Jules Rimet Still Gleaming? Shadows cast in spite of dazzling England performance

Owen Frost on 28 July 2021

Sunday 11th July. The final. Students were out in droves clamouring for an England victory. Never before has an English side in our recent memory grown into a tournament bona fide and showed such tenacity in the face of tough opposing sides. After Luke Shaw’s opener in the second minute, hope that football was coming home swept across the nation. It was only after an equaliser in full-time and the inevitable defeat suffered at the hands of Italian penalties that England’s Euros 2020 hopes were crushed. The dream was all over. Or was it?

England’s performance this Euros started off shakily, but steadily picked up pace, much like a Kyle Walker rescuing run, tracking back to extricate the defence. Defensively unblemished until the final two games, full of youthful attacking potential in the likes of Bukayo Saka, Jadon Sancho and Phil Foden to name a few, England proved the initial doubters wrong, demonstrating that they had the maturity and confidence to seriously challenge at major tournaments. The maturity shown in the final stages of the Denmark game were some of the most beautiful passages of English football I have ever seen. Evidently, hope should remain that Qatar scheduled for winter next year will provide ample opportunity for this bright squad of players to go all the way once more.

Fans recklessly overpowered Wembley Stadium employees on Sunday to gain entry into the national team’s biggest fixture in recent memory (Credit: The Guardian)

However, this improvement has largely been overshadowed by the events that followed the Italian victory. First-hand reports via video footage came streaming in after the match of mobs of men shoving Wembley Stadium stewards to gain access to the already capped-off 60,000 capacity venue. After a year which has seen Pride marches cancelled, Sarah Everard’s vigil ambushed by police and Black Lives Matter Protests quashed, the acquittal of these privileged members of the public of such insolent behaviour is a startlingly low blow.

Adding insult to injury, three English players Marcus Rashford, Saka and Sancho who took courageous, unlucky long walks to the penalty spot have since been subject to inordinate amounts of abuse. Gareth Southgate, in his latest press statement issued since the final, named the abuse of the three stars ‘unforgivable’. Saka spoke out on Thursday, rightly pointing to the fact that the “powerful platforms are not doing enough to stop these messages”.

Not only were reportedly 1,000 racially abusive tweets removed from Twitter on Sunday night, but the famous Withington mural of Rashford MBE was vandalised by those insensitive members of the British public. Only five people have been arrested after Saka and co. were racially abused online. Boris Johnson has alleged that any England fans guilty of racist abuse from now on will be banned from matches.

However, racist abuse is not always as obvious as a tweet or a mural defacement; it often manifests itself in more covert, malignant forms. Sunday night was not the first time we bore witness to such intellectual depravity this tournament. We all heard the heavy jeering English players received during the Croatia fixture upon taking took the knee for Black Lives Matter, as well as the incessant booing of Scottish, German, and Danish national anthems. Racist attitudes even infiltrated the attitudes of senior government officials such as Priti Patel who had previously labelled the player’s defiant protests “gesture politics”, much to Tyrone Mings’ documented upset.

We must take positives from the England team’s budding performance in what has been one of their most successful and enjoyable collective recent performances on the international stage. However, it is imperative that are not caught sleeping; expunging this more repugnant side from memory would be extremely disadvantageous. The nationalism and patriotism inherent to many English fans’ identities often begets unnecessary hatred. While the wait for the Three Lions to re-initiate training for Qatar 2022 begins, the actions of many fans on the weekend must not be taken lightly. Evidence already suggests that they seriously jeopardized our chances at hosting the World Cup in 2030. If we want the Jules Rimet to remain gleaming, we have to prove to other nations that we have not only what it takes to kick racism and bigotry out of football, but the common human decency to bring back much-needed respect to the sport we know and love.

Image Credit: The Telegraph

One person protests change the world, not just in Britain: Why we should Kill the Bill

Séamus O'Hanlon on 27 May 2021

Today’s Britain has been made poorer, less tolerant and less safe by the passing of the Police and Crime Bill. Its a piece of legislation noted for its largeness, its contentious section restricting the right to protest and its pushing through at a time when the nation’s civil liberties are further temporarily suspended as the pandemic is officially extended. In short, the Bill got it wrong.

