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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The demise of Choice FM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The unlikely taboo of interracial relationships

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The art of rap

Rap music has established itself firmly within popular culture and become a credible art of expression. The label of rap has come to be synonymous with lyricism and rightly so. Indeed, in spite of their origins in the grime scene, lyrically proficient artists like Scorcher, Wretch 32, Kano and Durrty Goodz are commonly regarded as rappers in denoting their penchant for lyricism. Nonetheless, despite its roots in artistic expression, rap struggles to achieve universal recognition as a legitimate art.

As a genre underpinned by storytelling, lyricism is a cornerstone of rap. The ability to articulate tales with imagery, metaphors, double entendres and other wordplay, all the while doing so through intricate rhyming patterns, is no throwaway skill. Nor is the range of emotions and perspectives rap is able to create with words. From the vivid narrative of inner city life in Skinnyman’s Council Estate of Mind, to Lowkey’s incredibly moving and personal Bars for my Brother, rap clearly isn’t limited to its woefully flawed and narrow stereotype of boisterousness and braggadocio.

The attributes of rap wouldn’t be amiss if discussing poetry or literature in academic or cultured circles. After all, spoken word artists like George the Poet demonstrate the synergy between rap and poetry. However, hip hop culture typically doesn’t portray a likeness that is befitting of more traditional performing arts.

For many outside of the culture, being unable to see past this image is part of the issue. Institutionalised and largely social prejudice can lead to a closed mind in failing to realise the art that is present within rap. Rap, like other MC-based genres, is typically dominated by artists from working class or lower socio-economic backgrounds and largely blacks, Hispanics and other ethnic minorities. Most rappers therefore project many of the sensibilities and vernacular found in their communities. As a result, the image they portray can become a distraction for anyone that would usually expect such well-articulated rhetoric from a middle class, well-spoken individual. In fact, just as it is often perceived in wider society, it’s almost a display of chutzpah for someone of a certain class or ethnicity to offer intelligent and coherent discourse, let alone via the medium of rap.

An inability to empathise with an unfamiliar lifestyle contributes to this blinkered outlook. Many rappers provide social commentary that is instead confused with glamorisation of a negative side of life. But it’s said lack of empathy that feeds the ignorance of this stance.

As the then leader of the opposition, David Cameron criticised Tim Westwood’s Radio 1 rap show for playing music that "encourages people to carry guns and knives". Admittedly, some of the content played by Westwood would probably have done just that – and not too articulately either. But some would have provided narratives of a life that Cameron has never been and never will be able to relate to. Yet his broad criticism illustrates how dismissive someone with his perspective can be of the merits of rap – all the while reserving admiration for traditional art forms that in essence share similarities with the genre.

In literature, Charles Dickens’ ability to provide compelling social commentary and critique is frequently praised. But albeit a different art of storytelling, the principles of Dickens’ work, or indeed William Shakespeare’s, are no different to much rap. The parallels might be subtle to some, but they’re certainly evident for anyone open-minded enough to appreciate them. Furthermore, just as Dickens’ and Shakespeare’s works are appreciated for their strength of storytelling and the vivid pictures they paint, so should rap be.

Never Change, Jay-Z’s introspective account of his life “before rap”, provides an example of the imagery rap can evoke through lyricism. The lyrics “keep coke in coffee, keep money smelling mothy” create a scene for the listener that is undeniable poetic. You can almost smell the residual scent of coffee while imagining the texture of used and dirty dollar bills touching your fingers against a backdrop of drug paraphernalia. And that’s without having any experience of the life he’s referring to, nor feeling it’s a life that’s being glamorised. The assonance and the consonance, the cadence and the soulful production that samples the David Ruffin classic, Common Man, all contribute to creating this picture so deftly that it cannot be described as anything but powerfully poetic. With material like this, how could anyone deny rap as an art?

Alas, part of the problem lies in the other side of rap. Notwithstanding the lyricists within the genre, there are also the likes of Soulja Boy, waiting to spew garbage lyrics over production that sounds like it was created using a toy keyboard. There’s also the cringeworthy ignorance that rap music sadly isn’t immune from, as showcased by Kanye West’s verse on Clique –

"you know, white people get money don’t spend it/or maybe they get money, buy a business/I rather buy 80 gold chains and go ig’nant/I know Spike Lee gon’ kill me but let me finish/blame it on the pigment, we living no limits"

The ignorance and stupidity of those lyrics are arguably more damaging for the perception of black culture than rap culture. But they certainly do rap music no favours. Instead, they merely pander to the negative stereotype that hip hop culture struggles to distance itself from in asserting itself as an art rather than a modern day minstrel show. Unfortunately such offerings are so disposable that they permeate mainstream culture with ease and are sadly passed off as representations of rap.

