Audley, please call it a day

In the build up to their fight, David Price said of Audley Harrison “he more or less wrote the book on what not to do when he turned professional”. And few, probably including Harrison, would beg to differ. A gold medalist at the Sydney Olympics in 2000, a £1 million deal with the BBC and a household name, Harrison appeared to be embarking on a successful career upon turning professional. But eventually it all went pear-shaped and Harrison became a ridiculed figure within a noble sport.

Deciding to fight under his own promotional company, Harrison went nineteen fights undefeated. Although his opponents offered no discernible challenge or progress as he added hollow victories to his record. All the while, Harrison continued his rhetoric of progressing to a world title, albeit not fighting anyone noteworthy to suggest he was actually on world level. Not to mention, his performances weren't befitting of a world class fighter either.

Throughout his career, I've always felt Harrison’s problem has been mental rather than related to his ability. Indeed, Harrison would appear to have the makings of a credible fighter. He's just never fulfilled it.

In an age of the ‘big’ heavyweight boxer, Harrison’s frame isn't out of place in the division. Unlike many modern heavyweight fighters who lack the discipline to stay in shape and instead carry a spare tyre into the ring, Harrison clearly puts in work when in the gym. He moves well for a big fighter and while he’s rarely shown it, he's technically proficient. Mentally, he’s just failed to put it all together and turn up when it matters.

Unfortunately for Harrison, when it has looked like he might actually turn up, so have his opponents. Deontay Wilder took 70 seconds to stop Harrison. Few, if any, fighters would have withstood Price’s right hand and Michael Sprott caught Harrison with a lucky yet big shot that appeared to surprise even Sprott himself in their first fight. And while I don’t think Harrison was as confident as he claimed when he fought David Haye, Haye was always going to be too fast and too strong for him to contain – even if Harrison had thrown more than one punch in what was an embarrassing performance. Conversely, Harrison has shown glimpses of what he can do when he's on point.

Harrison clinically dismantled Danny Williams with a third round KO to avenge his defeat from their first fight. Effectively spending the entire fight fighting with one hand against Sprott in their second meeting, he dug deep and showed heart to get a 12th round KO with a huge left hook. And in winning the recent Heavyweight instalment of Prizefighter, Harrison was given a huge confidence boost going into his fight with Wilder. That said, I didn't read too much into his success in the tournament as it doesn't necessarily translate into success within the traditional format of boxing; his loss to Wilder proved that. Moreover, none of his notable victories have been beyond domestic or European level.

Failure to make his mark in a division that’s been largely moribund since he turned professional is telling of Harrison. Furthermore, at 41 time is not on his side in the context of his boxing career. The Klitschko brothers’ domination of the heavyweight division, with their handpicked opponents and unexciting and methodical yet effective styles, is unlikely to run for much longer. Vitali has probably already drafted the press release announcing his retirement and his decision to pursue his political aspirations. And Wladimir probably has another few years before he too decides to call it a day. But new stars such as Price and Wilder are emerging and they've already deftly handled Harrison. Similarly, David Haye is returning from his so-called retirement and is likely to win world titles. Therefore the likelihood of Harrison's aspiration of winning a world title being realised in the near future, let alone navigating his way to a title shot, seems even more lofty and unlikely.

Ridicule has become commonplace when discussing Harrison’s boxing career and boos have almost become a soundtrack to his shows. However, he doesn't deserve the opprobrium he’s received in the manner in which it’s been delivered. Aside from his Olympic medal, Harrison successfully campaigned for increased funding for British amateur boxing; the legacy of which is arguably the current successes of Team GB boxing. Yet his performances in the ring have overshadowed his achievements and diminished his respect where it’s due.

Harrison serves as a cautionary tale for any young boxer turning professional and working with such fighters would be a way for him to remain in the sport. If Harrison wants to stay in or around the ring, it certainly shouldn't be with him as a fighter and he needs to call it a day.

If a refusal to quit and, as some might say, delusion, counted for anything, Harrison would have already unified the heavyweight division. Instead, it's merely served to fuel the derision he’s been subject to throughout his career. Harrison’s sadly best known for his lacklustre and sometimes embarrassing performances in the ring than his Olympic gold medal. The best thing he can do for his career is to end it without further ado.

