If Multiculturalism Is Dead In Europe, Then It Must Be Dead Everywhere Else Too

Recently British Prime Minister, David Cameron, followed his German counterpart's example and declared multiculturalism a failure. Angela Merkel did the same in October last year, stating, "...of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other... has failed, utterly failed." (see previous link).  French integration has led to the banning of Muslim face coverings, and not surprisingly, Sarkozy also joined the chorus against multiculturalism saying, 'We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.'

Cameron argued that there needed to be a more robust 'national identity' in order to combat 'all kinds of extremism' in Britain. With the previous rationales in mind, one doesn't have to delve too deeply to see that the 'multiculturalism' referred to is really Islam and Muslim communities and culture that spring thereof. 

As such the burning question is: Does integration apply to expats and immigrant communities in the Muslim world as well? And by 'immigrant' and 'expat' we mean White and Western (but not limited to).

The United Arab Emirates, arguably the most liberal Muslim nation, has opened its arms to the West, at risk of its cultural and religious mores, and this has led to an increasingly Westernized society evidenced through Western media content, the growing workforce made up of many from the West and former colonies thereof, and the changing mode of dress and social interaction (primarily in flouting religious and cultural standards of modest dress and public abuse of alcohol).

Local authorities in the UAE concerned about the growing marginalization of their own people,  embarked on Emiratisation programmes to increase the presence of locals in the workforce. But the problem is also social. Some incidents of expats 'breaking the rules' have received international media attention, usually with sympathy for the perpetrators, and some amount of disdain for the standards of the host country. Some expats intentionally and openly defy the standards of dress and propriety in the name of their brand of Western freedom. 

Suffice it to say, Muslim nations are oft criticised by the West (and not without reason) for their strict moral standards and application of related justice, from putting their women 'under sheets' to insisting on the prohibition of pre-marital sex, and the harsh sentences for adultery or public indecency. But if multiculturalism has failed, and one is to be true to the aforementioned conclusions, then integration should take place wherever the context. 


The simple conclusion is - to all non-Muslims in the Muslim world - follow the lead of Western integration and don your burqas, dishdashas and abayas. It's only fair. If a Muslim cannot wear a burqa in the West, then a Westerner must wear it in the East.  Anything less would be hypocritical. But how would these standards be greeted by expats in the UAE should they be enforced? What would be the response if the UAE were to declare the failure of alien populations to learn Arabic, and the consequent repatriation of those who do not learn it? Your opinion is welcome.

The UK Tuition Hike Protest Violence & Royal Pains

The UK's coalition government just won, by a 'narrow margin', the vote to hike student tuition fees up to a maximum of £9000 per annum. The run up to the vote was punctuated by student protests and moments of violence, vandalism and disorder. The latest round of protests included an 'attack' on Prince Charles and his homely consort-cum-wife, Camilla, an incident apparently worth more attention than the hypocritical turnabout by Lib Dem, Nick Clegg, and the Conservative Government, that both promised not to do what they have just done. 

A case for violence

The protests are a democratic right, and the violence debatable, however, Western action and philosophy provide for violence when there is no other recourse, and often when there are a myriad of other options. The United Kingdom uses violence against other nations at will and with little cause - and has done for centuries. Iraq is the latest and best example, but the Falkland Wars will do nicely as well. 

But when 'the people' become violent it indicates a profound societal issue: nothing else works. What became obvious in the run up to the vote and the vote itself, is that students and parents had absolutely no say. The only place a student voice could be heard was through the media, and that could not guarantee that those who 'mattered' were listening.  Based on the outcome of the vote, they definitely weren't and that is a genuine and disturbing problem in an allegedly democratic nation. This is an excellent object lesson for both the people and the Royals - now they have first-hand knowledge of potential causes of violence in third world nations: when one feels helpless to act, any action will do.

That said, the hypocrisy of the coalition government continues as they self-righteoulsy condemn the student violence and attempt to get the attention away from their broken promises, all while the UK continues to ravage Iraq and search for a pretext to invade Iran.

Importantly, PM Cameron noted that it was a majority of protestors that engaged in violence, it was completely lost on him that this may indicate something about the decision. Majority, it is widely believed, is an important element in democracy. But democracy may not be so important in the UK. 

