Please Robin, no Tax in this Hood

Everyone loves the story of Robin Hood - stealing from the dishonest rich to feed the hard working undervalued poor is a beautiful story, if a little hypocritical.  We men enjoy watching the sword fights, stunts, clever little traps (hiding under the leaves? Brilliant) and women in corsets while we enjoy imagining ourselves being a 'real man' outside fighting for survival.  Women, and I researched this, like the rugged men protecting their wives and of course, Kevin Costner.  As soon as I heard there was a tax being named after such a beautiful story, I thought to myself "awesome, this sounds a bit exciting'.  Then I read that was essentially targeting bankers - those of you that have read my previous clutterances will appreciate i'm not their biggest fan - and thought to myself "taxing the bankers to help those less fortunate - GENIUS!  However, if you're reading this and thinking wow a 'positive outlook' on something, think again, it isn't.

As Bill Nighy sits there, looking and sounding like the stereotypical squirmy banker that we have all come to resent I listened to every single one of his words.  One of my favourite actors tell us of the three fairly succulent birds that The Robin Hood Tax aims to kill with one stone.

• Higher taxes on the wealthy and therefore reducing inequality.
• A curb on speculation and financial market excesses.
• More money for global public goods and aid.

Take nothing away from the objectives, they are all worthy of making some sort of effort but The Robin Hood Tax is not a good way to go about it.  The allure of the title will mean that people will hastily become 'fans' on facebook, 'follow' on Twitter and in the end, vote yes.  This shows the power of clever branding and the naivety of social media users.  The Robin Hood Tax could arguably be called "Class War Tax' - far less appealing when you think about it.

One of the many pulling points of the campaign is that speculators will pay the taxation and nobody else, which to be blunt, is incorrect.  Think of it this way, does Richard Branson personally pay your airline passenger tax when you fly Virgin? No.  When a tax targets something or someone directly, it will always be spread out and moved on elsewhere, that is life.  Nobody knows how or who will end up paying the financial transactions tax, but it is most likely to be a customer of some sort.  People who are customers of firms, or companies that use the financial markets, or those of us who are saving and investing in financial assets will end up bearing the costs.  Which, when you think about it, is nearly all of us.  When I saw the proposition I certainly thought to myself that any way of making the bankers drinking less champagne is a good thing, but don't kid yourself, there will be no fewer corks popped.  Although they may be snobby, webbed footed, six fingered aristocrats, they are definitely intelligent enough to figure out how to make the payments minimal to their assets.

Without sitting back and thinking about how The Robin Hood Tax will actually go about raising shed loads of money for good causes, one can be excused for merely reading the headline.  However, the concept of 'aid' is far more complex than just helping those less fortunate.  Under the current government, with the criminal Gordon Brown being the biggest culprit - and he is a criminal, but that is for another day - the budgeting of the tax payers money is incredibly poorly organised.  The current government are spending a pitiful amount of money on aid relative to need.  We should be making a concerted effort to reduce poverty, increase health care, education and employment but the Labour government is not doing so.  Aid is a small fraction of overall spending and could be raised in other ways than introducing another tax.  The current limited state of aid is NOT due to a lack of available funds, but because there is no agreement or organised structure to what to actually do with it.  Far too many people believe - wrongly in my opinion - that aid merely transfers money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries, which in turn then disappears from where it is needed due to corruption or general waste.  The Robin Hood Tax is described as a 'good tax' that is worthwhile, yet it could end up being such a monumental let down.  A good tax is not just one that nobody notices - something that The Robin Hood Tax is being described as - but one that discourages people from doing bad things and encourages people into doing good (therefore improving societies economic state).  It seems the founders of The Robin Hood Tax are aiming to bypass public opinion on aid by 'taxing the rich' and assuming that the public will not ask too many questions.  The point we should be discussing is what to do with the money raised for aid, but The Robin Hood Tax would just mean that the extra funding raised would just fall to people who don't allow any public insight or choice.

