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.