Editor in Mischief

Let’s first take a moment to offer our congratulations to the Right Honourable George Osborne, MP for Tatton, for securing a sixth job in such a competitive market where many struggle to get a foothold and often find them themselves in low-skilled, under-payed jobs.  He’s had a hard time of it!

In May, Osborne will become the editor of The Evening Standard – a London newspaper with a circulation of nearly 1m and a readership of nearly double that.  Adding to his bursting resume which also includes a stint at a US fund management firm where he rakes in £650,000 p.a. for four days work a month.

You can’t help but feel Britain’s meritocracy has gone to the dogs when the City elite - the Ye Olde English Oxbridge grads born into rural affluence - continually monopolise the highest offices of public life.  In fact, we’ve been told he only applied for the job when friends contacted him to ask for advice with their own applications – I suspect these friendships are no longer blossoming!

I realise this post risks turning into a cynical pseudo-Marxist analysis, but the whole thing just stinks.  It’s the exact opposite of what we’re taught (at least in state schools) that getting a job, especially one as prestigious as the position of editor, is based on merit, skills, experience, etc.  I have my Journalism 1a class from first year of uni - quite literally making me more qualified to do this job than Osborne.

I don’t totally discredit Osborne’s competency for this role.  I’m sure he’ll be useful when it comes to the broad strategic direction of the paper and its finances, and I understand there’s different routes into jobs.

But my understanding of the position of editor (maybe this is now old-fashioned) is a job rooted in the fundamentals of journalism – indeed the very highest position in a news outlet.  I would be curious to know if Osborne was familiar with the news writing formula; or if he knows the best sub-editing techniques; or if he knows the essence of a good feature article; or the basic legal dilemmas faced by journalists every day.  How he can call himself an editor without even a basic knowledge of journalism (never mind practical experience) seems hard to believe.  I imagine his role at the Evening Standard will be more ceremonial, giving a seal of approval, deciding the paper’s broad direction – a manager rather than an editor.

Maybe Osborne can find a way to adapt his competencies; but his decision to stay on as an MP is incredible.  Being a member of parliament is more than a full-time job - if you’re an MP who doesn’t understand this then you are a terrible MP.  To some extent, it can be appropriate for an MP to have another job; but George Osborne’s current CV is incredulous.  He is either arrogant to the point of disbelief or totally naïve about what being the editor of a paper with a circulation of 1m will involve: it can be a 100 hour week according to some editors.  His justification for taking the job because he can ‘edit the paper in the morning and vote in the afternoon’ is a naïve attempt to reconcile the impossible and will fail to satisfy a scrupulous, distrusting public.  Maybe he’s on a zero hours contract at The Evening Standard?  Nonetheless, BBC media editor Amol Rajan was the first to break the story and his analysis makes for insightful reading.

And finally, let’s have a superficial take: a prominent governing politician is now in charge of a media outlet whose role is to inform people of the facts and hold the powerful to account when appropriate.  The conflict of interests is astounding; and at a time when public trust in the press and politicians is at an all-time low.

Objectivity is in peril.  How will The Evening Standard cover negative stories about Osborne’s government? How will it cover the Labour London mayor?  What’s in the public interest, and what the people of London need to know about, is now decided by a governing politician whose political success relies on positive publicity - and this agenda is filling the pages of newspaper with a circulation of 1m.  Surely you can see the problem here.

Indeed, many have suggested he has taken the role as a platform for vengeance after Theresa May sacked him.  Others are already calling for Osborne to resign as an MP or for this new appointment to be investigated by parliament because it could breach ministerial code.

The upper echelons of Britain’s media and politics seem to unwittingly find new ways to feed populism like a fat pig.  The manufactured caricature by the right-wing press of educated, reasonably well-off voters concerned with the consequences of decisions based on transient and vacuous populism - the ‘liberal elite’ - has been effective in detracting from the true elite: George Osborne and his ilk.

Too Quick to Judge?

A Manchester judge, sentencing a rapist to six years in prison, has proved controversial when she said the “disinhibited behaviour” of women puts them at risk.  Judge Lindsey Kushner QC gave a measured plea for young women to protect themselves but was nonetheless accused of “victim blaming” by women’s charities, and one police commissioner said her comments could stop rape victims coming forward.  Radio station LBC conducted a poll on Twitter and found, after 1,242 votes, that 61% of people didn’t consider the judge’s comments to be victim-blaming.

