Diminishing parental responsibility is damaging our schools and our children's futures

The following was a phone conversation between a teacher and a parent of a child who should have been attending a workshop that had been organised but the child had failed to attend.

Teacher: Good morning, this is Ms Riley from Westchester School. Rashid is supposed to be attending a workshop that’s been organised for the students in his Geography class but he isn’t present.
Parent: Oh (said nonchalantly). Does he need to be there?
Teacher: Yes. Rashid’s signed up for the workshop and letters were sent home to parents advising them that students would need to attend today.
Parent: I didn’t get a letter. Couldn’t you have sent a text message? Rashid said the rest of his group weren’t going so he didn’t need to be there.
Teacher: No, he needs to be there…

And this was a conversation between a teacher and a parent at parents’ evening.

Teacher: Derek’s comprehension and his ability to engage with other children and contribute in class has become a concern. His understanding of basic instructions and information is very limited, even when spoken to in his home language, and it’s affecting his interaction with other children and his progress. Does he talk much at home?
Parent: Yeah, he talks at home.
Teacher: OK… that’s good. We need to encourage him to talk, and it’s fine if he’s talking to you in his home language, as that’ll help him with his confidence and his comprehension. Ask him questions about his day, about books he’s read…
Parent: (sighs and rolls eyes) Boss, I don’t have time to talk to my kid…

In both instances, all names and personal details have been changed. Nonetheless, these are based on real and recent examples with real parents and real teachers and they aren’t isolated instances. Instead, they are a sign of the lack of engagement and diminished parental responsibility that is increasingly present in some of today’s parents.

The shift of a parent’s responsibility being pushed onto schools and teachers, the acceptance and nonchalance towards a child’s lack of responsibility (because handing a letter to your parent is so arduous that teachers should instead send a text message) and the unwillingness to communicate with your child (one of the biggest determinants in younger children acquiring knowledge and broadening their vocabulary) all feature in sections of today’s parents. And it’s damaging our children’s futures and their attainment in school.

Firstly, it’s important to acknowledge that being a parent is not easy. For those who are parents in today’s society, the distractions upon children, and the demands upon parents, exacerbate that task in a way that yesteryear’s parents would not have had to deal with. The altering in the traditional balance of influence and control from parents to children also makes modern parenting a challenge. Essentially, society has impeded some parents from effectively parenting their children in this skewed change in dynamic.

Secondly, for anyone reading this and assuming that poor parenting and a lack of importance placed upon education is exclusively a feature of parents from lower socio-economic groups, you’d be wrong.

Poorer students and their families, particularly those that are from immigrant communities, are often much more appreciative of education because of the opportunities they know it affords them in life. As a result, education, teachers and their efforts are revered by these students and their families (this was certainly the case for my peers and I). Therefore, I don’t seek to make any sweeping judgements or reinforce erroneous stereotypes here. To do so would be folly, impossible and wrong. Rather, both the parents who fulfil their responsibility, and those who don’t, come from a range of backgrounds and not respective homogeneous groups.

The success of a school, and of its students, depends on a number of factors. Furthermore, achieving that success and how it’s measured is becoming increasingly difficult (and well-discussed on iamalaw). However, in the truest sense of success (of nurturing and encouraging the social, emotional and academic progress of students in an environment that never loses sight of their well-being), government policy, teachers and school leadership would be the typical responses to who or what can make or break this. Yet what about parents?

Parents bridge the gap between school and home. Just as teachers build upon the successes of a child’s home life, parents are positioned at the other end of this reciprocal relationship of building upon the successes at school. It seems obvious but it’s a given that’s lost on some parents and indeed some schools in their efforts to engage parents.

If at home a young child is read to and listened to reading daily, and conversed with in constant exposure to language, their orthographic store (our long term memory from which we retrieve all the words that we’ve learned to date), comprehension, knowledge and proficiency as a reader will progress far more rapidly than a child who is only exposed to these experiences at school. Similarly, this gives a child an appetite and positive attitude for learning that will put them in good stead for life. Sadly, an astounding number of parents feel that they need not play any role in supporting their children in such crucial early stages of their education let alone subsequently.

For these parents, sending their children to school is the extent of their required effort. They’ve fulfilled their end of the bargain and now it’s down to the school to teach their child everything they need to know without any input at home. That isn’t to say parents should undertake the role of a teacher but encouraging their child and instilling an attitude for learning and value for education is part of being a parent.

For some parents, it gets worse and school is ultimately a childminding service. An opportunity to be free of their children in an environment where they’re absolved of all responsibility. Again, I’m sure some might read this and with Daily Mail tinted glasses envision it to refer to ‘working class parents of broken Britain’. Wrong. Many middle class parents do exactly the same as school enables them to get on with their other priorities in life that clearly supersede their children. Indeed, they often go further as they have the means to extend that via clubs and endless tutors that maximise the time their children aren’t in their presence and minimise the responsibility they feel they need to assume.

There are of course many good parents who despite the never-ending duties of a parent, ensure that their child is on the right path. They foster the right attitude and behaviour within their child from young and support their child in whatever way they can while equally supporting the school. That includes supporting schools in their behaviour policies when a child has been been issued a sanction.

With older children, it can merely be ensuring homework is completed, words of encouragement and direction and support of the school within a home environment where education is valued. Conversely, the absence of that can make all the difference to a child’s attitude to education and their life opportunities because of it. These measures don’t cost anything and aren’t demanding on parents’ time either. Nevertheless, they can make a significant difference to a child’s attainment and the success of a school.

It isn’t just all about academic progress either. A child’s mental, social and emotional growth and well-being is arguably more important and depends as much on their parents as their teachers. If a parent is disinterested in their child’s life, that growth and well-being is going to find itself limited.

Parental engagement in schools can make the difference between a bad school and a good school and a good school and great school. Plenty of research supports the notion that parental engagement has a huge impact on attainment and behaviour. This isn’t just the attending of parents’ evenings and school performances and functions. It’s also being invested in your child’s learning and progress and sharing that goal with the school.

If you take two schools with similar cohorts in communities of similar socio-economic and even ethnic composition, both could be doing exactly the same in the way of teaching and additional programmes and support for students. Although if they have different outcomes in attainment and perception within their respective communities, it’s going to be down to the impact of parental engagement. And the school that has further engagement will yield improved results.

While I feel there are a lot of question marks over free schools, parental engagement is an asset that those set up by community groups driven by parents have from the start. The schools aren’t necessarily doing anything different from other school operating within the local education authority but they’ve embedded a culture that other school aren’t always afforded (though their supporters won’t concede that it’s that simple). The same goes for academies that have started schools from scratch or taken over schools where ensuring parental engagement is a priority.

Schools too need to do better in engaging parents. Most parents want to be involved and supportive in their child’s school life and their education. But if they aren’t given the opportunity, and where applicable the guidance to do so, then they can’t. School’s can’t lament the lack of engagement from parents if they aren’t providing the direction to achieve it.

The lack of parental responsibility that exists in today’s parents is a worrying trend that doesn’t bode well for children’s futures and is impeding attainment in schools. It’s also at risk of creating adults that project the same attitude which in turn becomes perpetual in subsequent generations.

To the large number of parents that provide the positive influence and direction required for their children, they deserve huge kudos for raising the bar in an already tough job of parenting. And for those who aren’t even aspiring to that, they’re letting themselves and their children down in an easily avoidable manner but with woeful consequences for their children's futures.

I like the Queen but the monarchy is an outdated institution

When I think of the monarchy, I’m perplexed as to how it’s managed to experience such longevity in an age of otherwise social progression. Should monarchies ever become consigned to history, they’ll surely be studied with intrigue and incredulity. I can see exam questions and dissertations of the future questioning why societies never considered the suitability of a monarch for the position amidst centuries of democracy where leaders that actually ran the country had to be elected. Or the inexplicable rationale for how even in times of great austerity, monarchs and their families continued to live lavish lives that were funded by the public.

Surely the attire of a monarch will add to future commentators’ confusion for how we didn’t see anything wrong with monarchs wearing jewelry-adored crowns and attire where the jewels had been violently pillaged from other countries in the name of their ancestors. If monarchies do come to an end (and I think they eventually will), history will surely ridicule the generations that permitted them to occur.

