The Opposite of Democracy: AUC Protestors get it Wrong, Again

After waking up at 6am, to get a 7am bus to be on campus at 8am…finding out I‘ve been locked out by my fellow peers is just not how I want to start the day. In the furious row over a consecutive 7% increase in tuition fees, student protests at the American University in Cairo escalated to chaining gates shut, for the second time this week at the New Cairo campus yesterday. Lecturers students and campus staff were forced from attending their place of work and study.
Not happy in the slightest, as I had prepared avidly for an Arabic test that day, I approached the gates to demand answers. Three students on the other side of the gates, firmly protesting, hesitantly tell me they are: Muhamour an Engineering student, Mohamed Galel who is working for the student union and Escondor whose fees were paid for by a scholarship, and a headstrong freshman named Omer. The students did not wish to give any further information…or confirm correct spellings for their names, but were adamant when I asked why the gates were shut: ‘we have a petition of 2,000 signatures…students are with us.’ I point out that 2,000 signatures is only a third of the student population, and also that if they have paid their fees already, it has probably already been spent. ‘ – I didn’t pay the fees’ quips Mohamed, looking very unsure of himself.
Getting back to the main issue – why I can’t get to my lessons - they reply ‘it was a peaceful protest’ putting their faces up to the gate bars. ‘AUC didn’t answer us; they are not listening to us.’ Another protester cries out: ‘I don’t have a voice!’ I point out he clearly does as he has just used it…I also ask why on earth have they waited until now? Three weeks into term? - ‘No idea why.’ At least they are all well-rehearsed for questioning.
I ask a security guard why they are letting students shut the gates ‘we can’t stop them.’ Omer confirms ‘Security can’t do anything; they are worried about losing their jobs if they argue with us.’ As an email from the AUC president confirmed later on in the day: ‘[security] are, as always, well-trained but unarmed, instructed to avoid altercations with members of the AUC community.’ Looks like I am on my own in attempting to attend my lessons.
I continue to question the legitimacy of the protest. They claim they have checked the petition numbers and tell me to ‘talk to Lisa’, the president of AUC, they claim the student union, 'black and red camps' (different political sections of the student union...) are involved, ‘we have nothing else we can do but chain the gates closed.’ I stand my ground and question why they should dictate by force that it is within my best interests to miss my lessons today. ‘3,500 support us. We tried lots of things.’…Interesting the petition number has risen by 1,000 signatures in the last five minutes. The claims go on as the protesters desperately try to defend their thoughtless barricading of the university. To vast media coverage claims of international and national widespread coverage, listing T.V channels and radio stations and newspapers who support them, to telling me that AUC ‘gave refunds 7 years ago’ this might be true, but I have found no evidence for it, and it does state on the online AUC student finance breakdown: ‘new undergraduate students are not entitled to refunds’…

In one last bout of debate, the trio of protesters take a slightly more logical approach: ‘We want a freeze on prices, after 300 students went to the president with a petition which was just ripped up.’ - What about the board of trustees? ‘We went to the president and to the board of trustees; we tried a lot of other things first.’ They say wearily, the words of clearly desperately impoverished students, from behind Gucci sunglasses.
Finally I reign them back in, to expose the fault in their oh-so-seemingly-noble cause. ‘So, tell me again what exactly gives YOU the right to stop ME from gaining MY education?’
Silence. They look to each other for comebacks, but as I well know, there is none sufficient.
‘O.K, you can go to your lesson. I talked to security, you can climb over.’ Wow, thanks boys.
I find an easy spot to hop over, but not before coming across some angry staff members trying also, to climb over. ‘We are just trying to go to work, why are you doing this!’ They yell at the lost looking boys. Irate and upset the employees refuse to let me take their names, as they embarrassingly have to climb over fences to get to their places of work.
Two more library employees follow me over the fence too, with the help of the three protesting boys who had followed me in attempted reassurance, from the front gate.
Once inside, of course there are no lessons, but I can still use the library. I feel somewhat triumphant in claiming some of my educational rights back.
Inside, occasional wanderers pass, run up and ask me: how did you get in?! It feels like I’m a lucky survivor of a zombie apocalypse as I walk the deserted campus, looking for other survivors.
I talk to Dorina Dobre, a criminology final year student who lives on campus: ‘I don’t feel it’s my cause because I’m study abroad, they are protesting for the majority studying here for 4 years. I’m not really happy, but it’s their right.’ And Jeff Kelly, economics and international development, Masters student who also hopped the fence: ‘completely agree with the cause but couldn’t disagree more with the methods, this is robbing students of their right and opportunity for education.’

