Is society so jaded with the status quo of socio-economic inequality that it no longer has the inclination to revolt?

While it may only be fiction, the Batman trilogy of films depicts a dystopia that isn’t that removed from what could occur in modern society. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises showed Gotham so riddled by crime due to a society polarised between the haves and have-nots, that it became characterised by moral turpitude. So much so that Ra’s al Ghul, and latterly Bane, were able to exploit the resentment that existed within Gotham and on both occasions initiate uprisings (albeit ill-fated thanks to the caped crusader) against Gotham’s wealthy elite and the authorities.

Returning to reality, the message is simple – give people enough to feed their anger, and sooner or later they will revolt. However, in modern society, where socio-economic inequality is moving in the direction of that seen in Gotham, people don’t appear motivated to stand up against an unfair and worsening situation.

Needless to say, governments and the elite cannot be exclusively blamed for the woes of the less fortunate. However, disparate living standards have become a feature of modern society. The haves and the have-nots are often separated by little more than a few miles in some cities but their respective realities couldn’t be starker in contrast. For many of the latter, a more desirable standard of living is almost flaunted before them within adjacent communities as pockets of deprivation and affluence are scattered alongside each other. Almost aggressive gentrification is changing the landscape of communities traditionally comprised by lower socio-economic groups. Furthermore, it’s compounded by government policies like the benefit cap in the UK. Similarly, the absence of a rent cap or robust rent control in many cities merely expedites this social transformation.

Yet despite a widening gap in socio-economic status, a warranted and indignant vitriol has not been forthcoming. Indeed, it has barely scratched the surface in articulating a mass discontent. Has society become so jaded and downtrodden that the less fortunate have accepted their place at the bottom of the social totem pole with limited, if any, scope to elevate themselves? Meanwhile, the richest and most privileged in society continue to solidify this position. Indeed, governments and their respective policies preserve this with no regard for those whose social position remains stagnant or worse still declines as a consequence.

Western society has long been structured to maintain a status quo that protects the position and privilege of the most advantaged. The medieval feudal system has effectively been replaced by patronage and nepotism for the elite and those who are able to ‘buy’ political favour from the government of the day. In the same way, education policies (arguably some of the most effective tools when engineering the composition and class structure of a society), such as the introduction of secondary modern schools in the UK, have restricted the aspirations and potential opportunities of a section of society that were deemed less ‘academic’ and more likely to come from lower socio-economic groups.

Similarly, social unrest such as that seen in riots in Brixton and latterly Tottenham (the latter spreading throughout the UK) has subsequently been capitalised upon in further progressing the position of those that are more fortunate. Middle classes swarm to buy properties in these respective areas, only to change the character and composition of communities while said property prices rapidly rise. Thus they price longstanding inhabitants and their families out of the area. Consequently, family and community links are broken and eroded as another tool of impeding the social mobility of the less fortunate. Although governments have no qualms with this and essentially encourage it with economic incentives, policies and rhetoric.

The aforementioned examples don’t begin to show the extent of the inequality within society. It’s apparent for all to see and there’s a clear history of it occurring. Therefore why is there effectively a silent majority who accept this? A recent report by Credit Suisse revealed that 1% of people own 48% of global wealth. It’s a staggering statistic but one that supports the Occupy movement’s ‘we are the 99%’ slogan and reinforces the current socio-economic inequality that society is subject to.

In the UK, not since the Poll Tax riots has there been unrest on a scale that showed how angry people were with social injustice. The MPs expenses scandal in the UK saw few MPs convicted for their actions which if not illegal were certainly not in the spirit of public life. But rather than directed and meaningful anger, people largely responded with further apathy for politics. Likewise, in the wake of the financial crisis, responses have been meek. The subprime mortgage crisis saw people lose their homes. And the financial sector, the group most responsible for the financial crisis, was bailed out at the expense of taxpayers around the world because they were crudely deemed ‘too big to fail’. The most notable but short lived response to this was the Occupy movement. And that failed to have any tangible and achievable objectives that would enable it to galvanise further support and effect change.

The Occupy movement, once showing promise that never materialised, provided a vehicle for anger to be articulated and change to be forcefully effected. Though instead it has seemingly fizzled out with little to show for its impact. It’s regrettable that it never became a movement that effected change, forcing governments to relent from what has been a tradition of favouring only the most privileged in society. Against a backdrop of increasing socio-economic inequality, the Occupy movement failed to effect change. It therefore begs the question what will motivate society to breaking point in meaningfully protesting against current circumstances?

It’s difficult to ascertain why exactly people don’t feel inclined to rebel against the existing state of affairs. Ignorance is a major factor. When American investment banks Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley converted to bank holding companies, they were granted a status typically reserved for retail banks such as those found on high streets with regular customers depositing and withdrawing money. And accompanying that status, they had access to loans at lower rates and bolstered security from the Federal Reserve (who approved their newly acquired status). Meanwhile, industries, businesses and individuals continued to experience harsh financial austerity without any such protection or assistance afforded to them. Hardly a move in the spirit of integrity, this wasn’t highly publicised at all. Had it been, it may have provided a further source of anger as a tipping point for unrest in response to the actions of the financial section and respective governments in cahoots with each other. After all, surely everyone has a breaking point where they’re no longer willing be bent over a barrel by the state and the elite?

There also needs to be a unifying figure to mobilise efforts with the chutzpah to challenge the way things are. It’s unlikely to be forthcoming from a mainstream political figure. A glaring absence from the Occupy movement was a leader figure that was able to articulate and capture the sentiments of the wider public, hence the movement being unable to gather any momentum.

Ultimately, people have become jaded and accepted the status quo. Indignation has seemingly disappeared from society in recent years and worryingly so. There seems to be no motivation to reflect on the unfairness of growing polarised wealth nor an effort to reverse it. Nonetheless, as things edge towards further inequality, it may only be a matter of time before the dystopia of Gotham becomes less farfetched than it may currently seem.

Straight? Gay? I don't care

Despite progressive views on sexuality, the issue of homosexuality has remained a preoccupation for some as a taboo status. Indeed, that fixation has been anything but subtle for those it applies to. This is compounded by an apparent obsession within the media with gay celebrities’ decisions to publically reveal or conceal their sexuality. Indeed, if a high profile celebrity announces that they’re gay, it’s inevitable that it’ll make headlines.

