"Heal the brokenhearted and bind up their wounds" - Psalms 147:3
The world mourns for those who are broken. The massacre in Newtown, Connecticut has left 28 people dead. 20 of those people were children, brutally murdered in their own classrooms. It is the second biggest shooting in U.S. history and the third major attack in 2012, following the Aurora cinema killings and the murder of six people in a temple in Wisconsin.
Gun control is a contentous issue in the U.S. The constitution states that individuals have a "right to keep and bear arms" and this has supported the growth of American gun culture. But the constitution was written in 1787 when "arms" were pistols, muskets, swords and bows. The Founding Fathers were not psychic - they did not know what was to ome.
Today, pistols, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles hang from the shelves of Walmart. And it is easy to buy one with your week's shopping. If you are over the age of 18 and you pass a basic background check, you can be granted a license to buy firearms. Bread, cheese and bullets could be a typical shopping list.
The ownership of guns is on the decline, with one political scientist saying they are at all-time lows. This is promising and less guns mean less shootings. But ownership is not the key statistic. Over three quarters of the weapons used in killing sprees since 1982 were obtained legally. These future mass murderers were not declined a license. They passed the basic background checks and they were legally allowed to walk into a supermarket and purchase rifles and ammunition and then open fire on people in a mall or a cinema or a school.
I am not saying that every future mass murderer can be recognised years before they commit a crime. Nor am I suggesting that the background checks failed. No-one could ever see such atrocities coming. But they can be averted. Action can be taken to ensure that no individual having a bad week has the arsenal to murder people.
You can start by getting guns out of supermarkets. Stocking guns in the same building as bread and milk is a recipe for disaster. If Americans are so intent on owning guns, you don't present them as a casual thing to go in the same shopping trolley as your toddler. Secondly, you remove heavy weaponry completely. The Second Amendment allows the individual to hold a gun to protect the "security of a Free state" but giving people the opportunity to own AK47's, grenade launchers and anti-tank weaponry is not protecting security. It is jeopardising public safety.
Thirdly, attitudes must change. Gun control is a moral issue and yet it is used as a political weapon. As the news of the Newtown filters in, politicians are rushing to say this is not the time to discuss gun control laws. When will it be the time? Where was the discussion after Aurora? Or Wisconsin? This is the perfect time to prevent such tragedies happening again. There is an argument that guns are impossible to legislate - no it is not. The rest of the world does it and while no country is without gun crime, it is nowhere near the level of America.
With each massacre, reaction to it follows a similar pattern. We go from shock to anger to a desire to change things, followed by nothing. America goes back to the status quo but today that status quo has murdered five year old children. Enough is enough. Politics must take a backseat and change must come about. If it does not, I fear the world will once again wake up to flags at half mast.
Friday, 14 December 2012
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
Higher turnout in 2012 is not a surprise - it was obvious
To the relief of every country in the world minus China, Barack Obama has won re-election in a tight race with Mitt Romney.
I say tight; it certainly seemed tight going into election day but when push came to shove, it was Obama who cleaned up and won 303 electoral college votes (possibly 332 if Florida goes his way) in comparison to Romney's 206.
Obama's victory is being attributed to his "coalition" of young voters, women, Latinos and other ethnic minorities. There was a lot of noise made in the run-up to this election about whether this "coalition" would support Obama as heavily as they did in 2008, when there was a wave of euphoria around him.
There is a consensus that the "Obama-lition" not only turned out for their candidate in 2012, but they surpassed the numbers in 2008 and recorded all-time high turnouts in key districts. Some are surprised by this: the euphoria turned into disillusionment as their agent for change struggled to make his mark, battling a worldwide economic downturn, a shitstorm in the Middle East and Republicans on the Hill. Obama was never going to heal the planet and calm the oceans; he was never going to change things in just four years, instead his job was to steady the ship and that he did. But that argument did not resonate with the voting public and Mitt Romney set the stage for what he hailed as a critical point in American history.
