To tip or not to tip

For most Britons, tipping, or paying gratuity, is seen as relatively limited to the hospitality industry where it’s traditionally been considered a gesture of appreciation for good service. And as a custom, it generally isn’t one that people bemoan unless of course they feel it’s foisted upon them. If I go to a restaurant, I have no qualms in leaving a decent tip for the waiter or waitress if they’ve provided good service and positively contributed to my overall dining experience. Therefore to remunerate them with something extra seems an appropriate way to acknowledge that. However, would I instinctively tip someone for pulling a solitary pint of Stella at a bar, a transaction that is complete within minutes where unlike someone waiting tables, we may not even exchange much if any conversation? No. After all, would that not be considered a very basic element of their job that as a consumer, I should be able to presume them to be being paid a decent wage for? The problem is, often they aren’t.

There are many jobs that don’t pay well where staff may go the extra mile for you as the consumer. So where do we draw the line at who and for what we should tip for and when we shouldn’t? Furthermore, considering the argument of helping to support low paid workers with a tip to supplement their income (a definite driver for me when tipping), how much of that onus should we be expected to shoulder as consumers? After all, we aren’t their employers with whom (along with governments) the responsibility to ensure a living wage should be assumed. Indeed, it can create a moral quandary when considering one’s view on paying gratuity.

With an Anglocentric perspective, the status quo for paying gratuity in North America presents such a contrast to what we’re used to in the UK that it’s often inexplicable to us. It’s more than we’d usually tip and it isn’t just extended to restaurants, bars and hotels either. In fact, in most service industries, and for most customer facing roles, a tip is expected. In developing countries, I’ve often felt this is an appropriate conduit for helping local people who arguably have a harder life than me. But otherwise in more developed countries, this can be an expectation that is met with underlying resentment.

In many service industries within the United States especially, consumers are expected to tip regardless of quality of service or how minor the service being provided might be. And as it’s become socially inherent, few people bat an eyelid at the custom. It’s to the extent that Brits, unfamiliar with such universal tipping, are often perceived as penny-pinching misers when abroad in contrast with our American peers as we typically tip less or not at all based on the respective situation. Conversely, it’s also a frustrating experience that such an expectation is foisted upon us rather than it being a decision we willingly make for ourselves.

In my experience, genuinely or otherwise, service industries in America typically offer great service that is admittedly better than one can often expect in the UK. Staff waiting on you in a restaurant are hugely personable, knowledgeable of the menu and highly accommodating. Their intention is clearly to provide the consumer with the best dining experience possible. Obviously, this isn’t without exception but I’ve nevertheless experienced some great service in American eateries. And while on some level it’s probably in pursuit of a good tip, I have no qualms in tipping generously in such instances as I feel it’s well deserved and appropriate. I also know that such jobs often pay a poor basic wage which again incentivises me to want to acknowledge good service with additional remuneration.

In considering the aforementioned, there is something that isn’t right about the consumer having to effectively subsidise an employee’s wage because the employer isn’t willing or able to factor a living wage into their costs. The employer thereby maximises their profit by paying the employee as little as legally (if not immorally) possible while relying on the consumer to provide any meaningful income for the employee in addition to what they’ve already paid. Someone’s losing out and it certainly isn’t the employer. Nonetheless, as the bastion of capitalism, it’s unsurprising that such an approach is commonplace in America.

Admittedly, for many employees, this approach works just fine. Work hard and provide great service and you’ll make tips aplenty that will dwarf what you might make in other sectors with a higher basic wage. With tipping being so socially ingrained and therefore not contested by consumers, one might argue that ignorantly or otherwise, the status quo actually leaves everyone happy. But the crux of the argument is that staff in service industries deserve a decent basic wage, regardless of any gratuity they might receive on top of that to reflect their efforts. Alas, capitalism has a way of making people decline to examine the flaws of a system as long as they’re able to make money from it.

Returning to the UK, some British restaurants have greedily seen gratuity as a pot of cash that they’d also like to get their hands on; 'tis the nature of capitalism when the bourgeoisie spy an opportunity to make extra cash at the expense of the workers. This is despite tips being a reflection of a customer’s gratitude for the staff that attended to them. In 2015, it was revealed that French restaurant Cote takes the service charge it adds to bills rather than distributing it to staff. Cote’s argument is that it pays slightly higher than the minimum wage (but still lower than the living wage) and that taking the service charge facilitates this. Up until October 2015, Pizza Express took an 8% ‘administrative charge’ for processing tips that were paid via card, a policy that led me to boycott their restaurants since it was revealed in 2008. Similarly, Italian restaurant chain Carluccio’s (another that I’ve not been to since it was revealed) felt it was appropriate to pay below the minimum wage as they would meet it using customers’ tips. And they aren’t the only restaurants that have had such practices.

Wherever possible, I’ve always endeavoured to tip in cash and asked staff if the tip will be going directly to them (as their employers may be too unscrupulous for that to be assumed). Too often tipping presents a grey area where employers blur the lines between it being part of an employee’s pay rather than recognition for their service. It’s akin to a pimp taking a cut from his or her prostitutes’ payment under the guise that they facilitated the transaction in the first instance. Yet these restaurants would undoubtedly have received less ire than that of a pimp.

The crux of the problem with tipping is two-fold. Firstly, employees need to be paid a fair, living wage that is commensurate with their role and that can be reasonably met as part of an employer’s costs. This needs to be separate from the consideration of tips which are a reflection of the relationship between the consumer and the employee. This indeed is the second consideration as a tip cannot be considered something that the employer has a claim to, nor should it be factored in as a likely subsidy to an employee’s income. Governments too need to ensure that a fair wage is being paid to workers in service industries.

Tipping will probably continue to be a moral and corporate grey area and one that many struggle with in either context. Though regardless of the solution, someone is probably always losing out.

Haye day or pay day, it’s certainly not time for David Haye to call it a day

After a three-and-a-half year hiatus, David Haye has returned to boxing with a first round KO of Mark de Mori. However, many boxing fans have questioned Haye’s motives for returning to the ring. As a former unified cruiserweight world champion and latterly a WBA heavyweight world champion, Haye had, and has, little to prove or achieve in the sport. His loss to Wladimir Klitschko, in what was a lacklustre effort, was followed by a demolition job of Dereck Chisora that had needle aplenty in the build-up. Subsequently, Haye was scheduled to meet current heavyweight champion Tyson Fury but unfortunately pulled out twice due to injuries. Following the second injury, which required reconstructive shoulder surgery, it was suggested that Haye might not fight again. But as was suspected by many during his lay-off, Haye has made a return to the sport and a timely one at that.

It’s been suggested that Haye’s return is for financial reasons, a claim that hasn’t been supported by anything other than the rumour mill. As a boxer who’s always seemed to have great business acumen and astuteness, not to mention having made huge amounts of money in fights where he fought under his own Hayemaker promotional banner, I’d like to think there isn’t any truth to this. Nonetheless, whatever the reason for his return, Haye is back and ready to make his mark on the heavyweight division yet again.