Criticism of the Bill should not be left to the political left to fight, nor to activists or the media, who frame protesting as a limited right whilst a large portion of the UK press parrot the government line. The right to peacefully protest without prior warning is a human right. This right has been threatened and it has been taken away. This human right has been taken away by a government threatening our British liberal democracy. This human right to protest has been stolen from us, which must be repeated until this integral political, social, personal and legal freedom is restored.

One person protests have changed the world and continue to do so. Over the past century, there has been countless peaceful protest movements, successful due to their non-violence and fidelity to law. However, these protests in liberal democracies were able to come into fruition at the right time as they were free to choose where, when and how they could protest. Of course, these protesters have never been so free as to infringe on others’ rights, incite violence or invoke hate speech. All protests of any persuasion, that do not violate British Free Speech law with hate speech, should be bound by the same objective principle that people are free to organise and thus to protest without state approval. 

Three years ago, Greta Thunberg did change the world, amidst a barrage of criticism – a lot of which was aimed not at her cause or her character. Greta is one of a long line of peaceful, law-abiding individuals who protest to be heard. Not to make mere noise, as suggested by the arrogant assumption of some that protests spring up just to be a nuisance. Alone, Greta was able to ignite a movement, bringing renewed publicity and strong enthusiasm to a complicated issue that requires attention and action from the whole world: climate change.

Greta was thrust into the spotlight — rightly or wrongly a teenage figurehead– but the reaction to her fame highlights how when the cause is popular, well-received and sensible to the public, the logistics, the personality, even the appearance of the protesters, instead become the irrelevant but influential criticism. Britain made international headlines for its Crime Bill before it even passed, as Britain has a reputation of having an overly powerful, protest-bashing press which hovers over the British right; one which is prone to a nasty streak including authoritarianism. Britain, therefore, was a candidate for intolerant, anti-democratic legislation and is now its test case example.  

The Conservatives need not have passed such a rushed, overall divisive piece of legislation. Individual unthinkable laws such as static non-violent protests being subject to noise and time constraints were able to be ushered in under obtuse, ill-fitting comprehensiveness. The best hope is that if the House of Lords could sensitively separate policies this June, the Parliamentary majority have a democratic mandate for and policies that undermine underlying civil liberties that no government should be able to reverse.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is un-British, but this needs to be formally articulated. Both the democratic left and the right need to prove why it is wrong for all protests to be constrained by legislation rife for discrimination. It is clear why a protest against the police should never require the police’s formal, binding consent. Britain is no utopia. It has been a dystopic year and now is the time for more peaceful demonstrations as politicians waste our finite time to solving ticking crises.

Personally, I feel so strongly about protesting and I hope that the British public slowly awakens by the passing of this Bill; I hope that after the pandemic, dare I say it, they are not quiet. Protesting may not be synonymous with the so-called British character like other countries, but when the Conservatives’ ‘Law and Order’ rhetoric becomes a hurtful reality,

the political temperature rises. The stiff upper lip rises to a cross face. Indignation turns votes but, most pressingly, it can escalate to anger which overboils to violent protest. Riots can be reduced to paucity by the right to peaceful protest being upheld and heartily exercised.

Pragmatism prevails in the public, with there being rightful concern and debate around police powers to break up, say, public transport being blockaded but this intervention must always be after the fact. Police by consent means the interests of the protestors come first. Government, police and all officials, elected by people or not, are the ones who require permits to justify their existence and to hold them to account.

There should be no permission needed at all for one person, to march, to demonstrate, to protest any cause and if this individual act is legitimately unreasonable, only afterwards should the law then be applied to protect security, never to procure subjective political considerations. Protesting defends democracy and democracy forever needs defending. The Bill should still be killed.

Featured image via Steve Eason on Flickr.

When lockdown is over the government should bring back Eat Out to Help Out

George Aylett on 26 April 2021

Throughout August 2020 the Eat Out to Help Out scheme, with a total cost of £849 million to the British taxpayer, was rolled out across the United Kingdom. The policy made eating out at restaurants more affordable by ensuring a 50% discount, up to £10, for all customers from Monday to Wednesday. 