Rape is such an uncomfortable topic.  It’s almost impossible to have any sort of opinion on it at all without causing controversy.  There are so many sex-related issues that are taboo in society which is possibly why people are so quick to place blame – talk about anything else apart from what actually happened.   

I feel it may anger some men that this post makes the assumption that all rapists are men and that all victims are women.  I am not ignorant, I know this is not always the case.  But the statistics show that in England and Wales every year 85,000 women are raped and 12,000 men are – this amounts to 11 every hour.

People who play the alcohol/appearance blame game when it comes to rape usually do it in good faith. It feels like an immediate defensive reaction to say women shouldn’t drink so much or be careful about what they wear to avoid unwanted attention – it’s the kind of things parents say because they worry.  Others will think it is more about common sense: when you’re drunk it makes you vulnerable.

The arguments about what women wear somehow contributing to them being raped or sexually assaulted are ludicrous.  This usually amounts to people having differing opinions about contemporary fashion, that’s it; you can’t seriously suggest women plan their outfits knowing it could lead to rape, or that they should start planning them to prevent it.  The idea that a man can be absolved from rape or sexual assault because a woman was dressed in a certain way that made his lust uncontrollable would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.  A woman could literally streak through any British city street, day or night, naked as the day she was born, and it wouldn’t give anyone any more right to lay a finger on her than if she had clothes on - and in either case it is always no right.

The point about alcohol is more nuanced because excessive drinking isn’t safe and can lead to dangerous situations.  But there are far too many people who take the view that an extremely drunk girl being raped is an inevitability: often sounding like ‘rape is disgusting BUT…’.  Rape is disgusting.  There are no clauses. 

A wider problem is the imbalance that exists between the perception of drunk men and drunk women.  Images of drunk young men tearing up the streets in the early morning are now considered stereotypical, sometimes comedic; but a woman staggering the pavements or passed out in a doorway is utterly shameful and we are all very embarrassed for her.  Some people (idk like Daily Mail readers, old rich snobs…) don’t like women drinking not because it makes them vulnerable to rape, but because they just don’t like women drinking.  A drunk female is just too much anarchy for those with more traditional views on the role of women.  Britain has a precarious love affair with alcohol in general which has consequences for people of both genders.  

If women finally just gave up and restricted their outfits and social lives to what conservative mind-sets deemed appropriate you might be surprised to see that rape still happened.  This is because when someone is raped the person solely responsible is the rapist, and censoring outfits or moderating what women drink is not the solution because women’s clothes and alcohol consumption are not the problem.

What I think is important to remember is that being drunk is not in itself a crime; someone who wears clothes that some (depending entirely upon their own opinions and fashion ideas) might consider to be ‘inappropriate’ is not a criminal. 

Someone proved guilty of rape is always a criminal. 

I understand that to many, comments like Judge Kushner’s are just good advice.  But doesn’t it do more harm than good when alcohol or someone’s outfit is implicated as being partly responsible for their rape or sexual assault?  You might not necessarily be blaming the victim but you are spinning the narrative that the rapist is not solely responsible for the crime they chose to commit and subsequently passing some of the responsibility on to the victim.   People (generally) are not stupid: they don’t go out at night with the intention of being the victim of a horrendous crime.  Judges offering this kind of advice aimed specifically at women, no matter how well meaning, is not constructive in the effort to reduce this crime.  There is a real risk that if women are perceived to be at least partly responsible for being raped because of their drunkenness then people (mainly men) might not understand the seriousness of this crime; there is a real risk it could empower rapists. 

We seem to be ok with women living in fear: censoring their outfits, moderating what they drink, ensuring they’re never alone when out – it certainly concedes that rape is a problem; yet we also seem to be very unhappy about getting to the bottom of why rape really happens and what can be done about it. 

Whether you buy into the idea of victim-blaming or not I think one of its consequences is that rape is diminished to being a women’s fashion issue, or as a smaller problem part of Britain’s unhealthy alcohol culture.  The consequence is that rape victims won’t come forward and will end up living with mental torment.  When half a million adults are sexually assaulted in England and Wales alone each year the immediate questions are why is this happening and what can be done about it? Not what were they wearing and how drunk were they?

