Taking outrage to a new level

From L-R; Michael Howard, Theresa May, Kendall Kenner, President Assad

Many of you I'm sure are familiar with the famous festive song 'Twelve days of Christmas'. Have you heard of the new hymn called 'Seven days of outrage'? I thought not. Don't worry, I'm not writing you a song today. However, as this week has come to a close, I cannot help but conclude that we're just getting angry about absolutely anything. It is getting to the point that no story escapes wrath from the masses. Before it was just Donald Trump that gave us the hump.

Don't worry, folks. Donald Trump will get a mention here later. But I'd like us to rewind back to last Sunday when the EU exit debate turned its focus on Gibraltar. The people in this small British-owned soil located in the south of Spain, voted overwhelming to remain in the European Union last year. So when the vote didn't go their way, Spain - an EU member - felt it was the opportune moment to suggest Gibraltar should be their property. Many of their residents disagreed so the debate closed, until last Sunday.

The recent episode of this Gibraltar drama began brewing when Prime Minister Theresa May triggered Article 50 on 29th March. Her notice reportedly did not mention 'Gibraltar' which Spain relished at. Again, that furore by the Spanish went cold for a few days until Michael Howard, former Conservative leader, prompted on national television that we should go to Spain like how UK dealt with Argentina regarding the Falkland Islands in the early 1980s if the matter wasn't dealt with diplomatically. That got many talking. The Sun newspaper fuelled discussion further by launching a 'Hands off our Rock' campaign, in a hope that UK keeps Gibraltar. But the fact that we're talking about invading Spain - a country which proudly provided millions of Brits cheap beach breaks to Benidorm and Marbella - got people in a spin.

Now, the EU debate has brought many 'shocking' comments from both 'Remain' and 'Leave' camps and Gibraltar has just escalated this further. As Britain now begin negotiating with Europe and beyond, the last thing we want is a war, and nobody wants 'bad' trade deals just to prove a point that leaving the EU is a tragedy. Let the people of Gibraltar worry about their future and by doing that, both UK and Spanish governments can come up with some form of peaceful arrangement.

David Moyes (Image: Daily Mail)

On Monday, the outrage army turned their attention to Sunderland football club where their manager, David Moyes, was forced to publicly apologise for appearing to threaten a BBC journalist. To picture the scene, reporter Vicki Sparks asked Mr Moyes about his future at the North East side after a run of bad results. He dodged the question, as you'd expect he was briefed to do. But when the interview ended, a visibly displeased Moyes said to Ms Sparks, "You were getting just a wee bit naughty at the end there, so just watch yourself. You still might get a slap even though you're a woman." After the initial reports and uproar newspapers raised, Moyes immediately dismissed the comments as "a heat of the moment" and made peace with Sparks.

But the outrage continued. Shadow Sports Minister, Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, suggested Moyes should resign while Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker criticised the manager's choice of words. There has also been genuine support for the Scottish manager. Manchester United's Jose Mourinho had 'sympathy' for Moyes, for example. Others have come to the conclusion that because Vicki Sparks had accepted Moyes' apology - which reportedly, she did - that should close the debate.

However, days went by and yet looking back, even I took issue to those who dismissed Moyes's comment as 'banter'. Many organisations implement zero tolerance policies to protect those from such 'banter'. I work in PR. If I said what David Moyes said to a journalist, I'd get more than a 'trial by media'. Part of a football manager's responsibility is media relations and dealing with journalists. Jeopardise that in any way and that can cause some severe reputational damage. Moyes risked that and I was surprised that people opted to pick sides on this one.

We're now into Tuesday and Theresa May has something important to say. She's in the Middle East meeting powerful people to discuss serious trade deals. But when she talks to British media, she doesn't raise what happened in these talks but instead led anger because the National Trust apparently didn't mention 'Easter' in their Egg Hunt advertisements. She was so angry, she felt compelled to mention she was not only a member of the National Trust, but also a Christian and wondered why these couldn't be combined.

Though, if the Prime Minister didn't react with such horror and ignored her Twitter while in meetings, she'd have noticed that not only did the National Trust mention 'Easter' in their advertising, but in multiple areas. It happens to the best of us, Mrs May.

