Thank you for tuning into another video by www.christian-john.com with this one being about politics. To be clear here I am not saying I want to become a political figure but as stated I believe it is important to speak politically to understand where I come from in regard to this after all I am asking for substantial funding and this could be one of most controversial topics so far simply because of the way I like to speak.

 

I read an article recently in what can be considered one of the best newspaper publications in terms of newspapers that stated everything is about politics and fashion is very political. Possibly when looking at a certain demographic yes but at the highest end it can never be. It has to be purely about the purity of fashion and fashion alone. If I ran a top end cortour fashion brand and my chief designer or CEO stated that I would sack them. Fashion should first and foremost be about fashion, looking fantastic, beautiful, dazzling and an eye turner and the purity of that. To feel that fashion needs to make a statement as apposed to represent that I find ridiculous. Not everything whatsoever needs to be about politics. To say that everything is about about politics as apposed to living a life or representing the fundamental purity of what something should provide and stand for is the equivalent of the tail wagging the dog at best.

 

Where to begin, local politics has at times under the name of community projects and inner city development provided construction projects that has resulted in local authorities with a tax revenue in the tens of millions being in debt to the tune of hundreds if not on occasions in the billions. Where does incompetence end and corruption start. To repeat the point again that this was done in the name of local communities and supporting local business to inner city development...

 

National politics seems to be the lowest common denominator politics that seem to be running amok to which I find embarrassing in the way politics is bowing down to that due to what is believed the biggest demographic and voting public. I have little time but especially patience to listen to most adverts, radio and newspapers that seem to also do the same. I also do not work for the BBC therefore I can be allowed to have an opinion on important matters without being destroyed on what is portrayed as the highest level of integrity but in actual fact is the equivalent of 1984, is bullying and removal of freedom of speech.

 

Regional, national and global politicians love to talk about inclusivity, multi-cultural and diversity as if they are badges they have earned they can sew onto their swimming trunks. We have seen trump come in for a second term and also the huge movement of reform in the Uk to what are considered right wing politics gaining ground in France, Italy and Germany. An easy answer to that is the rise of racism or facism but the hard, difficult and correct answer is far from that. You have votes from good decent people. I could answer why but frankly why should I have to provide an answer to others that are either unwilling or not brave enough to address that very question outside of blaming others.

 

Globalisation, the free market to supply chains are being destroyed simply because we are having a shift in the dynamics that is seen as unhealthy but is actually purely self-interest and protecting that with no doubt everyone paying the cost of that. It is simply the continuation of the divide and conquer mentality that unfortunately is still part of what and who we are. 

 

Before I speak also I can state categorically that I have never and would never wish anyone harm and always wish the best no matter who you are. I am as far away from a facist, a racist, a sexist or homophobe as you can get. But it does not stop me having an opinion on all the stated that is absolutely a healthy environment and I believe something that the BBC needs to address as a matter of urgency and the UK as a whole but that is a mirror for others to look at themselves.

 

Now I will discuss what are the biggest political issues or movements right now again just a fragment of all to just to give you a flavour to the way I feel the world is actually on a political level very disappointing right now that you can actually state in terms of society itself. So as usual let us jump in two feet first and speak in terms of a devils advocate if you like and what I am asking here are questions that most people from society especially politicians are afraid to even begin to talk about.

 

With women’s rights there are probably a lot of people that deserve a lot of credit. For instance the days where you had the likes of Weinstein in the movie industry to Roger Ailes at Fox News are gone. Disgusting and criminal behaviour targeting women that should never be tolerated regardless of stance and is safe to state that now virtually every company or position offers women protection from that. I do not believe that anyone would argue against the positives of that with no one having to work in an environment like that.

 

Now diversity of which you immediately think of women rights as the main leader here. So let’s talk about that and relate it to the rest. Now, maybe I mislead slightly on my opening statement because I am actually sexist, but pro-women as apposed to against. Call it daddy issues, call it men who have tried to bully or push me around but even outside of that I actually see the value of women especially in business. But, and this is the huge but here, I would never recruit a women due to diversity. I would recruit a women only due to the fact I believed she was the best person for the role.

