Skip to main content

Day: 10 October 2016

Manchester ‘Walk of Fame’ honours city icons

Manchester’s First Street has become home to 20 stars on the pavements, honouring some of the city’s most revered residents.

The city’s answer to the Hollywood Walk of Fame, ‘Star Walk Manchester’ is part of a promotional campaign ahead of the opening of new bar, ‘The Liquor Store First Street’, a sister business to the Deansgate establishment of the same name.

The 20 favourites featured in the installation were selected through a poll run by the bar’s management. The resulting top 20 represent the diversity of Manchester, from its heavily industrial past, to artists like L. S. Lowry, as well as more recent additions the city, such as the late comedian Caroline Aherne.

Liquor Store co-owner Doug Waldron commented on how honouring the creators of the city’s legacy was an important part of the Liquor Store’s expansion.

“Manchester is at the heart of everything we do at the Liquor Store and with First Street being an artistic breeding ground, located opposite the famous Hacienda building, it seemed fitting to open our new bar by celebrating some of the city’s most prolific stars.”

Demonstrating the breadth of Manchester’s contribution to the world, the icons represent a number of fields ranging from sport to the arts. Figures such as Paul Scholes of Manchester United, acclaimed actor Maxine Peake, and director Danny Boyle, the man behind the opening ceremony at the London 2012 Olympics, all being celebrated.

Manchester’s rich musical history is, naturally, represented especially strongly, with Ian Curtis, Morrissey, the Gallagher brothers, and iconic manager Tony Wilson all to be found in the project. The University of Manchester also maintains a strong presence, with the inclusion of poet Lemn Sissay, Chancellor of the University, and Physics fellow Brian Cox.

Emmeline Pankhurst, a pioneering figure of Britain’s suffragette movement, also appears in the installation, following the announcement in January that she will be honoured by a new statue located in Manchester, the city of her birth.

Unfortunately, Star Walk Manchester is not a permanent fixture. Manchester’s pedestrians will only be able to admire the installation until Monday 10th October, following the opening of the new branch of The Liquor Store on Saturday 8th October.

The full list of featured stars is as follows:

Noel Gallagher; Liam Gallagher; Morrissey; Ian Brown; Ian Curtis; Bez; Mick Hucknall; Paul Scholes; Brian Cox; Maxine Peake; Tony Warren; Lemn Sissay; John Thaw; Caroline Aherne; Dame Sarah Storey; L S Lowry; Danny Boyle; Tony Wilson; Emmeline Pankhurst; Les Dawson

Can you go the distance?

So you’ve done it. You’ve taken the plunge and moved away from home for the first time. You packed up your life into the back of your parent’s car including your favourite hoodie, your posters, and an indeterminate number of fairy lights. But what if the one thing you want to take along most is the one thing you can’t?

Leaving a partner behind can be the toughest part of moving away for any amount of time. One of the most common problems faced by students is whether or not to attempt to maintain relationships over long distances. Whether you’re a fresher, moving to a new city, or choosing to study abroad for part of your degree, the decision to commit to a long distance relationship (an LDR) is a big one.

It’s important to sit down and have a frank discussion with your beau about how you both feel. It might be that, whilst you’re both really into each other, a long distance relationship isn’t for you and you can part ways with relatively little heartache.

By being brave and actually asking the simple question of ‘do we really want to do this?’ before you make the big move, you can avoid weeks of skirting around the issue because neither of you wants to hurt the other and the whole situation inevitably ending in arguments and tears. Plus, if you do both state your commitment to continuing your relationship this gives you a strong foundation and sense of security before you embark on an LDR.

Next it’s important to consider the practicalities of a long distance relationship. Getting to grips with Skype early on and maintaining a kind of routine in how often you ‘see’ each other can be really good for avoiding those pesky pangs of homesickness. Knowing that you’re definitely going to see your boyfriend/girlfriend on Sunday night and spend some quality time catching up makes it easier to be more present during those exciting first few weeks in a new place without constantly checking your phone and wondering why they haven’t been in touch.

Secondly, think carefully about planning actual visits. By booking train tickets—or flights if your other half is a little further away—well in advance, it gives you both something to look forward to. Make fun plans that you can get excited about—even if those plans only involve your bed and a Chinese takeaway. Think about the things in your new city that you’d love to show them as well as making sure to leave time to spend alone together.

