“He’s [Colston] a peddler in slavery, misery, murder, and rape.”
Back on February 17, Marvin Rees came to UWE and answered questions on a range of topics. Here’s what he said on Colston, and the Colston name, at the time.
Question: Do you think it’s important to get rid of the ‘Colston’ names and some of the other slave traders’ names in Bristol?
M: So, I’ll give you a frank personal thing on that; when I first came in, myself and a number of a number of black people in the creative sector said that the best thing to do is to keep that debate away from me; I’m the first mayor of African heritage in Europe, and then someone came and asked me in cabinet, actually a black person asked me in cabinet, and I reprimanded them them for it because I said: “you know this is loaded”, right? I don’t have the freedom to talk about these issues in the way that some of the other people do.
That’s the hard reality of it, right. You know, “Marvin Rees gets elected, black mayor wants to get rid of Bristol’s history”, right? We just talked about racism [earlier in the discussion]. Now that gun’s loaded, right? It’s already pointed at my head. I could be the one to give people the knock to pull the trigger and then I suddenly start getting compartmentalized into a mayor that is just tied up in race, can’t get over it, can’t rise above it, and keeps indulging it. And then I get trapped in the kind of narrative that a black mayor talks about black issues and doesn’t talk about the economy.
But having said that, I think – you know, I’m not 100% sure. What I think the real problem is is the way it’s remembered, right. So, if you go to the plaque on the Colston statue it says that he’s a “wise and virtuous son of the city”, right? No he’s not, right. He’s a peddler in slavery, misery, murder, and rape, right. Now you may say that he took some of that money and he gave it to certain good causes; and Madge Dresser, who’s a UWE professor, will say: he didn’t give money to everyone, he gave money to what he considered to be deserving.
But let’s be honest about it, let’s be truthful about it, and then you as a city make a decision: do you want a statue up, you know, representing that person – I prefer to go down that line.
But even with the Colston Hall, with a change in the name, one of the things I suggested was you should have a plaque that says this is, you know, call it whatever it’s going to be called but have a plaque that says: “this is the day the name was changed”, because that prompts the story: “why did you change the name?” right. Because we, as a city, once had streets and halls that were named after him, this slaver. He wasn’t the only one, but one of many, and we, as a city, decided we were no longer going to do that; that’s the fullness of the story – talks about what we were, and talks about the debate that happened at the time, and talks about what you want it to be. But you never, you’re not airbrushing out, which is what some people then charge this element of history with. We shouldn’t – we’re not trying to sterilize history.
Question: What about Colston Tower – how do we get rid of that name?
M: Again, I’d be worried about kind of leading the charge myself because, you know – is it the most important thing for me? You know, I’m more, you know; of all the things I can spend my time on, changing the name of Colston Tower – symbolic; that ain’t gonna do anything about keeping a disproportionate number of young black men out of the criminal justice system or off community treatment orders or mental health, it ain’t gonna improve their educational trajectories, you know, and I think sometimes; so I think it has its place. If you come and say, “I’m gonna carve out a bit of time”. If you was to say to me “do you know, Marv, I wanna go for that” I’d say “go for it, fantastic”, but I’m not gonna spend my time on it, you know, when I’m trying to house people at the moment – what I spend my energy on. But I do think – I have explored the view.
I think it would be fascinating for the city have a grown up discussion about that, and I would welcome a day in which Bristol said: “you know what, we don’t want to call that Colston Tower anymore, that’s not where we’re at, it’s not who we are, and we’re going to remember this day as the day we changed their name – and, in fact, the day the name was changed becomes an anniversary in Bristol’s calendar. I think that’d be incredible.
Do you collapse the company and crystalize losses at the start, and just say: right we’re sinking all that, we’re sinking now, or do you look for an avenue of making the company work?
When Marvin Rees came to UWE on February 17, he spoke on a range of topics. Here’s what he said in response to a question about Bristol Energy:
We- it’s a risk with Bristol Energy. It’s a company we’ve inherited, but you face a decision: do you do you collapse the company and crystalize losses at the start, and just say: right we’re sinking all that, we’re sinking now, or do you look for an avenue of making the company work?
We’ve looked for an avenue to make the company work and as there’s two ways in which Bristol Energy is- y’know we hope to reposition Bristol Energy. One is that when we went out to the world market to bring in £1 billion of investment for city leap, the fact that we owned an energy company was a huge, was a huge, factor in our attractiveness.
People take us seriously as a city about energy because we have an energy company; but, was it the right sector to go into as a local authority? Probably not, right? Energy’s ferociously risky. But you start from where you are, not from where you wish you were, alright and we came in, the energy company had already started, so we inherited – we’ve got to make decisions about it.
The second thing is that if you get beyond just signing people up to your tariffs, there’s an opportunity to reposition Bristol Energy within the city leap. So those companies that are coming to invest not just money but expertise in renewables, heat distribution, and smart energy uses, battery storage, EV charging points in retrofitted homes. We’re able to reposition Bristol Energy within that package just more than just an energy supply company but as a services company that changes the nature of the company and gives us a new opportunity, gives it a new lease of life.
But as I said, was it the right sector to go into? No, but I wasn’t my decision and you pick up, you pick up the ball and you start from where you are. But there’s no clean decision, you know, if you wanted to make an argument to crystallize those losses you’d have to go out and say right we’re just going to crystallize 20 million quid of loss. That’s a big decision too. Everything’s a risk.
The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names of Britain and Ireland, with research in part by UWE’s Professor Emeritus Richard Coates, is free for members of the public until the end of May 21, meaning you and your family can fill lockdown boredom by finding out the actual history of your shared name.
For example, my surname is a “locative name from various places named with Old English fīf ‘five’ + hīde ‘hides’, a hide being an Anglo-Saxon measurement of land area such as Fyfield (Hants, Gloucs, Berks, Wilts, Essex), Fifield near Stow on the Wold (Oxon), Fifield near Wallingford (Oxon), Fifield (Wilts), Fifield Bavant (Wilts), Fifehead Magdalen (Dorset), Fifehead Neville (Dorset), Fifehead Saint Quintin (Dorset), Fivehead (Somerset), and Fitzhead (Somerset).”
The public can access the database of 45,000 surnames for free until the end of Thursday.
Looking into your family name is a perfect lockdown activity — why not (like the author of this article) make a Zoom pub quiz out of your friends’ surnames with what you find? You might be surprised with what comes up!
