City University students have voted to ban newspapers including The Sun, Express, and Daily Mail, saying they have “no place” on campus.
The motion, aimed at opposing fascism and social divisiveness in the UK media, argue that the three newspapers in question “demonise refugees and minorities” and “actively scapegoat the working classes.”
The newspapers in question give a platform to far-right figures such as Nigel Farage, Richard Littlejohn, and Katie Hopkins; people who City students argue shout not have a voice in the mainstream media.
The newspapers’ front page headlines have also stirred controversy recently. The Daily Mail dubbed three senior judges “Enemies of the People” after they ruled that Parliament should have a say on Brexit. Earlier this month, the Express compared the court’s Brexit decision to a crisis on the same level as World War Two.
This decision to ban the newspaper comes only weeks after Lego announced that they would no longer be using the Daily Mail for free giveaways. The lobbying group ‘Stop Funding Hate’ is urging John Lewis, Waitrose and Marks & Spencer to do the same.
The City University motion also resolved that University contacts in the media industry should reach out to journalists and shareholders of the three newspapers in question.
Esteemed Sunday Times columnist Camilla Long tweeted that City’s decision to ban the three papers is “100% pathetic.” Many more argue that it will be a breach of freedom of speech if the University attempts to dictate what students can read and cannot read.
According to The Guardian, some journalism students at City are threatening to pull of the union in protest against the decision. City has a renowned journalism department and many graduates go on to find jobs working for the Sun, Mail or Express.
It is unclear how City will attempt to ban the newspapers. The journalism department has already stated that they will not block students’ access to the newspapers. Furthermore, some students find the notion absurd that walking through campus evening holding the Daily Mail might be against the rules soon.
Although student unions around the country have previously boycotted The Sun in protest of topless page three models, a blanket ban of three major newspapers has never been done before. The consensus on this ban appears to be: if students don’t want to read The Sun, Daily Mail, or Express, they simply shouldn’t buy it.
It has been just over one week since billionaire Donald Trump defied the pollsters and surprised the media by getting elected as the next President of the United States. Donald Trump has, unsurprisingly, had a very busy week and voters have been given some more clues as to what exactly the Trump presidency will look like.
Professionalism
Anti-Trump protesters have taken to the streets of US cities over the last week to voice their opposition to Trump’s callous rhetoric. Trump responded to these protests on Twitter, initially calling the protesters “unfair”. However, he later tweeted: “Love the fact that … protesters … have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!” The second tweet probably came following a gentle reminder from the White House or a member of his staff that the campaign is over now and he needs to unite the country. I suspect the public will begin to see a reserved and less impulsive Trump more frequently now he is President.
Appointments
Trump has been appointing Republicans to key positions in his cabinet this week. So far we know that Reince Priebus is going to be Trump’s Chief of staff and Steve Bannon is going to be Chief strategist. Priebus used to be Chairman of the Republican National Committee and is known to be close with House Speaker Paul Ryan. Bannon is an ex-Goldman Sachs financier and has already sparked controversy due to his position as executive chairman of an alt-right news website which opposes immigration and cultural diversity. So far these appointments lack relevant White House experience therefore it will be interesting to see if they even last in their current positions.
Transition
Already, the Office of the President-Elect has began the transition from Obama’s administration to Trump’s. Obama met Trump on Thursday and the Wall Street Journal has since reported that during the meeting Trump expressed his surprise at the scope of the duties. They also reported that many Trump aides were "unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term”.
Trump also began making phone calls and meeting with senior international politicians. British Prime Minister Theresa May was the 10th world leader that Trump contacted causing many to speculate on the state of the "special relationship". Though, Trump apparently told May the UK was a "very, very special place for me and for our country." Trump seemed to be more interested in another British politician this week though: Nigel Farage. They were pictured together in a gold-plated elevator having campaigned together last month. Is Farage expecting a new job working closely with President-elect Trump?
