Golden Handcuffs Part II: The Grown Woman Remix.

Headlines collide when you put workers’ rights, political power, and culture on the same table. We start with UK TikTok moderators who say they faced harassment, punishing KPIs, and union busting while screening the content the rest of us never have to see. From there we unpack Pat McGrath Labs entering Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the US and what it reveals about cash flow, innovation, and the realities of scaling an iconic beauty brand. Then we go straight at the BBC’s move to explore licence fees tied to streaming services like Netflix, asking who benefits, who pays, and what accountability looks like when public funding models lose trust.

The latest Epstein file releases expose how institutions decide who gets grace and who gets the door. We lay out Peter Mandelson’s rehabilitation arc beside Diane Abbott’s treatment to show how power redistributes consequences then follow the fallout from Starmer’s short-lived plan to send Mandelson to Washington. Across the pond, Don Lemon’s arrest after reporting on a protest raises hard questions about press freedom and political optics, while Bad Bunny’s integrity-led choices demonstrate how representation becomes strategy when safety and voice are at stake.

Finally, we turn the lens inward. Golden handcuffs hurt, but leaving in a contracting market can be costlier than staying. We reframe stillness as positioning: stay with terms, build leverage, and set a timed plan to move when the market and your momentum align. If power protects itself, we protect our agency through unions, smart consumer choices, and career strategy that compounds.

Sponsorships - Email me:  hello@toyatalks.com

TikTok:  toya_washington
 
Twitter: @toya_w (#ToyaTalksPodcast)
 
Snapchat: @toyawashington
 
Instagram: @toya_washington & @toya_talks

https://toyatalks.com/

Music (Intro and Outro) Written and created by Nomadic Star

Stationary Company: Sistah Scribble

• Instagram: @sistahscribble
• Website: www.sistahscribble.com 
• Email: hello@sistahscribble.com

Transcript

Opening And Listener Feedback

SPEAKER_01 0:00

UK employees of TikTok launch a legal case of harassment. Pat McGrath Labs files a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and with further releases of the Epstein files, we see how deep and sordid this criminal network and enterprise really go. BBC TV license fee sets to leverage their relationship with Netflix, and Apple picks Google Gemini over Chat GPT. Journalist Don Lemmon has been arrested and released. And Bad Bunny wins big at the Grammys. Basketball Wives Chaunion O'Neill states that Basketball wives will not be returning. I will give my opinion, and there are so much more things to discuss. Welcome to the Toy Talks podcast.

SPEAKER_00 0:45

Toy and Talks, Council Estates, from Golden Land's Axe PWC, building legacies for all the seats. It's like just couldn't stop this glow. Let's just up the in which every sister how to own their witch.

