pic

The end is nigh - Amazon is coming

Today, Amazon turns 20. When it first started out, stories of large companies taking over the world via the internet were the stuff of sci-fi movies, with a ‘Back to the Future’ kind of unbelievability – 20 years on, however, they are alarmingly close to the truth.

Nicknamed the ‘Gang of Four’, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Apple have spread their tentacles further than anyone could have imagined. Google log everything you are curious about, Apple know your location every minute of the day and Facebook knows exactly who your ex’s new girlfriend is, because you’ve stalked her so often that they are now suggesting you add her as a friend.

Yet still, these companies are continuing to expand. Not content with being the leading e-retailer in the US, specialising in media and electronics, Amazon has now decided to expand into food delivery. From a consumer’s point of view, this may seem like a good thing – who wouldn’t want to One-Click order a curry at the same time as buying their husband’s birthday present? However, Amazon’s decision will be met with fear by many smaller companies. Much like a large predator encroaching on their turf, for many small businesses, it could mean death.

One such company is Just Eat, who have thrived since floating on the London Stock Exchange last year. Just Eat is based on the idea of helping independent restaurants thrive in a world dominated by chain restaurants – in order to stay competitive against the big chains, they willing to give up a chunk of their revenue to a tech-savvy middleman who can channel more food orders. Sadly, however, it seems that Just Eat’s time in the limelight is unlikely to last in the face of growing big company dominance; if Amazon and Google decide to expand into an industry, there simply isn’t room for anyone else.

“Just Eat is riding high on a theme that has now fully run its course,” said Cyrus Mewawalla, a London-based analyst at CM Research, who recommends selling the stock and ranks it the 6th most expensive among 41 e-commerce companies his firm tracks globally. “Within five years you’ll be able to order a hamburger through Amazon and have it delivered to your front door.”

To me, this seems a shame. Just Eat has gone from a Danish basement startup to the London Stock Exchange over the past decade; only to be shot down by a larger company as it gets into its stride. Amazon has a history of gaining control of industries that it moves into; it has already used its vast influence to almost annihilate the publishing industry, paying authors so little for their books that they are forced to turn to crowdfunding sites like Unbound just to make a living. Clearly, the same can be expected of takeaway food. Amazon will use their influence to drive down prices at participating restaurants so that they barely break even; but with the potential of Amazon’s large customer base, they just can’t afford not to take part.

Having a world market dominated by a select few companies, we risk creating a monopoly that crushes entrepreneurial spirit and kills competition needed for a healthy economy. Who in their right mind would set up a business to compete against Amazon, with their impossibly low costs and impressive logistics? No one, I should imagine; and therein lies the problem. If things continue as they are, it is no exaggeration to say that the ‘Gang of Four’ may well have the opportunity to rule the world.

Originally written for www.ukinvestormagazine.co.uk 

Student elections: Are our elected officers really worth the salaries we pay them?

As Student Officer Elections roll around at universities up and down the country, I can’t be the only one that meets election hysteria with a degree of scepticism. Now believe me, I wish I wasn’t so cynical; I wish I could envisage the glowing future articulated by candidates, and believe in their rosy promises to bring down the price of beer and finally scrap exams. 

I really want to believe that my university is a democracy with all major decisions being taken by elected representatives, because in theory, having elected officers to represent student opinion is a great idea. Students are paying huge fees and should ultimately be entitled to a voice as to where this money goes. Like Parliament on a smaller scale, issues are taken to the university trustees by elected officers and debated; yet in practice, the election of student officer positions leaves a lot to be desired.

The most controversial issue is the money involved. At my university, these elected officers are paid £24,500 per annum. At UCL, it's £25,000 and at Royal Holloway, £23,000. Outside London, the salary falls a little, but not much: at Cardiff, roles are advertised with a salary range of £19,499 - £19,959, and at Birmingham City it's £17,064 – with 40 days of paid holiday as a rather nice added bonus. A quick scroll through a graduate job site shows that the most common starting salaries for graduates in London are between £18,000 and £22,000, making elected officer salaries undoubtedly above the average.