Haye’s return has come at a time when the heavyweight landscape has freed itself from the shackles of the Klitschko brothers’ domination of the division that it was subject to when Haye stepped away from the sport. Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder are now champions and Anthony Joshua is being touted by many as the next big name of the division. Fortuitously and favourably for Haye, all three are potential opponents for him either en route or fighting for a world title. And all three are fights that Haye would win – subject to his current form.

While Haye had a decisive KO win over de Mori, it was after 2 minutes and 11 seconds of the first round. That’s 131 seconds from which we were able to gauge how much ring rust Haye may have accumulated in the last three-and-and-a-half years. What we do know is that Haye hasn’t lost any of his punch power and explosiveness, or his ability to finish an opponent once he smells blood. Conversely, there were glimpses of Haye’s timing and accuracy being slightly off but nothing that wouldn’t be expected from such a lengthy lay-off. There also wasn’t any opportunity to assess Haye’s punch resistance, or, due to the brevity of the bout, his stamina.

Haye has also returned with a new physique; he’s bulked up while retaining a chiselled frame but without any discernible loss of his trademark speed. Gone are the days of Haye fighting close to cruiserweight limit and he weighed in at a career-high of 227lbs 5oz. This didn’t seem to affect him negatively at all but it’s unknown how he would have carried that extra weight going into the second half of the fight.

While de Mori was a WBA top ten ranked opponent with a solid record, he represented a litmus test for Haye’s ability to compete rather than an actual test of being able to return to the highest level of the division. Prior to his fight against Haye, I’d never heard of de Mori which is telling of the level at which he’d previously fought at. Overall, there are still unanswered questions about Haye. Nevertheless, based on the little we have seen, there seems to be little to be concerned about regarding the legitimacy of his return.

Returning to Joshua, this seems to be the fight that Haye will want to pursue the quickest and arguably the most winnable fight too. With the hype around Joshua (which is gradually becoming warranted, just not as rapidly as some might suggest), and Haye’s ability to draw a crowd, Haye knows this will probably be the biggest money-spinner too. Haye’s performance against de Mori would have been intended to be quick and conclusive to make a statement akin to Joshua’s victories and put himself in the frame for a domestic PPV clash. Though, despite the rhetoric from Joshua’s team and the casual boxing fans of Joshua’s current ability exceeding that of his actual experience, Haye’s display of punching power will possibly provide a reality check that leads them to hold off from making that fight. Rather, a more sensible approach would be to build Joshua’s experience before putting him in such a dangerous fight that at the time of writing, I don’t think he could win.

As for Wilder and Fury, they’d provide sterner tests having operated at a higher level than Joshua. Fury has said he’d refuse to fight Haye given his two consecutive pull outs from when they were scheduled to fight which is understandable really. I expect that’s nonetheless just bombast from the big man who knows it’d be a huge fight. Haye vs Wilder too would be a great attraction in a UK vs US heavyweight fight that would capture the attention of a global audience. While Haye might have had an advantage over Wilder from when they sparred, three-and-a-half years is a long time in which Haye hasn’t fought anyone and Wilder became a world champion.

It’s certainly a new day in heavyweight boxing and Haye’s return makes it one of rich pickings for him if he’s able to return to his previous form. Although it still remains to be seen if that’s case. Yet from the little we saw again de Mori, there’s increasingly less reason to think otherwise and more reason to believe that Haye will begin his ascent through the rankings en route to a heavyweight title.

Oliver Letwin’s remarks aren’t just a product of their time, they’re a product of the Conservative Party

The recently released memo revealing Conservative MP Oliver Letwin’s remarks and attitudes on the black community are not a good reflection of the Conservative Party. And certainly of Letwin himself. Although while they may have been made thirty years ago, how much can we assume has actually changed about the views of Letwin and many within the Conservative Party? Well, relatively speaking, thirty years isn’t that long and given the old boys club that is the Conservative Party, probably not very much.

Letwin’s views aren’t just racist, they show the class prejudice that is at the centre of the Conservative Party. Thus, they characterise the party and its attitudes. In response to the memo, Trevor Philips said “I don’t think these remarks would have raised a single eyebrow at the time” and amongst all the mainstream parties, perhaps they wouldn’t have. What stands out though is how they could easily be the content of Conservative Party policy discussions today.

Just consider what was put forward by Letwin (along with Hartley Booth, another Tory MP at the time) regarding the Broadwater Farm riots and others that occurred at the time. It wouldn’t be amiss today from the same party it emanated from thirty years ago ­­–

"The root of social malaise is not poor housing, or youth 'alienation' or the lack of a middle class....Lower-class, unemployed white people lived for years in appalling slums without a breakdown of public order on anything like the present scale; in the midst of the depression, people in Brixton went out, leaving their grocery money in a bag at the front door, and expecting to see groceries there when they got back...Riots, criminality and social disintegration are caused solely by individual characters and attitudes. So long as bad moral attitudes remain, all efforts to improve the inner cities will founder...Riots, criminality and social disintegration are caused solely by individual characters and attitudes. So long as bad moral attitudes remain, all efforts to improve the inner cities will founder...[Lord] Young’s new entrepreneurs will set up in the disco and drug trade; Kenneth Baker’s refurbished council blocks will decay through vandalism combined with neglect; and people will graduate from temporary training or employment programmes into unemployment or crime."

If in years to come released papers showing policy discussions around the England riots in 2011 (which started in Tottenham, the location of Broadwater Farm) have the same sentiments, I wouldn’t be surprised. Furthermore, it would show just how little attitudes in the Conservative Party haven’t changed within contemporary history.

The undertones of racism have long been present in mainstream British politics but especially within the Conservative Party. During post-war immigration to the UK, all British political parties exhibited xenophobia but none more so than the Tories. Indeed, I’m often flummoxed by the short memories of many ethnic minority supporters of the Tory Party, who feel that the Tories will protect and further their social mobility, when they fail to reflect on the party’s history of policies and attitudes that smack of racism. After all, Margaret Thatcher, subsequent leader of the Conservative Party, referred to Enoch Powell’s 1968 Rivers of Blood speech as “strong meat”; not merely highly inflammatory racism. I doubt the many East African Asians and other immigrants arriving in the UK in the same year would have considered it in the same terms. Yet some subsequent generations of said communities are today Tories who ignorantly feel the party reflects their middle class status.

To be clear, I don’t think all Tories are racist. While I’m clearly not a Tory myself, I know many people who are and they’re undoubtedly committed to equality and positive race relations. Ideologically we just don’t agree on everything while somethings we do. I do, however, think that the party machinery of the Conservative Party hasn’t rid itself of racism, nor do I think it’s made much effort to either.

The image of the ‘nasty party’ is one that publically, the Tories have seemed to want to dispel. But returning to Letwin’s remarks, they pretty much support that perception. Letwin may have apologised, albeit with no real contrition. At the time of writing, David Cameron, as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party, has made no comment let alone shown reproach in reference to the utterances of a senior and influential member of the party. And he certainly hasn’t condemned Letwin, retrospectively or otherwise. Unsurprisingly really from a man who shows little understanding of the racist and prejudiced rhetoric that has long existed within his party and indeed British history.