TikTok Moderators, Unions, And Harassment Claims

Pat McGrath Labs Bankruptcy And Beauty Industry

BBC Licence Proposal And Streaming Backlash

Trigger Warning And Epstein Files Context

Mandelson, Power, And Unequal Consequences

Starmer’s Appointment Fallout And Governance

US Politics Mirror: ICE And Press Freedom

Don Lemon Arrest And First Amendment Tensions

Bad Bunny, Representation, And Integrity

Golden Handcuffs: Strategic Stillness And Job Hugging

Closing, Community, And Calls To Share

SPEAKER_01 1:15

Thank you all for joining me again for another episode of the Toy Talks podcast. Our last episode was two weeks ago. I spoke about golden handcuffs, amongst other things, but the feedback I got was really good. It did some numbers that episode. Um, and it was really interesting as well. Somebody left a comment on one of the podcast platforms and actually really understood golden handcuffs, but from the perspective of being a child, watching their parents go through golden handcuffs to set them up in life, give them a good education, and actually how detrimental it was kind of their parents going through the negative aspects of that golden handcuffs, having to stay in a role that wasn't good for them, um, and really kind of didn't treat them well. But being handcuffed to the money and being handcuffed to the opportunities they felt they couldn't get outside of the organisation meant that they tolerated more than they needed to. But actually, the the perspective of a child who is watching their parents go through it was actually really, really interesting because I'd never considered it from that perspective before. So yeah, I just really want to thank you all for listening to the episode, supporting the episode, um, making sure like the episode charts as well, because I do follow those things, I do watch, and for me, it's always great feedback to hear that you've either enjoyed it, listened to the podcast, or have a view that doesn't necessarily have to align with my view, but you've listened enough to formulate your own views and are willing to share them. So I really do um appreciate all the love and support as usual. So we have um a certain number of employees within TikTok, and I do have to say this I don't hear a lot of positive things about TikTok when it comes to the treatment of their employees. Um, it is very negative, and I think a lot of the forums like Glassdoor really capture how negative um experiences of a lot of TikTok employees, and I'm sure this is not the experience of everyone, but I never hear anything about like positive about working conditions and the protection of mental health within TikTok as an employee, it's always been very negative. I've known people to work in TikTok and their view is the same, but very recently um there was a vote to join a union um where employees were given the opportunity to decide whether they wanted to vote for a union. Um, I believe that they did vote for a union. Um, but this is relevant because there has been a legal case launched by employees against uh TikTok for harassment and union busting within the UK and internationally, but specifically for this legal case is UK employees, and it's basically being launched by a department that looks after the moderation of TikTok. So basically, um things that get um flagged before they become live, if you like, on TikTok. You have moderators that kind of go through um videos, pictures, clips, and stuff, and from a mental health perspective, that could be a lot. There is a lot that they see, um, and they have to basically flag rate and decide what kind of comes through. Um, and a lot of the things that are flagged before they become live are because it's suspected that they breach um TikTok rules. So before it even gets to a point where it becomes live, it's almost like it's filtered. So the department that deals with that are called the moderation. So there's been multiple lawsuits suits from um this particular department of workers um whereby they feel harassed. Um, they're they are AI moderated in terms of their KPIs, targets are and and bonuses are dependent on them reaching certain targets associated with how they moderate content within TikTok. But that being said, they work long hours and they feel unsupported from a mental health perspective. They feel as though they're pushed, forced, and bullied into um number one, making sure that they achieve their KPIs, but they don't get the support that would be required from a mental health perspective under health and safety to basically support them as they see certain content watch and the the actual detrimental long-term effects of a lot of the things that they view as part of their role. So bearing in mind that TikTok came to the UK market in 2018, and um I think TikTok served a big, big purpose and role during the pandemic, and what became very clear is that TikTok became a platform where people could be authentically themselves in a way that we hadn't seen before. Up until that point, we had um what's that other app? Clubhouse, but it but it clubhouse was audio, and I thought Clubhouse was actually quite good, you know. It required people to lend their voices in a way that we hadn't seen social media do for a really long time, and when you're in a lockdown situation, it kind of worked. I think that what Springboarded TikTok not only was lockdown, but your conventional YouTuber had to work harder because this wasn't about aesthetic anymore, it was about TikTok. But with that creative self-expression has comes the negative aspects of TikTok. Um, where we are watching um or consuming more social media, it needs to be policed more, and I say police very loosely, but it needs to be heavily moderated, especially when it comes to the certain content not being um and not adhering to TikTok rules. So mod um moderators are imperative to the fabric of TikTok in terms of information that is that comes through, things that we view, things that are accepted as being on their platform for um for consumption, and um you hear about union busting a lot, but I just want to give a brief overview. So basically, right before um they were due to vote on whether they wanted a union, effectively what has been alleged is that TikTok then found out who was voting or who had voted for a union and immediately um started basically firing staff and almost using firing as an intimidation tool to those who wanted to join a union or openly would speak out about joining a union. So there was there's as well as a harassment claim um as part of the legal case, um, they are also suing for unfair dismissal and seeking compensation, and rightly so. And a lot of them are saying that a lot of the um dismissals were unlawful because they were due to people joining a union, and the union busting element of it is to intimidate people from joining. So, what you do is if you see people getting sacked because they join the union, whilst it may not be written in ink, we're sacking for joining a union, you know, right? We're not stupid. We we we understand like the political landscapes of organizations we work in. And I think it it's just gotten to a head now where there is effectively a class action, if you want, for want of a better classification, um, where now there's they've mounted a legal case and it's been taken on um by legal firm um against TikTok. So I'm gonna be keeping abreast of that, and it'll be really interesting to understand kind of what TikTok actually did, what can be proven, and how TikTok defends this because TikTok have been in the news already from a data perspective, and we know part of TikTok was sold to um the owner of Oracle in America, which remember there was this whole thing about TikTok being banned in the states because of their access to data. Um I believe TikTok is a China-owned platform, and America was not comfortable with all of that. So they forced their hand to basically said, if you want to continue operating in America, you sell you sell part of TikTok um to a UK um to a US-based company, uh or else, you know, if you don't, you know, force the sale, then we'll ban it. Effectively, that's what happened. And I feel like the this was the position of the Trump administration. I think there was still some leeway within the Biden administration, but as soon as Trump came into power, um TikTok knew they would have to sell part um of of of um TikTok, and a lot can be said about data, the use of data, the abuse of data. And it'll be really interesting to see how the algorithm changes from that perspective. But what is true is whether the employees of TikTok are in America, whether they are anywhere else in the country, the experience tends to be the same. But in the UK, the laws are really clear and tight about the treatment of employees, um, about harassment, about victimization, about bullying, about constructive dismissal. So, how TikTok defends this will actually be really, really interesting from a precedent perspective, from a case law perspective, and also understanding how organizations as big as TikTok are allowed to get away with the mistreatment of their staff. I feel like such things can happen in certain countries where employment rights don't always protect their employees, but in the UK, oh no, honey, we've seen a lot of change to the legislation that protects employees more. And I don't know whether this is a shift due to the economic crisis currently in the UK and the employment crisis, which has seen record numbers of unemployment within the last five years. I don't know if affording employees more protection is a is