It’s probably apparent that I’m not a monarchist. However, I must admit that I actually like the Queen. She comes across as a figure who isn’t quite aware of just how out of step her position as a monarch is with modern society but nevertheless, it’s a role she appears to take very seriously.

The maternal connection the Queen has to the UK, and indeed the other colonies and former colonies for which she remains head of state, has been palpable throughout her time as Queen. Indeed, when America invaded Grenada in 1983, I suspect the Queen would have privately been incandescent with rage given her role as head of state of Grenada.

During the global mourning for Princess Diana, whom the Queen was said to not be fond of, the Queen’s tribute to Princess Diana showed a human side. It also displayed her maternal relationship with the nation in acknowledging their grief and seeking to bring comfort as their monarch.

Similarly, I’ve got a lot of time for Prince William and Prince Harry, the latter especially. Prince Harry seems like he’d be good value on a night out and a decent guy to have in your circle. Not to mention, his decision to join the army, and his tours of duty, give him more credibility than most monarchs are afforded in their role as head of the armed forces. Yet both princes seem strained with the realisation of just how outdated the monarchy is despite it being a life they’ve been born into.

And what of the rest of the British monarchy? Prince Charles might be well meaning (if not sometimes misguided on the restraint a member of the monarchy should show in matters for elected representatives) and Prince William’s family do present a warmer side to the monarchy. But beyond the aforementioned, I see nothing but individuals who are living a life of privilege for which they haven’t done anything to deserve. And this is the crux of why I feel the the monarchy is outdated.

We tell children that they can be or do anything they want to as long as they work hard at it. Well what about being part of the monarchy? Unless you marry into the royal family (what a wonderfully modern route to enter an equally modern institution eh?), I’m afraid not. And if you’re an ethnic minority, working class, openly homosexual or of any group that would be frowned upon as being part of the establishment, your chances are practically non-existent. Is that a system that we should be allowing to continue in a time when equality should be championed in what is supposedly (but isn’t) an egalitarian society?

I also can’t remain ignorant to the fact that slavery and colonialism is intertwined not only with the British monarchy but also the riches and pomp that the monarchy enjoy today. Their continued privilege is derived from the brutality, rape, violent theft, dehumanising and psychological destabilising of the black diaspora; an experience that continues to impact black people and the the states and nations from which we originally came.

As a black man, I would be both irresponsible and in denial to ignore this in my perception of the monarchy. I don’t think the Queen is racist or justifies the campaigns waged against the former empire in the name of her ancestors. Nonetheless, I do think said history is put down to a regrettable past that isn’t considered in the context of the impact that it has today. The same goes for other diasporas that were subject to British colonialism. Their past and present woes can be traced back to actions carried out in the name of the British monarchy and this isn’t something we can ignore.

Recently, it was announced that Buckingham Palace is due to undergo ‘essential’ refurbishment to the tune of £369 million. ‘Essential’? Someone is surely having a laugh here. I appreciate that the palace is old and probably does need upgrading but it’s one of several residences the Queen has and at such cost, it’s impossible to justify.

Every aspect of the public sector and public expenditure is subject to sharp austerity but Buckingham Palace is having £369 million spent on refurbishment? We’re in the midst of a housing crisis in the UK with an acute shortage of social housing especially, and the Tory government is willing to spend public funds on the royal household. It tells us what we already know about the Tories. But the fact they felt this was OK reinforces the baffling and archaic inequality represented by the monarchy.

I’m sure the Tories wouldn’t defend the genuinely essential work necessary in many social housing properties with the same passion. Though we already know they don’t care about the proletariat in the way that they protect the interests of the monarchy and the establishment. Spending such an amount on Buckingham Palace against a backdrop of such austere times, and the royal family already being in receipt of public funds (and their own private funds), is ludicrous and you’d need to be incredibly ignorant to think otherwise.

The argument that the monarchy brings in much needed revenue to the UK is one that I’ve always been dubious of too. Certainly, they are a tourist attraction but without the monarchy, the buildings and history would still be there and the tourists will still come.

In contemporary history, the monarchy has modernised in not taking a role in matters that should rightly be reserved for elected representatives. Consequently, the Queen effectively rubber stamps legislation and royal assent (when the Queen agrees to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament) is little more than this. I’m sure the Queen is very au fait with the work of her government and feels a sense of great responsibility in giving royal assent. Although as a figure that is effectively an apolitical observer, the effectiveness of the role she plays in this capacity has to be questioned.

With the Queen’s relationship with other heads of states, her apolitical role also limits her ability to use her position to speak out or in favour of regimes in conversations that she could add her weight and influence to. And as the Queen rows back on her public engagements, her relationships with other governments may become even less relevant.

I don’t want to see the Queen, a seemingly nice woman in the twilight of her life, made to feel unwanted in a role that she’s held for most of her life. That said, when a new monarch assumes the throne, it’d be timely to begin the dialogue around how outdated the monarchy is. We need to ask if it’s an institution we can justify as relevant, necessary and in keeping with what should be a modern society based on meritocracy; not arbitrary claims rooted in an often ugly yet celebrated history.

Boxing needs the casuals but not their undue influence on the sport

In what to most boxing fans was a routine defence of his IBF belt, Anthony Joshua stopped Eric Molina in round 3 of their fight. In contrast to the absolute barnstormer that preceded it in Dereck Whyte vs Dillian Whyte, Joshua vs Molina was one sided and somewhat embarrassing as the so-called main event. The Manchester Arena was likely mostly populated with Joshua fans who otherwise take little interest in boxing and besides Joshua, may not even follow other boxers. Nevertheless, they buy tickets, PPVs and therefore make boxing a more marketable sport.

As a boxing fan, I recognise the need for said fans to make boxing a commercially viable sport. But this group of casual fans (typically known as the ‘casuals’ within boxing circles) are responsible for fights like Joshua vs Molina not receiving the disdain it should do. It’s yet another hollow defence by Joshua against a fighter who didn’t represent a credible challenge (amidst the already slim pickings of credible heavyweight fighters that could be deemed as world class).

A deal to fight Wladimir Klitschko, a former champion until he lost his belts to Tyson Fury in 2015, seemed to be on the verge of being signed for Joshua. Based on Klitschko’s performance against Fury, it’s clear that Joshua’s team were banking on Father Time having called on Klitschko. Indeed, he represented less of a risk than he would have prior to taking the L at the hands of Fury. Nonetheless, Klitschko was still a live opponent and respected name in boxing circles.

The story of that fight wasn’t written before either fighter had stepped in the ring and Joshua and his team knew that. Conversely, possibly with exception of his fight against Dillian Whyte, every one of Joshua’s opponents to date have been against handpicked fighters that were selected to pad Joshua’s record and protect his ‘0’. Hence the fight with Molina continuing that trend.

I’ve gone on record as saying that I think Joshua is a good prospect. Although the more he fights lacklustre opponents, the less likely he is of fulfilling that and the more likely he is of being exposed when he finally meets a bonafide contender.

Returning to Joshua’s actual fights, why hasn’t he received the opprobrium that was eventually met by his fellow Team GB boxing gold medal alumnus, Audley Harrison? By this point in his career, Harrison was getting booed out of the arena after every fight while Joshua seems to have staved off any criticism. Harrison too fought opponents that presented no risk but Joshua, to his credit, gets his opponents out quicker and in more impressive fashion than the borefests that Harrison’s fights descended into. Joshua also has the hype machine of Sky Sports and promoter Eddie Hearn behind him that could convince the casuals that a fight against a wet paper bag was a potential banana skin for Joshua en route to unification fights.

Herein lies the problems with the casuals. They provide demand and acceptance for fights that shouldn’t be accepted and aren’t good for the sport. They will happily part with their cash to pay for a Joshua PPV that actual boxing fans will scorn because we know how poor a match-up it is. Yet without their support, the sport of boxing arguably wouldn’t be as commercially healthy as it is now.