The student union president, Taher El-Moetazbellah, said to Ahram online: ‘the recent escalation is the administration’s fault for not cooperating or acting on student concerns. However, he rejected the means by which the students expressed their protest, blocking campus entrances’. However in stark contradiction, posted on the S.U facebook page on Wednesday before the last protest, is the status: ‘Can You feel it ? it is happening, only through the hardest times and the disturbing moments of division were the students [are] able for once to understand the true essence and the importance of UNITY. Now we are back as one, And this has just started. The Student union fully supports this movement and will participate in future escalations once this gains general consensus. Rights are earned, not granted.’ Not only is their grammar awful, but as I can speak for myself; as an opposing student, the entire student body is most certainly not united on this issue.
Wondering further if these protesters are so inflicted with 7% increases, I found out in 2011/2012, for a first year undergraduate, Egyptian student, tuition fees for the year were 3,085LE for one credit hour. So with the 7% rise that is an extra 216LE… per credit hour. Also, after finding out the inflation rate in Egypt in January was 9.2% and the last inflation rate statistics show a 6.3% general inflation rate in Egypt for August (Business Egypt)…is 7% increase in tuition fees really an admiral, courageous protest, as the boys at the gate were, at least when I first approached them, hell bent on telling themselves and me they are.

Will AUC give into this protest to resume normalcy? It certainly was not planning to, as on 19th September an email from ‘News at AUC’ sent to all students said: ‘The University is not closing the campus tomorrow, and all classes and activities will resume as normal.’ News at AUC also responded to the first lock-in protests on the 16th Sept by saying: ‘The attempt to close the campus is in direct violation of University policy and will not be tolerated...The University's Freedom of Expression policy protects the rights of all members of the community to express their views without infringing on the rights of others.’ And later on, the 20th of September: ‘permanent seats for student representatives [are given] in nearly all the management committees of the University…I would also like to apologize on behalf of the University to those…whose rights to hold and express their own opinions have been inhibited. This is not what AUC stands for.’

Students also took to twitter to discuss the protests, user: Gigi Ibrahim ‏@Gsquare86said: AUC’s admin is just like the Egyptian government = CORRUPTED and students are fighting for their rights of transparency & accountability.’ Whilst Marie-France Lakah ‏@mflakah didn’t quite agree tweeting: ‘I am pro-strikes and I believe #Auc is robbing us. And you have a valid cause. But you lost me at #OccupyAUC’ (Occupy AUC refers to the protest movement.)
To twitter user Ahmed El Lozy ‏@ellozy who said: ‘Tell me again, how does forcing students to stand outside a campus in the middle of the desert harm the administration?’
By 10.30am, I and a handful of other apocalypse survivors holding up in the library were told to leave the campus. An email on the 20th September from the president confirmed: ‘The attempt by students to block the gates of the New Cairo Campus has created a dangerous situation in the streets around the campus’ so we left to catch fleeing buses.
So have these students won? Thanks to their lack of organization, research and zero understanding of how democratic protesting is operated, I highly doubt, and sincerely hope that AUC does not give into this moronic parade of so-called revolutionary behaviour. It is not revolutionary, and it is certainly not democratic, it is the complete opposite of democracy for a radical minority to force compliance from everyone at AUC with their demands…that is dictatorship, to claim it is for the good of the majority is communism. Let’s hope these fabulously stylish, misguided protesters realise this before I, or anybody else misses out on more of their education.
Sources:
http://www.aucegypt.edu/students/finaff/fees/Documents/TuitionFeesfor1112.pdf
http://www1.aucegypt.edu/catalog04/undergrad/studfin/studfin.html
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/53353.aspx
https://www.facebook.com/pages/AUC-Student-Union/127843051327
https://twitter.com/i/#!/search/%23occupyauc

WALKOUT PROTEST 16TH MARCH 2012

“Is that it? Six of you?” A police officer sneers at fifteen students wandering through Russell Square. The students carrying placards - embellished with minister of state for universities, David Willets’s face and torn barcodes with lettering: ‘OUR UNIVERSITY, NOT YOUR BUSINESS’ - have all walked out of lectures, to protest against government education cuts in central London, the 16th of March 2012.
The square is littered with siren fitted vehicles and helmeted individuals, parading the sidewalks in vast numbers.

Waiting.

Watching.


Past Russell Square is the starting point for thousands of student protestors. Home to the University College Union; Malet Street is a wide road, bordered with tall town houses with steps leading onto the pavement and parked cars on either side of the road, now occupied by hundreds of activists, students, supporting staff and lecturers. Lurking law-enforcers are ever present, on horseback, packs and in meat wagons.