pushed more because of the economic crisis that we face here in the UK. I don't know. But what I do know is this case has been lodged. We will be following it here on the Toy Tools podcast and we'll be taking the learning lessons. As reported by Black Millionaires underscore on Instagram, Beauty Lovers got some unexpected news this week that Pat McGrath Labs has officially filed for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and called off a much hyped auction of its assets. The company launched by Dame Pat McGrath in 2015 and once seen as a billion-dollar beauty unicorn, had been gearing up to seek bids after a dip in sales and internal strategy changes, but the bankruptcy filing has suddenly changed that plan. Court documents show that Pat McGrath Cosmetics LLC filed in Florida listing both assets and debts in the 50 million to 100 million range with a formal claims process now in motion. The public auction that was set for late January after bids were due earlier this week has been cancelled as part of a new direction for restructuring. Sources note that uh that this doesn't automatically mean the brand is closing. A chapter 11 bankruptcy petition typically lets a company keep operating while it reorganizes finances and works through options to stabilize. It's so interesting because we're seeing a lot of black-owned companies and businesses really struggle or go through a liquidation process, are bought out, and then they manage out the incumbency or a founder of that organization. It's Pat McGrath um as a uh her beauty products are really interesting because I had I I I really supported kind of the hype of that brand because when you see a black woman in the beauty industry killing it the way Pat McGrath is, was and still does, it really allows you to understand how much space really is for us in an industry that's been dominated by our white counterparts or brands that don't recognise the variety and range shade ranges that would be inclusive of black women. So the brand itself um really shook up the beauty industry in terms of the colour ranges, the products, the longevity of the product, especially the foundation, and actually the story that sat behind the brand. I was one of those people that bought the foundation, it didn't actually work for me, but what I did appreciate is another black queen shaking up the beauty industry, and we hadn't seen that much noise, or at least I hadn't experienced that much noise within the black beauty industry from that perspective, since Fenty Beauty, to be honest. So just having an another option as a black woman has been amazing. Now, whilst that chapter 11 bankruptcy has been filed and they're reorganizing and figure things out, we need to bear in mind that Pat McGrath herself is actually developing a makeup line for Louis Vuitton, so it can't be all bad, but what is interesting is understanding why they um they're having financial issues, and it could just be poor planning, dip in sales. I haven't seen anything innovative from Pat McGrath for a long time, like there hasn't been like changing products, um, expanding the product line, improving the existing products. I haven't seen any of that, but all of that costs money, and actually, if there is no demand, then there'll be no sales that would justify further reinvestment to develop. I get that. It would be a shame for the brand to disappear, and whilst they are reorganizing, strategizing, and maybe looking at the finances, I think what will be interesting is how that evolves and what how that ends up. Because when I now think about makeup, I don't actually think about Pat McGrath, and I don't know whether that's because the foundation didn't work for me, but what I do know is you know, you've got Denessa Myrix, for example. Danessa Myrix, let me tell you, my fellow black queens and um allies. Let me tell you this Denessa Myrix, her tints, listen, all her products, even down to the blushes, are amazing, absolutely amazing. Created developed by a black woman, but inclusive shade ranges from any skin tone, and I love that it's inclusive of non-black women too, more so because it shows the variety of colour ranges throughout the entire product line, and I love that um it her Danessa Myrick's line challenges you to consider like other products. So, like when it comes to blusher, I'm a Mac Raisin babe through and through. I would never think to put like a pink, but the way Danessa Myrix pigment of her products and actually how it blends and interacts with other products, like it's skin tints and stuff like that. I have seen like an upgrade to my foundation. Oh, it's not even foundation, I keep calling it foundation, but it's skin tint. I love that it's buildable, I love that she has a setting spray, I love that she has a balm, a primer, I love that she has tools in terms of like um uh brushes and things like that. I think Danessa Myrix has also utilised social media to kind of as marketing. And I love that um Danessa Myrix does a lot of masterclasses. I know Uce recently led a couple of masterclasses um for Danessa Myrix and teaches you how to use their products, and honestly, it went it went amazing. Um I think something I love about Denessa Myrix is she's not trying to keep up with the bigger brands, it feels like she's definitely in a lane of her own. And as awareness of Danessa Myrix grows, I'm hoping that she learns maybe from some of the mistakes from Pat McGrath Labs because again, that's another um Danessa Myrix is another black owned created business that is inclusive of as many people and shades as possible. So for me, I just kind of feel like Danessa Myrix works, the formulation works, and I like the steady scaling. It does it's not in your face. I do think there needs to be a bit more awareness for Danessa Myrix because a lot of people don't even know the brand exists. And I'm I'm telling you now if you hate foundation or find foundation irritating to wear, especially over the summer, go and have a look at Danessa Myrix. I have like I've got my makeup thing here, but I can't open the drawer without just making a noise. But she has this um skin tint, one comes in a tube, and I don't know what the tube's called, and then they have one in like a compact. And I use the compact more like um if I'm going out, I'll use the tube skin tint if like you know, like I'm going to the office or my daughter has a play day or I'm running errands. The coverage on both is amazing, it's just about preference. I have both because I just see I use them for different things, but definitely check it out and let me know your thoughts on Danessa Myrix. And I really hope that Pat McGrath has a plan for her brand because it'll be really sad to see another brand, um, black created, black-owned, from a black woman who is a mover and a shaker in the beauty industry to just disappear. Um, but at the same time, innovation is really important in development and continuing to raise awareness through social media is equally as important as the products themselves. So, as part of the review of TV license, um, the BBC are considering making changes to the TV license and extending the TV license fee to cover streaming services like Netflix. Nothing's been confirmed, it's just a proposal. It's been in the works, I believe, since I want to say 2024. It has been rumbling. Um, I've heard rumblings about um the extension of TV license to include streaming services, not just Netflix, but you know, Amazon Prime, Disney, and things like that. Um, effectively, as it currently stands, you don't need TV license to watch Netflix. Um, so the BBC are like exploring how TV license can be extended to include um streaming services um because ultimately they have a decline on people paying TV license. Now, personally, I don't agree with the BBC, what it stands for, what it represents, and I'll be damned if I pay into a licensing system that pushes, promotes, encourages, grows, and finances a system that I don't believe in. That being said, I understand why TV license exists, and I think people need to explore what their rights are. If somebody purporting to be from TV license knocks on your door, they don't have a right of entry, by the way. Um, I'm gonna see if I can find a link on TikTok where they have an act, people actually have a script of what you need to say. But first and foremost, if they already have your name in the system where you used to pay it before you don't pay it no more, then they're more likely to enforce or utilize the information they have to launch an investigation to see if you actually have TV license, even if you cancelled it in the past. If you have never had TV license before and they don't have your name on the system, they would have to number one find out who you are in a particular property, and then they would have to have reasonable belief that you have um a TV or watching TV or whatever. And then be able to prove it and then get a warrant. So it's not a process of, hey, let me in your house. It doesn't work like that. And whilst um people may conventionally not watch the BBC, for example, the BBC understanding that maybe out of 10 houses, at least eight of them are gonna have Netflix or another type of streaming service outside of um the BBC. And it's harder to prove somebody has a TV than it is to prove if somebody has a streaming service that they're utilising. Because with Netflix, they recommend shows to you. They can only do that because they have access to what you watch clearly, because you're on their platform. So if they have access to what you watch, they can prove you watch it and and