How not to handle a hostage situation

Hong Kong, a special administrative region in South-East China that usually takes a position of neutrality in international affairs, was caught up in a horrifying incident that has sent shockwaves throughout the Far East and most of the rest of the world.

A coach load of Hong Kong tourists, who were travelling through Manila in the Philippines, was hijacked by an armed former policeman who was angry at his unfair dismissal from the police force. Dubbed the ‘Manila Siege’, the incident dragged on for many hours before concluding with a bloody gunfight between the suspect and the police as they stormed the coach. The resulting fatalities were eight Hong Kong tourists. Two survivors were identified as British nationals.

What has shocked people, is not just the act of terrorism, but the level of incompetence shown by the supposedly highly trained Filipino SWAT team whose strategy to rescue the tourists was filmed entirely by the media and seen by most of the world.

The anger amongst the Hong Kong people is understandable. Watching the team carry out their mission was like watching a bunch of unruly children trying to smash up a dilapidated car with bricks and cricket bats. I have seen better tactics and strategies employed by people at paint balling events. Had it not been for the tragic deaths of 8 people, the whole incident would have been laughable.

I’m no expert on hostage situations, but even I know that attempting to smash the windows of a coach open with sledgehammers whilst an irrational armed gunman inside is rapidly panicking is not a good idea at all. What was even more aggravating was learning that several times during the incident, the gunman actually walked right to the door of the bus, with his gun by his side, to talk to the police. Where were the close combat police ready to take him out? Or even better, where was the marksman ready to take a shot?! Don’t let him get back on the bus with the hostages!

And even if it wasn’t possible to take him out there and then, surely it would have been better to simply give in to his demands! After all, he was one man and one man only. Not a terrorist group. Give him what he wants, draw him out into the open and arrest him.

I think the one piece of footage that really summed up the whole farce was that of a Filipino SWAT team member attempting to throw some sort of smoke grenade through a hole in the window – only for it to fall back out again resulting in him having to do it a second time.

Utter shambles, utter incompetence and sadly, a tragic end to a situation that could have been solved without any loss of life.

Even worse is how the Philippine government now acts as if they handled the situation in the best possible manner.

Understandably now, the relations between Hong Kong and the Philippines are strained.

But there is another thing we have to remember and I hope that all people who feel some sort of anger towards the incident remember. You are angry at the decisions and actions of the Filipino Police and government – not the Filipino people. It has been astounding how, over the past few days, some Hong Kong citizens have expressed their fury at the Filipinos particularly the sizeable Filipino community that resides in the region. Some Filipinos have even lost their jobs as housekeepers in Hong Kong households as a result of this. We must remember that this amounts to pure racism and misdirected anger.

Why this has been the most disappointing World Cup of recent memory

Whilst the Spanish celebrate their historic first World Cup triumph, it is now for the rest of the football world to review how this tournament has panned out. I suppose the first world that comes to mind is disappointing and here’s 5 reasons why.

The quality of the football

This was a World Cup characterized by terror. No I’m not talking about what the North Korean team have to return to, I’m referencing the attitude adopted by many of the teams on the field. They were simply terrified of losing. And this resulted in defensive, anti-football tactics which left little room for creativity, attacking flair and, most importantly, goals. The fact that Spain, the champions, scored only 8 goals for the whole tournament is testament to this. After 64 games played, I could probably count out on two hands the amount of matches that actually had me on the edge of my seat. A real shame but then I suppose many of the managers of lesser teams were being realistic. Sending North Korea out to go all out attack on the Brazilians would have been like telling the armed police officers of a truck full of money travelling through South Africa’s deepest, darkest, dodgiest streets to take the day off. Absolute carnage.

The failure of the top stars to perform

Was it fatigue? Was it the pressure of expectation? Or perhaps it was the result of the defensive tactics employed by the teams they played against? Whatever the reason, many of the supposed top stars tipped to shine at this world cup failed to show up. Wayne Rooney, Cristiano Ronaldo, Kaka, Fernando Torres, Lionel Messi. The appearance of these names would normally be enough to send most men to a quivering wreck of excitement, but the reality was that they were about as gripping as an episode of Doctor Who.