The right-wing media too has had little vitriol for Letwin and his remarks and there is a disheartening lack of public outcry with the same effect. Though as a figure of public life, I feel Letwin should resign. If Cameron sincerely wanted to rid his party of the tag of the nasty party, and show his commitment to leading a government where racist views had no place whatsoever, he would have requested Letwin’s resignation himself. Alas, the ‘nasty party’ image probably appeals to the section of the electorate, British society and business whose favour Cameron is keen to court.

The Letwin story should be huge news. A senior, high profile and influential member of the Conservative Party who’s made these remarks, and who is currently serving in the Cabinet, should be met with widespread censure. But as he’s a Tory, perhaps it doesn’t seem so out of place. That and his comments are directed at black and ‘lower class’ communities, groups who are seen by many as inferior to others within British society. Indeed, had comments been revealed with such prejudice toward other communities and minority groups such as the Jewish Diaspora, women or the disabled, would the response have been so lukewarm, even after thirty years? I doubt it and rightly so. Similarly, I doubt Letwin and other high profile Tories have completely rid themselves of such views either.

The Conservative Party may have tried to modernise and appeal to a broader section of British society. Nonetheless for many, they’ll continue to be the nasty party that Cameron et al have at times sought to refute. The lack of distance between Letwin’s thirty-year old remarks and many of the attitudes that are still present in the Conservative Party and some of its supporters today, proves just that.

The vulnerability of relationships

Without exception, my friends and family consider my partner to be a great person. And albeit biased, I’d wholeheartedly agree. I’m frequently told what a marvellous person she is and given constant compliments on her excellent character. All of the above is irrefutable. However, what about the side of her that others rarely, if ever, see as it’s contained within our relationship? The increasingly loud and relentless person in an argument who fails to see logic when it doesn’t support her perspective? Or her infuriatingly stubborn streak (even to her own detriment)? Not to mention the unrelenting ‘reminders’ to do something I’ve already been asked, even while I’m in the middle of doing something else? I can imagine many men and women are nodding their heads while reading this as they recognise the aforementioned in their own relationships.

I still maintain my partner’s an amazing person but it’s fair to say that her ‘less desirable’ traits are less likely to rear their head outside of our relationship. And the same is undoubtedly applicable to me. This doesn’t make either of us duplicitous or disingenuous and this experience is almost certainly reflected in every relationship and close friendship. Not to mention, just as the more frustrating aspects of one’s personality are reserved for their relationship, the same could be said for the best qualities of one’s character such as the uncompromising altruism that is kept for those closest to us.

Relationships are where polarised behaviours can not only be expected but also accepted; arguably due to the inherent vulnerability of relationships. They represent a safe place for our emotions and character, good, bad and indifferent, to be free; a place where any judgement we're subject to should be neutered by underlying affection and respect.

Vulnerability is what enables a couple to go from yelling at each other, both fuelled by indignant anger, to reconciliation with reciprocated and sincere contrition. It's what gives us the space to get frustrated and show it, rather than keep it contained as we might have to with others, but also to make amends while not constrained by bravado or one-upmanship. It allows us to our lose inhibitions to be frivolous, show and articulate our fears and innermost thoughts and have unfiltered honesty within the sanctuary or our relationship. It's the essence of what makes good and genuine relationships such incredibly honest spheres.

To be vulnerable is a feature of the human condition. Hence it being present in any relationship. Without vulnerability, we lack the capacity for fear and apprehension. We lack the capacity to motivate ourselves toward a greater good for ourselves and those around us through connection and compassion. While vulnerability has become synonymous with exposure or weakness, on reflection, it is at the very core of human existence and by no means an attribute that we should seek to erode or ignore.

Brené Brown’s brilliant TED Talk articulated the struggle of vulnerability. Yet within a relationship, that struggle is countered by the security that is provided via our connections with each other. Anxieties are alleviated with reassurances, loneliness with companionship and judgement and criticism with acceptance. Within the sphere of relationships, opposing emotions are juxtaposed and balanced, thus diminishing our vulnerability. The intrinsic nature of vulnerability within relationships means it isn’t going anywhere and on the whole, this is a good thing. Indeed, for a partner or friend to facilitate the emotional refuge of a relationship that doesn’t allow vulnerability to be a crushing albatross but rather a feature that can be accepted and managed, is testament to a great partner or friend.

As spheres of intimacy, relationships will always have the scope for one’s fragility that vulnerability threatens to expose. Although a good relationship will ensure that doesn’t become the case in providing the requisite sanctuary. But what happens when that fragility is abused and taken advantage of with vulnerability becoming a means to facilitate that very abuse?

Vulnerability presents the landscape for relationships to encompass companionship and empathy. Though the vulnerability of others can be exploited by those who feel unable to embrace their own vulnerability and rather use it as a tool to protect their own insecurities and selfishly advance only their own desires. Mental, emotional and sometimes physical abuse, bullying, control and diminishing of individuality and any modicum of independence outside of a relationship, can just as easily be facilitated via vulnerability. Just as the safety and support afforded by a healthy relationship can be too.

For some, their own weakness compels them to pounce upon the vulnerability of a partner for their own gains. Just as they wouldn’t take such an approach with others (in the knowledge that their efforts would be feeble and consequently crushed), they reserve their form of abuse for the only sphere that they feel confident in experiencing success as they prey on the vulnerability of others.

He or she who is subject to such treatment is sadly pinned down by their own vulnerability and numbed, leaving them emotionally paralysed as their own fragility is taken advantage of. With the presence of vulnerability, it’s therefore little wonder that relationships are forums for the best and worst of the human condition with either being heightened through closeness and connection.

Our struggle with vulnerability is part of our emotional experience. And within relationships, that struggle is intensified. It’s a place for the best and the worst that we have to offer in the knowledge that we escape judgement and reproach to an extent that we could not hope for outside of its parameters. At face value, this presents anxieties that rationally, we might not want to encounter. But the possibility of that vulnerability being the basis of something greater continues to lead us to relationships in the hope that just that will be achieved.

A new day in heavyweight boxing

Tyson Fury is the new WBA, IBF and WBO heavyweight champion. After beating Wladimir Klitschko in a unanimous points decision, Fury beat the odds and the man that most said was unbeatable. While I wanted to see a Fury victory and another British champion, admittedly, I didn’t call it and thought he’d lose on a points decision despite a spirited effort. It was clear that Fury was coming to fight and was probably the most live opponent Klitschko has faced in years. But beyond catching Klitschko with a clean shot (Wladimir Klitschko is notoriously chinny) and getting a stoppage, I struggled to see a Fury win in Germany, the adopted home of the Klitschko brothers. Nor could I see how Fury would get past Klitschko’s jab. Yet Fury, full of self-belief, proved me and most boxing commentators wrong.