The small group of students heckled by police earlier, from the University of East London, now aligned at the very front, are given a fabric banner reading in large red painted letters: ‘ONE SOLUTION REVOLUTION’. The humming crowd of students assemble behind the banner…and then, the drums start.

The world’s media forms a solid flashing clicking wall at the front of the protest. They climb scaffolds, trees and statues with tripods and heavy cameras. They capture every face in the crowd.

A megaphone squeaks.

The crowd draws its breath…

“NO IFS! NO BUTS! NO EDUCATION CUTS!” The united chant throbs from the mob of rebellion as it marches forward. Turning at the end of Malet Street, there are school coaches full of kids parked on either side. Individual protestors shout to the windows of child spectators: “This is for you!” as the kids cheer the procession.

On the opposite side of the road, horses swish their tails with the green of Russell Square silhouetting their hides, as the angry crowd sympathises:
“GET THOSE ANIMALS OFF THOSE HORSES!” The injustice mentality bubbles like a physical sheet over the crowd as they cry out unanimously “No justice. No peace. FUCK THE POLICE!” before slowing down cautiously, to avoid a split. Batons dance at the sides of the police, still heavily escorting the crowd as tensions escalate.

The road is blocked from the volume of protestors at Holborn underground station. Commuters pile out to meet barriers. Passengers of the 91 bus run to one side and press their faces up to the window. Passing tourist shops and little restaurants; all customers come out to screw their faces up trying to read the banners and decipher the meaning behind: “WE ARE ALL ALFIE MEADOWS!”

The protestors caught in a mob mentality of police angst, lose grip on this march against education cuts. “ONE, TWO, ONE TWO THREE, HOW MANY PIGS IN THE BNP?!” is emitted past the London School of Economics and Aldwych. Voices are already starting to get hoarse, and protestors constantly trip on each other’s feet trying to keep a steady pace.

The march continues past Lion King billboards, past Legally Blonde and Sweeney Todd, as the sun suddenly bursts forth from its captive clouds, to baptise the determined protestors in sunlight, like a Godly approval.

Stepping slowly past Charing Cross, strangled cries continue to draw attention “WILLETS RETREAT! THE YOUTH CONTROL THE STREET! David Camer-on? FUCK OF BACK TO ET-ON!” Over the roundabout towards Whitehall a susurrus spreads to sit, outside…Downing Street. At the gates - the crowd sits. Police look at each other, rolling their eyes, wishing through clenched teeth no one felt the need to protest. “SIT DOWN! JOIN THE FIGHT! EDUCATION IS A RIGHT!” Bobbies hold radios to their cheeks as hundreds of cameras form a canopy over the sit-in. There’s clapping as a speaker, Hannah Dee, 37, chair of ‘the right to protest’, stands, megaphone in hand.

“I just want to take a minute to show solidarity for Alfie Meadows who was hit by police so hard he nearly died!” (In a demonstration in 2010.)

The crowd rumbles:

“Boooooo”

“The hospital was reserved for injured police!”

“Booooo!”

“Kettling on Westminster Bridge! Protestors in prison!”

“WE ARE ALL ALFIE MEADOWS!”
“Tomorrow is international day against police brutality!” The crowd cheers mightily, then points towards the perimeter of police.

“SHAME ON YOU! SHAME ON YOU!”

And back to the original point.

“We’re gonna go to Willets with a 40,000 strong petition against job cuts, grant cuts, education and pension cuts!”
“WHEEEY!!” The re-energised protesters get back to their feet as the police wipe the sweat from under their helmets.
Marching past parliament a seemingly ‘nice’ policeman in the infamous baby-blue jacket of a liaison officer, reveals to a small part of the crowd, smiling so much his eyes squint:

“We were gonna move ya. But we allowed ya to sit for ten minutes.” As if this was a grand favour of generosity to be accepted with stuttering over-gratification.

Passing Westminster, protestors point towards the ancient building of governments yelling “THAT’S NOT WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!”- Pointing back - “THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!” To reach the official ending point of the protest: the Department for Innovation and Skill. An ordinary looking red-brick building, it wore a large shiny new plaque declaring its title.
“WE ‘AD YOU AT MILBANK! DA DA DA DA!” The crowd clumps as police form a human barricade preventing a continuation, such as, the afore mentioned Milbank protest. Tie clad office workers sceptically watch the block of enraged, excited and unpredictable student protestors. “We fucked up your H.Q, DA DA DA DA!” The police take notes and gather; reinforced with riot vans.
A speaker stands forward; megaphone assisted and asks the inhumane redbrick:

“Can we hand in our 40,000 petition? Against education cuts?!”

The mass cheers, clapping and placard waving.
“Against the privatisation of our education? ...” No one comes out to -

“FACE THE ANGER OF THE CROWD!”