Getting what they wanted

The irony, however, is that 'the people' got the government they voted for. Albeit a coalition, that it is Conservative heavy is no secret, and neither is the elitist leaning of the Conservative party. Historically, Conservatives favour the rich and exploit the 'commoner' - should the people really be surprised at the sudden 180 degree turn of their Government of choice? 

There is no debate that the budget needs to be trimmed, but why education should suffer and not defence (what with troops allegedly scheduled to pull out of Afghanistan next year) is an argument that never occurred, but should have. The fact that the Government didn't even consider a delay of the vote suggests the outcome was a fait accomplis. 

In the end Great Britain, be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. Well, you just did. 

Reporting the News & Respecting Haiti's Dead

I was watching Sky News with Live Jeremy Thompson and the main story was, of course, the aftermath of the earthquake that took place 10 miles west of the Haitian capital Port-au-Prince on Tuesday. Not long into the broadcast images of the destruction were shown; the fallen buildings, the wounded and distressed plus 3 dead bodies.

There was no warning regarding the gruesome nature of the content of the report, and it came as a shock that such graphic imagery would be shown at 5pm. I don't know the official track record of reportage regarding such material with Sky News or the Western media in general, but it made me think about how choices of what is shown and when are made.

This might sound picky, but I feel that the broadcast of the dead, in this case, robs them of a certain dignity a dignity that, it seems UK and American soldiers  have - having never seen a dead body of any broadcast on TV. Don't get me wrong - I don't think these soldiers bodies should be broadcast out of respect for family and the dead themselves. But rarely, if at all, does one see the dead bodies of first worlders displayed in the international media for all to see. I can't recall seeing one dead body after the 9/11 catastrophe. I didn't want to see any - but that is also true for this disaster in Haiti. So what's the difference?

Does it have something to do with the nature of the event? Are the dead from natural disasters fine for broadcast, but those killed in violent conflict off limits? Apparently only black folks died in the Katrina disaster in New Orleans, also an acceptable image for the media as is the dead in Iraq and across Africa.

One could argue that there are simply more disasters in the developing world and so the appearance of more dead from the respective locales is only a matter of statistics. But I believe it has something to do with race and class. To be poor is to be overlooked - to be black is to be inferior. To be poor and black is to be pitied - but not respected. There seems to be a sense (and I sometimes see it in myself) that the poor of the 'third world' aren't 'like the rest of us'. They are more like animals - used to living in squalor and therefore not sensitive to pain and distress the way 'us civilised'  folks are. So, they can be treated differently from the more civilised and materially privileged.

If this incident took place in say Chicago, Paris, Oslo or London would it be dealt with in the same way? Likely there would be montages with touching music with crying and distressed humanity - dignified in the struggle to survive (not unlike the white flood victims who 'found' food during the aftermath of Katrina).

These musings may have no basis - but I do believe that with repetition and consistency, the subtleties in how stories and the subject matter thereof are treated have a deep impact on our perception of the world. We get used to certain groups being filthy, starving and fly ridden and other groups being clean, prosperous and dignified and become inured to the suffering of some and sensitive to the suffering of others. The suffering of Haiti began a long time ago, and this earthquake has highlighted the extent of the long existing poverty and only exacerbated the pain. In some indirect way, what we portray in the media, and how it is portrayed, helps to determine what we expect, and ultimately accept in the world.

The Thing About Racism...Part 2: The UK Brand

Channel 4 recently broadcast a programme called How Racist Are You? where a 40 year old exercise devised by former US school teacher Jane Elliot, subjects a group of volunteers to discrimination on the basis of eye colour. She first conducted the experiment in the 1960's with a her all white class of 9 year olds. She told her pupils that for a day, blue-eyed children were inferior to brown-eyed children. The impact was disturbing and led to verbal and physical abuse of the blue-eyed group and even lower academic performance in the 'inferior' group, amongst other things. She does the same with adults from diverse racial backgrounds, but obviously only whites are blue eyed. However, the brown eyed groups do include white and non-whites.

Elliot has conducted the exercise all over the world and Channel 4 documented her UK incursion. Taking my own experiences as well as what came out of the programme, I have noted some peculiarities of the British attitude to racial prejudice. Below I have noted these arguments and my rebuttals.

Racism is merely a subset of prejudice - Some subjects argued that racial prejudice against non-whites is like any other prejudice (i.e. weight, age, class) . Blacks are not unique and should not attempt to make their situation more severe than it really is. 