At no point in the build-up during the fight did Fury seem fazed by the occasion or in awe of Klitschko. Even with Team Klitschko’s usual tricks that seek to unnerve an opponent and give themselves a psychological edge, Fury remained calm. The palaver over the gloves and the ring canvas couldn’t shake Fury and he remained composed throughout. Even if the result had been different, for Fury, a win was the only conclusion.

Fury was up on my scorecard but a points win for an away fighter in Germany is almost unprecedented. Klitschko initiated a clinch repeatedly and constantly turned his head, the latter for which Fury was deducted a point for hitting in the back of the head. Although at no point was Klitschko penalised. It seemed that it was a typical Klitschko show where the W was theirs even before the first bell as a blind eye was turned against all of Wladimir’s misdemeanours in the ring. As I waited for the scorecards to be read, I expected the following day’s headlines to be of Fury being cheated in Dusseldorf, not of a well-deserved victory. I guess the judges didn’t get Team Klitschko’s memo.

Not to taint Fury’s win, let’s get the negativity out of the way early doors. Firstly, the fight was a borefest. Furthermore, Father Time seemed to have caught up with Klitschko. Though that shouldn’t detract from Fury’s achievement. He’s beaten the man that no one has beaten since 2004. Fury therefore deserves all the kudos that will hopefully now be heaped upon him. And with it, it marks a new day in heavyweight boxing.

Once the most prestigious and coveted prize in sport, the heavyweight boxing championship has become a hollow title that has increasingly failed to capture the attention of those outside of boxing. In the last decade, respective heavyweight champions have largely been unknown outside of boxing circles and even with their lengthy dominance of the division, the Klitschko brothers are largely household names only in Germany and eastern Europe.

The excitement that used to characterise the heavyweight division has been lost and replaced with the boring yet effective ‘jab and grab’ style of the Klitschkos. Their safety first approach has turned even boxing fans off from the division as it’s failed to quench our thirst for knockouts and gladiatorial battle between some of the biggest and strongest athletes in sport. Although with Vitali Klitschko retired and Wladimir Klitschko defeated after an eleven-year span of not seeing an L on his record, it provides the opening for all that we love about heavyweight boxing to return. An end to the closed shop operated by the Klitschkos.

Klitschko has said he’ll exercise the rematch clause in the contract and perhaps he will. As an athlete and a former champion, defeat will be hard to swallow and a rematch provides an opportunity to address that. Not to mention his contract with German broadcaster RTL provides a sizeable revenue stream. However, it was evident from his fight with Fury that Klitschko has peaked and now provides the ideal opportunity to bow out with an honourable defeat and a solid record.

Klitschko should have no shame in defeat and should call it a day rather than fight on with each subsequent fight showing a decline in his speed and movement. But Klitschko is a fighter and an athlete; relinquishing the attitude that comes with that is always hard for any athlete at the peak of their sport. Prior to their fight in The Gloves Are Off, Klitschko remarked that it’s “better to be dead than second”, an attitude that embodies his fighter’s mentality and one that could only be understood by an athlete that has trained with the sole objective of victory. The fighter is still within him but Father Time has already begun to cast his shadow over Klitschko and now is the time to walk away as a former great champion. As one of the most intelligent men in boxing, he also has far more opportunities open to him than many of his peers once he decides to hang up his gloves.

If Klitschko doesn’t exercise the rematch clause, or if he does but faces defeat again against Fury, the heavyweight division is wide open. Brash American Deontay Wilder, the holder of the WBC heavyweight title, has already called out Fury in a fight that would finally reignite American interest in the division. David Haye has already announced his comeback and assuming he still has the speed and explosive punching power he had prior to his three and a half year layoff, he’s certainly in the mix as a title challenger and one that would beat Fury. He’s also got the psychological edge against Wilder after schooling him in sparring. The big ‘if’ is of course how good Haye still is which will be unknown until his comeback fight. Anthony Joshua is probably looking at Fury as a fast-tracked route to a world title and if he proves himself to be the real deal, the heavyweight division could soon be alive again.

Many might not have seen Tyson Fury as the boxer to resuscitate the heavyweight boxing division and it still remains to be seen if he will. Nonetheless, he’s provided the first opportunity to end the Klitschkos’ reign and to usher in a new era of the excitement that boxing fans once relished in heavyweight boxing. Hopefully heavyweight boxing is back and its unlikely saviour Tyson Fury should be applauded for opening the gate that has remained locked for well over a decade.

School support staff deserve more recognition and respect

Think of a business and its core activity. As consumers or clients, our thoughts around a respective business rarely go beyond said activity and the staff who operate directly within the roles linked to it. However, what would a business be without the staff who don’t operate at the forefront of its main activity yet play fundamental roles in the overall business? Imagine a retailer without the cleaners to maintain the cleanliness and tidiness of a store. Or without the admin staff to process orders, payments and payroll and the IT staff to maintain the EPOS till systems from which transactions can be made. Or without the stockroom staff to replenish the store’s inventory so that they actually have something to sell. Every role within a business is a cog in a machine. And if a cog is missing, the machine simply won’t work as effectively or might even come to a standstill.

Schools are no different. When you think of school, you think of the teachers. But what of the many support staff who play integral roles within the school and in the educating of the students? The TAs (Teaching Assistants) and Learning Mentors who support in the classroom academically, pastorally and in supporting behaviour management. Or the admin staff who without whom, the unwieldy bureaucracy that education is now characterised by would be impossible to navigate. These staff play significant roles in the operation of schools. Yet unfortunately, they typically don’t get the recognition and respect that they deserve.

The problem sadly starts with the ethos of schools and consequently some teachers. Inadvertently or otherwise, schools often feed teachers with the notion that support staff play a lessor role than them and it’s reflected in the way they’re treated. It’s to the extent that many support staff have assumed that principle themselves and the utterances “I’m just a TA…”, “I just work in the office…” or similar can often be heard around schools. This hardly does anything positive for morale when half of a workforce feel they’re inferior to the other half or at least made to feel that way. Schools have a lot to answer for if this is seemingly the ethos that many possess and project when it comes to support staff. Though for some teachers, the seeds for a sometimes haughty attitude toward support staff are sown even earlier during teacher training.

Particularly on graduate employment-based training courses such as School Direct and Teach First, but also those undertaking traditional PGCE courses, trainee teachers are lauded for their attainment of a place given their competitive nature and rigorous application process. Subsequently, they’re praised for their successful completion of what is an arduous programme of study and employment as a trainee teacher. And those who heap that praise upon them would be right to do so as teacher training and the NQT year are certainly gruelling.

You’re told that you are the boss of your classroom and again the tutors and mentors are right. Your classroom is your domain and you need to oversee all that goes on within it as you’ll be accountable for all that occurs. Though many trainee teachers are relatively young and enter the profession within a few years of undergraduate study. They have little experience of a professional workplace let alone managing staff. As a result, some are unable to effectively manage additional adults in the classroom due to a literal and crass interpretation of the message ‘you’re the boss’ that they’ve heard throughout their training. Indeed, some teachers actually maintain that attitude throughout their teaching careers.

