Why do we “save” slaves, only to imprison them?

We’re finally talking about modern-day slavery, but we can’t save the lives of trafficking victims until we offer a trust-worthy alternative, writes Maya Esslemont.

It’s a common question. “If trafficked victims get the chance, why don’t they just run away?”

Many don’t realise that by talking to neighbours, the police, or a charity, modern-day slaves perceive their lives to be at risk. Indeed, the BBC’s extensive coverage of the three women held in captivity often saw panel guests wondering aloud how it was possible for trafficked people to go shopping, and complete other mundane tasks, without making a break for it. “How could they go all that time without trying to call someone?” one columnist asked.

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.

In order for a victim to come forward, our country’s government must first beat traffickers in a battle for the trust of victims. For decades, we have been losing this fight.

When trafficking victims first arrive at a new location, the language is foreign and the officials are strangers. Most of the time, they have been ferried to multitudinous destinations and drugged during transit. This is why charities such as Stop the Traffik ask taxi drivers to stay vigilant for passengers who have no concept of time, location, or the language.

Yet, despite wide-spread knowledge that language is one of the main hurdles preventing victims from coming forward, the government has invested very little into tailored services that would allow victims to communicate freely. Many victims come from countries with corrupt systems of justice where traffickers can buy silence, and when we lack the ability to talk with victims, we also lack the ability to persuade them otherwise. There are currently very few specialist charitable facilities in the UK, and even fewer run by the government.

As a result, even victims who have been saved often go missing again, and this is especially true for children. More than two thirds of trafficked children disappear after being placed into care homes, running back to the arms of their captors in the belief that a life of servitude is safer than a life in Britain’s care system.

The figures are shocking, but should come as no surprise. Despite calls from dozens of charities and NGOs, we still lack one single council-funded safe house for trafficked children in the UK. Instead, child victims who have experienced specific sets of trauma, and have specific needs as a result, are put through a system which does not accommodate them at all.

Despite continued governmental liaison with the children’s charity ECPAT, two of the charity’s most important proposals are still ignored by local governments. Most notably, these recommendations from the organisation’s ‘Principles for the safe accommodation of child victims of trafficking‘:

Principle 8
A child should be given access to a range of psychological, educational, health, social, legal, economic and language support that ‘brings safety to the child’ and helps them recover

Principle 9
Everyone working with child victims of trafficking should be trained to recognise and respond appropriately to their needs

Human Trafficking UK offers recommendations befitting of these principles, but this is not law, and there is no binding guarantee that local councils will abide by them. Whilst charities such Unseen are leading the way by working towards building the country’s first safehouse they, like many other organisations offering necessary services to child victims, still subsist on voluntary contributions of time and money.

human trafficking

Whilst community leaders pore what little time and energy they have into saving lives, the question is: What exactly has the government been doing to secure the trust of trafficking victims?

Having a nation of fragmented services offered by volunteers is heartening, but having no universal guideline muddies the waters, and makes it harder for victims to get help.
Many studies evaluating the services offered to victims of any age conclude that the biggest barrier is, quite simply, a lack of knowledge on what help exists. This is a knowledge which both victims and the people responsible for them are lacking.

Shockingly, at the hands of our justice system, adult victims often meet a fate far worse than negligence. Our system not only fails to offer help to many victims – it also imprisons them. Currently, there is very little support for case workers and lawyers seeking to differentiate between the kind willing “illegal immigrants” and genuine victims. Although the proposed Human Trafficking bill mentions the need to “stop human trafficking from becoming an immigration issue” there still seems to be little guidance in place to achieve this.

recent survey by Cambridge University found that of a cross-section of 103 woman deemed to be illegal immigrants, 53 were being trafficked at the point of crossing the border, and five women who did enter the country with free will were later subjected to slave-like conditions.

Even more concerning is the fact that 75% of the trafficking victims were not directed towards the National Referral Mechanism, which exists to ensure victims do not slip through the net of asylum appeals. Yet, five years after its birth, only 1 in 4 trafficking victims are even recognised by the framework, let along passed on for legal or emotional support.

Worryingly, the article highlights the dilemma facing trafficked immigrants once they miss the NRM window:

In only one case of human trafficking of all those identified by researchers did victim disclosure result in police investigating the crimes perpetrated against them.

