Rudd Resignation: My Verdict.

Amber Rudd resigned as Home Secretary on Sunday night. I feel a slight degree of sympathy for her, as she fell on her sword by taking the blame for her predecessor’s mess. The Windrush debacle is mainly Theresa May’s fault as it was she who lit the fuse for this scandal when she was Home Secretary in 2010. May should step down but she’s currently immovable as PM because her supposed leadership is needed to steer the Good Ship Brexit and if she goes, we’ll be rudderless (no pun intended) as we veer towards one of the most pivotal moments in British history.

I’m amazed that she’s still at the helm after the shitfest that was last year (or last June). She did not have the landslide victory that was predicted at the general election, then the Grenfell Tower tragedy occurred and her failure to reach out to those affected made her a lame duck PM. Cut to nearly a year later and she’s still here, like a fly on excrement and it’s a shame.

Someone had to take the blame for the Windrush debacle and it had to be Rudd – she was the person in charge and didn’t seem to know what was going on and she ‘inadvertently misled’ MPs (her own words) about this and other issues, so she had to go. But May is getting off scot-free and surely that cannot be right? Everyone knows that she should resign but it’s like a whole heap of tumbleweed has blown into Parliament because it seems nobody is coming out and saying it.

Advertisements

Joshua v Parker: The Verdict.

I was so hyped for this fight. It was an intriguing set-up: Anthony Joshua v Joseph Parker: the battle of the unbeaten boxers.

The fight had the potential to be a proper nail-biting dust-up but all that was ruined thanks to one man: the referee, Giuseppe Quartarone.

I don’t know if he was channelling infamous football ref Mike Dean, but he was atrocious. He kept stopping any contact between both fighters, even though that is the actual point of this sport, and on the rare occasions when it looked like an actual fight was going to happen, the ref butted in and parted them both like Moses and the Red Sea. There was one moment in the fifth round where the fight got a bit tasty and the crowd were roaring in approval and Quartarone charged in and separated them. Again.

He also made farcical decisions such as halting a fight in the last ten seconds of one round so that Joshua strapped up his glove properly. Never mind that the glove was like that for the previous two minutes and he did not notice. He could have waited until the bell rang at the end of the round but that would have meant using common sense. No wonder Joshua and Parker were so vexed. All the commentators on TV and radio grew more and more irritated by Quartarone’s atrocious officiating – people paid money to watch that fight, only to see him on a one-man mission to destroy a potentially blockbusting bout.

Joshua looked in control for most of the fight. It was not a thrill-a-minute bout like the classic against Klitschko but he got the job done. Parker was an unknown quantity to most Brits but, considering he was unbeaten, we knew that he had a fair amount of quality. The Kiwi is two years younger than Joshua, but had an issue with his elbow which he said had cleared up before the fight, so he’d be fighting ‘at 100%’. Despite his disadvantage height-wise, he fared well but was swinging wild punches at his opponent’s head and never really succeeding in getting a true connection. Plus, every time he got into a groove, that damn referee put a stop to his flow.

Overall, a fight that could have been a cracker fizzled out with a whimper. A dull bout between two quality fighters and an attention-seeking referee.

What’s next? Joshua v Wilder is on the horizon! Now that is going to be one helluva knock-down-drag-out fight. Joshua called out Wilder after his win (“Let’s go, baby, LET’S GO,” he hollered) and said he is ready to roll whenever, so long as the venue is on British shores. Damn right. What a fight that’ll be!

Let’s hope if it does take place in the near future that tonight’s referee isn’t allowed anywhere near it- not even as a spectator.

Beggars Belief.

Another day, another example of a council showing their callous disregard for those in their region. Fresh from councils putting spikes in doorways and weirdly shaped steel straps on benches to deter homeless people from sleeping rough, now Poole council are to start fining beggars £100 for bedding down in their city centre. Where these beggars are going to find the money to pay off said debt is another matter.

In this day and age where many people are one missed payment away from ending up on the streets, this is a pretty shitty idea. The price of everything is going up but people’s salaries are often not enough to cover their rent or bills and many are constantly teetering on the edge. Whatever happened to helping residents? Because let’s be honest, that is what these homeless people are. They barely have much so how are you, dear council, planning to collect the money from them? Prise the pennies out of their cold hands?