Boxing is flying high. Eddie Hearn has taken it as close as it’s been to the levels it experienced when it was a regular feature of Saturday night terrestrial television and boxers were household names. The heavyweight champions of the world were recognisable and transcended boxing even with sections of the public that didn’t like the sport. Despite David Haye’s popularity, not since Lennox Lewis has a heavyweight champion been so recognisable outside of the sport as Anthony Joshua is today. That is no bad thing for Joshua or the sport and we have to attribute it at least in part to the casuals.

There’s no doubt that there are some annoying casuals. With their sycophantic yearning of Eddie Hearn to retweet and repost their photos of their tickets for Matchroom Boxing events or photos of their televisions showing they’ve ordered the PPV, they’re an irksome nuisance on my timeline. On the other hand, some casuals are just casual fans who while not having more than a superficial interest in the sport, want to enjoy a night of boxing without having to pledge their allegiance as hardcore fans. And we shouldn’t lambaste them for it either.

I’m undoubtedly a casual fan to some sports where I just don’t have the same level of interest as I do in boxing and other sports that I actively follow. I’m happy to be a casual in other sports in that regard and I don’t claim my interest to be anything beyond that.

The casuals aren’t going anywhere as long as there are promoters and broadcasters that realise that boxing is a business and not just a sport. The casuals are what make boxing a viable business and they’re needed unless we want boxing to become a fringe sport. When you look at the job that Dana White has done with UFC, you realise that many of their fans are really fans of the atmosphere generated by their events and of big name marque fighters rather than being a concentration of hardcore MMA fans.

Even watching McGregor’s recent WWE-esque theatrics at the presser for UFC 205 shows that McGregor, clearly an astute businessman, realises how to maximise his audience and fanbase to include MMA casuals. And while I don’t want boxing to descend into that, it’s the direction it’s going in with fighters like Dereck Chisora already looking to up the ante on UFC.

Promoters need to acknowledge that while the casuals form part of boxing’s fanbase, there is no credibility without the hardcores. Not catering to core fans will cause the sport to relinquish its credibility as fans become disillusioned. The casuals often can’t see past the mesomorphic build and effortless KOs (because of the lack of quality opposition) of a Joshua or the snapchat videos of high workrate working the bag (which tells us little as the heavy bag can’t hit back) of a Eubank Jr. And that attraction has little validity upon which to determine who the stars of the sport should be let alone how they should be perceived.

We need the casuals in boxing and we should make them welcome without allowing their presence to influence what isn’t right for the sport. Boxing is a business. But after all, it’s still the hurt business.

No thanks, I don’t want the West’s narrative on Fidel Castro’s legacy

The first post I wrote and published, to start what would eventually become iamalaw, was on Cuba. Following a trip to the island (long before the relaxation of US sanctions), I discussed whether the Cuban revolution could outlive Fidel Castro. With the ever-burgeoning private sector, and subtle changes that would have still been unthinkable at the time of my visit, some might argue that the answer is no. Indeed, some would opine that Fidel Castro’s death came at a time when capitalism had ever-so-slightly started to permeate Cuba’s once staunchly communist economy.

When I visited Cuba, it was void of American visitors (and thankfully that included the Kardashians) other than those few who were willing to take the risk to travel there via other neighbouring countries. Other than that minority, special dispensation was required for Americans to make the trip there.

The internet was available but much too expensive for the typical Cuban wage and incredibly slow at that. Therefore it was largely the privilege of foreigners. Nevertheless, Cubans were increasingly aware of the world around them. And many younger Cubans’ views on their then leader (Raul Castro was yet to be become president) was in contrast with the adulation the older generation held for Fidel Castro.

Speaking to many younger Cubans at the time, they were aware of the restrictions that life in Cuba had placed upon them. They maintained an indignation for being unable to travel, make money and access the lives that they glimpsed of the tourists they interacted with and those they saw in their rare access to the internet and western media. They were also aware of the propaganda, censorship, human rights violations and imprisonment of political prisoners that occurred under the regime.

With our awareness of the world, we can acknowledge that the Cuban revolution hasn’t been a bastion of human rights. Nor can we belittle this in a lack of empathy for those that have been subject to it. Nonetheless, when we compare this to that of American imperialism and European colonialism, the Cuban revolution seems like human rights utopia.

Unless I’m mistaken, Cuba hasn’t been responsible for a slave trade of an entire race for which the legacy endures centuries later. Nor has it invaded countries on account of their sovereign governments maintaining a different ideology or in seeking to pillage their natural resources. However, I can think of a few countries that have. In the wake of Fidel Castro’s death, commentators and politicians from said countries really need to take a long, hard look at themselves and their countries’ histories for their audacity in showing their opprobrium towards the former Cuban leader.

Cuban American exiles in Miami’s ‘Little Havana’ celebrated the death of Fidel Castro. They and their families understandably have no love lost for Castro given they were driven out of their country and many persecuted. Although to see some championing Donald Trump at the same time beggars belief. Donald Trump? If you want a conversation about human rights, this is the man who said he’d bring back 'a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding'. Similarly, for the right in America, 2016 was their year. First Trump and now this? It was like a Fox News wet dream.

At least history won't record Fidel Castro bragging about his desire to "grab 'em by the pussy"...

To lament human rights in Cuba and celebrate the death of Fidel Castro, while ignoring American imperialism and European colonialism, and in the same breath championing Donald Trump, then you're an idiot. Alas, there are an awful lot of idiots.

Dialogue around Fidel Castro is always bound to include the violations on human rights and that’s understandable. Yet we don’t discuss the legacy of American and European leaders, who have been responsible for much more heinous crimes against humanity, in the same context. Is it because capitalism provides a convenient distraction from their wrongdoing? Or, more likely, because they’re white?

Fidel Castro refused to continue the narrative of American imperialism and he was a comrade to many leaders who sought to improve the lives of their people in ushering an era of equality. He was a champion of African liberation; effectively seeking to overturn centuries of European colonialism. Castro was a sponsor of Angolan independence and a vociferous opponent of apartheid in South Africa. Cuba supported the ANC’s resistance when America had declined to actively support the resistance movement.

In Jamaica, Prime Minister Michael Manley and Fidel Castro became friends and allies and Cuban doctors and nurses were sent to support the Jamaican health system along with builders and engineers to assist in construction and public works programmes. Jamaica, like the wider region, was subject to European colonialism and latterly American imperialism. Fidel Castro showed there was another way. And he was willing to show solidarity to those who sought to free themselves of the shackles of their colonial and imperialist oppressors.

Michael Manley and Fidel Castro

Along with one of the highest literacy rates in the world and a world class national health service (while America has a health care system based on insurance), Cuba represented an alternative in the Caribbean and beyond. It showed that former colonies didn’t need to run into the arms of America to provide for their people. Castro put education at the forefront of the country and for the West, it’s probably why Cuba was deemed so dangerous. He created a highly intelligent country that, at times perhaps to the revolution’s detriment, has established a society with an insatiable thirst for knowledge and awareness of the wider world.

Further reform in Cuba is likely and the society that the revolution birthed will continue to be eroded as has already begun. Despite the growing momentum for it, the Cuban government has managed to avoid any revolution to effect change. Though with the death of Fidel Castro, and all he represented of the revolution, it’d be difficult to say that his death will not hasten that.

Raul Castro may offer concessions to Cubans to slow down any further economic and social shifts, as he effectively already has with existing economic reforms. But the zeal for change amongst an apathetic youth is too great to hold off indefinitely. Furthermore, with Raul Castro as a man also in the twilight of his life, he too may be running out of time to stall it.

Fidel Castro will continue to be a divisive figure in history and understandably so. Although I shan’t accept the biased and ideologically driven narrative of him from the West. Juxtaposed with their own history, the West really aren’t in a position to criticize Castro and history will judge him much more favourably than they might hope.

The election of Donald Trump is more abhorrent than Brexit but they share the same ugly principles

In the early hours of the morning after the US presidential election, I woke up and reached for my phone. As I squinted from the glare of the backlight, with some anxiety I instinctively checked the results that were already in and immediately felt a sickening sensation in the pit of my stomach.

It was eerily a feeling of deja vu; exactly the same routine and feeling I had experienced upon seeing the results of the EU referendum.

