Will the Coalition be Reforming the British Honours System?

Now that the new Coalition government seems to be sweeping the country with their reforms of one kind or another, will they also be tackling the last vestige of white supremacy while they are at it? The last insult to a multicultural society?

Last June, the usual crop of public honours recipients was announced in London. The Queen's Birthday and New Years' Honours Lists "reflect and pay tribute to outstanding achievement and service right across the community" says the blurb, but often one wonders which community it's dealing with because the people who do receive the very top honours are seldom the ones who would be recognised by the general community.

The awards system, which still carries the obnoxious tag of 'Empire', and glory in its colonial legacy and traditions, is still alive and well when it should have been pensioned off years ago. With whiffs of honours for sale, it is about time this particular heritage is retired gracefully and something more reflective of modern society and true merit introduced in its place. Britain prides itself on its equal opportunities and diverse multicultural society, yet, just casting a glance at the Knights and Dames honours, as in every past year, men outnumber women by nearly 3 to 1 and very few minorities achieve the very highest ranks like Commanders of Knights. From the spread of honours, one can assume that men are more deserving than women and Whites more deserving than Blacks. Nothing that has lasted so many years can still serve a different society today in an efficient way, and in the same form, when we have advanced in amazing ways and with constantly changing perspectives.

I mean, a lady running her business successfully for over 50 years gets a mere OBE. Yet still active in her nineties! What on earth does she have to do to get the CBE or Damehood? Another 50 years?

I would scrap this outdated and exclusive honours system if I were David Cameron. It is getting really tired and irrelevant now in the way they are still awarded on class lines and still refer to that great 'Empire' which has an invisible location to the British public. Where exactly do we find this British Empire? Perhaps if we stopped hanging on to the past and looked to our future we would be even greater than before. To award a member of a minority group with a reminder of a discriminatory, racist and repressive colonial regime is disrespectful and offensive in this global age.

We are now desperate for an inclusive MODERN awards system that one does not have to pay money for, which will apply right across the board to everyone in our multicultural society; one which will reflect the national pride we should feel for Britain TODAY, not yesterday. An award system to help bind the country together as one in a spirit of achievement and togetherness, not keep people artificially apart and stuck in yesteryear! Is that the best we can do now to recognise our people?

These awards are an anachronism in today's technological 21st century world. The quicker that is realised and acted upon, the more the credibility of the British honours system will be restored and the more reflective of its multicultural society it will gradually become.

Why I LOVE my new Prime Minister, David Cameron!

On the 6th of May, 2010, when the British general election results were announced, I was secretly pleased that the Conservatives had not received enough votes to form a government, while being keenly disappointed that the LibDems had actually lost seats. I had hoped that they would have had a massive increase in their seats in Parliament due to what the polls had been saying before the election. I was also torn between whom their leader, Nick Clegg, should support to form a coalition, as Labour seemed a more natural choice of partner compared to the Conservatives, whom I've always disliked, but I also wanted a fresh team after the 13 years Labour had already enjoyed.

In the event, the Conservatives rightfully won out over Labour, especially as they had the most seats and David Cameron became Prime Minister. The country waited with bated breath for the new political coalition to get off the ground, while dire predictions of its imminent demise frequently peppered the air! I preferred to wait and see, with some scepticism, especially after the shock of seeing how the coalition was actually arranged, who actually benefited from it, and the direction it was to take. Until now.

This week, the United Kingdom, this great country, found its international voice again, no longer muted by fear, factions or the folly of an unjust war. No more diplomatic niceties or flim-flam. It gave a very loud and clear message to the world that Britain - the national corporation - was back in business again, and firmly on the side of justice, no matter in what quarter, and I felt extremely proud to be British. On his trip to Turkey, Mr Cameron left no one in any doubt about the smelling carcass of a stagnant Middle East situation. He accused Israel of turning the Gaza strip into an "open prison camp" by blockading vital supplies to the area and then warned that "Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp". Indeed.

That was music to my ears because anyone who could actually condone what has been happening in Gaza, to turn their back on a people who are suffering deliberately through the insensitive and cruel efforts of another country, cannot have much humanity in them. Such action has been plainly wrong, no matter the reason for it, and was crying out for some real leadership on the issue. It took guts to ignore the diplomatic niceties of hypocrites and say it like it is, and I applaud him for it. No, not just applaud him. I love the guy's sincerity and courage in setting a new marker on international behaviour. He's got it spot on in view of the lawlessness that seemed to have overtaken our world, especially in view of some of Israel's recent cavalier action.


Building a New Perspective
As I wrote in 2006 when Israel attacked Lebanon (12 Lessons in Life): "We do not overcome evil by becoming evil ourselves. In that awful moment of madness, we lose our self-respect and our integrity, falling from the moral high ground of justice to land with a thud on the same low level of injustice perpetrated by our oppressors."

By saying a simple truth, which our American allies, through their backing of Israel seem unable to say, David Cameron can help everyone to build on a new perspective of justice without fear, and start a real healing process in this fractured situation. But that wasn't all.

Yesterday, in view of the leaks about Afghanistan, Cameron went to India and again spoke out about another thorny issue: the two-faced nature of Pakistan's diplomacy regarding terrorism, telling them that they cannot play it both sides and then expect the right results. He said they were "promoting the export of terror" and it was intolerable for that country to "look both ways" in view of all the atrocities associated with terrorism. Sensible words from a sensible leader!

In the current global economic climate, strong leadership is necessary to take us out of the downturn and into a better period of growth and stability. I have always admired Cameron himself ever since he took over as opposition leader, though not his party. I felt the Tories were usually for big business and not exactly welcoming of minorities! I used to wish he was leading Labour or the LibDems, so I had mixed feelings with the election results. Today I feel awfully proud to have a Prime Minister who seems unafraid to tackle the real issues and to say it like it is. That means a lot to me because achieving real justice is never easy. It is about compassion, trust and sacrifice, hence why it is always easier to blow with the wind than to stand up for one's beliefs.

