injunction order. The truth and student journalist integrity would be better.

On Question Time last year, Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins warned the audience that: “Every single measure introduced by parliament to restrict your freedom always goes further, it never goes backwards.”

It seems that some student papers could essentially be double-restricted by the proposals, government adding to union restrictions. There is a sense of trepidation: just where should regulation end and student independence start?

At the very climax of years of hard work fine-tuning the ability to report a ground-breaking story, students’ first medium of expression is set to be stifled. How should upcoming reporters explore their journalistic potential if they cannot follow their leads and initiatives?

Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, participated in a candid interview about Leveson on the BBC this week: “People are saying there’s a certain amount if independence in there? Is there?” he questioned. “Independence or not independence? It tends to be a quality that’s either one or the other.”

This has been the issue for students for decades. The best stories came from publishing news the unions didn’t want in print, so undoubtedly the trouble is learning to compromise union policies with student rights. If Leveson meddles in a manner that the unions have advocated thus far, independence is really something under threat, and students may never know true journalistic freedom.

The Independent (Work Experience): Does Twitter Need Moderation?

This article was originally published by The Independent on 22 March 2013. Available online here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/too-rude-for-its-own-good-twitter-needs-moderation-8545918.html

As Britain waited for his 2013 budget, a tentative George Osborne joined Twitter, the social micro-blogging site. The Chancellor must have been prepared for some degree of abuse on his interactions page. But the torrents of invective that flooded the site in the hours following Osborne’s new profile raise a serious issue about expressions of contempt.

Yesterday Twitter turned seven. Since 2006, the outlet has challenged its users to post succinctly and effectively in 140 characters or less, a bastion of free speech for the modern mentality. The communicative approach represents an intuitive paradigm shift: we are a nation on the pulse. Short updates from prevalent social figures drove the popularity of twitter as an en vogue medium of expression.

Yet we are increasingly carried away by the kind of short, snappy and sometimes rash outbursts that - when they catch on - foster the creative qualities that can make Twitter's top trending topics so brilliant. On Wednesday, for example, if you were to click on the trends of either “budget” or “George Osborne” a stream of abuse and harassment would have popped up on your screen.

Paraphrasing George Osborne’s first ever tweet, one user posted “Today I’ll present a budget that shows what a complete and utter useless cunt I am”. Another bemused tweeter argued “shouldn’t you be fixing the economy instead of fucking about on twitter?” Some took it upon themselves to cram as many insults as is possible into 140 characters: “you’re a first class bellend, you overpaid, overeducated fox hunting twat.”

Of course Osborne is not the first person to feel the wrath of Twitter users. In fact, the phenomenon is becoming more mainstream. Olympians felt the force of trolls last summer, with Rebecca Adlington receiving tweets comparing her to a whale, and Tom Daley being subject to inconsiderate tweets about his deceased father.

Abuse

Action should be considered, especially when we examine the number of high profile people deactivating accounts: from TV presenters Kirstie Allsopp and Helen Skelton to footballer Micah Richards and beyond, the impacts of twitter misuse are concerning. Perhaps these celebrities could provide part of the solution: with billions of followers, the likes of Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and One Direction could quite easily preach a better means of interacting on the Twitter platforms. Many of their followers are guilty of some abuse, whether it is sending threats to fellow fans, or mocking the artist’s contemporaries if their preferred singer doesn’t receive an award.

With the attacks happening at all levels – popular culture, political, racial, religious – is it time that Twitter invest in a scheme of censorship? When monitoring a site whose most defining feature is user interaction and integration, there's no easy answer. Twitter’s success is built off its ability to generate momentum on any topic at all.

While it might be impractical to impose a blanket ban on certain words or phrases, it is quite possible that Twitter could prevent certain terms becoming trendable, limiting the hashtag. The hashtag is a staple part in galvanizing a twitter movement and some of the more obscene trends get to the top in this way. #ReasonsToBeatUpYourWife and #fuckyouwashington are but two examples; another, #OnceYouGetMarriedYouCant, stems from our tendency to overshare (‘family friendly’ suggestions included: “sit on the toilet and clip your toenails wit the bathroom door open” and “keep those naked photos of your ex”).

Proactive approaches from Twitter developers may be the only means to tackle the problem of harassment. Despite the high-profile cases of breaking super-injunctions and jail sentences being served for mocking the adversities of our celebrities, users remain relatively unversed on the issue of acceptable Twitter actions. Crown Prosecution has issued a 14-page guide to social media prosecution and related laws, but there is still a tendency to believe that the blogosphere does not impact the physical world. Violent threats and campaigns of harassment are easily challenged in court.

