It’ll End In Tiers.

I’m trying not to write every time something happens during lockdown but, here I go again.

London and the South East are now consigned (or condemned?) to Tier 4. Thanks to rising COVID cases across the region and a ‘new variant’ of the virus running amok in the region, all non-essential shops are now closed (excluding supermarkets). Gyms, leisure centres, hairdressers and beauty salons are shut once more. The only social interaction you can have is with one person outside your household and you can forget about Christmas, because you can only be around the people you live with.

Places of worship are to remain open, which is a bit ironic considering the government have literally cancelled Christmas.

For the last nine months, people have been going stir crazy from staying indoors for so long – with a brief break of freedom in late summer. Working from home, baking endless banana breads and counting the days until normality comes around again and there is no real care or regard for the mental wellbeing of people from our government. When all this is over, they had better throw serious amounts of money at providing mental health facilities because everyone – young and old, black and white – is going to need access to them.

Christmas was the one time people thought there would be some respite. I noticed that the media recently published a number of feelgood news stories: the creation of the vaccine; the administering of the vaccine and the R rate going down, culminating in the announcement of relaxing of the rules from the 23rd to 27th December, as if COVID is out of office during the festive period. Then, fully aware that people had booked their tickets and were preparing to travel, they pulled the rug from under their feet and said, ‘It’s not happening. Sorry for the inconvenience.’

Much as I’m going nowhere this Christmas, countless experts told the Prime Minister to review and revoke his Christmas relaxation plan, but he waited and waited until Saturday evening to scrap everything. Did you hear how Boris said ‘Tier 4 starts from midnight on Sunday’ so casually? I thought I misheard him because it sounded like a throwaway remark, then I quickly realised the magnitude of it.

How can you give millions of people a window of less than eight hours to pack their shit and get the hell out of Dodge (currently known as London)? So many live away from their nearest and dearest and want to be with them at this time of year. They have been forced to stay away and the majority have followed the rules, so to dangle a carrot in front of their faces and snatch it away and expect them to just accept it was never going to happen. Also, what about those who live in other parts of the country and want to come in to London for Christmas? It’s such a mess.

The government were better off telling everyone a few weeks ago that Christmas is cancelled, rather than providing a false dawn. The now-defunct rule relaxation encouraged people to buy train and bus tickets in advance; now those people are out of pocket and out of time, struggling to get home for Christmas.

Social media had footage of crowds at train stations trying to get home before their carriage turned into a metaphorical pumpkin. Professor Chris Whitty told Londoners to “unpack and stay home” but a lot of them refused to listen and had enough of seeing their plans dashed by a government who think they can drop everything at the very last minute. Surely Whitty, Boris and the rest must have known that people would take matters into their own hands. We know the government do not like the public going rogue (see when the Education Secretary ordered schools not to close early for Christmas under threat of legal action, even though they had a few days left and that was mainly to hold Christmas parties), yet that taxing time frame had Londoners throwing all they needed into their suitcases with one aim: to get out of London before midnight.

They encouraged them to get ready to spend Christmas with their loved ones, despite the rising infection rates, then took away the opportunity (and choice) with the shortest of short notice.

This could have prevented if a lockdown was imposed a few weeks ago. Or better yet, when London and the South East moved into Tier 3 last Wednesday, non-essential shops should not have been allowed to stay open. But they did because of money. So what was the point? It defeated the main objective of implementing it, especially as there was no leeway when areas in the North East and North West were forced into the same Tier.

Anyway, I’m hoping that everyone manages to make the best of this shambles and stays safe over Christmas and the new year. ❤

Vaccination Station.

Break out the confetti, people – WE HAVE A VACCINE.

Yes, the first vaccinations took place yesterday; a few days after batches of the new COVID vaccine arrived on British shores, its journey followed by journalists like paparazzi hounding celebrities. Anyone who had a vaccine ended up on TV, including this charming man. Fingers crossed, this will be the beginning of the end for people across the country over the next few weeks and months, especially those eagerly waiting while saddled in Tier three.

It’s all very exciting and though I’m cautiously optimistic about this monumental development, ten years work done in ten months means there are some doubts about this vaccine. For a start, two nurses suffered allergic reactions after being given the vaccine. Apparently, they have made a full recovery, but medical regulators have issued a warning to those who suffer from ‘significant’ allergic reactions not to take the vaccine. Inexplicably, nobody mentioned side effects before this happened, even though we all know that many medications and vaccines have them. The question is, who exactly is excluded? People with food allergies? Hayfever sufferers? Epileptics?