So to understand the "surprisingly high" turnout this year, you must understand the narratives that surrounded both 2008 and 2012. 2008 was "Obama-mania" coated in hope and change and the idea of a fresh start on greener pastures. It got the "Obama-lition" ready to go and fired up and he strolled into the White House.
But 2012 is a different time. Unemployment is at record highs (Obama won with the highest unemployment rate since FDR), people are struggling to make ends meet and America is seemingly losing its aura as the world's economic superpower to China. Republicans were scared and convinced they needed "real change", a promise that Mitt Romney made. For the Democrats, the gross incompetence and flip-flopping of Romney perhaps scared them more the economy, so they felt the need to "get Obama's back" and give him a second term. That left us with two energised bases who believed their decision would change the course of history. They had to vote, they just had to because the race was painted as such a significant one.
And it was. Obama has his second term and his role as President is different. The ship is steadied and his attention now turns to change. Obama will use the next four years to build his legacy and establish his vision for America.
I say tight; it certainly seemed tight going into election day but when push came to shove, it was Obama who cleaned up and won 303 electoral college votes (possibly 332 if Florida goes his way) in comparison to Romney's 206.
Obama's victory is being attributed to his "coalition" of young voters, women, Latinos and other ethnic minorities. There was a lot of noise made in the run-up to this election about whether this "coalition" would support Obama as heavily as they did in 2008, when there was a wave of euphoria around him.
There is a consensus that the "Obama-lition" not only turned out for their candidate in 2012, but they surpassed the numbers in 2008 and recorded all-time high turnouts in key districts. Some are surprised by this: the euphoria turned into disillusionment as their agent for change struggled to make his mark, battling a worldwide economic downturn, a shitstorm in the Middle East and Republicans on the Hill. Obama was never going to heal the planet and calm the oceans; he was never going to change things in just four years, instead his job was to steady the ship and that he did. But that argument did not resonate with the voting public and Mitt Romney set the stage for what he hailed as a critical point in American history.
So to understand the "surprisingly high" turnout this year, you must understand the narratives that surrounded both 2008 and 2012. 2008 was "Obama-mania" coated in hope and change and the idea of a fresh start on greener pastures. It got the "Obama-lition" ready to go and fired up and he strolled into the White House.
But 2012 is a different time. Unemployment is at record highs (Obama won with the highest unemployment rate since FDR), people are struggling to make ends meet and America is seemingly losing its aura as the world's economic superpower to China. Republicans were scared and convinced they needed "real change", a promise that Mitt Romney made. For the Democrats, the gross incompetence and flip-flopping of Romney perhaps scared them more the economy, so they felt the need to "get Obama's back" and give him a second term. That left us with two energised bases who believed their decision would change the course of history. They had to vote, they just had to because the race was painted as such a significant one.
And it was. Obama has his second term and his role as President is different. The ship is steadied and his attention now turns to change. Obama will use the next four years to build his legacy and establish his vision for America.
Wednesday, 3 October 2012
LIVE: Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney in the first U.S. presidential debate
[The debate is over and I am still calling it for Mitt Romney. He was a lot better than expected, more aggressive than most expected him to be and seemed to have Obama reeling at points. There were flashes of the old Obama in the last 15 minutes, especially when discussing Obamacare, but he looked a bit lost and trying too hard to be the calmer, more controlled candidate. Obama was certainly more open about policy details, effective in challenging Romney's sketchy ideas. But in terms of debate performance, Romney was more at ease, making his ZINGERS!~! (Big Bird for example) and had the right attitude. There was nothing game-changing in this, but Obama just seemed too cautious and too restrained.]
[TWITTER: @sullydish tweets: Mitt is sounding Reagan-like & compassionate. The Etch-A-Sketch is shaking, & the old Mitt is back]
0338: Closing statements now, starting with Barack Obama. Obama thanks Romney for an excellent debate, saying that the American people should get a fair share. Obama says he said he would fight everyday for the people and he would in a second term. Romney's turn now, saying it is an election bigger than both parties. Romney talks of Obama's records, saying he would create 12 million new jobs and he would repeal Obamacare. He said he would keep America strong and he would get the middle class working again. And end.