Although we are making some progress with the discussion of the Human Trafficking bill, there are still huge issues. The bill rightly states “victims should not be treated as criminals”, but the technicalities mostly focus on absolving victims of any work that their bosses force them to do (such as drug distribution or prostitution). This does not deal with the fact that many trafficking victims will be treated as criminals for simply being in the country without a passport.

So-called “illegal immigrants”, many of whom are victims of coercion, must spend an undisclosed amount of time in immigration detention centres. Then, when the ordeal is over, they will most likely be cut loose without support, or sent back to the same country where they are at increased danger of being re-trafficked. The bill does not seem to offer clear guidance when it comes to either deportation or rehabilitation.

Worst of all, as immigration removal centres struggle to house all asylum seekers at a time of budget cuts, trafficking victims and others may find themselves housed in prison alongside verified convicts. Using hundreds of Freedom of Information Act requests, the charity Avid has found that there are currently 557 asylum seekers in prisons which are neither equipped nor intended to hold migrants (trafficked or otherwise).

Pentonville Prison Fails To Provide Basic Standards
Pentonville Prison, where 25 asylum seekers are currently held

These short-term fixes are just not good enough when it comes to stopping the second fastest growing crime of the 21st Century.

As it stands, Britain’s authorities have done very little to win the trust of human beings who are bought and sold. It’s time the government used new legislative opportunities to stop focussing on tougher prison sentences, and start prioritising the lives of victims.

Originally published on the Huffington Post.

Advertisements
Featured post

What is the ‘Once Project’?

The ‘Once Project’ is the first training programme aimed at identifying the signs of human trafficking and torture in UK detention centres.

The training scheme lasts for one day, is located in London, and chosen representatives from 20 different visitor groups will have their travel and course costs paid for, thanks to subsidies from the University of Kent’s Amnesty International group, and the Kent Opportunity fund.

The programme is based on Stop the Traffik’s ‘Train the Trainer’ scheme, whereby all participants attend a day course on wrongful detention, and pick up the tools needed to become audited trainers themselves. After the training day, group leaders can disseminate information gleaned from this course in whichever way their organisation sees fit.

There are 20 places on this subsidised training programme, with space for one co-ordinator or group leader per UK visitor group. This training programme is a work in progress, and suggestions are welcome until May 15th. Check here to fill in our feedback form.

Has the Men’s Rights Movement gone too far?: Details of teenage protester leaked online

Last week, a group of students at the University of Toronto protested against a Men’s Rights Activist, Warren Farrel, from being given a platform by their university.
The event was set to be fairly minor and only a few tweets and a couple of posters acted as publicity for the protest. However, the protest didn’t go according to plan. It was no Poll Tax saga, but police turned up in order to forcibly remove the students from the entrance of the hall. The whole thing was caught on camera by Men’s Rights Activists, with the most “violent” moment consisting of one young woman out of a group of fairly calm students calling somebody “fucking scum”.  Hardly a bra-burning bonanza.

So, imagine my surprise when an online witch hunt aimed at one girl, who did nothing provocative during the event, began to unfurl.
The personal details of Emma Claire, a Canadian blogger and something of a friend of mine, were posted and scrutinised in the public eye by the website A Voice for Men. The writing attempted to answer the question on nobody’s lips: “Who is Emma Claire and why is she so hateful?” The article tries to “seal her legacy” so that “anyone who ever does an internet search on her name again will be aware of [her feminism]” the author states. The comment section indicates a consensus between the author and readers, with one of the top-rated comments saying:

“I wonder if she will ever be rejected for a job, and wonder if it was because this came up on a google search for her name? I wonder if in future years, she will regret the event she recorded her ‘legacy’ at.

I wonder, and I hope all of the above happen.” – Steve_85

Claire, 19, attended the rally and was later spotted in a photo by somebody from the website. After hunting down her old internet history, they discovered she had posted faecious tweets about the protest in its lead up. Apparantly, this is all the justification needed in order to publish her personal details online, all in the hope of scuppering future chances at a job.
Incriminating evidence included a couple of blatantly satirical tweets like: “Political position: kill all men, hail Satan” and a separate plea to friends and family to help her save up for a “Misandry” tattoo. I can neither confirm nor deny how fundraising is progressing.