you're paying for it monthly. So if you were if BBC basically get their wish, that's guaranteed revenue for them. Because so far as you have um T um Netflix or Amazon Prime, you're gonna pay. And they will make it as mandatory, so you can't even access any of that content from streaming services unless you've paid the TV license. Whether Netflix or other streaming streaming services will agree to it is is one thing. But if they are if the BBC gives them like I don't know, 10% of what they earn or any type of profit share, we're fucked. We're fucked. Because I don't know about you all. My streaming services are Netflix, Disney Plus, Paramount Plus, Apple TV, Amazon Prime. I think I might have said that already. What else do I watch? Yeah, and within those streaming services, so like with um um Amazon Prime, you can get other things like Hey U, MGM, Lionsgate, Paramount. Do you understand? So I'm already in in deep in this streaming service ecosystem. So if the BBC get their way in terms of TV license and extending it to streaming services and it and incentivizing these streaming services to work with TV license, that is gonna yet be an additional expense to how we live our lives. This country's fucked. What is you know what? What can I just want to understand? So you have to pay a license to watch TV. But if you don't watch TV, because I don't watch TV by the way, the TV we have in our house is not working. I need to replace it. My daughter broke it when she was like one year old. She's playing with the remote, and it's just never been the same. So I think next month I'm just gonna replace it. But the point I'm making is I don't even watch TV. I watch those streaming services, I watch shows, I watch movies, I watch well, not movies, more so series. But what is that license? Where does it go? Why are we paying it? Like, what does it signify? How does it improve our watchability? What do we get out of it? I'm gonna watch this space. I'm gonna continue to report on this, by the way. I say report, but do you know what I mean? Because after a long day hustling, bustling, navigating, strategically trying to understand where our place is in the workplace and you want to unwind with a TV show, you're now having to think where you're gonna find the money that will continue to increase every year. And they could they could literally increase it as many times as they want. As soon as they attach it to streaming services, we're all fucked. So it's within our interest to understand how this is happening. Please sign the petitions. If you see a petition against BBC TV license, sign them. As long as they're legitimate, obviously, this is your personal details, but you know what I'm trying to say? Like, I feel like this country, like, we take a lot of shit. We take a lot of shit. Why are we not speaking to MPs? Why is it not a parliamentary discussion about what the fuck TV license is? The money that they make already, where the fuck is that going? And how does it benefit us as the of the people that pay this TV license? You can't just throw money away. We get taxed to the nines, literally knickers to the wind every time you get your pay slip. Every time Rachel Reeves so much as opens her mouth, yeah, she farts an increase. And then you want to add TV license that becomes now an obligation because of the streaming streaming services. Oh honey, we're all screwed and fucked. Let's pay attention to kind of how this evolves and develops because I, for one, am not happy with the prospect of um BBC TV license kind of striking a deal with some of these streaming services who will agree because they are greedy. Netflix is greedy. How much is Netflix now? I don't even pay for Netflix. I think it's Kay that pays for it. But the point is, Kay won't be paying for it anymore. If now they attach it to streaming services, start increasing it every minute, every minute. K will now be asking me how many times do you watch Netflix? And I go between shows like there's a lot going on right now. So I want to move the conversation on a little uh slightly. Um, and it's a trigger warning. I am going to be speaking about the Epstein files. So if you want to I um I managed to put chapters on my podcast. So if you want to skip this chapter and move to the next topic, you'll be able to. The reason why I want to talk about it, I've never spoken about the Epstein files before because you guys know I want things to marinate. I really need to do my research, understand what's happening before I come and talk about it. I want to talk about it on a number of levels. I think the first is just so that we're aware of what's going on because an informed mind is an educated mind, and also how interesting it is, especially in the UK, but we see it globally, we see it in the in the US. How you know I'm proving ladies because it's a it's a big topic to cover because a lot of the things that are coming out through the Epstein uh released files, if it ever, God forbid, Obama was embroiled in this, Donald Trump would have him he would have him arrested. Donald Trump's relationship with Epstein isn't new. Now it's just about degree. You can redact the entire file where it mentions Donald Trump, but the real the reality is that they it is alleged that they were friends. How deep did that relationship go? And with every release of the files, we understand or start to understand, we're painting and beginning to create a very clear, clear image about how this man was able to run a criminal enterprise that consisted of abuse, sexual assault, paedophilia, and that's just to name a few things. What we've been seeing in the UK and what has been banded around, and I'm just gonna make sense of it for everybody because I've done the research, honey, is Peter Mandelson. Before I get on to Peter Mand Peter Mandelson, I just want to mention that uh as recently hot off the press as you know, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are going to be testifying to the House of Oversight Committee as part of the panel's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Now, bearing in mind, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton initially refused to um answer any questions or be part of any investigation and panel um with the oversight team. But they they've been negotiating, I guess, how you know how they're gonna, I don't I don't even know what they're negotiating, but the point is they are going to be they there's gonna be an investigation, and Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, who feature very heavily in those Epstein files, are going to be participating in an investigation as part of the um uh House of Oversight committee. They have requested, same committee has requested that Andrew Mountbatten, because y'all know they just deferoned that him and his titles, they've asked him to come to America and be have basically be, I don't even know if what would you call it, cross-examines, examined, investigated, but basically answer questions um that the House of Oversight um committee um are gonna have for him as part of this Jeff Jeffrey Epstein investigation. So effectively, anyone who features within the release of these files are gonna be called to be part of the investigation and answer questions, and up until today, um Andrew Mountbatten, who is the son of the late queen and the current reigning king of um the UK, that's his brother. So their King Charles, his brother is Andrew Mountbatten, formerly known as Prince Andrew. He's he's refusing, he won't, he's refusing to go to the station, he doesn't want to be part be a party to anything, and there is no legal obligation um obligating him to basically be part of this investigation and you know go before the oversight committee. However, you have very um influential leaders here within the UK that are basically saying, Andrew, you need to go to this committee, you need to answer the questions, and whether you like it or not, you need to confront this investigation and confront your involvement and your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. So the big news that has come out um is that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton will be testifying in front of the House of Oversight Committee as part of the panel's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Now, that being said, I want to move on to Peter Mandelson, who is a lord. I don't believe in these titles, by the way. There's no way I'm gonna call him Lord. Sorry, his name is Peter Mandelson. And um, anyway, I'll get into all of that. I'm gonna link it to the world of work, but before we do this, we have to understand who Peter Mandelson is, especially with how influential British politics is to the world of work, to the socioeconomic environment that we live in. So Peter Mandelson was one of the minds behind Labour's transformation in the 1990s. He rebranded the Labour Party from old school socialism into an election-winning business-friendly force. He reframed Labour's relationship with business, modernized messaging and media strategy, and helped make Labour electable again after years in opposition. In politics, Mandelson is considered the person who designs the strategy that often outlives the leaders who deliver it. Peter Mandelson's real strength was never the public stage. It was message discipline, media control, internal party strategy. And he understood that the loudest voice isn't the most powerful, the most positioned one is. He has a long rap sheet of not like not following the rules. Yeah. He has a rap sheet that basically says that because he's needed as a