Donald Trump was not only ahead but it looked like he was going to win. As I hopped between tabs of reliable news outlets and social media, refreshing each page in hope, I accepted that Trump was going to win the election. It was what I thought would happen but badly wanted to be wrong about. Trump was now on 244 electoral college votes while Hillary Clinton was on 215. Trump was en route to victory and it didn’t look like anything would change that.

As Clinton conceded defeat, the atmosphere was akin to when it’d become clear that the UK had voted to leave the EU in a foolish decision that was driven by xenophobia and ignorance. The mood in London (a city that had overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU) was just as subdued as it was following the referendum.

Where Brexit and the election of Trump differed was Brexit arguably wasn’t as bad a result. Not to mention, despite my disdain for many Brexiters, the Trump campaign (and his election) undoubtedly showed the American electorate and society in a much worse light.

Trump can be called many things. Racist, sexist, Islamophobic, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, narcissistic and bigoted all accurately describe the President Elect. Oh, and don’t forget his aspirations as a sexual predator and sexual abuser. On the latter, I don’t know how else you can describe a man who brags about his desire when meeting a beautiful woman to “grab ‘em by the pussy”.

One conspicuous omission from the above is ‘liar’. I’m sure Trump has told his fair share of lies and I’m sure many of his obnoxious policies will quickly prove to be too outlandish and impractical to implement, which might lead some to call him deceitful. But when it came to his campaign, Trump told Americans exactly what his plans were with his trademark candidness.

I also think Trump had the chutzpah to actually intend to implement his policies before realising or being advised that they’d be impossible. And enough of the electorate nevertheless voted for him to become President. If he finds a way to build a wall to keep Mexicans out, and manages to get Mexico to pay for it, it can’t be claimed that he didn’t tell you so.

Essentially, Trump supporters went further with the extent of the hate that they were knowingly willing to support via their voting of a candidate who actually intended to follow through on all the hateful utterances he spewed throughout his campaign. That says a lot about American society when a candidate running on that platform can win a presidential election.

America has long been disdainfully perceived globally as a nation of supreme ignorance and electing Donald Trump has only reinforced that view. It’s a perception many Americans aren’t aware of but I think many of those who didn’t vote for Trump are now realising this for themselves.

In the UK we’re still in political limbo over our exit of the EU and I’m still not convinced a hard Brexit at least will happen (especially with the recent court ruling that the government does need to consult Parliament before triggering Article 50). But for Americans, there’s little uncertainty around Trump assuming the presidency of the United States.

Returning to the UK, there is much that unites Brexit and the election of Trump in the ugly principles they’re both underpinned by. Political apathy and distrust of politicians is at an all-time high and understandably so. Governments and politicians are seen as the friends of big business, the ‘1%’ and each other while the public accept the narrative without scope for redress. With both the EU referendum and the US presidential election, sections of the respective electorate sought to give the establishment a kicking.

When Brexiters voted to leave the EU, they wanted to send a message. They wanted to tell the establishment and the career politicians that they wanted to see them with a bloody nose. Most Brexiters didn’t know what the EU did and I suspect many still don’t. Conversely, voting to remain in the EU was what the government wanted them to vote for and if the EU was worth their vote, what had it done for them? This was the emotionally driven and flawed logic of many people that voted to leave. They’d had enough and this was their chance to stick it to the politicians in Westminster and Brussels.

Voters in communities that’d had the heart ripped out of their local economies by recessions and a lack of investment saw the government and the EU as the cause of their woes and they understandably directed their anger at politicians. This was no different from US cities with declining industries where the working class had decided enough was enough. No more empty promises from politicians followed by a term of neglect. They were ready to reject the status quo of politicians and unfortunately for Clinton, she represented that.

Trump on the other hand, with his brash demeanour, populist rhetoric and cheap shots that provided a mouthpiece for all the insults the working class wanted to hurl at the politicians they felt had let them down, was the antithesis of the political class. He might have come from money, and was very much part of the establishment, but his sentiments didn’t carry the Washington narrative.

He was everything traditional politicians weren’t. And while that included being hugely unqualified for the job, voting for him meant a change from the status quo and an opportunity to give the political class a drubbing. Just as the Brexiters had had enough and were showing it via the ballot, Trump supporters were doing exactly the same.

Their vitriol was at a level where even if the consequence was an unqualified buffoon leading their country, thus compounding the disdain and derision of America, it was a chance they were willing to take. While I shared some of the reservations many Americans had over Clinton (and would have preferred Bernie Sanders as the Democratic Party candidate) it’s nonetheless a big statement when you can’t beat Donald Trump. This was the extent of the failure that the political class had effected.

"You don't like immigrants? Me too! Let's be friends!"

The same could be said for the Brexiters who were willing to damage the British economy and similarly make the UK a laughing stock on the world stage (although they were were too insular and high on misplaced jingoism to realise that). Anything associated with xenophobic morons like Nigel Farage et al should be an overwhelming loser yet it wasn’t the case. What an L we took in the EU referendum indeed.

While there needs to be some empathy for the aforementioned groups (more so to understand how politicians and society facilitated this mess), the undertones of prejudice and hatred that led to the respective results are harder to understand.

I’ve always maintained that not everyone who voted for Brexit is a racist but every racist voted for Brexit. And the same can be said for Trump supporters. The Leave campaign in the UK was driven by an undeniable xenophobia. The logic was that immigrants were clearly taking our jobs (jobs that many Britons don’t want to do) and they had to go. Although beyond xenophobia, this was about racism.

British born ethnic minorities like me were just as unwelcome even though the UK was our home where we were educated, work and contribute to society. For many Leave supporters, Brexit was their way of telling us to ‘go home’ (even those of us who were born here). They even managed to get some ethnic minorities like Tory MP Preeti Patel to get in on the act. If we do get shipped off to who-knows-where, she’ll presumably be on the last boat to leave but she won’t be so smug then.

It was no different in America. With every group that Trump offended, I was incredulous that he managed to maintain, if not grow, his support. Yet every time he managed to insult a minority group, it was perceived as a willingness to champion the white, working class male. Many had come to feel disenfranchised and resented what their country had become with ‘unnecessary legislation giving minorities equal rights’. Consequently, many repaid Trump in votes.

Add that to the group of voters who held a deep rooted disdain and distrust for politicians, and those who held some prejudice for at least one minority group, and that’s a lot of votes.

Those groups certainly aren’t mutually exclusive and if you represented them in a venn diagram, there’d be a sizeable number in the intersection; something that knowingly or otherwise helped Trump to the White House.

Trump promised to ‘make America great again’ but what he really meant, as supported by much of his rhetoric throughout his campaign, was he wanted to make America white again. And that resonated with many racist voters. The EU referendum and the presidential election showed that race relations in particular hadn’t really improved. Rather the racists didn’t have anyone speaking out for them.

With the likes of Farage, Trump et al championing the sentiments of the downtrodden racist, and doing so in the mainstream, they made it OK to be open about one’s racism. No longer did their views need to be caveated with “some of my best friends are black/Muslim/[insert minority group here]” and like the Death Eaters in Harry Potter following Voldemort’s resurgence, they weren’t going to hide their true identities or their views.

Following the EU referendum, there were reports of racist and religiously motivated attacks by people who felt emboldened by the result. And the same has happened following the election of Trump with hate crimes effectively being committed in the name of the President Elect.

In the days after the presidential election, social media has been rife with posts documenting such attacks. Journalist Shaun King has received countless reports of these and his Facebook page paints a picture of the extent of just how emboldened Trump supporters feel following his election. To return to the Harry Potter analogy, the Trump supporters have their Voldemort and they’re extremely roused as he prepares to enter the Ministry of Magic.

Historians have long referenced the ‘special relationship’ in articulating the connection shared between America and the UK. Culturally and politically, that’s long been the case. Furthermore, the EU referendum and the presidential election have shown they share more than that in an ugly yet and strong undercurrent of prejudice.

On the possibility of the triggering of Article 50 being blocked or a soft Brexit, and in what seems like a veiled threat combined with a blatant attempt at stoking existing divisions in the UK, Nigel Farage said it could result in “political anger the like of which we have never seen in this country”. With the tensions exposed in the UK, he could be right and America could be facing the same scenario. Heated anti-Trump protests have already taken place and I expect there will be more.