This year, Queen Mary kicked off their elections by advertising the role on a poster with a simple message: “Earn £24,500”. And herein lies the problem. Because surely, this can only be a hindrance to the campaign; instead of encouraging applicants who care about the union, the roles will be taken by those enticed by the idea of having a nice year out with generous remuneration. The whole thing becomes something of a farce, where the only people who have a real interest in the election are the campaigners because of what they stand to gain; making wild promises that students know cannot be kept in order to win. Surely, this unspoken reality of the election process undermines the point of voting at all?

At a time when universities are permitted to charge £9,000 a year, it is more important than ever that students feel their fees are justified; so forgive me if, when my student debt is funding these elected officers' salaries, I expect to see some results. However, when manifestos are based on vague statements such as “I'll continue to seek new platforms to gather your views” (University of Greenwich), it’s difficult to hold officers accountable and see what they have actually achieved. Similarly, statements like “Cash machines are still unreliable. I will communicate with the banks to find the solution” (University of Bath) and “We will ensure buses are accessible and frequent” (University of Warwick) are equally unbelievable. Students aren’t stupid – we know these officers don’t have the power to fix cash points or change a bus timetable. And yet, we all seem to buy into this idea that they can, year after year – and then pay them a large sum of money to do it.

I love the idea. I love that student elections aim to promote democracy on campus, give students the chance to hold the university trustees accountable and, indirectly, encourage participation in politics on a wider scale. But the facts speak for themselves; in 2014, the National Student Survey revealed that only 68 per cebt students are satisfied with their union. When an entire university’s election campaign gets only 3,572 votes – a total of 17 per cent of the student body voting – it is clear that all most students feel is apathy, and something needs to change. Increase accountability, ban empty promises and stop using money as an incentive to stand; then perhaps student elections will become something worthy of a vote.

Originally written for the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/student/istudents/student-elections-are-our-elected-officers-really-worth-the-salaries-we-pay-them-10086239.html

Singapore named the most expensive city in the world for second year running

Singapore has been named the most expensive city in the world for a second year running, in a new survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

The top five cities on the list remained unchanged from last year, with Paris, Oslo, Zurich and Sydney all coming consecutively after Singapore. According to the EIU, it is “relatively rare” to have an identical top five two years in a row.

The EIU’s Worldwide Cost of Living report includes 133 cities worldwide, using New York’s prices as a base. The survey is designed to help human resource managers calculate cost-of-living allowances for business travellers and compares prices across 160 products and services, including food, drink, clothing, rent and transport.

However, according to Lonely Planet tourists should not be put off by the high prices; Singapore topped their Best in Travel 2015 list, released at the end of last year. Selected for its cuisine and culture, the city-state also celebrates fifty years of independence this year.

Grocery prices in Singapore are 11% higher than New York, and it is 50% more expensive for clothing. Utility costs are high; as city-state with limited resources of its own, it is reliant heavily on other countries for supply of energy and water. Transport costs are also triple those in New York, which the EIU attributes to “Singapore's complex Certificate of Entitlement system” –  the ten-year license that drivers must purchase to buy a vehicle - which makes car prices “excessive”. The top ten is completed by Melbourne, Geneva, Copenhagen, Hong Kong and Seoul.

Major Japanese cities like Tokyo and Osaka were missing from the list for the first time in 20 years, due to devaluation of the yen and weak inflation. Karachi, the capital of Pakistan, came top of the list of the world’s cheapest cities, followed by Bangalore, Caracas, Mumbai, Chennai and New Delhi. Bucharest is the only European country on this list; although wages are low, the cost of living is too offering relative value for money. The biggest faller was Caracas in Venezuela, which slid 124 places. Usually a consistently expensive city, reaching 6^th place last year, it came out as one of the cheapest in this survey due to a weaker currency and the use of multiple exchange rates.