Talk of advertising, on Wednesday, one commercial united the internet with disgust and emotional outrage. Soft drink giant Pepsi launched their £40 million advert, featuring model Kendall Jenner. The two-and-a-half minute piece had been branded 'disrespectful' at best over its apparent depiction of the recent heated protests we've seen in the news. It's been mocked over its 'laughable' portrayal of society and it was topped by Jenner giving a police officer a can of fizz. I say 'topped' because that action resembled Ieshia Evans's who offered her hands to a riot police officer which he dramatically handcuffed in Baton Rouge last year.

Pepsi have since 'canned' the advert but of course it's readily available on YouTube. But having watched the advert a few times, I have an alternative view to the outrage others have consumed. Some of the imagery Pepsi used was misguided, absolutely. However, advertisers have a certain criteria to abide to. This criteria includes promoting diversity, reflect that organisation's mission statement and to ensure the content is relatable to their target audience. Their intention was spot on, just not deliverance.

My biggest issue with this advert differs with the outspoken - many of whom attended big protests Pepsi tried to portray. Commercials are meant to exaggerate reality, not emulate. We look at fast food adverts - those tempting looking beef burgers never look like that. That pint of Stella Artois beer is never poured in slow motion. And that man covering himself with Lynx deodorant isn't going to attract every 'sexy' woman around him. Pepsi went too topical and fell foul. It wouldn't put me off drinking their products, however.

Ken Livingstone (Image: Daily Telegraph)

This Pepsi crisis may be temporary, but the Labour Party's problems appear more permanent. They couldn't escape the week of total outrage as the former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone courted fresh controversy. He attracted anger last year by talking about Hitler and Zionism, the former of which a taboo topic on anyone's books - regardless of its tone. In April 2016, he was given a two year suspension for suggesting Hitler wanted "all Jews to move to Israel [...] before going mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

This outrage escalated last Wednesday as the party reportedly failed to expel him altogether over these comments after an internal investigation. The former London Mayor insists he's innocent and based his views as fact. But it's bewildering how an individual's actions is seen as the number one issue for Labour right now. It shouldn't be - Ken Livingstone isn't the Party, he holds no power right now and the story should be seen as a storm in a teacup. But outrage dominates and Labour is seen as 'anti-Semitic' over one person's remark.

Exhausted yet? Well, on Thursday, the debate about taking children on holiday during term time turned a different corner as the Supreme Court upheld a case made by Jon Platt who disputed a £60 fine imposed by his child's school. This legal battle has been watched closely by those involved in the education sector. Platt has been an ardent campaigner of parents taking their little ones on vacation during term time, just like he did. But his key obstacles are from school bosses who claim that taking children away can negatively impact on that individual's ability to learn.

Jon Platt (Image: Island Echo)

People like Mr Platt dispute these bosses, though somewhat understandably too. Their comments tend to insinuate that a child aren't able to catch up on work and their parents come to the same conclusion that they have the brightest offspring. It's a debate that's never going to end unless all parties think logically.

It is clear that parents find it expensive to take their child away during the 13 weeks they have off, as it's much cheaper to book a break during term time. It's an awful system by the travel sector and that's where the focus should be - schools and parents shouldn't turn against each other. That tension is what will affect a child's ability to learn, not holidays in mid-January. In the meantime, if parents abide to school rules like students have to, lives would be made easier. A child's time in school is temporary, but one negative during this golden experience can be a permanent scar.

Talk of battles, on Friday, United States and Russia's relationship resumed back to normal. After months of indirect flirting, they're finally back to square one after America's decision to bomb a part of Syria - Russia's key ally. President Trump thought there was a justification for this. He, like many of us, were horrified to discover that Syria's leader President Assad launched a chemical attack that killed dozens, in his own country, earlier this week. Trump felt compelled to dig deep into his defence budget and attack one of Assad's bases.

Trump's action met with tonnes of praise, from the UK government to Piers Morgan. But of course, outrage tipped that balance, from unlikely sources. Trump backers like commentator Katie Hopkins led verbal protests in Britain while across the pond, Republicans unleashed their inner activist and spoke of their concern, hand-in-hand with Democrats.

But again, we're seeing anger and emotion led by one individual - in this case, Trump. Leading an emotionally charged outrage can have a serious effect on the way we live as a global union. We can argue that social media takes the blame, but it's us, individuals, who press 'Share' to a status that has the ability to go viral. If we took some responsibility and actually considered all sides of the story, our outlook would look more positive, and our Nostradamus fears will soon be evaporated.