When British diver Tom Daley announced he was gay it rapidly made headlines. There wasn’t anything particularly shocking about his revelation but it somehow managed to dominate British media in disproportionate measures. Yet even Daley later said of his announcement ‘I don’t think it should be news’, a view I share with him. Though the fact that it is, suggests that homosexuality is perhaps still considered more of a taboo than many would like to admit. Based on those who crave such stories, it could be said that the pendulum of views on homosexuality has swung from being swept under the carpet to becoming headline news.

Clearly any trend that moves away from homosexuality being deemed taboo lessens the prevalence of homophobic views. Although by giving the story of someone ‘coming out’ undue shock value, it only serves to add hype around the issue of one’s sexual orientation. This hardly encourages an attitude where upon hearing of someone being gay, people are inclined to keep it moving rather than making much ado about nothing. Nonetheless, not only can I not see why it justifies such fanfare, but why does anyone’s sexual orientation matter to the next person? Unintentionally, such hype also increases the fixation with homosexuality for those who feel it’s wrong – and who will consequently show homosexuals disdain.

In the first instance, one’s sexuality should be personal and shared by inference or a need to know basis. Consequently, someone else’s sexual orientation is something I remain indifferent to. As a heterosexual man, what bearing does someone being gay have on me and vice versa? Unless of course it’s my own partner in question, I don’t see how it does. On the other hand, for those that wouldn’t share my indifference, where does their unjustified interest stem from?

Views on sexuality and sexual orientation are often rooted in culture, religion and communities and the extent to how conservative or liberal they are. Growing up, I can admit to having held ignorant and homophobic views that were reflected amongst my peers too. But as homosexuality was deemed taboo and not held in too high esteem amongst many around me, my stance wasn’t out of step with many around me. Though with maturity, I recognised my ignorance and prejudice. Furthermore, I realised that not only did I not have a reference point of anyone openly homosexual to base this view on, but even if I did it would make no difference to my own life. Therefore with a mature perspective, I don’t understand why some people and groups are so obsessed with it.

Some would argue that moves to remove the stigma and taboo of homosexuality attack cultural, social and religious values that espouse disapproval of homosexuality. Their response would be that they’re protecting their values, such as the opposition to gay marriage from various religious groups. I can understand they may want to preserve their own beliefs, no matter how the secular world may view them as being archaic, and they're entitled to do that. However, that needn't and shouldn't accompany any vitriol towards those who represent a different sexual orientation than that which they deem valid. Herein lies the issue where beliefs can become so forthright that they instead take the form of prejudice. It's an unnecessary stance but one which unwittingly fans the flames of sensationalising ones sexuality.

Doing otherwise isn’t a case of being pro or anti-homosexual or rejecting what one might deem a component of their values. Instead it’s simply being accepting and indifferent of people’s differences and leaving it at that.

There's also the other side of those that make a bigger issue of their sexuality which is similarly unnecessary. Apple CEO, Tim Cook, recently came out as being homosexual and announced he was ‘proud to be gay’ in an article he wrote in Bloomberg Businessweek.

I can appreciate that Tim Cook’s statement was more to do with illustrating that he wasn't ashamed to be homosexual and providing inspiration for those that may be gay and reluctant to embrace and accept their sexuality (and those who might be prejudiced towards them). But 'proud'? What exactly is he proud of? I'm not proud to be heterosexual, it's just a fact no different to the fact that Tim Cook is gay.

Some may feel an indifference to sexual orientation is tantamount to pitting themselves against their own. Conversely, those who make an issue of their sexual orientation are needlessly distinguishing themselves from others and slowing down the attainment of equality. One’s sexual orientation is a fact not a talking point. Making it the latter simply gives it unwarranted and necessary focus in an era where it should be an aberration for that to be the case.

Do we really need unionised staff? Unfortunately, yes we do

This week’s tube strike has, as always, led to polarised views on the justification for industrial action and seen people either empathising with or criticising the staff who decided to go on strike. Similarly, it’s seen people either articulating their support or their frustration at the disruption to their commute (and their consequent ire with staff on strike) via social media. The blogosphere has been no different with both sides represented.

I read a blog post on The Right View condemning the strike action titled ‘Do we really need unionised staff?’, a presumably rhetorical, ideologically driven and not particularly well-thought out question. Well, the short answer is yes, unfortunately we do.

The reason I say ‘unfortunately’, isn’t because I’m anti-union. As is probably apparent from previous posts, I’m actually pro-union. It’s unfortunate because there is still a need for employees’ terms and conditions to be fairly protected. Where this isn’t the status quo, unionised staff are very necessary. To question the need for a unionised workforce is a stance that doesn’t appreciate that workers sometimes need a collective voice to safeguard against an employer abusing its position.

Specifically in relation to the tube strike, many would argue that the RMT and TSSA are essentially resisting modernisation in their opposition to London Mayor Boris Johnson’s plan to close ticket offices and the consequent job cuts. And to an extent, perhaps they are. Technology has made fewer ticket office staff a viable prospect and there is a degree of pragmatism that is required when considering how far the unions should be prepared to concede to the Mayor’s plans.

A reduction in ticket office staff (with adequate redeployment and redundancy packages for those affected) is probably inevitable if not justified to ensure TfL continues to run as a viable business. Though Boris Johnson’s ticket office plan is driven by ideology, much like the sentiments within the aforementioned post which naïvely and arrogantly suggests the ticket office closure plans don’t go far enough –

‘Get rid of ticket offices and get rid of drivers. Those that are happy to stay can be rehoused to work on platforms or in control rooms. Those that complain can take their voluntary redundancy payments and find a new job.’

Those are clearly the views of someone who doesn’t hold any empathy for employees or see labour relations as any value to an organisation. Although it’s somewhat unsurprising coming from a centre-right blog.

Closing all ticket offices goes too far, particularly against a growing use of the tube. By all means, modernise and move towards further use of technology. However there are numerous precedents for job cut programmes, under the guise of modernisation, used as justification for further and unnecessary cuts – only for it to be later realised as a flawed and failed approach that requires a U-turn and a serving of humble pie. Boris Johnson has said the ticket offices closures will not result in any compulsory redundancies – but he also said he was opposed to any ticket office closures in his 2008 manifesto and latterly in 2010. As a result, I wouldn’t blame the unions and ticket office staff to be sceptical of his so-called promises.