strategist, as a mind, he's in in he's an integral fabric of the Labour Party. He will resign and come back, resign and come back, resign and come back. Do you think that any black politician could do half of the things that Peter Mandelson did and come and come back? Are you fucking kidding me? But let's talk about it. Because I feel like it's only an uncomfortable conversation if you're not comfortable with the truth. And it's I it's listen, it's more than seeing Peter Mandelson as a villain. But his story exposes something that black women already know instinctively. We already know this. The rules are not applied equally, but the consequences often are. So the uncomfortable truth. Mandelson made mistakes, he bent judgment, he relied on proximity to power, and yet he came back multiple times. How many black women do you know who get one informal warning, one perception issue, or one political misstep? And then quietly managed out, not recycled. Exactly. Before we talk about what he has done now, because he has been heavily featured in the recently received, um, in the recently released Epstein Files. Yeah, but before we get to the present day, I just want to hold up a comparator so we can fully understand um the differences in treatment. Um, and I want to introduce another figure to this conversation for comparison basis. So Peter Mandelson and say Diane Abbott. Peter Mandelson, architect of the New Labour, resigned twice from the cabinet, returned to power, elevated to the House of Lords. Yeah, you heard me, and still consulted. Yeah, he was elevated. It's it's fucking wild. And then let's compare him compare him to Diane Abbott, the first black woman MP, decades of service, and one public error, and the response was swift, public, and punitive. The same party, they belong to the same Labour Party, same institution, and radically different outcomes. How they framed Mandelson is accepted undisclosed loans, intervened in passport processes and crossed ethical lines. And then the way they framed it was oh, it's an era of judgment, political complexities, and too valuable to lose. We need him at the Labour Party. So he's managed back in and then not pushed out. So then let's look at Diane Abbott. She made a serious but correctable public mistake. And the framing was then she's unfit, she's a liability, she's an embarrassment. There was no talk of redemption, no quiet correction, and no institutional patience. Mandelson uh Peter Mandelson is allowed to be strategic, complicated, and redeemable. Diane Abbott is treated as symbolic, disposable, a problem to be solved. This is not accidental. Absolutely. It's deliberate. This is how power protects who it recognizes. Recognizes and it never, hardly ever, recognizes black women. So for all the things that I've explained, to give you a background into Peter Mandelson, we have to also recognize that the mistakes between white men in politics and black women are not judged equally. Peter Mandelson stumbled, his legacy spoke for him. When Diana Abbott stumbled, the system rewrote her legacy. Black women are rarely ever allowed to be human at scale. Diane Abbott's decades of service didn't, it didn't buy anything for her. It didn't buy her grace, time, or quiet repair. So if experience doesn't protect you, what does? Power that is institutional is not personal. Some people are seen as worth rehabilitating, others are seen as a risk to be removed, as was the case for Diane Abbott. And that decision is rarely about competence, it's about who the institution feels belongs. And we can see throughout Diane Abbott's career where she has been disposed of, disrespected, ostracized, like they've tried to manage her out for a very long time until recently, where they succeeded. And we can see the parallels between politics and the world of work. Because I keep telling everybody, if you want to understand what happens into your workplace, look at politics, and that's across the globe. So like senior white colleagues misspeak. They're coached, they're given second chances, they are given that ability to rehabilitate, if you like. A black woman misspeaks, HR gets involved, there's a performance plan, uh, what they call pips, and there's an exit. The same behavior but different tolerances. I guess for me, and just giving you the background and comparing him to a massive political figure like Diane Abbott, I think Peter Mandelson teaches us that power forgives its own. Diane Abbott reminds us that black women are often denied the right to recover even after decades of service. And we see that in the world of work over and over again. So now I want to bring it to the present day because now I've given you the background of Peter Mandelson. The recent release of the Epsiline Files has left a very significant confronting conversation that catapults Keir Starmer's decision making and spotlights it. So in 2024, Keir Starmer, the current Prime Minister of the UK, announced that Peter Mandelson would be made the next British ambassador to the United States. And this role is considered one of the most senior and strategically important diplomatic posts in the UK because of the relationship or the special relationship as it's referred to between the US and the UK. Now, remember Keystama is the Prime Minister, but this was also supported by the current Foreign Secretary who is David Lamy, and you already know that Dam. Let me not even get into David Lamy because Toyel leave it. So they justified this decision, which obviously it's Keir Starmer's decision, but they justified it because the choice for them was about a long-term experience within the government. They said that Peter Mendelssohn um had experience in foreign policy, trade, and economic issues, especially at a time when the UK wanted to deepen its relationship with the US, um, with the Biden administration leaving and now the new Trump administration coming um into power. Now, with um a few months ago, we had another release of the Epstein Files, and it made clear the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, and this continued well after 2008, after Epstein's conviction. The fact that Peter Mandelson continued his relationship, friendship, relationship with Epstein, it called his position as the ambassador to the US in disrepute. He had to step down from that role. That was all very recent, by the way. Now, at the core of what was released recently about Peter Mendelssohn, um, there's email correspondence not only indicating the closeness of their friendship, but expressions of support towards Epstein after his conviction. And there are questions about whether Peter Mendelssohn shared government or policy-related information with someone who should never have had access to it. And this is this information was shared during um Gordon Brown's um prime ministership. There's also a claim of financial interactions linked to Epstein and connected accounts, which Mandelson disputes and says he does not recall, which you know it's always convenient that they don't recall. So obviously, as more gets released, um, I think then we'll we'll see how deep this goes. Um, there's been no allegations that Mandelson participated in uh Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. The issue is judgment, association, and governance, not criminal conduct at present. However, I can tell you that um there is it has been there's a police investigation that was launched today that looks at whether there was a breach of the Official Secrets Act because the passing of information that has been alleged in these emails between Mandelson and um Epstein. Um obviously Mandelson's been removed from his role as the ambassador to the US. He's also resigned from the Labour Party, and he has stepped down from the House of Lords because he had a he has a lifetime peerage. So even though he stepped down, he still has his peerage, but now they're looking at, I think Labour are looking at how they can remove a peerage without having to go through the process of like there's a whole long process, which is weird. Like this country loves a title, so you're willing to give a lifetime period peerage to somebody without the parameters of how they operate in their peerage. So basically, there has to be legislation passed to remove someone's peerage. This is how deeply entrenched in titles this country goes, where there's no perimeters and boundaries of how people use their peerage and represent um that particular peerage. Like, there's no like basically it's a free-for-all once you have it, and this is what I'm saying. I feel like the UK are also complicit in Mandelson's arrogance of feel feeling like he's formidable. When you give people unfettered access and rights, especially when it comes to power, what the hell do you think they're going to do with it? They're going to abuse it. So I guess with Peter Mendelssohn, it goes beyond politics to be fair, and it speaks to more judgment at senior level. It speaks it asks the question who protects who protects like the powers that be will protect. Because if you really think about it, if this had been a black man and these issues dating back 2008 that are causing him to resign, do you think he could ever pick up office again, talk less of being the ambassador to the US? Are you crazy in dis in Dis England? But then I do feel like when you're thinking about when we think about the world of work and things like that, it's a reminder of the power structures and the hierarchical nature and the toxicity that exists where power is not managed and process is not followed, and where there is a complete