Those vuvuzelas

The sound of a thousand angry bees will now haunt me for some time after this world cup. Blowing a tuneless horn with no semblance of rhythm constantly for 90 minutes is not atmosphere. It’s just a bit annoying.

Outpriced South African fans

Fifa pledged to make tickets available for all local residents. This is how a World Cup should be – a chance for the local residents to experience one of the biggest sporting events on earth. Unfortunately Fifa also forgot the average wage of a South African is well below that of many of their European counterparts and so did not lower the prices of tickets. The result? Visibly empty seats at many of the matches including the semi-finals.

The Jabulani

Why change the most integral piece of equipment for a football match Adidas? Whilst the new technology and design of the ball promised more true flight and harder shots, it rarely failed to live up to its claim. Having played with the ball myself, I have to say I hated it. Too light and anything but predictable when it was airborne. This was shown by the amount of players who couldn’t master controlling and striking the ball despite being top class professionals. Give me a good old fashioned 32 panel ball any day.

Football, football, footbal

The papers tomorrow will probably use words such as ‘incredible’ and ‘impressive’ to describe the opening ceremony of the 2010 World Cup. I however, beg to differ. It was tedious and almost predictable in some places. Whilst it’s always nice to see a nation’s demonstration of its culture in sporting ceremonies, World Cup openers have become routine events where as many pop stars, musicians and children from the nation in question are shoved in to produce an over bulging ritual that simply tries too hard. I suppose my own standards were pretty high having watched the immensely impressive, yet hugely expensive, opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics two years ago. I don’t think we will be witnessing a ceremony better than that for many years to come.

That said, it was rather nice to finally see a highly criticized country prove to the world that they could pull it off. It was like watching the end of those TV shows where people who have let themselves go are put through a makeover and surgery and finally revealed to their friends as this transformed and somewhat attractive individual. Well done South Africa and well done Africa.

In terms of the football, the quality has been poor so far. The opening match between South Africa and Mexico was average at best bar a stunning goal from the hosts. France against Uruguay was even worse. Still, it was the first day and group A was never really going to set the tournament on fire. I am sure that in the next few days, we will be watching edge-of-our-seat matches where grown men will readily admit to messing their pants after witnessing a goal scored using immense skill and finesse.

And one also hopes that come 9:15pm tomorrow, we will be cheering an England win over those Americans.

English Society Creates its Own Issues

So for the past few weeks, I have noticed a fair few nationalist groups springing up on Facebook which have obviously been as a reaction towards fictitious or miss-quoted news stories that have arisen in light of the World Cup.

I am of course referring to groups such as “STOP Police banning the England flag during the World Cup” and “Its funny how our flag offends you but our benefits dont”. One cannot help but notice, on top of the grammatical errors in the title, just how moronic these groups are and not least the disgusting amount of xenophobia that reeks from the thousands of people who have joined or liked them.

This talk of banning England shirts because it offends ethnic minorities is most certainly false and we can clear this up with an issued statement from the government themselves here.

Of course, these right wingers would also point out the recent story of the woman whose young son was supposedly refused entry on to a bus because his England shirt offended the Polish bus driver. This, again, was also proved to be a lie as was shown by the bus company’s investigation here.

These incidents show, not just how some sections of English society still bear some sort of irrational animosity towards immigrants, but also how some  people actually create a lot of these issues themselves.

There are some, who are so terrified of offending ethnic minorities, that they go to great lengths to have, for example, popular nursery rhymes such as ‘Baa Baa Black Sheep’ changed to ‘Baa Baa Multi-coloured Sheep” or to ban Christmas decorations from being put up in areas that have a high Muslim population. It really is political correctness gone mad.

But the real problem occurs when more right wing sections of society, who don’t do their research properly, read about these proposed changes or bans and then decide to blame the all ethnic minorities for it when they failed to realize that it was in fact their white counterparts who suggested it in the first place.

This is exactly what has happened in the build up to the World Cup. With patriotism riding high, it was inevitable that some sections of English society would misconstrue news stories regarding England shirts, flags and supposed banning.