The hardest thing about an LDR is being understanding and accommodating of the other person in the relationship. Distance can result in a lack of communication which, in turn, can lead to arguments and bitterness. Airing any worries or problems you might have instead of allowing them to build up is the best way to avoid this, as well ensuring that any jealousy that might arise is quickly dissipated.

It’s normal to be unsure about whether or not your relationship can survive the first few weeks of term but it’s important to trust in yourself and, even more importantly, trust in your boyfriend/girlfriend and avoid being paranoid.

For example, if you know they’re going on a night out with their friends, ask them to make sure they send you quick text when they get home safe as opposed to bombarding them with texts all night. This might make them feel like they’re being hounded, and distract them from making friends and memories in their new place, as well as interfering with your own experiences.

Having a definite point in the future where your relationship will no longer be long distance is often the thing which will get you through the heartache. For many couples, this is as easy as knowing that one of you will be coming home after a semester or two but for others it can get a bit more complicated.

Having an idea about how you would like your future to be as a couple can be really helpful in providing hope and the motivation to keep going through any rough patches you might encounter.

If you find that you’re struggling in your LDR, as well as being open with your partner, it’s also a great idea to have someone else to talk to. Friends and family can be great for this but the University of Manchester Counselling Service also provides counsellors who are available to speak with you about any worries you may have, and are easily accessible through the university website.

We love to fear the zombie

In recent decades, zombies have risen again to invade our screens. As early as 1996 and the release of the first Resident Evil game, the undead were beginning to take a hold of our imaginations once more. In the new millennium, we had modern classics such as 28 Days Later in 2002, and Zac Snyder’s 2004 reworking of George A Romero’s Dawn of the Dead, through to the box office smash World War Z a few of years ago.

All of this has culminated in AMC’s surprise hit The Walking Dead, which reached 14.6 million viewers in the US for the Season 6 premiere, and pushed 20 million when taking online streaming into account. These numbers rival the American heavyweights of Sunday night football and NCIS. The success of The Walking Dead, in particular, has transformed the horror sub-genre from the preserve of undead enthusiasts, who hoard non-perishable foodstuffs in their makeshift bunkers and are never a few metres from an axe, into the weekly watching of the living room masses.

And it is a ‘surprise’ hit. Its unrelenting story-lines, bleak moral outlook, and the destruction of the characters’ humanity make you wonder how it can be so popular. The Walking Dead will enter the seventh season on 23rd October, and producer Greg Nicotero says that it only gets worse: “It’s almost too much… It goes lower and lower and lower”. Yet it has drawn ambivalent zombie viewers, such as myself, and produced die-hard fans of the walkers.

It is nothing new that we enjoy watching depravity and despair for entertainment. Time magazine noted how extreme has become the new norm, citing the rising prominence of other unremittingly brutal series like Game of Thrones. Nobody wants to watch perfect people leading perfect lives, but we have reached a point where TV shows will kill children and endorse suicide, and still continue to drag us through every harrowing 40 minute episode and binge-inducing cliff hanger.

Despite the gruesome nature of the zombie film, these apocalyptic stories seem to speak to us on a deeper level. The prevalence of social commentary in the world of zombies has been around since the inception of the genre. George A Romero himself, the godfather of the zombie film, commented that he made Night of the Living Dead from a place of anger that “the Sixties didn’t work”. In both the 1978 Dawn of the Dead and the recent remake, it has been often noted that the setting of the shopping mall strikes a note of irony, juxtaposing our consumerism with the mindless consumption of the undead.

As the post-apocalyptic surfaces in pop culture, we can see the underlying fears of our time. Our parents had the Bomb and the Cold War which manifested in, among other things, the espionage of mutants in the X-men comics and the secret war raging unbeknownst to humanity at large. Perhaps in a world of iOS updates and automatic device synchronisation, where technology moves at an overwhelming pace and seems to organise more and more of our lives, the apocalypse represents a place free from the technological regime.

The extended narrative of The Walking Dead shows us a world unhindered by modernity, simpler than our own and stripped back to the bare bones of humanity. Perhaps our fascination with the world of the walking dead is to do with our concern about super-viruses and the outbreak of incurable disease. Perhaps we are concerned more broadly with a possible world-wide disaster and catastrophic consequences of global warming.