Taking action

In fact, French anti-racism firms may have got the ball rolling by holding Twitter itself to account. The French Jewish Student Union and the J’accuse organisation have demanded a fine of $50million to be paid for Twitter not having handed over details of users whose abusive comments broke French law. The tag, #UnBonJuif (A Good Jew), instigated a string of abusive anti-Semitic posts on the micro-blogging site last year. Stéphane Lilti, the anti-racism groups’ lawyer, told FRANCE 24 “The 38 million euros cited, which is [the equivalent of] 50 million US dollars, is designed to make them [Twitter] wake up to the fact that protecting the authors of racist tweets is not acceptable.” Without doubt, Twitter wields a great responsibility for sharing and directing thoughts and should be penalised if they don’t monitor and act responsibly.

Safeguarding however comes with a risk. Increased filters of trending material could cause a delay in news transmission, and augmented censorship runs the risk of Twitter losing its dynamism. It would undoubtedly ensure a drop in popularity, and then there would be nothing to censor anyway.

At seven, Twitter seems to have been struck by a similar issue to Facebook. Just as other social network sites became bloated with memes and trolls, so the ingenuity that attracted new people and new modes of expression online risks being usurped by a proliferation of direct and personal attacks. This is not a new problem, but after the headlines about inappropriate and illegal posts on Twitter in 2012, it’s a wonder that users still felt justified to abuse the Chancellor so virulently, no matter how he has impacted their lives. 

The Independent (Work Experience): Growing Up With Iraq.

This article was written for The Independent and published on their website 20th March 2013:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/growing-up-with-iraq-8542599.html

AT the close of the Iraq War, Tony Blair visited troops on active service and declared that the supposed triumph in the Middle East was a momentous part of our generation’s history. “When people look back on this time, and look back on this conflict, I honestly believe that they will see this as one of the finer moments of our century” he said with confidence. Riding high on the wave of a euphoric sense of victory, the Prime Minister believed that he had proved doubters of the Iraq War wrong: his deliberately obstinate stance in the face of record protesters in the months preceding the war had apparently paid off. But not all victories should be measured by the physical change.

A decade after the conflict began, we are still living with its legacy, and feel the force of threat even more every day. A younger generation are now becoming part of the electorate; a generation for whom the Iraq War was their first engagement with pressing and current world issues. For those in their late teens and early 20s, this is their first memory of war.

Far from the prescribed school curriculum of World War II and the great British and Allied victories of the twentieth century, here was a confusing and confounding picture of modern warfare. Two of my clearest childhood memories revolve around the ‘war on terror’: the attacks of 9/11, and the opening bombardment on Baghdad some ten years ago. The former event I did not fully appreciate at the time, but remember my mother frantically trying to find a channel with children’s shows to distract our attention whilst she watched upstairs. The later seemed a rite of passage: I watched the images aged just ten, with my parents alongside.

Barrage

The picture was bewildering. How were we the good guys if we were launching such a massive barrage of destruction on this weaker nation? As a child in primary school, it was too much to comprehend.

Intervening years of destruction, violence and chaos followed, and I found myself questioning Blair’s resounding sentiment of success. Did we feel any safer in this modern world? Alongside dwindling support for the Iraq War grew increasing resentment and discontent. I came to the belief that this had been an exercise in vanity and massaging the egos of world superpowers.

As a country, we have never felt less safe as a result of British action abroad. A recent YouGov poll, carried out to coincide with the ten year anniversary of the Iraq invasion, reveals that a majority (56 per cent) of the public share this believe that the war has increased the risk of a terrorist attack on the UK, while less than a tenth of participants (7 per cent) believed it had decreased the risk of attack. It is a similar story in the US, where almost half (48 per cent) of people believe the conflict has not contributed to the long term security of the country.

In his ‘Discouraging Citizenship?’ paper, Stephen Cushion identified that “the 10–14 year old age group were the most anti-war (62 per cent opposing it), followed by the 19–22 group (47 per cent).” back in 2003. The massive 62 per cent against war are now feeling the impact of an oblivious government in which they had no say.