Still no one comes out. “WE WILL CONTINUE TO STRIKE AND TAKE TO THE STREETS!!” The crowd jubilantly hollers as all eyes are transfixed on the Department of Innovation. There is silence as the deflating crowd waits. Police start ushering people, the row of numerous bobbies growing in blockage of the street. Disheartened, but no one wishing to be kettled, people start to disperse. No one even took the polite, civil petition.

Degree Subjects Soon To Be?

Recently the American site: http://www.bestcollegesonline.com/blog/2012/04/05/12-college-majors-we-hope-to-see-soon/ came to my attention. It highlights a massive gap in current education. Unfortunately degrees are often written by and decided when, in today's cheetah paced globalised world, they can be out of date by the time students open their books. This is a vital issue of discussion to make sure that students (especially as they are now paying astronomical prices in the UK!) get the best education that provides the skills wanted by employers and needed in the workplace of tomorrow. Politicians and employers complain that young people often don't have the skills needed for the jobs they want, so, when can we see the below subjects added to universities subject portfolios to give them the skills they need?

1. Content Engineering - The creating and harnessing of quality content for blogs, websites and social media has become a wallowing gap employers want to fill. It requires the ability to write to a high level, marketing, demographics and analytical skills of a high degree to be really good at this. The gap in the job market means this would be a highly employable degree that would provide a broad range of transferable skills in lots of areas.

2. Sports - Now this was suggested on an American site, in the UK there is sports coaching and sports science. But if you're very athletic it make sense to be able to study sports of a wide genre without having to specialise in science or coaching.

3.I.T for Medical Technology - I don't know anything about medical things, but I do know my health is important, I also know that technology is rapidly changing across the spectrum of subjects, but medicine is a science that leads in technology. So it makes sense to make sure we have specifically well-trained staff specially for operating medical technology. As patient data-bases to new cancer treatments excel in technological bounds, I want my doctor to have someone next to him who knows exactly how it all works. I am also sure that hospitals are in need of such qualified technicians, making it a highly employable degree subject, again with transferable I.T skills.

4. Social Media Studies - Some may think of such a degree with the similar disdain media students meet. But do not underestimate the enormous importance of social media. As a journalism student, in many work placements I have taken I have had to show my peers and superiors how to use social media. This skill most certainly gives me an advantage over others at the moment, it is one of my most employable, valued assets to be able to confidently navigate around social media and use it to my, or my employer's advantage. Degree students of social media will be snapped up immediately in the current starved social media jobs climate.

5. Mobile Phone Apps - I have friends who study design and graphics, who are now designing phone apps. This is the future, any one who wants to be taken seriously in the professional world has a smart phone now. This means successful, innovative phone apps are always going to be in demand. Just look at the creators of angry birds and the escalating popular 'draw something' app, whoever can come up with the next ones are simply the millionaires of tomorrow, so what better than to get a degree in such an opportune, prosperous subject.

6. Climate Change - I think this speaks for itself, as I look out the window every day with more and more extreme weather, I personally want some dedicated geeks on the subject now! There are courses in environmental science, but this is the planet we're talking about. We need people to be specifically, degree trained experts in this subject, this should have been a subject available to study ages ago!

7. Digital Publishing - Encompassing all the new ways information is published, online, e-books newspapers and magazines, social media etc. a detailed education in the digital publishing world is currently slim pickings for employers, despite it being vital to success for any business now to have a well functioning, good looking website with expertly engineered content.

8.Online Branding - Wow, online branding is so essential for profitable business! What successful brand can you think of that doesn't have a prominent online presence? That's right, none. Online branding is so easy to get wrong, the internet is like a permanent publishing forum for all the world to see, which is why it is essential to get expert branders who know their marketing, advertising, social media and online networking to make the most of your brand.

9. Organic Agriculture - Similar to climate change as a degree subject, organic food is the future. Now available in all supermarkets and small catering businesses thriving with organic produce, organic agriculture is major for the future of the planet and sustainability as well as being desperately needed by employers and consumers.

10. Patient Relations - Is Bupa struggling in the recession? No. Because they know their patients are the ones they rely on for income, so they look after them. Patient relations is something I personally think has slipped, with new restrictions on prescriptions because of pharmaceutical monopolies, government restraints on G.P's and constant demand on the NHS to be better, it's no wonder patient relations are under duress. Patient relations is a key skill that health care is very reliant on, how can you help someone without relating to them first? Again, I personally would like to receive medical treatment with well educated, professional patient relation.