The problem with this argument is it completely ignores historical facts altogether. When one considers the 4 century slave trade, Apartheid and the Holocaust, it becomes difficult for weight discrimination to compare. At no time in history were the obese rounded up, systematically dehumanized (in their own eyes and in the eyes of their captors), routinely raped, killed and tortured, separated from family or forced to work without pay. The elderly have yet to be demonized through any country's education system then herded into concentration camps, poisoned then burned. The duration, savagery and the systemic state sponsored effort behind slavery, Apartheid and the Holocaust are unprecedented to say the least, and one would have to take great pains to remain ignorant of history in order to maintain the view that racial prejudice is not unique. It naturally follows that centuries of indoctrination and conditioning on either side of racism, as well as the kind of social and economic divide that resulted still affects us today. To say the least the white dominance that resulted from Colonisation and slavery has given them a slight headstart. The fact that media, amongst other things, has been dominated primarily by white imagery undoubtedly has had a real impact on self-perception and accomplishment amongst non-whites. Further, the intentional withholding of resources and opportunities from non-whites was a reality in the West up until recently (though it was only weeks ago a white judge refused to marry an interracial couple).

I am not prejudiced so there is no problem with racism in the UK - Subjects determined that their 'colourblindness' meant that racism is not a problem. They were outraged at the thought that they should experience discrimination when they do not discriminate. 

Using oneself as the touchstone for race relations is not only naive and simplistic but arrogant as well. It presumes that the overarching status quo and systemic influence of policies and culture have no effect or significance. It also presumes that the individual's position can magically change history and social realities. Ironically, the blue-eyed participants refused to be subject to the discrimination meted out by the exercise but couldn't seem to make the connection to what other persons might feel or experience. There seemed to be a willful ignorance that refused to see the issue from another perspective purely on the basis that they themselves simply didn't believe they deserved to be treated with such disrespect. This view is exceptionally self-centred.

Racism doesn't exist - Some subjects flatly denied that there was any racial discrimination in the UK at all. It simply didn't exist and names like 'gollywog' are just names and carry no inherent offence. They asserted that there was nothing to be offended about - nothing to discuss.

This point betrayed the greatest deficit regarding UK race relations: knowledge. Ironically, it was universally agreed that ignorance was the primary cause of racism, but it was never determined what had to be known in order to alleviate this ignorance. Sadly, colonisation and slavery are not taught in British schools and this leaves much of the white population ill equipped to deal with this sensitive issue. Generations of under education on Britain's role in the world regarding the establishment of Apartheid, the slave trade and the developing world as we know it, has left some feeling exceptionally defensive about the nation's brutal history.

That said the preceding ideas have defined the kind of racism common in Britain. It does not seek to reconcile, because it does not seek to understand. Because it does not seek to understand it does not go away. However, this does not mean that there aren't a great many white Briton's who are colourblind and completely at ease with racial diversity. This does not mean that racial discrimination isn't multi-directional. But it certainly does emphasise that no matter the direction, racial discrimination is truly hurtful nonsense.

Wives of the BNP Video

The Thing About Racism...

BBC's Panorama broadcast an undercover expose on racism within the Bristol inner city housing estate of Southmeade recently. It was frightening to say the least. A pair of BBC reporters posing as a married couple spent 8 weeks on the estate and in that time experienced 50 racial assaults of various kinds.

They were stoned, called names, the man was punched once and an 11 year old threatened to rob and kill the woman. These were just a few incidents.

But I wonder about the effectiveness of these exposes. Such things, as the female reporter noted, conjure feelings of isolation, fear, suspicion and anger from both sides of the issue. Mind you, the declaration by Equality and Human Right Commission (EHRC) head, Trevor Phillips, that all was well in race relations in England, has the potential to water down a serious problem.  It certainly wasn't a cathartic investigation though perhaps necessary.  One must wonder what is next, as to leave the viewer stewing either in his anger at the prejudice or justification thereof simply won't do.

If there is one major problem regarding this issue in the UK it's that it can only be discussed in certain fora. Like the Panorama programme or in the media through official channels like the EHRC. But it seems that open discussion between non-white and white groups in more informal settings is a no-no. We see advocates of equality like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and of course, Martin Luther King as part of US culture and history, but no such figures exist in British culture - save in the former colonies. Again, public agitation for equal rights amongst non-white ethnic groups seems to be frowned upon. One can only go through the sanctioned, official channels.  There is a distinct discomfort with a broad-based discussion of the issue, even though there are certainly moments when acute and stark points are made. These points seem only to be momentary.