One can speculate about the subconscious reasons why the mainstream has taken to zombies. In essence, the apocalyptic allows us to explore our fears in a kind of safe space away from the all too real threats of the age of terror and environmental disaster. Max Brooks, the author of the mockumentary novel World War Z, notes that “zombie stories give people the opportunity to witness the end of the world they’ve been secretly wondering about while… allowing themselves to sleep at night because the catalyst of that end is fictional.” It seems as though the troubles of our time will not be going away any time soon, and that means the undead will probably stick around as well.

Live: Ultimate Painting

The Deaf Institute, 30th September

7/10

A green hue illuminates the stage of The Deaf Institute as people chatter, while the parrots watch on in the backdrop. On the day of Ultimate Painting’s third album release, there is a calmness that exudes from the four-piece; perhaps it comes off the back of a plethora of praising reviews, one hailing Dusk as full of “melodies so gorgeous that they tug at the heartstrings with one hand”, or maybe it is that the stage has become home to Jack Cooper and James Hoare, steadfast guitar aficionados previously of Mazes and Veronica Falls respectively.

They launch straight into ‘Ultimate Painting’, the title track from their eponymous debut album, and the crowd is instantly warmed by the catchy guitar riff and call and response chorus. The lead single from their new album, ‘Bills’ is up next, with its Krautesque rhythm section and uncharacteristically sparse guitar, the focus is drawn towards the vocal harmonies and lyrics; “they’re chewing me up” is repeated to the point of collective sadness. They float on through ‘The Ocean’ before arriving at the ethereal ‘Lead the Way’ for which Hoare takes to the piano; it’s beautifully simple in its chord progression, and yet almost hypnotic in its effect, lulling the crowd into a warm stupor.

“So what happens after this in Manchester?”, Cooper asks towards the end of their set. If this had been to a room full of students, a call for hedonism would have been spat and growled, but alas, this crowd has seen those days and the band know it: “Do we appeal to people who just go home after this? I think we probably do”. As if hoping to reinvigorate the crowd into re-living their party days, they choose one of their fastest numbers ‘(I’ve Got The) Sanctioned Blues’, as their penultimate song, with Hoare displaying his soloing ability in a T-Bone Walker-meets-distortion fashion.

Ultimate Painting are an updated 80s indie pop band, combining the vocal harmonies of likes of Teenage Fanclub, and the guitars of The Weather Prophets or Treebound Story. They have created a unique sound that not only translates wonderfully live, but also matures as they do—they may not be a party band, but their performance is captivating.

A Gibraltarian against Brexit

In the EU referendum of June this year, 96 per cent of British Gibraltarians voted to remain, with an 83.7 per cent turnout. This was the first result to be made public. It far overtook any other constituency in terms of unanimity. Despite this, British Gibraltar was at the mercy of the overall UK vote for Brexit. It would be a huge miscarriage of democracy if an entire peoples’ vote was deemed null and void. As things are developing, it certainly seems that is how the views of the 96 per cent will be treated.

Naturally—as the official backers of ‘Remain’ and the most powerful electoral bloc in Gibraltar—the Government of Gibraltar has been in talks with a plethora of statesmen and women in the UK and Europe to put across the view that Brexit imposed on Gibraltar would, at the very the least, take away a vital component of own identity. We have received assurance after assurance. First, Gibraltar was told to keep an eye on Scotland, who could launch an independence referendum as a means of re-applying for EU membership. But—judging by polls sourced by BritainElects—a win for independence seems unlikely.

Second, we were told to explore the ‘reverse Greenland’ scenario, where areas that voted Remain would stay in the EU, and those that voted Leave would exit. This avenue has seemingly been either blocked or hushed. Now we are being told by the incorrigibly split Conservative Government that we may have to put up with a ‘Hard Brexit’, without access to the Single Market or freedom of movement—despite our Government’s pleas to retain these core tenets of the EU. It’s as if we were hanging of a cliff face and guaranteed a helping hand, but our friends have walked away. To think that this all began with a bunch of Tory backbenchers wanting to control borders and make parliament ‘sovereign’!