11. Web Journalism - As a blogger and journalism student, this is definitely a subject that is pretty much self taught at the moment, with many of my peers falling through the gaps. Web journalism is the future of news, print is still important and has some time left for sure, but web journalism needs to be precise, it needs to be created by experts, as it has such a wide audience - the entire world. Having knowledge of the industry, web journalism is the future, the skills needed to be a successful web journalist are the ones that will get graduates employed.

12. Distance Education - I started my degree via distance learning with the Open University, I am also whilst interning trying to engage my peers online with distance learning - it's hard. I certainly think more research needs to be done on the people studying long distance, the strategies and teaching ideas used currently. More and more people are taking it upon themselves to distance learn to compete in today's workplace, to save money or juggle a hectic lifestyle, it's a growing industry that will need trained graduates to keep it growing and help educate more people. Essential for tomorrow's world.

So there you have it, if you're thinking about studying or already studied and found a gap in your education when it comes to finding a job, or employed and wondering what's holding you back form that promotion - let's hope these subjects are implemented into universities and available to study to help bridge the gap from today, to a much brighter future.

Again, the original blog this is based on can be found here: http://www.bestcollegesonline.com/blog/2012/04/05/12-college-majors-we-hope-to-see-soon/ please take a look, it gives more detail on the subjects mentioned!

Minimum Wage Freeze Just Another Kick In The Teeth

 Last week it was announced that the minimum wage for those under 21 will be frozen leaving those 16-18 years old to live off a jaw dropping £3.68 an hour, and 18-20 years old on a pitiful £4.98 an hour, not even a fiver. The older generation however once again benefit with an 11p rise in the minimum wage to £6.19 an hour from October.

I wonder if under 21 years old will be given 'inflation exempt' cards to substitute for their out dated wage? This government is relentless in its unabashed attacks on the young...do they not realise - it's them that will be picking your nursing home.

Not only are over a million young people out of work, or not even in education or training (NEET), but now the government has given even less incentive to find menial work, for any depressed young job seekers it's a kick in the teeth from a spiked, steel toe-capped boot.

 Working in a shoe shop as a Christmas temp two years ago in Bluewater shopping centre, I was 19 and worked full-time, the shop was always manic with Christmas shoppers. Alongside me were various 16 year old workers in college, subsequently they were much less likely to get full day shifts, instead given 4 hour shifts. Before tax, £3.68 x 4 hours is £14.72, take away the "It's nearly a fiver just to get the bus here and back, it's hardly worth it." and then tax...that 16 year old has put off hanging out with friends, doing coursework, spending time with family for...about £8? Would you hand out C.Vs attend an interview, or even get out of bed to work in a shop that gave you £8 a 4 hour shift take home pay?

Then again, in such a climate of dreaded unemployment, maybe you would. How convenient for the millionaire that owns this shoe shop range.

Vince Cable, who made the announcement, says the government elected to freeze the minimum wage because "Raising the youth rates would have been of little value to young people if it meant it was harder for them to get a job in the long run."*

It is not going to encourage employers to take on young workers by freezing the minimum wage. This degradation will just enforce the general opinion of employers, and the already victimised and disheartened young unemployed, that young workers are simply not worth anything. This attitude needs to stop, young people are fresh, open minded, energetic and full of ideas that can help YOUR business, so why are they not being paid the wage their talent deserves?

The defence given for this reason is that it will make it easier for young people to find work in the long run, encouraging employers to take on cheapy-cheap suspiciously slave-type young labour.

Cable claimed it had been "A very hard decision", which would surely propose mountains of contradicting opinions and evidence to make it a hard decision, right? Except there is no evidence to suggest freezing the minimum wage will make it easier for young people to find jobs, and none published to say raising it will discourage employers from hiring young people. It seems the only difficulty involving this decision is justifying the outright attack and prejudice to young people - with absolutely no evidence for the decision!

Another major downfall of this minimum wage freeze is additional encouragement for the incredibly alarming, frightening culture of complete acceptance in the exploitation of young people, just because of the economic climate/job market that is prominently emerging. First, the not-allowed-to-vote age group has to pay triple university fees, has college grants cut and now young people should hardly bother going to work. Again I plead and implore this government, is it any wonder there are record numbers of young NEET's which have never been seen before? But more importantly, who's going pay off the older generations debts? - The uneducated, inexperienced, poverty stricken generation you have tied up in financial woe, and inexcusably burdened with your debt? When I am in debt, I work hard to pay it off. I don't go out and rob a kid.