UWE’s own Richard Coates, professor emeritus of onomastics, the study or science of the history and origin of proper names, was the project’s principal investigator and spoke to this article’s author on a video call.
Why did you decide to compile this dictionary?
RC: The previous dictionary of surnames, by Percy Reaney, was published back in the 1960s, and things move on in fifty years — techniques are better developed, we know more about how to extract information about modern names using computational methods, and so forth. My co-worker, Patrick Hanks, conceived the idea of doing a new dictionary, the main novelty of which would be to link up medieval evidence and modern evidence to get continuity. One of the main problems of Reaney’s dictionary was that it is in fact a dictionary of medieval surnames; where he connects with modern surnames, it’s sometimes very unreliable. We wanted to bridge that gap, cover a very large number more surnames than he did, we’ve got double. We think we’ve covered all surnames that had more than twenty bearers in 1881 and more than a hundred bearers in 2001.
What’s your opinion of popular websites that claim to offer hidden meanings of names?
RC: Well, shall I say complete rubbish, or would you like something stronger?! Nothing else to say, it’s unscientific and we’ve done a scientific dictionary. If anybody believes in lucky numbers in the first place, then I probably haven’t got a great deal to talk to them about — from a scientific perspective. There are all kinds of family reasons why one might vary that sort of rule, I guess!
Why do you think people are so interested in family names and their origins?
RC: People are interested in names in general, particularly in place names, they’re interested in an etymological [the study of the history of linguistic forms, such as words] kind of way. People just don’t seem to think so frequently about etymologies of surnames. It’s not altogether surprising if I go to give a talk somewhere and discover someone whose surname is Butcher who’s never thought that the connection might have something to do with being a butcher; it’s just not a question that arises, but once you put the seed in their mind, they tend to be interested, and begin to ask themselves: do surnames have a historical meaning? And my answer is, well yes, they do — or rather they did when they were coined.
What’s next?
RC: Etymologically, there is still work to do, which is why we’ve already spent quite a long time preparing a second edition. There will be a second edition in due course, because we’ve got work that can be absorbed into it.
We’re busy making corrections to the database behind the first edition the whole time. We’re getting a lot of material from the general public that is actually very helpful, family historians write in and say, after the first niggling comment, like ‘we didn’t find our name in our dictionary’ or ‘the explanation in your dictionary is wrong’, they very often then provide some very helpful information which will help us update it.
We’re in dialogue with the public, and the dialogue is very helpful and will lead to an improved product in due course.
What do you think of Oxford making the dictionary available free to the public this week?
RC: I’m very much in favour of giving the public as much information as it needs, I’m instinctively anti-paywall and anything like that!
In what’s been called “a drastic reimagining of state powers” by Martha Spurrier, Director of Liberty (a human rights charity), the Government’s planned coronavirus bill is too broad and is ripe for abuse.
In Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones, broad emergency powers are granted by the legislature – eventually leading to the formation of the Galactic Empire. Whilst Boris Johnson is unlikely to take the title of Emperor, it’s worth remembering that granting broad emergency powers should not be taken lightly.
Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) did not use his ‘emergency powers’ for good. Credit: IMDb / Lucasfilm Ltd.
The planned legislation will be time-limited for two years. It should be shorter – the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which deals with emergencies such as war and terrorism, has emergency regulations expire after 30 days, unless renewed by Parliament; when the peak of the virus is expected to hit between late May and late June of this year, it is unclear why Government should not have to apply for an extension to these unprecedented powers, and why they would still need them as far away as 2022; Parliament can always renew powers if they are needed for longer.
According to the BBC, it is likely that there will not even be a vote on the powers, instead they will be nodded through by Parliament. This means the bill will not be properly scrutinised by our elected representatives.
Giving law enforcement powers to detain and isolate people in a pandemic may sound good in theory, but there need to be clearly defined safeguards against abuse. How these safeguards can be robust to protect our civil liberties is questionable considering the lack of proper scrutiny. Martha Spurrier is right in saying that we “must not allow the hollowing out of human rights to become the go-to for the Government when it’s in a crisis.”
Only one doctor will be required to sign death certificates, and the need for inquests to be held with a jury will be removed.
Furthermore, only one doctor will be needed to detain people under mental health laws, rather than the two currently required.
Additionally, local councils will be able to lower care standards so they can “prioritise” between residents in need, “even if this means not meeting everyone’s assessed needs in full”.
Also, ministers will be able to reduce teacher ratios, slash school meal standards, and reduce standards for children with special needs.
In addition, the government will have the ability “to restrict or prohibit events and gatherings during the pandemic in any place, vehicle, train, vessel or aircraft, any movable structure and any offshore installation and, where necessary, to close premises”.
These changes set a dangerous precedent where oversight is thrown out of the window and standards are lowered with no proper scrutiny of the changes; lowering care standards carries the additional risk of putting vulnerable people in danger in a time where they may need additional attention.
In a crisis, it is more important than ever to make sure sweeping changes to our democracy and our society are not made under the guise of public safety.
Struggling to keep to your New Years’ resolutions in to February? This spiritual successor to Wii Fit beats it in fun and intensity.
If you didn’t know where your quadriceps were before, you do now.
If you didn’t know where your quadriceps were before, you do now.
It’s no secret that, for many people, Christmas, and the winter period, isn’t just a time for giving – it’s time to pack on the pounds. The amount of food I consumed over the festive period was probably enough for two of me, so when I saw Nintendo’s new “Ring Fit Adventure”, I knew I should give it a go.
A spiritual and long-awaited successor to Nintendo’s Wii
Fit series, Ring Fit Adventure is a fitness role-playing game (RPG),
combining turn-based battles against fitness-themed monsters (think frog-looking
dumbbells and stingray-style yoga mats), and trying to beat the main boss
‘Dragaux’, an evil dragon whose goal appears to be… bodybuilding?
Ring Fit’s enemies are made up of an array of imaginative creatures, including stingray-style yoga mats, and other exercise-equipment themed enemies.
Ring Fit’s enemies are made up of an array of imaginative creatures, including stingray-style yoga mats, and other exercise-equipment themed enemies.
Ring Fit’s story is light but engaging. In the
beginning of the game’s ‘Adventure’ mode, you are fooled in to freeing the evil
Dragaux from the confines of your voice-acted soon-to-be-partner, Ring –
imaginatively named after, and bearing striking resemblance to, the game’s
real-life plastic pilates ring (or, Ring-Con, as the game calls it).