The BBC's headline on the India trip said "Candid Cameron ruffles diplomatic feathers". Well, that's great news. Time for some feathers to be ruffled, or even plucked, because the current status quo is not yielding much by way of solutions.

The Telegraph lauded Cameron's visit with President Obama saying how the Conservatives and coalition government should be proud of him and his performance, as he was clearly the stronger leader in the exchanges. I say we should all be very proud of him because, at last, we have a real Prime Minister who is not afraid of taking the initiative, making decisions, even tough ones, or speaking out. A true leader in every sense of the word. Watch the mood of the country now changes from uncertainty to confidence. With such a transparent Prime Minister, it can only lead to more trust and self-belief.

Suddenly the future looks very bright! :o)

(Tonight the BBC is airing a programme "5 Days That Changed Britain" on BBC 2 at 2100 GMT, regarding the general election and the frenzied activity to form a coalition after the results became known. It should be very interesting viewing.)

Telegraph: A new foreign policy is taking shape under David Cameron but is it Tory or Lib Dem?
(A steely determination can be detected in the Coalition's attitude, argues Benedict Brogan.)

Five Lessons From The 2010 FIFA World Cup

The FIFA 2010 World Cup has ended on a high with lots of credits to the host, South Africa. The party is over and the clearing up has now begun, along with the reflection on what happened, remorse by the 'losers', regret on what could have been and new resolve for the future. The next four years will be one of soul searching and debate by all the world's teams as to how they can do better.

However, there seems to be five major lessons to be taken from the tournament and, in order of importance, they are:

1. The TEAM is the essence of winning anything, not the individual.
Long before the World Cup began we heard how great players like Ronaldo(Portugal), Rooney(England), Messi(Argentina) and Kaka (Brazil) would shine in the competition. We would be exposed to their genius and marvel at it. They would inspire the rest of their teams to victory. Like hell. They were all sent packing by virtual unknowns such as Gyan (Ghana), Klose (Germany) and Andres Iniesta(Spain). What was significant about these winning players was their complete acceptance that the team mattered much more than the individual and they all supported each other. Each was but one player in it, no matter how they individually performed.

For example, Cesc Fabregas (Spain) set up the winning goal that Andres Iniesta crashed into the net. Then he quickly removed his shirt to show the memory of a player who should have been with them but had died of a heart attack in August 2009 - Daniel Jarque. At that supreme moment of triumph, the team did not forget one of their own and the simple inscription on the t-shirt ("Dani Jarque, always with us") ensured that the dead team member shared in that amazing moment too. A greater team spirit one could not have witnessed. Since Spain's victory, as before it, the focus has been on the whole team, not just the guy who scored. He merely completed the hard work and effort of his other teammates. Iniesta did not do it all by himself. He just happened to have the skill for making that goal just as his teammates exhibited their skills in other aspects of the game. When there is too much emhpasis on any one team player it demoralises the others who are likely to believe that their skills are not appreciated, which then affect team cohesion, communication and performance.

2. With the increasing use of technology and a growing global audience, the World Cup competition, as we knew it, is over
The 2010 World Cup was on a different level and scale from what it used to be when it was dominated by the usual South American and European teams. The World Cup has grown so big, with so much potential for national identification and promotion, it is no longer just the pinnacle of a popular game but a real source of national pride. Every country will now want a piece of that global action and they will be fighting very hard to get it. It means that the usual teams (like England, Brazil, Argentina etc) who would have expected to head for the finals almost automatically will now have a hard battle on their hands as countries like the USA, Ghana, Spain and Netherlands (those who have been in the background) begin fighting for centre-stage. Making it to the quarter-final, let alone the final, will be a very hard task for some teams in the future, as competition for the 32 coveted spots in the World Cup finals begins in earnest.


3. Good football will always win out
It was clear that Spain and the Netherlands had different playing styles. For the Netherlands it was a more aggressive approach, stopping the Spanish progression by fair means or foul, while for the Spaniards the aim was to get that goal through a natural rhythm of playing and passing. The Dutch style led to a lot of fouls, yellow cards, a sending off, and the odd vicious encounter while the Spaniards took home the prize with their persistent and professional play. Winning or losing at this level of the sport should be done with dignity and mutual respect. Not conducted like a market brawl, because only one team can ever win.

4. Technology is needed for ensuring that any decision relating to a goal is the right one
England was disallowed a perfectly good goal at a crucial point in their game. Who knows what might have happened if they had drawn level with Germany? One cannot underestimate the motivating power of coming from behind to level the stakes. A goal is the ultimate objective of football. It cannot be left to chance anymore because referees are not supremos. They are fallible human beings. Time for technology to do its job where goals are concerned. One cannot put total emphasis on getting goals in this competition then pretend that a goal doesn't really matter at crucial moments of the game.

5. Anything is possible when we have self-belief and feel ready for it
For the past six years since South Africa was awarded the World Cup games to host, the army of naysayers has been casting the most dire predictions about the outcome: the stadia wouldn't be ready, violent crime would be rife, the public wouldn't support the games, Africa wasn't ready for staging the games...and so on. Today South Africa can boast hosting one of the most successful games of all time. In fact, attendance at all the matches totalled 3.15 millions, second only to the American-held World Cup of 1994 which had 3.58 millions; the vuvuzela which is now worldwide was introduced; the welcome of visitors was second to none and the sheer scale of the organisation and the professionalism was breathtaking to see. South Africans today can feel proud of themselves having asserted the country globally as a future venue for any event, which can only help them economically in the long run, while also affecting the perception of the continent as a whole.