There must be a better alternative than enforcing fines that will not be paid. How the hell are they going to pay? They have no fixed abode yet will miraculously have the funds to cough up £100 each time they are caught sleeping in a car park. It will be like a bar tab that is not resolved – and what happens then? Will that person continue to accumulate more fines until it reaches a level where it will be written off? If that is the case, surely it will be a pointless exercise and a failure for the council to add to their list.

Various people have been vocal in their criticism of the plan (which was originally put off due to the anger against it) and more than 3,500 people have signed a petition to get this new plan shelved. But it’s to no avail, as this fining fiasco is to go ahead next month. It does not seem like they will differentiate between ‘professional’ beggars and those that are genuinely in hard times either – it’s a one size fits all policy, which makes things worse and makes absolutely no sense.

Nobody wants to see homeless people sleeping rough but this is not the solution most had in mind. The government must do more than pay lip service for those in need. It should not be left to the likes of Shelter to always step in and help the homeless – this is a nationwide issue, after all.

What about helping the homeless to not be in such a situation? Give them the means to find other accommodation or something. Perhaps open up a soup kitchen for the whole year, instead of the odd one at Christmas that can barely hold the total number of homeless in your borough? Anything must be better than treating them like an empty cash machine?

I don’t know what Poole council hope to achieve from this but it is likely they will target those that actually need their help rather than this nonsense. Good luck to them trying to enforce this – maybe some good will come out of this but judging by the way it will be implemented, I doubt that very much.

Precedent for the President.

A few things about Trump and his state visit to Britain, which has been put off ‘indefinitely’.

Following the lunacy of the current President of the United States retweeting not one, but three videos from the Twitter account of extreme British right-wing party Britain First, the calls for Trump to be banned from entering the UK grow louder every day. Now, if he was plain old Donald Trump, loudmouth billionaire extraordinaire, I’m sure it would be easy for the powers that be (namely, one Theresa May) to ban him from our shores because he would be deemed as not a very important person. An insignificant blustering billionaire aiming to build yet another golf course.

But- whether you like it or not -Trump is the President of the United States. Things have changed. His status has changed. His power and reach have changed (and have far-reaching consequences). If he were to be banned from Britain, the precedent set for the President would not bode well for the future.

Also, we cannot pick and choose democracy as and when we feel like it. I disagree with pretty much everything he has said and done since his inauguration, but I feel like banning him from the country would defeat the object and purpose of democracy. He is not some random reality TV wannabe anymore, he is the supposed President of the Free World (whatever that means). He also has some support in this country from those who like his bullish approach and the values he claims to stand for. So banning him is not as simple as it sounds.

It is also a major headache for our Prime Minister Theresa May, because the Brexit deadline is fast approaching (March 2019 will come round sooner than you think) and the government are keen to seal those trade deals with America once we commit hari-kari and separate from the European Union.

I believe Trump should come to Britain for his state visit. He should step off Air Force One and be greeted at Heathrow airport or some unidentified airfield somewhere in the shires. He should be chauffeured through the streets in London. But we should not close all the roads for him and literally give him an easy ride, oh no. If he deigns to grace us with his presence, Trump should be given a first-hand experience of exactly what the majority of the British public really think of him, protests and all. Let him see how most of the British public are not hoodwinked by his bullshit, bluster and bravado. Let him see how vexed and angry we are at his actions and his terrible hair. Stick him on Question Time and put him up against some of the big guns in politics and beyond on the panel. I’ll bring the popcorn as we watch him be bombarded with questions.

There is a possibility that he will love all the attention- after all, there is no such thing as bad publicity in his eyes, and him being heckled and hollered at by members of the British public would be seized upon by his people as a sign of how badly he had been treated or demonised. But no matter- let the state visit go ahead (whenever that will be) and let the games begin.

Preference or Prejudice?