The Rock’s Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, was right to suggest that a Brexit would present an “existential crisis” to Gibraltar. This is precisely why the demands of the people must be unwavering. 96 per cent did not vote for a piecemeal post-Brexit reform. They did not vote merely for Single Market access. They definitely did not vote to leave the EU on the back of a xenophobic campaign in the UK. It is fair to say that they want to remain a European Gibraltar, not a Brexit Gibraltar; and most of all, not a Spanish Gibraltar. There should be no loosening of demands, especially when several political officials were influential in the European Movement that so enthusiastically defended this proud part of our modern identity.

In a recent lecture at the University of Manchester, Lord Peter Mandelson (New Labour spin doctor and ex-European Commissioner for Trade) was pessimistic about the chances of a peaceful and reasonable post-Brexit negotiation. Despite his reluctance to answer my question, he did indicate that the Government is already keen on restraining Scotland and Gibraltar and pushing for a ‘Hard Brexit’ before Remainers get an opportunity to rally for a deal that they desire. For the most part, this includes the aforementioned single market access and free movement of peoples.

The action from the UK Government will no doubt have an effect on the SNP and Remainer Scotland at large. The only way that Scotland can secure their own desired negotiation with the EU would be to vehemently resist any UK negotiation that did not represent their interests. Gibraltar should do the same; for with its undeniable mandate to remain in the EU, the Rock is on the right side of democratic justice. No rational mind can argue that Gibraltar, a modern post-colonial British nation which voted heavily to Remain, should be robbed of its European identity and political status.

The Conservative Government, and the Eurosceptic wing of UK politics more generally, are fighting fire with fire in regards to Britain after Brexit. The ‘Hard Brexit’ represents the worst irrationality of the ‘Leave’ campaign, and the UKIP leadership is already blaming May’s cabinet for betraying the Leave vote and being “too soft” on migrants. The European argument is far from over and Gibraltar’s case must not waver. Of course, Gibraltar does not want to be left behind from any negotiations that are made, but its emphatic mandate for EU membership cannot be ignored.

UK/EU negotiations will be played hardball. It is very possible that they will lead to not much more than the political equivalent of breadcrumbs. Whether we end up having to put up with breadcrumbs or not, we should not let the 96% leave our national narrative. A Brexit, however spun, is unjust to Gibraltar. We have dealt with injustices before and have eventually overcome them as a stronger unit than ever. When the negotiations have been settled, we may have to remind ourselves that we voted to be a European Gibraltar, and that we have a democratic right to voice our demands.

Mark Montegriffo is a committee member of the Politics Society. You can like their Facebook page here.

Are fashion magazines behind the times?

Fashion magazines are the epitome of contemporary media. We look to fashion and lifestyle magazines for what to wear, how to act, and even what to eat. So the question we must ask ourselves is how some of these magazines are able to follow every inspiring idea, every pencil stroke of every popular designer, yet still haven’t grasped the crucial concept of modern diversity.

Take Vogue for example, the fashion bible, launched in 1916 yet waited fifty years to publish their first black model on their cover. A recent uproar in the media concerns Jordan Dunn as the first black model to grace Vogue’s cover in twelve years. In 2013,  models Naomi Campbell, Iman, and Bethann Hardison wrote a letter to Vogue expressing their outrage: “No matter the intention, the result is racism. Not accepting another based on the colour of their skin is clearly beyond aesthetic”. However, during these twelve years various non-white iconic celebrities such as Beyoncé and Rihanna have featured on the covers of Vogue.  A concept that has become an issue is that of ‘whitewashing’. Whitewashing is the idea of transforming celebrities with a more multicultural background into the lighter-skinned, straighter-haired versions we see now, in order to create the ‘perfect image’ in the eyes of today’s society and in some cases coloured contacts and ‘shrinking’ is used to make the body appear slimmer.

It is obvious how much we are influenced by what’s on the cover of magazines. They set the trend of what’s hot and what’s not, particularly in the weight department. Different cultures bear varying perceptions of the ideal body image. For example, research shows that the ideal woman in Black and Latina cultures has feminine curves, big hips, and a big bosom, none of which are normally shown on UK models. Models are made to disown what is desirable in their own culture in order to conform to the dominating white ideal that the UK has obsessed over for so long, in order to become ‘beautiful’. We are fed images that form our idea of what is perfect. Not exposing the readership of fashion magazines to multicultural faces on their pages means we are in danger of distorting our own vision of what is the social norm, inevitably encouraging, perhaps subconsciously, racism and ignorance among the impressionable minds of our country’s youth.