The thing about racism is that it is, and must be, completely oblivious to itself. A racist will never refer to himself as such. The BNP's (British National Party) policy on refusing membership to non-whites is currently being challenged, and defended, and the position of the party seems to be easily rationalized. But like the US Louisiana Judge who refused to marry an interracial couple (because mixed race children would suffer - ironically at the hands of folks like himself, in my opinion), racist reasoning, or lack thereof,  makes perfect sense to itself.

But for every racist that exists, a discussion has occurred to bolster their position. A discussion that has gone unchallenged by any other reasoning because it only occurs amongst the proponents thereof. One woman reasoned (in a programme called Wives of the BNP) that because her father died in Jamaica (a heart attack) and his body was robbed of its belongings, that all immigrants are undesirable. An undoubtedly painful experience that led to a proportionally unreasonable conclusion.

There may be wisdom in the cautious, controlled approach, however. Since the Brixton riots in 1981, the British Government has been keen to avoid a repeat of anything similar. That would entail not just subduing the violence, but the confrontational environment that can lead to the same. Some practical elements are sacrificed along with the impractical. Not a perfect compromise but prudent in some sense.

The drawback is of course the simmering frustration that can build up due to unexpressed concerns and under-acknowledged prejudice, and the circle starts again. Fear and prejudice begets fear and prejudice. Who is at fault is not as important as who will help solve the issue; that being all of us. Seeking out the views of the 'unprejudiced' is difficult as hardly anyone considers themselves thus. But those willing to dialogue are perhaps the ones from whom we hear the least. Certainly, just as the racist view is based on generic, broadly drawn stereotypes and flawed reason - we could walk away thinking that this flawed reason is that of the average white Briton, but that too would be a harbinger of prejudice.

Waist Not, Want Not: The Odd Fact About UK Jeans Size

For years I was a 32 inch waist. For years I've been an average man - at least in my jeans size. It seemed almost impossible to find a 32/30 pair of jeans because every other guy was the same size, or so it seemed. Always sold out. I did most of my shopping in the US by the way.

Then I moved to the to UK where, for some strange reason, I achieved a 33 inch waste. Eureka! One inch over the average and free to find my size of choice! But I say thee nay! Alas, it was not be. UK trouser sizes (they don't call em pants - pants are underwear in the UK) do not come in odd numbers.

That's right. You can get 32 and 34 - but not 33 or 35! Now, you can understand that I felt especially picked on by the fashion gods. At the very moment my waist grew, my size option evaporated into a geographic and cultural vortex. Now everywhere I look, what do I see? Size 32/30. My option is to squeeze into a 32 - which I can't, unless I follow the trend and wear my jeans at my knees. Or fladdap around in a 34/30.

Still, the deities (nay Imps) of couture have not yet triumphed! I, like Kratos of God of War I, II and soon to be III, fame (Copyright Playstation or something like that), will carve and/or tailor my own destiny! With careful thought I have calculated that a low-rise, button fly 34/30 can fit me like a glove - but only if it is purchased at a Next store. If I buy the same at a Gap outlet I will look decidedly hippie (in terms of physiognomy not ideology).

What baffles me is how the British male manages to ensure that his waist size is only even-numbered. Is it genetic programming or a product of evolution? Has fashion sense crept into our biology? Perhaps British men have been secretly bio-engineered to achieve only even numbered waist sizes and this is a conspiracy to reduce immigrant numbers! Surely there is something in the food (making Tesco complicit) that causes non-Brits waists to shrink or grow to odd-numbered sizes as is appropriate. This inability to find proper trouser size renders them a walking fashion faux pas and sends them running teary-eyed back to their country of origin and their foolish odd-numbered trouser boutiques!