Media
Trump did his first television interview since the election result with CBS’s '60 Minutes'. He admitted he had no regrets regarding anything he said on the campaign however it became clear that many of the things he said on the campaign weren’t to be taken literally. Furthermore, following a meeting with Paul Ryan, he stated that issues which were going to be addressed on the first day in office include healthcare and immigration.
This first week has been extremely telling and already we are seeing Trump appear more presidential. I think Trump will quickly discover how difficult the job is and that he is in fact no better than any regular Republican politician. His ambitions for “better healthcare for less money” and to destroy ISIS will prove to be far easier said than done (duh!). Also, his temperament which was very public during the campaign will be made private and his use of social media will decrease. Donald Trump will never be a stereotypical statesman like any other US Presidents in modern history (especially since his anti-establishment rhetoric is part of his appeal) but it will be interesting to see how close to that he is willing to go.
I have lived in London for approximately six weeks now and I love it.
Coming from a town with a population of about 100,000 to a city of 7 million didn’t scare me. I was looking forward to being just another face in the crowd. I’m far from popular but whenever I walked through high row in Darlington there was the inevitability that I’d run into someone who I knew so I was looking forward to being amongst complete strangers.
Also, as far as cities go, I think London is quite town like. There aren’t an overwhelming number of skyscrapers like what you see in New York or Tokyo. And although there are large buildings, they are the size of what you would expect to see in any town centre.
Here are my other main observations from living in London:
Eye eye: the London Eye
Transport
The Tube is one of the best things about London. No matter how far I run/walk, Tube stations are never more than 10 minutes away so I can always get home easily. Also, the TFL staff are excellent. They are approachable, friendly, helpful, and have a good sense of humour.
Therefore, Londoners my age don’t drive. In Darlington, most my friends at least start lessons once they turn 17 but all the Londoners my age I’ve spoken to have no desire to learn (at this moment in time anyway). Public transport is so good, they have no need to drive.
The cost of living
Rent charges are a joke. I am fortunate enough to live on a university campus (the only university campus in London) and even the accommodation price here is as bad as everyone makes out. I have a bathroom, kitchen and dining area that I share with another five people, no lounge area, and a decent sized bedroom. But, for the same amount of money anywhere else outside of London I’d have a much larger bedroom, a shared lounge area, and an en suite.
I have deeper concerns about next year when I am kicked out of the university accommodation and need to find private accommodation which I know will not be as good value for money as where I am living now.
Me: out of my depth at
London Fashion Weekend
Stuff to do
Even though my room isn’t as big as the rooms of my friends who live on campuses outside of London, the amount of time I spend in there is minimal. There are hundreds of parks in London, scores of sites to see, dozens of free galleries and museums, as well as daily one off events such as London Fashion Week, the Chocolate Show, and various craft markets. No plans for the weekend? I just need to open an app such as Doji, Hype, or Fever and they suggest tons of things for me to do.
Despite the fact I live in London, I would still very much consider myself a tourist - it’s hard not to be.
Unsociable
Londoners (and southerners in general) are stereotyped as being unsociable sorts who keep to themselves but I’ve found people are just as friendly here as anywhere else in the country.
Last month, I walked six miles to Camden town and was leaning against a wall as I caught my breath when a guy in his late 20s noticed that I’d been stood in the same spot for about 10 minutes. He approached me and cheerily exclaimed “I’m sorry mate, I don’t think she is coming” before ardently walking off again. This is the sort of random banter I thought was exclusive to the north.
Furthermore, when I was in the cinema earlier this week, the stranger sat next to me struck up a conversation about the ridiculous number of trailers that are shown before the film.
So, from my experience, Londoners are lovely.