Syria: What's Right is Never Easy

Yesterday MP’s in the House of Commons voted to extend airstrikes from Iraq into Syria in an attempt to target and degrade the so-called Islamic State (Daesh).  Overall 397 MP’s were in favour and 223 were against.    

Last night it seemed as though every social media user had assumed the role of foreign secretary.  Everybody has their own opinion as to the best way to deal with the situation in Syria and Iraq (albeit some people are more informed than others). Many people took to Twitter and Facebook to express their immediate emotional response of how “fucking disgusted” and “ashamed” they were  that the UK was going to extend airstrikes from Iraq into Syria.  Many people, with their display pictures coloured in the French flag, expressed profound outrage that seemingly “thousands of innocent people” were now going to be killed. 

But unfortunately (perhaps controversially) I take a different view.

I’m proud of my country.

I’m proud that the UK has decided, by a democratic process – a debate lasting 10 hours in the House of Commons – to stand up for what it believes to be right: freedom, human rights, democracy, justice; the right to live and to love in peace and harmony without fear or coercion; the right to individualism; the right to express one’s views whether religious, secular, political, or even what you think of Brussels sprouts!

I don’t have the vocabulary to describe how atrocious the so-called Islamic State is.  They are the antithesis to civilisation and human progress; truly, “medieval monsters” as the PM said.  You’ve seen the news stories of the beheadings, of the Paris attacks - but that’s only the beginning.  If you don’t follow the news particularly closely you might have missed some grim details.  I think it’s reasonable to say that you should be in possession of the facts, and then acknowledge the complexity of the situation, before you jump to the conclusion that UK airstrikes in Syria is the wrong thing to do. 

In 2014, Islamic State fighters stormed Northern Iraq, then moved into Syria, and declared it a caliphate: “a state governed in accordance with Islamic law, or Sharia, by God's deputy on Earth, or caliph” (BBC News).  In March this year, the Red Cross estimated that up to 10 million people were living within this area that Daesh claimed to be a caliphate.  If you don’t fall within what IS deem to be their interpretation of Islamic law, then you’re either taxed, forced to convert to Islam, or you’re killed.

This has resulted in massacres of the Iraqi and Syrian people.  For example, when one Iraqi town was reclaimed from IS, mass graves were found: graves containing the bodies of women who were deemed too old to be sold as sex slaves and were therefore murdered.  Gay men have also been thrown to their deaths from tall buildings because, under Islamic State law, homosexuality is a sin.

At this point you accuse me, and others who want to oppose this evil, of scaremongering.  But the facts speak for themselves.  No sensible person would deliberately scaremonger to start a military campaign, but what the so called Islamic State are doing in Iraq and Syria, what they did in Paris, what they could do in a UK city, is terrifying to think about.  It is true, you cannot destroy an ideology; however you can destroy the terrorists who use it to commit heinous crimes.

It is too simplistic an approach to say that you oppose military intervention in Syria because innocent people might be killed. Innocent people are dying right now in the so-called Islamic State.  They’re being gunned down in sporadic attacks, or being executed in a public display to disseminate fear - all because of their religion, nationality, sexuality, or because Daesh soldiers just don’t like the look of them.  UK airstrikes will not solve the problem – there is no quick-fix solution to this – but it will degrade them to the point where they can be destroyed by ground forces.  Many claim that airstrikes can’t discriminate between terrorists and civilians and this is true.  Airstrikes have to be used accurately and with the right intelligence: Britain has demonstrated from the recent airstrikes carried out in Iraq that it is capable of this.  The airstrikes are strategic; planes are not dropping bombs on random parts of Syria.  The airstrike carried out immediately after the vote took place targeted Daesh’s oil supply – cut off their funding and their power diminishes.  Some experts believe that 70% of IS troops are fighting for Daesh because they were forced to do so or because they felt like they had no choice – this is not a legitimate military force.  With effective airstrikes supporting moderate opposition forces fighting on the ground, Daesh will eventually crumble.    

It is not easy to accept that Western airstrikes will result in civilian casualties in Syria – this is the reality of war.  It seems to be an unpopular opinion, but the long term goal of defeating Daesh has to be weighed up against the short term potential civilian casualties - this was the struggle for MP’s in the House of Commons yesterday.  It’s important that these extremists are stopped not just for our own safety, but to liberate the potentially millions of people that suffer under the IS regime.  If there is a better option than airstrikes it wasn’t put forward by any opposition.  I think we would be responsible for the deaths of more innocent Syrians if we sat and did nothing when we had the opportunity to act. 