Unlike Wii Fit’s Yoga and Muscle exercises, set in a
clinically white environment with yoga and muscle exercises led by an equally clinically
white instructor, which were overshadowed by its much more colourful but
arguably less intensive balance exercises, Ring Fit integrates yoga, muscle,
and aerobic exercises in to its dynamic story mode, making every Squat, Plank,
or Ring Pull in to an attack against a comedically designed monster, rather
than another boring exercise.
Imaginative enemies, such as this “Naughtylus”, add to Ring Fit‘s charm.
The exercises are tough – but Ring Fit checks that
you’re not over-exerting itself, advising you that you can adjust the
difficulty level every time you start the ‘Adventure’ mode and reminding you to
stay hydrated and to take breaks often throughout the story.
Those who have played RPGs with turn-based battles before
will be immediately familiar with the battle system used in Ring Fit –
something that may be to Nintendo’s strength, helping to get gamers to exercise
more. But this is far from a hardcore RPG – the game explains and introduces
concepts as it progresses, rather than all at once, to avoid overwhelming even
more casual players.
The world map is easy to navigate with the Ring-Con
Whilst I grew to find the voice acting encouragement of
“Fantastic”, “Awesome”, etc. motivating, some may find it grating – the good
news is that the settings of the game include separate volume controls for the
Music, Sound Effects, and Voice – meaning the voice acting can be switched off.
Those who are worried about the noise of jogging on the spot in the story will
also be pleased to find out the game has a ‘Silent Mode’, allowing you to squat,
rather than jog, to progress. I would have preferred if there were an option to
mute all sound effects except for ones related to timing your exercises (I’m a
big fan of the in-game music, my flatmates sitting on the sofa not so much),
but I can deal with the sound of coins jingling over my own music if I must.
One of Ring Fit Adventure’s biggest strengths, its appeal to gamers, could also be one of its biggest weaknesses – the game introduces and explains ‘Smoothies’ (a way restore health and legally enhance your performance) and clothing items which boost your Attack and Defence fairly early in the story. Not having enough ‘Smoothies’ led to me losing the battle with the boss in the third level, despite not making any mistakes in the actual exercise. This may put off some players, but you still level up when you lose, and losing just means you will have to come back to fight again, meaning more exercise – hardly a disadvantage.
Performance enhancing substances are frowned upon in real life.
The innovative use of the Joy-Cons in this game show the
power of the Switch’s unique design – the infrared camera at the bottom of the
right Joy-Con becomes the game’s heart rate sensor, and the small size and
attachability allow the right Joy-Con to sense movements and strength with the
eponymous ‘ring’, whilst left Joy-Con to be attached to the leg with a leg
strap, even if it does have a tendency to slip down a bit sometimes.
The infrared camera at the bottom of the right Joy-Con becomes the game’s heart rate sensor.
Overall, the game has been a great way to encourage me to exercise more this year, and I can’t see myself putting it down any time soon – from what I’ve heard, there’s still plenty more levels, and therefore squats, to go before I get anywhere near to finishing the main story. The ability to create or follow routines of exercises outside of the adventure mode further adds to the game’s replayability. Like any form of exercise, it’s unlikely to impact you immensely unless you can also make wider lifestyle choices as well (time to cut down on the chocolate bars), but Ring Fit Adventure has certainly gone a long way to encourage me to start – I can’t see that I would have been doing forty-plus squats in my living room before I got it.
8.6/10. An excellent game, Ring Fit Adventure is let down slightly by early level grinding and slightly repetitive boss fights and levels, but shines through with its variety of exercises, minigames, monster designs, and the fact that it makes exercise fun!
Since publishing this article on HUB Magazine, it has been picked up by the BBC and the story has since exploded in popularity, being featured in many national and local outlets. I have made an appearance on BBC Radio Bristol, BBC Radio 5 Live, Heart Radio, BBC Points West, and ITV West Country. I was never expecting this story to take off so much, and I hope that the result of this is that the students receive a reduction in their rent, and that future students do not have to endure this type of accommodation. Article below:
Words by Jack Fifield, photography by Maya Bond-Webster.
Is this an “appropriate living standard for a human being”? Not according to one resident. Despite being described as “shipping containers” in one TrUWE post, at £150 per week, it’s more than the weekly cost of a Wallscourt Park en suite.
The University of Bristol is not the only Bristol university
to have accommodation
problems.
Purbeck Court’s roof means you don’t get wet walking to the kitchen. Photo: Maya Bond-Webster
UWE is doing something different — housing students in temporary structures located opposite Cotswold Court, often used to house construction workers, provided by company Bunkabin.
Assembled over two weeks in early September, you won’t find “Purbeck Court”, as it’s known, on most campus maps or even the UWE website.
Map: UWE, edit with circle and text: Jack Fifield
If you hadn’t heard of it, you’re not alone: even staff
don’t seem fully aware of its existence — one staff member I phoned at UWE’s
InfoPoint questioned whether I had the right university, only recognising the
location after I described it as the temporary structure opposite Cotswold
Court.
I spoke with one student, Raaswin (Law), who allowed me to take
photos in his room and told me that he had stayed in an Airbnb for two weeks
after moving from Malaysia whilst he waited for Purbeck Court to be ready. Unfortunately,
my time with him was cut short, as we were interrupted by Vivienne Jowett, head
of accommodation services, who told my photographer, Maya Bond-Webster, and me
that she “[didn’t] particularly like people just coming in and harassing
students in their homes”, telling us she’d “rather that [we] left”, despite us having
obtained permission from Raaswin.
I returned to Purbeck Court a few days later and spoke with three
different students, Alex Rogers (History), Joe Oakes-Monger (Economics), and
George Doye (Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Science), who told me a little
bit more about the residence.
Joe revealed to me that he was moving out of Purbeck Court
next week as he had sent “a really long email” saying that he didn’t think it
was “mentally viable to live here for a year”, saying it was not an
“appropriate living standard for a human being”.
“you can literally see, right there, all of these people having the time of their lives in their flats” Photo: Maya Bond-Webster
Fake walls, guttering, lights, and even some windows led Alex to say they “look like a joke”
Joe didn’t like “having to go outside
every time you want to use the kitchen”, saying “you can literally see, right
there, all of these people having the time of their lives in their flats”,
referring to the regular accommodation. Alex concurred, saying they were
“getting singled out”, “they look like a joke”. “It just doesn’t feel like a
normal place to live”, added George.