disregard to order in that there is no there is no um consequences. You think somebody is so integral to a business and so um important to the fabric of an organization that you continue to continue to give them a blight, give them a blight, an unfettered right and access. And then when they abuse it, now you're backtracking or you want to walk yourself back. There are calls for Mandelson to have like um like an inquiry, but these inquiries in the UK don't go nowhere. I'm telling you now, there were like the news are reporting that Peter Mandelson, um what did they say? Oh, there was a way they framed it. There's a way they framed it, but the fact is he's still considered a lord in this country. So whether he stepped down for the House of Lords, it doesn't count for anything because the peerage of a lord is lifetime. Can you see? Can you see how the UK are complicit in the madness that happens? And one thing that is interesting is they will never allow their minds to consider how they've treated somebody like Dan Abbott or any of the other black MPs. But when it comes to the fragility and the need for men, specifically white men in politics, it is wild. It is very wild. But what these Epstein files are highlighting are the issues that remain very clear and front and centre within British politics. Kia Starmer, I mark my words, Kia Starmer as the leader of the Labour Party. I don't see it continuing for very much longer. He's losing trust and confidence, he's having people of his party defect. I think that there is also, and even people who are very influential within the Labour Party or maybe not be sitting on the cabinet are defecting from Labour and going to reform. I think he's losing trust and confidence, not only from the party, but I think as citizens, I mean, personally for me, I didn't vote for Starmer anyway. But the reality is you want strength that sits behind a leader, and that isn't Keir Starman, and I don't think it has ever been him. Yes, he's condemned Peter Mendelssohn and what has been released in the Epstein Files about Peter Mendelssohn, but short of you know supporting the police in their investigation, I just don't understand how Keir Starmer can ever think that after everything um Peter Mandelson did to bypass the rules, he actually thought that it was a good idea to make said man, whether he knew about the relationship between um Peter Mandelson and Epstein, that's by the by. This Mandelson's rap sheet was wild before them from a political perspective. And you thought, right, I'm gonna make him the US ambassador one of the biggest, most important roles. I'm gonna make him the um ambassador for the US. Who the fuck thought that was a good idea? So hopefully, when it comes to that, you're more informed about kind of what's going on because I it can be like very confusing. You're just hearing all these names and you're like, what, what, what, what, what? Um, and I hope that you have seen the link between kind of what I've described and the world of work because where we see things operating in politics, they operate in our workplaces. There are there's so many, not even just parallels, there's mirrors. Mirrors, and it's interesting, isn't it? Because I think as black women, what we don't always do is as is link it and then take the learning lessons and then kind of operate it in our workplaces. So I'm hoping this kind of adds to your knowledge. Maybe you already knew, maybe you learned something new, but what is very clear is how political figures are protected, and how political figures um have access to power in a way black women could never in politics, and when that starts kind of dripping into the world of work, we're realizing that we may be a custodian of process and ensuring that things are done in an auditable way, but we're quickly made the enemies, and God forbid we make a mistake. How we are treated and dragged over the coals for a mistake that would be considered irrelevant or insignificant if it was a white man doing it, making those mistakes. So let's move this along and change the direction slightly of this episode because I want to kind of do a part two to last um two weeks ago, the episode on golden handcuffs, and that's why I've entitled this episode Golden Handcuffs: the Grown Woman Um Remix. And I do also want to provide an alternative school of thought to the concept of golden handcuffs because I I don't in golden handcuffs you feel trapped. I don't think you can run away from that. But being the free spirit I am, I just don't believe that you're trapped and then you just stay trapped. There has to be an alternative school of thought or an option that maybe one isn't considering because of what the golden handcuff represents, and considering the negative aspect of going against that golden handcuffs and taking that 2030k pay cut and it having a detrimental effect on you, your family, and your financial situation that stretches far beyond yourself. So I did a bit more research and I really wanted to understand like what are the options and then kind of consider my consider it for from myself the perspective of an alternative. You know me, I'm quite solution-based. So this is not about stay because you're scared when it comes to golden handcuffs. This is stay because you're strategic. So you're handcuffed, but look at it from a strategic perspective. If you're unhappy, leave. If you're bored, you're stuck, if you're paid well, you're trapped. What if staying isn't fear? What if staying is leverage? In order for me to give you an alternative school of thought in relation to golden handcuffs, I want to reintroduce what we discussed um in a previous episode about job hugging, and I did cover it in a TikTok as well. I want to link golden handcuffs and job hugging. I know this is sounding a bit wild, but just follow me for a moment. Think of this remix to golden handcuffs as another subsection to job hugging where you intelligently job hug. So you're not running towards comfort, you're not running away from fear, you're staying put to extract maximum value. So think of reputational capital, for example, um, cross-functional exposure, strategic projects, relationship equity, which people don't talk about that enough, and internal mobility opening up organically. So I'm not hugging my job because I'm scared to leave. I'm hugging it because it's feeding me options. You shouldn't leave when you shouldn't leave a job whether you feel handcuffs or not. But you shouldn't leave a job when the market is contracting, not expanding as it is now. You're still learning how power actually works in in the organization you're in. Your name is starting to circulate without you pushing, senior stakeholders are beginning to trust your judgment. The role is evolving with you, not shrinking you. So leaving too early can cost you momentum. You didn't realize you were building. So I think it's for me, I hope I'm explaining this correctly because for me, the way I look at it is you have to look at why you need to stay and whether you've actually extrapolated everything you need out of this job. And if you haven't, and the likelihood is that you haven't, you're exploring other options within your role because it is strategic for you to stay put because of the current employment, um, unemployment rates, for example, a stagnant job market, and the current socioeconomic crisis. Um, when it comes to finances, when it comes to the cost of living, it just doesn't make sense to not look at your staying put as something strategic rather than feel or feeling trapped. When looking at golden handcuffs, job hugging, the current um employ unemployment rates, looking at the job market as bad as it is, like we're often taught to move before we're seen as complacent. I know for a fact that stagnation terrifies me because what it represents is a lack of growth. What it represents is complacency, but this is what we've been conditioned to believe anyway. But I do hold on to the fact that if you're not growing and learning, you are stagnant. I know as a black woman I fear being labelled as comfortable because comfortable doesn't represent growth, and growth, a lack of growth represents stagnation, no movement, a lack of building, and it's scary because for me, growth and elevation comes from moving, but then at the same time, I recognize that as black women, we often feel the pressure to always be in motion, but then something I'm really holding on to, and something that I put on my vision board is that stillness, when chosen, is not stagnation, it's positioning. And I have that front and center in my vision board. Stillness doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing if that's what I'm choosing to do. Because we all have options. Let's be real, yeah. You may not be, you may not have great opportunities because of your choices, but you have an option. Listen, I go on TikTok every day, and people exercise their option to leave their jobs. Like I'm not doing it anymore, I'm leaving for whatever reason. It could be mental health reasons, it could be because they just had enough, or they want to take that risk and see where it lands. Me, I think they're very, very brave. But sometimes I feel like when even if you're job job hugging, even if you're in a golden handcuff situation, that stillness is also a choice. Do you know what I mean? Like you're there has to come a point where you choose, okay, you know what, I'm I'm gonna just stay still. And what I mean by you know, it's being not being stagnation is if you choose to remain still, that in itself isn't stagnation because