Furthermore, there is the problem with inconsistency.  Whether the money raised from a new tax on the financial sector increases funds for international aid or domestic needs, it will not remain a constant.  The nature of the financial market is that it is cyclical.   How can we possibly see a cyclical marketplace as a good way of raising money for aspects of 'life' that are so important.  Essentially the result would be that while we are in an economic boom, aid would increase due to the quantity of money changing hands, however, during a recession for instance, exactly the opposite would occur and the people who need aid, would be left with nothing.  Aid should be the opposite of this, above this, separate.  It should remain consistent, well thought out, planned and effective, something the financial marketplace is clearly not.

Taxing financial transactions at that level is too blunt and too overt.  These people are not stupid - though it pains me to say so - they will simply just move away.  Big industries with big companies and big big UK headquarters will merely move location to avoid the tax. This brings to light two more faults of the proposition.  Firstly, to work we need the companies we are trading with to be under the same tax rules - which they are not.  International Robin Hood Tax would be even more difficult to undertake.  If we put the tax on our industries, people would just stop trading with the UK.  In addition to this, or because of this, UK companies would relocate.  Unfortunately, though the masses down the economic ladder resent big business and industry professionals, our economy needs them.  The revenue IS helping the UK, perhaps not enough, but it is doing more good than harm.  To start targeting those at the helm of it will mean they will move their business to another country, therefore leaving the UK with nothing.  This would increase unemployment, reduce valuable funds, weaken the pound even further and generally weaken the economy, which in turn would reduce aid, the very thing the tax was set up to increase.

The people who have founded and formed the idea of this tax have their heart in the right place.  I have no criticism for their aim, merely the method.  It seems however, that The Robin Hood Tax is a fascinating example of emotion defeating logic and fact.  It says 'lets have a tiny tax on the nasty people and raise money for good things' and who could possibly argue with that? Me.

To raise money effectively, it needs to be new money - which it isn't.  It needs to be public knowledge as to what is being done with it - which it wouldn't be.  It needs to be organised effectively - which it won't be.  The Robin Hood Tax is more an example of clever PR and marketing than anything else.  Full marks for purpose, but an overall fail because of their method.

Same old Terry, always Cheating!

Anyone who knows me will vouch for the fact that I love football, perhaps an unhealthy amount.  I’ll be the first to stand up for the sport in the classic Football VS Rugby row and which is “better” – obviously rugby teams are full of people who couldn’t make the football team so went to the gym.  Anyway that’s not my point.  Everywhere we look at the moment, front page and back page news is dominated with J.T, John Terry.  At first I posted thoughts that his little affair shouldn’t matter in ‘footballing’ terms and that it was crazy the amount people seemed to care.  However, I recently asked if anyone wanted me to look at anything particular to write about and the response I got was the John Terry scandal.  So I did, and now I have changed all my opinions.  Except about rugby.

 

In short the sport is a bloody disgrace.  The sport is not full of sportsmen any more, but celebrities.  I heard a lady phone a radio station about the matter and told the broadcaster that her young son, a Chelsea fan, used to idolize Terry and now “is really upset that he’s not a nice man”.  That to me was fairly brutal.  Young boys, and girls for that matter, hold their favourite footballers in such high regard that any sort of let down can be pretty demoralizing.  We keep hearing the standard cheaters response; “everyone makes mistakes” and “his private life should remain private”.  It’s the latter that frustrates me the most.  We, as society are meant to celebrate and cheer whenever a footballer does something good, which is becoming a rarity, but not be told when he does something bad?  To hell with that, I say we continue the “witch hunt” that Stuart Pearce calls it.  The more negative attitudes we can show towards adultery, perhaps the less it will occur.  The amount of honourless, short of morals, dishonest and unfaithful people we are surrounded by is ridiculous.  John Terry is one of these people, and yet we are meant to feel confident in his ability to lead our country in a world cup?  Ridiculous.  I’d like to point out as well, that this is not his first offense, below is a brief breakdown of his career.