It is an ingenious and diabolical plan, if it is indeed a plan. Truly ruthless. Still, this strict adherence to even-numbered waist sizes may explain the Brit males odd fashion sense (hahaha 'odd'...forget it). UK sizes seem to fit smaller than US (or I am just trending to lardiness) and UK men seem to like a nice tight pair of jeans that sags (if something tight can sag) just below their upper butt crack - which I will refer to as the bruptk. The British bruptk seems to be of vital importance and must be displayed as often as possible (a tradition long practiced by plumbers and handy-men the world over). This is not to be confused with the African American Hip-Hop trend of showing off the brand of underwear (or pants in the UK) one is currently wearing. Bruptks don't make an appearance in such cases.

All told my choice is to either drop a Jeans size or put on 1.4 Kilos. I shan't risk the latter as middle age and the ominous threat of a genetic predisposition to a spare tire growls at the door. The former is more likely, though running teary-eyed back to the Motherland is always a viable option. But with any luck I will trip on the jeans that would have fallen around my ankles. The Fashion gods will point derisively and laugh with uproarious laughter as I lay prone and weeping on the catwalk of life.


I thank you!

Living in the UK: what you need to know if you're going to study/live in the UK

Right, I'm a Jamaican who is in the UK for the purpose of study - a Masters to be specific. I went to Warwick Uni (they call them 'Uni' for short), which is a very cool uni indeed! It's among the top 10 (2009) in the UK and perhaps the most modern and multi-cultural tertiary institution they have, I recommend it very highly. But note well one of the things I discovered whilst here is that a UK education is 85% branding. Although there are great resources, modern conveniences and prestige - the best of the universities where you are from will have equally bright and incompetent staff as in the UK. Still, the point of getting an education in the UK is to take advantage of the branding.

Enough background - here's stuff you need to know if you're moving here (and students might benefit from this in particular):

Banks
Some banks charge a monthly fee to open a student account with them - don't! Just open a regular account, there's no need to open a student account. With the economic downturn it has come to light that banks are criminals (duh!) but since I have to recommend one it might be Lloyds TSB. Whatever you do don't make late payments or get charged for overdraft - they rip you off with the charges! When you start to make some money the monthly charge might help because it comes with some amount of insurance. Your debit card is very useful and is used just like a credit card for online and point-of-purchase transactions.

Mobile Phones
DON'T GET PAY-AS-YOU-GO! Way too expensive. As a foreigner you can't get a contract phone without paying a hefty £100-£300 deposit (i.e. a package that last 12 - 18 months and comes with free minutes and other perks) because of your lack of credit history in the UK. There are monthly roll-over plans where you can get free minutes and lower charges for about £15-£20 per month. I use Vodafone and pay £15/mth for 225 free minutes (+ 100 texts). My wife and I talk for free (as another Vodafone customer) for £5 extra. It has worked fine thus far. Other deals include monthly contracts for about £45 and you get a free iPhone. Depends on what you can afford.

Accommodation
If you're not living on campus (and Warwick Uni has excellent facilities and service) you have a couple choices (I will tell you about the Midlands/Coventry area): 1. Week to week rental - usually shared accommodation and varies in cost (£20 and upwards in the Midlands - everything is more expensive in London) but you can usually leave with no to a couple weeks notice. 2. If you don't like sharing there's always apartments and houses that will run you more money (£400/mth and upwards) and accommodation for students in particular - but your uni will likely have links to vendors - go with them to protect yourself. If you're going to Warwick or in the Midlands, Leamington Spa is a very nice town (and where I live), then there's Kenilworth and last and dingiest (hence cheapest) Coventry. But there are nice neighbourhoods in Coventry - you just have to look. At Warwick international students get priority for accommodation so you are guaranteed a room - recommend that route. My wife and I stayed in one bedroom family apartment and it was fantastic. Note that as a student you don't pay Council Tax (like a maintenance fee for your locality that varies depending on the desirability of the area), but if you choose to stay on after graduation, remember to calculate that cost in your rent.

Travel
Travel is deceptively expensive but usually reliable (however it can mess you up too). For cheap long distance travel check National Express or Mega Bus, but be warned - you get what you pay for. There are deals for the train available usually to the most popular destinations like London. You can get a 2-way ticket to London for a s low as £10 for example. Visit this site or this one to check it out. If you're at Warwick your magic number is bus #12. If you call Virgin Trains and ask for their special price for wherever you're going you can get a hefty discount too - so ask. Warwick bus travel is much more reliable and frequent during the term so take note. It might be worth it to buy an Oyster Card or a monthly/annual bus pass. In the midlands you will travel by bus on Travel West Midlands or Stagecoach. If you drive you might very well need a SatNav. RAC is an affordable brand but TomTom and Navman are better.