While research by the University of Warwick has suggested that the policy drove COVID-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, the scheme made eating out considerably more affordable for many. During Eat Out to Help Out, a Big Mac meal cost £2.30, a double lamb burger with fries and a drink cost £5 at Nanrose Peri Peri 2 Grill in London and a Michelin starred meal could cost £12.

The scheme was well received by consumers who gained both nutritional advantages and social benefits at an affordable price. Eat Out to Help Out also helped save many small eateries that were put at financial risk by the coronavirus pandemic by encouraging people to eat out. The economy was given a kickstart and many jobs were saved. The scheme also received support from the Federation of Small Businesses who proposed that the policy be extended further.

There is historical precedent for subsidising food. From 1940 to 1947 the Ministry of Food established around 2,000 restaurants that provided meals that would cost £1 in today’s money. Publicly owned pubs provided subsidised food to support Britons following World War Two and ensured anybody in the country was able to have a hot meal for an affordable price.

However, the approximately £849 million per month spent on Eat Out to Help Out could be spent elsewhere. Journalist Grace Blakeley has argued that the subsidy was put in place to help big businesses and was designed to bolster Rishi Sunak’s future leadership campaign.

While the absorption of the money could be countered by increasing corporation tax on large businesses and cutting off tax loopholes, many large corporations received a large proportion of the £849 million subsidy in August 2020. 

Many other policies could be introduced to help tackle the issue of food poverty in Britain at a lower cost to the taxpayer than Eat Out to Help Out. While government subsidised restaurant meals were positive to the consumer, there has been little to no support given to people on low incomes during the pandemic.

Labour for Universal Basic Services has proposed a £4 billion plan to provide one-third of meals to the roughly 2 million households in Britain that face food insecurity every year. This policy, alongside free school meals and meals on wheels for the elderly and disabled, would distribute 1.8 billion meals for free to some of the most vulnerable people in society. This National Food Service would form part of a wider Universal Basic Services programme, rendering food, transport, broadband and millions of homes free at the point of use for the wider public. This could be implemented alongside the reintroduction of restaurants modelled in the style of those run by the Ministry of Food from 1940 to 1947. Furthermore, all workers could receive a living wage alongside an introduction of a 4-day working week to boost wages, reduce food poverty and improve productivity.

Eat Out to Help Out may not solve every social issue in Britain but the policy helped protect restaurants, saved many jobs and gave millions of people the opportunity to pay for meals at an affordable price during a global pandemic. Eat Out to Help Out considerably benefited our society and should be reintroduced alongside a wider programme to tackle food poverty across Britain.

#KillTheBill and the UK’s decline into authoritarianism

Emily Bell on 23 March 2021

Before the end of 2021, it could be illegal to stage a noisy protest in the UK. If passed, the government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will drastically limit the right to protest and has been heavily debated since the much-criticised police response to the London vigil for Sarah Everard in March. The new regulations are set to be introduced if they pass a final reading in Parliament in June.

Under the proposal, individuals could be jailed for up to 10 years for causing “serious annoyance or inconvenience”. Police could impose legally binding restrictions on rallies because the noise generated “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation” or may “have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the protest”. Start and end times could be applied to protests, and the bill seeks to change the threshold for an offence so that it has been committed even when a person did not know they were breaking the law. Moreover, controls could be put in place on protests by a single person.

These regulations afford the police significantly more power and, when compared with police authority now, it represents a dramatic shift. Under current rules, if the police want to place restrictions on a protest they must be able to demonstrate that it may result in “serious public disorder, serious damage to property, or serious disruption to the life of the community”. The concept of “serious annoyance or inconvenience” is a significant departure from the accepted rules governing freedoms of assembly and protest. Article 11 of the Human Rights Act protects these freedoms and, by handing the police more power in this way, the government is arguably contradicting the act. Indeed, as was demonstrated at the Clapham Common vigil for Sarah Everard, the police are not in the best position to wield such power.

But is handing the police and the state more control over our lives in this way simply another indication of our increased willingness to accept government authority? History has shown that when a government is given more jurisdiction, they are often reluctant to return it – the Second World War being one notable example. As part of the effort to tackle COVID-19, the Coronavirus Act allowed the government unprecedented levels of control. However, authoritarianism in the name of public health is still authoritarianism. Whether this act was necessary is a debate for the future inquiry into the government’s handling of the virus – the current debate should be focused on the fact that the UK is sleepwalking into a police state. The willingness of Conservative Party MPs to wave through such dangerous proposals is an indication of this decline, but the visceral public reaction gives a glimmer of hope.