Although there are some small sections of ethnic minorities communities that do indeed have a militant hatred towards, not just British, but western society - their membership is, relatively small and certainly not representative of the views of the majority of the immigrant and immigrant descended community.

As far as I know, most ethnic minorities do not care whether a white English person flies the St George’s flag for the World Cup or wears their England top. In fact, most of us are in fact joining in quite happily with the World Cup atmosphere. I’m probably more patriotic about our national team than most of my white friends.

And to jump on the bandwagon that all immigrants are simply coming over to claim benefits and cheat the system is just simply hogwash exemplifying how many people buy into the hyperbole of appalling publications such as the Daily Mail and The Sun. The vast majority of immigrants travel to the U.K to work hard in the form of employment or study.

Of course, some may point out that a St George’s flag cannot be flown without the said individual being labeled as racist and fascist. This, however, is the fault of political groups such as the BNP and the National Front who have used the flag so extensively, that it has almost become a symbol for these extreme views. Whilst such connotations decrease during the World Cup, I believe the only way we can stop this happening is by reclaiming the St George’s flag from the right wing. Encouraging all English, no matter what racial background, to be proud and to demonstrate their patriotism.

The Election - more exciting than I than I thought it would be

I don’t normally retract statements but I have to admit I was wrong when I wrote 4 weeks ago that we would have another dreary election and an inevitable shift of power to the Conservatives. It has indeed been a fascinating election tinged with voting controversies and shocking results.

I actually stayed up till the obscene time of 9am on Friday morning to watch most of the seat declarations.

Whilst I chuckled when home secretary Jacqui Smith was displaced in her constituency, I also sighed when colourful Lib Dem candidate Lembit Opik lost his supposedly very safe seat. It was a poor night for my supported party, the Lib Dems, who actually lost a few seats. This, I attribute to people fearing that their vote wouldn’t count and so decided to choose a candidate who was more likely to win – a perfect demonstration of why we need to reform the electoral system.

I also groaned when Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith won in Richmond park. He was quite clearly the epitome of Tory – rich son of a billionaire, public school boy, upper-class accented.

The first ever elected Green candidate in Brighton was a perfect reflection of the area. Anyone who’s been to this coastal town will be aware of the strong tendancies of left-wing, liberal, environmentalism of the people there. Fantastic stuff for the Greens.

David Dimbleby and Jeremy Paxman were astonishing in the manner in which they managed to stay alert and lively throughout the whole night on the BBC’s election coverage. In fact, I often wonder what Paxman is on that keeps his bulldog personality ticking.

So now we have the first hung in 30 years. And I’m actually quite thrilled at the prospect of further political activity as Labour and perhaps the Conservatives struggle to form some of a government. Yes it was disappointing for the Lib Dems, but although they lost seats, they sit in a position of power as the other two main parties look to them to form a coalition government. It will be fascinating to see what unfolds.

The debates last night were won on coolness, not policies

Now if I’m being totally honest, despite my seemingly intellectual rants in previous blog entries, I don’t actually know as much about politics as most of you people seem to think I do. Aside from a politics A-level, a sociology degree, a daily inspection of the BBC news website and a regular splattering of Question Time…well, I guess I know as much as the average Joe off the street.


So I’m not going to bore you with an in-depth political analysis of the UK’s first ever election debate between the leaders of the three main parties, whilst wittily throwing in a few references to the Icelandic Volcano. That would bring an ash cloud of misery to all loyal followers of this blog.


No, what I am going to do instead is poke fun at the debaters much like the multitude of Facebook groups that have sprung in the wake of this event.
So David Cameron. Suave and smooth (both verbally and facially) he may have been, but he most definitely bore the brunt of most of the internet comedy. Yes anecdotes were a mainstay strategy of all three debaters, but the Tory leader took it to another level – starting almost every argument with an account of how he met someone last week. I’m watching a political debate here David – not one man’s memoirs of his journeys through gloomy England.