High fashion magazines such as Vogue set these criterion because they can. However, with growing immigration and multiculturalism, the western world is flourishing with diversity and many companies are failing to reflect this through the mainstream media.  Jordan Dunn told The Guardian in 2013: “People in the industry say that if you have a black face on the cover of a magazine it won’t sell”. But is this really because of the buyers or the prejudices that have been fabricated by the industry? Maybe companies which have such a large impact on the fashion industry should consider more carefully how much their covers affect society’s acceptance of those who might look a bit different from ourselves.

Is the Student Union right to ban the Daily Star?

At the recent Manchester Student Union Senate, 92 per cent voted in favour of a motion to cease the sale of the Daily Star due to its objectification of women. In effect, this is a constitutional ban on the newspaper. To make it clear, I do agree that the Daily Star objectifies women—you only need to read it to realise that—however banning it is in no way the correct way to resolve this, as it sets a dangerous precedent of censorship and limitations on the freedom of the press.

First of all, I think it is important to ask if the Student Union (SU) actually has the right to do such a thing. The simple answer is: no. Article 19 of the United Nation’s (UN) Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers”. By denying students the ability to access the Daily Star, they are denying us of a fundamental human right set out by the UN.

But let’s say for some reason the SU has decided that they are beyond the power of the UN. The answer is still no. The SU is bound by the University of Manchester Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech which states that the University will uphold the freedom of expression, speech, and thought by any practical means necessary. There is one proviso, however; the university does not protect speech that “constitutes incitement to riot, insurrection, racial hatred, religious hatred, sexual harassment, or other activities—beyond the right of peaceful protest—which are likely to cause a breach of the peace or public disorder, or otherwise would be unlawful”.

Is it possible that the motion was perhaps submitted for one of these reasons? When questioned, the SU quoted the notes that were submitted alongside the motion. The student responsible believed that “[The Daily Star] objectifies women and is totally inappropriate to be sold, particularly in an academic setting”. As I have said before, I don’t believe that whether it objectifies women is a point of contention, I just don’t think that this alone warrants the violation of the University’s policy, or the freedom of the press.

So why would the SU do something that is so blatantly wrong? Shockingly, it isn’t the first time; The Sun was banned in 2013 for similar reasons. I think it is a bit too coincidental that both of the newspapers banned are right-wing papers. The SU has made it very clear through past actions that it is an organisation prone to bias on the left, and as such, the banning of two right-wing papers feels like an act of censorship. It may not be intentional, however, as I believe they are probably more critical of right wing media without realising and are therefore quicker to condemn it than their leftist counterparts.

The idea of the SU censoring the right wing is especially pertinent considering their attempts to ban Donald Trump and David Cameron from all SU buildings—again two representatives of right-leaning politics. The motion of banning Cameron is speculated to have been a joke, though there is no real evidence to suggest this. However, the motion to ban Trump, although it did not pass, 27 out of 56 people voted in favour of it. Rather than trying to invite an open discussion between the political left and right, the SU seemingly seeks to shut down voices which disagree with it. All this serves to do is to push such voices underground and make them more dangerous and extreme, only aiding in the creation and strengthening of the AltRight.

The question is now: what should the SU do to maintain the freedom of press whilst still sending a message to the Daily Star and The Sun? I believe they should re-allow the sale of these two newspapers in SU premises. They have violated several different rights and rules in doing so and, to me, it is beyond doubt that this is wrong.

The next step should be to send a letter to the newspaper signed by the SU on behalf of all students, saying that they believe the objectification of women is wrong, and that the SU would gladly have conversations with them on how to move forward in such a way that treats women as equals. Should this not work, then escalate it to the NUS and have other Universities submit letters pressuring them to change. The way to create change is to start conversations about it. By creating a dialogue, it allows everyone to think and exchange ideas, rather than creating political extremism with no conversation.

 

Grammar Schools: do your homework, Mrs May

In 2007, David Cameron accused grammar school promoters of “clinging on to outdated mantras that bear no relation to the reality of life”, adding that these individuals were “splashing around in the shallow end of the educational debate.” So why, then, is the new Prime Minister, Theresa May, a grammar school supporter?