Originally for The Independent: 

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/singapore-named-the-most-expensive-city-in-the-world-for-second-year-running-10082202.html

In defence of porn - and feminism

And so, the censorship of the Internet begins. In a move to regulate online porn, rules have come into force governing what can and cannot be shown in paid-for online pornography – culminating in a list of banned acts that is vague, pointless and, frankly, sexist.

The idea behind the new laws is to protect children from viewing content that could be “disturbing” – but from a practical point of view, since the regulations only apply to paid-for porn, they are pointless. They have been introduced to safeguard the young - and yet, children aren’t going to be watching videos that they have to pay for when there is a wealth of porn out there on the internet for no cost at all, much of it containing far more explicit acts than those the government has banned.

The only people these new laws really affect are those making a living producing and directing erotic films. Banning sexual acts from films that people pay money to watch will direct them towards free porn sites that are not subject to the same restrictions – meaning the livelihood of anyone in the industry will take a serious, unwarranted hit.

The new “rules” state that whilst male ejaculation – over any female body part – is fine, female ejaculation apparently is not. Banning this sends out the message that a woman enjoying an orgasm is more “harmful” than a man  – and that idea, in itself, is dangerous. Alongside fisting and banning penetration with certain objects, both of which women can derive pleasure from, the clear message in this legislation that porn should not show women being pleasured – something that so many female directors have tried to change. Porn is renowned for being sexist, but recently there has been a surge of porn created by and aimed at women, encouraging them to embrace their sexuality. These laws will only limit that; sliding women back into a submissive position in porn that, in the long run, will be far more harmful to the future of equality than to children who watch it.

Most importantly, however, the new legislation ignores the fact that it is inherently normal for people to have sexual desires – and watching pornography is just a way of exploring and expressing them.  In censoring erotic videos, the government is telling people what it’s ok to like in the bedroom and what it isn’t – what’s considered normal, and what makes you violent, or weird, or a borderline rapist. In a country that is so well renowned for its freedom of expression, tolerance and openness about sexuality, controlling how people choose to express it can only be a step backwards.

I can’t pretend the porn industry doesn’t need to change, because it does. All too often it perpetrates a culture in which women are the submissive sex and men play out their violent, dominant fantasies upon them. But censorship of paid-for erotic films isn’t the way forward, to protect children or otherwise – it only signals a worrying downhill spiral for equality and freedom of expression. 

Originally written for Cub Magazine: http://cubmagazine.co.uk/2014/12/the-porn-wars/

Why Emma Watson is right to be standing up for feminism

Feminism. It's a hot topic right now. From Emma Watson's #HeForShe campaign to Elle's first 'feminism' issue, everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. With it becoming such a high-profile issue, why do some people refuse to admit it's important?

Legally, we're pretty much equal. Any employer discriminating against women can get slapped with a fat ass law case, the Equal Pay Act means we get the same pay as men and we can all do the same jobs. In the eyes of the law, we're the same. There seems to be a tendency to believe that the job is now done - any further takes us into the realms of the man-hating lesbian feminists from the 70s, screaming for single-sex communities.

When asked if I consider myself a feminist, I hesitated to say yes. We have equality. I don't feel marginalised on work experience for being a woman, or during seminars at uni. But when I thought further, I realised that any woman who wouldn't call themselves a feminist is lying. Or very stupid. Because the thing is, the law isn't really where the problem lies; in reality, to a teenage girl talk of unequal pay in top jobs, sexism in the workplace or breaking the glass ceiling means very little. What really affects me, and thousands of girls my age, is much closer to home.