I am looking forward to the next three years living in London. I hope in that time I can find reasonably priced accommodation and get a part-time job to help cover the costs of the vast amount of dark chocolate and Innocent smoothies I survive off. For today though, I’m just loving the fact that I can wake up on a morning and run along miles of canals without the fear of ever running out of city, being able to record a video of myself doing press-ups without others even battering an eyelid (because London is full of strange people doing odd things every day), and then being able to sit in lectures and be constantly reminded by the rumble of the Central line in the distance that I am in - what many consider to be - the best city in the world.
I heard about this movie only a week ago. Friends on Twitter were posting links to the trailer with captions along the lines of: “Who is going to take Theresa May to see this then?” My lecturer had also made a couple of references to it in his seminar, highly recommending it.
The premise of the film appears simple: a bloke in Newcastle has suffered a heart attack and is looking to seek the appropriate benefits from the Jobcentre since he can't work— but is denied the allowances he needs.
Before I booked tickets for the film, I typed it into Google and found a clip of the BBC’s Mark Kermode talk about the film with a rare positive passion he reserves only for remarkable pictures. I also discovered the plethora of awards it had received/been nominated for over summer.
The cinema was packed. I sat between a father who had come with his son and a women who obnoxiously ate fruit continuously throughout the entire film. After an age of adverts, the film began.
Every now and again the screen would erupt in laughter however it was too real for me to find amusing. There was a moment where the hypocrisy of the bureaucratic benefits appeal system is so ludicrous, many found the irony entertaining. However the fact that it was a truth being exposed removed all sense of humour for me.
I felt the same about the scene where Daniel Blake is using a computer for the first time and he literally runs the mouse up the monitor. Where others in the cinema found humour, I was struck by how the difficult the system makes it for people born in an older generation but who are in need.
I, Daniel Blake is a masterpiece entrenched in the dejecting truth of the failures in the welfare system. It has a geniality to it though. Daniel Blake is a warm, optimistic, funny character (which may be down to Dave Johns’ background in stand-up comedy).
I’d recommend everyone to watch this film — not for the entertainment value but rather to be enlightened about what some people, out of no fault of their own, need to suffer because of flaws in the state.
In 2013, a tech start-up called Phonebloks teased the concept of a modular smartphone. The idea was, when you want an improved camera, longer battery life, more memory, or to upgrade any feature on your smartphone, you simply replace a compartment rather than go out and buy a whole new device. This would allow smartphone users to prioritise features. For example, amateur photographers could sacrifice speakers for a larger camera or if a longer lasting battery was developed, they could easily swap out their old one.
Project Ara
Google even toyed with the idea of bringing a modular phone to market for a while. They called it ‘Project Ara'. Google proved with prototypes that it was technically possible to make but on 2nd September 2016, rumours emerged that Google had shelved the project. This may have been with good cause.
Modular smartphones would never have been commercially viable. Forcing the customer to prioritise features when they could buy the latest Samsung, iPhone, HTC, or Google phone and get the best of everything would never have worked. Admittedly, I imagine many would be drawn to the personalisation aspect of owning a smartphone that they basically custom build. However, moto maker and quirky phone cases offer enough personalisation for many.
Furthermore, modular smartphones may have caused customers to be more hesitant before upgrading their phones which would ultimately cost the manufacturers in the long run. If consumers could simply buy a higher quality camera module every few years, they would think twice before splashing out on a whole brand new smartphone.
Although modular phones appear to have been scrapped, I hope that the technology developed for them is put to use on other products as it would be fascinating to see where modular technology might actually come in useful.
On 6 July 2005, the International Olympic Committee announced that Great Britain would be hosting the 2012 Olympics. Although London had hosted the games twice before, the last time was over half a century ago so suffice facilities were non-existent. Therefore, it wasn’t long until development on a 490-acre Olympic park began. Stratford, in East London, was designated to be the place for the development.
The Olympic and Paralympic Games were a success. The organisation leading up to and during the games were highly acclaimed thanks to multiple ‘London Prepares’ events to test the organisers’ abilities, the opening and closing ceremonies were fantastic entertainment for the whole country, and the games themselves ran smoothly - with only a minor hiccup involving empty seats at events. But what about the legacy?