0324: Let's talk compromise beginning with Mitt Romney, who says he would work with Republican and Democrat leaders. He says leadership from Washington is needed. Obama responds by saying Romney would have a busy first day, meeting Democratic leaders while repealing Obamacare. Obama talks of his repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the ending of the Iraq War, the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden. He says there are times when you need to say no, but there are "fights that need to be had" and Romney would not say no to the "extremes of his own party."
0318: Talking about public education, Romney says federal money should go to the children not to the states. Obama again attacks the lack of detail in Romney and Paul Ryan's economic plan. Romney says he is not planning to make any cuts, saying that $90 billion could have got two million teachers rather than investing in green jobs. Romney talks of a school grading system, so parents know what schools to go to. "I care about education for all of our kids" finishes Romney.
0313: Back to the federal government, with Obama saying it can create "ladders of opportunity" for people to start businesses and make their own ideas. He says a better-trained workplace would create jobs. Romney touts his state's schools, calling them number one in the country, before promising to maintain military spending and religious tolerance. "The path we are taking is not working, we need to take a new path" says Romney.
0311: Romney stops Lehrer from moving on to reply. He says what he did in Massachusetts could be a model for everywhere.
0308: Mitt Romney says a board of 15 people should not tell people what healthcare to have, saying the federal government should not take over healthcare. Obama responds by saying that Romney cannot say how he will replace Obamacare, the same as his loopholes to fund tax cuts and regulations for Wall Street.
0306: [TWITTER: BBC Washington correspondent, Katty Kay tweets: If twitter is the new judge of debates, Obama is definitely losing this one.]
0301: [We are two thirds of the way through and so far, Romney seems the better of the two candidates. Obama is not as confident as he was in 2008 and Romney has been the more aggressive out of the two.]
Obama says his healthcare bill was a Republican idea and how they use the same advisors. He talks of his so-called "death panels," dispelling some of the myths surrounding it.
0256: The next segment is on Obamacare; Mitt Romney tells stories of people he has met who cannot afford healthcare. Obama argues that families were worried they would go bankrupt if they were sick. He looks straight down the lens and says Obamacare means "insurance problems cannot jerk you around." Lehrer calls for an end but Obama laughs him off, saying he had five extra seconds because of Romney's interruption.
0251: A quick conversation on regulation, with Romney saying it is good but has become "excessive" and is "harmful to the economy." Obama says the economic crisis was because of "reckless behaviour across the board" and addresses the viewers directly saying that if they think there is too much regulation, Mitt Romney is their candidate.
0248: Romney talks of "competition in the Medicare world," an idea that came from Bill Clinton's chief of staff. Obama argues that the cost of healthcare needs to completely lowered, but Romney believes the private sector provides a better product.
0245: "If you are 54 or 55, you might want to listen" says Obama who says if Obamacare ("I like that") is repealed it would cost his grandmother and others like her.
0242: It's the role of the federal government and social security now, as we start with Medicare.
[TWITTER: The New York Times' David Leonhardt tweets: I feel like the conservatives in my feed are unhappy with Romney's performance and the liberals are unhappy with Obama's.]
0237: Romney likes to use his hands to show a fall in rates - he is doing it a lot. He said he would like to take Medicaid money and give it to the states who can "care for their own poor."
0234: Obama talks of corporate taxs, saying that Exxon-Mobile doesn't need more money, challenging Romney to say what loopholes he will close to fund his cuts. Obama talks of a teacher in Las Vegas, using 10-year-old textbooks and how a cut to Medicaid would affect a family with an autistic child.
0232: "It's been four years" says Romney, who says the economy is growing slow and Obama's plan will kill 700 million jobs.
0226: Onto the deficit now, as Romney says it is "simply not moral" to add a trillion dollars a year. Romney would cut all programs that need to "borrow money from China" such as PBS, saying "I like Big Bird, I like you, Jim."