One of my mates aptly called it “Story time with David Cameron”. Furthermore, in one example, he highlighted how one of these individuals he met was black – despite it making no difference whatsoever to the point he was making. His predictable rhetoric was inevitably parodied with this brilliant little website.


On a substance level (and I do apologize for breaking my promise about not delving into a political analysis) I did not appreciate how he equated China to being as dangerous as Iran when it came to the topic of which countries were a threat to world peace with their nuclear weapons. This is in spite of China being a permanent member of the Nuclear Safety Council and a regular discourager of North Korea’s weapons testing. It was clear he was attempting to play on peoples’ fears – an approach which was regularly employed by the Bush regime and picked up upon by political film maker Michael Moore in his rather brilliant documentary ‘Bowling for Columbine’.



Do we want to live under a government that looks to frighten us into supporting them? I sincerely hope not.

Moving on, Gordon Brown was tedious as usual. I don’t know what it is about him, maybe it’s his voice, but he seems to tinge every speech and answer he makes with a dark cloud of gloom and doom. I certainly don’t want to hear another few years of his voice delivering news on how the economy is slowly and surely making a recovery. 

Additionally, he had an amusing habit of agreeing with most of the points Nick Clegg made. Is he a Lib Dem in disguise? Or are Labour planning to reinvent themselves again to create (god forbid) a fourth way? Of course this was picked up upon by the good people of the internet who dedicated a facebook group to his catch phrase: “I agree with Nick”.

I also found it rather amusing how Gordon Brown opted for a bright pink tie instead of the usual plush red of the Labour party. An allegedly bad-tempered, bulky Scott being tamed by a rather effeminate looking tie. Nice.

And finally, Nick Clegg. Well, call me biased, but I think he came out looking the best. Composed, charismatic and fresh. He didn’t resemble an old wreck like Brown or an overly polished plastic mannequin like Cameron. Perhaps those labeling him as the new Obama was a bit much (especially considering he’s not black) but he was cool, and for that adjective to be used on someone in politics is rarer than a Jeremy Clarkson endorsed ad campaign for People and Planet.



Of course he didn’t escape humorous criticism entirely with many poking fun at his views on scrapping Trident. But I feel he is perhaps one of the best leaders the Lib Dems have had in years. And whilst the prospect of them gaining power is still incredibly unlikely, he has done enough to make Labour and the Conservatives quake in their boots at the likelihood of a hung parliament.

Farewell to John Lewis

So after working 7 months for middle England’s favourite department store, John Lewis, I finally finished my last shift last week. Whilst not a particularly extensive stint, I am still rather sad about leaving this prestigious company

The John Lewis partnership is run as a co-operative – that is to say that all employees own a portion of the company and are effectively partners. And, as we are all partners, we all get a share of the profits at the end of the tax year which is calculated as a percentage of our salaries. This is in contrast to how most other private companies are run where the majority of the profit is reinvested into the business and the people at the top.

As partners, all employees have the right to have a say in how the business is run. This can be done by raising issues to your manager or attending branch or regional meetings.

The John Lewis partnership also regularly uses its profits to fund activities and events for its staff such as football tournaments or tickets to concerts.

Of course there are disadvantages to running a business like this. John Lewis cannot grow anywhere near as exponentially as say, Tescos, as their profits are nowhere near as vast and their charter forbids them from floating the company on the stock market to gain additional funds.

However, I have a high regard of the way the business is run. In a present society where colossal corporations dominate the marketplace; where shareholders dictate the running of businesses; where directors and bankers sometimes treat themselves to preposterous bonuses – John Lewis is one of the few companies that makes an extra effort to care about their employees.

The managing director, Andy Street, can only earn 50 times more than the lowest paid partner as is dictated in the company charter – which was written by the founder John Spedan Lewis. This means he has an annual salary of around 500,000 pounds. Whilst still a large amount compared to us mere mortals, it is nothing when you look at the managing directors of other prominent organizations who take home with them several millions.

John Lewis is indeed a ‘third way’ of running a business that works, and whilst I acknowledge that modern competition and globalization has necessitated a ruthless pursuit of profits in a bid to expand or stay alive, I do believe much can be learnt from this socialist influenced company.