Seemingly the only other option that has been put forward by those who oppose airstrikes (if they put forward any at all) was a “political process”.  This is what Jeremy Corbyn said should be used to stop IS when asked by Andrew Marr if he was against bombing Syria under any circumstances.  What does a “political process” actually mean? It seems to imply that Daesh are politicians, diplomats, negotiators: rational men who will come round a table and reach a compromise with the West.  But they’re not reasonable, nor should we want to seek a political settlement with them.  They’re barbarians.  I assume a political solution pertains to the Assad government and the moderate opposition, but this civil war cannot be dealt with when Daesh have claimed much of Syria as an Islamic State. 

One argument has been suggested to oppose airstrikes that I think is irrelevant.  Many claim that airstrikes are a waste of money when there is a lack of funding for public services such as the NHS.  How the government budgets is an entirely different debate that is battled out time and time again in parliament.  If you don’t agree with something the government is doing then of course you’ll think it’s a waste of money.  This economic argument only detracts from the real problem of what to do about Daesh.  If you don’t support airstrikes because you think it’s a waste of money, then by that logic the country should have no armed forces at all because defending ourselves and fighting for what’s right isn’t worth spending any money on.  Pacifist arguments are idealised: imagine all the people (Lennon)... Key word being imagine, it's sadly not the reality.   

If you oppose military action in Syria because you think it could make Britain a target for terrorists then Daesh have already won.  It would be wrong not take action against the terrorists out of fear of how they might retaliate.  Britain, alongside the Western coalition, is stronger than fear, evil, and terrorism.  The threat to Britain was already imminent before the parliament voted to extend airstrikes into Syria.  This is where we now have to put our trust in the police and counter terrorism forces that work to protect us. 

One of the legitimate concerns for not backing airstrikes in Syria is the absence of an exit strategy after the bombing stops.  Almost everyone acknowledges that some sort of ground force will be needed; but where will this come from?  The government is saying that there is a 70,000 strong force to defeat Daesh on the ground after airstrikes have disabled them.  The number is accurate, but this force does not exist as a cohesive unit.  The government is assuming (possibly hoping) that the 70,000 are moderate and will want to work together to defeat Daesh once and for all in Iraq and Syria.  The consequence if this assumption proves to be incorrect is that David Cameron might find he spoke too soon when he ruled out "boots on the ground".  The international coalition conducting airstrikes might be able to cut the head of the snake, but their ground troops could be needed to kill the body.  Then once Daesh is defeated, there’s still the pre-existing problem of the civil war in Syria.

The debate seemed to me to present a lose-lose situation: to oppose is to be a “terrorist sympathiser” (in the words of the PM which were met with justified criticism), but to support is to murder innocent people.  Despite what claims both sides made about public opinion being on their side, most reasonable, thoughtful people are struck by this ambivalence.  Evidently some of the concerns about tackling Daesh and their ‘Islamic State’ with airstrikes in Syria are very real.  But I don’t think this should make us idle; I don’t think it should make us a bystander to flagrant atrocities that are being committed by these extremists.  Complacency quickly becomes complicity.  Our friends have called for help and it is right that we are answering.         

Indy Ref: Idealism VS Realism – Choose Wisely

We’re in the home stretch now, but there aren’t enough painkillers in the world to ease my referendum headache.  Living in Scotland has been interminable for the past two years, but lately the debate seems to have descended to bar brawl status as the two opposing sides pine for our votes.  But you can’t expect anything less from this debate.  It’s momentous.  Everything is at stake and every single vote will count; I really mean literally, when I write everything, because when you say yes this country will be changed forever.  For good or for bad, the future holds. 

     So it’s left to the voters to decide (with the information they have available) whether Scotland and its people would be better off in an independent country. 
 
