A contemporary criminal epidemic
Is the subject of this polemic
Its epicentres are the financial sectors
In the United Kingdom and United States
And its reverberations have left entire countries in dire straits
That crime is corporate fraud
Committed by the banks and the fraudulent accountants
Fraud by the hedge funds and ratings agencies
And in the fraudulent delivery of fraudulent securities
To people who hardly knew an asset from a liability
by Sarah Walker
The UK government and their sympathetic media would have you believe that current legal aid provisions allow unpopular members of our society to greedily grab what they can get, much like an unsupervised child at a pick ‘n’ mix. The truth is that this government is systematically dismantling a safeguard of access to justice that is essential if we are to ensure that the rights of vulnerable members of society are protected.
By Sam Hawke
Today, Kenya has gone to the polls for the 19th time in its 50-year history. Of course, it will be electing only its 4th President. That’s not to say that Kenya’s history – and its complex relationship to democratic politics – can be glibly summarised by reference to that unfortunate fact. However, violent conflict and authoritarianism remain some of the dominant forces within its political life, as the 2007/08 elections so strongly evidenced. The question with which Kenyans are faced, of course, is whether this year will further prove this terrible rule, or be its exception.
“We’re all in this together” was without doubt the most horrible slogan at the last election, given how disingenuous it sounded when uttered by George Osborne and other frontbench Conservatives. It was, according to one author, “grotesquely implausible”. It suggests that the costs of the “necessary” austerity measures would be borne by all, and that everyone would pay their fair share. One would imagine that this means those responsible for the financial crisis itself – that is, those who got rich and benefited disproportionately in the bubble years – would bear the brunt of what would euphemistically be called “structural reform”. We now know that was not the case.
The Resolution Foundation recently found that inequality in the UK has increased over the past 15 years, just as it grew in the 1980s. The top 1% of earners now absorbs 10p in every pound of income, while the bottom half take home just 18p.
By Sam Tomlin
Modern football is a complex beast. The constant acclamation of achievement and triumph at the construction of a world-wide brand, bringing entertainment and happiness to millions (billions?) is commonplace among proponents of the system. While at the same time, others, observing the same phenomenon, cry betrayal and failure for an experiment which has sold its soul for self-importance and corruption. Like any political system it promotes the game of ‘6s’ and ‘9s’ where some will say it’s a ‘6’, others a ‘9’ and some a ‘a badly drawn 8’.
David Conn is an investigative sports journalist. Growing up in Manchester in the 1970’s, like many young boys he fell in love with his local team, Manchester City. Ultimately the book, Richer than God, is about this love affair with his club and coming to terms with the reality that something he felt he had ‘ownership’ of was actually little more than a commodity to be bought or sold. Weaving constantly between joyful (and painful) memories growing up as a child in the Kippax stand in Maine Road, and the modern day acquisition of the club by billionaire Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Conn reaches into the depths of the philosophy not only of football but community, loyalty and belonging. Read More
by Sarah Walker
Last week several stories featuring public comments about rape of women, and the subsequent criticism of those comments, made the news. While articles printed the comments considered below, and offered some critique, I felt that they failed to critique them from the point of view of a young woman who goes on nights out or, indeed, challenge the wider assumptions that still underlie society’s approach to rape in 2013.
What comments?
Joanna Lumley, national treasure and spokeswoman on many issues, advised her audience “Don’t look like trash, don’t get drunk, don’t be sick down your front, don’t break your heels and stagger about in the wrong clothes at midnight. This is bad.” Insightful, I’m sure you’ll agree. She continued, “I promise it is better to look after yourself properly … don’t be sick in the gutter at midnight in a silly dress with no money to get a taxi home because somebody will take advantage of you – either rape you, or they’ll knock you on the head or they’ll rob you.”
A human right to wear a cross?
Today a Chamber of the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights released its judgment in the much-anticipated cluster of cases, Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom. These cases courted controversy in the domestic courts due to what many on both sides of the debate saw as an important and apparently irresoluble conflict between the rights to manifest religious belief and the rights to non-discrimination held by, in these cases, homosexual individuals. Put into legal terms: the cases were about the alleged conflict between the rights of the applicants under Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention and the rights of others (broadly speaking – though never explicitly defined as – falling under Articles 8 and 14).
Four applicants meant four distinct groups of facts, although a number of common threads.
by Kevin Smith
One way, or the other?
The Government’s intention to use the legislature to intervene in some matters relating to the Church of England but not others is not only worrying for the Church, but ill-advised for the Government too.
The Church of England has been unusually talked about in the past few weeks, even for the Christmas season. The hot-button issues of the General Synod’s rejection of female bishops, and the Church’s response to the Government’s plans to introduce same-sex marriage, have thrust the UK’s national religious institution and its leaders into something of a political maelstrom.
by Joseph Markus
Over the past few days much has been written seeking to predict the course of events in the New Year. Among the left-leaning columnists and writers, social security – a “war over benefits” – tops the list. That this is the case should not surprise anyone. This year will be the year when, for the first time, social security payments will fail to keep pace with the rising costs of living caused by inflation. We have also seen Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, unleashing splenetic attacks on the alleged overspending of the last Labour government, most recently in relation to tax credits. This is the same Mr Duncan Smith that believes in the Romney-esque mantra that the worst possible thing that society can do for the poor and out-of-work is to maintain their “dependency” on the state.