“The walls are pretty thin” added Alex, “every drunk student
[…] you’ll hear them, like, shouting outside.”
The initial email about Purbeck Court, sent on the September
11th, stated that if students did not accept the offer, “your
accommodation application will be suspended as we will not be able to make you
any further offers.” Joe took issue with this, telling me “it’s very weird and
I already emailed them a week ago asking if I could be put back on the list and
they said no”, “it was only after I […] sent them a really long email that they
finally [put me back on the list]”. Alex agreed, “they did make it feel like it
was this or nothing”.
The email further stipulated “If
I do not hear back from you by Friday 13th September, I will assume
you are no longer looking for Accommodation, can offer this opportunity to
another student and suspend your application with us”, giving just two days for
a decision to be made.
Living in Purbeck Court doesn’t come cheap. At £150 per week, it’s a higher weekly cost than an en suite room in nearby Wallscourt Park, which comes in at £143.65 pw, and it’s well above Carroll Court’s £107.03 pw. Joe called this “extortionate”, later adding “you don’t just pay for a room, you pay for the other areas you get as well.” Purbeck Court does have three small kitchens, but it does not currently have televisions or living rooms, unlike the similarly priced Wallscourt Park en suite rooms. “There isn’t anywhere to socialize” added George.
Despite being a temporary structure, Purbeck Court appears
to be a permanent solution for students this year, who are expected to live in
it for the whole of the academic year.
I met again with the head of accommodation, Vivienne Jowett,
a few days later. She said that Purbeck Court is “a pilot group of students”,
to see whether this style of accommodation would be appropriate as a temporary replacement
for Carroll Court for two to three years whilst it is demolished and replaced
with larger accommodation.
Responding to allegations of pressure tactics in the initial
email, Jowett stated “it wasn’t intended in that way”, “with that particular
email we shouldn’t have said we’re not going to offer you anything else”.
Jowett claims no students, to her knowledge, were removed from the list as a
result of rejecting or not replying to this offer.
Asked about lowering the price, Jowett said “potentially,
it’s something we will look at […] as we get towards Christmas and we start to
look at what we’ve been able to provide […] I’m not saying no”. Asked whether
she would live there for a year, Jowett said “I think people live in worse”,
“it’s difficult, isn’t it, unless you put yourself in that position and in that
age bracket”.
Jowett added that a living room cabin with a television is
forthcoming.
However, it’s not just those in Purbeck Court who are
unhappy with UWE accommodation. I spoke to one student, Luke Farrow, who found
himself lacking accommodation after getting a place at UWE through clearing.
According to Luke, advice given concerning
finding private accommodation “wasn’t great, it was just a list of websites to
go through yourself”. Luke says he wasn’t told about accommodation shortages
until after accepting his offer, with advice consisting of a list of websites
including Airbnb, Gumtree, and Roomgo, a company that emailed Luke offering a
“premium membership”, which it advertises as offering “10x better chances [sic]
to find what you’re looking for”. Roomgo touts its premium membership as
offering the ability for “unlimited contact to ALL room ads” and the ability to
“access basic rooms before other users”, creating a two-tier system for people
already desperate to find a house.
Source: Roomgo
I joined Roomgo myself and tried to message a landlord. A
popup informed me that I couldn’t do this without paying for premium
membership. Advertised as “Just £1.43 a day!”, it’s easy to see why some
desperate house-hunters may do this, especially when the website is recommended
by UWE. Purbeck Court resident George added that he “very almost did” pay for
premium membership because he “just wasn’t getting anywhere” with his search.
Jowett responded, “what we tried to do was to gather as many webpages together as possible so that the student didn’t have to do that”. When I asked her if this was prioritising quantity over quality, she said “potentially”.
James Arrowsmith, Liberal Democrat councillor for Stoke Park and Cheswick, which includes Frenchay Campus, said: “The situation Purbeck Court students find themselves in is disgraceful. Students are being exploited by UWE Accommodation’s extortionate rates and used as guinea pigs in a depressing environment which could have an adverse effect on their mental health. The university should show it’s serious about academic ambition and the mental welfare of their students with swift and decisive action to find students a suitable living space where they can be allowed to succeed and make the most of the student experience.”
Ruth Day, of ‘Bristol, Cut the Rent’, added: “It’s absolutely disgraceful that UWE is housing students in poor quality temporary accommodation. Every student deserves a safe and secure place to live in and UWE has fundamentally let students down. What is further shocking is the price of such poor-quality accommodation. This situation all boils down to Universities putting profit before people. Universities view students as income, which has led to them expanding too far and putting them in such a precarious position as this. Bristol, Cut the Rent calls on UWE to urgently sort out this situation, reimburse students for the ridiculous amount in rent they have been charged, and put in place a policy to ensure that this does not happen again.”
For now, this isn’t the end of bunkabins on Frenchay Campus,
but what isn’t clear is whether we will see more, or fewer, of them on campus
next year.
Is this an “appropriate living standard for a human being”? Not according to one resident. Despite being described as “shipping containers” in one TrUWE post, at £150 per week, it’s more than the weekly cost of a Wallscourt Park en suite.
The University of Bristol is not the only Bristol university
to have accommodation
problems.
UWE is doing something different — housing students in temporary structures located opposite Cotswold Court, often used to house construction workers, provided by company Bunkabin.
Assembled over two weeks in early September, you won’t find “Purbeck Court”, as it’s known, on most campus maps or even the UWE website.
If you hadn’t heard of it, you’re not alone: even staff
don’t seem fully aware of its existence — one staff member I phoned at UWE’s
InfoPoint questioned whether I had the right university, only recognising the
location after I described it as the temporary structure opposite Cotswold
Court.
I spoke with one student, Raaswin (Law), who allowed me to take
photos in his room and told me that he had stayed in an Airbnb for two weeks
after moving from Malaysia whilst he waited for Purbeck Court to be ready. Unfortunately,
my time with him was cut short, as we were interrupted by Vivienne Jowett, head
of accommodation services, who told my photographer, Maya Bond-Webster, and me
that she “[didn’t] particularly like people just coming in and harassing
students in their homes”, telling us she’d “rather that [we] left”, despite us having
obtained permission from Raaswin.
I returned to Purbeck Court a few days later and spoke with three
different students, Alex Rogers (History), Joe Oakes-Monger (Economics), and
George Doye (Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Science), who told me a little
bit more about the residence.