Both countries have shown not only how divided they are but how fragile their facades of tolerance are when given the opportunity to deviate from this without reproach. However, more worryingly is how little they’ve seemingly progressed from a history that can be characterised by generations of abject prejudice. On reflection, perhaps we didn’t move as far away from it as we once thought.

Slavery may have ended but its shadow remains over the black diaspora

When former British Prime Minister David Cameron visited Jamaica, he made the clearest statement that his government had little empathy for the black diaspora when considering the aftermath of slavery -

“That the Caribbean has emerged from the long shadow it cast is testament to the resilience and spirit of its people. I acknowledge that these wounds run very deep indeed. But I do hope that, as friends who have gone through so much together since those darkest of times, we can move on from this painful legacy and continue to build for the future.”

These weren’t surprising utterances from Cameron and they suggest much about him and those who share his stance. Although, with less unempathetic rhetoric, there are some (including some black people) who feel any dialogue around the subject of slavery is now redundant and that it should be consigned to history to avoid dwelling on a loathsome past.

While I don’t agree with this, I can see the rationale behind such an approach when considering how latching onto the past could further stymie the progress of black people. Nevertheless, while slavery has ended, its shadow remains like an unshakeable albatross. Many lamentable features of the black narrative can be traced back to our darkest period in history and over a century later, the existence of slavery has a lot to answer for.

The black diaspora is undoubtedly facing challenges and experiencing a rate of progress that is not commensurate with other communities. When I consider postwar emigration of non-black communities, later arrivals have generally experienced more prosperity than blacks who were one of the earliest groups of immigrants to Europe and North America subsequent to World War 2. The reasons for that are plentiful enough that it’d require a separate post. Needless to say, they cannot be wholly attributed to black people either but rather the institutionalised social attitudes we’re subject to.

These attitudes (and their manifestations in respective governments and legislation) are hangovers from slavery; a time when black people were marginalised and robbed of any notion of equality or progression while systematically being dehumanised. Yes, the tangible barriers to our progress, such as access to education and our freedom, have been lifted. But in practice, the vestiges of the prejudice, racial bias and a desire to preserve our inferior position in a centuries-old racial and social hierarchy that was once legal, can still be seen in modern views towards the black community.

For real change to be effected, wider society needs to unlearn centuries of institutionalised prejudice towards blacks that was par for the course during slavery and during the years that followed. Not doing so obviously preserves the position of blacks as beneath everyone else; a position that existed for centuries. Can we therefore really expect said unlearning to have occurred in less time than those ideals were actually entrenched?

Racial and cultural bias of standardised tests provide a further hurdle for our access to high quality education and the opportunities it can afford. And one only needs to look to America to see the influence of the slave owners’ ideals that black lives don’t matter having successfully permeated law enforcement. Slavery might have been abolished and equal rights legislation may have been passed, but it’s not so easy to abolish ideas that have been inherent in successive generations.

Conversely, the black diaspora is responsible for many of its own shortcomings. Though while not seeking to diminish this charge, these failings can be traced back to slavery in illustrating just how far its impact has spread since it was abolished.

Look at other immigrant groups and you’ll often notice they’re playing the long game. They’re happy to live in less than modest and often overcrowded accommodation for years while saving money for a better property and better opportunities for their future and that of their families. The long term thinking amongst these communities is what expedites their rapid social mobility. Meanwhile, black communities fail to experience the same trajectory or least with the same swiftness. Why? A warped mindset of short term thinking that has been engendered since slavery. It’s seemingly become inherent and frustratingly difficult to eradicate but it’s a flawed approach that we desperately need to address.

For the black slave, there was no need for long term thinking. Your life was a disposable commodity in the hands of a slave owner who viewed it as such. Alas, for many black people, the same mindset has seemingly continued.

It’s easy to say slavery has no bearing on this being the case today. But consider the nonchalance towards black lives held by the slave owner. In principle, is it much different to the nonchalance shown towards black lives now? The only difference is today, the ‘slave’ almost buys into those sentiments more than the ‘slave owner’ themselves to the extent that the slave owner needn’t push their agenda any longer as the slave will do that for him.

Similarly, governments have replaced slave owners with the undue power and influence some of the black community perceive them to have in being responsible for the direction of their lives. This is instead of acknowledging that there is more they can do for themselves that governments cannot interfere with. In turn, this has created a blame culture against legislatures and society. Sections of the diaspora are still unmotivated past the post slavery mentality when our fate was at the whim of the slave owner. Perhaps we were slaves for so long that we don’t know how to be free and how to grasp our freedom? Instead, we credit our failures to the nearest entity we can identify in the form of a slave owner rather than taking responsibility for the freedom that we now actually have.

The collective mental health of the black diaspora is arguably the most significant legacy of slavery. Centuries of being dehumanised and perceiving ourselves as inferior has permeated the black psyche. Our self esteem is incredibly damaged as we continue to perpetuate the notion of being secondary and almost actively allowing ourselves to be marginalised because for so long it was the status quo.

We struggle to value ourselves with our true worth because we have been programmed not to do so and others have been programmed to foist that notion onto us. Subconsciously, many black people equate being black to being negative to the extent that there’s a demand for skin bleaching products in a number of regions.

Vybz Kartel, once one of bashment’s biggest stars, launched his own range of ‘skin brightening’ products and presumably in pursuit of a caucasian look (which most opine went badly wrong), Lil’ Kim has transformed herself from a pin-up when she released her debut album Hardcore to a light-skinned barbie doll that didn’t meet quality control at the factory. And Beyonce, arguably one of the biggest celebrities period, has long been accused of appearing lighter. Are we literally trying to wash away our blackness? It shows how much undoing of centuries of damage to our self esteem is still required.

Psychologically, slavery has damaged the black psyche to so great an extent that we’re yet to wholly escape the conditioning it has seared into our identity. And we’ve failed to acknowledge and accordingly address the impact this has on us today.

It’s important to emphasise that slavery, a system that was abolished over a century ago, cannot be deemed a comprehensive excuse for any failings of a black person or indeed the wider black community. Yet it must be acknowledged as offering an explanation for the shadow of slavery continuing to pervade the black people today.

Other communities have seen persecution via colonialism and periods of brutality such as the experience of the Jewish Diaspora during the Holocaust. Though no group has seen such sustained physical abuse, psychological abuse and dehumanising as the black diaspora experienced throughout slavery and later periods of history. Furthermore, no group continues to be hindered by their experiences to the extent that can be seen in black communities worldwide.

Like a hat that has been worn for so long that even when removed it’s still felt to be on, the shackles once worn by black slaves during slavery may have been removed yet psychologically and socially they continue to be felt. After a while, the sensation of wearing the hat completely wears off but somehow the same can’t be said for slavery and the residual conditioning it has had on black people that can be traced back hundreds of years. However, we can’t overly lament or pontificate about it any longer unless we’re willing to take a meaningful approach to addressing it. Because if we don’t, no one else will and we’ll have wasted the freedom that black slaves would have once deemed unimaginable.

I thought Brexit wouldn’t happen and was heading for the long grass (but now I’m not so sure)

After the referendum on Britain’s membership in the EU, I felt anger and disappointment at the ignorance, insularity and xenophobia that led to the result. For the first time in my adult life, I also felt ashamed to be British; to share an identity with those who were prompted to vote leave based on the aforementioned. My beef isn’t with those whose rationale (albeit not shared by me) to vote leave was based on what they they thought was best for the country rather than the above.

While my anger didn’t subside (and actually grew with reports of racist attacks by people who felt emboldened by the result) in the following days, I increasingly thought that Brexit wouldn’t happen. I even referenced it in my analysis of the referendum and what it said about British society. As the lies of the leave campaign quickly emerged (such as the £350 million a week that they claimed post Brexit would be diverted to the NHS), the number of so-called ‘Bregretters’ (leave voters who subsequently regretted their decision to vote leave) grew. And with such a narrow result, an identical referendum a week later would have resulted in a reversed decision.