[ZINGER]
0223: Obama says they may have to move on before saying "math, common sense and our history" should prevail. Romney argues that he is not in favour of a $5 trillion tax cut, but to bring down rates. He talks of the last four years where 23 million people are in unemployment.
0221: "It's fun isn't it?" as Romney is stopped by Jim Lehrer who says they have long gone passed their first 15 minute segment.
0218: Obama is explaining his position on the removal of the Bush-era tax cuts for those who earn over $250,000. Donald Trump is a small business under Romney's plans, says Obama and does not need tax relief.
0217: Romney is going on the attack, calling Obama "inaccurate" and challenges the study that Obama references. Obama can be seen smiling and takes down notes.
0214: Obama says Romney is proposing in $5 trillion tax cuts with a further $2 trillion in military spending, citing analyst's claims that it would cost the average middle income family $2,000.
0212: "Middle income families are being crushed" says Mitt Romney who says tax rates need to come down. Romney also says "I like coal" with a wish to make America energy independent.
0209: Obama responds by giving some specific policy ideas of his own. He wants to hire more maths and science teachers, talks of Bush-tax era cuts and the need for cleaner energy sources.
0207: Mitt Romney is next. He outlines his five-point plan for promoting economic growth.
0204: We start with jobs. Obama wishes Michelle Obama a happy anniversary and cracks a joke about having it in front of 40 million people before Obama makes his case for investing in education and energy and reducing the deficit.
0200: Hello and welcome to Something Quite Witty - for a first, as I dip my toes into the water of liveblogging. It is kick off time at the Magners Arena in Denver, Colorado. Jim Lehrer is explaining the rules as Obama and Romney make their way onto stage.
[TWITTER: @sullydish tweets: Mitt is sounding Reagan-like & compassionate. The Etch-A-Sketch is shaking, & the old Mitt is back]
0338: Closing statements now, starting with Barack Obama. Obama thanks Romney for an excellent debate, saying that the American people should get a fair share. Obama says he said he would fight everyday for the people and he would in a second term. Romney's turn now, saying it is an election bigger than both parties. Romney talks of Obama's records, saying he would create 12 million new jobs and he would repeal Obamacare. He said he would keep America strong and he would get the middle class working again. And end.
0324: Let's talk compromise beginning with Mitt Romney, who says he would work with Republican and Democrat leaders. He says leadership from Washington is needed. Obama responds by saying Romney would have a busy first day, meeting Democratic leaders while repealing Obamacare. Obama talks of his repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the ending of the Iraq War, the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden. He says there are times when you need to say no, but there are "fights that need to be had" and Romney would not say no to the "extremes of his own party."
0318: Talking about public education, Romney says federal money should go to the children not to the states. Obama again attacks the lack of detail in Romney and Paul Ryan's economic plan. Romney says he is not planning to make any cuts, saying that $90 billion could have got two million teachers rather than investing in green jobs. Romney talks of a school grading system, so parents know what schools to go to. "I care about education for all of our kids" finishes Romney.
0313: Back to the federal government, with Obama saying it can create "ladders of opportunity" for people to start businesses and make their own ideas. He says a better-trained workplace would create jobs. Romney touts his state's schools, calling them number one in the country, before promising to maintain military spending and religious tolerance. "The path we are taking is not working, we need to take a new path" says Romney.
0311: Romney stops Lehrer from moving on to reply. He says what he did in Massachusetts could be a model for everywhere.
0308: Mitt Romney says a board of 15 people should not tell people what healthcare to have, saying the federal government should not take over healthcare. Obama responds by saying that Romney cannot say how he will replace Obamacare, the same as his loopholes to fund tax cuts and regulations for Wall Street.
0306: [TWITTER: BBC Washington correspondent, Katty Kay tweets: If twitter is the new judge of debates, Obama is definitely losing this one.]