The 2010 FIFA World Cup was an impressive display of gamesmanship, a fine example of sports at its best; a unifier of countries and a showcase for individual and team potential, not to mention the economic benefits it now affords at all levels of organisation. Long may it continue.



Photos courtesy of FIFA.com

English Football Debate (2): How the British media is strangling football talent with their burden of expectations and reporting extremes

(huffingtonpress.com)

On Tuesday morning the English football team returned from the FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Disillusioned, exhausted and dejected, they came face to face with a barrage of headlines about their failures and disasters, not least one that said "The Flops Come Home". Today, the men are still followed on their deserved holiday with stories screeching how The Flops are taking holidays while the fans are still unhappy. While the players rightly get on with their lives, acknowledging that they played a match and it's over, and it's time to look towards the next one, some sections of the British media are still bashing them, still bleating and whimpering, taking football out of all proportion to its role in our lives.

The British media is responsible for a lot that has happened in South Africa and continues to happen in our sports. They love to raise players to the heights of demi-gods when it suits their purposes, and especially when those players are performing well, then waste little time in knocking them back down to the ground with vitriolic content, all in the drive to sell papers. They love to hype the team up before a match, burdening them with unrealistic expectations, then vilifying them after any bad performance - from one extreme to the other. That is very bad psychologically and emotionally for the players.

Playing any kind of game is an ongoing activity, a continual 'war' with many battles. In the bid to develop the best team, some battles will be lost, just as many will be won. World Cup football is not a one-off performance where the players won't be doing anything after that. There are tons more competitions to come. It means that no matter what the team is participating in, the media need to bear that crucial fact in mind. When they run players down after every match, how does that affect them? How does that restore their confidence, build their morale and instill a winners' mindset to do even better next time? After all, if one keeps constantly whacking a goose that lays golden eggs because the goose is not laying them quickly enough, soon there will be a dead goose and no eggs at all!

The country those players represent is also their 'family'. When our family, the closest to us, rejects us too, what then? Whom do we have on our side? To whom can we turn? Would we really wish to represent that family again? If our team loses abroad, especially on the world stage, no one can underestimate just how much loss of pride, prestige and reputation they immediately suffer. To then have their own country rejecting them too in that vitriolic way is not a winning formula for the future. It will simply lead to more of the same. There is a fundamental reason for that.


(Before the World Cup, the Sun touts England's perceived 'easy' time with the draw they have had.)

The Results of Negative Attacks
When we knock players every time they lose, instead of acknowledging what they have achieved up to that point, we instill shame and fear inside of them: fear of taking risks, fear of the consequences of their actions and fear of failure. Yet failure and success are two sides of the same coin. People fail only when the fear of failure has taken them over and they have lost faith in their ability to win. The more they are bashed for those failures is the less self-belief they have, the more difficult it is for them to believe they have the talent to win and the worse they perform when it matters. Fear destroys, it doesn't build. Yet the players need failures to learn. They need to take risks and they need mistakes to improve their art. In fact, I would hazard a guess that the trouncing by Germany will probably do far more to hone the team's skills and potential than anything else they have encountered. That's why Fabio Capello was absolutely right when he stressed business as usual and started looking forward to the future.

Participating in the FIFA World Cup is not an automatic right. It is a hard fought competitive event which is getting more difficult each year as more and more countries vie for the prestige and media glory of being involved in it. For the record, since 1950 when England began to enter the World Cup, the team has participated in 13 of the 16 possible events, winning one of them and reaching the quarter-finals in another six. That means they have done extremely well 81% of the time. That doesn't sound like losers to me! Only three occasions did they not qualify.

More important, England has a competition all time rank of being No. 5 of the 76 countries which have qualified for the World Cup down the years. That means only Brazil, Germany, Italy and Argentina rank above them. They are also No. 8 in the whole world, of all the 202 countries who play the sport. Those high rankings do not suggest 'flops', 'awful' 'rubbish' players. They suggest a team that has continuously delivered high standards of football, albeit erratically, and have always performed at a level only dreamed of by most of their opponents. English football is the envy of the world, especially the Premier League which attracts foreign managers like bees to honey.

Time to stop insulting our boys and encourage them instead. To accept that we are nurturing a winning team, not just a team to win one-off matches; accept that defeat and success have to be taken in stride in order for the team to be ready psychologically to fight another day, get over it and move on. Our life is dictated by our thought processes. When we dwell on failure, instead of moving briskly on, that is all we get - more failure. We cannot get glory and achievement out of negative thoughts and actions. We have to think like winners, act like winners and be treated like winners.

Germany's Thomas Mueller, who scored two goals against England, made the best comment so far. He said England needed younger hungrier players "prepared to make sacrifices". The team had "too many chiefs and not enough indians". That is a very important point the team managers need to consider. But when the team loses, the press should acknowledge it, and perhaps feel sad for it. But, above all, remind the team where they are coming from and where they still could reach, and get behind their efforts. That is the true role of a sensible media. Otherwise the labels the media are currently so willing to pin on to the players could all become horrible self fulfilling prophecies!

English football Debate (1): Did you say "the beautiful game"? When a perfectly valid goal is disallowed, the game is downright ugly.

The World Cup 2010 football game between England and Germany, where a very able English team was massacred 1:4 on a hot June day, will be long remembered for a host of reasons, not least that it could lead to radical changes both in perspectives in Britain and in FIFA playing procedures.

People involved in football (players, managers, referees, commentators and officials, in particular) love to extol the virtues of the sport as 'the beautiful game". Officials maintain that mistakes made by the referees in their adjudications are as much part and parcel of the appeal of the game as the game itself, hence why video replays have been resisted in settling questionable judgements. One is inclined to agree with that perception of overlooking referee fallibility, with so many aspects of the game to judge during any match, except in one major respect: when it comes to goals.