Joe revealed to me that he was moving out of Purbeck Court
next week as he had sent “a really long email” saying that he didn’t think it
was “mentally viable to live here for a year”, saying it was not an
“appropriate living standard for a human being”.
Joe didn’t like “having to go outside
every time you want to use the kitchen”, saying “you can literally see, right
there, all of these people having the time of their lives in their flats”,
referring to the regular accommodation. Alex concurred, saying they were
“getting singled out”, “they look like a joke”. “It just doesn’t feel like a
normal place to live”, added George.
“The walls are pretty thin” added Alex, “every drunk student
[…] you’ll hear them, like, shouting outside.”
The initial email about Purbeck Court, sent on the September
11th, stated that if students did not accept the offer, “your
accommodation application will be suspended as we will not be able to make you
any further offers.” Joe took issue with this, telling me “it’s very weird and
I already emailed them a week ago asking if I could be put back on the list and
they said no”, “it was only after I […] sent them a really long email that they
finally [put me back on the list]”. Alex agreed, “they did make it feel like it
was this or nothing”.
The email further stipulated “If
I do not hear back from you by Friday 13th September, I will assume
you are no longer looking for Accommodation, can offer this opportunity to
another student and suspend your application with us”, giving just two days for
a decision to be made.
Living in Purbeck Court doesn’t come cheap. At £150 per week, it’s a higher weekly cost than an en suite room in nearby Wallscourt Park, which comes in at £143.65 pw, and it’s well above Carroll Court’s £107.03 pw. Joe called this “extortionate”, later adding “you don’t just pay for a room, you pay for the other areas you get as well.” Purbeck Court does have three small kitchens, but it does not currently have televisions or living rooms, unlike the similarly priced Wallscourt Park en suite rooms. “There isn’t anywhere to socialize” added George.
Despite being a temporary structure, Purbeck Court appears
to be a permanent solution for students this year, who are expected to live in
it for the whole of the academic year.
I met again with the head of accommodation, Vivienne Jowett,
a few days later. She said that Purbeck Court is “a pilot group of students”,
to see whether this style of accommodation would be appropriate as a temporary replacement
for Carroll Court for two to three years whilst it is demolished and replaced
with larger accommodation.
Responding to allegations of pressure tactics in the initial
email, Jowett stated “it wasn’t intended in that way”, “with that particular
email we shouldn’t have said we’re not going to offer you anything else”.
Jowett claims no students, to her knowledge, were removed from the list as a
result of rejecting or not replying to this offer.
Asked about lowering the price, Jowett said “potentially,
it’s something we will look at […] as we get towards Christmas and we start to
look at what we’ve been able to provide […] I’m not saying no”. Asked whether
she would live there for a year, Jowett said “I think people live in worse”,
“it’s difficult, isn’t it, unless you put yourself in that position and in that
age bracket”.
Jowett added that a living room cabin with a television is
forthcoming.
However, it’s not just those in Purbeck Court who are
unhappy with UWE accommodation. I spoke to one student, Luke Farrow, who found
himself lacking accommodation after getting a place at UWE through clearing.
According to Luke, advice given concerning
finding private accommodation “wasn’t great, it was just a list of websites to
go through yourself”. Luke says he wasn’t told about accommodation shortages
until after accepting his offer, with advice consisting of a list of websites
including Airbnb, Gumtree, and Roomgo, a company that emailed Luke offering a
“premium membership”, which it advertises as offering “10x better chances [sic]
to find what you’re looking for”. Roomgo touts its premium membership as
offering the ability for “unlimited contact to ALL room ads” and the ability to
“access basic rooms before other users”, creating a two-tier system for people
already desperate to find a house.
I joined Roomgo myself and tried to message a landlord. A
popup informed me that I couldn’t do this without paying for premium
membership. Advertised as “Just £1.43 a day!”, it’s easy to see why some
desperate house-hunters may do this, especially when the website is recommended
by UWE. Purbeck Court resident George added that he “very almost did” pay for
premium membership because he “just wasn’t getting anywhere” with his search.
Jowett responded, “what we tried to do was to gather as many webpages together as possible so that the student didn’t have to do that”. When I asked her if this was prioritising quantity over quality, she said “potentially”.
James Arrowsmith, Liberal Democrat councillor for Stoke Park and Cheswick, which includes Frenchay Campus, said: “The situation Purbeck Court students find themselves in is disgraceful. Students are being exploited by UWE Accommodation’s extortionate rates and used as guinea pigs in a depressing environment which could have an adverse effect on their mental health. The university should show it’s serious about academic ambition and the mental welfare of their students with swift and decisive action to find students a suitable living space where they can be allowed to succeed and make the most of the student experience.”
Ruth Day, of ‘Bristol, Cut the Rent’, added: “It’s absolutely disgraceful that UWE is housing students in poor quality temporary accommodation. Every student deserves a safe and secure place to live in and UWE has fundamentally let students down. What is further shocking is the price of such poor-quality accommodation. This situation all boils down to Universities putting profit before people. Universities view students as income, which has led to them expanding too far and putting them in such a precarious position as this. Bristol, Cut the Rent calls on UWE to urgently sort out this situation, reimburse students for the ridiculous amount in rent they have been charged, and put in place a policy to ensure that this does not happen again.”
For now, this isn’t the end of bunkabins on Frenchay Campus,
but what isn’t clear is whether we will see more, or fewer, of them on campus
next year.
Protester holding a sign at “Stop the Coup” protest next to The Cenotaph, Bristol City Centre. Photo: Jack Fifield.
The word ‘prorogue’
has been enjoying its time in the spotlight this week, and many, not least
angry protesters, have expertly deduced that the word ‘prorogue’ looks like the
words ‘pro rogue’. This begs the question: are these words actually related?
To start my investigation, I turned to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).
As an historical dictionary, the
OED doesn’t prioritize modern meanings over historical meanings; this can be
seen by the fact that the modern UK sense isn’t stated until last in the OED’s
entry “b. intransitive. Of a legislative
assembly, etc.: to discontinue sittings for a period of time or until the next
session.”
As many angry demonstrators holding
signs such as “Boris Johnson is a pro rogue” or “Liar Johnson put the ‘ROGUE’
in ‘PRO-ROGUE’” (pictured) over the last few weeks have pointed out, at first
glance, the word ‘prorogue’ looks and sounds like a combination of the prefix
“pro-” (before something) and the adjective ‘rogue’ (unpredictable, dishonest,
etc.).