Misandry tattoos are not a laughing matter, the article reiterates: “She at least entertains the idea of permanently marking her skin with that hatred, like a convict signaling gang affiliation”. A piece of Men’s Rights journalism displaying more comedic ignorance than any humourless feminist to date should be mildly amusing. Yet, the article has devastating repercussions.

According to the website, Emma Claire has now been added to “Register-her.com” an online register for “False accusers of rape, murderers, pedophiles, and rapists”.  Unfortunately for this satanic teenager, she was refused the opportunity to commit any of these crimes on tape, as she only appeared in the MRA’s video for a grand total of two seconds, doing nothing more than holding a banner next to friends.

Emma Claire, 19, attends protest only to have her personal details released online by Men's Rights Activists
(Left: Emma Claire, 19, holds banner at protest only to have her personal details released online by the website “A Voice for Men”)

The supposed expose of Emma Claire has revealed the dark side of internet vigilantism to counter one of the redeeming qualities of the online world: the prevailing existence of freedom of speech.

A Voice for Men has every right to call protesters whatever they feel like. They can dredge up old tweets by a 19-year-old girl only tenuously involved with the event in question. If they think it helps the brotherhood, they can even blatantly aim to harm the career prospects of a student picked at random, just because he or she has different beliefs. However, if they think they are still champions of free speech, they are wrong.
It is online vigilantism which will slowly draw moderates away from the art of protest, and that applies to those who support the MRA or Dworkin. If a young university student can simply stand next to a group of people and have her details leaked online, her face and full name added to a website containing lists of purported pedophiles and murderers, what hope is there of encouraging the most peaceful of people to protest? It is this vigilantism which will turn earnest protest by passionate people into the plaything of fringe extremists and an elite class who can be absolutely rest assured that their occupational fate won’t be harmed by attending a demonstration of any kind.
It is this kind of vigilantism which is adding stigma to protests and, in the internet age, it is the fear of losing any kind of career prospects which will lead to those normally peaceful protesters not protesting at all.
Nobody should be afraid of holding a banner for fear of feeling the wrath of online dissenters, and those who make would-be protesters feel this way are not champions of free speech, they are champions of fear tactics, and no group on the left or right can call itself a an ally to free speech whilst employing them.
Whatever one’s opinion of the Men’s Rights movement, this kind of behaviour is no different to the artless strategy employed by Red Watch: It should be denounced by anybody who believes in the right for people to protest without anxiety or apprehension.

Men's Rights Activists called Emma a "hateful bigot" before adding her to Register-her.com, an online list of alleged murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.
(Men’s Rights Activists called Emma a “hateful bigot” before adding her to Register-her.com, an online list of alleged murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. Photo from Avoiceformen.com)

I have emailed abuse@softlayer.co.uk, the internet providers for the A Voice for Men website, in order to raise concerns about the legality of posting the details of Emma Claire. For the sake of future protesters who will be targeted for nothing more than holding a sign, I hope that others will do the same. Whether you are feminist, left-wing, or right-wing, I hope that those who believe in freedom of speech will do everything possible to start the fightback against online fear tactics.

(Thanks to madeofmedals.tumblr.com for letting people know the email of the web provider and of course to Emma Claire herself for giving her permission for this article to be written).

Cutting housing benefit for the young is an attack on the family and the individual

David Cameron has outlined controversial plans to cut housing benefits for young people aged 18 – 25 in an attempt to lower the welfare budget and raise £1.8 billion.

The Daily Mail reports:

Let us not forget that this proposal finds its roots in populism and not social urgency.
Only 20% of social housing tenants are under the age of 35, and an even smaller percentage is made up of under 25s; it is clearly not a pressing matter and certainly not one which deserves centre stage at a time when the number of unemployed youths has increased eight-fold.

Nobody wants to live with their parents. Young adults, more than most, find the idea unsavoury as they should be embarking on new adulthood. But, for some, moving back in with parents is not simply an inconvenience: it is either too emotionally traumatic to do or impossible. As many as 1 in 7 young adults were “severely maltreated” by their parent or guardian before leaving home, according to research by the NSPCC, which doesn’t sit well with Cameron’s assumption that everybody can just grin and bear a few extra years at home. These young adults are not merely inconvenienced, but given a heartless ultimatum: Move back into a traumatic family environment or become homeless.