A goal is not just an accidental part of a game. It is the raison d'etre, the lynchpin, the whole point of football. Nothing else matters in the game. Without a goal one cannot win. Thus every single action of the players, no matter how artistic, skilful, dramatic or attractive to watch, has only ONE objective in mind: to ultimately score a goal and outdo their opponent. Fortunes rise and fall on a player's ability to bring that goal to fruition, or to prevent it from happening, regardless of his role on the field. Players themselves are paid huge sums in transfer fees based on their reputation for getting, or preventing, those goals. To have a crucial international match in the most important tournament, where the stakes are extremely high for participating countries - financially and patriotically - and then wilfully ignore a bad decision around a perfectly good goal is crass to the extreme, and makes the game rather bitter for those on the receiving end of that judgement.


The Power of Scoring a Goal
Those who say that Germany would have won anyway, which makes the disallowed goal of little consequence, know very little about emotional health. We are ruled by emotions, no matter how rational we might try to be. The higher the stakes the more emotional we become. I would go as far as saying that England might have won the game, or even taken it to penalties, if that goal was allowed, not because I am British too, but because of something else entirely: the power of any scored goal to lift players' spirits, to immediately increase morale, to motivate them even further, to reinforce faith in their abilities and to affirm what is possible.

Had England been allowed that goal at that most crucial point in the game when they had just started their fightback, a goal that would have equalised the score with Germany, we would have seen a different game from the players. The minute it was disallowed, their spirits took a nosedive and, play as they might, their subconscious resentment at their perceived injustice got in the way of their craft. They simply lost their motivation, no matter how much they tried to get back into the game - an entirely natural and unfortunate reaction when we are hit with the enormity of an action we feel impotent to affect. It is quite a different emotional feeling of NOT scoring at all than to score a goal which is not allowed. The first feeling is one of frustration at being thwarted in one's efforts to score while the second is one of injustice. Two completely different emotions.



The concept of justice in any form is very important to the human psyche. It is as old as time itself, and sought after in every aspect of our lives. One does not mind being frustrated in one's efforts through not scoring. Demoralising, yes, but not earth shattering. One knows one can always do better; that the onus is on the person to improve their act. Not so with a sense of injustice. That takes the responsibility from the personal level to a social one, involving a more powerful third party. Unless justice is perceived to be received it leaves feelings of gross impotence, victimhood and personal inadequacy. When it also happens on the world stage, in front of millions of people, the effects can be devastating because they are magnified beyond measure.

It is no coincidence that Mexico also lost their game with Argentina, being beaten 3:1, when both teams were 0-0 approaching full time. Once the referee allowed a clear offside goal in favour of Argentina, it would have been downhill all the way for the Mexicans in motivation, morale and a feeling of injustice.

In fact, it would have been better had England not scored that goal at all because they would have had to concede to themselves that they were crap on the day; that the Germans were the better team. But so long as that goal was disallowed, that doubt will always remain as to what the real result would have been. The Germans were certainly on form, but anyone would look even more masterful against a demoralised side silently grieving over a perceived injustice.

It is nonsense to have video replays in commentaries which are not allowed to influence a clear error in judgement, especially when everyone can see the glaring faux pax. That disallowed goal has gone viral on the Internet, casting a very long shadow over the whole tournament, especially when refereeing, in general, had improved, and everything was going so well. The president of FIFA, Sepp Blatter, who has stubbornly resisted any use of technology in matches, has apologised for referee errors (saying he 'deplored' seeing those mistakes on the replays) and promised to reopen the debate on using technology in the future, though for disputed goals only.

Well, if he wants the game of football to remain 'beautiful', and credible, technology is now an urgent imperative, because there is nothing beautiful at all about downright injustice. In fact, it leaves only nasty memories and is really rather ugly.

Why Madonna is right to adopt another child from Malawi

(picture courtesy: www.smh.com.au)


The Save the Children Fund has added its weighty voice to the debate as to whether Madonna should adopt another child and has spoken out against her, citing the fact that children should be cared for by 'extended families in their own home community'. Yes, that is true, and lot of things should happen in our world to make it a fairer place for many orphans, poor kids and kids without any kind of future, but they do not happen because we don't live in an ideal world. Moreover, one fails to see how an adoption could be criticised which would help one little motherless girl to have the kind of life 99% of us in the world dream about. No one can put the world's ills to right by themself, but if we all did just one thing to help a child, the dramatic difference would be immediately noticeable rather than doing only what is regarded as perfect or desirable.

It takes all kinds of action to change situations like those in Africa where the need is greatest, not just one ideal approach. In this case, Save the Children has got it very wrong because of one primary factor they have overlooked in their wisdom: the emotional health of the child Madonna has already adopted, David Banda.

David is a black child who will be spending his early formative life in an all-white family. His emotional health in forming his own identity is very important and that can only be helped by having a brother or sister who REFLECTS him, his heritage, his culture and his origins. When there is no reflection of us in our community, it sets up conflicts of identity, especially where our parents are clearly different, and can often cause internal dissonance until it is resolved, most often shown in either a rejection of the self (a desire to be white, for example) or a rejection of the parent(s).

