Dr Alexander Kent comments on a new law stipulating how the Shetland Islands are depicted on official maps of Scotland.
Dr Alison Body discusses today’s headteachers rally in central London to demand extra funding for schools.
With recent media interest on both the record growth of inbound tourism and the fall in popularity of modern languages study at A-level, Dr Karen Thomas and Dr Julie Scott, review how far home-grown talent can meet the future needs of the inbound tourism industry for linguists.
As the EU Withdrawal Bill once again comes under the scrutiny of Parliament, Professor Amelia Hadfield looks at the power play between the regions and Westminster.
Dr Leonardo Raznovich explains how Brexit could help to secure human rights for LGBTI people in UK territories of the Caribbean.
Dr Keith McLay comments on the photograph of the Prime Minister signing the Article 50 letter below a painting of Sir Robert Walpole.
In only a few days’ time, on the other side of the world, the Rio 2016 Olympic Games will get underway. Many of us will watch, but will the UK benefit? Certainly the government thinks that we might. Its Sporting Future strategy, published at the end of 2015, suggests that elite sporting success at the Olympic and Paralympic Games will improve national wellbeing, and increase sports participation and volunteering, and it has invested £275 million of our money on this basis.
If this sounds familiar, it is. Four years ago the legacy claims for the London 2012 Games were that it could deliver impacts for sport participation, economic growth and tourism, culture and volunteering, and the regeneration of the city. But that was for a Games hosted in London, with a significant celebratory festival effect that built into an increasingly anticipated crescendo over four years. Yet even with the build-up, the anticipation, and the largest medal haul in GB sporting history, the jury is still out on how far, if at all, the London 2012 Games delivered on its legacy ambitions.
So how likely is it that the UK will experience any meaningful benefits from the Rio Games. The Games will take place on the other side of the world, with many of the medals being won some time after midnight, so it is highly unlikely there will be shared national moments in which we collectively celebrate sporting success. Some of us will burn the midnight oil, some of us will catch up with events on breakfast TV or radio, and some of us will watch evening highlights programmes. This fragmented national experience is highly unlikely to create the conditions in which sports participation or volunteering impacts will be realized, nor is it likely to engender a shared sense of national wellbeing.
Yet this is the basis on which £275 million of taxpayers’ money has been invested in the pursuit of elite sporting success at Rio 2016. The government’s Sporting Future strategy is clear about this, noting that the success of investment in sport will be judged by the individual, social, community and economic development outcomes it delivers, not by the size of the medal haul. So no matter how many medals TeamGB wins, if the Rio Games do not deliver more people playing sport, more people volunteering, or a tangible sense of national wellbeing, then by government’s own standards, our £275 million investment will have been squandered.
Professor Mike Weed is Professor of Applied Policy Sciences and Head of the School of Human & Life Sciences. His research on Olympic legacies has been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, the Department of Health and the Mayor of London.
Kevin Ruane reflects on Winston Churchill’s 1954 decision to build a British H-bomb, ahead of the Commons vote on Trident
Dr Martin Watts, Principal Research Fellow at the Centre for Kent History and Heritage at Canterbury Christ Church University, summarises the Battle of the Somme, one of the bloodiest battles of World War One, on the 100th anniversary.
Nothing sums up, for most people, the absolute horror of the fighting on the western front as epitomised by the tragedy that befell the British army on the 1st July 1916.
Originally conceived as a battle to break the defence and morale of the German army, the offensive became a vital source of relief from the shocking attrition that was taking place at Verdun. General Haig, commander in chief and General Rawlinson, commander of the Fourth Army that was to deliver the assault, differed in their understanding of how the objectives were to be achieved.
In simple terms this amounted to a choice of breakthrough or bite and hold, and this situation was compounded by the failure to provide sufficient artillery and the right types of shell required to ensure that the initial bombardment prepared the way from the advance of the infantry. This was not to be, and the infantry, on that fateful first morning, walked into a maelstrom of artillery, machine gun and rifle fire. No doubt that lessons were learned (eventually), but this was the day that innocence was lost.
Dr Watts spoke on the BBC Radio Kent Breakfast programme this morning exploring whether the Battle should be considered ‘foolish’, or a turning point in British military history. Listen to the interview (2hr 32mins).
Dr Elaine Brown, School of Law, Criminal Justice and Computing, asks if a change in focus by French Police is causing order problems