For a second, imagine you've been raped. In order to send the bastard that did it to prison, you have to relive the experience in front of an entire court - and you're prepared to do it. What you're not prepared for, however, is to be questioned on your entire sexual history - when did you last have sex? How many sexual partners have you had? Do you like it rough? Is it true you were wearing a short dress and high heels? All questions designed to make you seem like a "slut" to the jury. Whilst sexual history evidence is technically not allowed to be shown to a jury, it finds its way in.
In a world where sexism didn't exist, these questions wouldn't need to be asked.
It shouldn't be relevant what clothes a girl was wearing before she was raped; she should have the freedom to wear whatever she likes without fearing that the men around her simply can't control themselves. Running through these questions is an age-old belief that women should be shamed for having sex frequently, or with more than one partner. Continuing to ask these questions in a public court upholds the belief that men aren't to be blamed - women who dress in revealing clothes are asking for it. The fact that this attitude is still so visible in our legal system today highlights exactly why feminism is still relevant.

If that's still a little hard to empathise with, let's try something a little more common; because really, what feminism means to me is to not be shouted at in the street every time I leave the house. I get comments from men about my body or my appearance so frequently that it's become a standard part of daily life; my friends and I will jokingly count up the horn honks on the walk from home into university. But this shouldn't be the case.
It angers me is that men feel they have the right to shout sexual remarks at a total stranger. We're women, we know we're hot, and we don't need an uneducated twat in a souped up Polo to confirm it for us. Thousands of men casually intimidate and harass young women every day simply because they believe that they can. And that's exactly why we still need feminism. Before men and women are truly equal, mental attitudes in the general public have to change; and that going to take a lot longer than it took to pass a few laws through Parliament.

I'm not saying it's all men; it clearly isn't. But it's still far too many. If you really believe sexism no longer exists, take a walk down the Mile End Road; because it's everywhere, in broad daylight.
It's a van driver telling me I've got great tits. It's hackers releasing naked photos of Jennifer Lawrence, for everyone to look at. It's the Daily Mail commenting on women's appearance instead of their actions, and it's TV producers sacking women over a certain age, whilst the men keep their jobs until retirement.

Yes, legally we may have equal rights; but in reality we still have a very long way to go.

Originally from my lifestyle blog:

 http://citybxtch.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/why-emma-watson-is-right-to-be-standing.html

New laws mean social media "trolls" could spend up to two years in prison - is this fair?

One side of a debate - YES

As social media’s popularity has continued to rise, as have the cases of internet ‘trolling’ - and it’s increasingly clear that the current laws regulating online threats are outdated. In my opinion, any threats made online need to be taken far more seriously than they are now.

The current laws mean that the maximum sentence that can be given to internet trolls is six months. In the case of Frank Zimmerman, who sent threats to MP Louise Mensch saying that “one of her children would be killed, the sentence given was suspended – meaning it was unlikely he would actually go to prison at all. However, the maximum sentence that can be given for the crime of sending threats in real life – harassment – is five years. It seems irrelevant to me whether the threats are received online or through your letterbox – the psychological effects and terror caused are the same, and therefore the sentence for online trolling should be upped to reflect that.

Some argue that if there is too much policing online it will have a negative effect on freedom of speech. I think it is necessary to make a clear distinction between an opinion and a threat – whilst the comments may not always be nice, everyone has the right to tweet their thoughts on people’s weight, appearance or actions. This cannot be criminalized.  However, a direct threat is a crime and should be taken seriously. An account named @killcreasynow sent numerous death threats to MP Stella Creasy, threatening to rape her and “put the video all over”; more recently, TV presenter Chloe Madeley has received rape threats over her mother Judy Finnigan’s comments on Ched Evans.

There is a clear distinction between an opinion and a threat – just criminalizing online threats will not affect freedom of speech.

Lastly, in response to those that say two years seems “harsh” – I would argue that since internet trolling is on the rise the current sentence just isn’t harsh enough. Increasing the maximum sentence to two years may be what is needed for sufficient deterrence, and encourage trolls to think twice before acting. Furthermore – the judge in the case is still left with discretion. The sentence is ‘maximum’ two years – it could still be six months, depending on the severity of the case. I believe that, in cases of serious online harassment, it is much better to have the option to come down hard on internet trolls – and show that in our society threats of death and rape will not be tolerated.