Our daughter had a crisis of identity when she was between 12 and 13 years old. Though she had very loving parents (a black mother and a Sikh father), she was one of very few mixed race children at her grammar school which had a 98% white intake. The result of that, being virtually invisible in her school and feeling undervalued, was that she wanted to be white. It didn't matter what confidence, love or appreciation we gave her, the peer group she mixed with were all white and she felt unreflected and an outsider. She wanted so much to belong that being white, in her eyes, was the only way she could do it. She became introspective, uncommunicative and withdrawn for a few anxious months. Her confused state reflected itself in her writing which gradually revealed her problem. "Why did I have to be born black when all my friends are white?", she once wrote. It was a terribly tragic time for our family as we were unsure how to deal with this low self-image. yet we were very successful professionals and role models to her. We managed to bring her through those doubts and she resolved her identity and self-esteem in her own way by the time she was 15. However people underestimate the effects on children of being minorities in majority communities, the perceived lack of value, significance and self-reflection that haunt their routine lives, especially when all they see are white peers reflected in books, the media, as heroes and as the ones who matter.

That new addition to Madonna's family will do far more for David's sense of self and value than anything else Madonna could offer him. Both he and the new child will be reinforced by one another, just as his white sisters reinforce each other. Save the Children might want children to be supported in an ideal way, but this is not an ideal world. This is a cruel world where too many of our kids are suffering. One less child to suffer has got to be our aim, not the perfect manner in which it is done. As long as a child is not being exploited anything else to help them has got to be encouraged.

Madonna is doing the right thing for the wellbeing of her whole family and I wish her well in her aim.

Should Gordon Brown be putting his own house in order before he visits Obama?

Today Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of Britain, makes a much publicised trip to visit President Obama of the United States. The opposition Tory party is leading by an average of 12 points in the polls just now, sympathy for its leader, David Cameron, is also at record high because of the sudden and tragic death of his disabled six year old son last week; the bailout of the banks, especially when one of its chief executives will be getting £693,000 ($930,000) annual pension after leaving his bank in such parlous state, is fuelling fierce debate in the country, and the waning appeal of the Labour Party itself means that this trip couldn't come at a better time for Mr Brown himself. For a few days, at least, he will be able to bask in the reflected glory of America's newest wonderkid, sending the kind of signals back home, especially to mixed society, of sharing the President's objectives, values and ethics.

Gordon Brown might have placed an emphasis on discussing economic issues with the President, but for him and his Party, there are more pressing matters back home which the trip is hoped to influence: like the Party's re-election after three terms already. Elections have to be held by May of 2010, but can be held at the discretion of the ruling Party anytime before then. So we are on a kind of ongoing 'election alert' where every visit and every trip is crucial in the fight for votes, and no trip is as important as this one because of America's tremendous achievement in electing its first Black president. But Labour isn't where it is at. The Labour Party has lost its way, being rather backward with technology, with welcoming new ideas and reluctant to engage the public in real discussions on anything that is not stage managed. It means that they end up listening to the same old voices and remain in the same old pickle, being in great danger of losing the plot altogether.

There are two important areas that Gordon Brown needs to sort before he takes his place beside Barack Obama, if he really wants to be taken seriously. They are transparency in his own backyard and the invisibility of minorities.

First, try this little exercise. Go on to www.whitehouse.gov and try to make some contact then move on to Number10.gov.uk and do the same. There are no email facilities for making contact with Downing Street. The only ways are writing and making a video which is then replied to (a select few), by video too, by Mr Brown himself, in a kind of narcissistic orgy of self promotion. It really is only about him and little to do with real interaction. It means that the vast majority of Britons would not be making contact with their Prime Minister. I sent a fax instead, as I was instructed to do three weeks ago. To this day there has been no acknowledgement nor have I gotten a response either. Nothing. Nada, Nein, Nil. Take a look at the videos that are featured on the website. How many Black people are there? The only ones featured are at the ubiquitous receptions or events but none asking any questions or getting replies. Yet all the way from Britain, no matter what I have sent to the President's new website, there has been an acknowledgement or reply, usually within a week. The difference between the two websites is stark. The White House website is for genuine dialogue with the American people. To assess their views, mood and aspirations. The British No.10 website is for show and image. A few select voices might get through to it but it means that the vast majority of the public would have no voice, especially members of minority communities who are not even aware of such a facility.


The Invisibility of Minorities
Living in 21st century Britain as a member of a visible minority has a strange feel to it because there is nothing visible about it. People of colour are still as invisible as ever, across every walk of life, especially the media and government. They are either used as handy tokens to prove some dubious point about diversity or not at all. Gordon Brown's own cabinet has just ONE Black member (the Attorney General) and she is not even of full Cabinet rank. In fact, if the Cabinet were truly representative of its diverse society, there should be at least 3 minority ministers. It is a depressing fact that while Mr Brown cosies up to the President, he doesn't have a single Black person in America in a senior position in the diplomatic consulate. Of all the 21 people listed on the Ambassador's page, they are all White. Any American could be forgiven for believing that Britain is an all-White country by that monocultural representation. But that is absolutely indicative of the mealy-mouthed double standards in operation by the government. Image, spin and show, with little to support them.

Blacks are invisible across education, commerce, the military, advertising, government and, above all, the media, which are responsible for influencing public opinion. A rare species inside the White media is the black 'expert'. You will hardly ever see one of those. Expertness automatically carries a White tag. Only people of a particular colour are endowed with the gift of being advisers, commentators, experts in their craft and opinions worth having. Just have a look at the staff of any top British newspaper and the people who blog or comment for them. That tells it all about our multicultural society! The effect of such invisibility is to starve minorities of continual exposure by depriving them of a voice. It means minority communities remain starved of cash as well because being any kind of expert or adviser carries more publicity, bigger fees and personal publications.

Minorities get no publicity and, being robbed of a voice, they get little money too, which helps to keep them in the inferior status they are perceived to have. In fact, if one wants to see the invisibility of minorities in stark relief, just take a look at the most senior staff of the Mayor of London's office. Boris Johnson and his four deputy Mayors are all White (and male), power dictated by colour in a city with 30% Black residents! Yet the good Mayor boasts of London's commitment to diversity and equality daily. Obviously fine words compensate for the absence of real action! The tragedy of that omission is the real message it is giving Black Londoners of both their value and their ability to govern. In effect, minorities are always being talked about, or reported on, but hardly ever speaking for themselves, which maintains their impotent state and low sense of self.