The “pro” in “prorogue” is not a shortening of “professional”, with the OED confirming that, much more simply, in this case, it is the prefix discussed above, in the sense of “Forward, onward, in a course or in time”; this leads us to “rogue”, surely this is just the word “rogue”?
Going back to Latin via the
route of Anglo-Norman and Middle French, we get to rogāre, to ask, according the OED, and we are
directed to “see rogation n.”, with multiple senses including the acts of begging and of making a
formal request.
Turning to the origin of the word ‘rogue’, the OED tells us that the earliest recorded sense is “An idle vagrant, a vagabond; one of a group or class of such people. Now archaic or historical.”, but admits that the origin is unknown, suggesting that it may be related to “roger n.”, an obsolete word for a beggar pretending to be from Oxford or Cambridge, with the OED telling us that some have suggested that this was actually pronounced like the word “rogue” instead of the name “roger”, but that there is no supporting evidence for any of this, or that the words are even related, and that “an etymological connection with the family of classical Latin rogāre (see rogation n.) is unlikely.”, bringing us full circle.
So, it would seem that,
whilst the OED is of the opinion that a connection between ‘prorogue’ and
‘rogue’ is unlikely, there are some similar senses for both words relating to
the acts of begging or asking, meaning that there could be some connection
along the line. For now, this case remains unsolved.
16:02. A Facebook message asking me to “guarantee to not leak
details” and telling me that I will be taken “to the location”. No, this
isn’t an episode of 24, this is what happens when a student-organized
husting is cancelled at the last minute by administrators at UWE.
Derya Khalilpour, president of the UWE Debating Society,
pulls up in his car at the agreed meeting spot just outside of Frenchay Campus,
and signals to me to get in. As we start to drive, I meet treasurer of the
society, James Pearson, who chuckles when I ask to where we are driving — I
still don’t know where we are going. I’m told we’re going to a hotel in the
centre, but I’ll have to wait until later until I find out the exact location.
If you think that this sounds clandestine in nature, you’d be right;
as I would later find out, I would make up just a sixth of those in
attendance, including Carl Benjamin as the sole speaker, and his
assistant.
As we drive to the centre, I ask Khalilpour about how it got
to this point. He tells me that the proper procedures were followed for
inviting external speakers to the university campus, with plans submitted to
the Students’ Union prior to the deadline of fourteen days in advance, and
everything was approved up until three days before the event. As the university
did not have the contact details of the society, Khalilpour was informed of the
cancellation around the same time as the public statement went live.
The logo
Having predicted something like this would happen, Khalilpour knew
now was the time to go rogue. As we’re driving in the car, Pearson is
frantically editing a logo for the new page he is setting up to stream
the event, it’s the UWE Debating Society’s logo, but with the colours
inverted and the word “NOT” superimposed: the disgruntlement towards the
university is palpable.
Khalilpour tells me that the UWE Debating Society is an
“incredibly diverse society, politically”, and that many don’t know what
people’s politics are.
I ask Khalilpour what he thinks of Green party candidate Carla
Denyer’s call to boycott the original hustings: “[she] should respect us
as a debating society to uphold platforming. If she believes the
propagation of the views that [Benjamin] holds would be detrimental to
society then she, by dropping out, has given him a larger platform — now
we are also exclusively platforming Carl [Benjamin].”
The event
After some trouble navigating Bristol’s new Temple Gate and
the associated roadworks, we arrive at the Mercure Bristol Grand Hotel. Eight
chairs have been laid out for the event, enough for seven speakers and the
chair, but everyone knows only Benjamin will be in attendance.
Benjamin arrives at 18:42 with his assistant in tow. They
set up their own camera separate to that of the “Not UWE Debating Society” to
film the event.
Benjamin introduces himself, stating that UKIP are “the only
Brexit party that are an actual party”, and that the manifesto “hit[s] all the
major notes, subjects that my activism does revolve around”, he explains his
disagreement with the manifesto’s pledge to reinvigorate the coal industry,
proposing increased use of nuclear power, and concludes his introduction with a
speech concerning Article 13 and internet liberties, probably the only two
points that even I can agree with.
Views on Islam
What came next was much more sinister.
Benjamin said he thinks that there is too much
“pussy-footing around” in European Parliament, and that an MEP should use the
“minute or so on the floor to raise issues that are not being talked about in
the direct way that need to be spoken about”.
Benjamin then launched in to a seven-and-a-half minute tirade
on his views of Islam, including the supposed high prevalence of “abaya”, a
traditionally Muslim dress, commenting that he thinks it’s “the wrong message
to send that this is the kind of Islam we want in Britain”. When asked how to
stem the proliferation of Islamic terrorism, he stated that the “British state
is going to have to choose a form of Islam that it finds socially compatible
with the country”, with certain types “prohibited from being taught in mosques”.
When questioned as to how this was compatible with Benjamin’s own descriptions
of himself as a “free speech activist” and “civil libertarian”, he was quick to
deflect, saying that he would still wish to allow this in private reading, just
not in mosques.
Benjamin then praised the oppressive state of Saudi Arabia,
where women only recently gained the ability to legally drive, saying that “in
every mosque in Saudi Arabia, they have cameras to monitor the Imams themselves
to make sure they’re not teaching anything that would be considered
revolutionary, if it’s good enough for Saudi Arabia then […] I think that could
only benefit everyone”. Despite attempts by Khalilpour to steer the discussion
back on track, Benjamin was quick to return to discussion on Islam, referring
to the “indigenous population” of the UK at one point in his answer.
At one point, Benjamin stated that the Liberal Democrats had
been subverted by socialists and associated the party’s notion of equality to
communism; despite this, I asked him afterwards, were he a Remainer, which
party he would be a member of, he said the Liberal Democrats, presumably due to
his perception of himself as a liberal.
Benjamin continued the interview criticizing censorship
online, saying “I think censorship radicalizes people” seemingly unable to see
the irony between his criticism of the erasure of freedom of speech and freedom
of expression and his calls to ban certain types of religious teaching and
dress.
After calling LGBT rights a “political issue”, Benjamin was
asked if there was anything that social justice movements had achieved that he
agreed with, to which he responded “what have they achieved? Well, they’ve
achieved a great deal of censorship”. Benjamin is clearly unable to identify
with the plight of anyone beyond himself: due to the suspension of his Twitter
account, he believes that he is subject to censorship. If Benjamin had been
able to come up with an answer, he may have mentioned same-sex marriage, legalized
in 2014, surely a milestone contribution to Benjamin’s earlier assertion that
there is “no difference between the rights of a gay man and a straight man in
this country”.