Between 1945 and 1976, state-funded education in England and Wales was organised through a tripartite system following the 1944 Butler Education Act. Three different types of school were introduced: grammar schools for the brightest 25 per cent, as determined by the 11-plus examination; secondary technical schools, where students would specialise in scientific and mechanical subjects; and secondary modern schools for everyone else, where students were prepared for “less-skilled” jobs.

At the heart of the recent grammar school proposal lies one of the biggest political obsessions of all time: class. In recent decades, class politics has slowly eroded, replaced by liberal identity politics. But Theresa May is putting class politics back onto the agenda.

Stereotypically, the Conservative Party is seen as the party for the rich. This policy is part of May’s attempt to re-brand the party, reflecting her “one-nation conservative” pitch to the electorate. May is hoping to woo working class voters, who increasingly feel the Labour party no longer speaks for them. Theoretically, so the mantra goes, grammar schools offer a better education to bright children from working class households, allowing them to fulfil their academic potential. Thus, everyone will benefit from the system, as education will be tailored to the needs of the individual.

Having been educated at a grammar school myself, I believe this to be nothing more than empty romanticism and a fanciful rhetoric. Absolutely, there are some bright working class children who benefit from grammar school education. However, the overwhelming proportion of places go to children from stable middle class households, whose parents can afford private tuition to help their child pass the 11-plus examination. Personally, I received private tuition for about a year. Some individuals I knew were privately tutored for periods of over two years. Moreover, recently published research suggests that only three per cent of children entitled to free school meals attend grammar schools. Hence, the romantic story sold that grammar schools are full of bright children from working class households really does not appear to hold true.

Too much emphasis is often placed on the winners of the grammar school system. The school I attended was ranked the fifth-highest school in terms of GCSE results in the country, with 100 per cent of pupils achieving five A*-C grades at GCSE. Grammar schools are amongst the top in the country, competing with public schools such as Eton and Harrow. In addition, the impressive list of grammar school alumni suggests that a bright future is more than likely. Jeremy Corbyn went to a grammar school, as did current Prime Minister Theresa May, as well as the infamously polarising ex-PM Margaret Thatcher.

But what about the ‘losers’? Although I made the cut, many of my equally bright friends did not. They were devastated—as was I. We had gone to the same nursery, primary school, and junior school, but for reasons that an 11-year-old cannot fully comprehend, we were to be educated separately during high school. Those who apply and are unsuccessful can feel incredibly demoralised, especially at the tender age of 11. But for many who do succeed, the ego is built. The successful few are made to feel special because, after all, if they were not special, why were they going to the special school for special people? We should not ignore the impact the system has on how children feel. It can instil a sense of worthiness amongst those who attend grammar schools, as if they have earnt the right to look down on everyone else. Many (though not all) begin to see income and wealth inequalities as justified: merely the workings of so-called ‘meritocracy’.

A very simple reason to oppose grammar schools, however, is that the Conservative manifesto made no reference at all to the possibility of opening up new grammar schools. The Leave campaign’s slogan of “taking back control” really does look quite laughable. As a consequence of the political outfall following the EU referendum, we have a PM that no one voted for, pursuing policies for which she does not have a democratic mandate to implement. So much for “restoring” democracy.

Some may accuse myself and others of being hypocrital: for being educated at a grammar school and yet opposing their re-introduction. But empty identity politics helps no one. Individuals are not to blame; it is the system at fault. No one can blame a parent who pays for private tuition to help prepare for the 11-plus exam, in the hope of improving their child’s future life chances. And at 11 years old, a child cannot be blamed for a decision taken by their parents.

Despite rare anecdotal success stories, there is an overwhelming academic consensus that grammar schools do not improve social mobility. But the big question is this: do we really want to return to a system of segregated education, where 25 per cent of the “brightest” children in the country—as determined by a narrow 11-plus exam—are given a special education, while everyone else receives a sub-standard one? Corbyn’s critics suggest that he endorses “Alice in Wonderland” style politics. However, when it comes to the subject of grammar schools and social mobility, Mrs May is the one selling the fantasy.

The diversity debate

As this fashion season starts to unwind, concluding with Paris Fashion Week, one topic that never goes out of style is diversity in the fashion industry. That is cultural diversity, to be exact, with the very definition of the term meaning the variety of cultural or ethnic groups within a society.