There is also a real possibility that parents will not accept their children back. Not every young person has good enough family relations to go back home, and this move could cause a damning increase in youth homelessness. Parents may also reject a young person from staying due to practicalities such as a lack of space. Houses are being built with increasingly small interiors and new housing regulation hasn’t been introduced to tackle this in years. A 2010 Shelter report called “Full House?” found that overcrowded housing caused 85% to suffer from “anxiety and depression”. It is cruel and lazy to force parents to put up with the adverse effects of stay-at-home kidults or face seeing their offspring homeless. It is one of the least progressive policies put forward by Cameron to date, as overcrowding remains an overwhelmingly working-class issue. Parents with larger estates will be able to coexist with their children much more easily than struggling parents in a down-sized flat. Applying a one-size fits all approach when parents have wildly different standards of living is irresponsible at best and reprehensible at worst.

The move is most contradicting in it’s attack on the cornerstone of Conservatism: the family. In 2010 it was found that 58% of 18 – 35 year olds living with mum and dad find it difficult to hold down a stable relationship. It’s no surprise that couples are getting married later and later, with the average groom being 37 and bride 34. This policy certainly doesn’t help the pro-marriage agenda being pushed by both front and backbenchers of the Conservative party.

In Cameron’s article, he cites a conversation he often has with those concerned about housing:

“A couple will say, ‘We are engaged, we are both living with our parents, we are trying to save before we get married and have children and be good parents,” he said.
“‘But how does it make us feel, Mr Cameron, when we see someone who goes ahead, has the child, gets the council home, gets the help that isn’t available to us?’.

He’s right. Young couples should not have to wait as long as they do before their adult lives can begin. A report called The Human Cost revealed that 2.8 million people aged 18 – 44 are delaying having children and marriage because of the cost of housing.
However, Cameron neglects couples looking to move out of their parents house and instead actively makes life harder for those who do not.
Introducing a MIRAS-style housing scheme could reward people who work hard with the stability of homeownership but such a measure has not been discussed by Grant Shapps or David Cameron publicly as of yet. Cameron has not only failed to offer an alternative to young people who live with Mum and Dad; he is actively forcing others to do so for longer. Quelling common complaints by neglecting the young people who live with their parents and actively making life worse for those who do not is irresponsible beyond belief.

The effect of this measure on the future of the family far outweighs any popularity it will win the government. Appealing to populism is no crime in politics, as pleasing the public is all part of democracy. But when lazy solutions are applied to complicated situations, it is never in the national interest.

For more insight into the current difficulties facing our generation in terms of housing, joblessness, and crime, read Jilted Generation by Shiv Malik and Ed Howker

Hansard Society dismisses £8000 scholarship charge

Hansard Society has continued to generate widespread concern online over the charity’s decision to charge students for access to internships within parliament.

The Hansard Society, which regards itself as “The UK’s leading political research and education charity” has among its supporters; BBC Parliament, the Cabinet Office, Speaker of the House, Department of Energy and Climate Change, Microsoft, Ministry of Justice, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.

The underfire organisation earlier published a press release to defend their stance on the charge for their scholarship programe:

The cost for this 11-week academic programme includes all academic tuition and student fees, accommodation in central London and unlimited travel by tube and bus in central London, plus visits to the devolved legislatures and many other activities. The Hansard Society is accredited by the British Accreditation Council and is a Member of StudyUK Further information about this programme is available on our website”

What Hansard Society’s statement fails to address is that undergraduates cannot access internships at the House of Commons or Lords outside of their scholarship. Therefore, the opportunity of a work placement with Parliament is completely dependent on an £8000 payment to their charity.
There is currently no internship available at BBC Parliament, The House of Commons, or House of Lords, which can be accessed by those who cannot afford the Hansard Society’s £8000 course.

The press statement names all of the benefits of paying for the study programme, implying that the internship is a small element of what a varied scholarship. However, they clearly see the internship as the biggest pulling factor, as the Hansard Society representatives I talked to used the term “internship” and “scholarship” interchangeably when talking about the opportunity.
The Hansard Society website boasts about:

a long tradition of supporting interns in the beginning or further developing their political careers. Many that have worked for us have gone on to distinguished careers in a variety of sectors and organisations including the civil service and Parliament, public affairs consultancies, NGOs and charities, the media and some have attained permanent positions within the Hansard Society”

The educational element of the course is what you pay for, but the internship provides the direct path in to distinguished careers.
As their website proudly claims, the Hansard Society’s internship is a fast lane to prestigious professions; it is invaluable only to those who can afford it.