The misconception of tax and welfare

Nobody likes paying tax. Though for most people and businesses, it’s an unavoidable and legal, and arguably social and moral, responsibility. However, there is an increasing misconception about the use of taxes and a disconnect in how wider society benefits from tax revenue as a whole. Part of this is derived from the flawed and ignorant perception that taxes fund public services that bear no relevance on people’s day-to-day lives, and welfare that merely supports the “lazy” and “workshy”. As a result, for many, there’s resentment in paying tax without the realisation that it benefits everyone.

The reality is that tax isn’t universally realised as a contribution to society. That’s resulted in an ignorant belief where some people feel they aren’t seeing much for their taxes, while others who don’t pay tax, do.

Public services aren’t just for the poor, they’re for the public. And that means everyone. Yet the provision of public services is often ignored by those who would argue they see no personal “return” on their taxes. In fact, many are quick to take for granted the universal access to state education, healthcare and other vital public services that at some point everyone has benefited from. Moreover, that stance is often heightened when considering local authorities and the services they provide.

Council tax represents only a fraction of the money local authorities have to spend, with the remainder coming from central government grants and councils’ revenue streams such as rent, fees and other charges. But despite their low profile in contrast to central government, local authorities have a huge remit in providing public services that affect people’s day-to-day lives.

Children’s services, education, environmental services, licensing and planning are just some of the services provided by local authorities that have a direct impact on everyone. Nonetheless, some people would inexplicably argue that they see little benefit from local authorities or from paying council tax.

Part of these attitudes stem from the government’s socially divisive approach in demonising the public sector and, on a second front, those that rely on the welfare system. On the latter especially, some people have sadly taken the bait and furthered the misconceptions around welfare, who receives it and the circumstances that led them to be in that position. Unsurprisingly, that’s just increased some people’s resentment in paying tax.

Contrary to popular belief, not everyone in receipt of benefits is a teenage single mother who repeatedly fails to practice birth control or any other Daily Mail-esque twisted and deeply offensive stereotype. Furthermore, welfare isn’t intended as a subsidy for the lazy, it’s for the vulnerable in maintaining a fairer society.

Aside from pensioners, many people receiving benefits are actually working but on low wages that don’t enable a basic standard of living. The disabled are also eligible for benefits to assist with extra costs caused by their disability. Broadly speaking, most benefit claimants are simply victims of wider social problems such as high unemployment and unaffordable housing. Do they not deserve the support of a system that is contributed to by the taxes of those that are more fortunate?

The welfare reform being introduced targets a section of society that has become the go-to scapegoat. At the same time, the 50p tax rate is also being abolished for high earners – no wonder there’s a growing sentiment of ‘them and us’.

Reform of some kind is necessary to ensure the vulnerable, not the minority who abuse the system, have access to benefits while reducing a rising and untenable welfare bill. I’m not exactly a benefit sympathiser as where the system has been abused or unnecessarily depended upon, I’ve seen the negative impact it can have on communities and local economies for generations. Yet this group actually counts for the minority and there’s a distinct lack of empathy for those that are genuine claimants and a disregard for the situation that led them to needing support.

The bedroom tax for example will see recipients of housing benefit who are deemed to have a spare room in social housing losing 14% of their housing benefit. If they’re deemed to have two or more spare rooms, they’ll lose 25% of their housing benefit. The government claims this will result in a more efficient use of social housing and help to reduce the housing benefit bill which I agree is very much needed. But many tenants will be penalised for additional rooms they need for medical reasons or other valid circumstances that have been overlooked by the government. The state of social housing isn’t their fault yet they’re being made to pay the price for it.

Another often ignored reason for the rising housing benefit bill is the number of largely middle class buy-to-let homeowners. Many will rent to low-income or unemployed tenants in receipt of housing benefit, knowing the rent will be met by the state. They’ll therefore charge high rents with no moral consideration. Seemingly, when it’s the middle classes who are the culprits of being a drain on welfare, the vitriol from the government and others isn’t quite the same.

Given the perception of welfare and public services, some view their taxes as almost being a penalty for hard work that merely gets diverted to the undeserving. The bigger picture of the social gains provided by taxes gets lost in the diatribe. Consequently, these attitudes gradually erode any sense of social cohesiveness.

Taxes aren’t an exclusive subsidy for the low paid or unemployed, nor do they fund public services that only benefit the “have-nots”. The ignorance and aloofness that leads to this misconception is hugely flawed and only serves to perpetuate a fallacy that is increasingly damaging to society.