I can’t help but wonder if this fast-track vaccination station is a ploy to deflect from Brexit and the stalling in the talks between the government and the EU. Don’t forget that by being the first country in the world to be ‘all systems go’ regarding the vaccine, Britain is clearly trying to show that they are a force to be reckoned with and that we will thrive after January 1st (when everything kicks in… including the vaccine).

Personally, I will wait until this vaccine is fully and firmly established before I take it and that it’s clear it won’t turn me into a werewolf or harbour other unwanted side effects.

The L Word.

So, Trump has conceded defeat. Sort of.

Last week, he tweeted about allowing the transition for President-elect Joe Biden and his administration to be in the White House. Then – while berating a reporter for not showing him the level of respect fit for a President, and while sitting at an unfeasibly low table – he said that he was finally willing to step aside, but only once the electoral college officially confirms Biden as the winner.

Cut to this week and we now have the US Attorney General William Barr admitting that no voter fraud has been found during this election. Even Kelly-Anne Conway has acknowledged that Biden and Kamala Harris have won. But those objections and legal battles keep on coming from Trump’s team, even though each one is being thrown out of court every time.

Through all his empty posturing, Trump is merely delaying the inevitable and it means he will finally have to bring himself to say the L word: he is a loser.


The thing about Trump is that he cannot bear to be seen as such. Throughout his presidency, we have seen how he treated those who he perceived as ‘losers’; taunting them, slating them on Twitter and implying or outright saying that they are weak or brought things on themselves.

He is used to getting his own way, even more so as President; bulldozing, belittling and bullying people, in order to get what he wants – with full backing from the Republicans, of course. So long as they retain the majority of power in the Senate and the Supreme Court, that unscrupulous bunch will continue to back him.


When Trump caught coronavirus, the narrative used by his team was that he had it and beat it with his bare (tiny) hands – a true American hero, right down to the slo-mo video of his return to the White House. It smacked of triumphalism and he was in full ‘me me me’ mode, which seemed like the height of crassness in the wake of the over 250,000 coronavirus deaths in America alone. He went on about how he conquered COVID’s sorry ass, but I don’t remember him offering much in the way of condolences to those who died or were affected. It was all about him: his massive ego, his journey and his battle with the virus – unsurprising when you consider how much of a narcissist he is.

There are less than two months to go until he leaves the White House. Unless he chains himself to a tree or a desk in the Oval Office, he’ll have to leave, no matter what his sycophants tell him. Imagine if he didn’t go and a SWAT team had to bust through the windows and drag him, kicking and screaming, out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? What a sight for sore eyes that would be.


Most of the world will likely breathe a huge sigh of relief, but his supporters will stick by him – but for how long?

It’s Not All Gravy.

Sainsbury’s are at it again!

Fresh from having an attention-seeking actor publicly vow to never shop in their stores because they had the temerity to celebrate Black History Month, the supermarket chain have released their new set of adverts; one of which has a Black family at the centre of it.

This should not cause concern but, in this day and age, some people have taken great offence to the idea of showing a Black family celebrating Christmas on TV. These viewers seem to think that Black people should not be centre stage in such campaigns or programmes, and have hurled abuse and vitriol at Sainsbury’s on social media.

In response, Sainsbury’s defended their ad campaign, saying that they want to be “the most inclusive retailer,” and “throughout all [their] advertising, [they] aim to represent a modern Britain.”

Now, who could argue with that? Oh, of course, those folks who love to bring out their Big Book of Statistics to justify their virulent strain of racism. Here’s a good one:


This person seems to imply that because Black people make up a small percentage of the British population (allegedly), we do not count and therefore, should not be represented. 

Yet again, this is a situation where Black people should apparently ‘know their place’. Never mind that many of us we’re born and raised here – that does not matter. We should sit down, shut up, look pretty and never be at the forefront of anything, unless we get explicit permission from those who will always see us as beneath them; hence why they never want to see us painted in a positive light.

People like this will continue to think that we should not be allowed to showcase who we are, even in an advert where the story revolves around something as innocuous as Christmas gravy. It’s funny how none of these fools start foaming at the mouth when a certain advert for sportswear comes on screen – I’m guessing that’s where ‘our place’ is, right?