Apathy

When an estimated two million people marched on Westminster in 2003, placards of the mass anti-war demonstration read “Not in My Name”. The current distrust of young adults is easy to explain. This war we knew little about was waged in our name, and now we are the generation that have to deal with the consequences in a supposedly more threatening world.

Disengagement with politics does not stem from youth apathy as many assume, it sprouts from this cultural moment of war, a major milestone in public consciousness and disillusionment with the political monopoly. As the first people to grow up absorbing information from the TV, internet websites and social media, our fears and feelings, our misconceptions and misunderstandings of war are reinforced through every medium. For all the supposed benefits, we still feel less and less safe.

In his inauguration speech for his second term of office at the White House, Barack Obama announced that “a decade of war is now ending.” Withdrawing troops is not the end of the war however. While Western democracies may believe they have won a battle, the war on terror continues for those who are forced to live in the aftermath. Even if you are too young to remember the demonstrations in London, or the initial invasion, the cynicism is likely to have seeped in from reports of terrorist threats, 7/7 and elder siblings. Far from the glory of Tony Blair’s victory speech, this war will perhaps now be remembered as the finest example of the century’s incompetence and its legacy now overshadows the young. 

Where In The World Is Timbuktu?

Last week, I wrote in some detail about the need for Western democracy to take decisive action in its stance towards the Israel Palestine question. I argued that it had fallen under the radar.

Yet this appears more and more a most prevalent issue in news reporting. Whilst the world has been engrossed in the likes of Lance Armstrong’s admission on Oprah, or whether or not Beyoncé actually sung live at the President inauguration (because such matters are of vital importance to the quotidian lives of the developed democracies), there have been further instances of warfare erupting across the globe: namely, in Mali.

Mali, a small land-locked country in Africa, is probably unknown to most, excepting its most famous of cities, Timbuktu. And even then, a majority couldn’t actually say that Timbuktu was in Mali if they were faced with a pin-the-tail-on-the-country scenario. I’ll admit myself that I know relatively little of this African country, but what has become increasingly apparent in my observations is that the information I have of the conflict is increasingly due to my French friends.

Hell, I only know the war in Mali is ongoing because of my French friends. That is not to say I’m self-absorbed: it’s just that we are gradually having our news dictated to us from Facebook instead of actual news channels. But then, the news channels and papers have proffered little in the way of coverage here.

In fact, the Mali crisis has been a recurring blight on the African continent since the middle of 2011, and its absence from our TV screens, laptops and tablet papers is something that should speak volumes of our preoccupations. The war here was a direct reaction to the situation in Libya that same year. For all the media circus on Gaddafi, this too was a seeming charade: few had real ideas of the problems in the African country before the British response.

This is where we expected our public conscious and journalistic preferences to take a turn: to focus on the global and its relation to us. Yet, we have failed to follow the sparks ignited by the Gaddafi revolution. Despite being amongst the poorest nations in the world, Mali was considered a beacon of African democracy; a self-sustaining country that had a recognisable and functioning government so sought after in other trouble states. This makes it all the more concerning that the media did not showcase the issue sooner. Essentially, the military seized power in March 2012. Tuareg rebels declared the independence of 'Azawad state' in the north, which was quickly taken over by al-Qaeda allies, effectively splitting the country in two and ensuring a continued battleground of hostility for the past 12 months.

Of course, no one ever expected the troubles in Libya to remain isolated events. In this light, we have become desensitised, almost to the point of morose boredom. The words of certain 20^th century Prime Minister ring true in our apathy: “A war in a distant nation that we know nothing about.” But surely, just as in the 1930s, we should still be concerned?

While the Malian government had been busy claiming the situation in the north was under control, rank-and-file soldiers felt humiliated and abandoned in combat with not enough military resources and food. “The Libyan crisis didn't cause this coup but certainly revealed the malaise felt within the army,” says Malian newspaper columnist Adam Thiam. “President Amadou Toumani Toure hasn't been active in tackling drug trafficking and al-Qaeda fighters, and the emergence of new rebel movements only added to the soldiers' frustration.”

The undercurrent of tension here is just a microcosm of the situation in many of Africa’s poorest nations. With recent rebel activity in Algeria, the continued threat is something that has become at least visible, if not palpable on the whole.

However, the difficulties in resolving the Libyan crisis are still bearing consequences. A strong leader (especially in the apparent absence of President Amadou Toumani Toure) that can unite a reluctant Malian army could spell the beginning of further African conflict, and a number of bordering states are set to follow in a cataclysmic domino effect.

