Review: Oxjam

Oxjam Rocks Glasgow and Raises Thousands 

Oxjam rolled into Glasgow on Saturday the 14th of October - and when I saw the red and pink Oxjam banners illuminating the bars and buildings of Sauchiehall Street I knew this would be an extraordinary night out in Glasgow.

Oxjam is a music and arts festival that brings together local talent to perform in venues across the city to raise money for Oxfam’s life-saving work.  The event started in 2006 and this year there were 38 Oxjam festivals across the UK.

After 12 years Oxjam is the biggest grassroots music festival in the UK.

Well Happy Workshop

Glasgow’s festival took place over 8 much-loved venues in the city centre and each offered something unique.  Getting into the mood right from the start in The Griffin bar was the Well Happy Workshop with their session of Laughter Yoga.  This was very much an interactive event with strangers encouraged to exchange jokes, high-five, meet and greet in a series of exercises designed to encourage laughter.  The group explained the method behind the madness: laughter releases endorphins and in turn leads to improved wellbeing.  Laughter Yoga brought strangers together in typical Glaswegian style; and another performance due later in the evening with a few tipsy Scots would have been utter hilarity! 

A little over town was something different.  The basement of iCafe on Sauchiehall Street was an acoustic sanctuary of guitars with hand-crafted lyrics, as well as poetry and spoken word and some comedy too.  A selection Glasgow’s up and coming singers performed their music drawing on contemporary and retro influences, often in a busking style that is so famous in this city.  The spoken word poets brought a blend of the serious and the stupid, and always the Scottish slant for the home crowd.

Mandulu and Hephzibah

I caught up with one singing duo, Mandulu and Hephzibah, made up of Sabrina Mandulu and Erin Hephzibah (both 19 and from Pollock).  The girls have known each other since school and have always been involved in arts and performing, in 2016 they became a duo with their own material and set lists that have taken them to places like New York.  They reflected on their performance: “We both enjoyed our performance, and hopefully our audience did too. We got great responses and support from them and the staff so it was a very relaxed and enjoyable day. We both would like the opportunity to work with Oxfam and other charities in the future”.

The band has an exciting few months ahead: “On the 20th of October we will be supporting Paolo Nutini at the Paisley Abbey as part of the Spree Festival in Paisley, something we are overjoyed about.”

The Ronains

Speaking to the bands and listening to the spoken word artists inspired from Glasgow’s art scene, you realise Oxjam’s very unique offer: bands and artists get a platform in Glasgow and the punters get a memorable and diverse Saturday night out; all the while, as the music dies down and the revellers sing-on home, Oxfam is a little closer to ending world poverty for good - local music, global impact.

With Oxjam being all about showcasing Glasgow’s musical and artistic talent, the Art School was a fitting venue for the main stage in the evening.  One band playing were The Ronains who describe themselves as a “filthy mix of classic rock, glam and grunge” – and they wowed the Art School crowd with this indie mix.  They were followed by bands Static Union, The Belafonte, and Ocevns jamming well into the night and gave performances worthy of the biggest venues in Glasgow.

I could only just scratch the surface of Oxjam’s Glasgow Takeover because there was so much going on – and with the Oxjam wristband party-goers had access to all of it and every venue. Manager Lindsey McGhie spoke to me afterwards about the night which raised just under £3,500: “Oxjam Glasgow was a huge success again due to hard work of the volunteers, musicians, venues, sound & light companies and local businesses.  And, yet again, the people of Glasgow turned out to support our cause in their hundreds.  Thank you!”

Check out Oxjam’s Glasgow Takeover Facebook page for more info, photos and videos: https://www.facebook.com/OxjamGlasgowTakeover/

_______________________________________________

This article origanlly appeared on the Oxfam Scotland website: https://www.oxfam.org.uk/scotland/blog/2017/10/oxjamreview

Discovering Conference

On the 11^th of November, the Scottish Liberal Democrat autumn conference was held for another year in Dunfermline. It’s fitting our conference returns to this historic Scottish town as Scotland has always been a liberal country at heart: Braveheart, after all, was about freedom, more than nationalism.

This was my first party conference and I was immediately struck by how homely and welcoming the event was. The Scottish Liberal Democrats are a close-knit party – one advantage of being small in number (in comparison to other parties) – where old friends are reunited and strangers are simply undiscovered new friends.

The agenda was packed and diverse. One of the highlights included hearing from the WASPI women. They told us their personal experiences when they unexpectedly discovered they would not get their state pension when they thought they would after the age was raised to 65 to align with mens’. Many women are now struggling and having to take up part-time jobs or take out loans to get by until they can receive their pension. The conference rightfully voted for measures to put justice for the WASPI women on the Lib Dem agenda.

Willie Rennie, Jo Swinson, Alistair Carmichael, Christine Jardine and Alex-Cole Hamilton invigorated party members with articulate, powerful speeches – all of us returned to our constituencies with a renewed sense of purpose and belief in Liberal Democrat values.

The Scottish Young Liberals had three motions passed: introducing civil education in schools, increasing the involvement of young people in public service, and introducing gender neutral school uniforms in every school.