Political window dressing
More important, I see the ease with which the American public now discuss the possible candidacy of Bobby Jindal (before his debacle!), and other minorities, for president in 2012 without batting an eyelid regarding their colour or gender (how American perspectives have shifted in just a couple of years) and we still struggle to get basic minority MPs in the Houses of Parliament, let alone even consider any of them for that top, coveted post of Prime Minister. I cannot imagine a Black Prime Minister in my lifetime because minorities are still on the periphery of political life, heavily dependent on being 'allowed' to stand as candidates by the different predominantly White local constituencies. In this way, the biased system keeps perpetuating itself to produce more of the same in relentless monotony.

With the election of Barack Obama, the USA has put its slave past firmly behind it. Racism will not magically disappear because of his presence, but people's perception will gradually change towards one another, and it's perception that dictates how we interact. Britain has not a hope in hell currently of achieving similar success because it has to begin a genuine open dialogue with ALL its people to engage them in any political process.

Obama has made transparency and unity his watchwords for governing. Britain has a long way to go to be 'transparent', if the Downing Street website is anything to go on. Furthermore, minorities are invisible to the political, administrative and economic life of the UK which makes genuine social unity and equality a myth. It means that Mr Brown's visit with President Obama this week is all the more superficial and hypocritical for political expediency, and really just tired window-dressing.

Do many White Britons really get it about the offensive nature of Racism? Why the BBC was right to sack Carol Thatcher

Carol Thatcher, the daughter of a British Prime Minister, made a remark about a French tennis player, saying how much he looks like a 'golliwog' a 'half-golliwog' and a 'golliwog Frog' (frog being a derogatory, xenophobic term for the French). The BBC immediately sacked her from The One Show. Apparently, to date, nearly 3,500 people have complained about her being dropped by the BBC and only 133 for the decision.

In the eyes of some of the predominantly White media, that shows how 'silly' and 'pc' it all is, a storm in a teacup, how Britain is losing its way etc. But it is truly painful, as a Black citizen who loves Britain, to see how racism is taken for granted simply because White Britons have the power to behave as they like and often exercise that power in the form of branding everything to do with essential mutual respect as mere 'pc'. It is fascinating that one does not hear any reports of Black Britons publicly calling their White peers any kind of racist names. So is that the preserve of White folks?

Let's get one thing straight. Racism is an ignominious and offensive form of action. It takes a particular mindset to be racist against another. Racism robs someone of their value and their dignity, it derogates their race and identity and it treats them as undeserving and inferior to everyone else. Above all that, we are talking about the absence of MUTUAL RESPECT when we practise any kind of racism, yet we all seek respect for what we value, for what we cherish and what we hold dear to our hearts. We also give three strong messages about ourselves when we use racist terms against others.

First, that we are so low in esteem that we have to boost our ego, to get our kicks, to feel superior at the expense of another person who might be far less fortunate than we are and whose only 'crime' as the butt of selected 'in jokes', is the colour of their skin. No one can change their skin colour to what others might wish it to be, so to use racist terms against another is to define the actual value we too place upon ourselves. Simply because if we really love ourselves, and value who we are, we would understand how someone else feels about themselves too, the pride and joy in being a unique individual.

Second, the language we use identifies us and our mindsets, where we are coming from and where we are going. It shows what we value and care about by the words we actually choose to utter. Most people do not go round using a term like 'golliwog' to describe a Black person, especially in 21st century Britain, because the word was deemed publicly offensive some time back because of its questionable roots and its deliberate unflattering caricature of a Black image. When we easily use racist and derogatory words, we say a lot about how we perceive others who are different, how we regard people who might not share our skin colour and how we easily relegate them to be undeserving of our respect and inclusion in order to maintain our feelings of superiority.


Personal fears as barriers
Third, we allow fear to dominate our perspective as we foster a deliberate 'them' and 'us' mentality where people are identified in a purely derogatory way: by the colour of their skin, no other factor included. It shows a lot of personal fear because racism is the worst form of exclusion. Fear is a terrible thing when it comes to dealing with others because it allows for unnecessary barriers in appreciating who they are, it focuses on their differences negatively while completely ignoring the similarities we might all share. When we are not sure of how to deal with difference, we usually select the most obvious feature to transform into something worthless.

But there are other more practical concerns with this incident. This Frenchman is a guest in our country. Do we get our kicks from bashing visitors now instead of protecting them? What does it say about us and how we view our European neighbours, while pretending that we are much more advanced in racial matters? How would we like one of our treasured stars to be racially abused in another country?

Many White Britons still don't understand the nature of racism and why it is simply wrong to use racist terms. It has nothing to do with being 'pc', a term mostly used by people with power to excuse bad behaviour against more vulnerable members among them. Racism is the worst action in a mixed society because it is the majority group, the White section, that has the economic power, that controls the media (how many Black faces do you see or voices do you hear in Britain's media, especially in the positions that really matter?), that has the political clout, that makes the laws, sets social standards and controls the country's resources. It means they have the power to do whatever they like against anyone who might be different simply through sheer numbers, history and exclusivity. Being openly racist is also a part of that power, especially in the absence of minorities in positions of authority to give alternative inputs.