As well as the immediate benefits (such as tourism, facilities for aspiring athletes, etc.), the games in the Borough of Newham have had long term effects on the local area. Residents and businesses in Stratford now benefit from London Overground’s vastly improved East London Line. Additionally, the new Westfield Stratford City shopping centre led to jobs being created and means locals don’t need to travel all the way to Oxford Street for luxury brands. This is where the advantages mostly end though.
The negatives of hosting the games largely outweigh the positives. For one, before the games, businesses in the industrial area that the Olympic park was built on faced eviction and were forced to relocate which caused many businesses to suffer due to the high cost of office space in London. The Evening Standard’s Simon Jenkins wrote “The Stratford site ... lost 300 businesses and 14,000 jobs in its cluster of factories, warehouses and canal-side businesses."
The entrance to the Stratford Centre
Secondly, the flocks of tourists lasted as long as the games did. The small amounts of tourism that do still exist are concentrated exclusively in the Olympic park and Westfield Stratford City shopping centre; nowhere near Stratford High Street and the Stratford Centre. Locals hoped that the £8.77bn, which was the final cost of London 2012, would improve the area in which the author Charles Booth once described the people as “lowest class; vicious, semi-criminal”. However, walking from Westfield to the Stratford Centre feels like walking from one world to another. The A118 divides the old and the new areas thus highlights the stark differences. Westfield and the Olympic Park are spacious, luxurious, and well-maintained areas whereas the Stratford Centre and high street are aged, rundown, and cramped. The Guardian’s Tom Wilkinson writes "the old shopping centre clearly didn’t fit with the image Newham council wanted to project to the world. As the Games approached, the council tried to hide the building behind a particularly egregious piece of public art”.
Westfield Stratford City shopping centre opened in 2011
When I visited, residents in Stratford High Street revealed that they were dishearten with the Olympic legacy. Instead of opportunity and prosperity, the lack of new houses has forced many out of the area and small companies struggle to make business. One market stall owner said that Westfield had forced him to reduce his prices in fear that he would lose customers.
Moreover, there was a promise of new housing following the Olympic games; 31% of which is supposed to be affordable housing. Lots of the construction work is still underway however experts say this 31% figure is extremely optimistic because of large amounts of attention the area is getting from private foreign investors.
Building the Olympic stadium allegedly cost the taxpayer around £537m and a further £272m to convert into a Premier League football stadium. West Ham, the football team who won the bid to play in the stadium, currently only pay rent of £2.5m per annum (with a £15m up-front fee) meaning they would need to be in the stadium for the next 318 years for the public money to be replenished. Some justify this ‘steal’ of a deal by looking at Greece’s Olympic stadium from 2004 which has been abandoned and is sat gathering dust.
As for the future of Stratford, experts predict large growth in the area with the creation of new office space and new housing. However, I suspect that growth is likely to go unnoticed by the current residents who are still suffering from the Olympic and Westfield developments. The mostly unused Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park (as it is now called) appears to be the consequence of incompetent legacy planning by the organisers of London 2012 and now it is the local working class people and small business owners who are paying the price.
The second Presidential debate between the Republican candidate Donald Trump and the Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton took place on 9th October 2016. The two candidates didn’t stray far from their tried and tested styles: Trump with his simplistic answers shadowed by his aggressive passion, and Clinton with her calm technique and reserved responses which sound overly-rehearsed. The debate covered a wide range of issues varying from healthcare to foreign policy but answers from both candidates were frequently unfocused. As for the ‘winner’ of the debate, that depends on what your definition of winning is.
