Its Sunday, almost 3 weeks since I embarked on a search for a room. I thought it would be a breezy experience, partly from seeing the countless ads that are posted each day on gumtree and several other internet sites such as loot and easyroommate. The previous three weeks however have been anything but a walk in the park.
I have never travelled so many tube miles, darting from one part of London to the other, as far as Wood Green, Turnpike Lane and Seven Sisters in the north, East Ham and Stratford in the East, Blackheath and Greenwich Charlton in the South and Chiswick in the West. Its a pity London's transport does not have frequent traveller bonus miles schemes like many airlines, otherwise I wouldn't have had to pay a penny for public transport for the next couple of months.
Room hunting, is pretty much like job hunting. Surprise, surprise. For an African like me, its been a huge surprise and an awakening of sorts. First, because in my country, there is no such as thing as renting a room. The norm is to rent a whole house, and there are hundreds, depending on your pocket size ofcourse. Its strangely weird at times that the price I pay for a room here in London - 90 per week- would be enough for me to rent a lovely and modern 2-3 bedroom bungalow, complete with garage and walled garden back home in Africa. I am beginning to realise why many white expatriates, especially NGO workers and diplomats, end up staying on long after the expiry of their contracts.
In Africa, everything is cheap - sadly even life, but that is a story for another day. Today's entry is all about room hunting. I have already lost count of the number of houses I have visited in the last three weeks. They must be more than 20! Seriously. My most memorable one was in the New Cross area, about 10 minutes walk to Goldsmith. It was a lovely Victorian house, shared by four guys from different sides of the planet. The room available itself was gorgeous, and had a huge bay window that overlooked the front garden. It also had laminate flooring, two seater sofa, an open wardrobe, a desk and chair. The icing was the availability of broadband internet. I could see myself sleeping in that room, looking out the window and generally trying not to feel too homesick. But all that went out the window, soon as I ascended the steps to the bathroom and toilet. Both the toilet and washbasin with a modern power shower, were caked in grime to rival the outdoors. One could be forgiven for thinking it was a second layer of paint. The kitchen was in similar mode, and only big enough for one person to cook a time. I did wonder for a moment how five people could use such a tiny kitchen, and then realised that they were all MALE! What use could they possibly have for the kitchen, when there was Mac-D, KFC and Pizza HUt, only 5 minutes walk away. The back garden which could be accessed through the kitchen was overgrown with weeds and shrubs, which had grown so dense that they hid the beautiful flower pots that had been placed at the sides of the garden. My heart went out to the poor landlord who had obviously put so much in to trying to make the house a modern and welcoming place. It was then I realised why so many gumtree ads carry a standard "no DSS, no STUDENTS!!!
More to come later.
Sunday, 11 March 2007
Saturday, 3 March 2007
Second Judicial raid exposes Uganda's dodgy democratic credentials again!
An independent and functioning judiciary is one of the key pre-requisites of democracy. And any country that wants to lay claim to that highly contentious notion must at least be able to establish some semblence of judicial institutional authority and to guarantee its autonomy. So when a government openly undermines this authority - as has repeately happened in Uganda- not only does it seriously dent its democratic credentials but also puts into question its commitment to the rule of law. An attack on the judiciary is not only a violation of its powers, but also the constitutional rights of the citizens particularly their access to free, fair and impartial justice. According to the Monitor newspaper reports (see Judges strike over court siege. http://www.monitor.co.ug/news/news03031.php) the Ugandan judiciary on Friday went on a sit down strike protesting what they described as "the repeated violation of the sanctity of the court premises, disobedience of court orders with impunity and the constant threats and attacks on the safety and independence of the Judiciary and judicial officers." This followed a raid on the Kampala High Court premises Thursday, in which a combined force of police and military personnel re-arrested six rebel suspects who had just been granted bail. This latest attack on the judiciary is a replay of a similar drama that occured on Nov 16, 2005 when 22 rebel suspects who had been granted bail were re-arrested by the Black Mamba, who infamously infiltrated court premises on susbequent days, but this time disguised as policemen! At the time, there were just muted protests from the judiciary, wrapped in some poetic expletives from eminent justice James Ogoola. But for the rest of the judiciary, it was business as usual.