The problem for those opposed to the suggested regulations is that this legislation is not just about protest. It is a long and detailed bill, covering sentences for sex offenders and people who assault emergency workers, as well as homicide reviews involving offensive weapons, and reforms to pre-charge bail. Naturally, one of the primary motives for combining these proposed changes is that it makes it harder for MPs to vote against the bill. By voting against the bill to uphold the right to protest, MPs are also voting against tougher sentences for paedophiles. Therefore, the correct response should be to lobby for the removal of the section of the bill pertaining to protests and to push for the rest of the bill to be passed without it.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is a clear and significant danger to democracy in this country. If it passes its third reading in Parliament, a crucial human right will be under threat. But arguably even more frightening is the wider trend we are seeing in British politics of the handing over of power to the government, of which this bill is but a symptom. Over the last year, we have seen the state wielding unprecedented levels of control over our lives, for good or for ill. What matters now is that we do not allow authoritarianism to become the accepted form of government in this country.

Free Leonard Peltier!

Benjamin Forrest on 25 February 2021

45 years ago, on the 6th February 1976 an indigenous activist, and member of the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Indians, by the name of Leonard Peltier was arrested in Canada in connection to the shooting of two FBI agents on Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, USA, in 1975. Peltier was convicted of aiding and abetting the murder and has been imprisoned since 1977 serving two life sentences. The trial was strewn with inaccuracies, mistrials of justice and downright discrimination, yet Peltier remains behind bars to this day. 

Before we get into the case it is important to give some background on the anti-indigenous atmosphere that has presided in the US since the first colonisers landed in 1607. Indigenous people have suffered a complete erasure of their culture and way of life through government policies designed to have that very effect. From the early days of ‘Manifest Destiny’ indigenous people have been slaughtered and their land has been stolen. Buffalo, an incredibly important animal which formed a lot of the basis for the indigenous people and their nomadic lifestyle, were massacred in huge numbers (three million were culled in 1872 alone). First Nations, who did not believe in the ownership of land, were pushed onto underfunded reservations which were then gradually stolen from them by white settlers. Indigenous customs and traditions have been made illegal and the US Government has forced policies intent on ‘Americanising’ and integrating First Nations into the ‘civilised’ capitalist society created by, and for, rich Caucasian men. Today, indigenous people make up only 2.4% of the US population, with over a quarter living in poverty. Issues of unemployment, alcoholism and drug abuse also disproportionately affect indigenous people.

In 1968, taking inspiration from the African American Civil Rights movement reaching its peak in the early 1960’s and the rise of the Black Panther Party during this time, the American Indian Movement (AIM) was set up to address systematic issues of poverty and police brutality against indigenous tribes. Leonard Peltier was an active member of this campaign group when two men (who, at the time, did not identify themselves as FBI Agents) invaded Pine Ridge Reservation in 1975. 

Peltier’s trial took a little over two weeks and the all-white jury took 11 hours to deliver a guilty verdict. It was later revealed, though, that throughout the trial the FBI had coerced and intimidated key witnesses and Peltier’s constitutional right to a fair trial had been violated. The case mainly relied on Myrtle Poor Bear as a key witness as she was Peltier’s girlfriend and witnessed the shooting – except it was later revealed she was not present at the time of the shooting, moreover she had never known Leonard personally. Several key witnesses have since recanted their stories, claiming they were made under intimidation tactics carried out by the FBI. During his trial the FBI spread fearmongering rumours of possible ’terrorist’ attacks to be carried out by AIM, thus building tension in an already anti-indigenous atmosphere. In terms of physical evidence: FBI ballistic expert, Evan Hodge, stated he was unable to perform a test on the supposed murder weapon. It was later found out that a firing pin test was indeed carried out on the supposed murder weapon, and the results were negative. The bullets which killed the agents did not come from Peltier’s gun. The jury, of course, were never made aware of this evidence during the trial. There was no forensic evidence to support the prosecution. There was no reliable witness testimony that either: placed Peltier at the scene previous to the shooting or identified him as the person who shot the two FBI agents. There is no reasonable evidence that Leonard Peltier was responsible for the murder of FBI Agents Williams and Coler. 