If the criteria for winning the debate is making the most evidence-backed, compelling arguments to deal with the questions, then Clinton won hands down. She kept her cool throughout the debate, even when put under pressure by Trump. However, if the definition of winning the debate is persuading undecided voters to vote for you, then I suspect that Trump won. Here’s why:
Often, when Trump was regurgitating his nonsensical rhetoric, Clinton would smile - probably highly amused by how easy Trump was making it for her. However, for Americans who are not politically educated and don’t fact check, Clinton’s grins could be perceived as her not taking the issues seriously or making light of them.
Clinton’s smiles were biggest when Trump came out with statements which she knew were lies and, when she got a chance to speak, Clinton would encourage viewers to visit her website to ‘fact-check’ Trump and find out the truth. However, it is becoming more and more evident that we live in a post-fact world and even the most politically uneducated among us know that candidate’s websites are not the ideal source for correct information. Clinton gives off a shifty impression to many and Trump has dubbed her ‘crooked Hilary’ numerous times so when Trump presents his false version of reality and Clinton just refers to her website, it is not a suffice response. Clinton's inability to outright deny lies individual lies with evidence proving it makes her look guilty. Ultimately, I think in those situations, it means Trump has come out on top.
Transcript
TRUMP: So we’re going to get a special prosecutor, and we’re going to look into it, because you know what? People have been — their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you’ve done. And it’s a disgrace. And honestly, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
CLINTON: In the first debate... I told people that it would be impossible to be fact-checking Donald all the time. I’d never get to talk about anything I want to do and how we’re going to really make lives better for people.
So, once again, go to HillaryClinton.com. We have literally Trump — you can fact check him in real time. Last time at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so I expect we’ll have millions more fact checking, because, you know, it is — it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.
TRUMP: Because you’d be in jail.
It is clear from social media that many Trump supporters are highly suspicious of the media and think that there is an anti-Trump media conspiracy. During the debate there were a number of occasions when Trump argued that Clinton had spoken for too long or that Clinton was allowed to respond but he wasn’t. For those sceptical of the media, this only throws fuel on the fire.
One of the notable examples of this is when Trump brings up the issue of Clinton’s private email server to deflect from the questions he had regarding inflammatory comments he made about women. The issue of Clinton’s emails was talked about excessively at the last debate, has had days’ worth of airtime over the past year, and thousands of articles can be found about the ‘scandal’ online. Nevertheless, Trump was infuriated by the chairs of the debate when they pushed for him to address the question given to him rather than diverge back on to the issue of Clinton’s email. I think many who don’t read the news as much as they should might perceive this as the media attempting to protect Clinton and attack Trump. In reality, the subject of Clinton’s emails has just been exhausted. Regardless, the chairs snubbing of the issue that Trump raised will work in his favour as it made Trump look like the victim being ignored by the biased pro-Clinton media.
Despite criticism following the first debate for interrupting Clinton, Trump still did it a total of 15 times (whereas Clinton only did it five times). I think many undecided voters will not see this as a negative, rather as Trump simply wanting his views to be heard - and isn’t that what America wants when they’re doing dealings on the world stage? Clinton’s passive method of waiting her turn, although customary, respectful, and polite, could be perceived as her lacking passion. Some might think, if she disagrees so profoundly with Trump, why wouldn’t she try and stop him in his tracks?
Finally, Trump frequently ignored the question and instead attacked Clinton. The attacks were so frequent and on such a breadth of subjects, it made Clinton look like a dangerously flawed candidate. If you don’t focus on the discourse of the debate, you forget there was a question and instead are just left with the two candidates trying to get one-up.
In conclusion, it is a matter of political education and knowledge. If undecided voters don’t digest news (possibly because they don’t trust it), I think Donald Trump will have emerged from this debate appearing to be the strongest candidate: ruthless, straight-talking, and passionate. For Americans who are more politically educated though, and do consume news regularly, they will be able to see through Trump’s blatant dismissal of important issues, his oversimplified rhetoric, and be extremely concerned about the prospect of him becoming present. With election day in only 4 weeks, we will soon know what significance, if any, the debates had and who in fact won.