The unprecedented complexities of leaving the EU began to become obvious along with the negative impact on British society and the British economy. Since the referendum, Britain has edged closer to an Enoch Powell wet dream and it’s palpable. Sterling has also slumped following the referendum and only recently a ‘flash crash’ saw it fall 6% to $1.1841. On the day of the referendum, it was $1.50. The Bank of England will be investigating the cause but I suspect they’re wasting their time or in denial. If it wasn’t already clear, Brexit isn’t deemed good for business and it isn’t deemed good for the economy either. Overall, Brexit isn’t good for Britain.

I had thought the acceptance and realisation of this amongst politicians and within public opinion would strengthen the argument for why Brexit would be abandoned. After all, the referendum wasn’t legally binding. Alternatively, I thought a Brexit in name only might be pursued. Such a route would placate the Brexiters with a departure from the EU but pragmatism would nonetheless retain access to the single market with the ‘compromise’ (as idiots would see it) of freedom of movement and labour coming with it. Basically a soft Brexit that for all intents and purposes represented the status quo albeit with a few tweaks that the government could claim were a victory for those racists who voted “to get their country back from immigrants”.

I couldn’t see how leaving the single market and unraveling decades of legislation would be something that the government would run with. It’d be a mammoth task; the extent of which would very quickly become apparent. Furthermore, given such a significant decision, I couldn’t envisage parliament not getting a vote on the decision to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and certainly what any post-Brexit Britain would look like. At that point, I expected parliamentarians to reject a Brexit with the knowledge of just how bad it would be for Britain and public opinion to support their decision.

I wasn’t even sure if Brexit would get that get that far. Even leave campaigners such as Boris Johnson called for an unhurried exit as they realised what a palaver they had foisted upon the country. I thought there was a good chance that Brexit would be kicked into the long grass with the Brexiters blindly high on their somewhat Pyrrhic victory for long enough to not realise that we were still actually in the EU but merely with more overt and comforting xenophobia to distract them from reality.

I still think any of the above scenarios that don’t see a ‘hard’ Brexit could happen. Alas, I increasingly feel less confident about it and primarily for one reason - Theresa May and her now loyal following of prejudiced and equally ignorant right wing Tories.

"... and then I told François he could take access to the single market and stick it where the sun doesn't shine!"

I’ve never been a fan of Theresa May. As Home Secretary, I thought many of her policies and rhetoric had undertones of racism. She oversaw the vans carrying billboards telling immigrants to ‘go home’. Stop and Search operations aimed at illegal immigrants were also not only reminiscent of the 80s where non-whites were subject to aggressive racial profiling that led to racial tensions, a generation of distrust for the police (that hasn’t really disappeared) and race riots. So for May to become Prime Minister at a time when racial tensions in the UK had been exacerbated by the leave campaign, and latterly the referendum result, didn’t bode well.

"here's a racist policy I made earlier..."

May’s first soundbite as Prime Minister was “Brexit means Brexit”. It was an expected attempt at portraying herself as a leader who had listened to the people and would follow their wishes without any ambiguity. Yet even so, most leaders following a referendum of this nature would have voiced similar sentiments.

As May settled into her role, there were signs that perhaps she really did mean Brexit means Brexit. But there were also indicators that Brexit wasn’t happening anytime soon When David Davis, Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, told Parliament his details for what Brexit would look like he outlined…. well, nothing. He even gave us the clarity that Brexit “means leaving the European Union”. Thanks for that Dave.

Meanwhile, increased reporting of post referendum xenophobic crimes continued and there was a tangible sense that anti-immigrant and racist sentiments no longer had to be kept behind closed doors. Following Team GB’s success at the Rio Olympics, Heather Wheeler MP felt it was OK to celebrate the efforts of the now defunct British Empire as Britain’s own success. When you consider the Empire was essentially the legacy of slavery and brutal colonisation by Britain, Wheeler’s tweet can only be considered as racist, stupid or both.

The referendum result had made it fine to say you didn’t like immigrants, regardless of if they were from within the EU or beyond, and you got the sense that such views were the oil of the Brexit train that until recently, hadn’t really built up speed.

That was until the Tory Party Conference, an event that was akin to the Nazi’s annual Nuremberg rally post 1933 when the Nazis had become the only legal party in Germany and therefore felt untouchable and high on power. The similarities with the Nazis are also extended to the racist undertones of every major speech. Poet, author and commentator Michael Rosen even wrote an apt poem, ‘I was listening to a pogrom on the radio today’ that brilliantly captured the essence of the Tory Party Conference. The Tories were embracing their tag as the ‘nasty party’ and anti-immigration champions and they were doing it with pride and absolute hubris; the latter being what I fear the most is leading us to a hard Brexit.

"Yes, that really is my name..."

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt told of a reduction in foreign doctors and May reiterated this in telling the conference that foreign doctors would be allowed to stay “until further numbers (of home-grown doctors) are trained”. The arrogance beggars belief that it’s suggested foreign doctors are doing us a favour by working here. Home Secretary Amber Rudd gave a deeply inflammatory speech in which she announced a policy where UK businesses would need to publish the number of foreign staff they employ and added that foreign workers should not be able to “take the jobs that British people should do”. Rudd’s speech was likened to Mein Kampf which is probably the line that the Tories are going for. What a time to be alive in Tory Britain.

May herself, not wanting to be outshone by her Tory peers, was the showstopper in essentially indicating a hard Brexit with her dismissing any compromise on freedom of movement in exchange for access to the single market. Even with the Tories’ beloved backers of the financial services sector standing to lose money and jobs with such a move, May is seemingly willing to cut off her nose to spite her face. Despite my disdain for the attitudes and some characters within the square mile, they may be one of the few groups that can effectively lobby to save us from a hard Brexit.

Other unlikely saviors may come from Tory MPs who are urging May not to relinquish Britain’s access to the single market. The more a hard Brexit becomes May’s target, the more pressure she can expect from all MPs and the public in providing a parliamentary vote on Brexit but also transparency in the process which both May and Davis have told MPs they should not expect to be forthcoming. Indeed, even to invoke Article 50 without a parliamentary vote would not be in the spirit of British democracy.

EU leaders aren’t going to let Britain play the big man of Europe on this occasion and if anything, they’ll look to punish us. François Holland has said that “there must be a price” to deter other EU members seeking to leave the EU while retaining the benefits and it’s likely the EU will make Britain pay that price dearly. I don’t blame them but Theresa May and her rabble rousers are seemingly too arrogant to avoid that happening.

I still think there is a good chance that Brexit won’t happen or at least not a hard Brexit that causes a fundamental shift. Although at present no one is facilitating that. This could be the fight that the Labour Party needs to galvanise itself and just as May referred to the referendum as a “quiet revolution”, the stance of the right could be what the rest of British society needs to actually revolt against what is happening. MPs too need to hold May to account as if Brexit happens with no say from Parliament, it really will be a mockery of British democracy and an even bigger consequence for the future of Britain.

The value of time

Time. It’s a commodity that we take for granted when it appears to be in abundance yet frantically despair when we realise it’s slipping through our fingers with no redress. And for all its value, once it’s gone, it’s gone. Sadly, many of us only realise this when it is indeed too late and we’re ruing over lost opportunities or experiences that we chose not to embrace.

We reflect on our naivety, how green we once were and often how plain ignorant our younger selves now appear in hindsight. But despite this inevitable regret, many people never really appreciate the value of time. Rather than making good on time lapsed, we soon consign our regret to a place of nonchalance; forsaking the chance to reflect and shape our subsequent approach to how we appraise the commodity of time.

I’m someone who is filled with regret at how I once valued time. In my youth, I arguably placed time on a pedestal to the extent that I wasn’t willing to take risks or explore new opportunities because I felt it might have represented a waste of time; time that I couldn’t get back. I was right. However, there is no reward without risk and rightly or wrongly, every risk we turn down represents a lost experience. I valued time but I didn’t appreciate the nature of how it escapes all of us.

That caution developed into complacency. I thought I was preserving time but I was allowing it to pass while I made little or poor use of it. Furthermore, my mindset had now turned to one where my stance remained due to an inability to act otherwise as a result of circumstance and anxiety.

Steve Harvey spoke of a similar experience of those who fritter their time away in their youth, just to try and play catch up once they’ve realised their mistake. I didn’t exactly waste my time out of overt recklessness. Nonetheless I was reckless in how I considered time and it had exactly the same result.