The disruption to Londoners is frustrating to say the least and underpins most negative views towards those striking. But surely there should be some empathy for the staff who seek to protect their jobs? Particularly in the current economic climate, why is an attempt for workers to protect their jobs, especially given the extent of the proposed cuts, met with such a lack of empathy and hostility? Is it because it’s blue collar work largely undertaken by the working class (who the right and centre-right continue to demonise)? Indeed, I doubt there would be such an indifference to workers’ jobs from The Right View had it been traditionally middle class jobs that were at risk en masse.

A further dimension to the tube strike is that Boris Johnson can turn commuters’ frustration to contempt towards the staff on strike. It certainly takes the hostilities around industrial action to a higher and unfair level. It also illustrates the extent to which the staff are effectively having a campaign waged against them that goes beyond tube modernisation.

What needs to be understood by those who argue against a unionised workforce and their willingness to strike is that unions rarely take strike action lightly. Even for militant unions, deciding to call strike action is akin to playing your trump card. And if it doesn’t have the desired effect, you’ve severely weakened your position. Few unions would therefore take strike action with indifference or nonchalance.

Strike action is never the first step in seeking a resolution. It only comes after failed negotiations and typically a refusal by the employer to compromise. At that stage, all the employees have at their disposal to commence or resume meaningful negotiations is withdrawal of their labour. And contrary to the suggestion in The Right View, it isn’t ‘at the drop of a hat’ either. Unions have to ballot members and give notice for a strike in line with employment legislation. Consent for potential strike action is also enshrined in union recognition agreements between the union and the employer. While there are of course militant unions that are too quick to ballot their members for strike action (and hardly help depict the trade union movement in a positive and modern light), it’s an erroneous belief that taking strike action is taken on a whim.

Trade unions have achieved much for employment legislation and labour relations that have benefited society as a whole such as maternity leave and annual leave. Furthermore, in questioning their value, it is necessary to question whether all employers can be trusted to protect their employees’ terms and conditions, not to mention their job security where practical and financially viable. Unfortunately the answer to that is sometimes no.

Being an employer is a position of authority and responsibility and one that should not be dictated by employees. A problem with unions’ relationships with Labour governments and nationalised industries of yesteryear was that the unions wrongly felt it was their place to dictate to the employer and hold them to ransom (which some commentators ignorant to history may wrongly argue is happening with the tube strikes). Yet sometimes their authority can be abused and their responsibility neglected. When that occurs, workers need their voice to be heard. In the case of the tube strikes, the union members are merely trying to ensure this while faced with Boris Johnson’s blinkered ideological pursuit.

Uninformed and unempathetic views surrounding unions and their members are likely to continue. Yet if all employers were able to show themselves as responsible and able to value their staff, union membership would certainly dwindle and they’d be less need for the trade union movement. Alas, there are too many employers unable to do this, hence the continued relevance of unions. Until then, unionised workforces will continue to be necessary, as will the unions themselves.

Five all-British fights I'd like to see in 2014

2014 is a promising year for boxing. Floyd Mayweather will likely continue as the sport’s main attraction and boxing fans still yearn for him to face Manny Pacquiao, a fight that despite the latter’s stock having fallen isn’t completely dead in the water. Light heavyweight heavy hitters Surgey Kovalev and Adonis Stevenson are likely to meet in what should be an explosive fight. And with Vitali Klitschko retiring and vacating the WBC belt, the heavyweight division may get interesting as a new champion emerges. Not to mention the vacant belt could be the treatment required to expedite a recovery for David Haye’s career-threatening shoulder injury (it’s already rumoured that Haye is planning a return to boxing and it certainly isn’t a ludicrous notion). Although amidst the international prospects within the sport, there are several potential all-British fights that will excite boxing fans.

In no particular order, I’ve therefore considered five British fights I’d like to see in 2014. Whether or not they’ll happen as a result of politics remains to be see. But if they do, they should make for great fights.

George Groves vs Carl Froch

Before their first bout, I tipped George Groves for a points win over Carl Froch. It wasn’t the popular choice amongst boxing fans or the bookmakers. Nonetheless, I felt Groves and his now estranged former coach and manager Adam Booth had studied Froch for years and devised a plan to win just as they did against James DeGale. With rumours of Froch having dropped Groves during sparring and Froch’s confidence (and ego) inflated since he dismantled Lucian Bute and beat Mikkel Kessler in their rematch, conversely, Froch was clearly underestimating Groves.

When Groves and Froch eventually met in the ring, Groves did everything he said he would and Froch was outclassed and outmuscled for the duration of the fight. And while Froch might beg to differ, if it wasn’t for referee Howard Foster prematurely stopping the fight in the ninth round, Groves was on course to get the W. Consequently, and with a lack of graciousness even in a controversial win, Froch emerged the villain while Groves’ popularity skyrocketed. The needle between the two fighters seemingly hasn’t eroded and it therefore sets the stage for a great rematch.

Froch, having presumably realised Groves has the game plan to hurt, outbox and even stop him, doesn’t seem to want a sequel to what was one of the best fights of 2014. He claims there are bigger fights with Andre Ward (who convincingly beat him in the final of the Super Six), Julio Cesar Chavez Jr and even Gennady Golovkin (who would provide the sternest test to Froch’s granite chin). Fight fans however, and understandably an aggrieved Groves, want to see the rematch.

If Froch acquiesces to the desires of Groves and fight fans alike, I can see Groves getting the win in a rematch. He won’t hold back and knowing he can and has hurt Froch, he’s likely to put it on him early. Froch, of course, won’t underestimate Groves this time and will prepare to fight someone who is worthy of his respect. Add the genuine dislike between the two fighters and whatever the decision, it should make for a great fight. It’s ultimately just down to Froch if it actually happens.

Kell Brook vs Amir Khan

Amir Khan has long been chasing a fight with pound-for-pound champion Floyd Mayweather and despite conflicting reports from their respective camps, it seems it may happen this spring. Despite Khan having lost two of his last four fights (one by way of TKO), and his increasing reputation for having a glass chin, he still appears to offer marque value, especially in the United States where he’s promoted by Golden Boy.

Meanwhile, and admittedly with a much lower profile outside of boxing circles, Kell Brook has remained a rival of Khan’s and a potential opponent for some time. With their dislike of each other, a fight between Brook and Khan is growing nicely into a domestic grudge match in the second half of the year. Both fighters will have their fight schedules busy until then. Though I expect by then Brook will have the IBF welterweight belt and even with a loss to Mayweather, Khan’s stock is unlikely to be dented.

