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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Manley and Fidel Castro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The value of time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the Uber model the future of taxi use?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why I don’t believe in the importance and sanctity of marriage (and why my wife does)

While it might not be a popular opinion amongst married people especially, I don't believe in the importance and sanctity of marriage. In fact, beyond being a largely administrative and social construct, I struggle to see the value of it beyond a formality of what a couple presumably already have before they decide to tie the knot. At face value, my opinions on marriage probably appear to present a dichotomy with my own relationship. But I can assure you they don't. My marriage is just fine, contributed to by that very stance.

Despite my views on marriage, my wife thinks the opposite. Again, this difference of opinion has no adverse effect on our relationship whatsoever. The crux of what constitutes a balanced and healthy relationship is what we do agree on and the entity of marriage is very much secondary to that. Nonetheless, to give a balanced viewpoint, and in a first on iamalaw, this is a co-written article with my wife arguing why she believes in the importance and sanctity of marriage and why I beg to differ. And just like most things we disagree on, it's appropriate that she has the last word.

Why I don't believe in the importance and sanctity of marriage

What is marriage? It’s a representation of a union between two people to signify their commitment to each other. That might sound like a fairly sterile definition akin to a merger between two companies but essentially, that's what marriage is. When you consider the reciprocated love between a couple, marriage didn't bring that about, it existed long before. Hence marriage simply declaring an existing arrangement rather than creating a new one per se. Indeed, the belief that said emotions will appear or develop consequent to getting married is what many short-lived or flawed marriages can be attributed to.

Marriage doesn't unlock a door to relationship utopia. Anyone claiming it does is a liar or in a situation where they need to convince themselves and everyone else that they’re happy. Sadly, there are a lot of people like that. I’ve even been to a wedding where unbeknownst to the poor groom, I knew the bride loved someone else (not me I should add) and it was written all over her face. Alas, she thought marriage might be able to eradicate those thoughts, not to mention she felt she needed to be married so as to not ‘fall behind’ with her already married peers. It therefore serves to support the notion that in some instances, marriage can merely further the antithesis of what society erroneously claims it establishes as the basis of a bona fide, committed relationship.

When I decided to propose to my now wife, I didn't wake up that day with an epiphany that I was suddenly on the brink of total commitment to her. Nor did I feel I was just shy of such sentiments but needed to be married to facilitate those feelings being at 100%. By definition, I was ‘married’ years before I was married in the legal sense. So what's so sacred about something I already had? 

Our wedding was great and an opportunity to celebrate our relationship with the people that matter to us while publicly formalising our relationship. Along with knowing the significance marriage has for my wife (which while not wholly in agreement with my own views, has no adverse or compromising impact on me), deciding to get married was exactly for those reasons. Nevertheless, a wedding isn't a marriage. And a marriage is something we already had before exchanging vows in front of our friends and family. 

Once I was married (in the legal sense), nothing changed in our interaction or anything whatsoever. We already lived together (which was non-negotiable before marriage for both of us) so what was going to change when we went back home the following day after our wedding? And if anything had changed, or if we had expected or hoped it to, our marriage would’ve delusionally been based on the wrong reasons and our relationship upon a very shaky and flawed foundation.

When the pomp of even modest weddings is considered and juxtaposed with the supposed meaning of marriage, it's hard to argue that there isn't another driver behind the desire of many to get married. Do they really want to celebrate what is already a union with each other or is it an opportunity for the pantomime that many weddings are? Particularly in cultures where the status of being married is bizarrely celebrated as the pinnacle of one's existence and a meaningless measure of success within a society that often laments being single, the value of marriage as an entity surely needs to be questioned. I’ve also noticed that it’s often a case of the bigger the celebration, the more the couple are trying to convince and distract themselves and others that their marriage is a good idea.

We all have free will to determine if we want to establish and remain in a relationship with someone. Being married doesn't keep me with my wife, it's my free will and desire to coexist with her that does. Marriage has nothing to do with it. If a married couple decide to go their separate ways, the acceptance of their marriage having broken down often occurs later than it should have because of the status of being married being clung to, and the unwarranted stigma of being divorced or separated, that can delay the relationship ending. In those situations, marriage can actually constrain one’s free will with consequences that can’t be good for the well-being and mental health of the couple or even any children. 

From my perspective, marriage doesn't even rank at the top of manifestations of commitment between a couple and certainly not above having a child/children together or jointly owning a home. Rather than embody, marriage illustrates that commitment and articulates it in a religious, legal or cultural context. It certainly doesn't facilitate it as it should have already existed in the relationship.

Contrary to what the above might suggest, I’m not anti-marriage. I just don't think it embodies the sanctity of the commitment it’s claimed to epitomise. Some of the most committed relationships and solid couples I’ve seen are unmarried and many of the flawed relationships I’ve seen are within marriages. Marriage doesn't maketh a relationship. It's merely a label society has foisted upon us in trying to demonstrate commitment between two people via a romanticised social construct.

Why I believe in the importance and sanctity of marriage (even though my husband doesn't)

Marriage has always been important to me. I didn't chase getting married like some of my peers but deep down, I probably always wanted to get married and I’ve always believed in the sanctity of it. I’ve never really questioned why but I’ve always seen it like that. When I got married, nothing changed. However, it still remains important to me.

Getting married shows commitment between a couple. There are other ways that commitment can be displayed and I understand that actions like buying a property together or having children show that. But the commitment in those instances are usually secondary factors to actually wanting those things. People don't say “we’re committed to each other so let's buy a house together and have children”. People usually want a house and/or children and their commitment to each other can increase on the basis of that.