0301: [We are two thirds of the way through and so far, Romney seems the better of the two candidates. Obama is not as confident as he was in 2008 and Romney has been the more aggressive out of the two.]
Obama says his healthcare bill was a Republican idea and how they use the same advisors. He talks of his so-called "death panels," dispelling some of the myths surrounding it.
0256: The next segment is on Obamacare; Mitt Romney tells stories of people he has met who cannot afford healthcare. Obama argues that families were worried they would go bankrupt if they were sick. He looks straight down the lens and says Obamacare means "insurance problems cannot jerk you around." Lehrer calls for an end but Obama laughs him off, saying he had five extra seconds because of Romney's interruption.
0251: A quick conversation on regulation, with Romney saying it is good but has become "excessive" and is "harmful to the economy." Obama says the economic crisis was because of "reckless behaviour across the board" and addresses the viewers directly saying that if they think there is too much regulation, Mitt Romney is their candidate.
0248: Romney talks of "competition in the Medicare world," an idea that came from Bill Clinton's chief of staff. Obama argues that the cost of healthcare needs to completely lowered, but Romney believes the private sector provides a better product.
0245: "If you are 54 or 55, you might want to listen" says Obama who says if Obamacare ("I like that") is repealed it would cost his grandmother and others like her.
0242: It's the role of the federal government and social security now, as we start with Medicare.
[TWITTER: The New York Times' David Leonhardt tweets: I feel like the conservatives in my feed are unhappy with Romney's performance and the liberals are unhappy with Obama's.]
0237: Romney likes to use his hands to show a fall in rates - he is doing it a lot. He said he would like to take Medicaid money and give it to the states who can "care for their own poor."
0234: Obama talks of corporate taxs, saying that Exxon-Mobile doesn't need more money, challenging Romney to say what loopholes he will close to fund his cuts. Obama talks of a teacher in Las Vegas, using 10-year-old textbooks and how a cut to Medicaid would affect a family with an autistic child.
0232: "It's been four years" says Romney, who says the economy is growing slow and Obama's plan will kill 700 million jobs.
0226: Onto the deficit now, as Romney says it is "simply not moral" to add a trillion dollars a year. Romney would cut all programs that need to "borrow money from China" such as PBS, saying "I like Big Bird, I like you, Jim."
[ZINGER]
0223: Obama says they may have to move on before saying "math, common sense and our history" should prevail. Romney argues that he is not in favour of a $5 trillion tax cut, but to bring down rates. He talks of the last four years where 23 million people are in unemployment.
0221: "It's fun isn't it?" as Romney is stopped by Jim Lehrer who says they have long gone passed their first 15 minute segment.
0218: Obama is explaining his position on the removal of the Bush-era tax cuts for those who earn over $250,000. Donald Trump is a small business under Romney's plans, says Obama and does not need tax relief.
0217: Romney is going on the attack, calling Obama "inaccurate" and challenges the study that Obama references. Obama can be seen smiling and takes down notes.
0214: Obama says Romney is proposing in $5 trillion tax cuts with a further $2 trillion in military spending, citing analyst's claims that it would cost the average middle income family $2,000.
0212: "Middle income families are being crushed" says Mitt Romney who says tax rates need to come down. Romney also says "I like coal" with a wish to make America energy independent.
0209: Obama responds by giving some specific policy ideas of his own. He wants to hire more maths and science teachers, talks of Bush-tax era cuts and the need for cleaner energy sources.
0207: Mitt Romney is next. He outlines his five-point plan for promoting economic growth.
0204: We start with jobs. Obama wishes Michelle Obama a happy anniversary and cracks a joke about having it in front of 40 million people before Obama makes his case for investing in education and energy and reducing the deficit.
0200: Hello and welcome to Something Quite Witty - for a first, as I dip my toes into the water of liveblogging. It is kick off time at the Magners Arena in Denver, Colorado. Jim Lehrer is explaining the rules as Obama and Romney make their way onto stage.