Why is there an age measured minimum wage in the first place? Surely a 16 year old doing exactly the same job as a 21 year old, should be paid the same? My view is, the assumption 16 year old workers somehow don't need to be paid as much - is reason to pay them less for the same amount of work. In which case, lets start asking employees how much rent they pay, whether they get the occasional tenner from relatives, have rich parents, or are parents themselves - surely we should be fixing rates of pay for all these factors, as even though one single 25 year old is getting £8 an hour, the one who is nearly homeless with a partner and kids to feed should get £15 an hour for exactly the same amount of work, under the current age (thus assumed circumstances) restricting wages premise. It just doesn't make sense to pay someone less simply because of their age. It is widely accepted ageism. When equal wages for both sexes, races and sexualities is strived for, why do we complacently accept this outrageous inequality?

When I was 16-18, I was constantly enraged with the minimum wage. I had to pay for rent, food, driving lessons, train fare, going out, pretty much the same as everyone else. What about young parents bringing up children? Why should an 18 year old couple be paid less to bring up their family than a 25 or 30 year old couple, who are doing EXACTLY the same job? I had to turn down many job offers when I was younger because it simply would not pay my rent. Being young and plucky, I would most certainly attest that I did as much work as everyone else, sometimes more as "you're young and energetic, you run up the stairs".  This attitude that the young don't have children or partners, or other family to support, or rent/mortgages to pay, or that they are simply worthless and can work for insanely, unsustainable low amounts has got to stop - or don't come crying to them because they decided the future of your retirement will be spent in an awful nursing home - it's not like they're millionaires. And you chose the future of the youth to be spent in crippling financial burdens.

*http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/work-blog/2012/mar/19/minimum-wage-freeze-help-young-work

STOP KONY 2012

Wow. Not much stops me in my tracks and just makes me want to drop everything for a new cause.

But this did.

Please watch it, and share it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc&feature=share

MAKE KONY FAMOUS - the beginning of a new, better world might finally be here.

Using new technology for democracy, and to make real differences in the world we live in.

Refugees: Professionals Pleading to Work

Refugee rights campaigners STAR protested Thursday night to change public opinion on asylum seekers in the UK.

 Using St. Paul’s church to camp out in the graveyard, facts, speakers and music, the small group of protesters entertained Covent Garden in hope of overturning the public’s view of refugees.

In the UK at the moment there are thousands of refugees that have fled from fear in their own countries that are living on £5 a day government hand outs. Some may argue as this is a charitable favour, what’s wrong with that? Why should we pay more tax to support the victims of other countries?

As Gladys Mabvira, 32, Asylum Seeker and political activist spoke in Covent Garden of her own experiences; being kept in detention for 6 months after fleeing from Mugabe interrogators accused her of being a spy, revealed to tentative listeners – most refugees in detention are professionals.

Gladys herself a dental nurse who studied in the UK, she recounted making friends with doctors and teachers while in detention - all of them wanting to work.

Campaign manager Michael Kaye outside St. Paul's church

Statistically 1 out of 4 decisions made by the government on refuge is wrong. There are situations were refugees from Zimbabwe are not being let in – but the government accepts the risk is too great to deport people.

Despite general public opinion that there are far too many asylum seekers, living in council housing and claiming mass benefits – the UK is 11^th in worldly terms of accepting those in need of refuge, there are not millions of asylum seekers, but under 20,000, and under government policy they are not allowed to work, to claim the same benefits or live in council properties. As Gladys asks the crowd:what is my crime? And how would you like it if it was you, or your family? It is hard to answer.

Gladys describes the bureaucratic, unsympathetic system after detention. No friends, no food and no home are not a situation anyone wants to be in, but it is what these usually qualified professionals are facing upon entering the UK. Managing to stay at a Hostel for five days before being evicted, Gladys is now staying with friends made from detention, living on hand outs and somewhere in the filing system towards receiving just £5 a day.

The £5 a day - on top of  (approximately) a £60 daily cost, per each refugee held in detention, is a massive cost to the tax payer – to keep doctors and teachers detained while their paper work is sorted out, if it is not sorted, they have no choice but to live on the £5 a day.

If you ask Gladys what would be the perfect asylum system, the general assumption is for more money, housing etc. to be given to asylum seekers – but all she asks is for the right to work and contribute – that is her dream.

Like many, Gladys thought she would be offered asylum, but faced barrier after barrier. Since trying to return home and being accused of spying Gladys has become more politically active, making it even more dangerous to return home, but as a trained dental nurse who speaks very good English and trained in England – surely she should be allowed to contribute to the economy as she desperately longs to rather than living on benefits like some useless charity-case?

More events are being held at universities around London, Leeds and Manchester. For more information on events and protests please e-mail: volunteering@star-network.org.uk or visit: http://www.star-network.org.uk/

Vote to Vote at 16

Alex Salmond is currently campaigning for 16 year old's to be able to vote. The Scottish national party leader who’s making political headlines in his struggle to make Scotland independent, may have some perverse reasons for backing young voters, (they’re polled to be more likely to vote for Scottish independence) but it raises an important debate on the rights of young people.