Chasing commercial success can also diminish rap’s ability to be taken seriously. Drake is arguably one of the better ‘current’ mainstream rappers and I was an early supporter of his earlier material including the So Far Gone mixtape (that’s when it was still a free mixtape rather than an EP for sale). Though presumably in a bid to experience mainstream success, much of his subsequent material has seen its quality diminished. This dichotomy between commercialism and authentic culture isn’t exclusive to rap. Nonetheless, it’s a disappointment when commercialism triumphs to the extent that the culture is compromised, especially when it devalues what the culture has to offer.

Rap should be recognised and respected with the same regard as other literary or performing arts. The genre does present content that might not be as commonplace within more traditional performing arts, but that needn’t detract from its relevance or credibility as a form of expression. If anything, that’s meant it’s managed to articulate the experiences of those who often aren’t given a voice to do so themselves. Rap is a legitimate art and despite it not conforming to traditional notions of artistic expression, it deserves to be recognised as such.

Stop denigrating fathers

Depending on your social network or forum of choice, Father’s Day usually sees a mixed response to the intended celebration of fathers. On one hand, there are the complimentary posts lauding fathers for the part they play in their child’s life. Indeed, this isn’t dissimilar to Mother’s Day when such sentiments are echoed with reverence and without exception – and rightly so. However, on Father’s Day, such remarks are punctuated with negativity and disdain for fathers with comments like “happy sperm donor day” being bandied about. It’s disappointing to read and hugely disrespectful and unfair to the majority of good fathers that exist. Furthermore, it’s indicative of the often negative view of fathers that manifests itself within society and needs to stop.

Personally, I’m not too enthused by celebrations such as Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. I’m not averse to them per se, but I question the need for an annual ‘special’ (not to mention commercial) day when I am a good son and grandson all year round. Nonetheless, it’s nice to observe such days to honour a parent, grandparent or special person who has fulfilled such a role in your life. Therefore, when it comes to Father’s Day, why would anyone want to detract from that with disparaging comments?

As a man, I can certainly concede that there are some of my gender that are bad fathers. Whether that be because they’re absent from their child’s lives, don’t provide support (financial or otherwise) or mistreat their children, bad fathers exist. And by the same token, so do bad mothers. Unfortunately, regardless of their sex, bad parents exist and there isn’t any merit in merely highlighting the parental transgressions of just one gender. All it serves to do is take away from the good parenting of fathers who exercise fatherhood with great responsibility and pride.

The perception of gender roles in society has come to devalue the role of a father and erroneously suggest fathers are secondary to mothers. Biologically, a mother’s role is incomparable to that of a father. Though when it comes to nurture, guidance and support in raising a child, both parents play an equally important part. Mothers and fathers bring respective attributes to parenting and neither should be seen to supersede the other by default. Yet often, fathers are portrayed almost as second class parents and that’s mirrored in society.

Single fathers receive nowhere near the same kudos as single mothers do; they often get overlooked as even existing. And up until 2011, paternity leave in the UK was two weeks in contrast to up to a year for maternity leave. What kind of a signal does that send to society about the value of fathers in contrast to mothers?

Where a couple has separated, fathers are much more likely to encounter difficulties in obtaining reasonable custody if no longer on amicable terms with the mother of their child. Some would argue that bad fathers have set a precedent upon which to support the rationale for the status quo. And to an extent, they have. But what about the good fathers who exist? They shouldn’t be denied access to their children for the mistakes made by bad fathers before them. Despite mixed views on organisations like Fathers 4 Justice, it cannot be argued against that at the crux of their campaign is fairer and equal custody of children between couples who have separated or divorced. That’s a far cry from the proposition that fathers are more likely to be nonchalant toward and shirk their parental duties.

The assumption and unequal weighting of the value placed upon a mother and a father was dramatised in the custody battle in Kramer vs. Kramer. The film also challenged the way motherhood and fatherhood was seen and since its release, outlooks on parenting and gender roles have modernised. Although many of the attitudes in the film are still apparent in modern society.

Those who continue to denigrate fathers in suggesting their parental responsibilities are more often than not reneged upon, should reconsider their views. Yes, bad fathers exist and they don’t deserve to carry the label or honour of being a father. Nonetheless, that doesn’t mean other fathers should be tarred with the same brush, and certainly not on a day when fatherhood is being celebrated. Furthermore, the proponents of such views should examine why most of the fathers they know and interact with seem to fit the ‘sperm donor’ tag. Surely said individuals represent a common denominator amongst such men? Perhaps they need to also look at themselves before making such generalisations.