The rebel group, MNLA, believe the only thing that can halt their advance into southern Mali is in fact a European intervention, so confident they are in their support, abilities and weaponry. “Western powers have underestimated that getting rid of Gaddafi would have severe repercussions in the Sahel region,” says Mr Kebe, a professor in Arab-African relations.

Once more it is an example of the Western endemic of half-heartedness in their resolve to find a permanent solution to a potentially volatile situation across much of Northern Africa. But, did Beyoncé actually sing the inauguration song live? I guess we’ll all be avidly tuning into the Superbowl next week. 

Promised Land of Change: Israel's Elections and Peace

"If you're in Israel today, vote as if your life depends on it. It does."

Scrolling my Twitter feed, I find these rather haunting words from the Hareetz newspaper, half a world away. As far as tactics go for convincing people to vote, perhaps a tad extreme. Such headlines would certainly not work in a UK election. Yet is it an over-reaction of the Israeli state, or a reaffirmation that the Middle East is still a cause for tension, when media attention is attracted to the US and Obama’s inauguration?

So renowned are the disputes between Israel and neighbour Palestine that Western media appears to have all but forsaken any coverage of the issue. Last year when a period of peace was ended, images of rockets, interceptors, collapsing buildings and wounded infants once more flooded the screens of the UK. But the focus was short lived and prompted little in the way of assistance to the two countries.

Last week, as part of his second inauguration, Obama spoke candidly of freedom and warfare in relation to the US. As the leading force in intervention, the American president voiced his opinion that "We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few." Of course, this first and foremost is a sentiment of American equality: a modern revival of a president advocating the American Dream. Yet, it suggests a pragmatic belief in the need for a practical approach in aiding other countries, whose desolate and poor do not have the right to freedom or happiness from constant threat and terror.

The election results in Israeli may in fact go some way to inducing Western aid once more. The mood of the electorate has certainly swung, and in the process of forming a coalition government, the fine balance of parties views will need to be negotiated and compromises and truces reached. Whilst the American politician Tip O'Neill once famously observed “that all politics is local.”, here in Israel, politics is more enmeshed in social-cultural-international relations than in any other region on the globe.

Naturally, it appears that some have heeded the warning to vote in accordance to live. Whilst the incumbent president won the most votes, he does not have a majority. In fact, the real victor may be Mr Lapid’s party, Yesh Atid (There is a Future), running for the first time. He earned 19 seats in the 120-seat parliament, against 31 for the Likud-Beitenu party, led by Binyamin Netanyahu, who is still expected to retain his post. But the centralist party now hold a powerful position in the next term of office.

If the party comes together with Netanyahu, there is prospect for a more proactive approach to peace in the region. In previous elections, the extremist parties had received significant votes. But with Yesh Atid and the Labour party now performing well and instigating a new approach to peace and politics in the region, a lot more has to be done to appease the emerging young middle classes that have temperaments and logical approaches that mirror more closely Western ideals.

Netanyahu told weary but elated supporters early Wednesday he plans to form a government "as broad as possible" and pursue his goals with "many partners."

"I believe the results of the election represent an opportunity to make changes that the people of Israel want to see and that will serve all citizens of the state of Israel," he said. "I plan to lead those changes and to that end we must establish a government that is as broad as possible, and I've already started out on that task."

Should the Prime Minister prove true in his word, this may change the attitude of Western democracies that had written off the Israel question as a futile area of irresolvable conflict. Of course, none of this precludes the antagonism of Palestine and whether they too are ready to engage in a new series of discussions to resolve the theological problems that have blighted two nations for generations.

Of course, the leaders of the EU and the US will remember that it was the Palestinian leadership, under Yasser Arafat, that rejected the generous offer of peace talks and improved relationships by Prime Minister Ehud Barak and President Bill Clinton in 2000-2001, and similar proposals were again rejected just a few years ago. Should the Palestinian leadership refuse to host any talks in the light of this new national outpouring of feeling in Israel, both countries will have failed to capitalise on a potentially pivotal moment in the debate.

Progress has been galvanised in Israel, and now the leaders of Western democracy need respond positively. Media should showcase more closely the development of the Middle East crisis to add to pressure for a resolve. In an age of integrated social media, internet and 24 hour news, the Israel-Palestine conflict is still a black hole of non-information. If only we were as determined to vote as though our lives depended on it, maybe we would have more empathy with the citizens of Israel.