Friday, 28 September 2012
The tabloid demonisation of Jeremy Forrest
Megan Stammers, the 15-year-old schoolgirl from East Sussex, was today found in the French town of Bordeaux. She was discovered along with Jeremy Forrest, her 30-year-old maths teacher after they left the UK last Thursday.
The story of this couple had sparked an international campaign to find Megan and Jeremy, encompassing both traditional and social media. For traditional media, the newspapers and television, it was a copy gold-mine. They spent the week delving into the background of Forrest, bringing up his career as a amateur musician and analysing messages he wrote on Twitter.
On the whole, the media behaved itself. It is perfectly acceptable in these sorts of stories to look into the background of a man who had become a household name. However, some media outlets took the opportunity to demonise Jeremy Forrest and slant their coverage to paint a rather negative picture of him.
The Daily Mail claimed that Forrest had "groomed" Megan Stammers for months before their disappearance, seemingly unaware that the Home Office's definition of "grooming" is "to lower the child’s inhibitions in preparation for abuse or exploitation." We do not know the details of their relationship but it is believed that Megan was happy to leave with Jeremy Forrest and did not need manipulating.
The Mail continued when a photo of the couple, arm-in-arm, was released. The caption read that Forrest could be seen with his arm "wrapped possessively around Megan's shoulder." Possessive is a bit of a stretch; when celebrity couples walk in the same way that Megan and Jeremy did, the Mail calls it "relaxed" or "affectionate."
The Mail was not alone in all of this. The Sun took the opportunity to call Forrest's tattoo of a female manga character "weird" and noted its "intricate childlike" posing. The Daily Mirror picked at another of Forrest's tattoos, a lyric from a Nirvana song, believing it "to be a tribute to Megan" and branded it as "chilling."
This is not a case of tabloid finger-pointing. If any other newspaper or media outlet had acted like this, I would have pointed them out too (if I have missed any, please feel free to comment). I also have no doubt that what Forrest did was wrong and should quite rightly face criminal charges.
But the demonisation of Jeremy Forrest from some newspapers verged on comical. Tabloids have had a history in reporting crime where they try to paint a picture of creepy villains, e.g. Christopher Jeffries. The circumstances surrounding Jeremy and Megan's relationship are still unknown and will be until the police begin their inquiries. But anyone who read the tabloid coverage might think they knew it all: the possessive, weird, chilling maths teacher who abducted the care-free 15-year-old. Slightly prejudicial? I certainly think so.
The story of this couple had sparked an international campaign to find Megan and Jeremy, encompassing both traditional and social media. For traditional media, the newspapers and television, it was a copy gold-mine. They spent the week delving into the background of Forrest, bringing up his career as a amateur musician and analysing messages he wrote on Twitter.
On the whole, the media behaved itself. It is perfectly acceptable in these sorts of stories to look into the background of a man who had become a household name. However, some media outlets took the opportunity to demonise Jeremy Forrest and slant their coverage to paint a rather negative picture of him.
The Daily Mail claimed that Forrest had "groomed" Megan Stammers for months before their disappearance, seemingly unaware that the Home Office's definition of "grooming" is "to lower the child’s inhibitions in preparation for abuse or exploitation." We do not know the details of their relationship but it is believed that Megan was happy to leave with Jeremy Forrest and did not need manipulating.
The Mail continued when a photo of the couple, arm-in-arm, was released. The caption read that Forrest could be seen with his arm "wrapped possessively around Megan's shoulder." Possessive is a bit of a stretch; when celebrity couples walk in the same way that Megan and Jeremy did, the Mail calls it "relaxed" or "affectionate."
The Mail was not alone in all of this. The Sun took the opportunity to call Forrest's tattoo of a female manga character "weird" and noted its "intricate childlike" posing. The Daily Mirror picked at another of Forrest's tattoos, a lyric from a Nirvana song, believing it "to be a tribute to Megan" and branded it as "chilling."
This is not a case of tabloid finger-pointing. If any other newspaper or media outlet had acted like this, I would have pointed them out too (if I have missed any, please feel free to comment). I also have no doubt that what Forrest did was wrong and should quite rightly face criminal charges.