Fatherhood should be seen on par with motherhood and attitudes in society shouldn’t reflect the contrary. Good parenting, regardless of it being paternal or maternal, should be acknowledged and celebrated, not diminished by the negative actions of others. Sadly, there will probably always be bad fathers. But they do not represent all fathers and they shouldn’t be allowed to become the poster child for fatherhood. Needless to say, there are more than enough good fathers for that to not be the case and some people could do with remembering that.

Audley, please call it a day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The misconception of tax and welfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urban film – art imitating inner city life but occasionally a contemporary minstrel show

Urban film has become a popular genre within contemporary cinema. Often gritty tales of inner city life brought to the screen for those that can relate to them, or those that can’t and are therefore enthralled by the cinematic portrayals of a life unknown, provide the potential for compelling cinema. Yet with its popularity growing, urban film has produced offerings that sought to move away from its principles in a bid to make itself more accessible. In the process, substance has sometimes been trumped by superficiality and what were once tales of reality have occasionally become parodies of inner city life.

The genre has produced classics that were seminal at the time of their release. John Singleton’s Boyz N the Hood transcends genres with its significance and brilliance and it continues to receive critical acclaim for its portrayal of life in South Central Los Angeles. It tells a story of inner city life that revealed a side of American society many remained ignorant to or simply chose to ignore. Furthermore, it shared parallels with any neighbourhood scarred by social deprivation and all of its trappings; not just in America but worldwide. Doughboy’s poignant monologue of “either they don’t know, don’t show or don’t care about what’s goin’ on in the ‘hood” resonates with anyone that has felt their life and environment has been neglected by wider society and governments. The setting of South Central LA added to the legitimacy and credibility of the film but its writing and performances were what ensured its success.

Similarly, Noel Clarke’s Kidulthood and Adulthood both showed inner city life from a British perspective that had rarely been seen or at least not portrayed so deftly. Both films serve as microcosms of youth culture in inner city Britain, thus articulating the experiences of a section of British society (admittedly not exclusively) that would otherwise remain untold beyond the environment in which they originate. The Class/Entre les Murs, set in an inner city Parisian school, also achieves this but set against a backdrop of multicultural French society. Urban film is clearly a successful vehicle in producing art based on inner city life. Though as it has grown in popularity and broader appeal, so has the scope for its films to become watered down and lacking in credibility.

Where urban film, and indeed television, has drawn from hip hop and grime influences or that of wider working class culture, it would be expected to add to its realism. The dialogue, the soundtrack and the visuals are part and parcel of inner city life for many. Alas, some filmmakers don’t appear to understand this isn’t a substitute for substance.

For some, urban film may appear to offer nothing more than dialogue punctuated with colloquialisms and profanity, a hip hop or grime soundtrack (with a few badly performed cameos from the artists), characters that serve to perpetuate stereotypes and an element of crime or some other negativity for good measure. Although where the more credible films differ is their ability to reflect the society they’re based upon beyond a crude and shallow representation. Surely that should be what the genre strives to create. Yet instead it sometimes has a tendency to pander to the ignorant perception it is often subject to and should be seeking to refute. In the process, it also dumbs down the very culture it should be portraying and makes for ‘fast food’ art.

Other genres of film have identified the commercial appeal of injecting diluted aspects of urban culture into their films. I reluctantly watched Attack the Block, a horror comedy where a social housing estate is attacked by aliens and defended by a group of teenagers. Admittedly I wasn’t overwhelmed by the film so I won’t pass judgement on the plot. But as for the dialogue, the vernacular was often forced and the ‘urban’ element of the film just seemed contrived. Conversely, for anyone unfamiliar with the culture, that might not have been apparent which is in itself important for urban film to realise.

Film is such a powerful tool in disseminating images that can easily produce misrepresentations. For someone who has no access to inner city life, watching a portrayal of said experiences is likely to be deemed accurate as they have no reference upon which to compare it with. Hence characters and stories need to be well-developed and not one-dimensional to enable audiences to connect with rather than alienated by them.

Urban film represents the culture it seeks to portray and there are examples where it has done so with depth in producing classic films. Though as its commercialism grows, so does the inclination to depart from an honest and multilayered representation. That doesn’t mean every film from the genre needs to take itself seriously or shouldn't be subject to artistic licence. But if it’s going to borrow from the culture it seeks to reflect, it should do it properly.

Can cultural values and identities survive within second generation diasporas?