That inexperience doesn’t lend itself to working with non-classroom based support staff either. Your training and observations of other schools has suggested they’re also less important. And when you get to your first school, the school ethos often supports that. It’s the beginning of an unhealthy yet perpetual relationship between teachers and support staff. Furthermore, it illustrates how and why teaching can be a profession characterised by arrogance for some practitioners who wrongly deem themselves as superior to their colleagues on the basis of length of service (which doesn’t always equate to ability) and their respective position.

It has to be said that this isn’t the case for all teachers and it would be unfair to suggest so. Nevertheless, the fact is it does exist. I’ve seen TAs spoken down to or as if they were one of the children rather than as an adult. This is despite the fact that many classroom based support staff bring with them a wealth of untapped and often ignored experience from previous careers, CPD, the local community or just life in general.

Admittedly, some TAs can undermine teachers, particularly if they’re older than the teacher they’re working with and have been at a school for a number of years. However, that’s where establishing more assertiveness in your professional relationship comes into play.

I liken the ideal relationship between teachers and additional adults in the classroom to be almost akin to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet in that the Prime Minister is first amongst equals just as is the case with the teacher. The buck stops with you as the teacher and the individual with whom overall accountability in the classroom lies with. The breadth of your role, workload and accompanying stress is wider too but you’re still a team with the additional adult(s) and your working relationship should reflect this.

Support staff in the classroom are often able to establish a relationship with students that many teachers are unable to achieve. As teaching has become an overwhelmingly middle class profession, many teachers are in schools within communities that do not reflect their own socio-economic status. Hence they’re often unable to empathise with their students’ backgrounds. In schools subject to socio-economic pressures such as those within inner city and coastal communities, and those where once flourishing local economies such as mining have since been decimated, the social challenges facing students and their families are often alien to teachers. But classroom based support staff, who often have more roots in a community than the teachers, can. Thus, they can often be the difference in connecting with students.

That connection might be in effectively supporting behaviour management with a culturally nuanced approach that gets the results a teacher sometimes can’t. Alternatively, it can be showing the necessary empathy to students in cultivating an appropriate climate for learning; one where they don’t feel subject to the ignorance of a teacher who cannot appreciate the challenges facing their family and community. In this capacity, support staff often provide a cultural and social link between schools and the communities they lie within; something many teachers and senior leadership are unable to do. Although, particularly with new academies that have foisted themselves on communities, this is overlooked by many schools.

The relationship between teachers and support staff can resemble that of Ross’ museum in Friends where Joey realises that it’s convention for the scientists and the tour guides to sit separately for lunch. Nonetheless, it’s little wonder that many support staff feel there’s a divide between them and teachers. Relevant information is regularly disseminated to support staff through the grapevine or on a very ad hoc basis. Effective communication between them and the rest of the school can leave much to be desired and that hardly fosters a sense of inclusion within the school community.

Many teachers perceive support staff to be at their whim rather than playing integral roles within the school. They often fail to appreciate that the site team aren’t waiting around idly for the call to fix furniture in their classroom or that the IT staff have a long list of jobs and coming to fix their interactive whiteboard probably isn't the only task for the day. It could be argued that teachers often have a fairly insular perspective in this regard that theirs is not the only job of importance within a school.

In the UK, Graduate Teaching Assistants have started to increase their presence in the classroom (they’ve already been a feature of North American schools). This is presumably with a view to making the TA role more ‘professional’ which on one hand isn’t a bad thing if it helps to gain greater recognition for the post. Although, some schools are seeing it as a prerequisite for teacher training. Again, that isn’t necessarily a bad idea in providing trainee teachers with first-hand experience of the classroom before they embark on their training. Conversely, there is the risk that it will attract candidates that ultimately want to become teachers rather than be TAs and therefore lack the necessary attributes and attitudes that make so many TAs great at their jobs.

Schools are essentially communities but they’re often divided within their staff which can only be to detriment of the workplace ethos. Schools and teachers need to address this as they are primarily to blame in creating the two-tier system within schools that is not only unnecessary but disrespectful to fellow professionals. Schools need to give support staff the recognition they deserve for the integral role they play within a school, often in roles that teachers don’t possess the skillset or experience for, and more respect in the process.

Digital lust

Like many industries, adult entertainment has been compelled to adapt in a digital age. Only recently, Playboy, the iconic magazine and adult brand, announced that its magazine would follow suit after its website and would no longer include nudity from March 2016. Clearly the company has realised that while sex might sell, it no longer does so via the medium of print. The shift from print to television and film and latterly the internet respectively, has seen revenue streams for adult entertainers move accordingly. And in doing so, it’s changed the relationship fans of their work have with them too.

The allure of adult entertainers is arguably contributed to by the fact that they appear unreachable; individuals who operate within a fantasy and highly sexualised world. Traditionally, their fans could fantasise over them in the knowledge that their relationship is one the adult entertainer is ignorant to and therefore never subject to reciprocation of emotions or affection, lustful or otherwise. Though now, the internet has changed that.

As with any entertainers, social media has given unprecedented access to adult entertainers that alters the aforementioned relationship. Now, lustful desires or merely convivial banter or compliments can be expressed via a tweet to adult performers and perhaps even responded to. Where adult performers were once unreachable, the status quo has now been redefined.

Similarly, the digital age has changed the adult industry with premium rate chat line channels. And with it, it’s enabled men (and woman) to have even more access to adult entertainers than ever before.

For those not familiar with the format of these channels, scantily clad or semi-nude women (depending on the time of day) appear on-screen while gyrating with sexually suggestive motions while talking to callers. It’s essentially a chat line where callers can see the person they’re talking to and what they’re doing rather than relying on their imagination. Not wanting the constraints of the television regulations that restrict them to largely softcore acts, some performers on said channels have also opted to operate webcam shows online (and with it presumably charging their viewers even more than the premium rate numbers).

This isn’t anything new; for decades premium rate numbers offering the same service have been
found in the classifieds section of tabloid newspapers. Yet technology furthers the extent of what can be offered and what the consumers are afforded in their pleasure and gratification. Furthermore, it’s altered their relationship with the women they receive remote gratification from. And that’s given rise to the perception amongst some men that their relationship is more than simply transactional.

With the increased and unprecedented access to adult entertainers, many of the men calling these premium rate numbers or ‘chatting’ via webcam are under the impression that this represents a relationship of sorts. While their attraction is based on lustful desire that isn’t reciprocated beyond the façade they’re paying for, some men seemingly fail to understand this. Consequently, they’re happy to buy gifts for the women, shower them with sycophantic messages on social media and overall fail to realise the reality of their interaction as paid titillation.

I struggle to empathise with the rationale of these men. Firstly, and bizarrely, they’re paying for adult entertainment at a premium rate when the internet is awash with a plethora of adult entertainment that’s absolutely free. Not to mention, the internet typically offers much more risqué material than anything they’re paying for. But they’re also going beyond their transaction in buying gifts for the women; an act typically reserved for actual friendships or relationships of which these certainly aren’t.