Throughout numerous advertising campaigns and other fashion mediums, the industry has been criticised for its lack of diversity from models on runways to those in advertisements.

Living within a multicultural, connected world where everything is accessible, I find it astounding how cultural diversity is still not reflected on the runways or advertising campaigns in the international world of fashion. The industry stands for creativity, acting as a form of self-expression and celebrating innovative design from and for all.

Sadly however it fails to represent the many lovers of the fashion world. Each and every race and cultural type should be reflected within the industry to portray the culturally diverse world that we live in. Enough is enough with cultural appropriation as demonstrated in the criticism of the recent Marc Jacobs SS17 show, for which models were styled with dreadlocks.

Beauty is subjective (that is something we can all agree on) and recently we have slowly seen a different attitude… however only slightly. This needs to change. The industry needs to learn that all individuals, regardless of race, shape, size and sexuality, are all equal. As citizens of the world we should strive to represent our rich and diverse backgrounds, celebrating race and skin colour in all facets; not merely viewing the world in one colour or size.

The crux of the issue could lie in the never-ending battle with Western perfectionism that the industry suggests countlessly throughout its flawless, airbrushed campaigns. Sometimes I wonder if we are just mindlessly absorbing this painted picture, manipulating our minds to believe this unattainable beauty. It is an illicit fantasy that is simply not a true reflection of our reality.

The double standards of the student left

It is often those who are on the regressive left of the political spectrum that talk about the need to not engage in “hate” or violence-encouraging speech. Indeed, many of them defend safe spaces religiously to ensure that people will not be triggered when certain concepts get mentioned in either academic debate or casual conversation.

Anyone who is at the University of Manchester should be aware that once you are within the walls of the Students’ Union building, the Safe Space policy applies. One might imagine that those on the left would be tolerant towards all, irrespective of who they are, right? After all, they often campaign for diversity and the respect of people’s differences…

Wrong. It seems that those who are on the right of the political spectrum are fair game. I, personally, would say that our current Tory government is on the centre-right and is in the process of liberalising. But this did not stop Freya Blake, protesting outside the venue where this year’s Conservative Party Conference was held with a placard explicitly stating that Conservatives should have their heads sliced off.

Perhaps it is a bad pun on her part, but I would wonder how people of her political views would react if those on the right called for those on the left to be executed. I presume that they would not be all too happy about it.

In case you missed the recent news, Blake (alongside her friend and accomplice Lauren McCourt) ripped off the head out of a cardboard cut-out of the deceased ex-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Both clearly have an anti-Tory vendetta, which is absolutely fine—I believe that people are entitled to have their own political views. But I do not appreciate the destruction of people’s property, even if it is just a cardboard cut-out. More importantly, this action does not actually help to stop the policies, which Ms Blake is so against, from being enacted.

I do, however, defend Ms Blake’s right for her freedom of speech. I do not believe that she sincerely wishes to go around killing all those of a Conservative persuasion. One can simply write her billboard off as being a cheap pun. What I am more concerned about is  the leftist intolerance and hypocrisy that permeates many university campuses in the United Kingdom. It seems fair game for those on the left to come out with these kind of statements, yet those on the right feel unable to so much as voice what they stand for—depending on what circles they find themselves in.

Perhaps it may be suggested that people should keep within circles of those similar to themselves to avoid confrontation. However, a university should be a place where people can explore different ideas and viewpoints without the threat—sincere or otherwise—of murder. There is a lot of chat about diversity, but often those who preach about diversity do not advocate diversity of opinions.

We all come from a range of backgrounds and each have a unique range of experiences. I wish that Ms Blake and others to stop, think for a second, and understand that many people vote Conservative with good and honest intentions. People should not define others solely by which party they vote for. If we recognise people as individuals, we would see that often we have a lot more in common than first impressions might suggest.

Thankfully, Ms Blake does not represent all those on the left. In addition, I admit that it would be unfair for me to judge her based solely on a couple of acts. I am sure that she has her reasons for being anti-Conservative, which I respect, of course.

The question is whether those who have views contrary to her will be able to engage in thoughtful and intellectual discussion. I will give her the benefit of the doubt, but it is my opinion that—whilst I do not believe any law should prevent her from making such a horrid placard—I think Ms Blake should reconsider how she acts. The way she has behaved has, through unfortunate comedy, made her views less accessible for debate.