As a Young Liberal myself, it was exciting to see the future of our party, both its membership and its vision, be strongly represented; as well as being endorsed so positively by all party members.

I decided to step up in the debate about introducing civil education in schools by speaking on the main stage to strongly support the motion, as well as putting forward the idea that media literacy should also be taught as part of a curriculum of civil education.

My colleague from the East Renfrewshire Lib Dems told me I was the first person from the local party to speak at a conference in about 40 years.

I joined the Liberal Democrats in 2015 after the general election (inspired by Nick Clegg’s dignified and passionate resignation speech as party leader) and I was expecting simply to receive some emails updating me on the party’s work. Just over two years later I have campaigned for local candidates, been interviewed for a comms job in Holyrood with the Scottish Lib Dems, I’ve been a council candidate in May, and recently I spoke at my first party conference in Dunfermline.

I never imagined how involving and inclusive the party would be.

Before joining the Liberal Democrats, I always thought that politics was something that other people did; since joining I have realised that politics is for anyone that chooses to take part. I had the opportunity at conference to stand up and be heard – it was one of the most empowering moments of my life.

___________________________________________________

This article origanlly appeared in Liberal Democrat Voice: https://www.libdemvoice.org/discovering-conference-55847.html

Here's to the Election Losers

I ran in a hopeless seat in the recent council elections, lost spectacularly, and we’re all the better for it

Democracy only works because we have losers – so many losers. So many beautiful and inspiring losers who know they have no chance but stand in elections anyway because they want to fight for what they believe in, to have their voice heard, and because they know there’s a (possibly tiny) group who feel the same way and need a champion.

Between the local and general elections in the space of just over a month, thousands of ordinary men and women will stand for a party or as an independent, and lose spectacularly. As I did.

My return in the council election was meagre, but the experience was humbling and fascinating. Every party has constituencies where they don’t have a look in (especially in a General Election with first past the post) but nonetheless the local party prepares candidates, drafts leaflets and press releases, and maybe braves the doorsteps - all in the spirit of democracy.

They do their best but prepare for the worst because democracy isn’t really about who wins. Democracy is about representation and democracy is about choice, whether that’s choosing who we elect to represent us in parliaments, assemblies, councils; or being a representative on the ballot paper so people actually have a choice in the first place.

I discovered that people understand this.

I was nervous about heading out on the campaign trail because I knew that politics was contentious, but when I spoke to people the most common response was "good for you". 

I was pleasantly bemused: some told me they weren’t going to vote for me but thanked me for the leaflet and promised to have a read; others told me they were glad to see a young person getting involved; everyone seemed to appreciate being able to talk to a candidate.

Whether they intended to vote for me or not, people liked the idea of someone from their community putting themselves forward to represent them.

I even got to attend the count. Although it sounds like a dinner time quiz show, being a contestant at 'The Count' was democracy in action. Seeing the votes pouring out the black boxes, being sorted for scanning, watching them appear on the computer screens and the amazement at seeing (occasionally) my name with a 1 or even a 2 – incredible to think that strangers put their trust in me.

There was an atmosphere of friendly competition, well-wishing and handshakes. Party politics is vitriolic but it doesn’t have to be. If we promote a positive political climate more people will participate and discover more about their values, communities, and themselves.

We need them. The countries that only have political winners are not democracies.

Isn’t it odd to think about the people who stand against the prominent politicians – Nicola Sturgeon, Theresa May, cabinet ministers – who all probably have safe seats, but they don’t go uncontested; indeed, Lord Buckethead is running against May at the upcoming General Election, and I wish him well. 

You see the videos and the photos of these politicians in the sports hall, making their acceptance speeches, with their 25,000 majority, and the other candidates staring at the ground. It takes guts to put yourself forward, especially if you know it’s hopeless.

So here’s to them - the losers!

The losers fill the void between the political establishment and the people because they remind us that most politicians are just ordinary folk as well, our neighbours in the community; though the political elite would do well to remember this.

The losers remind us where politics (at least should) begin and end: with people.

_______________________________

This article originally appeared in Common Space: https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/11103/chris-park-here-s-election-losers 

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?

2016, That's All.

2016 has been unique.  So unique it has become an adjective: representing the shocking and the unexpected, often leaving us worried; sometimes leaving us fearful. Of course, depending on your general view of things, maybe 2016 has been the best year yet…  But it has found ways to keep us on our toes, I’ll give it that.

This past year has seen obvious political phenomena that has had massive implications resonating across the whole world.  But, more generally, this year has heralded a feeling of chaos and confusion as institutions and ideas that once seemed so safe, self-assured, and untouchable have collapsed before us.  The rise of anti-establishment decisiveness has been awe-inspiring if a little worrying.  Maybe it’s all just overhyped, or maybe it’s just the media playing tricks on us; whatever it is, the past 12 months have certainly left many with a feeling that this year has been a turning point.  There’s nowhere to go now but forward.

For me personally, 2016 couldn’t have come at a worst time.  Leaving university has thrown the structure of my life into disarray: I am now a personified version of the anxiety associated with this past year. 