Shopping
As a rule don't shop on campus, it will be more expensive. The places to go for groceries are ASDA, Tesco and Wilkinson's. You can also get very good deals on printers and other school material just before school starts from these places. Every town has a market and there are plenty of deals to get there. Coventry Market has good ground provisions and dry goods, as does Birmingham Market. In terms of clothes (and you will need warm clothes, scarves, gloves etc apart from daily wear) Primark is the most affordable place and a haven for students (again - you get what you pay for, but some things are decent). With a bit more money you can step up to Topshop, H&M, Next or Debenhams among others. In Coventry you want to go to West Orchards Mall and the really cool shopping centre in the Midlands is The Bull Ring in Birmingham. In London it's all about Camden Market and Oxford Street - but be prepared to spend some serious pounds. If you're into tech Curry's and PC World are your huckleberries. For household stuff Ikea & Argos are the affordable goto stores, but the former is the better of the two.

Your Student Card
It is generally called your NUS card. Take it with you everywhere you go in Europe because you can get discounts for almost anything. We travelled in Greece and I was able to enter some places for free or deeply discounted because of my student status. Your uni should offer plenty of support during and after your studies. Make the most of what they offer. Again, Warwick uni's student support is fantastic - the student centre has been very helpful with our postgraduate visa application.

Buying a Car
Cars can be quite affordable. Get a copy of Friday-Ad or if you have di dollas - go to a local dealer. You can get some parts for next to nothing from a junkyard. But never buy sight-unseen. We got a decent Ford Ka (which I recommend - a Ford Mondeo or Focus) for £1000 and it did the job. You can get a run-around for as cheap as £150 and it will last for the year you are studying.

People & Places
The British are polite folk and will be very helpful if you need directions or anything really. But polite doesn't mean nice in every instance. At their best the Brits are delightful and warm - at their worst they are drunken hooligans (they invented football violence). Friday and Saturday nights can be risky only because you are bound to encounter drunken and sometimes aggressive pub-goers. I don't recommend public transport late night on the weekend - unless of course you are blind drunk. Most are very nice people, some are racist - very few will ever be rude to you overtly, but once you understand the culture you realize that they can be rude in the most polite way possible. It is a beautiful country and there are many places to see. A simple trip to a town or village can be blissful (Bath, Cornwall and Bradford-Upon-Avon are our faves). When the sun shines - GO OUTSIDE - you never know when it will shine again.

Weather
Typical British weather is fairly cold (depending on where you're from) and never consistent. Bright sunshine one day - rain for the next week. You should never go anywhere without some rain gear or a coat. The sun will be out and warm - then a single cloud can render you frigid. You need to wear layers and get proper coats. I recommend Go Outdoors - not the cheapest but good quality protection is better than pneumonia. Wearing too many clothes is frustrating and I messed up by wearing many layers that didn't insulate. Now I can wear one jacket (with removable inner lining) and a shirt underneath for the most part. But if you come from tropical climes - don't underestimate how the weather can affect you. Winters can be depressing because it gets dark at 4pm. Summers make up for it by getting dark at 9 to 10pm.

Gum Tree and Freecycle
Gum Tree is a site you can find anything from a job to concert tickets on - check it out. Freecycle is a Yahoo network that allows you to get and give away items for free. You could furnish your house with it! I have a friend who bought tickets for a steal on Gum Tree and found a nice temp apartment and other friends who got stuff like TV's on Freecycle. We got some nice crockery for ourselves and gave a dining room table.

TV Licence/Cable/Internet
Yes to watch TV you have to pay for it. It's how the BBC is financed. Many get away without paying and watch to their hearts content - but our luck is such that we' be caught - good luck with it. Still, you can see lots of television on your computer for free. We subscribe to Sky for cable, phone and broadband for about £45/mth but you can get all 3 for as little as £26/mth. You also have to pay for landline rental to BT. It all depends on your package - but it makes sense to get all services from one provider. I think Sky is a good deal.

Utilities
These can be expensive. Generally you can choose your supplier but it does depend on where you live. You can be fully electric or gas or use a combination of both. British Gas is notoriously expensive - do your research to find out what providers you have access to then make your choice. Consult U Switch.com or one of the many intermediaries for guidance.