At 16 you can get married, have sex, join the army, have kids, move out - and most importantly pay tax. As it stands at the moment the unborn have already had their tax spent by irresponsible politicians - at least those of 16 should be able to vote on who gets to spend their tax contributions.

When I was 16 I moved out. I worked about 25 hours a week, went to college for 20 and rented a room. I paid tax and didn’t receive any benefits - including EMA. Although I’m aware I was in a very small minority of 16 year old's - I still meet 20 something year olds - even a few in their 30's and 40's who are less independent than my 16 year old self. What exactly gives adults the right to decide whether 16 year old's are 'capable' of voting when some of them don’t seem particularly able to themselves.

The current counter argument is that 16 year old's don’t pay enough tax as an age group, and that they don't understand all the complications of voting, having little life experience. History is repeating itself - these are the same reasons women weren’t allowed to vote for far too long, yet people still believe these arguments. Surely those that genuinely believe these to be good reasons to deny someone a democratic vote should also be campaigning against those on long-term benefits, dependent home husbands/wives and those that didn't finish school or are below a certain I.Q, to also be denied the right to vote?

I recall a discussion with my GCSE drama teacher - aged 15 - where as a class we discussed how actors can use their personal experiences in performance, and what to do when they didn't have any 'life experience' for acting roles. As the debate went on, it transpired that a large majority of the class had been to funerals - often more than one, for close friends or family. To which my respectful drama teacher sat back and said: 'wow, you guys are so young, I'm twice your age and I've never been to a funeral.' Showing that often 'life experience' is completely uncorrelated to age. I expect there are plenty of 16 years old's where it really is insulting to suggest they cannot comprehend the voting system - and plenty where even as adults they might not ever be, as deemed by the counter debate: ‘able to vote’.
The argument of young people not being somehow competent to vote, when young people are wells of ideas and energy, and students are renowned throughout history for leading political change is nothing short of offensive. To deny some of the young the ability to vote is like suffocating an essential life force of democracy.
A good case study of the 16 year old vote is Brazil. In 1988 after student movements against dictatorship and a new constitution, 16 year old’s were allowed to vote. The vote was a cherished right hard won. However, reported today by NPR, young voters are more relaxed on voting due to 'economic and political stability':

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130242022

As some 'adult's don’t take the right to vote, are indecisive or completely inactive in politics, if 16 year old's were allowed to vote, they could make this choice too, but not giving them the choice is straining already tight generation conflict.
Another relevant example is Austria. Austria gave 16 year old's the right to vote in 2008. The decision was made for 'demographic reasons': (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26886089/ns/world_news-europe/t/austria-will-allow--year-olds-vote/ ) as a victim of an ageing population, similar to the UK, younger people where given the right to vote to balance democratic decisions between generations.
I cannot think of a more significant point of the debate - currently young people very much feel they’ve been sentenced to certain constraints by older people, who are allowed to vote - because they have been. As mentioned in previous blogs, 15-17 year old's are the ones currently suffering the brunt of cuts - as voted for by those it has little effect on. Young people are losing the rights to free education, to be able to work for a living, to own homes and bring up families when they graduate. Quintessentially, they’re being prevented from growing up... an ironic circle upholding the argument of younger citizens being ill-equipt in life experience to vote…
 Lowering the age to vote would help target the lack of inter-generation understanding. Instead of young people being excluded and denied a voice (the exact reason for rebelling), they will be listened to. Being given a democratic vote - a voice, means politicians cannot ignore young people anymore, or make policies unchallenged by those it most directly affects. Politicians, who hear but do not act, can be held to account. Politicians can't be accused of not listening to young people unless young people are given a loud voice – a vote.

David Miliband to save us?

Well, yesterday was the 6 month anniversary of the summer riots, it is also National apprenticeship week - in anticipation, David Miliband spoke at a conference on Monday to highlight the changes, progress and issues surrounding unemployed youngsters:

http://www.acevo.org.uk/


Miliband highlights the alarming NEET figures and the UK economics situation, with future forecasts and opportunity costs.

Calling the current situation of the youth of today 'scarring', and singling London out as a major area needing help, he admits the lack of opportunities for those not going to university/post 16, and after, need urgent help and rejuvenation. One idea deliberated is a national data base for apprenticeships, similar to the UCAS system. Another great point discussed was the debilitating price of transport to youngsters on minimum wage (lower than the adult wage), or going to multiple job interviews.