But the demonisation of Jeremy Forrest from some newspapers verged on comical. Tabloids have had a history in reporting crime where they try to paint a picture of creepy villains, e.g. Christopher Jeffries. The circumstances surrounding Jeremy and Megan's relationship are still unknown and will be until the police begin their inquiries. But anyone who read the tabloid coverage might think they knew it all: the possessive, weird, chilling maths teacher who abducted the care-free 15-year-old. Slightly prejudicial? I certainly think so.
Monday, 30 July 2012
Mitt Romney vs the World
Lord help us, the next President of the United States
Romney began in Britain
Next, the Twit went to Israel ,
where he announced to the world that Jerusalem
was the capital of Israel –
unaware of their conflict with Palestine Israel ’s greater economic successes when
compared to Palestine
Wrong. Romney is set to bring back that old American pastime
of Russian bashing, during a speech to the Warsaw
University in Poland Russia
is America
The trip has been branded a “Romneyshambles” but it is far
from that. The Twit certainly angered a lot of people but for him, it was a
resounding success. The important thing for Romney is the money he raised on
the way. The event in Israel London
Such is the nature of politics, that a trip so disastrous
can actually benefit a candidate. In what is being called the most expensive
presidential campaign of all-time, the
battle for money between Romney and Obama is becoming a global operation.
And in a race where the polls are so tight, it will be advertising and
campaigning that will win the White House.
However this trip has shown me that Mitt Romney is not ready
for the presidency. If the leader of the free world cannot travel it without
offending everyone he comes across, how could he possibly represent the U.S.
As the days go by, the prospect of President Romney is
looking more and more realistic. Obama is being punished for a sluggish economy
and gloomy unemployment figures. All Romney has to do is keep his mouth shut
and come November, he could ride the wave of recession all the way to the White
House. After that though is anyone’s guess. He will have control of the big red
button and I do not know who I would trust more: Mr Bean or the Twit.
Friday, 13 July 2012
Olympics security is in the hands of good-natured but possibly inept individuals
In my review of the week for LOUDMOUTH, I touched upon the
crisis surrounding Olympics security and G4S, the private company contracted to
provide 13,700 guards for a fee of £284 million. But one paragraph could not
explain how much trouble the Home Office is in over this, resulting in the
deployment of 3,500 troops to fill the void left by G4S.
So what is G4S?
They are “the world’s leading
provider of security solutions”, running operations in more than 125
countries and employing over 650,000 people. They were contracted by Locog in
2010 to provide 2,000 personnel for the London Games, before their stake was
upped to provide another 10,000 guards including unpaid volunteers and
students.
How good are they?
According to themselves, they are a “global
leader” and they have a presence in worldwide bank security, border patrol
and airport security, including Heathrow. But they have met criticism for their
managing of major events in the past;
BBC’s Newsnight found that an internal investigation was launched after
security lapses at last year’s Wimbledon . The
Guardian has revealed more recent trouble with G4S, saying how:
“Guards told how,
with 14 days to go until the Olympics opening ceremony, they had received no
schedules, uniforms or training on x-ray machines. Others said they had been
allocated to venues hundreds of miles from where they lived, been sent rotas
intended for other employees, and offered shifts after they had failed G4S's
own vetting.”
If guards have
not received proper training, what are G4S doing about it?
Well, nothing.
GHS’ Facebook page for new recruits called “Securing London 2012”
has a huge number of people complaining about their lack of training, calling
it a “cock up” and a “shambles”. One person, a Sam Aston said:
“I still have no accreditation and no training. Wisely, G4S
recognised this and offered me 3 more training days... After my first shifts.
Now I'll be working as a team leader and if I have no role specific training at
all, I feel sorry for those I manage because I will be worse than useless. This
has gone beyond a simple G4S cock up. If something happens at the Games, this
is probably criminally negligent.”