So why do the men do it? Loneliness? Delusion? Does it make them feel that they could actually have a genuine relationship with these women? With their access to adult entertainers, perhaps they’ve decided to abandon the pursuit of relationships in the real world (which would suggest yet another erosion of social interaction that the internet has brought about). Whatever it is they think they might achieve, it certainly won’t be a relationship that isn’t commercial.

One caller to a chat line channel racked up a bill of £91,000 on account of the women he spoke to sympathising with him following a breakup with his ex-partner. He’s probably not the only person to find themselves in such a situation either. Although did the premium rate numbers not indicate to him that they weren’t providing a counselling service or seeking his friendship? Men like this are blinded by the fact that their access to these women represents little more than a financial opportunity that exploits their naivety, inability to identify the features of a friendship or relationship, delusion and loneliness.

It’s easy to drift between derision and pity for these men but certainly not empathy. To pay to watch a women gyrate on a screen when there’s free adult entertainment online just doesn’t seem to be a decision based upon logic. Alas, lust can deny people of sound perspective.

Speaking objectively, one can’t knock the hustle of the women. And it isn’t just limited to webcam and chat line performers but also traditional adult entertainment actresses. Their social media presence facilitates the interaction the men crave. Furthermore, their online shopping wish lists enable these men to frequently buy the attention (mistakenly taken for affection) of their favourite performers.

There is arguably an intimacy that is established for the men paying to ‘chat’ but arguably not reciprocated by the performers who are separated by a phone line, television screen or computer. Thus, they limit much of the vulnerability of traditional sex work. And presumably, are getting reasonably well paid for it in the process with gifts and money from their fans to boot. If there were to be a perception of the relationship between the women and their callers being imbalanced, in most cases it would seem it isn’t the women that are losing out.

Nonetheless, the digital age has reduced the extent to which adult performers are able to separate their personal and professional life with the increased access they grant. No longer are their fans faceless readers and viewers of films but individuals who they’ve spoken to and in some cases seen via webcam. As a result, they’re providing more intimacy in the relationship between performer and the public and reducing the personal sphere for performers. Given the stigma around adult entertainment, this shift has likely limited their ability to keep the spheres of their personal and professional lives as separate as they once were.

Like many industries, the digital age has changed the adult industry and with it, it’s changed the perception of relationships and friendship for some men who aren’t able to distinguish between paid entertainment and reality. It’s an enigma when juxtaposed with traditional notions of relationships and how we define friendship. But hopefully not one that sets a precedent for the features of human interaction that the human condition craves. Indeed, perhaps that craving, but the inability to fulfil it for said men, is what led to their unrequited affections for adult entertainers in the first instance.

Travel broadens the mind

Recently, I was fortunate to travel throughout Central America and the Caribbean. There was much I learned about the cultures of the respective countries I visited and each experience undoubtedly added to my awareness of the world. While travelling, I met several travellers who sought to do the same; to enlighten themselves with broader experiences and an appreciation of the lives of others. Though this isn’t a viewpoint that is universally shared and for some it can be very much to the contrary.

Travelling is an activity that is met with mixed perceptions. For some, it’s an opportunity to expose themselves to new experiences and cultures in an environment void of everyday stresses. For others, travel offers little benefit. Instead, it’s a pointless and often expensive exercise of inconvenience in being taken out of one's comfort zone; one where familiarity is unnecessarily eroded with no discernible rationale or benefit. Indeed, even for some who do welcome travelling, they seek to avoid as much of that unfamiliarity as possible.

I would place myself very much within the former category. Whenever the opportunity presents itself, I seek to travel. Whether it be domestically or abroad, experiencing different cultures and broadening one’s awareness is something that I would promote. It widens our perspective of the world and our appreciation of just how diverse the world is. For this to be something that one would be averse to is therefore a stance that some would struggle to understand. For many, rather than this being something that is rejected, travel isn’t an opportunity they’re afforded.

Speak to many inner city youth in deprived areas and you’ll be astounded at how insular their world is. They know their immediate community and the surrounding areas but they’ve rarely ventured beyond it. The same goes for travelling outside of their respective city let alone abroad. If their family are originally from another country where some of their extended family still reside, they may have made trips there. Otherwise, their world is incredibly small and consequently one of ignorance when it comes to being remotely worldly but this isn’t their fault. Travel isn’t an inexpensive activity and when your existence and that of your family is concerned with the here and now, going abroad is very much secondary. With airlines increasing the price of airfare during school holidays, for many families exposing their children to new places is therefore impossible (hence the number of parents who consider a fine for taking their children out of school during term time to be more favourable than paying peak fares).

Broadly speaking, I shared the aforementioned perspective in my own youth. Before going to university, some of my friends took a gap year. Yet that was largely to work and save money for the subsequent year when they would attend university themselves. Taking a gap year to travel was deemed a middle class activity that I couldn’t identify with. Not to mention, I felt doing so was something that wasn’t financially viable with other commitments. But the reality is, at the time I didn't possess the worldliness or maturity to appreciate what such a trip might afford me. Thus, it was never really up for consideration.

An opportunity to discover new places and cultures, to meet and interact with locals and fellow travellers alike and to remove myself from familiar surroundings that arguably moulded a somewhat narrow perspective at the time, is one that the more mature me laments at not having seized. Not doing so is something I long regretted and still do. In fairness, I have since attempted to make up for this by travelling whenever possible in a quest to create a gap year experience of sorts that is punctuated by annual leave and subject to the commitments of adult life.

The cost of travel is certainly a valid barrier for many. Taking a gap year to travel before university is often restricted to those from middle class backgrounds where their parents are able to bankroll the trip or at least mitigate the concern of spending what can be a huge amount of money. Alternatively, some decide to take a career break to travel where they've been afforded the opportunity to accumulate the necessary funds once working. In both instances the opportunity to travel is subject to socio-economic circumstances which creates an unfair access to the diverse experiences travel can afford. Furthermore, this merely allows the experiences and worldliness within middle class communities to blossom while within the working classes it remains narrow and stagnant. It's all the more reason why travel is so important, particularly for those whose perspective is already restricted by circumstance. Although even without the focus on the cost of travel, some would still question the validity of travelling.

I recall discussing the popularity of gap years in the UK and Europe with some American family for whom the purpose was completely lost upon. Instead of an opportunity to broaden one's mind, it was perceived as an expensive, prolonged and unnecessary ‘vacation’ that merely added to the debt that most leaving university or college are straddled with. Many would opine this to be an attitude inherent to American society given the aversion of many Americans to travel even beyond their respective state and consequently the insular perspectives of so many Americans. That said, I know worldly Americans who do refute this but it does highlight the varied appreciation of travel and how this can differ between class and culture.

Despite the popularity of travelling, for many it represents escapism from regular life that is nonetheless void of the experiences unique to the location of their respective destination. Essentially, their aim is to replicate familiar circumstances such as food and culture, albeit in different surroundings that perhaps provide a more favourable climate. It's an approach that irks me and I find somewhat offensive.