2001: Terry and his Chelsea team-mates Frank Lampard, Eidur Gudjohnsen and Jody Morris were accused of insulting behaviour in front of American tourists a day after the September 11 terror attacks on the United States. Chelsea fined each of the quartet two weeks' wages.

2002: Terry and Morris were charged with assault and affray following an incident in a London nightclub.
Both men were later cleared but Terry, then yet to make his England debut, missed that year's World Cup after the Football Association said they would not consider him for selection until the court case was concluded.
Chelsea fined both Terry and Morris for being out late less than 48 hours before an FA Cup third round tie at Norwich.

2009: Terry's mother Sue and mother-in-law Sue Poole were both cautioned by police for shoplifting.

2009: Terry's father Ted accused of passing drugs to an undercover newspaper reporter.

2009: A public relations company appointed by Terry's agents touted for commercial endorsements on his behalf based on his role as England captain.

2009: Terry caught giving unauthorised personal guided tours of Stamford Bridge at £10000 a time.

2009: Newspapers successfully challenged a gagging injunction which allowed them to report allegations that married father of two Terry had had an affair with the ex-girlfriend of former Chelsea team-mate Wayne Bridge, and forced the mistress to have an abortion.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this was merely 10% of our leaders misdemeanours.

 

I will offer another “however” though.  One aspect of football might mean that his affair is irrelevant, look at his teammates.  People have said that the team is full of potential captains, so as was requested of me, I had a look.

Steven Gerrard – England’s vice captain

Above is good old Stevey G living a stereotype. Lets assess Gerrard as a candidate for captaincy and what he stands for....violence.  Accounts of the event in question tell of Gerrard walking around to behind the bar to serve himself his own drinks with his friends.  The cocky, arrogant asshole, why should he be allowed to do that?  Then confronted about something completely frivolous by some other immature idiot, instead of realising his position in the public eye, and understanding the responsibility of his role, he quite literally beat the man to a pulp.  If you’ve seen the footage, you’ll agree that it’s actually quite brutal.  Obviously he got off, because money talks.

Wayne Rooney – England’s Star Man

Here he is, the scummy little chav.  Where do we even begin with this little Shrek.  The lad, who comes from a family including drug dealers, murderers and the general skanks of society is England’s great hope for the world cup.  Oh dear, what a great ambassador for the country, the individual embodiment of everything chav.  This guy likes to pay old prostitutes for sex.  Charming. "I now regret it deeply and hope people may understand that it was the sort of mistake you make when you are young and stupid," he said in a statement, I’m young, I’m stupid, I don’t shag granny brass you dickhead.  If he became captain, his idea of a team building exercise would be 40 Superkings, some cider, a fight and then spending the night in either the local brothel or retirement home.  What an excellent candidate.

 

Rio Ferdinand – Our ‘rock’ at the back

 

There he is, the man tipped to partner the lovely John Terry at the back.  What a team, the cheat and the criminal.  Awesome.  This fella’ loves to drink enough alcohol to float a battle ship and then drive home at crazy speeds with reckless abandon.  In 1997, he was caught drink-driving after celebrating his selection for the England squad. The result: banned from driving for a year, fined £500 and dropped from the squad. Ferdinand was dropped from the England squad again for Euro 2000 after a drunken holiday with England midfielder Kieron Dyer. The pair videoed themselves having sex with a series of girls.  Following this lovely incident, Ferdinand was also required to give evidence at Leeds Crown Court in the trial of a man accused of indecently assaulting a barmaid, the player admitted going on a drinking binge and jumping on a parked Land Rover. During the court case he also admitted drinking champagne with a convicted drug dealer known as Reds.  Don’t worry, there is more.  In a separate case he was banned from driving for six months after being caught speeding for the third time in three years. In June he was accused of manhandling a hotel employee at England's training camp in Spain.  Wait a minute, I’ve forgotten something…. Oh yeah he clearly loves a bit of powder. An independent tribunal found the Manchester United defender guilty of misconduct after he failed to take a test on 23 September, 2003.  He was then banned and ended up missing Euro 2004.  Mind you he probably loved the time off so he get some serious catch up with his mate Charlie.