I lost years to this period of my life and who knows what else. Though this gave me the jolt I needed to view time in the way it should be. I realised I needed to make good on my folly and, almost predator-like, I did just that. If I had an interest in something, I was pursuing it. If an opportunity presented itself, I was seizing it. Good, bad or indifferent, I realised that every experience in life contributed to our being. And in ways we might not imagine or appreciate at the time but might actually serve us in the future. I had been denying myself this with my failure to see the worth of my time.

I’ve maintained said approach and it’s served me and my mental health well as I feel more confident that I’m making good use of a commodity that I can’t get back once it’s gone. Alas, I can’t make good on everything; ‘tis the nature of time. But wherever possible, I’m salvaging from the wreck of my earlier failure.

In doing so, I’ve also learned to value my time as mine. Not in a selfish way of not wanting to share my time and efforts with others but in perceiving my time and the journey I take via the path it represents, to be mine.

Years ago, I bumped into a friend in my old neighbourhood who I’d not seen for a while. We got to talking and it was around the period when I started to realise how my value of time hadn’t exactly been prudent. I was lamenting at what I hadn’t done based on what was ‘expected’ by society; not what I hadn’t done to my own detriment due to what was good for me. My friend responded with a deeply apt rebuttal and said “life’s not a race”. That’s stuck with me since and I pay little regard to what I should have done based on society’s expectations or what others are doing and instead focus on myself and those important to me.

We can’t care about using the lives of others as a gauge for where we should be in our own lives because our allocation of time is ours, not theirs. Although so many people are caught up in doing just that. They don’t see the worth in their time because they measure it against someone else's or society’s. And when they do realise their error, it’s often too late as they’ve used their time to create a life that isn’t necessarily for them and with little or no recourse. People chase the job, house, marital status, children, superficial notions of success and anything else they assume they’re ‘supposed’ to have based on a futile comparison. All the while they’re failing to appreciate their time as their own. Why chase a life that isn’t yours just to later realise you’re out of time to get to your own destination?

Our perception of time goes beyond recognising the worth of our own time but that of others too. So many of us have an inability to understand the finite nature of time, either in a discrete sense within a given period or as life itself. We make demands on others, totally indifferent to the impact it will have on their own time, and fail to see or appreciate this through our own blinkered perception.

How many times have we taken up the time of someone as we see their time as akin to ours? We see their x hours in the same regard as what we have prioritised for the same period. It’s the selfish nature of the human condition that even with a commodity as valuable and finite as time, we find ourselves unable to recognise the value of someone else’s time with their perception rather than our own.

Conversely, we need to learn to share our time. Spending excessively long days at a job to only neglect our partners, friends and families clearly doesn’t signal a true valuation of time. Nevertheless, it’s a common story for many as society has realigned our priorities to prevent us from recognising where our priorities should lie. We need to need to find the sensibility and balance to see our time for ourselves while apportioning it accordingly for others around us. This requires an altruistic approach that seems sparse when considered in tandem with the notion of our time.

Like good health, we appraise time with nonchalance when it is plentiful and desperately when it becomes scarce or reflects regret of past actions or lack of. Yet both commodities are rarely given the status we give wealth and material and tangible possessions that can come and go - with the proviso that we have the time and health to afford us the chance to do so. Clearly we need to reappraise the commodities in life that we should view as valuable with more esteem than those that we can always make good on should we mess up. Unfortunately, time isn’t so forgiving and once it’s gone, it’s gone.

Channel 5’s Gangland wasn’t about uncovering gang culture, it merely perpetuated ignorant and negative stereotypes of black youths and the black diaspora

As part of a two-part documentary, Channel 5 recently aired the first episode of Gangland (at the time of writing, the second episode is yet to be aired). Gangland was advertised by Channel 5 in fairly broad terms as essentially an exposé into London’s gang culture. In fact, here’s exactly what Channel 5 said on its website:

Gangland is an original two-part documentary that gains unprecedented access to London’s most notorious young gangs, as they document what life is really like as part of a contemporary gang.

Like many people who decided to tune into Gangland, I expected balanced journalism that would explore the factors that led some youths to gang culture, the failures of society and the individuals in gangs that prefigured their involvement of said life and cautionary tales of those that have since renounced being in a gang through their own expectedly dire experiences or indeed lucky escapes.

Given it was set in London, I also expected the programme to cover gangs of all ethnicities in reflecting London’s ethnic diversity. All of this I thought would be presented against a backdrop of life in a gang that would reflect Channel 5’s social responsibility as a mainstream broadcaster, but also with an approach that showed the seriousness of gang culture in the city.

Alas, perhaps I asked for too much as all Channel 5 delivered with this show was an epic failure that perpetuated ignorant and negative stereotypes of black youths. That’s right, only black youths. Aside from the white girlfriend of one of the protagonists (who felt he was going to beat a case due to no evidence - yet Channel 5 have hours of footage of him incriminating himself), every person interviewed was black.

Gangland’s producer, Paul Blake, spoke of his motivation in making the documentary in the Guardian. The Guardian wrote ‘Blake spent over a decade trying to get a documentary made which would give voice to the thoughts and motivations of gang members’. Blake added “this documentary was born from the fact that I am a black man, born in this country, and I was just pissed off that no one cared about these young black kids who are dying”.

Perhaps that was his motivation and maybe even what he presented to Channel 5 before they requested he amend it to what we saw on our screens. Unfortunately, it isn’t what was achieved with Gangland.

For anyone aware of gang culture, the majority of what was aired on Gangland would not have tallied up with that perception. As a friend said to me, it was like watching a parody for the most part. If you’re in a ‘notorious’ gang and willing to come on a terrestrial channel, barely, if at all, disguising your appearance, and never disguising your voice while talking unimaginably recklessly in incriminating yourself and your peers, you really aren’t about that life. And if you really are in that lifestyle yet still talking like that, then as DJ Khaled would say, “you played yourself” and everyone else around you.

The black youths (because just to remind you, Channel 5 either couldn’t find any non-black gangs or gang members because they seemingly don’t exist in London) who were willing to brandish guns while talking about what they were willing to do, started off as uber cringeworthy. It was akin to many of the American rappers we’ve seen in the UK doing their very best to convince us they’re “from the hood” or a bad caricature of World Star Hip Hop. Attack the Block (and I don’t say that with any kudos for that film either) had more credibility than their utterances and I couldn’t take them seriously. But I quickly went from cringing to being flabbergasted at what I was watching.

One alleged gang member, safe in the knowledge that Channel 5 would never betray his location or any other personal information by which he could be located and identified, spoke about how he’d save a bullet for the police. All the while, they brazenly exposed operations as they spoke more and more with zero caution for themselves and anyone connected to them. Section Boyz might have said ‘trapping ain’t dead’ but those that appeared on Gangland appeared to be trying to bring it to death’s door via Channel 5 along with lengthy prison sentences supported by copious amounts of evidence. The lifestyle they purported clearly isn’t one to be glamourised but their incautiousness beggars belief.

The documentary portrayed the black community as idiots and individuals for whom the price of life is cheap. The reason I don’t caveat that as ‘black gang members’ rather than the black community is because if you aren’t acquainted with black people and perhaps live in a largely ethnically homogenous part of the UK, you might think all black people were like the image shown on the documentary as every person on the show was black.

It’s not as if the mainstream media don’t already drive a racist narrative to the extent that the black diaspora is still faced with prejudice based on such portrayals that we spend our lives refuting. Just look at the media’s annual reporting on the Notting Hill Carnival in contrast to the class A drug-fests that are many festivals yet the latter rarely gets bad press. I commented to a friend that I hoped my in-laws weren’t watching Gangland as they might think whenever I said I was cooking hard food for dinner I might have actually meant drugs rather than breadfruit and green banana.

Gangland left me angry and confused at those who agreed to be on the show but also at Channel 5. I don’t expect Channel 5 to do any favours for the black diaspora but I do expect a broadcaster to show some social responsibility and they have failed in achieving that with Gangland. The documentary wouldn’t actually be amiss on Fox News in a UK special presented by the vile Katie Hopkins.