In a year when the first Black person has been elected to be President of the United States, and to lead the Democratic Party; when the first Black person has also been elected to lead the Republican Party, it is time Britain moved into a new exciting phase of its own and ditch the racism. We are well behind America now and it is time we stopped behaving as if we are so inclusive, so respectful of each other or so understanding of our heritage, if we can still easily condone racist acts. Time to stop the racist smugness and start the healing process. Time to get out of the 'golliwog' and racist era and join America in celebrating difference. Time to be much more genuinely inclusive of minorities by ensuring their voice and valuing their contributions instead of simply derogating them because we can. Perhaps we might even learn to truly appreciate ourselves as a nation in the process.

It might only have been a simple word. But words define who we are, what we wish to emphasise and how we truly value ourselves and others. For a privileged lady, whose mother set such a remarkable example for this country, Carol Thatcher's action was thoughtless and shameful and should be condemned as such by every person who is proud to be British.

Thank you, BBC, for your very prompt and professional action.

The problem with seeking scapegoats instead of justice: it allows crime to flourish even more

I remember it well. It was 1992. I was having chronic marital problems and under heavy stress. I suppose, at those times, when there is internal conflict, everything external appears to be in turmoil too. For some reason, society just seemed a bit more lawless then. It was the year Rachel Nickell was killed on Wimbledon Common in London in front of her two year old son, Alex. A beautiful woman, Rachel was only 23 with everything to live for. Yet she was brutally stabbed 49 times that fateful day, July 15th, when she took her son for a walk.


Desperate to charge her murderer, anyone it seems, the police fixated on Colin Stagg, who, to them appeared to fit the photokit. He lived in the area, a noticeable drifter and they needed to charge someone urgently to stem the sense of national outrage at the killing of this innocent woman. He was selected as the murderer soon afterwards and, aided and abetted by a vengeful press, they took Stagg's life apart. Everything about him was put under the microscope to 'prove', show and demonstrate why he was the killer. His name became synonymous with Rachel's. But Colin Stagg, from the moment he was arrested, kept saying he was innocent, and said it persistently, even when he was dogged in his daily life by TV cameras expecting some kind of confession. In that climate of outrage, no one was listening.

He had been charged because of two things: an undercover policewoman, working in a kind of 'honeytrap' investigation to lure a confession from him, and an 'expert' psychologist who 'profiled' Stagg as the likely murderer. Stagg served 13 months in prison awaiting trial and when the prosecution brought its case against him in court, it was thankfully thrown out by a little known judge, Mr Justice Ognall. As Boris Johnson wrote in 2006, Stagg was the subject of a trial by the press, a kind of "irrational media hysteria".

Boris continued: "The awfulness of the killing provoked the press to paroxysms of outrage. So deafening were the calls for retribution that the police were driven quite out of their wits. There being no forensic evidence, they were forced to look for likely suspects, and in Colin Stagg they found a man who ideally suited the tabloid agenda. He was runtish and rat-like, and yet also into body-building. He lived on his own. He was given to wearing dodgy-looking singlets and he was a devotee of the ancient pagan religion called Wicca. He had a picture of the Cerne Abbas giant inscribed on a black-painted wall in his flat. Someone said that they had seen him, or a man very like him, on the common on the morning of the murder - and that was enough."

In short, he was different from the norm and difference always means fear. He didn't stand a chance of being acquitted under those circumstances.

A Very Brave Judge
Yet, Justice Ognall bravely stood up to all the media and parliamentary bullies baying for blood, showing his own "audacity and common sense", and threw out Stagg's case. He had been lured by the undercover policewoman to admit things he never did because he fancied her and wanted to please her, and there was not much else that was real evidence. Yet the media hounded Stagg for years afterwards, always hinting that he was the killer who got away! Even though a newspaper paid him £43000 ($80,000) to take a lie detector test, which he passed, they still kept at him in the absence of anyone else being charged.


However, while Stagg was banged up and undergoing trial by media, Robert Napper was free, on the loose and on to his next victim in Scotland. Even when his own mother reported him to the police for a confession of rape from him, nothing happened. Just like Rachel, Samantha Bissett was young, pretty and had a four year old daughter, Jazmine. Napper kept stalking her for a while, watching her every move, then in November of 1993, armed with three knives, he crept into her basement flat and stabbed her 8 times, then cut her up and dismembered her body. As if that wasn't enough, he raped and smothered her four year old daughter with a pillow.


He was later caught and admitted manslaughter under diminished responsibility, along with two other rapes. Psychiatrists believed Napper had paranoid schizophrenia and Asperger's syndrome at the time of the killing. He was sent to Broadmoor high security hospital in 1995 where he stayed until the development of advanced DNA testing. It revealed that the tiny particle of DNA, which was swabbed from Rachel Nickell's body, did match his, and was confirmed in 2004. Despite being interviewed by police a few times since, Napper never admitted anything, until yesterday: December 18, 2008. He confessed to the killing of Rachel Nickell, 16 years after he callously mutilated her. This sad case has led to significant changes in how the police approach a murder enquiry, but it came too late to save Rachel or Samantha.

In August 2008, Colin Stagg was awarded over £700,000 ($1,250,000) for his false accusation and imprisonment, but I don't think any amount of money could make up for at least 12 years of hell that man went through, especially as he wasn't officially acquitted until 2006. He was never out of the papers which felt it their duty to play judge and jury.

What is so tragic about this case is that there are many people worldwide being accused of crimes they did not commit because of convenience, expediency and the desire for a handy scapegoat, while the real criminals are left free to continue in the same vein. Troy Davis, who has a pending execution over his head in Georgia, America, comes to mind. He has always maintained his innocence, yet regardless of the new developments with the witnesses, he is still being treated sceptically. The public do not deserve scapegoats for crimes, because they are still at the mercy of the real perpetrators. The public can only feel safe when the actual wrongdoers are caught and genuine justice has been applied.