Behind the scenes, it appears that talks have already started to lay the groundwork for formal negotiations for Brook vs Khan. If it does happen, I’d tip Brook to win. Khan hasn’t previously fought at welterweight (should it happen, his fight against Mayweather will be his first outing in the division) whereas Brook is big welterweight at that. Furthermore, if Khan’s chin can’t withstand big shots at 140lbs, how will he cope with shots at 147lbs? I think Khan is a decent fighter with heart, great speed and technical proficiency. Though he lacks the discipline to not trade with fighters – a foolish if not entertaining tendency for a chinny fighter. Khan’s coach Virgil Hunter has been working on Khan’s defence. Yet even he has conceded that at this stage in Khan’s career, it’s too late to address that to the extent necessary.

Brook, despite not having fought at this level or on such a big platform, has shown his ability, most recently in taking apart Vyacheslav Senchenko within four rounds. Like Khan, Brook has speed but he also has accuracy and power that I don’t think Khan will be able to cope with – especially if he tries to trade with Brook. Add the animosity between Khan (and his sycophantic camp) and Brook, and it’s a fight I’m eagerly anticipating.

Scott Quigg vs Carl Frampton

Scott Quigg vs Carl Frampton is on the wish list of fights for many boxing fans. Frampton, under the tutelage of Barry McGuigan and his son Shane, has been unfortunate to yet capture a title unlike Quigg. Yet both fighters are keen for a domestic match-up with only boxing politics as the likely obstacle. Traditionally, interest in the lower weight classes hasn’t been to the extent as it has for heavier fighters but this fight is bound to attract a sizeable following and boost the profiles of both fighters beyond boxing circles.

Chris Eubank Jr vs Billy Joe Saunders

Like most of Mick Hennessy’s fighters (both former and current), Chris Eubank Jr was probably lured to Hennessy Promotions with the prospect of having his fights aired on terrestrial television in the UK on Channel 5. The deal hasn’t been all it was cracked up to be and Eubank Jr’s exposure has suffered as a result (Eubank Jr has since parted company with Hennessy Promotions). Nonetheless, what we have seen from him shows he’s one of the most promising fighters in the domestic middleweight scene and he’s certainly not trading off his father’s name for success. Eubank Jr has shown speed, power and showmanship (remind you of anyone?) and commitment in the gym. And if he can get the television exposure he deserves, his profile will grow accordingly.

Billy Joe Saunders has achieved more than Eubank Jr and is currently British and Commonwealth middleweight champion. Some might say a fight with Eubank Jr might therefore be a retrograde step. But the fight would be no mismatch, perhaps only needing Eubank Jr to raise his profile and show some progression on his record to make it marketable. Saunders and Eubank Jr dislike each other and those on the fringe of the boxing fraternity will be keen to see if Eubank Jr is anywhere near as talented as his father. It’s not exactly a PPV event but a solid domestic fight that would be great at this stage of their respective careers.

Tony Bellew vs Nathan Cleverly

Both Tony Bellew and Nathan Cleverly’s respective decisions to move up to cruiserweight were preceded by stoppages at light heavyweight. However, with or without their respective defeats, perhaps it was a timely decision. I’ve often thought Bellew, who fought at heavyweight as an amateur, looked weight drained at light heavyweight and the decision to move up in weight was surely overdue. With both fighters stepping up to cruiserweight, they’ll presumably take their rivalry with them in setting up a rematch.

Cleverly has the confidence of a win in their first fight but it remains to be seen to what extent he’s been affected by the Sergey Kovalev KO. Bellew too was stopped by Adonis Stevenson. Although I get the sense he handled his defeat better than Cleverly which could give him a psychological edge as both fighters look to navigate themselves back to a title shot in a new weight class. A rematch would provide a domestic fight akin to David Haye vs Enzo Maccarinelli and rekindle the cruiserweight division. Another potentially big fight if it happens.

Why has mainstream success evaded soca?

Along with reggae and dancehall, soca is very much the music of the Caribbean. Indeed, with its roots in Trinidadian calypso, many would argue that outside of Jamaica, soca is actually a more representative soundtrack to the region.

With Caribbean culture being exported around the world, its music has been no different. Reggae and latterly dancehall has found itself a regular and prominent feature in the pop charts of territories far beyond the Caribbean. Bob Marley is arguably one of the most celebrated musicians of all time regardless of genre. While Beenie Man, Shaggy, Sean Paul and others from the dancehall scene have experienced huge international success. Similarly, albeit with its origins in another continent, so has afrobeat as the contemporary soundtrack of the African diaspora. Yet despite the parallels, soca has struggled to achieve sustained mainstream success beyond the Caribbean.

Where Soca has seen commercial success, it’s typically been fleeting. Barbadian (or ‘Bajan’) Rupee and St Vincentian Kevin Lyttle both experienced global hits. There are of course also soca classics such as Arrow’s Hot Hot Hot that are known far beyond the soca fraternity. But despite the precedents for mainstream audiences finding soca palatable, it has otherwise been brought to unwitting audiences via watered down cover versions. Trinidad and Tobago’s Anslem Douglas first released Who Let the Dogs Out before it was covered by the Baha Men. Similarly, Alison Hinds’ Roll it Gal, a hit in the Caribbean and amongst its diaspora communities, was covered by J-Status with Rihanna and Shontelle but with a more American RnB sound. Is unadulterated soca not deemed commercially viable? And despite the examples to the contrary, why don't record labels consider soca to warrant the marketing push they’re willing to give other genres, particularly from the same region?

Where acts from Caribbean genres have found commercial success, often the characteristics of their signature sound aids this. For example, Sean Paul or Shaggy’s delivery is more melodious and less raw than say Bounty Killer’s or Mavado’s. Their cadence is often slightly slower and more significantly they use less patois and instead more standard English. Furthermore, their subjects of choice are usually more radio friendly than the Five Star General or the self-proclaimed ‘Gully God’ whose sound caters more for the core dancehall fraternity. Formulaic or otherwise, it makes for a sound that mainstream audiences are probably more comfortable with and consequently one that record labels are more willing to invest in.