In retrospect I cannot help but wonder that perhaps if there had been a much stronger reaction then, there would never have been a sequel. And like all political melodramas, this one could well generate a spinoff prequel, if tougher measures are not exercised on the government for the sake of Ugandan citizens. Government's continued flouting of judicial authority will only serve to worsen the public's ambivalence towards the judiciary's ability to dispense justice fairly. Cases of citizens dispensing their own brand of justice in Uganda, are not uncommon. And time and again, people have been lynched/clubbed or torched to death by a swarm of hungry and angry mobs for crimes as petty as stealing just shs1000 simply because they do not trust the police or the judiciary to effectively do their duties either because they are seen as corrupt or have been compromised by the state. Is it any wonder then that government has the audacity to raid the judiciary a second time. In general, when a precedence has been set, there are chances that it is likely to happen again! The judiciary should have nipped government's impudence in the bud, when it first reared its ugly head in 2005. An apology from government and a commitment not to repeat Thursdays events is an insult to the citizens of Uganda. Surely they can do more than just institute legal proceedings against the security personnel who stormed the premises. Anyone well versed with Ugandan politics knows that those security personnel were only mere messengers, carrying out orders from some well heeled and connected individual much higher up in the pecking order. And the Director of Public Prosecution is obviously not one of those. Despite his high sounding title and matching job description, in reality, he is as POWERLESS as the Vice President Dr Gilbert Bukenya because he can only act within the confines that his master allows him. Baying for his blood is therefore a waste of time.
If the judiciary is to regain some modicum of public respect, it needs to go after the big fish - such as internal Affairs minister or the president himself! Its these officials that should be made accountable and answerable for what happend on black Thursday. As the elected head of the republic of Uganda, his government is constitutionally obliged to protect and uphold the fundamental rights and freedoms of Ugandans. And the judiciary, as the overseer of those rights, needs to be insulated from both overt and covert state intimidation such as what happened on Thursday. What is surprising and at the same time dissappointing, is the almost surreal timid public response to Thursday's events with the exception of Makerere University students. Where is the civil society, if indeed there is one in Uganda? Or are they as corrupt and compromised as some government officials would want us to believe? But what about the development partners? That this should happen only a few months before Uganda is scheduled to host the commonwealth heads of government meeting, is indeed shameful and should not be simply swept under the carpet!
Thursday, 1 March 2007
BskyB Vs Virgin, spells trouble for consumers
There is an African saying that when elephants fight, its usually the grass that is worse for the wear. The same can be said of the bruising battle between Virgin Media and BSkyB. The drama between the two media giants, Britain's biggest private media companies, has been playing to the public gallery for the past couple of weeks and today, it reached its finale with an announcement that Virgin had decided to drop four of BSkyB's channels from its bouquet of cable channels.
The Channels - Sky One, Sky Travel, Sky Sports News and Sky News- especially the latter are very popular with viewers, and its no surprise that BSkyB would want to cash in on their success. But such an argument would be superficial without taking into account the fact that there is more at stake here than just failed price squibbles. At stake for each of them is the consolidation of their share of the market. Its an open secret that the BBC is slowly but gradually losing its grip on the UK's media market and Sky and Virgin are the only media companies that are best positioned to capitalise on the BBC's dilemma. This latest conflict is only the beginning of what is likely to turn into a longrunning battle for the hearts and minds of Britain's increasingly young and restless media users/consumers. Round One was won by Sky late last year when it snapped up a covetted key shareholding stake in ITV, which Virgin had been eyeing. That behind-the scenes- manoveouring is now likely to become the subject of an inquiry after Sir Richard Branson lodged a complaint, according to recent press reports.