     Unfortunately, this immediately presents a problem for the nationalists and their campaign: we can’t see into the future.  Salmond’s rhetoric aside, nobody can say with total certainty what sort of country Scotland would be and if its people really would be better off economically and socially with independence.  An undecided voter can only speculate: read the papers, watch the news, and try to imagine Scotland as a nation state on its own – the key word being ‘imagine’.  The nationalists are preaching for a fairer and more just society which is all well and good, but Salmond cannot respond to the important questions on Scotland’s economy after independence because he doesn’t know the answers.  I think the nationalists are hoping (praying even) that Scotland’s economy post-independence can operate in a way that serves the people because realistically they cannot say that it definitely will. 

     This is where the Yes campaign falters.  Like myself, most people find the economics of running a country esoteric and confusing; so we leave it up to the politicians we elect, trusting them to manage it in our interests.  Nonetheless, the 2008 global financial crisis has taught people that economics is precarious, capricious, and often dependent on external factors especially the political situation - and it also reinforced to the electorate that politicians aren’t as good at managing the country as they ought to be.  Those at the forefront of the Yes campaign have failed to reassure undecided voters over Scotland’s economy and its economic future with independence is too ambiguous for people to take the risk of a Yes vote.

     The vision of an independent Scotland the Yes campaign has proffered is idealised: built on the intangible hopes and dreams of nationalists.  Salmond’s rhetoric of “capturing hearts and minds” is ultimately a facade because a country is founded on the stability, security, and certainty of its economy, health service and military.  Obviously Salmond has never read The Great Gatsby and before Thursday I wouldn’t be surprised if he invites us to his ‘promised land’ or ‘utopia’.  Quite often, the No campaign has been accused of scaremongering (definitely Salmond’s favourite word) when actually they were just being realistic.  Gordon Brown (who I think has been one of the No campaigns best assets) spoke sense the other day when he said: “you can try to dismiss some of the warnings some of the time, but you cannot dismiss all of the warnings all of the time.”

     I never indulge in criticising Scottish independence because, although I have decided that I’m voting no, I can still see a lot of potential in the idea.  It seems to me that the main benefit of Scottish independence is that we could finally elect a government democratically.  Westminster has failed Scotland.  They might have doled out some extra powers but time and time again Scotland is controlled by a government 400 miles away that it didn’t even ask for; and again, I mean literally didn’t ask for: Scotland currently has 1 Conservative MP in the UK parliament out of a total of 59 representatives from Scotland.  Whatever the outcome of this referendum the old establishment of Westminster needs serious reform to keep it in line with 21^st century liberal democracies and starting, in my opinion, with its flawed first past the post voting system. 

     It was bold of Alex Salmond to stand up to the established order; to look them in the eye and say in true Bravehreat style: the Scots are part of this union and we will be counted - or we’re out.  Salmond has always struck me as a politician who genuinely cares about people – a trait all too rare in politicians these days.  Quite rightfully, he recently won GQ magazine’s politician of the year award.  This was obvious at the TV debates when Salmond approached the audience as he spoke and he also addressed audience members by their first name when they asked him a question.  His demeanour was a contrast to the arrogance and condescension of Alastair Darling, leader of the Better Together campaign.  There are few politicians that Scotland would welcome as a figurehead for unionist arguments, it seems like Darling was the lesser or many evils. 

     For a long time I was an undecided voter.  Both sides were engaged in wrangle of contradictory facts, pointless polls, and dogmatic opinions from some very boorish people - while I and thousands of other Scots were stuck in the middle afraid to lift our heads above the parapet.  Truthfully, I was intimidated by billboards confronting me in the street telling me that my children will suffer if I vote a certain way; or letters in the mail asking why I didn’t want to be part of one of the richest countries in the world.  With my experiences over the past two years, I think the debate has overall been successful but very divisive – I hope the two sides can accept the result whatever it is. 

     While the debate roared on, the turning point came for me when I was volunteering at the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games working as a reporter covering the table tennis.  On the surface, one would think this event was the perfect Yes campaign PR stunt: showcasing what Scotland and its people can achieve and could offer to the world.  However I think this interpretation is misguided.  When you looked closer, you could see the Games were about unity.  The Games saw countries coming together to compete and celebrate because what they had in common was more powerful than anything that differed between them.  At the table tennis there was immense support and pride for team Scotland, but as the competition reached its climax team England were winning medals. When I saw Scots in the crowd waving the St George’s Cross and shouting “c’mon England” in all sorts of Scottish dialects (no regard for nationalities or borders, no thoughts of separation) that’s when I knew that we really were better together.