15th March 2015 | Politics
Boris Nemtsov, 55, the outspoken leader of the Russian opposition, was killed earlier this year on the 27th of February in the evening, by four shots to the back by a gunman in a passing car while walking near the Kremlin. This was just two days before he was due to appear at an opposition rally in Moscow. This caused outrage within Nemtsov supporters, with many of the more cynical ones, declaring their suspicion of the involvement of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin. This is because the killing had taken place in an area of high security near the Kremlin, which would not have been possible without official involvement. Alexei Navalny, another prominent opposition figure, accused Russia’s “political leadership” for the death of Nemtsov. In addition to that, Nemtsov’s daughter Zhanna, told CNN, “Russia has crossed the line after this murder and people will be frightened to express ideas contrary to the official standpoint.”
President Putin has said that everything would be done to convict to those who committed a “vile and cynical murder”.
Boris Nemtsov, was deputy prime minister in the 1990s and had lately been working on a report containing “proof” of the Russian military involvement in Eastern Ukraine. Over the years, he had written many reports linking Putin to corruption, especially involving his inner circle, such as the $30bn dollars of funding for the 2013 Winter Olympics which had gone missing. This claim was denied by the Kremlin.
Two men, Anzor Gubashev and Zaur Dadayev, both from a region in Southern Russia associated with insurgent activity, have been detained in connection with the murder of Nemtsov. One of these men was also a former police officer. The investigation is currently still ongoing, and it is not clear whether the shots these men had fired had actually killed Boris Nemtsov, and…
20th February 2015 | Politics
Social media has increasingly become part of our lives. Criminals too. Over the last couple of years, sites such as Facebook and Twitter have been extremely useful for the police by giving them evidence during their investigations.
A murderer was caught when he took a picture of him and the dead body on the picture app Snapchat, in addition to that, a woman who planned an attack on a wealthy man was found guilty because of the video she posted a video of them celebrating with the stolen money on Facebook, and many paedophiles have been caught exploiting children on social media. Therefore, if social media can provide the police with evidence during a trial, shouldn’t it be used more proactively to identify the plans of radicals and extremists?
Over the last couple of months, Twitter has been used to identify those men and women who travel to Syria to fight with terrorist groups, and this has been shocking to many of us. Recently, a teenage boy was found to be planning to carry out an attack similar to that of the murder of Lee Rigby. He idolised Lee Rigby’s killers and even showed his girlfriend the weapons he planned to use. What is even more shocking is that, he posted on Facebook, under the name Mujahid Karim supporting the Sharia Law and stated that he was “willing to die in the cause of Allah”. This then poses the question, why did no one report him? Why was the police not aware?
If he had not been caught on his way to carry out the attack, what would have happened? A lot of taxpayers’ money goes into the running of the MET police, so the public are expected to be safe, especially from the growing terrorism threat.…
18th February 2015 | Politics
Since the English Reformation in the 16th century, the monarch has had the title “Defender of the faith” bestowed upon them during coronation. This tradition began with Henry VIII in 1521 for his support of Roman Catholicism. Now, in the 21st century, Prince Charles has expressed his desire to be known as the “Protector of the faiths”, but has recently compromised to “Defender of Faith”.
Our current monarch, Queen Elizabeth was sworn in as the Defender of the Faith in 1952, when a majority of the population were religious and largely Anglican. This is in contrast to the society we have now which is multi denominational. Prince Charles, by doing this, hopes to formally recognise Britain as a multi faith nation and to help combat any stereotypes against any particular religion. However, to do this, he would have to convince Parliament to rewrite the 1953 Royals Title Act, in order for this title to be officially recognised. However, I feel that Prince Charles with or without an official title should make it a priority to tackle the injustices each religion faces. In addition to that, the Coronation of a monarch is usually a traditional Anglican ceremony that takes place in Westminster Abbey. Prince Charles has also stated his wish for a second ceremony to be held after the traditional one for the other faiths, to highlight their importance in the modern British society. This would also require a change in legislation.
This is a daring move for the largely outspoken Prince which may anger some traditionalists; however it will allow the monarchy to connect deeper with the population. By having such a title, Prince Charles would have a responsibility to all faiths to combat radicalisation and extremists views, especially concerning Islam. There has been a debate about whether…