Despite the massive amount of evidence of FBI misconduct, blatant disregard for Peltier’s constitutional rights, and obvious grounds for a mistrial; Leonard Peltier has been imprisoned for the past 45 years. At the time of his imprisonment, in 1977, the average sentence served for homicide before being released on parole was 8 years – Peltier has, to this date, served over five times that amount. The US Government even extended his term, in direct violation of the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act. Furthermore, he has been denied clemency by, everybody’s favourite war criminals, George W. Bush and Barack Obama in 2009 and 2017 respectively. The next scheduled parole hearing is in 2024, by which time Peltier will be 79. 

Unless action is taken soon, it is highly likely that Leonard Peltier will die in prison, for a crime he was wrongfully convicted of. His only crime was belonging to a race of people which the US Government has sought to rid themselves of by any means necessary. The treatment of First Nations in the US has been the longest continual massacre in its history, yet it receives very little attention. When I studied ‘Native American Civil Rights’ for A-Level History, Peltier was never even mentioned by name – it simply stated that two FBI Agents had been shot on a reservation, before swiftly moving on. The fact that Peltier is still imprisoned shows clearly that the situation in the US is not improving. Racism, injustice, discrimination and persecution against non-whites is still incredibly prevalent and indigenous tribes are yet to face any real reparations for the complete destruction and systematic dismantling of their entire way of life. Leonard Peltier has been imprisoned for 45 years for daring to campaign against systematic poverty and the persecution of his people, that does not give the impression of the free and fair society the US likes to present itself as. Free Leonard Peltier.

To find out more on the case, and find out how you can help, please visit: www.whoisleonardpeltier.info

This is the time for students to be heard and compensated

Séamus O'Hanlon on 25 January 2021

University students across the nation have been seriously impacted, disappointed and politically shafted over the past year. At the start of the academic year, many were told that, on a case-by-case basis, students whose quality of learning had proven to be inadequate could perhaps be compensated – but only after going through a complaint procedure with unsure guidance. 

During the second lockdown, students in some areas were fenced in their accommodation, leaving them vulnerable and isolated with no in-person learning whatsoever. The third lockdown only means that the remaining months of university life will feel unrecognisable and incomplete. All universities in the UK have been substantially affected by the pandemic and all students therefore deserve and qualify for financial compensation. 

Students have turned down many opportunities out of their consciences and goodness of their own hearts. Understandably, the media has drawn attention to the few illegal parties and rule-breakers who threaten  this -hopefully- final stretch of national efforts before vaccinations are commonplace and effective. This requires sacrifice, grit and hardship, which are qualities that students have been tirelessly displaying since the first lockdown began last March. In order to do this, students have had to give up on their university experience twice already, and now for the foreseeable future, in order to protect the most vulnerable members of society and the NHS.

Students have made the most out of this difficult situation, but they are struggling. To go without the necessary downtime means we have become run down; to continue for so long with an intense, and sometimes gruelling academic workload has left them exhausted. Rent, living fees and a constantly increasing debt are some of the expenditures students are facing, which further strains them and leaves them both financially and economically weakened. More will always need to be done to support students with their mental health, and one issue which should be lifted from students’ minds is the pressure of keeping up with rent while the government advises everyone to stay at home.

Students deserve better during the pandemic. It was understandable at the time for people and universities to have been optimistic during the summer months, believing that blended learning was going to be a viable option for the 2020/2021 academic year. In retrospect, a lot of better decisions could have been made, impossible to see back then, but that does not mean we can’t have better policies and procedures now. Universities have shown resourcefulness and determination with their attempt to fully create an online learning experience. However, I think criticism, dismay and outrage at this lousy situation should not be bottled up: for many students, online learning has not been acceptable or to a high enough standard that warrants no complaints. It has been poor. It has certainly not been worth the money, and it does not reflect the announcements about the satisfaction of learning from home.