For soca, the similarities are there with other acts from the Caribbean that have broken the mainstream market. Fast paced cadences are instead replaced with slowed down tempos. Not to mention a seemingly deliberate smattering of local dialect with British or American English replacing overwhelming vernacular and heavy accents. However, those who argue local dialects present a barrier to soca thriving beyond the Caribbean and its diaspora would be mistaken. Germany’s Soca Twins prove that isn't the case as they’ve managed to bring the genre to a territory whose first language isn’t even English. Furthermore, having seen them in Berlin, there isn't anything diluted about the brand of soca they play. Soca therefore needn't compromise itself and its Caribbean essence in widening its audience.

Soca doesn’t need to follow a template for commercial success. Though perhaps previously being too insular with its sound, and a reluctance to diversify in tempo and lyrical content, has worked against it in breaking the mainstream. Although this has increasingly changed. The genre has evolved to showcase its ability to produce music that isn’t just suited to carnival and party atmospheres but a variety of moods. For most genres, this diversification is often a sign of its readiness to break new markets. Nonetheless, despite soca’s commercial potential, record labels still lack the courage to push it into the mainstream.

Being born of the Caribbean, soca is accompanied with vibrant visuals and rich culture. Surely this presents a great marketing opportunity with a culture that accompanies the music - and a culture that albeit intermittently, mainstream audiences have been exposed to. As one of the largest street parties in the world (only second to Rio Carnival), Notting Hill Carnival has long held soca as its original and continued soundtrack. Similarly, the West Indian Day Parade in New York and Caribbean-inspired carnivals around the world showcase soca to the wider public. The introduction to soca is already there but the commitment and investment to capitalise on it has not been forthcoming. Record labels and media outlets either don’t see the potential or aren’t willing to take the risk in pushing a sound that they don’t feel has fully proved itself as commercially viable.

With the demise of Choice FM, Martin Jay’s Caribbean Affair has disappeared from the radio (but can still be found on www.socavision.com) and the likelihood of Capital Xtra bringing soca to its schedule is slim to none. BBC 1Xtra long removed its weekly soca show from its schedule and aside from the occasional burgeoning soca hit, soca only gets airtime during Notting Hill Carnival. As a result, soca’s mainstream exposure is lacking and only granted on an ad hoc basis. Bunji Garlin is currently getting exposure beyond the usual platforms for soca. But how long will it be until the mainstream radio stations and music channels decide they’re happy to allow another token soca hit to grace the airwaves?

In an age of physical music, soca was at a disadvantage in record sales due to the relatively small populations of the Caribbean islands it originated from. Even songs that remained popular throughout the region would not result in big record sales as the population in the region just isn’t big enough. In turn, marketing budgets would have to reflect the anticipated sales and wouldn’t support a significant push overseas. Although, in a digital era where the internet removes all boundaries from promoting music globally, hopefully soca can now get the exposure it deserves.

Soca has long been denied the opportunity to be presented to a mainstream market and showcase the soundtrack to the Caribbean. Nonetheless, as its popularity grows and the Caribbean diaspora continues to champion it, soca will continue to move toward mainstream success.

"Taekwondo saved my life"

Sport provides a frequent landscape for inspiration. Indeed, the quest for personal or team triumph can often engender a mindset that is formidable regardless of the context. Consequently, sporting achievements are often reflected upon as a source of inspiration. Moreover, such achievements typically have a source of motivation themselves and often present a broad scope in the net of inspiration they are able to cast over others.

A standout example of this comes from one of my closest friends, David Dennis (@davidcdennis). David has been actively involved in taekwondo for as long as I've known him. However, his involvement in the sport has been subject to hiatuses that have not only interrupted this but more seriously been caused by life threatening experiences. Nonetheless, David recently obtained his 5th Dan black belt and the title of 'Master'. Under any circumstances this is a great achievement. But against the backdrop of adversity he's faced, it's a remarkable story.

David agreed to me posting his thesis which supported his 5th Dan black belt. Unedited, here is David's journey to his inspirational feat.

– –

Coming from a rough area and poverty, it’s very easy to go off track on the path to success and justify failure with excuses. Over the years, many of my friends have been in serious trouble, arrested and imprisoned. Yet Taekwondo has aided me in avoiding this path by channelling my energy into something positive. Negative energy is wasted energy. Taekwondo instilled within me the strength and discipline to resist the traditional temptations of the street-life so many of my friends could not when we were younger. They were involved in violence and crime from a young age but everyone has a choice. Some choices are harder to make than others and some situations are worse the others. But in the end there is always a choice.

I obtained my first black belt in 1996 and it remains to this day one of the proudest moments of my life. Although I worked hard to get to this point, I realised that it was at this stage where the real work started. As a result, I knew that I had a responsibility, an obligation, to spread to word of taekwondo. Through training my mind and body, it was time to utilise the ideology of enhancing my spirit and life even more now than ever. More importantly, it was time for me to encourage and teach others to do the same through my example. I invited as many of my friends, their friends and local youths as possible to taekwondo.

To some, like myself, I can say taekwondo saved them from a negative life. You could even argue it saved their life. I certainly feel it saved mine. I am not saying taekwondo necessarily saved me from death – instead I speak more from the perspective of fulfilment, enjoyment of life and maximising my potential in the right way. For others, it removed them from negative environments and situations at least temporarily if not permanently. It showed them they had a choice, gave them a focus and encouraged them to become goal orientated. The significance of this cannot be underestimated and as Bill Copeland once said: "the trouble with not having a goal is you can spend your life running up and down a field and never score".

Taekwondo really provided me with a true reason to live. It gave me a purpose, understanding, direction and inner-strength I never had before and this was never more important than in my darkest hour.

I was at the peak of my taekwondo career around the end of 1997. I had finished in the top 4 or better for the past few National Championships, I had won many UK based tournaments, I was ranked as the number 1 fighter in my weight in the London Region Team and had just completed my first training sessions with the GB National Team. I’d also medalled in the Park Pokal in Germany, at the time one of the most prestigious tournaments in Europe. I was entering 1998 with great results, confidence and in the best shape of my life.

In January 1998, it was a cold Tuesday morning and I was doing my paper round. It was meant to be one of my last ones as I had just turned 16, therefore I could now get a regular part-time job. As it would turn out, this would indeed be my last paper round. I had just passed the road I live on to make my last drop-off of papers, as a car hit the back wheel of my bike. I flew off of the bike head first into a jeep, which I hit so hard it was written-off. The driver then drove over my lower left leg forcing both my tibia and fibula bones to break through the skin on the back of my leg. I was unconscious with broken bones and serious head wounds. At this moment not only was it unclear if I would be able to do taekwondo again. But even worse, it was questionable if I would walk again let alone live.