With marriage, it's a public celebration of your relationship but one that the couple make for themselves and with each other. It’s not because of any reasons or circumstances that are really about something else like having both names on a mortgage.

Especially as someone who hasn't changed their surname in marriage, I think marriage creates a unit for the couple, and children, that doesn't need to be defined by a shared name. That isn't to say that I think you need to be married to have children. Although personally, being married represents a unit that you can say is yours and that you feel a belonging to.

I can admit that marriage has messed up a lot of people. Within my community especially, people chase it as if they’d be incomplete without it and I’ve seen many people get married for the wrong reasons and to the wrong people in relationships without real love. Even in the current generation, marriage is the done thing; it's not something people would necessarily do or see as important without that cultural influence or push. But the importance I feel marriage has outweighs any of that negativity. 

Marriage brings security as the couple make a conscious decision to declare their commitment to each other. When they have problems within their marriage, they therefore feel like they want to work harder to fix it because they took a step toward that position of being married in the first place. Marriage isn't just a throwaway commitment that a couple are less likely to want to hold onto.

Culturally, a wedding, and especially a daughter's wedding, is a big deal in my community and I feel the same way. Families want to celebrate marriages and that's a valid and happy reason to celebrate. I know that can make for a bit of a show but it's culturally important to us and that's something I can't really explain beyond it being of importance to my identity.

Marriage means something that can't always be put into words and I know it isn't for everyone. It doesn't make a relationship but it represents the union of two people in a way that shows just how important their relationship is to each other. It puts that on display for everyone else to witness and gives something ‘official’ to what a couple admittedly already had together.

The teachers’ strike isn’t about teachers, it’s about the students and their education

Members of the NUT (National Union of Teachers) are holding the first national strike since 2014 on 5 July. The length of time since the most recent national action refutes any suggestion that the NUT, or indeed its members, are in any way militant; particularly against a backdrop of worsening conditions for teachers and students. But it also shows how members feel there is no recourse with the government bullishly refusing to address the mess they have created in education.

I’ve previously written about the current crisis in teaching and the challenges facing education as a whole are well documented on this site. As are the reasons for strike action as a last resort when union members feel the only tool they have to initiate or resume meaningful negotiations with their employer is the withdrawal of their labour. Therefore I shan’t discuss the aforementioned at any length. Although, I will reiterate that not only is teaching and education at a critical point, but that strike action is necessary as a last resort with a government that is void of empathy for teachers and students and nonchalant towards their destruction of the education system.

Ignorance and disdain for teachers from the government and sections of the media will no doubt encourage the public to think that the strike is about teachers selfishly complaining. However, what the teachers’ strike is really about is the students and their education. Just as students are at the crux of all teachers do, the improvements that teachers seek are for their current and future students and the protection of an education system that no one else seems to be protecting. Understanding that students and their education is what the strike is about, is incredibly important but a fact that is lost on so many as they instead look to lambaste and demonise teachers.

Amidst the cornucopia of problems within the profession, the teachers’ strike is centred on three main arguments of school funding, the protection of teachers’ terms and conditions in all institutions and a commitment to meaningful talks in pursuit of resolving concerns with teachers’ contracts.

While the Chancellor claims to be protecting funding for schools, in real terms, he’s frozen the funding for education while taking an increased amount of money from schools through the national insurance and pension contributions he exacts. Consequently, for every 20 teachers employed, a school has to find an extra teacher’s salary to give to the Treasury. The impact of finding those savings directly hits students and is already visible in the cuts that schools are making.

Schools around the country are being forced to adopt further austerity to ridiculous levels where many teachers will lament basic resources not being available, increased class sizes and the abolishment of specialist and pastoral posts of staff who provide immense and invaluable support to students. Meanwhile, some schools, and notably multi-academy trusts, are finding cash for bloated senior leadership teams or frivolous expenses that make a mockery of the education system and fail to benefit students. It’s all the more reason that school funding needs to be addressed along with a wider dialogue on ensuring that students are at the centre of spending.

Protection of teachers’ terms and conditions in all institutions, including academies, and talks on teachers’ contracts may seem selfish. But teachers cannot be effective without either. Running teachers into the ground with excessive workload isn’t going to help them to help students yet critics of teachers claim it’s merely a case of the progression throwing its toys out the pram. Oddly, it’s often a criticism from those who don’t work anywhere near a 12 hour day, with the stresses that accompany teaching, only to go home and work further hours. Teachers need terms and conditions and contracts that permit them being effective to their students even if no one else. Nevertheless, the status quo has put an unbearable and bureaucratic strain on this happening.

The NUT’s goal of protecting conditions being directed primarily at academies may seem unnecessary given the government decided to drop its plans for forced academisation of all English schools by 2020. But the Tories' ideological obsession with academies nonetheless continues and forthcoming education legislation will include powers for the DfE (Department of Education to force schools in 'underperforming' local authorities to be converted to academies. And with it, the spectre of academisation remains over many schools.

Many schools, afraid of forced academisation, become data-driven institutions that show diminishing regard for students’ emotional, social and even meaningful academic growth and instead focuses on grades and levels that show they aren’t underperforming by the government’s standards. Again, the students take the biggest hit as they become statistics rather than people who should be nurtured within a system that should have them at the forefront of its agenda.

If you support an education system that provides for students while putting them at the heart of all it does, you’re on the same page as the teachers striking. This strike isn’t about teachers, it’s about the students who are suffering from the government’s policies and a damaged education system. The DfE has ironically claimed that the NUT and its members are causing unnecessary disruption by “playing politics with children's futures” and sections of the media will no doubt follow with similar rhetoric. Though what many onlookers may not realise is that they’re actually in agreement with the aims and principles of the strike after all.