Asked whether “students engaging politically is a positive
thing”, Benjamin said he thought “students should get on with their studies”,
after an incredulous look by Khalilpour, Benjamin redoubled saying “I’m
serious, you don’t need to be involved in politics, you don’t know what you’re
talking about, you’re like twenty-one years old, I’m thirty-nine and I still
don’t know what I’m talking about.” “You’ve been fed half a narrative from your
Marxist professor and you’ve been given a bunch of false information that’s led
you to believe everything you disagree with is fascism, and you just don’t
know, just get on with your studies”.
Well, at least Benjamin got one thing right: he doesn’t know
what he’s talking about. Of course, when turn out is lower, right-leaning
parties succeed at a higher rate, so as young people are one of the groups that
turns out to vote in the lowest numbers, of course he would be appear more than
happy to see them disenfranchised.
I queried Benjamin on his views about the recent
story where a man covered his face and received a £90 fine, and whether he
thought that the man had a right to cover his face. His response: “of course he
did”, when I asked why he would restrict the rights of a Muslim woman to cover
her face with a burqa, and its impact on civil liberties he seemed unfazed,
saying that it was not a contradiction, and that we already restrict what
people can wear in certain places, and that “we do have to compromise in
certain regards”, saying that a ban “doesn’t have to be restricted to any one
religion”, and that it could be restricted to certain places.
The “Not UWE Debating Society”, as an independent group of
students, could not use society funds could for any of the re-organized event,
so it looked like they would be out-of-pocket. After the event was over, with
questioning complete, Benjamin became aware of this, and offered to cover the
cost of the hotel room booking. From my point of view this seemed to be an
offer to a group of students out of kindness, rather than a conflict of
interest; this would not have been necessary had the original husting gone
ahead as planned.
My final thoughts
Benjamin seemed more concerned with opinions relating to
Islam and censorship online than on his party’s Brexit strategy, but this is to
be expected considering that a recent YouGov/The Times poll puts UKIP at 3%,
below even that of Change UK (5%). Clearly Brexit is not helping them remain
relevant, so why not try something else? His assertions that students should
not be involved in politics, that LGBT rights are a political issue, and his
inability to find a single good achievement of the social justice movement show
that Benjamin is either unable or unwilling to see outside of his bubble,
despite criticizing others for the same. There are many legitimate reasons for
leaving the European Union, even if I may disagree with it, but it received
little attention from Benjamin in the entire hour he was given to talk with no
opposing candidates.
Had the original husting gone ahead, Benjamin would have had
to contend with the opposing candidates, but due to the withdrawal of support by
UWE, he had nothing but a chairman and a woefully inexperienced student
journalist in myself to contend with. This constitutes a failure by the university.
Luckily, if the polling is correct, Benjamin’s views, like UKIP, will one day be dead in the water.
It is here that I’d like to urge people to vote in the
upcoming European Parliament elections in order to help keep people like
Benjamin from gaining office. With a more proportional voting system than
General Elections, your vote really does make a difference, and tactical voting
is not as necessary.
The Green Party’s Carla Denyer refused request for comment.
This article was updated at 14:11 on the 15th March 2019. MindGeek do not own 90% of ‘tube’ websites, as a previous version of this article quoted, however do have multiple high profile sites in their portfolio, including RedTube, Pornhub, YouPorn, and Brazzers. I apologize for this error.
With the planned introduction of compulsory age verification for viewing pornography in the United Kingdom, which will require adults to provide sensitive documentation such as passports, credit cards, and driving licenses in order to view perfectly legal pornography, I interview Myles Jackman, an obscenity lawyer and former UWE student, known for his successful defence in the landmark R v Peacock case, he was also the first acting solicitor allowed to live-tweet from a trial, and was awarded the Law Society’s Junior Lawyer of the Year Excellence Award in 2012 for his work. In the interview, I ask Mr. Jackman for his opinions on the effectiveness of the upcoming age verification methods; their potential impacts on LGBT rights, civil liberties, freedom of expression; how Brexit might have an effect; and how UWE students can seek to replicate his success.
Introduction
Jackman: Theoretically, age verification is going to be applied for adult content consumed in the UK from the 1st of April. In reality, what we’re hearing from the frontline is there may be a few weeks’ delay on that. But, it’s already been delayed for over a year, because we have repeatedly raised privacy and security concerns about the system. In other words, there is significant risk that everyone’s private sexual details could be leaked, hacked, or otherwise breached and put in the public domain. MindGeek have estimated that 25 million adults will sign up from the UK to age verification in the first month alone, so we’re talking about essentially half of the adult population.
What would you say to those who are worried about their children potentially accessing pornography, do you think this verification will help?
Jackman: No, they’re really pretty useless, because they can be gotten around with Tor, proxies, VPNs, etc. very easily. They’re not difficult to circumvent for people who are tech-literate. So, as usual this is a measure intended to improve things, which will only target people for whom it wasn’t a problem in the first place, effectively.
There’s also the next issue: should we be deferring having conversations with our children from our own parental responsibility to that of the state. In other words, this is just seen as an easy victory for government and some kind of magic bullet for parents, but it’s not. Even its proponents say it won’t be more than seventy per cent effective — and that’s the absolute highest amount they expect to be caught by age verification.
Do you think that the introduction of porn filters could lead to clandestine websites appearing that may have access to more extreme, and potentially illegal, material?
Jackman: Yeah, that’s a serious risk. There’s a risk of cyberfraud – people who don’t know which sites they’re going to being asked to give their details, there’ll be cyber blackmail: “oh no, you’ve just put your details in to our weird sex website, give us £500 or we’ll release your details to the public”. That sort of thing. So, there’s going to be an arch swing in that kind of behaviour.
How can we, as individuals, resist these intrusions on our civil liberties?
Jackman: The easiest thing to do is not to comply by using proxies, Tor, and VPNs, and then to protest against the unnecessary introduction of this system.
Do you think that these pornography filters are incompatible with freedom of expression?
Jackman: They are going to have a significant impact on the free speech ecosystem. For those smaller providers who can’t afford age verification, or who think that it’s too much of a practical hassle for them to have to maintain, say a very small text-based erotica website, we therefore will see a massive reduction in the number of active websites on the internet relating to adult sexuality. And unfortunately, alternative sexual communities, such as LGBTQ, BDSM, sex workers, etc. are likely to be hit the most, and disproportionately.