Attending university from home is not the same as working from home. Working from home to prevent infections should be applauded; the HMRC policy which enables workers to claim a £6 weekly allowance to compensate for incurred living costs should be expanded in order to encourage staying at home. The government needs to stop omitting the discussion on university students and must address the matter directly. There is no justification for the full tuition fees students are being currently charged. Reducing fees by half would be more than symbolic, as it would mean adjusting to the reality of this unfair situation. Students have welcomed the University of Leeds’ one-week blanket coursework assignment extension this January, but this again reveals the unprecedented amount of disruption faced by students this past year. Rent refunds, academic assistance and mental health issues need to be tackled this year. Pro-student policies help everyone, and the public should join in on this pledge in the same way that it has supported COVID-relief packages across all sections of society.

Having further education has never been more important than in this coronavirus economy. In the long-term, universities need to understand that young people who have been affected by the strains of the pandemic have incurred high debts but with a huge lack of personalised teaching. Even younger people who are currently studying their A-Levels will face changes, which means all students have seen their education negatively impacted. This really could be the required impetus for a much-needed reform of the tuition system.

Seamus O’Hanlon

Image source: Geograph

Reclaiming Being Single Will Help All in Second Lockdown

Séamus O'Hanlon on 17 November 2020

The announcement of a further lockdown has caused fierce political debate, gloomy economic forecasts, and it perhaps signals the final straw for the chances of us singletons getting into relationships this year. It is logical to be angry and disappointed against these new restrictions. 

Looking around at the forced closures of local businesses is very hard to accept. The pain of the limits placed yet again on our personal lives is real and immense. It is normal to be upset about this and it is never selfish or wrong to have strong feelings about current events. Compliance with the second lockdown, however, is important to its success. Therefore, being single is the variable that needs to be central to the country’s coping strategy.  

It is illogical to not comply with the month-long lockdown with this being the latest and maybe last drive to get the R-rate down. Cases have gone up and preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed in peak winter makes sense and is sadly necessary. Going to meet dates is not going to help small businesses or restart the economy. It is another chance of transmission. By its definition a date is non-essential, and it is the opposite of minimising contact. If you want venues and establishments to reopen quickly, then these new laws need to be taken seriously. The system of quarantine only works if a high level of compliance is achieved which means personally abstaining from illegal, romantic, or sexual, meetups. 

Leeds was about to enter Tier 3, joining which would have been a total of more than eight million people living in a high-risk area. Those of us in the north must follow the law and single adults are a crucial group whose actions are highly influential to the number of cases. There have been numerous divides in this pandemic, but one which greatly affects well-being and is tied to age is singledom. Having our freedom constrained is terrible, but we need to be clear to everyone that there is nothing wrong or inherently negative about being single. 

Cuffing season: early nights, cold weather, and cutesy images of couples embraced in fleeces. I joined Tinder this semester and saw quite a few references about needing to get with someone soon and fast. There is always great pressure on young people to be dating or searching for a relationship, and this can be harmful. Failure to obtain a love life is often another self-imposed measure to dictate self-worth. Another metric to judge yourself. Don’t be harsh on yourself, it is very easy to compare yourself to others, very natural to lose perspective of how important being in a relationship is. The thought of still being single due to the pandemic is unfair, unjustifiable even, but the current situation needs to be seen as just unlucky. 

Every individual using dating apps needs to assess if spending time on them is self-care or not. I found Tinder a waste of time and eventually detrimental to my mental health. Repeating facts about yourself to strangers each night and swiping after a long day, wasn’t proper switching off time and didn’t help with my stress. Delete it, pause it or continue with dating apps as long as they remain enjoyable and fun. Take this as a month as a break. 

Use this month to develop longer conversations. If they don’t want to wait for you or pressure you to date in the first few messages then they are not worth your time. Tinder is introducing a video call function to its platform, increasing internet safety with fewer swapped details. If you have chemistry you’ll know, brilliant, and if it’s clear that there’s no spark, knowing before meeting in person is a blessing. Every date or chat can be perceived as part of your experience, not forced by the external crisis going on.  

Take your time with online dating. Find the positives of being single which are plentiful and profound. Reclaiming being single is about protecting well-being in the worst of situations. Love waits. Self-worth, happiness, and joy are found from within and help powerfully protect the at-risk.  

Séamus O’Hanlon

Image source: Psycatgames