When I awoke in hospital, my Mum and Dad were there. Soon after, the first visitor I had was my Taekwondo Instructor Master Azim. Like my parents, he was extremely upset with what had happened. This for me was just a reminder of the fact that our taekwondo community are like family.

I spent one month in hospital, then the rest of the year with my leg in a cast. I had to take my GCSEs during this time too, despite having constant headaches, using crutches and being in a cast from groin to toe. I honestly feel if it had not been for the indomitable spirit taekwondo institutionalises within all of its true practitioners, I would not have got through this period. I fortunately managed to dig deep within myself to focus as much as I could to get good exam results. I would later go on to College and eventually get my degree at University in Philosophy, a subject also influenced by taekwondo. A philosophical approach, in terms of analysing and understanding situations, as well as people, has benefitted me significantly in all aspects of life from training to work.

Whilst I was out of training for 1998, I attended training almost every session. I watched from the sidelines, crutches in hand, advising team-mates and keeping up to date with taekwondo’s constantly evolving techniques and strategies. I returned to training at the beginning of 1999. Within a month or so I competed at the National Championships to yet again place in the top 4 fighters in the UK despite being nowhere near fully fit. This type of achievement didn’t just happen within taekwondo, it happened because of taekwondo. I have given a lot of time, effort, energy, blood, sweat and tears to taekwondo over the last 21 years. However, this does not compare to what Taekwondo has given to me.

The importance of taekwondo in building character, confidence and morals cannot be underestimated. The tenets of taekwondo are very much the foundation for evolution of spirit and progression in life. However, like many things it is not just the words or their meaning that carry an inherent value. Rather it is our interpretation of them and how we exemplify their essence – Courtesy, Integrity, Perseverance, Self-control and Indomitable Spirit.

There is no short-cut on the path to true enlightenment. We must be the change we wish to see in the world. Taekwondo is about never giving up. If something is worth doing, it will never be easy, but it will always be worth it. We are only confined by the walls we build ourselves. Too often we place limits on our potential and become prisoners of our own minds. Taekwondo removes the handcuffs, pushes the boundaries and sets us free. The biggest mistake in life we can make is to continually be afraid we will make one. Through Taekwondo and the way I live due to taekwondo’s ideology, I want to inspire people. I want someone to look at me and say “because of you I didn’t give up.” Let us not forget, a black belt is a white belt who never quit. This mentally transcends martial-arts and is applicable to all aspects of life.

Four years ago I would have to draw upon all of the aforementioned to fight yet another battle. I was diagnosed with Sarcoidosis, a rare hereditary chest condition that affects the lungs. It is a fairly new disease that causes an inflammation of the lungs, limiting the percentage of oxygen within the lungs, which in turn affects the brain, heart and the entire body. Although it is not contagious, it is possible to die from this condition – people certainly have before. It is carried in recessive genes and can create significant breathing problems should they become active. For 3 years I fought this condition, on very strong medication, with dozens of hospital visits. It was difficult to find energy to train, control my weight and maintain my fitness.

Through exhibiting and exemplifying the tenets of taekwondo I managed to reach a full recovery around a year ago. It took everything I had to recover, to re-motivate myself to train as much and as diligently as I had previously. After hours of gym work, circuit work, personal trainers, dietary and nutrition overhauls, as well as blood, sweat and tears in the taekwondo training hall, I can confidently say today, that I am back to full fitness. I have come down from over 100 kilograms to as low as 80 kilograms in weight this year.

I know this challenge and many others will present themselves in the future, but I have never felt more prepared due to the strength and knowledge I have gained through taekwondo. This is why I want to further my taekwondo education and knowledge by grading for my 5th Dan black belt. I want to show my Instructor, my club, my students, my family, my friends and everyone else that they can still achieve their goals and dreams against the odds. I want to show them it’s not important to be the best, although we can all aim to be. Rather, it’s more important to be the best WE can be. It is important to be better today than we were yesterday as tomorrow waits for no one. We are here to make the most of today in the hope to be the difference tomorrow. Taekwondo has given me reason, purpose, power, courage and direction I would never have had otherwise and it is time I gave back.

Why Help to Buy is another ill-thought through idea by the government

The aspiration of home ownership has long been a somewhat inherent British attitude. Unlike in countries like Germany where a larger number of people rent their home, buying a house in the UK is almost viewed as a social rite of passage. Conversely, it’s led to some attitudes of people snobbishly turning their noses up at those who choose (or are compelled) to rent long term and contributed to the unwarranted stigma of living in social housing.

There are obvious advantages (and disadvantages) to buying a home over renting. But for many, it’s often a sign of successfully climbing the social ladder. Governments in recent history have therefore sought to capitalise on that and facilitate home ownership for those that would otherwise be frozen out from getting on the property ladder. Most recently, the government has introduced Help to Buy with the same intention. Yet like many government schemes, populism trumps pragmatism and Help to Buy is no different.

Help to Buy is allegedly aimed at people for who raising a deposit is their main obstacle to buying a home. Typically, that should mean people who may be on modest incomes that prohibit them from saving or those without the traditional middle class route to a deposit from parents, family or inheritance. With Help to Buy a deposit of as little as 5% is required. While a mortgage of up to 95% is made available via a traditional lender with a seven year government backed guarantee of 15% of the mortgage.

In principle, Help to Buy seems sensible and will undoubtedly open up home ownership to a group that traditionally may not have had the social or economic clout to achieve it. Similarly, at face value, so did Right to Buy (Margaret Thatcher’s policy of giving social housing tenants the opportunity to buy their rented home at a discount). Though just as an acute lack of social housing has been a legacy of Right to Buy, the potential consequences of Help to Buy are far from completely positive.

In defence of Help to Buy, David Cameron said "As prime minister, I'm not going to stand back while people's aspirations to get on the housing ladder, to own their own flat, to own their own home, are being trashed." Well, that’s very noble of him, isn’t it? Cameron’s Conservative-led coalition government is responsible for some of the least egalitarian social and economic policies since Thatcher. So why is his stance different when it comes to home ownership? Ideologically, home ownership is a very conservative (and therefore Conservative) ideal so perhaps Help to Buy shows Cameron hasn’t forgotten his party’s ideological roots.