 

It was Christine lagaurde who stated that if the Lemen brothers were the Lemen sisters then it might have been a different story in the 2007 financial crash for them and the fact is she may have been right. Maybe I agree with her but that is not about diversity that is about having someone you believe is better in the role and for the business and if that is because it is a women that is almost irrelevant. If you had a choice between a man or a women who both have almost identical cv’s, experience, skill base and qualifications but you believe that as a female and her character due to that gives her that edge then you are employing the best person for the role. In Christine Lagardes comment being if a women had that lack of testosterone and ego and not being part of the old boys network was running lemen brothers then it could well have been different. But the key aspect here is this, you are choosing the best person you believe for that role as simple as that for the future of the business and diversity has nothing to do with it. It is also possible that a role where that testosterone and ego is seen as a benefit and may better suit a man. 

 

At the end of the day you have to employ the best person you believe fits the position whatever that is. To not employ who you believe is the best simply to meet a diversity target is wrong on every level. How awful for someone who has worked their whole career, travelled, studied, moved and worked hard for decades to get refused a position to someone considered worse at the role in their total considered ability simply to meet a diversity quota. It is so derogatory to that person but also extremely patronising to the person you are employing. On top of that you are being unfair to all the employees that work for the company especially the ones that would have a direct reporting line to that person. You are risking the performance and future of a business and impacting on all investors and shareholders.

 

I can state categorically that I would never employ anyone over anyone else simply to meet a diversity quota when I believed that someone was more capable at the position. That is where diversity is very wrong. As I stated, I am all for women in senior positions, I am looking to recruit a PA that will potentially be the most important position to me that I believe will probably be 95% female. But I am not doing that to meet a diversity quota, I am doing that simply because I believe that a female will be the best for the position all things considered although would never rule out a male getting the job either.

 

So, to summarise, removal of any genre specific, unfair and bias glass ceilings and old boys clubs is of course important but what you do not do which is so typical of the world today is go from one side of the spectrum to the other as in totally polar. You do not remove all of that to replace it with another system just as bias but in a different manner that is potentially a diluter of talent. You remove all unfair obstacles and you ensure that the best person that you believe is right for the role gets that role. If I ended up with 80% of women being the senior part of what christian-john could be I would do that and nothing to do with diversity but simply because I believed that they were best suited for the roles, and would never change that. 

 

Surely that is where the world needs to get to in regards to diversity. That has to be the ultimate equilibrium if you like to diversity as in simply a very fair and just playing field for all?

 

Black lives matters, another huge topic for debate right now and seems to resonate everywhere, again, especially it seems with the BBC. Sorry BBC but I think your treatment of Gary Lineker makes you a deserved candidate for specific comments to yourself as in the way you operate your business.

 

Now, I am not a facist, a racist, not for a second, yet these opinions could be taken the wrong way which is again what I believe is wrong in the world today. The way I am about to talk is a way that a politician let alone most of society would not talk.

 

I watched the oscars, enjoyed the oscars. During the show Oprah and Whoppi Goldberg talked about the apitamy of black excellence and black pride during the show regarding a musician that had passed away. In fact the world black was mentioned many times. I watched the bond girls forever on ITV and all the white women talked about how great it was to be a Bond girl with no talk of colour yet the black Bond girl in no time to die stated how proud she was to be black and be a Bond girl as if being black defined her yet all the others girls never mentioned colour. I have seen shows on the BBC called Big, Beautiful, Black and British. I have not seen a show on the BBC called, Slim, Athletic, Beautiful, White and British but I say that only because the BBC love to feel they are unbiased and are run by diversity but are they really and if so what is it they think they are really achieving.

 

I know that if I stated that I am white and proud I sound like a facist or racist so I cannot but then again I am not too bothered about that. So I have to pay the price for history or for racists in the world that have made it almost impossible for anyone anywhere to state they are white and proud without being labelled a racist. Not a big deal. The fact is even writing that it sounds racist but it absolutely is not racist. I am simply proud of who I am at end of the day and would never allow anyone to take ownership of that. It seems that you can only declare publicly if you are proud if you belong to a genre that needs to state it as in a history of oppression.

 

Also you do not add Stephen Lawrence, Rodney king, Parnerfic together and balance the equation by producing an innocent verdict on OJ Simpson from the brutal murder of two women. That again is another example of how so much of politics and society is happy to represent someone or something regardless of the circumstances but simply because of what they are and seem to represent.