you're exercising your choice. And positioning is strategic because you understand strategically how you need to move and operate to respond to the current market, the job market, and your financial situation. So I'm definitely gonna put that on assist the scribble stationery. Stillness, when chosen, is not stagnation, it's positioning. And I think that we all have to choose where we're positioned because the current economy, the current job market places us in a very confronting situation where you have to really think about. Whether letting go of your job right now or pivoting or moving is the right decision for you. And if that's the right decision, fine. But even for myself, where I've come onto the podcast and I've shared with you some of my frustrations about growth, I'm also realizing there is a growth in self in understanding that stillness in this situation, in this economic climate, is my choice. And if it's my choice, I'm in control. And I definitely think that in fully understanding that you're the architect of your career, you have to also understand that when you make the choice to stay, it's not a choice to give up. You're still betting on yourself because you're still recognizing that your choice to stay comes with strategic conditions. And you've got to determine what those strategic conditions are. And that is the challenge for you. You need to challenge yourself about what your current situation is, what the goal is, and what the next, what you hope the next three to six months is going to look like. That's how I feel like you take ownership of the situation and you remix that golden handcuff and you reimagine that job hugging. I've always said that I keep an eye on US politics, on what's happening on the ground, so we're very aware of what's happening with ICE and things like that. Because what happens in the US will find its way here to the UK, and there's so many examples, whether historically or as recent as a year ago, we see it here. With the uprising of Reform UK, as led by Nigel Farage, their policies are very representative of the Trump administration. What the hell do you think is really gonna happen if um Reform UK take hold of this country and run this country? What the hell do you think is gonna happen? Let me tell you what's gonna happen. A mirror image of what we see happening in the United States. We will have our own version of ICE here in the UK. We will see like some of the scenes that we've seen in America. It's really sad. The people who have lost their lives at the hands of ICE, and any way the um current administration in the US try to frame it, it's very clear that ICE is not only using a very um heavy-handed approach, they've been given a mandate and they're operating in a mandate that can only be considered as having racial undertones and very clear about achieving their KPIs because it's been mandated by the Trump administration of how ISAT operate, and they're operating in that. I wouldn't call it an uprising, I'd say act of defiance from its citizens. But I have to also ask the question or make it clear. People in the US, not everyone clearly, they elected Trump. They elected him. He didn't he didn't trip into office, he was duly elected through a process where people actually went to the ballot box and voted for Trump. So let's not ignore how complicit some of the US citizens or US voters have been in Trump operating in his madness because it's madness when you choose to operate in a way that creates such unrest. People have lost their lives at the hands of ICE. We've watched it, it has been televised. Sorry, trigger warning. I want to move on slightly to Don Lemmon. He's a seasoned American journalist and former CNN anchor. Don Lennon was arrested by federal agents in Los Angeles on federal charges that relate to his coverage of a protest that happened in uh January 18th at City's Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. A church where an ICE immigration enforcement official was also serves as a pastor. The irony. How can you be an ICE enforcement agent and a pastor? How does that work? Can you see why I always have a problem with the church? Can you see? So um Don Lemon was taken into custody after US authorities indicted him about two weeks after the actual protest had taken place, uh protest actually took place. He's been charged with conspiracy against civil rights. It's been alleged that he's interfered with religious worship and violating the freedom of access to the Clinic Entrances Act, which is broader, it's part of the broader civil rights statute, which was also used in terms of um bringing the charge of violating the freedom of access. Um so his charges are considered a felony and misdemeanor um against civil rights, basically. So Don Lemon's position is he says he was only there as a journalist, documenting and reporting on the protests, not participating in it. So he was basically documenting the fact that an ICE agent is also a pastor. And we already know the freedom of expression through journalism, and he he's very vocal about um his work as a journalist, as a seasoned journalist, um being part of a protect is protected by the First Amendment, the freedom of the press. So um it was reported that his arrest he was arrested at his hotel um in Beverly Hills, and with a significant law enforcement presence, even after he had previously he had volunteered when he knew the charges were coming down, he volunteered to surrender voluntarily. Um, but they didn't want that. They they wanted to humiliate him effectively. He has been released without bail, and he does plan to plead not guilty and fight the charges that have been levied against him. Um I think what has been polarized here is press freedom and like media work and operating in that. He has been very vocal about um his uh views on Donald Trump. I don't know how much of that has influenced these charges or influenced what um he's being indicted for, but I do have to mention that. Um, and they you know in America they take the First Amendment rights very seriously, but this does open up the conversation about freedom of expression at work, um, where journalists often walk a line between reporting and reporting the truth, and the legal risks like how do workers in other fields, like activists, academics, corporate whistlers, so whistleblowers, how do they face like similar challenges? What are our rights versus responsibilities in professions tied to public discourse? And that's quite interesting because in America, I feel like I don't know, I feel like they have a lot more protected rights than in the UK. I feel like in the UK there is freedom of the press and freedom of expression, but I just feel like when I read the legislation that covers freedom of expression as a protected right for journalists, it just seems a lot tighter. How they're going to continue to formalise charges against Don Lehman, I don't understand. It doesn't make real sense to me. It just seems personal, and I think that when you're looking at like the boundaries that exist between professional duty and legal risk, I think we then look at how politics plays a part in that. So is there a professional duty to report if it um aligns with like the political aspirations of the current seven government versus kind of reporting on things that, yeah, there is a legal risk, but you still do it for the freedom and protection of the press? Um, the reason I also find it really interesting is in the UK we're very clear about how the press reports certain things here. So even on the Epstein files, even the narratives um that are being pushed, the language that's being used, especially when you have the press that are a bit more biased towards the current seven government, and the current seven government happens to be now the form of party that um Peter Mandelson was the anchor to. So I think as things continue to progress in the United States, especially with journalism and how it's reported, it'll be interesting how that translates here in the UK, where the press here is not just you know uh reporting on the news or the LBCs of this world, it's also social media and how the algorithm allows us to have that freedom to express in the same way it's a protected right in the US, albeit whether you're a journalist or not. So yeah, I wanted to bring that here. And you know me, I'm gonna sound the warning and I just pray that I pray that we number one, that the reform UK do not become the political party here in the UK that runs this country. Because once that happens, it I believe it's a downward spiral. I apologise, my baby monitor's on and my daughter does speak in her sleep. Yeah, it'll be a downward spiral here in the UK. And I I'd be terrified to see the images that are coming out of the US here in the UK. But if this country continues to push the agenda of reform UK, we will see if mirror images of what's happening in the US, and it doesn't make for comfortable viewing. How many of you watched the Grammys um this past weekend? For me, I I watched the highlights, I can't see it through all of that. Tiana Taylor looked absolutely amazing, and it's interesting how you know, like how the Grammys have evolved, how the categories are constructed. That's an episode for another day. But someone who caught my attention, and I really wanted to kind of like mention it here, more so because of his political standing, sorry, his political stance on kind of what's happening in America is Bad Bunny. So the artist Bad Bunny, his real name is Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio, um, he hails from