At university, I was absorbed in genial campus life: a collected identity of learning and belonging, long drunken summers working, and the sanctuary of the library (that’s probably just me).   But this year it ended.  It happened slowly and then all at once.  After a long summer the bubble burst and the autumn rains cleansed me of relaxation (and money) and I realised that this would be tough.  I had expected the expected, but was still somehow left in shock when I realised my undergraduate moments were now memories.  What’s more, is that my future is about as predictable as… well, it’s about as easy to predict as this past year was. 

We definitely need a new phrase for this time of year other than ‘Happy New Year’; I think ‘good luck for the New Year’ has the right undertones.  2017 has begun with fireworks and gunshots – the sequel to a bittersweet year commences and the narrative continues.

But look, this hasn’t been a total disaster from start to finish.  It's been a fantastic year for sport, for one thing; and I'm sure other great things happened this year that I just can't think of off the top of my head - Game of Thrones season 6 was insane, simple pleasures.

For me, I achieved exactly what I wanted at university and felt, at least for a day, unstoppable.  I had a wonderful summer of reading and travelling and relaxing and drinking - generally doing the carefree things I wanted.  

Nonetheless I am pissed off when I think about how naïve 2016 has left me feeling.  So I’m going to make sure 2017 doesn’t catch me out.  I’m not making resolutions or promises, and I’m certainly not investing in hope or optimism; I will simply do my best to welcome in the New Year with an open mind. 

"I'm a Celeb's" Spidergate

I hadn’t watched any of I’m a Celebrity 2015 but I tuned in on Sunday night to see the final.  Ok, so two reality TV stars and an X-Factor reject made the final, great start.  But then the events of the final episode began to quickly descend when the notorious eating trial took a particularly inhumane turn.   The trial climaxed with Ferne McCann (girl from TOWIE, I know right?) having to eat a live water spider; not a small spider – a big one.

First thought: disgusting!  Second thought: ah, it’s a trick; she gets the star if she throws the spider into the bushes behind and it scampers to freedom.  Third thought: she just ate it – that was not only revolting but exceptionally callous. 

This is where I assume the role of ‘that guy’, because although only a trivial arachnid, somebody has to speak on behalf of spiders and defend their right to life because they can’t do it themselves. 

It isn’t just the fact that the contestant killed a living creature by eating it alive that is appalling, it is the way that it was presented.  It was the ceremony, the vainglory, the total ignorance (from the contestant but also the producers) that spiders are sentient beings; it was the disturbing way Ant and Dec could not control their laughter; and most of all it was the sickening ritual Ferne McCann was instructed to execute in order to eat the arachnid.  She was told to shake the glass to disorientate and disable the spider, it crawled up into a ball protect itself, then she necked it like a shot and choked on it like a Fresher.

Ant or Dec dubbed Ferne “a hero”, pundits on Twitter called her “a ledge”

It was unpleasant to watch.  There are more unpleasant things to be found on the news, of course, but it was nonetheless unsettling.  I think that people should recognise this to be flagrant animal cruelty, despite it ‘only being a spider’, for two reasons.

The most important one is what it reveals about our treatment of animals lower in the food chain than us.  I would argue that the consumption of a live spider in the name of entertainment demonstrates mankind’s contempt for anything inferior to ourselves that has no obvious purpose.  Certain animals have prestige (at least in the West) because we have domesticized and then sentimentalised them, such as cats and dogs; some have a symbolic purpose like the eagle or the whale.  But spiders fall short of our standards.  It was acceptable for a contestant to eat a living spider on I’m a Celebrity because they’re not important in our eyes; in fact they are disgusting and frightening and they overrun our homes.  Of course it is all a matter of perspective.  Spiders kill pests, they show you don’t have a damp problem in your home, and some people keep exotic spiders as pets.  They are one of the few creatures that has adapted to live in our modern, urbanised and domestic realms, and we coexist in near perfect harmony – and yet we despise them.

The other reason why this is act was so obnoxious is because it was intended to fall into the category of ‘entertainment’.  What were we meant to feel watching that living spider be tossed around in a glass, hunch up in fear, then be crunched to death in a women’s mouth?  Disgust, certainly; but was there a feeling that as an audience we were being entertained?  I think I understand why the producers did it: audiences are increasingly desensitised.  The boundary is pushed and pushed because what is considered shocking, outrageous, controversial – all the stuff that keeps us griped, keeps us talking, keeps us buying – proceeds before of us with every TV programme that is dependent on ratings.

I have probably exhausted all of the possible reasons why killing a spider is wrong – I have well and truly become ‘that guy’.  But isn’t ‘that guy’ sometimes a necessity? No? Ok, fine…

However, as much as you sneer at my spider-hugging, I’m not alone: OfCom received over 500 complaints for that episode and there was at least some Twitter outcry.  It will be up to the regulator to decide if they will launch an investigation or not, but I would think it unlikely.

Otherwise, I’m happy to be that guy who puts the spiders outside rather than splatting them with a newspaper – your friendly neighbourhood Spiderman, in other words.