To travel to another country, with its culture awaiting to be immersed within, is a great opportunity and privilege. Nevertheless, many will reject this and would prefer to stay on a resort while declining the opportunity to interact with locals, eating local food and experiencing a culture other than their own. To go abroad and seek cuisine of your own country, rather than sample that of where you’re visiting, seems absolutely pointless but it’s a common observation. Sadly, this is something many tourist industries have cottoned on to and it’s regrettably something they’re catering for.

During my aforementioned trip, I spent time in Jamaica and opted to stay in an all-inclusive resort. The beach and overall resort was beautiful and every bit as picturesque as has been promised by the images on the website. Similarly, the service was impeccable. However, being of the Jamaican diaspora, it didn’t sit well with me that the experience being offered was one that sought to overly cater to European and North American guests in lieu of providing a quintessentially Jamaican experience. There was also a whiff of colonialism in the attempted relationship between staff and guests such as my partner and other women being referred to as “m’lady”.

It was also noticeable that guests would rarely leave the resort and opportunities to interact with locals were largely advised against by the resort staff. Conversely, a highlight of our trip for my partner, who isn’t of the Jamaican diaspora, was when I took her downtown to see the ‘real’ Jamaica with its rich vibrancy. It begs the question if tourists seek these somewhat sterile holidays. Though based on the popularity of such resorts, sadly the answer is probably yes.

To travel is to broaden one’s mind. Although it’s sadly a privilege that many aren’t able to access. But with the cultural diversity within the world, the more exposure to these experiences, the less homogenous perspectives become and the more our appreciation of the world around us is heightened. Nonetheless, the benefit of this is one that is often and regrettably overlooked by those unable to appreciate its value.

The effrontery of David Cameron's visit to Jamaica

David Cameron’s recent visit to Jamaica was the first for a British Prime Minister in 14 years. Cameron claimed that his visit was with the aim of restoring and renewing the relationship between Jamaica and the UK; a relationship that was born out of the British Empire and latterly the Commonwealth. In both instances, there is still a reciprocated affinity between some sections of the respective nations. Though for many, this is a relationship characterised by slavery, pillaging and a legacy of disdainful colonial attitudes that have permeated the diaspora and beyond.

Slavery and colonial empires will always be considered with contention and contempt by the nations that were subject to it and the subsequent generations of colonial oppressors. On the latter, this has been the basis for much of the reluctance for reparations to be paid for slavery so long after the system was abolished. After all, can generations that are indirectly connected with the ills of several generations ago be expected to atone for their ancestors? And if so, where does the recrimination stop? Looking at contemporary history, how would post-Apartheid black South Africans or the post-war Jewish Diaspora have begun the process of healing and reconciliation had they continued to seek atonement in perpetuity? Arguably, they wouldn’t be able to. However, the difference is the respective groups have received reparations and unreserved apologies from the governments of the day for the plights that have been inflicted upon them.

In 2003 Thabo Mbeki, then President of South Africa, announced that the families of Apartheid victims would receive the equivalent of $3,900. Similarly, in addition to the culturally inherent contrition many Germans hold for their country’s role in the war and the Holocaust, the German government has made reparations towards Israel and Holocaust victims, most recently €772 million for the care of elderly Holocaust survivors.

Reparations and apologies do not erase the pages of history. Nonetheless, with sincerity and acknowledgment of a country’s role in heinous transgressions, they go some way to beginning the healing process and progress for all concerned. It begins to draw a line under such events while attempting to address wrongdoings in the here and now. Alas, this seems to be something lost on David Cameron as evidenced on his visit to Jamaica.

In addressing MPs in Jamaica’s Parliament, Cameron made clear that while slavery was a regrettable event in history, the British government was unwilling to pay reparations nor make a formal apology for the UK’s role in the slave trade. But it was his language that was most telling about how unempathetic he is when it comes to the legacy 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.”

Without context, his utterances read as if he were referring to a playground falling out between two youths. One had got the better of the other in a largely one-sided fight and subsequently their relationship was characterised by undertones of bitterness that needed to be put behind them. Yet this was all without any meaningful restorative conversations or acknowledgment that their fracas left one black and bruised with permanent injuries. While the other went home with the other’s lunch money and unscathed beyond a slight dent to their image based on a perceived lack of ethics. And that is exactly how Cameron sees slavery.

The rhetoric of “move on” was most suggestive and indicative of how removed Cameron and his Conservative government are from the issue of slavery and how it continues to permeate the black diaspora worldwide. ‘Move on’ suggests there’s nothing to dwell on or reason to continue with a respective conversation as it’s run its course. Although would anyone expect the Jewish Diaspora to ‘move on’ from the Holocaust and its legacy? Absolutely not. Were anyone to suggest so, it would be met with anger and vitriol. Therefore why should the nations that were victim to a policy from which the scars are still present ‘move on’?

Perhaps the issue of an apology and reparations for slavery is too close to home for Cameron. Indeed, both his family and that of his wife are known to have been slave owners who were handsomely compensated for their former ‘property’ when slavery was abolished in 1833. And given both come from ‘old money’, one can make of it what they will about how much those payments indirectly contributed to their current status within Britain’s elite and privileged.

One of the legacies of slavery is the negative impact on a nation’s social progress. That can be manifested in education, economic growth and democracy amongst other factors due to the vacuum that slavery and colonialism left. In turn, that leads to crime, debt and societies of restricted growth of which Jamaica is subject to. It’s therefore ironic that Cameron announced £25 million of British aid (that’s right, aid) would be used to build a prison for Jamaican criminals in the UK to be transferred to.

Given the money is coming from the British aid budget, surely a better (and more importantly appropriate) use of aid would be to build a school, a library, a hospital or even cancel debt. But instead, it’s being used to build a prison. Not only does this illustrate how blind Cameron is to the legacy of slavery that the UK has found itself home to Jamaican criminals (just as it’s found itself as home to criminals from non-black nations but the right wing media won’t suggest that), but it’s also lost on him that there was enough imprisonment during slavery. Spending British aid money on something else would have provided an opportunity to move away from a marred feature of the historical relationship between the two countries.

Cameron also announced a £300 million development package for infrastructure in Jamaica. This was probably announced within the same visit to take the sting out the colonial undertones of ‘here’s some aid to build a prison to take your criminals’. Consequently, the Jamaican government has not been as vocal as it could be on the issue of reparations and an official apology. CARICOM has established a reparations commission to push the issue of addressing the legacy of empire – something Cameron has made plainly clear isn’t on his agenda.

Reparations, apologies and resetting of ties don’t undo the legacy and the ills of slavery and empire but it’s a start in addressing them. André Wright, comment editor of the Gleaner, wrote in the Guardian that Jamaica, as is the case for other former colonies, cannot solely place blame for its misfortune at the feet of the British or their respective former colonial powers. He’s right but it’s not as simple as that.