The charity does not provide political placements for those who haven’t the financial means to take part in their programme. The definition of “scholarship” is “a grant of financial aid awarded to a student, as for the purpose of attending a college”. Hansard Society’s definition is very different.

Whilst the nature of the internship is true to this definition, in that it provides opportunity,  its expensive programme fails to merit the status of what is already a contentious scheme. The Hansard Society internship does not exist without the scholarship, and the scholarship is not available without an £8000. This opportunity has the benefits of an internship, but misses the criteria by actually costing participants £2000 more than the average undergraduate spends on rent, food, and living costs in a year.

Both scholarships and internships are forms of social mobility which exist to help gifted young people, indiscriminate of background. The Hansard Society’s placement does not achieve these goals.

Hansard: The charity charging £8000 for an internship

The Hansard Society has come under fire from the TUC after it emerged that the politics charity is charging undergraduates £8000 for internships as part of a “scholarship” programme.
A number of prestigious placements at political bodies are only available through Hansard’s expensive programme.
TUC policy adviser, Peter Sellers, condemned the organisation for presenting the opportunity to an exclusive group of young adults. “People should be paid to do jobs, not unpaid.” Sellers said. “You shouldn’t have to pay a fee to access work. If you have to pay a toll of £8000 in order to get a very desirable internship, that’s going to exclude a lot of people in the UK who come from poorer backgrounds.”

The Hansard Society is a registered charity, which has in the past year received support from BBC Parliament, the Cabinet Office, Speaker of the House, Department of Energy and Climate Change, Microsoft, Ministry of Justice, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.

The Hansard Society describes itself as “The UK’s leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity”, claiming its aim is to “strengthen parliamentary democracy and encourage greater public involvement in politics.”

Gail Bumbury, programme manager of the scholarship, and manager of the Study and Scholars department at Hansard Society said: “I wouldn’t say the scholarship is geared towards working class people per se. It’s aimed at foreign students who want to learn more about British politics”. When asked if the opportunity was limited to international students alone, Bumbury replied: “No. It is open to anyone who decides to apply”.

Although the scholarship programme may be beneficial to some international students, it is thought to be less of an opportunity to those from minority ethnic backgrounds who identify as British citizens.
“One worry is that because, on average, minorities are over represented among the less well-off such measures are going to be indirectly discriminatory” said Sellers.

A number of high profile politicians hold influence within the Hansard Society, with David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Ed Miliband all acting as Vice Presidents. Speaker of the House, John Bercow, also holds a place, acting as one of two Co-Presidents. Vice Chairs of the party include Health secretary Andrew Lansley.

Owen Williams, Communications adviser at the House of Lords Press Office denied any link between the government and Hansard, insisting that the Hansard Society’s relationship with both the Government and Parliament generally was no different to that of any other charity “such as Oxfam”.
Williams asserts that government departments funding the charity have no responsibility to put pressure on the organisation to scrap the £8000 internship charge. He said: “Hansard is only political and has nothing to do with parliament. It’s a charity, that’s what you need to understand. The government has no control over it; we are not responsible for Hansard, what they do is entirely for them to answer to” Williams said.

Currently, Parliament itself does not offer internships outside of the Hansard programme.
A spokesperson from the Parliamentary Press Office insisted that there are credible alternatives offered by Parliament for those who have graduated, such as the Civil Service “Fast stream” by which graduates are recruited from universities before undergoing various tests. The scheme has been in practice for many years, but has never been advertised as a social mobility exercise. Applicants must have a first level degree to put themselves forward for the examinations.

The revelations have come at a time when the validity of interning is being increasingly called into question, with some arguing that internships are exploitative. Westminster secretaries for Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband, and David Cameron, refused to comment.

A spokesman for Hansard Society, who did not want to be named, made it clear that they have no plans to lower the price of the scholarship, or offer a bursary to first-year university students who do not have the money to apply. The spokesperson said: “It is not possible for Hansard, as a chargee, to pay a salary for internships.”