Puerto Rico, Bayamo. I hope I've pronounced that well, and if I haven't, please feel free to correct me. We're all in a process of learning. Um, but um he worked in a supermarket, he worked shifts, and he basically used to drop sound cloud tracks at night. Um, he didn't study music, he studied visual storytelling. So he controls sound image and culture, painted nails, skirts, um, calling out toxic masculinity, um, as reported by founders Wealth Circle. What's really interested for me is how Bad Bunny has become like a global phenomenon. He blends reggaeton, Latin trap, pop, and experimental sounds in ways that resonate across cultures and languages. He consistently tops global charts, including multiple number one billboard albums without singing in English. His work speaks to universal themes like love, identity, memory, and celebration, making music transcultural for audiences worldwide. He really redefines what it means to be a global superstar and his streaming numbers speak for itself. He uses his platform to speak out, and I think that's what I find so amazing about him as an artist, is that he's not just a performer, he's also seen as a voice of the of his community and broader immigration rights issues. Um, so at the Grammys, just gone. Um, he used his acceptance speech to denounce anti-immigration rhetoric and ICE policies in the US, really echoing like broader calls for compassion and human dignity. His political statements align him with other artists, and he really advocates for immigration and human rights. So his influence isn't just cultural, it's political, it's social. And I you can definitely draw parallels here to how artists in black and other marginalized communities use visibility to push change. And Bad Bunny does this for the Latin community, but also speaks more widely about immigration. But I love how he's using his platform as a Latin artist to really push for change, highlight issues. Um, so he's gonna be doing like the halftime, he's he's the headliner for the half-time Super Bowl, which is massive in the US. And basically, he will then become like the first solo Latin artist to headline the Super Bowl halftime show, which is huge. Um and apparently it's meant to be fully Spanish-led performance, which I think is amazing because he's not he's not compromised on who he is, his culture, the genesis, and the nucleus of who he is. And I love that like when I really research his story, like like him as an artist, he's print, he's a very highly principled artist, and he's a very talented artist at that. Um yeah, I mean, it he teaches about representation, mattering, and cultural and I how how culture and identity intersect, and obviously the art of performing and being an artist. So when I like researched him and really understood, he basically he was meant to take residency, uh I either residency or a show in the US. And he basically said, No, I'm not doing this show in the US. And the reason I'm I can't remember what show it was, but he says, I know that if I do this show, ICE will be outside. So as much as my fans want to see me perform, I'm not willing to compromise their safety and their immigration status um just so that they can come out and see me so ICE can wait outside. And for me, that level of integrity as a person, transcending it into him as an artist is massive because we've got a lot of artists who compromise who they are to stay relevant, and he refuses to do that. Bad Bunny isn't just a chart-topping artist, he's a cultural movement, he's topping the charts without singing a word of English. He's making Grammy history, and he's the first all-Spanish album of the year using his platform to speak on human rights and immigrant dignity. He's also reshaping what global music looks like, and this year, the fact that he's headlining the Super Bowl halftime show is a massive milestone that reflects how Latin culture now stands at the centre of global entertainment, especially because how ICE has been pitted off against the Latin community in a way that I feel like we definitely have to talk about because yes, ICE isn't just you know affecting the Latin community in terms of kind of the rhetoric and mandate, there's other marginalized communities who are suffering at the hands of ICE, but it seems very targeted. And the fact that you can have a global superstar like Bad Bunny using his platform to speak and really making a difference, I think it's huge. Um, and I wish there's a lot more artists that would do the same on that scale because I know a lot of artists are using their platform, but it's it's about scalability of information and educating. And I wish these artists who are doing this now that we're dealing with the global consequences of Trump, all of us, whether we're in the States or not. But this also should set a precedent to using our voice before we enter these situations, and this is why I'm using my voice here on the podcast before we enter the situation of reform UK in the UK, because that will be catastrophic, catastrophic for humanity here in the UK as we know it. It's that serious. So when I'm talking about bad money and admiring how he's using his platform, I'm also taking the message in and listening to what he's saying in terms of what he's highlighting because we are walking down that road here in the UK with Reform UK. Please like educate yourself, understand your voting power and continue to understand the level of influence you have as a voter. I'm saying this as somebody who doesn't believe in voting, but I believe in not voting for Reform UK. So if I have to find Green Party, maybe I'm more aligned with, I'm going in that direction. But we have to, I understand that there has to be a strategy of voting because you can't have a large representation of Reform UK either. But with all the defections from previous MPs from both major parties, the Labour and the Tories, we are in a very precarious situation here in the UK. And if the US is a backdrop of anything, it's a warning sign of what we don't want to see operating here in the UK. I'm gonna round up this episode. Um, there was still some stuff I wanted to talk about about Apple and um Google Gemini, but I can leave that to like the next episode. Um, and there was also an article that I saw about clockwatching um in the world of work, but we can get into it in the in um the next episode of the Toy Talks podcast. But listen, I hope you've learned something more importantly. I hope this um conver these conversations on various topics hits your group chats. Share the podcast. Knowledge is power, but you have to be aware that the knowledge exists. So as much as I release podcast episodes, I am have I am hoping that the call to action is also people discovering the podcast organically, or you sharing the podcast, or you reposting my posts on social media that relate to the podcast. Because for me, it's it's not just knowledge being power, it's the awareness that that knowledge exists or that information exists. And I'm hoping that this podcast, this episode, feeds into that knowledge, feeds into that education. Because as much as I deliver it, I'm also learning when I'm scoping out this these episodes as well. So I'm hoping that that transcends and it's shared with you all. So please share, please re-t, re-repost, retweet. Follow me on social media, um, toy underscore washington or toy underscore talks. Um also on TikTok, Toy Washington, which is all one word. Um, please, please, please, you know, when you listen, if you can leave a comment on your podcast platform that you're listening to the podcast on because it helps me a lot. Um, and I enjoy the delivering the podcast. I enjoy educating, I enjoy learning. I have had also some um dilemmas as well that we'll be reading the next episode. I've responded to, but I will be reading here on the podcast because there is a lot going on in the world, and often, you know, I see emails that come through in the mailbox and I'm just worried. Um, but I am also happy that at least there is a safe space that we've created here on the Toy Tours platform where we could talk about various things, and whilst I talk about politics, I talk about um you know, entertainment, social things that are happening, it all leads back to the world of work because that's how we are affected by these things that are happening outside from outside the world of work. Anyway, I'm gonna leave it there. If you have a work-related or life-related dilemma, your anonymity will be protected. Email us the subject dilemma, email us at hello at toytalks.com. If you're interested in sponsoring an episode or you're interested in sponsoring um a brand, whatever it is, um, email hello at toytalks.com. I am considering in conversation with and open as long as it aligns with the ethos of what the Toy Talks podcast stands for. Um, thank you all for listening. Uh, I appreciate you all. Thank you for all your comments. Thanks for reaching out to me in the DMs and reminding me how important the podcast is to you, for you, and has been in your careers. My name is Toy Washington, and you have been listening to the Toy Talks Podcast.

SPEAKER_00 1:28:00

Let me show you how to navigate and elevate. That's what we do. Black queen, energy groom. No fantasy, just real talk. From classroom dreams to boardroom walk. Black woman power, watch it shine. Breaking barriers, redesigning time. From Tottenham Roads to CEO. Every step teaching what we know. Not just surviving but thriving more. Opening every closed door. Toya talks. Toya talks. Toya talks. Black queens to the top, and we're still going.