Of the participants of the show, they were young and presumably eager for a platform to portray themselves in a way that they felt was credible. That in itself is incredibly sad that they’ve mistaken a life of violence and reckless talk as something to pursue and perhaps had no mentors, elders or voices of reason and experience in their lives to show them otherwise and more so so advise that featuring on this documentary was a terrible idea. Any ‘serious’ members in a gang, past or present, would have promptly advised them of that. Nonetheless, I should add that I’m not excusing those that appeared on the show.

The only credible individual of the documentary was Quincy, a former gang member who sought to be a cautionary tale for the life he once lived. Yet even the final edit of the programme seemingly tried to suppress that message. Furthermore, the ignorance that filled the remainder of the broadcast was what Channel 5 deemed more appropriate to air.

Gangland was an opportunity to raise awareness of real problems in London on a platform of balanced, investigative and analytical journalism that explored causes, motivations and solutions. Instead it became a showcase for 60 minutes that lacked credibility and furthered the media’s often racist narrative of negative stereotypes of black people.

Is the Uber model the future of taxi use?

Unlike most millennials, I’ve never booked an Uber. This might make me seem like a luddite but I’ve had little use for it and little incentive to download the app. However, there’s another reason for my resistance to Uber. It’s their business model that’s caused a few raised eyebrows amongst many onlookers and their competition who feel Uber aren’t operating on a level playing field.

Like other sectors that have experienced a drastic shift in the digital age, the internet and smartphones have transformed the consumer experience of hailing a taxi. There’s no need to rely on the chance of seeing a taxi to hail or even ordering a taxi in advance. No middle man via a controller, just low prices and convenience. Yet that’s left traditional taxi services, historically used to an unchallenged monopoly, with an aggressive breed of competition in Uber and similar services such as Lyft and Grab.

Uber is great for consumers as it offers convenient and efficient transport with incredibly competitive prices. Who could argue against that? Indeed, despite my reluctance, and with some trepidation for the double standards it presents with my own ethics, I will probably eventually succumb to using the service for those very reasons. In exchange for the service provided, consumers give Uber's owners frequent custom and consequent profits.

Like most capitalist ‘success stories’, Uber seemingly leaves the owners and the consumers winning while the drivers get a raw deal (which a demand for drivers provides a distraction to). Uber’s competitors in traditional taxi services are also losing out and some would argue unfairly so. Therefore with what appears to be a controversial business model, and working within a sector where it’s viewed negatively, does the Uber model represent the future of taxi hire? And if so, where does that leave the previously unchallenged players and the drivers who provide the service?

Uber allows a taxi to be ‘hailed’ via its app from a growing network of drivers who drive their personal cars having signed up to the service. Albeit subject to some background checks (which critics have argued don’t go far enough and aren’t as extensive as those traditional taxi drivers are subject to), becoming a driver for Uber is relatively easy. That makes it not only an attractive service for consumers but also potential drivers looking for work. That’s without the rigmarole and effort of say doing ‘the knowledge’ for black cab drivers, the demanding training that requires drivers to learn and recall any route in London without the aid of a sat nav or a map. As a result, drivers have initially flocked to Uber but with varying perceptions of the service.

Uber undoubtedly offers flexible working arrangements insofar as it allows drivers to drive as little or as much as they want. Although with Uber taking a 20% cut of an already low fare, drivers need a lot of rides to make it worth their while as a main and sustainable source of income. Drivers either drive with Uber on a part time or ad hoc basis to supplement their income elsewhere or are forced to make an obscene amount of journeys just to break even.

For the former, it’s probably quite a welcome revenue stream. Nonetheless, if it’s your main source of income, it’s not a great situation to say the least. Furthermore, once factors and overheads such as car depreciation, tax, insurance, fuel and amenities are deducted, Uber’s been criticised for paying less than minimum wage. Not to mention, if drivers need to drive excessively to make a reasonable wage, that raises safety issues for passengers. Amongst other criticisms, Uber is yet to provide any clarity or response to refute either suggestion.

Whenever I’m in a taxi, I often like to ask the driver how they feel about Uber and to date responses go from lukewarm to vitriolic regardless of where in the world it might be. The allure of Uber has seemingly faded since its advent and it’s not gone unnoticed. A new taxi hailing app service, Juno, recently launched in New York with its hopes pinned on the premise of happier drivers leading to happier passengers which in turn increases their customer base and revenue. Juno takes 10% commission from drivers, half of Uber’s commission, and promises to give drivers a stake in the company. Even if Juno is unsuccessful in its attempt to dethrone Uber, it’s surely onto something in ensuring drivers aren’t losing out while only consumers and its owners win.

Competition is healthy for any sector. Particularly in contrast to the prices Uber is able to charge, it could be said that traditional taxi fares have long been too high because of higher overheads and a lack of competition to drive them down. With such low prices, Uber has been able to sway consumers to opt for their service. But that’s brought their service under the spotlight even more and largely for negative reasons.

In 2014, having transferred profits to its sister company in the Netherlands where it's subject to a lower rate of tax, Uber paid £22,134 in corporation tax in the UK. That was despite making an £866,000 profit. Uber isn’t the only company adopting similarly unethical, but legal, practices. Though its intention to aggressively limit the tax it pays in the UK, and the social responsibility that comes with that, definitely doesn’t help the company ingratiate itself with me and many others in tempting us to give them our custom.

In the UK, Uber has also been accused of using its app as a meter akin to traditional metered taxis, something exclusive to black cab drivers. Black cab drivers saw this as an attempt to emulate the latter’s service without being subject to the same regulation and constraints that they are. Uber was successful in the legal action taken against them by Transport for London on behalf of black cab drivers to address this. Relations between the new school and the old school within the taxi sector continue to be acrimonious as the newcomers aren’t deemed to be playing fairly.

While traditional taxi services remain at odds with Uber and similar apps, it does need to be questioned how viable of a business model the former actually presents, especially against a backdrop of many taxi hailing apps now being available. Also, regardless of views on the ethics of Uber, it can’t be denied that their service reflects modern society and technology having pervaded all aspects of transportation, primarily in the use of GPS.

With black cab drivers in London continuing to do ‘the knowledge’, it does beg the question “why?” Years spent familiarising yourself with routes that a sat nav could tell you in an instant seems archaic and to some, probably pointless. Drivers should definitely have some knowledge of an area and shouldn’t need to rely wholly on a sat nav. But the cost of time and money against the use of technology bolsters the argument that ‘the knowledge’ is becoming increasingly redundant.

There is a sense of nostalgia and romanticism to the iconic black cabs in London and ‘the knowledge’ probably contributes to that. But like most people, I would rather take a lower fare and a quicker service in place of a nod to London’s history when my priority is completing my journey safety, quickly and at a competitive price. The reluctance of black cabs to modernise has, and will continue to, hinder rather than help in the fight against Uber and similar services. Unless black cabs can reduce their fares and improve their ability to be hailed without relying on chance, I can only see them reducing in their popularity and largely being the choice of tourists and others that cling onto the history of the service.

Other taxi services are heading towards a similar fate in being unable to compete with taxi hailing apps. If I can hail an Uber online for it to potentially arrive in minutes versus calling a taxi that may not be available for even within remotely close to the waiting time a taxi hailing app can provide a car, one can’t be blamed for supporting services like Uber on that basis alone. Uber is unashamedly in-keeping with our expectations and our need for efficiency and lower costs for services that a digital age has afforded. Alas, taxi drivers driving for traditional taxi services know that to make the move to Uber from what might appear a sinking ship, will mean a sharp pay cut and a steep increase in hours just to earn remotely close to what they would have once earned.

The business model of apps like Uber needn’t be unethical and they have modernised a sector that has rejected the use of technology at their peril. These apps surely represent the future of taxi services and it’s not too late for the old guard to adapt and join the party while it can still be partly on their terms. Conversely, Uber et al need to realise that while they might be reaping the benefits of unadulterated capitalism now, history is littered with examples of where workers’ dissatisfaction and negative public opinion has been forced to be addressed for a business to remain viable. Uber needs to be mindful that if they don’t fine-tune the business model to ensure this, someone else surely will.