My parents, and the parents of many of my peers, came to the UK as part of the wave of emigration from former British colonies to “the mother country”. They had spent up to their formative years in the Caribbean and fully assimilated the culture of their respective nations before arriving in the UK. Their story is typical of the time, especially for those emigrating from the Caribbean, South Asia and Africa where colonial ties, labour shortages in the UK and rising unemployment in former colonies were just some of the contributors to the UK becoming a new home for many. This was also the case for America, Canada and several countries in Europe throughout the twentieth century. Consequently, immigrant communities have since seen second generations born in states other than those of their origin.

As a by-product of immigration, ‘hybrid’ cultural identities have developed. These reflect cultural heritage while embracing the values and identities of the countries in which these communities currently reside. But what of these diasporas’ ‘original’ cultural identities? Have these become diluted as second generations form their own identities that may supersede what their parents and grandparents knew? And if so, is it only a matter of time before said cultures become diminished?

Being born to West Indian parents, I share an affinity with the respective nations of my parents and of course the land of my birth. On the former, I’m familiar with the culture, I understand the dialect of my parents’ respective nations and I’m aware of the region’s history and current affairs. And while my cooking might not be anywhere as extensive of a culinary repertoire of West Indian food as my parents, it’s to an extent that can reflect my heritage within my diet.

On the other hand, there are some of my generation that aren’t well-versed with the culture and heritage of their family background. This begs the question whether or not they will be able to pass on their parents’ culture to their own children. And with the increase of interracial relationships, preserving one’s culture can be perceived as an even bigger, but not insurmountable, challenge when it comes to subsequent generations.

As a young child, learning of your parents’ culture is often embraced. Tales of rich experiences that differ from those of your peers provide something tangible that also offers an explanation for your own identity. Going to a Saturday school or similar to learn the language and culture of your family is a common experience for many ethnic minority children – and one that often isn’t questioned. That’s until adolescence when it then becomes the reason why you can’t go to the park or the cinema with your friends whose weekends don’t include such activities. As a result, what was once enthusiasm for learning about your culture can sometimes turn to resentment and apathy, at least until you gain the maturity to appreciate it. Of course, this isn’t the case for everyone but it’s an experience I expect many can relate to. It can also be a turning point in observing any diminishing of cultural roots within the second generation of a diaspora.

For many, multiculturalism rightly shapes new identities and a compromise has to be made between the culture experienced at home and outside. This isn’t negative and often the two can complement each other. Furthermore, it needn’t signal the extinction of identities and values experienced in the home and amongst family.

The size and insularity of a diaspora can add to the strength and longevity of a culture. While the latter might not contribute to healthy multiculturalism, it does however, help to preserve culture. A sizeable community too can help to retain links with the country from which it migrated, often forging cultural and economic links that create a reciprocal relationship. After all, if a community seeks access to authentic cultural experiences, the country from which it migrated is happy to serve thriving and profitable markets overseas.

The availability of Bollywood and Nollywood films catering for the large audiences outside of India and Nigeria respectively, illustrate this. Similarly, the south Asian wedding market outside of the Indian subcontinent is a huge industry that south Asians worldwide heavily contribute to.

As long as a diaspora exists as a profitable market, the more likely the country it migrated from will continue to provide it with the cultural ties it yearns. And in an age of the internet and e-commerce, the barriers that may have once restricted this are increasingly disappearing.

Language too provides a preservation of culture. It’s a binding feature of shared identity, even for those that have never set foot in the land from which it originated. Indeed, I have many British born friends whose first language was actually the language of their parents instead of English. While I have mixed views on this (I think it’s more appropriate that both languages are learnt alongside each other, rather than the learning of English being secondary or not until school, to enable a child to fully communicate and integrate into British society and in the home), I do consider it important for second and subsequent generations to learn the language of their family. Language is an enduring feature of any community’s identity. Moreover, no doubt as a legacy of colonialism, it’s something that regrettably doesn’t exist to the same extent within my own culture where local dialects and patios are spoken alongside English.

There are precedents for cultural identities surviving within second generations and beyond. As a nation with a history of immigration, America has Irish, Jewish, Italian and latterly Hispanic communities to name a few, that have retained their cultural identity several generations after they first emigrated. They’ve also experienced a strong presence that has maintained their culture while contributing to American society.

A sense of pride and awareness of one’s culture shouldn’t be lost in subsequent generations, nor should it be at the expense of embracing the identity of one’s place of birth and residence. The key is achieving the balancing act that is the cornerstone of successful multiculturalism and with it, remembering the identities and values of the communities that contribute to it.