ID Theft
The UK has a huge problem with ID theft. Be wary with your personal info on networking sites like Facebook and otherwise. Your birthday alone or even a PIN number is enough for some adept thieves to get at your accounts etc. Be careful with your debit card and cellphone among other things.

Visa & Immigration
The most complex issue for last. Presently, the economic downturn has made it hard for non-EU immigrants to find work - but it isn't impossible. I'm still looking but my wife found a great job lecturing and, for now, I'm a kept man ;O). Your uni will offer a lot of help once your studies are done so get as much info from them as you can. The visa rules change constantly so you have to stay on top of that here. The key is to provide only what the Border Agency requires and no more or less. We provided more funding accounts than necessary but it worked against us. It is better to have the required funds in UK accounts rather than foreign ones. The slightest deviation from requirements will be penalized and there is no leniency. It can be very bureaucratic. When you are applying to extend your stay as a graduate the application form is regularly updated - do not print a copy unless you are sure you have the latest version - save the trees.

If you have any specific questions the .gov site has plenty of answers, but feel free to drop a question on this blog!

5ive Things I Don't Get: UK'd Up in England

1. Fences & Thieves. In England you can't build your fence above a certain height - why you ask? Because if a thief, in climbing over your fence to terrorize and dispossess, hurts himself he can sue you (see 5th paragraph in second link)! Indeed you are discouraged from using barbed wire or any kind of fence-climbing deterrent due to the fact it makes the thief's job that much more incovenient. How very dare you! Otherwise, if a burglar enters your house and proceeds to rob, beat and intimidate - do nothing! If in defending his new property (formally known as 'yours') you injure him - he again can sue you. In which case is it really breaking-and-entering or just suing-by-breaking...or something?

2. Saggy skinny jeans. I've already registered my befuddlement regarding skinny jeans - but this is even more befuddlementizing - skinny jeans that are saggy. Now baggy jeans are...baggy, so they sag - a notably African American fad. But the Brit fad is to wear skinny jeans down to the knees. But how, what with all that bum squelching tightniss? The result is an I've-just-took-a-huge-dump-in-my-pants type of look. I strongly suspect that the trend started because of dump-in-pants-takers trying to direct attention away from the bulges in the wrong places. How they got folks not to notice the smell? Bathing once a month is a good cover.

3. Public drunkeness. A huge problem in the UK. In Jamaica, we don't get drunk in public,  drunkeness is for old men in bars and it's considered weak and wussy. Besides we don't need alcohol  to publicly humiliate ourselves in the Caribbean when we have Carnival (wink wink)! But in the UK getting drunk is the most important part of the week for many - it is how they have a 'good time' (though they cannot recollect it). It also seems that women are far more into this public inebriation than men. Indeed, it was in the streets of Birmingham that I first  I  saw a waggle (just made that up) of women actually harrass and grope two men - first time. Wow. But I must say that alcohol fuelled street rolling provides lots of fodder for police reality programmes. Hurrah for contributing to media content and by extension the GDP!

4. Racism? What racism? Yes apparently the nation that invented hating-people-for -profit no longer has racism. It is ignored and almost taboo to talk about - with a white British person. I've tried and they usually get upset. The in-thing is 'institutional racism'. This, as I understand, is the idea that British people (white people specifically) are not racist but British systems are. So if someone is discriminated against it's nothing personal, just that bloody system operating completely autonomously. The system apparently fell out of the sky or erupted from a wart on someones butt. Who knows? At any rate it should be noted that the 400 years of slavery is completely left out of the school curriculum - so the Brits who are racist (and they certainly are not all racist) don't actually know that they are racist because no one told them - fair enough then! Ironically, the closest thing to what can be construed as 'institutional racism' or systemic discrimination is Apartheid.

5. State sponsored irresponsibility. When a sixteen year old has a child she gets a stipend from the government as well as goverment housing. Now, this is good in that teen mothers get much needed support - not good because teens abuse the system and do use a child as their meal ticket. This might be the reason why the UK has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe. I reckon we're now heading into the second generation of kids raised by kids, which might mean that Supernanny will have loads of work. It might also be the cause of points 2 and 3, and indirectly, point 1. Now, that said, teen pregnancy in Jamaica isn't state sponsored, but may have a more sinister motive (in some cases) - but that is another 5ive Things altogether.