Work experience, OFSTED and college incentives are also being looked at, most importantly - vulnerable young people. The money saving, but thoroughly innovative and generative idea of using young people to mentor others is one I hope is mentioned again, and bought to action. All good ideas, and it is good to see a politician actively admitting the flaws of the current system and working towards targeting the many barriers opposing the aspirations of young people, but is it enough?

So can David Miliband save the youth of today? We'll see...

R.I.P to over 3,000 Vocational courses

 

Over 3,000 vocational courses are to be cut from schools. Why - because schools have been offering them...to boost their league tables?! So, regardless as to whether or not these courses give students any skills or advantages, they are being offered and created for the wrong reasons - and if they are beneficial to educating students - they are being scrapped for all the wrong reasons still.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16813119 - BBC news source.)

 Personally I think these courses are brilliant. As in my other blog 'I NEET a job not a degree' we don't need to push teenagers into being 'academic' when they have so much potential in practical, useful, employable skills.

I have a sneaky theory David Cameron is like those parents you see pulling their children to dance/karate/chess club/reading club etc. by a noose. And he's now imposing his own wants onto the kids of the nation. By all means, every child should have at the very least basic Maths, English and Science secondary education certificates - but last time I checked that is why they are compulsory. I do think a language, and either history and/or geography should now be compulsory to make sure our children do not fall behind internationally. (Everyone I know from another country can speak more than one language, which makes me feel incredibly cheated by my education.) ...but I sat 13 GCSE's, most people sit at least 11...so: 11-6 = FIVE other subjects to study! If they want four of them to be in horse care, because it is unlikely they are going to do amazingly well in the other subjects (or even if they are) - but know their horse care - why shouldn't they be given the opportunity to do so?

In all experiments of education (e.g Jamie's dream school: http://www.channel4.com/search/?q=jamie+oliver+dream+school ) I'm aware of, practical activities engage and excite children - it keeps them in school, enjoying their studies, it shows them that school and learning isn't just reading books and writing essays and sitting exams...(that sentence just made my stomach turn, and I love reading and writing!). These vocational courses and their subjects are crucial to some children that simply are not going to be academics - not because they're not capable (especially with the noose dragging tactic) but because they don't want to. Everyone knows you're more likely to do well in  a subject you enjoy, so as long as the other core subjects are kept compulsory, I see absolutely no reason why these other courses should be taken from students.

When I was at school I chose to do music and drama instead of history, if I had not been given the choice, and had been made to study history, I probably wouldn't of done as well, as at the time I had no interest in history, even though I was very good at it. Imagine a kid that isn't good at any of the academic subjects - but knows their fish husbandry. Students, that want to study these courses, and carry those skills onto college or employment.

Now, this is quite an important part of the debate: further education and employment. I am very sure one of the reasons these courses count as four GCSE's (now some are being changed to only count as one or two), is because that is the minimum requirement to get into college; four GCSE's at grade C or above (courses varying). For very nonacademic students, this is the only gateway to getting to college. I'm not justifying giving up on their other subjects (many colleges have GCSE courses for students lacking in one core subject - and schools run re-sits) students should be made to re-do GCSE's in core subjects if they fail, but at the very least that student can say to themselves - 'I can still go to college to do what I want to do...I'll just have to re-sit my Science GCSE as well.' Instead of - 'I failed my Science GCSE, I have to re-sit it or I can't go to college, whilst all my friends can go...I failed and will always be a failure, what's the point in doing anything?' Confidence in one subject can lead students to have better confidence in other subjects and themselves - in school in general! Why take that opportunity to enjoy learning from a 14 year old?

Of course one of the governments main points of argument is that employers doubt the worth of these qualifications, which is a very good argument for improving the courses - not for scrapping them altogether! Time and effort, probably a lot of tax payers money, teachers and students have put effort, time and money into these courses. What a waste to get rid of a bike that simply needs oiling.

These children should not be getting second-rate teaching, and employers should not be receiving under qualified school leavers. Make the courses better and reputable - don't just scrap over 3,000 of them - because you want your child to read Shakespeare and go to Chess club, when he/she wants to do fish husbandry - and is pretty dam good at it too, (look at what Forest Gump achieved! O.K, he's a fictional character...) why not support our students in what they want to do, instead of grinding the axe of academia and the completely bogus idea we need MORE, uncomfortable, awkward, university students? No, we need more highly skilled practitioners, who can actually do something useful. For a lot of students it just isn't right to push them into college and uni when they'd rather earn money, be productive and independent, not living off their parents and a student loan/government hand outs, so why shouldn't they be given the qualifications in a range of subjects so they can do so?

Forget about league tables (seriously?) and think about what is best, for improving the chances a child has at doing something they enjoy - as well as having all the necessary skills to add up invoices, write their C.V's and an employable skill with a relevant, college worthy qualification.