These are the 3 main candidates according the press.  Others include Ashley Cole, who similarly to John Terry is about as faithful as an atheist investment banker and has as many morals as a certain Adolf Hitler.  Gareth Barry has even been touted, but ask Villa fans about his integrity and questions will be asked.  He also doesn’t seem to have the presence on the pitch to be a good captain.  It is apparent that the England football team is full of less than satisfactory members of our society, and this ultimately might be its saviour.  Lead by an unfaithful ‘gladiator’ we could go into battle with other nations with a team of animals.  Which combined with their undeniable skills as footballers means that this world cup may indeed be our best chance for a while.

At the end of the day John Terry has explained he didn't mean to have sex with Vanessa Perroncel - he just slipped while he was showing her how to take a penalty.

Making noise about Social Media and Music

Since I started blogging in a personal capacity, I have written "abusive" takes on things that annoy me, or about aspects of social media that I have found interesting.  However, the following is a fairly interesting – if I do say so myself – look at what social media is doing to, and for, the music industry.  This is my least opinionative post yet (sort of) and I have thoroughly enjoyed the research I have put into it.  Hopefully, you will find it at least a little bit interesting.

The beauty of this article, if I can call it beautiful, is that all my research and interviews were done through the medium of social media and was therefore put together much faster than could otherwise have been possible.  The overall focus of this piece of work is drawing on a quote from Lily Allen of all people, who claimed that social media and file sharing is “cutting out vital funds for new artists before their careers have even properly begun”.  This got me thinking.  About Lily Allen ;).  But then I thought about what she had actually said and decided I didn’t know whether I agreed or not.  So, I got to work.  I started by posting Allen’s quote as a question to a friend of mine (who will remain anonymous) working for a major record label.  The reply I got was as follows;

“I would say that social media and file sharing have both positive and negative effects on the careers of new artists and the key to success is finding the right balance.  Social media allows artists to connect spontaneously, quickly and emotionally with their audience and helps build a stronger relationship with potential consumers.  Giving away music can be a beneficial tool in turning these potential consumers into actual ones but the problem arises when music fans start to get the impression that music is or should be free.  File sharing is no longer deemed to be immoral when in fact it is exactly that”.

As a starting point for me this interview served to enhance my desires to look at this topic in more detail.  I would certainly agree that people are mistaken with the idea that music should be free.  I think if you can, you should pay for it.  By rewarding your favourite artists, the likelihood is that they will make more music – which is ultimately what we want.  As a recent, although avid Twitterer, I began to assess my own uses of social media with regards to music and who I follow.  I then realized that this ranged from mega famous artists like 50 Cent, to known - and excellent I might add - bands such as Kid British (@kidbritishmusic) and finally to relatively unknown artists such as Kate McGill (@katem3).  I have absolutely no idea how I found the latter, but I did, and then I followed the links to her Youtube account where she releases her music.  She is, in short, a fantastic talent and has a very small following.  However I realized that other than through social media, how else would I have been aware of her content?

I began therefore to form the argument of art versus business.  Music in an art form without question, and yet it seems more and more to be about business.  Unfortunately for many talented musicians such as Kate McGill it may be the case that the people in power, i.e. record labels are looking for artists that are more like puppets than performers.  In the words of Joe Budden;

“Got bigger issues, if you went to Def Jam would you notice, if they were out for my best interest, or do they just see a dollar in Joseph?”

So the assessment continues.  Does social media indeed cut these valuable funds, or does it allow them to generate a fan base they can then use in their arsenal at a later date?  To continue my investigation – and it bloody well is an investigation – I decided to attempt to contact an artist in the industry.  The person I got hold of, and am delighted to say so, is UK Rapper, Akira The Don.

According to BBC Wales, Akira The Don is “a politically-literate, mischievous blogger and rapper from North Wales, once signed to Interscope Records.”

What a beautifully brief introduction.  By the way, in case you didn’t know, Interscope records is a label famous for two of the biggest “recruits” in the music industry, 50 Cent and Eminem.  Yet here I am, an unknown ‘bloggernalist’ with a passion for music, talking to someone who has quite literally sat at the top and scrapped at the bottom of the music industry food chain.