“Monsanto broccoli” lands Waitrose and Sainsbury’s in trouble

Waitrose and Sainsbury’s are facing opposition from customers over their decision to stock broccoli supplied by contentious bio-tech company Monsanto.
The GM giant has avoided UK links until recently due to Britain’s apprehension over GMO foods and the EU regulation which bans the crop.
A petition contesting the use of Monsanto products in Waitrose and Sainsbury’s has now gained over 10,000 signatures.
The protest is “one against the company’s ethics”, rather than the nature of the food as Bellaverde broccoli is not genetically modified, said eco-activist Shazzie Love, who spear-headed the campaign.
Monsanto have courted controversy in the US, after hundreds have sued the company over their waste disposal, which has allegedly caused cancer and infertility in thousands of people. The company have also left a legacy in the UK after it hired a contractor to fill an unlined quarry in Cardiff, Wales, with thousands of tonnes of chemicals in the early 1970’s. The waste included dangerous elements of Agent Orange, the compound used in chemical warfare against Vietnam.
The critical campaign began with a facebook photo of the broccoli, warning people that it was produced by Monsanto. It has now been shared 22,302 times. Waitrose’s facebook page has been “inundated” with comments, according to the supermarket’s spokesperson, some of which “had to be deleted for breaching site rules”.
Both Sainsbury’s and Waitrose have refused to comment on whether the broccoli will be discontinued in their stores.

Waitrose and Sainsbury's decision to stock Monsanto's "Bellaverde" broccoli has proved unpopular

Kent Union: We did it!

I need to start by saying thank you.
With your support, a Medway student beat those at Canterbury to become part of Kent Union: something a lot of people didn’t think possible.
Before Monday, next to nobody on our campus knew much about Kent Union, let alone that there was an election. In the space of three days, we  launched an extraordinary campaign. And we won.
Students who had barely used the Kent Union website managed to outvote those in Canterbury; that’s an amazing achievement. It shows just how determined we are to stand up and be counted after all this time.

I couldn’t have done it without the campaign team. Chris Walker and Emily Magdij helped to write voting instructions on the back of every poster when our campaign money couldn’t cover any more “How to” guides. It took us hours and they never once complained.
My fantastic flat mates Jonathon Stevens and Kat Towerton did so much. Jon passed on posters, and spread the word to countless people around campus. Kat shared links every day and told everyone she knew how to vote.
Jacob Roberts-Mensah had an incredible impact. Sometimes I would ask complete strangers if they’d voted and they would reply “Yes. Jacob told me to vote for Maya Esslemont.”
Everybody in the Centre For Journalism was so supportive, with my class always sharing links and encouraging others to vote.Really, I have to say thank you to everyone.

There were literally tens of votes in it, so if you shared the poster on, got your flatmates to vote, or just voted yourself, you made this win possible.

Winning this is just the beginning of things to come. For the first time, we will have a voice within our union.

You have all put so much effort behind this campaign, I hope I can now return the favour.

Thank you so much, Medway.
Maya Esslemont

Why this matters to Kent students on the Medway campus

You won’t be shocked to hear that Canterbury students get more funding than us.
We can see it when we have to wait days for a course-relevant book to become available, because our library is shared with two other universities. Even though our money helped to build a £15 million extension to the Canterbury library.
We can see it when 40 Medway societies are given £500 to split between them, meaning the average society has £12.50 each . Even though our money helps to fund 150 societies at Canterbury.
We can see it when hundreds of students have been disenfranchised because there wasn’t enough financial support for an LGBT society until this year. Even though our money helps to fund society events we have no access to.
What will shock you, is how big the difference is.
Canterbury students get £1.66 per head, whilst we get 70p.
That means over half of our money is being spent on a campus we aren’t able to access.
Societies and course reps in Medway struggle to get enough funding to survive, whilst Kent Union throws a measly amount of money at us, with no direction or care, and hope for the best. Cooper’s makes a loss of £46,000 a year, and Kent students are footing the bill… even though Greenwich owns the lease.
If elected, I will go to every meeting, attend every speech, and vote on every motion passed to ensure that we finally get the representation that we deserve and pay for.
There is no transparency in our Union, with Medway at Canterbury students alike having no idea where their money is going. I will break down spending decisions online, so that all students can see where their money is going, and where their money is being wasted. If you are concerned with decisions made by myself, or others, you will be able to contact me at any time via email, or arrange a meeting to talk about problems facing your society, course, or standard of living. I will make it my mission to never let a problem go without a fight.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