Being of the Jamaican diaspora and the wider black diaspora, I’m acutely aware of the mismanagement of economies, acceptance of polarised wealth, corruption and neglect of education and socio-economic standards since independence in Jamaica and many former colonies. And without the necessary caveats, many would argue that it is a bed we’ve made for ourselves so we must now lie in it. While we must make the necessary efforts to address it ourselves, we cannot forget the foundation of this predicament and it squarely sits with the respective former colonial powers. Can one shoddily raise a child, neglecting and abusing it as it grows while taking what riches it has, only to abandon it when this flawed custody is no longer tenable and expect the child to do much more than survive let alone prosper? The situation is no different for the former colonies that several decades later are still struggling to fully shake off the shackles of their oppression.

David Cameron has shown on countless occasions that he is out of touch with most of the British public and now also his awareness of British history and its legacy. His perception and lack of realisation of how deep the scars of slavery run shows just that. Although his chutzpah in ‘addressing’ them suggests he either doesn’t care or is even more ignorant to the sentiments around the matter than might have previously been assumed.

Boxing needs to rein in the hype around Anthony Joshua until he's had an actual test

Most boxing fans would agree that inside and out of the ring, Anthony Joshua is a fine heavyweight prospect. He clearly grafts in the gym and seemingly doesn’t cut corners when it comes to his strength and conditioning. Despite the brevity of his professional bouts to date affording him little opportunity to showcase it, he’s shown himself to have good movement. And as fans of combat sports relish in a fighter, he’s got a nasty streak in the ring with explosive power. Outside the ring, he’s surrounded by a good promotional team, comes across as hugely personable and has certainly taken heed of his media training. The makings of a great fighter, ambassador for the sport and overall star are all there. But let’s not get carried away before Joshua has actually done anything to warrant the hype that is already being laden upon him.

Following every Joshua fight, the boxing media, Joshua’s promotional team, casual fans and even some hardcore ones, heap praise upon him. They declare him ready to beat any heavyweight in the world and deftly so (although with the current lacklustre state of heavyweight boxing, that isn’t the claim it might once have been). They pay no regard for the fact that Joshua hasn’t experienced a single test in any of his opponents as a professional.

I like Joshua and I’m optimistic for his future in the sport. Though the assessment many have of his current attainment in the sport is much exaggerated in contrast to reality.

Joshua has fought 14 professional fights, each one wining by way of KO or TKO. It’s an achievement that can’t be denied but one that needs to be put in context of who he’s fought. With no disrespect to Joshua’s opponents, to date he’s not fought anyone in what has been a 50/50 fight. For all intents and purposes, they’ve served the purpose of keeping Joshua active (thus keeping his promoter and broadcaster happy as they build his profile), padding his record and demonstrating his undeniably ferocious power. What they don’t provide is the slightest challenge. And to be candid, none have turned up to fight or shown any confidence that they can get the W, let alone survive the first few rounds, through anything other than luck. It’s not an attitude that can be credited. Therefore neither can Joshua’s record at 14-0 be given the acclaim many wish to bestow upon it. For Joshua’s opponents, Joshua merely represents a nice payday and a negligible puncher’s chance of derailing the hype train.

Joshua’s future opponent, Dillian Whyte, presents something different. While he’s still an underdog, as amateurs, Whyte handed Joshua an L and even a knockdown in the process. As a result, Whyte’s confidence is high and he doesn’t seem to fear Joshua or see his own defeat as a routine occurrence. It should make for a good fight with genuine needle which has already manifested itself in accompanying pre-fight friction between the two. Joshua was admittedly raw when they met as amateurs but it won’t change the fact that he’s tasted defeat at the hands of Whyte. I still expect a Joshua win but it’ll make for a different dynamic and hopefully a longer fight and a sterner test for Joshua.

Objectively speaking, some of the hysteria around Anthony Joshua is understandable. While his opponents haven’t turned up to fight, some have promised durability which was considered a test and a gauge for Joshua’s power. Yet he remains a juggernaut regardless of how teak tough the opposition has been billed as. Kevin Johnson went 12 rounds with Vitali Klitschko while Joshua despatched him in two rounds. Admittedly, Johnson’s fight with Klitschko was in 2009 and the former’s punch resistance can be expected to have taken a hit (no pun intended) since. However, power alone doesn’t maketh the boxer.

Cast your minds back a few years and David Price was being afforded a similar status, albeit not to the same lofty heights as is currently given to Joshua, and every opponent became a victim. Still, I recall remarking in the Matt Skelton fight that Price was caught a few times and didn’t react comfortably when in receipt of what seemed like fairly modest shots. That was proven in his subsequent two fights with Tony Thompson and his most recent fight with Erkan Teper. For everything his potent right hand was and probably still is, Price couldn’t take a shot and upon that being realised, mentally he’s not been the same fighter since.

Hopefully that won’t be the case for Joshua. But until we’ve seen he can take a shot, trade in a war and keep his mettle when the pressure is on, we only have one piece of the puzzle that is how complete a fighter Anthony Joshua is. Anthony Joshua could arguably stop any fighter given a clean shot. Nonetheless, in the heavyweight division, where there’s in excess of 200lbs behind a shot, most fighters could. The question is how they respond when taking a shot themselves.

The heavyweight division has always been considered the premier division within the sport. It appeals to our primal desire for gladiatorial battle between the biggest and strongest fighters with the most knockouts and knockdowns anticipated due to the sheer weight behind each punch thrown. Yet in recent years, the division has provided us with a plethora of borefests with so-called fighters who show little conditioning, mettle and athleticism and even less excitement. Every time a new prospect is able to rack up a few consecutive wins via fairly impressive knockouts, they’re therefore touted as a potential future star of the division. Although the desperation for a saviour of heavyweight boxing isn’t new. Indeed, the March 2004 issue of The Ring Magazine gave the cover to Audley Harrison, Dominick Guinn and Joe Mesi with the headline ‘who will replace Lewis, Tyson & Holyfield’.

In contrast to the current crop of heavyweight boxers, Anthony Joshua’s achievements are greatly overstated in a currently largely moribund division. Assuming he is the total package, which I think he will be, there are few heavyweights that wouldn’t be underdogs going into fights with him and even fewer that could overturn their underdog status within the fight. Wladimir Klitschko and a pre-layoff David Haye are probably the only two heavyweight fighters in recent years that many would opine to be able to able to wrest the W from Joshua. Like or loathe him, Tyson Fury would come to fight as would Deontay Wilder. Otherwise, most opponents in the division would probably go the same way as Joshua’s previous opponents. Before his defeat to Erkan Teper, David Price was touted as a potential live opponent for Joshua in a fight that would undoubtedly see someone knocked out (and early) with two huge punchers. Alas, given Price’s confidence is surely at rock bottom, and with the exposure of him seemingly being chinny, he’d likely crumble upon Joshua’s first clean landing shot. As a result, that fight’s now dead in the water.

Joshua needs to bank rounds, experience and credible tests via live opponents on his record before we can place him on the pedestal so many have already hoisted him upon amidst all the fanfare. Hopefully the Dillian Whyte fight will be the first to achieve that with an opponent that doesn’t seem to fear Joshua.

Given time, Johsua certainly has the attributes to eventually fulfil the hype many have accorded him. Boxing just needs to stop getting carried away before time and allow Joshua to build himself as the complete fighter many have prematurely declared him to be.