I watched a programme today called Is Love Racist?: The Dating Game. As someone who has dabbled with online dating, I knew how this show would turn out the minute I saw the title (i.e.: not very well) and I'm not going to lie, I wanted to slap everyone involved by the first commercial break. 

I didn't really need this documentary to show me that Black and Asian women get a raw deal when it comes to online dating. It seems that if you do not look like one of the babes off Instagram or a supermodel and instead look decent but average- i.e: me -you get nowhere. Believe me, I tried and all it did was crush my self-esteem. The rest of us are fucked… but not literally. 

I get the whole preference issue. Everyone has a particular type regarding what they look for in a lover or partner, whether they prefer blondes, brunettes or redheads. Nobody likes everything- imagine if we did!  What a weird world that would be. 

That said, there were some unbelievable comments during this programme. The stereotypes came thick and fast: the White guy who said he preferred Asian women because 'they're more submissive'. He wants someone who will answer to his beck and call and call him master, right? I hope the woman you find ends up being anything but submissive when she waves your bollocks in your face.


The woman who said she did not like the look of a black guy because 'his nose is flared… he looks angry.' This stereotype is so basic. She is probably the type who clutches her bag close to her chest whenever a Black man (young or old) sits next to her. 
The unconscious, automatic reaction of the participants in visualising someone described as 'classically handsome' as a White man- while the phrase, 'lover, not a fighter' immediately made them think of a Black man.

Not forgetting the man who said that he liked and slept with mixed race women, but would not exactly take them home to mother (though he was an absolute pillock so I disregarded most things he said). 

As I said before, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a preference, per se. It's when it goes to extremes that it's gets problematic, such as fetishism or negative stereotyping. Some people fetishise particular racial groups and that is when problems begin. Black men are seen as 'well-endowed', Asian women are 'submissive', Black women are either 'exotic, like a bird' and/or 'sexually aggressive', apparently in manner and appearance. Like we are a sexual trend to be consumed when we are 'in fashion' and discarded at all other times; seen as trophies to be paraded on the arms of men, instead of being afforded the courtesy to be seen as people. 


Then you have the instances of stereotyping, made worse when it's your own kind criticising you and your fellow women- then proclaiming, 'It's my preference!' when they are called out on it. I have seen and heard men of different races (including Black men) slate Black women about all manner of things and the crass dog-whistle comments and blatant disrespect ('she would be hotter if she wasn't so dark', 'you all are so angry') never ceases to amaze me. I don't care what anyone says- when other races hear Black men dissing their own, it enables and emboldens them to do the same towards us. No wonder Black women are treated shabbily when it comes to dating in general. It is a thin line between preference and prejudice and this programme proved that. 

© 19th July 2017

The WHAT In the Woodpile?!

Have you heard of Anne-Marie Morris? Me neither.

Apparently she is an MP for the Conservatives and she made a very stupid decision. When discussing the ongoing saga that is Brexit with a number of her parliamentary party peers, she referred to Brexit as ‘the nigger in the woodpile’.

There are many other turns of phrase that she could have used- ‘the elephant in the room’, ‘stop burying our heads in the sand’, ‘the fly in the ointment’. Of all the things she could have come up with, she said that. I heard the recording and believe me, it rolled off her tongue with ease.

What’s worse is that none of the people in the room at the time scolded her for her racist language. Not. One. What does that tell you? Clearly it’s a phrase casually thrown about by herself and those that she surrounds herself with day in and day out. And politicians wonder why we call them out of touch.

What’s just as annoying is those who defended her words. These people are living on another planet. This is not the days of slave plantations. She is in public office and freely and consciously uttered it without a care in the world and her peers did not bat an eyelid. These politicians are supposed to be representing me and my fellow Brits and yet- who knows -she might refer to me and others like me as a ‘nigger’ in private without a moment’s hesitation.

Some have bleated that the reaction has been over the top. Or worse, the supposed overreaction is ‘political correctness gone mad’ to ‘a good strong phrase’.

These are the same fools who still think there’s nothing wrong with calling a black person a golliwog. As for those saying that she’s ‘a product of how society used to be’- girl, please. Do not make excuses for the crap that came out of her mouth. She’s not some woman from ye olde Victorian times- she’s old enough to know better and know more suitable phrases to use. There is no way she can turn this around and say it was misquoted or out of context. She has no excuse.