While Help to Buy is intended to help those who would struggle to raise a deposit, there are many potential eligible applicants who aren’t struggling per se to raise the cash for a down payment. Rather, many well-off applicants will be perfectly able to raise the money but Help to Buy will facilitate not needing to do so. Are they the kind of applicants that come to mind when thinking of those struggling to raise a deposit? I think not. Moreover, with Help to Buy being offered on properties with a value of up to £600,000, it’s highly questionable that anyone seeking to buy a house of that value would be struggling with a deposit. As a result, I’m cynical of who Help to Buy is really primarily intended to help.

The government seemingly also hasn’t considered the impact of increasing the amount of money being lent in the housing market. Nor has it considered the consequence of increased demand for property when it’s allegedly trying to help first time buyers struggling with their deposit.

By guaranteeing 15% of a mortgage, the government is giving lenders more confidence through Help to Buy. That means more money will be lent with a knock-on effect of higher house prices and the likelihood of a housing bubble. That won’t help first-time buyers but merely push home ownership further out of their reach. It’s basic economics but a principle the government has ignored. Similarly, they’ve not taken heed of recent history in how high loan-to-value mortgages can lead to disastrous outcomes for the housing market and the wider economy. And compounded by a scheme where the government guarantees 15% of the money borrowed, it’s not difficult to see the significant risk Help to Buy presents to the economy.

Supporters of Help to Buy will argue that it will help to stimulate the housing market. But it could instead precipitate events akin to the subprime mortgage crisis with more irresponsible borrowing. The government has assured critics of Help to Buy that stricter eligibility for borrowers will mitigate that risk. Nonetheless, I’m sure lenders will find a way to creatively circumvent that if they desire. After all, there is a precedent for it and sadly the financial sector has enough influence over the government to make it happen.

I’m not averse to enabling home ownership for those that aspire to it. Indeed, I’m sure Help to Buy will make that a reality for some people who would otherwise be unable to get on the property ladder and I’m not bemoaning that. But the wider consequences of the scheme could be dire. Help to Buy doesn’t address the ongoing concern of providing affordable housing; it simply exacerbates it at the expense of the very people it’s claimed to be assisting.

The demise of Choice FM

The announcement that Choice FM would be rebranded as Capital Xtra (very unoriginal given BBC 1Xtra) marks the end of an era in black British history (and as some have pointed out, ironically so at the beginning of Black History Month in the UK). Choice FM was the first licensed radio station in the UK with a remit to play black music and brought black music from the shadows of pirate radio and specialist DJ shows on other radio stations. But more importantly, it was another overdue step that validated the impact of black British culture outside of the black community.

Choice FM didn’t maintain all the rawness of some pirate stations at the time but rightly so. It was a legal radio station that sought to provide professionalism alongside black music while retaining authenticity in its music and overall feel. To some, that would surely have appeared an impossible contradiction. However, it created the blueprint for subsequent arrivals to the FM and DAB dial such as BBC 1Xtra and Choice FM Birmingham (which ironically, became Galaxy before becoming Capital Birmingham with a similar fate to Choice FM).

Commander B’s show championed UK garage and hosted the much anticipated clash between Dizzee Rascal and Asher D (Ashley Walters). Soca, reggae and bashment could be heard during peak hours. Hip hop by underground UK artists was also played alongside mainstream and less commercial American hip hop by DJ 279 (who was recently let go to make way for Tim Westwood’s arrival at the station with his brash presenting style and more club friendly brand of hip hop and latterly grime). Before Choice FM, only a pirate radio station could provide this.

In addition to its music output, Choice FM catered to the black community with its advertising and championing of community issues. Its support from the black community wasn’t solely because it played black music (which isn’t exclusively for black people). It was because it was a radio station that represented the black community within a broader media landscape. That was until Capital became involved.

Black music became increasingly popular throughout the 90s in the UK. American artists of black music genres experienced increased commercial success and UK artists followed suit. While Choice FM’s initial target audience may have been the black community, it was now catering to a broader audience. And as social class came to be a bigger social identifier than race, many of the issues Choice FM championed were also now applicable to a wider group that were bound more by social experiences than race. Indeed, many of Choice FM’s campaigns such as Peace on the Streets were not directed exclusively at the black community.

Consequently, Choice FM offered more commercial viability and Capital wanted in. They became a minority shareholder in Choice FM with the radio station citing Capital’s experience in commercial radio being brought to the station. In 2004, Capital assumed full control of Choice FM and immediately the writing was on the wall. Remember when Geoff Schumann and other DJs were unceremoniously sacked from the station? On reflection, Capital Xtra doesn’t seem that much of surprise.

Choice FM’s content also changed. Akin to Kiss FM being taken over by EMAP, Choice FM gradually moved away from its roots and its original listeners, myself included, drifted away only to tune in occasionally. Still, there were glimpses of the old Choice FM. Bashment and reggae was marginalised but veteran reggae DJ Daddy Ernie remained at the station and Martin Jay continued to broadcast his Caribbean Affair weekly soca show. Nonetheless, neither, along with other DJs, will transfer to Capital Xtra. Although, the authenticity of their shows would only appear an anomaly within what I expect will be a largely formulaic and plastic Capital Xtra schedule.

So Choice FM is no more. Capital Xtra is more than a rebranding, it’s a new station and its output will reflect that. Many are angry about the demise of Choice FM but if you look at the precedents with Kiss FM and Choice FM upon being taken over by Capital, should we not have seen this coming? Cynically, it could be said that this was a long term plan when Capital first acquired its minority share in Choice FM.

The demise of Choice FM isn’t just about black music. Of course, soca will probably only return to the consciousness of BBC 1Xtra come Notting Hill Carnival and other less commercial genres will now increasingly rely on internet and pirate radio. More significantly, this is about the marginalisation of black British culture from the mainstream. Consider the DJs that were let go from Choice FM, both prior to the beginning of Capital Xtra and when Capital assumed full control of Choice FM. Irrespective of their respective race, they and the genres they played represented the black British community and black culture. Yet they aren’t deemed commercially viable by the likes of Global Radio (the company that owns Capital Xtra and previously Choice FM).