What impact, if any, do you think the upcoming pornography filters will have on LGBT rights and wellbeing?
Jackman: When the actual filter was first introduced, it filtered out loads of LGBTQ advice sites, so for younger adults who want information about safer sexual practices, these were just hidden, and that was a massive mistake. It’s a perfect example of where the protect the children logic goes wrong.
What impact do you think that Brexit will have on the rights and civil liberties of UK citizens?
Jackman: Have you got any easy question?! Just kidding. Brexit itself is pretty difficult to call anyway, let alone trying to establish the outcome on civil liberties. Let’s assume that Brexit occurs, it’s really difficult to tell what the impact will be on the adult industry. For example, because GDP is likely to be hit by 9%, will there be less payment for pornography as people are literally tightening their purse strings. Or, will people be in desperate need of recreation, and therefore consumption won’t be hit. There is an issue for production, if money isn’t put in to the system to pay for the porn, then no-one will be manufacturing apart from the very big corporate sites. That has an impact on free speech, because for those people who wish to consume that material, they may be denied their right to receive it because it’s not being manufactured.
What impact do you think there will be on human rights in general, considering that the Conservatives wanted to repeal the Human Rights Act, which we can’t do until we’re out of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)?
Jackman: With adequacy agreements in place for GDPR, that might be sufficient [on privacy and security issues]. But there are so many human rights issues, both digital and real-world that are so difficult to ascertain. I would imagine that privacy and security of data are significantly at risk in event of a no-deal Brexit.
Do you think that the UK is seeing a regression in the breadth of rights and liberties afforded to its citizens?
Jackman: Yes.
What is your opinion on the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), do you think that it should instead be optional to be rated, rather than compulsory, similar to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) in the United States?
Jackman: It’s somewhat confusing that what is ultimately formed as a trade body should become the prima facie censor for the internet. The same problem [that arthouse film producers face] exists for porn, for indie producers it’s very expensive to get rated. The BBFC saying ‘oh no, just send us your porn and we’ll tell you if it’s legal or not’, and that may have a cost implication for producers that is unrealistic. We’re still not really in receipt of realistic guidance on the type of material that the BBFC will consider legitimate, although we do have a change in the Obscene Publications Act guidelines under the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] as to what kind of material may now be legal.
What advice do you have for UWE students who want to replicate your success?
Jackman: Identify an area of law that you’re passionate about, create a brand and say something interesting, and believe in yourself.
[End of interview.]
This interview was transcribed from a recording of an interview conducted over the phone. Whilst all efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, there may be some errors in transcription, for which I apologize.
With the recent legalization of cannabis in Canada, it’s
time for politicians in the UK to wake up and smell the kush.
Countries and areas that have legalized cannabis have
already seen plenty of success. Since legalization in 2014, cannabis sales in
Colorado have brought in over US$900-million in tax revenue [1], even though
Colorado’s sales tax rate is a meagre 2.9% — tiny compared to the UK’s standard
VAT rate of 20%. Scaled up to the larger population of the UK, and with the
generally-higher tax rates found in our country, cannabis would provide an
extremely large amount of untapped tax revenue that is currently wasted on the
black market.
Currently, cannabis is often easier for young people to
obtain than alcohol. As drug dealers do not discriminate on the basis of age,
there is no protection against the use of cannabis by younger people whose bodies
are still developing, meaning the criminalization of cannabis is making it even
easier to obtain for those who are most at risk from its use.
With the current situation of illicit cannabis consumption,
adult consumers are also exposed to unnecessary health risks.
Firstly, there is a chance that the cannabis has been in
some way tainted from the pure product that would be guaranteed if sold under
regulated conditions. Whilst it is unlikely that cannabis is intentionally
laced, the possibility for unintentional lacing with the use of improper
pesticides is all too real.
Furthermore, with the introduction of legal cannabis comes
the advantage of the free market, and the innovation that entails. No longer
will consumers feel limited to purely smoking cannabis; cannabis-infused food
such as brownies or even gummy bears will become commonplace, reducing the risk
to health that smoking entails, such as lung cancer and heart problems. This
has already been seen in legal markets.
Legalization of cannabis would only make it safer than it currently is, an impressive feat considering that even now cannabis is safer than alcohol; in 2012, 5.9% of global deaths were attributed to alcohol [2], compared to zero deaths ever caused by overdosing on cannabis [3]; according to David Schmader’s Weed: The User’s Guide, it “would require ingestion of fifteen hundred pounds in fifteen minutes — a physical impossibility for any human, even Snoop Dogg” to overdose on cannabis [3].
Cannabis’ legal status makes it the perfect gateway drug
Cannabis is sometimes called a “gateway drug” – proponents
of this term say that cannabis opens the floodgates for users to try harder,
more dangerous drugs. Looking at the statistics, it is true that most people
who have tried illegal drugs have tried cannabis first.
However, this is manufactured by the status of cannabis being illegal. As drug dealers tend to diversify their operations to make more money, they offer harder drugs to their customers, providing a connection and opening the door to someone who was exclusively a cannabis user to start using harder drugs. Of course, with the safety record cannabis has relative to alcohol and some other drugs, it is no wonder that many may then question their views on the danger of other illegal drugs, even though they can be much less safe. If cannabis were legalized, this link between buyer and seller would be non-existent.
Personal liberty
With little evidence that there is good reason to ban
cannabis, it is a deprivation of liberty to arbitrarily restrict what people
can or cannot choose to do in their free time. Just as most people would agree
that people should be allowed to enjoy a beer on the weekend free of
restriction, so too should an adult be allowed to consume cannabis if they so
choose.
Keeping it in the family
In 2016, the United Kingdom was the world’s largest producer
of legal cannabis, [4, p. 43] but cannabis remains
illegal for legal consumption in the United Kingdom. It is of note that Paul
Kenward, husband of drugs minister Victoria Atkins, operates Britain’s largest
legal cannabis farm [5].
Victoria Atkins has previously declared her opposition to the legalization of
cannabis, despite her family directly profiting from its production in the
currently tightly regulated market.
Conclusion
The United Kingdom has a tendency with this sort of thing to wait for others to take the lead before dipping its toes in. Others, such as Canada and many US states, have led; the positive evidence is there; the time for politicians to act is now.