Her apology was an even bigger pile of excrement as, according to her, the comment was “totally unintentional.” Of course it was. I mean, the way it literally rolled off your tongue like butter showed a huge lack of intent.

She apologised “unreservedly”, which makes a change from the current trend of indulging in the shitty trend of people issuing apologies with an almost sarcastic undertone of ‘I apologise to anyone who felt offended’ – as if I’m the one who should feel guilty for being upset.)

How can someone- especially a person in public office -think it’s ok to utter that outdated and offensive phrase in 2017?  She has now been suspended and rightly so. If she was in any other job she’d have been sacked, so why should she be given a reprieve? At least the Tories didn’t wait until two or three days later to act. She never thought twice about using that remark. She’ll certainly do so in future but her peers will carry on using such expressions until they are pulled up on it themselves.

Grenfell Tower and the Dignity Debate.

It is almost two weeks since the Grenfell Tower tragedy occurred, a horrific incident that shocked the nation and dominated the news headlines. But ever since this disaster happened, a weird kind of narrative has begun to rear its ugly head. The narrative of ‘respectability politics.’

Some people started commenting on the behaviour of the survivors and the families of those affected, saying that they were not showing enough ‘dignity’. Oh, where do I begin with this…

This is not a time for people to engage in the social and political football of respectability politics. These people are angry, in shock and devastated beyond belief. They have lost their families (entire generations in some cases), their friends, neighbours, everything that they worked for, everything they own including their identities because their passports or ID were destroyed in the blaze. I heard people say that the people affected should ‘think logically’. I have never heard such nonsense in my life. All these people judging the survivors and demanding that they show dignity and be rational while they watch sitting on their sofas is downright insulting. 

Not everything in life requires a dignified response

People use the word ‘dignity’ as a way to patronise and guilt-trip others so that they tone down their reaction, as if they are less worthy of notice if they shout. Dignity is a good thing in certain circumstances, but who are these armchair commentators to tell those who have lost loved ones and everything they know and care about how to exercise self-control? 

The desire to be dignified causes people to react in different ways. It often hinders their natural response because they feel like they have to show that they calm and collected, almost professional. There seems to be a shift over recent years where you cannot show anger about something (even when that reaction is more than justified) as it demonstrates a lack of self-control. Since when did we become robots? 

Furthermore, people from certain backgrounds or demographics have to be careful as anger might get them killed- look at what happened to Eric Garner or Philando Castile. 

I’m tired of the opinion that, in order to be heard or taken seriously, you have to look and behave a certain way. Sometimes, people approach situations with dignity and respect and still get patronised and ignored in equal measure. When the community around Grenfell Tower marched down to Kensington Town Hall the Friday after the fire, some commentators muttered disapprovingly at their actions. Those people need their heads checked to see where their empathy disappeared to (up their backsides, maybe?).

Imagine seeing your whole life reduced to a smoking shell. All your family and friends gone. All you own are the clothes on your back. You look at what used to be your home and are haunted by the events that preceded it. You’re suffering from ‘survivor’s guilt’, traumatised and weary and wanting to burst into tears at any moment but you can’t because you need to keep hoping that all is not lost. And in the aftermath, not one council member came to visit or provide assistance until much, much later. Everything is being done through voluntary and community outlets, not the actual council that hoovers up their council tax every month without fail. Communication is key. Talk to those directly affected face-to-face, not via a carefully-worded statement on BBC News. Don’t do what Theresa May did. 


Yes, they could have been sorting accommodation- but then these are the same people who still have not put together a list of residents who lived in Grenfell Tower. Nearly a fortnight after the fire and the official word is that 79 people died- but there is still no definitive residents list. Despite being told there are no more survivors, people are still desperately hoping to find their loved ones alive. But it is highly unlikely and what’s worse, it is like they never existed. Ironically, they are given no dignity in death because the powers that be are not acknowledging their existence. But some armchair commentators will continue to carry on telling people how to grieve and how to behave. It needs to stop.