As Boris aptly puts it: "Whom shall the media blame? The tabloids should realise that they are very largely at fault for the disaster. They decided not so much that Stagg had done it, but that this was what their readers wanted to hear, and they hammered away at it so vociferously that the criminal justice system was driven almost to insanity.

The Stagg case is a perfect example of why we should not allow ourselves to be ruled by tabloid editors. The Daily Mail's MMR panic has brought us an increase in measles, and the general panic over paedophiles has all but driven men from primary school classrooms. It needs brave politicians to resist this kind of nonsense, and brave judges to tell the media when they are wrong."

Indeed. Otherwise we simply reap what we sow.

Why it is suddenly cool to be Black in Britain: Thank you Simon Cowell - and Barack Obama!

Last night, the equivalent of the Berlin Wall came crashing down in Britain on our television screens. Alexandra Burke, one of the most talented singers I have ever seen on TV, sang her heart out to become the undisputed queen of Britain's X-Factor (the sister of American Idol, but a much better, more inclusive version). Barely two weeks ago, moved by one of her renditions, Simon Cowell had said to her: "You make me proud to be British!" Last night he was clearly speechless as her performance soared to a fantastic level. Her duet with superstar Beyonce will be unforgettable!

As a Black woman in Britain, watching two deserving Black acts in the finale (the stunning JLS group and Alexandra) I too felt extremely proud to be British. I have always been proud, as I adore this country, but being an older Black person having lived through the prejudices, discrimination and sheer invisibility of being Black, last night had tremendous significance beyond the obvious for anyone of African origin in this country. It was really cool to be Black, and proud, and talented on TV screens that have been starved of Black faces, starved of Black input and starved, in particular, of Black presenters, panellists and judges! (Thank you, Simon Cowell - and Barack Obama!)

To understand the magnitude of what happened on ITV last night, one has to be both Black and British. It doesn't matter what the programme is ever about, especially reality ones, the foregone conclusion (until Leona Lewis in 2007) is that only a White winner will suit the expectations, the marketability and the 'image' required - and only White winners have been voted for by the public to match that racist perception. Even when a Black person reaches the final, one knows the coveted prize will be elusive to them because they are normally fighting the odds of what is mind-numblingly patronising, traditional and routine: that anything not White is inferior. It was not so long ago in 2002, for example, on the BBC's Fame Academy, most Black people felt that the runner-up, Lemar, was robbed of victory because the public weren't ready to vote for anyone Black in such a new series. But there was a kind of poetic justice when the winner, David Sneddon opted out, disillusioned and unable to cope with the pressure, and Lemar went on to become one of Britain's best known recording artistes, doing justice to his amazing voice and talents.

On any day of the week, there is very little on our screens, especially at peak times when the big audiences are engaged, to indicate a truly multicultural society where one has real choice in programming, or a different fare to enjoy. You will be hard pressed to find any Black voices on anything, especially Black experts or key players. There is a lot of window dressing, tokenism and peripheral activity by minorities within our media but they are still very firmly in the background, kept well away from the lottery-sized salaries and influential positions. This in turn helps to keep minority communities invisible, out of the competition, robbed of key opportunities and chronically underexposed.

A Change in Public Perception
If one trawls back through every programme with a major prize attached to it, one would be hard pressed to see any Black names involved. Consigned to the perennial label of 'also rans', Black people knew that there was no way one of them would win, but at least taking part gave them some exposure, even if they were doomed by their colour to be eternally second-best, and many grabbed the opportunity to be at least involved. While including minorities as obvious fodder, this illusion of 'fairness', was so predictable as to be terribly demoralising and sad, especially for Black people nationwide looking for inspiration and some assurance that they were actually visible. Last night, the incredible happened in public perception: for the first time it really didn't matter about their colour! Two Black finalists, looking good, full of talent and looking cool, destroyed the usual tokenism associated with such coveted events. Let me repeat that for the unbelieving: There were TWO Black finalists of three, not just one, and they both came first and second, destroying the myth (hopefully for good) that only a White person can ever be a winner in the media in such events, especially when cute and astonishingly talented little Eoghan Quigg, could have stolen the moment. (Thank you, Simon Cowell - and Barack Obama!)

They were good for the viewing figures too. Normally averaging between 8 and 10 millions, the X-Factor has turned into one of Britain's biggest shows. But last night it hit the jackpot with a staggering 15 millions who switched on to watch (a quarter of the UK's population) when the average for a good programme is around 7 million these days). It is no coincidence at all that an unknown Black guy with a strange name becoming American president is changing perceptions everywhere, quietly and relentlessly, about the value of being Black. Suddenly it feels wonderful to be 'normal', not extraordinary or tokenistic, but normal. My only disappointment is that this did not happen on the BBC, the country's leading channel, which should be ahead of the field in reflecting our multiculturalism, through representation and inclusion, especially when the licence fee has to be paid for by all. Instead it happened on the commercial channel which has the bottom line as its top concern.

Ah well, with Barack Obama on the verge of occupying the White House, an incredible feat of achievement by any standards, and relentlessly changing world opinions, the British public has also had a sea change in perception with the outcome of the X-Factor. At this rate, programme-makers might even begin to get bolder and less traditional, less biased and more inclusive in their output. Who knows, I might yet see, in my lifetime, the two established no-go areas for Blacks on British television fall as well: period dramas having Black stars in the leading casts and Newsnight having a Black presenter - though I can't afford to hold my breath!

For today, I am deliriously happy, I am awestruck and amazed. Yes, our own Berlin Wall of perception came tumbling down last night with a huge and reverberating bang. The future looks very promising for our society but, above all, it really feels good, chic and cool to be Black and truly British. It has taken 40 years of my lifetime to reach this point, but how exciting the next 40 years could be! (Thank you so much, Simon Cowell - and Barack Obama!)