I find it interesting and a coincedence perhaps, that Sky and Virgin's latest spat has climaxed just a day after I attended a lecture on economic changes in media and communication and so, I can easily draw paralles between the complex neo-classical theories and the brutal realities of the corporate media world. As my LSE professor Robin Mansell, aptly noted in the lecture, Virgin and BSkyB's brawl is symptomatic of a rat race in which big media players are always moving (like Sharks) to stay on top, by "hook or crook" (my words not hers). Often this entails crushing the competition - as in Sky and Virgin - or simply working behind the scenes (and on the screen) to block whatever existing avenues or loopholes that might threaten their market share or monopoly - BBC, Bertelsman.
The most important question that comes to mind however is where the ordinary media consumer fits into this intricate web of corporate politics. Does the consumer's interests matter at all? Or does it all boil down to how much profit is reflected in the company's balance sheet at the end of the year? Its shocking for instance that both media companies have taken this battle to a whole new level of primitivity. In Today's City AM, there's a full page ad in which Sky attempts to give its side of the story about the failed negotiations, with undisguised glee and rounds off its account thus, "so, if you are a Virgin Media Customer and would like to continue watching these programmes, its easy to join Sky and Keep the TV you love. We want to do everything to make sure you can keep up with your favourite Sky programmes so we're planning to run all our big shows over a catch up weekend. And we'll make other shows available on our Anytime on demand service".
There are no prizes for guessing in what currency Virgin is likely to retaliate. I have already sighted several billboards around London promoting its combined cable TV/internet broadband/telephone packages as more superior to Sky's. Similar smear advertising campaigns have taken place in Uganda, between Capital FM and KFM (owned by Nation Media Group) but the surprising thing is that the regulatory agencies and consumer protection associations often remain mere bystanders on the sidelines.
But even more surprising is the lack of ethical corporate awareness and morality amongst these players. I reckon Prof Roger Silverstone (RIP) would have found them useful illustrations in an updated edition of Media and Morality (2006). Sadly, its often such occurences that many countries (particularly those with dogdy democratic credentials like Uganda) often use to justify stiffer regulation/censorship of the media as well as media content and refusing to open up the media sector to competition. The debate about whether to regulate or not, is a lengthy one and one without clear answers, so I will not even attempt to unravel any of its intricancies. But either way, its unlikely that the media companies will lose sleep over this. I have no doubt that whatever profits Sky may be losing in its failed deal with Virgin will be recouped somehow, from anyone of its worldwide web of subsidiaries. Similarly, Virgin knows it can and will recover. I doubt they would have had the guts to pull the plug on Sky without first carrying out a thorough risk assessment! The consumer on the other hand, will continue to remain a victim in this elephantine battle of the heavyweights, which at present shows no signs of ebbing.
I say, prepare yourself for another round. You could however choose to remain a cheerleader in either the blue (BSkyB) or the red corner (Virgin) or do something about their impunity!
The Channels - Sky One, Sky Travel, Sky Sports News and Sky News- especially the latter are very popular with viewers, and its no surprise that BSkyB would want to cash in on their success. But such an argument would be superficial without taking into account the fact that there is more at stake here than just failed price squibbles. At stake for each of them is the consolidation of their share of the market. Its an open secret that the BBC is slowly but gradually losing its grip on the UK's media market and Sky and Virgin are the only media companies that are best positioned to capitalise on the BBC's dilemma. This latest conflict is only the beginning of what is likely to turn into a longrunning battle for the hearts and minds of Britain's increasingly young and restless media users/consumers. Round One was won by Sky late last year when it snapped up a covetted key shareholding stake in ITV, which Virgin had been eyeing. That behind-the scenes- manoveouring is now likely to become the subject of an inquiry after Sir Richard Branson lodged a complaint, according to recent press reports.