Even the rebranding to Capital Xtra suggests Global Radio wants to distance the new station from Choice FM as a brand that was associated with black music. Perhaps the ‘Xtra’ was ignorantly deemed suitably ‘urban’ (not black) by Global Radio to still meet the requirements of the licence Capital Xtra will inherit from Choice FM (although I expect Capital Xtra will eventually seek a change in its licence obligations to align it more with its preferred music policy). Though what does that say about media ownership in the black community if the few platforms that do exist eventually disappear beyond recognition due to corporate demands? Will Capital Xtra even bear a modest resemblance to Choice FM? I’ll probably only find out through hearsay as I shan’t be listening to the new station.

The black community and beyond has lost a valuable platform in Choice FM and one which is responsible for a seminal chapter in contemporary black British history. Without Choice FM, it’s unlikely there would be BBC 1Xtra (which despite not having commercial pressures has also increasingly sought a diluted feel from its earlier days) or the success of much black music in the UK. Despite its demise, Choice FM certainly leaves a legacy and perhaps also a cautionary tale.

The unlikely taboo of interracial relationships

Despite improved race relations and the progress of multiculturalism, for some, one area that should remain sacrosanct to such progression is interracial relationships. Consequently, and as an undeniable feature of modern society, interracial relationships have remained an unlikely taboo for some.

Being in an interracial relationship, I’ve been fortunate to not have experienced tangible resistance from either family and certainly not with any hostility. There have been undertones of cautiousness on both sides but that’s been largely based on ignorance of the other’s culture and how to respond to it. And with my partner’s community being fairly insular, initially, I literally represented the unknown for her family.

With some people, and behind a smokescreen of disingenuousness, we’ve both observed unspoken sentiments of disapproval toward our relationship. It’s a minority view but not one held by individuals who we have any real relationship with or respect for. Nor is it a view that has ever been articulated – which is just as well as said individuals’ opinions are of no value to us. Though admittedly, knowing that you are the source of any disapproval from even the smallest factions of your partner’s family or community is not a pleasant feeling.

Particularly if any opposition stems more from your partner’s side than yours, it’s easy to see yourself as the indirect source of any potential anguish for them or the reason for them needing to become more resolute in their convictions. It can also lead to a feeling of helplessness and regret; not of your relationship but of what you feel you represent on some level in causing an issue. Conversely, for the other person, an unwarranted feeling of resentment toward their family and community, and a sense of guilt that they come from a background that exhibits prejudice wrapped in backwards ideals, is an unescapable emotion.

Nonetheless, neither of us will ever lament the fact that we aren’t of the same ethnicity simply because it doesn’t meet blanket approval. Both of us are proud of our respective heritage and nothing will change that or cause us to suppress either culture within the relationship. We embrace each other’s culture which is something both our families appreciate and has arguably mitigated any challenges we may have faced.

Thankfully, we haven’t experienced the problems encountered by some interracial couples. I know of interracial and interreligious couples whose families and wider communities have not been receptive to their relationship whatsoever. For some, that’s meant having to choose between their relationship and their family – with the ultimatum being directly or indirectly made by the latter. In response, some couples have shown great courage that I have the utmost admiration for and they’ve pursued their relationship at the risk of being ostracised by either family. Whereas for some, their family was too great a sacrifice to make. Especially against a backdrop of prejudice from a family, many would argue that pursuing the relationship is the right thing to do in such instances. Although, regardless of the decision, it's undoubtedly an emotionally charged predicament.

Interracial relationships and people of mixed race have become commonplace in modern society and the prejudice they were once met with has certainly receded in recent years. The Melting Pot Generation – How Britain Became More Relaxed About Race, a report published by think tank British Future, also found that in contrast to 50% and 40% of the British public admitting to being opposed to interracial relationships in the 80s and 90s respectively, that figure was 15% in 2012. That’s a huge improvement. But with a population that exceeds 60 million, 15% can’t be discounted as merely a handful of people with archaic attitudes.

The 2001 UK census reported that 2% of all marriages were “inter-ethnic”, a figure that will surely be shown to be growing once the respective data is released for the 2011 census. In the interim, and as a measure of the increasing number of interracial relationships in the UK, the 2011 census data shows that the mixed race population is amongst the fastest growing and forecast to become the largest ethnic minority group in the country. In America, the 2010 census also reported that “interracial or interethnic” cohabiting married couples grew by 28% between 2000 and 2010. With such a trend, how have interracial relationships therefore managed to remain taboo for some?

It may not always be overt, and in many cases is culturally or even generationally institutionalised, but prejudice is what underpins opposition to interracial relationships. Yet many who hold said opinions would probably argue to the contrary. Some would claim that their opposition is based on their perception of the lack of viability of an interracial relationship and a fear of their culture becoming diluted. They’d allege that’s in contrast to a relationship where the couple at least share their heritage if nothing else. Many would also pledge their commitment to multiculturalism, citing their indifference to colleagues, neighbours and even friends of a different background. However, for them, the intimate sphere of a relationship is a line that that indifference cannot and should not cross.

Granted, and potentially coming to the fore in raising children, some interracial couples may experience challenges of different cultural expectations or different cultural values within the relationship. Where applicable, language barriers with each other’s families, not to mention a possible frosty reception to the relationship, can also present problems. Although in a multicultural society, aren’t these problems mitigated by multiculturalism itself? And when taken outside the context of race or indeed religion, aren’t differing views challenges that all couples may be faced with, regardless of their respective backgrounds?

The assertion that interracial relationships signal the end of a culture’s identity is unfounded. Multiculturalism shapes new identities and, as a frequent by-product of interracial relationships, the mixed race population provides a growing ethnic group that with it brings new hybrid identities and cultures. Though that needn’t cause a culture to become extinct. In a diverse society, cultural identities can just as easily become eroded within a couple of the same ethnicity and heritage. Therefore to pin that on interracial couples is a charge that is tinged by ignorance, prejudice and irrational fear.

Beyond their prejudice, those who maintain an opposition to interracial relationships may see it as a gradual attack on their own race, culture and accompanying values and identity. But in maintaining their view, they’re unwittingly or otherwise resisting the virtues of multiculturalism and holding a belief that has little reasoning behind it. Furthermore, ironically, the very values and identities they unnecessarily seek to protect and preserve will likely outlive their own backwards and narrow-minded ideals.

For interracial relationships to remain taboo for some is a sad reality that goes against the grain of a racially diverse society. Fortunately, it is a view that is becoming increasingly rare and typically met with disgust and disdain. Yet despite the progress made in race relations, the prejudice that fuels this opposition hasn’t been completely eroded; until it is, there will always be individuals who simply don’t agree with interracial relationships.