I asked, in A-Level like English, “What are your views on the argument that social media and file sharing is cutting out vital funds for new artists before their careers have even begun?”

The response I received was;

“Well, in short, I think that is complete bollox!”

A fairly conclusive and certainly brief statement and perhaps the shortest interview ever was on the cards.  However, I couldn’t have been more wrong.  Akira then went on to say;

“I am the proof” and that he was “happy to elaborate if necessary.”

I was happy to prompt him to tell me more, and upon telling him that the question was lifted from a quote from Lily Allen as well as asking him “whether he thought social media can or has helped you personally as an artist?”  The reply was more than I could have bargained for, and the man who doesn’t know me from Adam – or Alphabet for that matter – said this;

“Well, for a start I'd say it's the internet that's helped me, rather than just social media - its been having my OWN website all these years that's been the most important thing.  Social media has helped make people aware of the stuff I've been doing on that website, since 2004, and continues to help keep people aware of its progress and development. Having my own website helped to get me an audience from the very start, which meant that when I signed to a major label, I already had an audience, who knew what I was about, so there was no chance of the company being able to change me at all, or dictate the direction of my music, or anything else I was doing.

And then, when the record company said they wouldn't release my album as it was, I didn't have to change it, and I wasn't ruined - I already had my audience, and I had my recording equipment, and I had my website.  I could carry on working, and building, regardless.  I could sell CDs, and T-Shirts, and shoes, and high quality MP3 bundles (like this one! http://bit.ly/7cyZwn!  Cop now and get an exclusive song!) to make money to support myself.  I could make my own cartoons and videos, albums, EPs and mixtapes, and I could release them and market them all myself, via the internets, and with the help of social media.

Without the internet, and without social media, I would have been at the mercy of the record companies.  Which means my first album would NEVER HAVE COME OUT.  I would most likely be a jobbing cartoonist now, or a music journalist still (although, saying that, it was online that gave me my first break writing, after I set up an online fanzine back in '97...) As it is, THANKS TO the internet, and social media, my friends, my peoples, and my refusal to quit, I have a full time career as a musician.  I make less money than a road-sweeper, or a librarian, or a supply teacher, but I am doing what I love every day, I'm getting better, and I'm building...  and one of these days, one of these songs is going to make me a ton of cash, and I am going to build a beautiful city in the sky and you can all come and live in it.

Now, did I mention that T-Shirt and MP3 bundle?! http://bit.ly/7cyZwn !”

And there you have it, an in depth opinion from someone who knows what they’re talking about.  This extrovert, media-savvy and hugely entertaining musician who is actually living the very situation that Allen said social media would kill.  Upon assessing both thought provoking interviews I have shown, I began to form my own opinion.  It comes down to what the reasons for making music may be, and also what kind of artist you are.  There is no denying that the charts are usually dominated by performing artists who other than occasionally having good singing voices, have absolutely no sense of artistry.  These people, owned by the glorified salesmen such as Simon Cowell are running the music industry.  From the utterly laughable canvases that are JLS, to the abundance of Indie Cindy bands that use generic chords and try and hide behind their overly straightened haircuts, one thing is obvious; their content is record label produced.  Their music is created to make sales not make art.  Essentially my point is that if you are in the music industry to make money then perhaps social media is not the ideal path to take.  However, if you’re in the industry to create music that not only entertains, but provokes thought and breaks down barriers like artists such as Akira The Don and Scroobius Pip amongst others, then social media may be the greatest tool for music lovers to find you, and in the end, follow you.

As I said at the beginning of the article, all my interviews were obtained and carried out through the medium of social media and that in itself is proof to me that it can, and indeed has, helped me alone in many ways.

For more information and entertainment from any of the artists mentioned, please follow the following;

@akirathedon,  @katem3,  @scroobiuspipyo. @kidbritishmusic

Please do not follow JLS or anything of that ilk.