I find it interesting and a coincedence perhaps, that Sky and Virgin's latest spat has climaxed just a day after I attended a lecture on economic changes in media and communication and so, I can easily draw paralles between the complex neo-classical theories and the brutal realities of the corporate media world. As my LSE professor Robin Mansell, aptly noted in the lecture, Virgin and BSkyB's brawl is symptomatic of a rat race in which big media players are always moving (like Sharks) to stay on top, by "hook or crook" (my words not hers). Often this entails crushing the competition - as in Sky and Virgin - or simply working behind the scenes (and on the screen) to block whatever existing avenues or loopholes that might threaten their market share or monopoly - BBC, Bertelsman.
The most important question that comes to mind however is where the ordinary media consumer fits into this intricate web of corporate politics. Does the consumer's interests matter at all? Or does it all boil down to how much profit is reflected in the company's balance sheet at the end of the year? Its shocking for instance that both media companies have taken this battle to a whole new level of primitivity. In Today's City AM, there's a full page ad in which Sky attempts to give its side of the story about the failed negotiations, with undisguised glee and rounds off its account thus, "so, if you are a Virgin Media Customer and would like to continue watching these programmes, its easy to join Sky and Keep the TV you love. We want to do everything to make sure you can keep up with your favourite Sky programmes so we're planning to run all our big shows over a catch up weekend. And we'll make other shows available on our Anytime on demand service".
There are no prizes for guessing in what currency Virgin is likely to retaliate. I have already sighted several billboards around London promoting its combined cable TV/internet broadband/telephone packages as more superior to Sky's. Similar smear advertising campaigns have taken place in Uganda, between Capital FM and KFM (owned by Nation Media Group) but the surprising thing is that the regulatory agencies and consumer protection associations often remain mere bystanders on the sidelines.
But even more surprising is the lack of ethical corporate awareness and morality amongst these players. I reckon Prof Roger Silverstone (RIP) would have found them useful illustrations in an updated edition of Media and Morality (2006). Sadly, its often such occurences that many countries (particularly those with dogdy democratic credentials like Uganda) often use to justify stiffer regulation/censorship of the media as well as media content and refusing to open up the media sector to competition. The debate about whether to regulate or not, is a lengthy one and one without clear answers, so I will not even attempt to unravel any of its intricancies. But either way, its unlikely that the media companies will lose sleep over this. I have no doubt that whatever profits Sky may be losing in its failed deal with Virgin will be recouped somehow, from anyone of its worldwide web of subsidiaries. Similarly, Virgin knows it can and will recover. I doubt they would have had the guts to pull the plug on Sky without first carrying out a thorough risk assessment! The consumer on the other hand, will continue to remain a victim in this elephantine battle of the heavyweights, which at present shows no signs of ebbing.
I say, prepare yourself for another round. You could however choose to remain a cheerleader in either the blue (BSkyB) or the red corner (Virgin) or do something about their impunity!
Higher learning, in the blogsphere
Part of me has been thinking that I should have packed up my PC, and left blogging to the real computer geeks - whom, if we believe the movie stereotypes are usually some shabby dressed mutt hiding behind an oversized pair of plastic spectacles, typing incessantly away at a computer keyboard.
But I am clearly don't fit that profile except perhaps the shabby part. But whereas I love blogs, until now, all my previous attempts at blogging have ended in dismal failure. Nevertheless I am not fazed by the prospect of another failed mission because I believe in the principle of never-say-die. But if death should suddenly come, then one should always strive to die another day. In the coming weeks therefore, I intend to share with you some bits and pieces about my life here in London, as well as a take on those important day to day issues that tug at my heart strings. You can be sure, it will be a mixed menu of sorts, call it continental if you like - from relationships, to food, sex, fashion, politics, emerging global issues (think, you are worried about China? You ain't alone).
If you feel there is an issue you feel strongly about, feel free to comment or to write me an email. Blogging for me is not a just a canvass for my thoughts and ideas, but also an opportunity to share and to learn from others, which afterall is the role of alternative media platforms in their pure form.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)