Another recruit, Daniel Sedgeley Broadbent said:
“The training & administration has been appalling, as well as promising
certain positions & not fulfilling it. Still waiting for the SIA badge from
the course completed start of March. G4S can stick there poxy job where the sun
don't shine! Good luck to those who are continuing, this unorganised mess is
just the beginning...wait till you start!!””
So if a number of guards have no training or experience, how safe are the
Games going to be?
This is where the Home Office stepped in. Theresa May announced
on Thursday the deployment of 3,500 soldiers to man the Games, on top of
the 10,000 already promised by the Ministry of Defence. Some number of these
soldiers has had to leave combat in Afghanistan
With two weeks until the Games, is London
The stadiums are built, the tracks are flattened and the sun
is shining (not); the stage is set for a glorious Olympics games. But behind
the gloss and the flamboyance is a real, genuine problem. G4S have failed to
fully securitize the Games in a job they were paid £284 million to do. Their
poor management of recruits, shoddy selection of candidates (some, who
according to one recruit, could not spell their own name: “the staff were having to help them.”) and overwhelming incompetence has led
to the drafting in of troops from their summer leave, already demoralised by cutbacks to battalions and poor
conditions and pay. It may sound cliché in this current political climate, but
this has been a complete shambles. But this is not a bureaucratic one which
might affect something minor or trivial; this is the safety and security of
real people in the hands of good-natured but possibly inept individuals. And
that is not their fault. It is that of G4S, a company who bit off more than
they could chew and who I hope might feel the slice of an axe through their
neck at the end of it (although an athlete might feel it first).
Friday, 1 June 2012
The horror of "the Hollywood coming out"
Coming out: Johnny favours the ukelele, potentially ruining his film career.
The idea of a "coming out" is one I have always hated, particularly a Hollywood one. The tradition was for the celebrity in question to give an intimate interview to a generic, waxwork model of a host, who would nod sensitively, as the celebrity talks about their long, personal journey and the battles they faced in being gay/lesbian. The family of said celebrity are there, holding each other hands in a daisy chain and fighting back the tears.
Now, the norm is no longer. More and more celebrities have decided that sexuality is.. well, their sexuality. Zachary Quinto (Spock from Star Trek and Sylar from Heroes) came out in an interview with New York Magazine, saying:
'"As a gay man, it made me feel like there's still
so much work to be done, and there's still so many things that need to be looked
at and addressed."
In just four words, Quinto caused a celebrity shit-storm. Some were praising Quinto's bravery whilst others said he should of done it "louder and prouder". More recently, Jim Parsons (Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory) was "outed" in an interview with the New York Times. This time, it was not even Parsons who said it. It was in a throwaway line at the bottom of the page which said:
"'The Normal Heart' resonated with him on a few levels: Mr. Parsons is gay and in a 10-year relationship, and working with an ensemble again onstage was like nourishment, he said."
Again, reaction to Parsons has been mixed. A columnist for Out magazine, Michael Musto to be come out "louder because it was the honourable and sensible thing to do". Musto's words send a chill down my spine, casting my thoughts back to a Hollywood-pleb host and crying family.
Being "loud" about homosexuality only hurts the cause. It emphasises sexuality as an issue, one that should be shouted from the rooftops. I know several gay people and they do not feel the need to scream about it. I am not suggesting that gay/lesbian people should stay quiet and never mention it. I am just against the Hollywood-style of coming out. If an actor/actress is gay, so what? It does not affect their talent, their ability to make us laugh or cry. It just means they hug another man or woman at the awards shows.
Being openly gay like Ellen DeGeneres or Neil Patrick Harris is perfectly OK. They are reverting stereotypes about gay people, by being normal, funny, happy human beings. Campaigning for gay rights is an admirable cause too. The battle for legalised gay marriage was twisted on its head when Barack Obama announced his approval, despite the difficult political and social climate for the proposals. But there is a difference between legal recognition and social acceptance. Homosexuality should not be made into an issue and the horror of the sit-down interview should be a warning to those who think it should.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)