Well, I’ve got news for you sad-sacks out there: not only do Black people in Britain celebrate Christmas and other holidays, we also work and (gasp!) shop in supermarkets including – you guessed it – Sainsbury’s. We do exist – we’re not unicorns.

If you have an issue with Black people being in the spotlight for a Christmas ad, then I shall suggest that you are the one with the problem. If you think that showing a Black family on a thirty-second advert is ‘alienating the White majority’, then I honestly don’t know what to tell you, apart from that your mindset is both ignorant and idiotic (what a combination).

If you are offended by seeing Black and ethnic minority people in adverts, magazines and television programmes, imagine what it’s been like for the very same people seeing nobody like themselves in similar campaigns for decades (whether deliberate, or by accident or thoughtlessness) and feeling like you don’t count because you are constantly left out.

I will never understand people who view more diversity on TV and across the media, as a stain on the fabric of British society. What you are saying is that you will tolerate (I hate that word) Black people, so long as we don’t draw attention to ourselves; something that we do anyway as a visible minority. We could be walking down the street or sitting on a bus and we get attention – noticed for doing nothing.

I’m surprised none of these people have complained about us shopping in supermarkets… although maybe that’s next on their paranoid agenda.

A Braidy Business.

Young black girls have been wearing braids since the dawn of time. I never thought that such a simple hairstyle would be seen as problematic until I saw this tweet on Twitter last week:

I was so shocked by this because I had no idea that it was an issue. Why would it be? I wore braids at secondary school and not one teacher told me that my hair was ‘unsuitable’ or ‘unnatural’. That was in the early to mid-1990s, so how is it a problem now? If anything, schools should be more knowledgeable about this instead of wanting all children to conform to one generic look. Many of them cannot do that because: genetics.

According to this school’s uniform policy (which encourages pupils to adopt a ‘corporate identity’ – I’m guessing this extends to how they look as well), braids fall under the category of an ‘extreme hairstyle’. This is nonsense. Braids are not ‘extreme’, they are a protective hairstyle – two very different things. They protect our fragile follicles and strands. Not every black child wants to relax their hair and braids are a convenient and stylish way to maintain their Afro locks. If this teacher did some research, he would have known that.

This situation is scandalous and yet again adds to the policing and demonisation of black hair and the myopic viewpoint that our hair is perceived as ‘unprofessional’, no matter how we style it.

If the girl’s braids were down to her knees, it could be deemed a health and safety issue but this is not the case – it is a cultural issue and that’s not all. First, the head of year allegedly said her braids were ‘unnatural’; then he declared that the colour of the braids contravened the uniform policy, so she must remove the blonde bits. Like she can just pull them out willy-nilly, as if the hairdresser didn’t spend hours painstakingly braiding her hair. She cannot just take out the blonde bits because that would mean SHE WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE ALL HER BRAIDS.

Knowing how much it costs to braid hair – both in price and in time – would mean that the whole process was a waste of time for the poor girl, merely because her teacher viewed her hair negatively and in an ignorant manner.

All this happened on her first day of secondary school. Imagine! The poor girl must have been excited and nervous starting at a new school. Then, she walked in and her new head of year criticised her hair, implying that she did not fit in because of this one aspect. That staff member likely gave that young girl a poor start to her experience at her new school because he’s now provided her with a complex, thanks to his dismissal of her perfectly fine hairstyle.

Also, how can you such a style is unnatural and yet have a young black girl on your homepage wearing – yes, you’ve guessed it – braids? Oh, the irony. But then again, what do you expect from a school that doesn’t even allow their pupils to wear earrings? I understand if they restricted pupils to wearing studs, but no earrings at all? Really?

Their policy states that ‘unnatural hair extensions or dyes are not permitted’. Fair enough, but what if there is a pupil at the school who has, say, a serious illness or alopecia and want to cover up by wearing a wig? Would that be allowed? Or would they make up another excuse on the spot and humiliate the child on their first day?

Fortunately, the school in question saw sense and softened their stance on this, so the young girl did not have to remove her braids. Thank goodness they did. Negatively affecting this young girl’s progress before she’s even begun because she sported braids is ridiculous. Wearing them will not impact her education or how she learns in any way and maybe they will realise that this hairstyle can be a part of her corporate and cultural identities. The two should not be mutually exclusive.