Is Django Unchained worthy of the controversy?

When I saw the initial trailers for Django Unchained, it certainly captured my attention. Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, a stellar cast and a plot where the protagonist is a freed black slave who becomes a bounty hunter seemed to make for a promising if not contentious film. Although even before its release, Django Unchained was met with both controversy and acclaim. On one side there’s been criticism based on the argument that the film presents a parody of slavery. Conversely, it’s been praised by many for the retribution of a black protagonist against the backdrop of slavery. However, while I understand both perspectives, I don’t wholly agree with either and many people have simply confused the issues brought up by the film.

Before I’d seen Django Unchained, I had many conversations about the merits or otherwise of a film set during slavery that was subject to Tarantino’s artistic licence. Similarly, the controversy surrounding the film was well documented. Spike Lee refused to watch it, arguing it was “disrespectful to my ancestors” and Louis Farrakhan claimed reactions to the film would be “preparation for a race war”. Both reactions would appear to most to be hyperbole. Nevertheless, while I don’t agree with either statement, I can understand the subjective rationale that would lead to their views.

Admittedly, some scenes in the film did get me slightly heated. But unlike Farrakhan’s suggestion, I certainly didn’t feel inclined to prepare for a “race war”. Indeed, a film that borrows inaccurately from slavery, perhaps even becoming a parody of the era, can subjectively be perceived as disrespectful to enslaved blacks and does raise the question of its appropriateness. Yet a bigger question is how a film like Django Unchained can manage such commercial success while wider society still isn’t ready to have a candid discussion about slavery. Amidst the criticism, controversy and praise of the film, this was a question that was lost on most.

Candid discussion of slavery, and its long term impact, has become almost taboo in contemporary society. As a result, the film industry and mainstream cinema audiences have a cautious appetite for authentic, honest and non-sensationalist films about the slave trade, especially from the perspective of enslaved blacks. Django Unchained was never going to provide such a depiction of slavery and anyone that pinned their hopes on that being the case was very much mistaken.

What some critics of the film failed to understand is that Django Unchained is a fictional film and a historically inaccurate one at that. For that reason there shouldn’t be an expectation for it to portray anything of historical relevance or value. Not to mention, the film had little to do with slavery and instead used slavery as a backdrop for the actual plot. While it could be argued by some that this was in bad taste, it cannot be said that Tarantino has belittled slavery per se in making a film that isn’t actually about the slave trade.

What appears to also lie behind some of the disdain for Django Unchained is that it was made by Tarantino as a white man. Amongst the critics, there does appear to be some discontent at a white man making a film that is set during slavery yet almost a spoof of the era. However, Tarantino being white is irrelevant in any contempt one might have for the film as it represents his creative direction and not his race.

Where I do take issue with Tarantino, and again not because of his race, is his comment that Roots wasn’t authentic. Roots might not have been historically accurate but it was a lot closer to being factually authentic than Django Unchained is (and that isn’t a criticism either). For Tarantino to critique the authenticity of Roots when discussing a film as historically inaccurate as Django Unchained therefore does seem inappropriate.

On the other side of popular opinion on Django Unchained, I’ve also been confused by the reasoning behind some of the praise it’s received.

Django Unchained was oddly lauded by some as offering a sentiment of black empowerment due to Django’s retribution. While I enjoyed seeing Django’s vengeance and the rescuing of his wife, it definitely wasn’t on the basis of me identifying with a fictional former slave turned bounty hunter. Nor did I derive any sense of empowerment from the film either. It’s an ignorant and ludicrous suggestion and to paraphrase Chris Rock discussing black people celebrating OJ Simpson’s acquittal, black people haven’t won anything because of Django Unchained.

Parody or otherwise, Tarantino didn’t make a film that told the story of slavery but instead the story of Django, his retribution and the rescuing of his wife. I thought the film was decent but definitely not Tarantino’s best work, nor worthy of the criticism or acclaim it’s received on both sides. Despite Tarantino’s films typically seeking shock value, I wasn’t as taken aback by Django Unchained as I’d expected either.

I don’t agree with much of the controversy surrounding Django Unchained but I can understand the subjective perspectives that have led to it. Nonetheless, there are wider issues on how slavery is depicted and discussed in contemporary society that have been neglected as part of the debate surrounding the merits of the film. Any meaningful discussion should instead focus on this rather than ignorantly praising the film for a non-existent connection to black empowerment or stating the obvious in commenting on its fictional and inaccurate portrayal of slavery. Ironically, for all the controversy, such discussion is yet to come to the fore.