 

You are talking about the cold blooded murder of 2 women, one of who was his partner so could hardly be called a racist, who had the rest of their lives taken away from them in the worst of ways. Yet so many were happy to overlook that and just see it as an issue with race in the way the police dealt with the issue. That case should have been only about the justice for those two women but was turned into possibly the most embarrassing legal case in US history if not legal history. I personally know I could never do that, never. I would see it as impossible to support a cold blooded murderer just because of race. The fact that he lost a private civil case not long after for considerable millions tells its own story. But to believe that the potential behaviour of some racist police was more important than the justice of those two women I find staggering. I use that as an example because today so much of that exists in society and politics with many supporting the worst and wrong simply because they believe that they are one of themselves or happen to be part of the genre or demographic they are part of.

 

I could talk about how proud I am due to my roots and upbringing and use my poor and working class background as a sympathy card to allow me to have a story and something that people could look at and and say, "bless he has done well all things considered". But I would never allow that, to be defined by that. I am not who I am today because of my background and would never use it to legitimise the sanctimonious and moral hypocrisy that comes from that.

 

Now let’s talk LGQBT as another huge political stage. I look after myself, shave my legs, moisturise, like to look good, enjoy spa’s and massages, never married and no children and some might say I am in the LGQBT spectrum. You could be forgiven for that linear assessment but would be as far away from the truth as you could be. That also sums up what many people in their overview and analysis when looking at me also do. They make an assumption to who I am but for most of the occasions could not be further away from the truth. People ultimately want to see what it is they want to see and not much more.

 

The reality is that I am about as far away from that as I could possibly be. I calculated that since my teens I have been thinking about sex for an average of an hour a day which I believe is fairly healthy. I therefore have thought about sex for over 50 million seconds and am confident that is a minimum and probably similar to most healthy men and women. In those 50 million seconds not for one second have I ever thought about a man. Never. Not for a second. I find a women’s body the most incredible of bodies, every inch. Yet a man, no. Not your brad Pitt to George Clooney, Never. I have spent my life doing and thinking whatever I want and I do not hide from anything. If I was this way inclined for a second I would know it. I am 100% confident that I am as heterosexual as anyone can be. I am not even as a percentage a 1 in 50 million because I am still yet and will never for that 1 second. I have never felt any confusion over my sexuality not even as a teenager.

 

That said I have had gay friends and whatever or whoever anyone is makes no difference to me whatsoever. I hope and wish everyone can work that out for themselves and not be in some sort of confusion but that has never, ever, been the case for me. Which in itself is absurd when you take my life but it is what it is. For all the confusion and let’s say life rollercoaster it has never, ever been about sexuality or needing to find myself. 

 

But if you are LGQBT you can again talk about the pride of that. I cannot talk abut the pride that I am 100% heterosexual, not that I am bothered about that but again is another example. 

 

If you are considered an oppressed genre group even be that historically, then you seem to then have a right to all the above. But, and this is as important, if the oppressed become the oppressors are they worse because they should know exactly how that feels.  Maybe success for all the stated is when no one has to talk about how proud they are of their colour, sexual orientation or whatever but are simply proud of who they are is success but that is not for me to say or try and speak on anyone else’s behalf. If people want to shout from the roof tops they are proud then let them as it is a free world after all but it all needs to balance I believe a lot better than it does at the moment. A free world, BBC.

 

But finally, in regard to my initial statement, everything should never be about politics. Fashion maybe deemed to be political but at the highest end it can only ever represent fashion itself and nothing more and to do that only weakens it. That is also true for music, sport and science as a minimum in that no one should get to put any of that into a box to represent a political slant, perspective or statement. True musicians, sportsman and scientists as a minimum would never allow politics to cloud what they do because it is always bigger than that and representing something greater than self interest politics. The ISS is the prime example of what that represents but personally myself to give another example. Anna Netrobka and her version of Madame Butterfly is possibly the best piece of music and vocal performance that I have ever and may ever hear. For anyone to try and diminish that and put it into some political right or wrong box is beyond ridiculous. It is simply one of the purest pieces of music you will ever hear and nothing more than that and it is beyond and above politics.

 

Thank you for listening to another video on www.christian-john.com.