The Martlet - Issue 4 by Abingdon Publications

OPINION

How should you make your A-Level choices?

CHRISTMAS ISSUE

SOCIETY

Feminism: Is it just a woman’s fight?

TECH

Watch this space... Apple’s latest innovation

HUMOUR

Dudley’s (Christmas) Dilemma - presents for teachers?

Abingdon School’s Leading Newspaper

THE HONG KONG PROTESTS P.6

ISSUE 04

THE DOWNFALL OF MANCHESTER UNITED P.15

2015: All Change? COVER STORY

Sam Chambers and Nick Harris look into The Martlet’s crystal ball to predict what 2015 holds for the UK’s political parties.

Labour will be consigned to the political wilderness Labour’s prospects for the upcoming election are hardly strong. They are a party in turmoil, a situation which many supporters will have hoped had have blown over almost five years after their election loss in May 2010. Their primary problem is poor leadership. Whilst Ed Miliband may be respected by a few loyal supporters, even Labour’s most ardent followers in the North of the country and in Scotland question whether he is the man to lead them to an election victory. He is not a prime minister; it is as simple as that. His numerous mistakes and errors over the years have proved this and now he announces one proposal after another, trying to re-assert some control. If Labour are to have any hope

in the election after this one - there seems no way of them winning the 2015 vote - then Ed has to go. Their second problem is that Labour is no longer a party which is representative of the people. It has come a long way from the worker’s party it was supposed to have been at its first election in 1924. Now, most Labour MPs are the same public school educated London residents as those in the other parties. Labour was supposed to be a party which stood for the working class of this country. Now, they are pushing further and further right, trying to capture public opinion. But this movement has opened the door for many former loyal supporters, including those who have most likely voted Labour their whole lives, to jump ship and join Nigel Farage

and UKIP. Although Labour cannot see it, UKIP’s strict immigration policies are what some working class people want. They feel threatened by overseas immigration in terms of its effects on their own employment. This is what has led them to switch their support, facilitating the rise of UKIP. It is also why many of Labour’s former strongholds are very likely to be UKIP territory by the end of the next election. If they want a chance at being in power again, they need to become the party of the working man: then they might escape the political wilderness they presently find themselves in. The Liberal Democrats will face political annihilation The Liberal Democrats face a tough

2015. It will take a generation to come and go for the scandal over tuition fees to be forgotten. But this is not the only problem they are facing. They have the lowest ranked leader in the opinion polls in Nick Clegg (although Ed Miliband is giving him a run for his money), unclear policies after a poor term in coalition government and waning support in competitive constituencies as supporters look to join parties with more chance of winning. The Liberals have always faced the challenge of being a centre party, meaning that they have members on the left and members on the right. Those on the right have enjoyed a more successful term in power whereas those on the left have felt compromised Continued on next page

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

Letters

A letter from the Editor

elcome to the latest, festive edition of the Martlet. As our second issue already this year, we have been working extremely hard to provide the highest quality of writing so far, and I feel that we have achieved this. As ever, we cover a variety of different stories, both locally and globally. Our cover story is intriguing, as we review the political year and cast our eyes to the future in determining the individual parties’ prospects for 2015 (the General Election year). Our writers’ dedication to their pieces continues to amaze, with original pictures from the Hong Kong protests. We cover the Philae comet landing, an unbelievable scientific achievement. This sparked, among huge

congratulation, a further controversy over the shirt that one of the scientists was wearing: it is perhaps fitting then, that we also feature a piece on feminism. Following the UK’s end of its involvement in Afghanistan, we consider the legacy of this costly war. The ability of the Afghans to govern such a fractured society is questionable: have we left the door open for militant groups to take control? Is it a political move instead of a military one? School news is perhaps more difficult to come by, but we feature a topical debate about A-Level subject choices. The question as to whether you should choose interests over money or vice versa is an interesting one, and hopefully this piece helps you to make up your own

COVER STORY

2015: All Change? in their partnership with the Tories. All of this aside, what the Liberals now need is to distance themselves from the last five years as much as possible. The most important change to be made is, of course, leadership. Nick Clegg has been made the biggest political joke in recent history. Even when he tries to apologise for his mistakes, mocking videos emerge on the internet. Even if the party gives him until after the election, in an effort to help him save face, he must go soon if the Liberal Democrats are not to fall into political obscurity. They also need to re-define their image, bring in new people, change their shadow cabinet, anything that can be done to put as many miles between them and the mockery of a government that they helped run over the last four and half years. The Conservatives will win again As the party currently in power, the Tories look like the favourites to win this next election and have another five years at the helm of Britain. During Cameron’s tenure, they have done a good job of stimulating economic growth and getting over a million previously unemployed people into work. However, they could have done significantly better if they were not stuck with the Liberal Democrats who, due to their more centrist policies, have limited the amount of freedom Cameron and his Cabinet have had. The decline of the Liberal Democrats is good news for the Conserva-

tives as they can compromise on fewer issues and govern effectively. Their support base has traditionally been the middle and upper classes but the number of party members has been on the up over the past year and arguably peaking at the right time for a general election. The Tories’ increase in support is as a result of factors such as encouraging the creation of small businesses, tax breaks for married couples and capping welfare to reduce the strain taxpayer. However, one of the main reasons for a likely Conservative victory is the weaknesses of Labour. As previously mentioned, Labour is in a somewhat sticky patch; they are arguably their own worst enemy as internal mistakes are costing them dearly in the public image. In this election, without the restraints of a coalition, the Tories can really spread their wings and go further right than the current government at the moment. This would allow them to contest more seats with a viable chance of winning and further consolidating their southern ‘strongholds’. Labour will still be the main opposition if the Conservatives win the next election, but another previously unseen faction will rear its ugly head. UKIP. UKIP will continue their rise but it won’t last forever The UK Independence Party are the party of the moment. They are often branded as ‘racist’ and used as a protest vote by many Labour and Conservative

mind. The House Singing competition is dissected and reviewed, the eternal injustice of the result questioned. The diversity of articles in the second half of the paper is amazing. Social media, the new Apple Watch, Game of Thrones and Christmas consumerism are all targeted by our writers. In terms of sport, we manage to cover four different disciplines in as many pages. We pit the two rugby codes against each other, discuss the decline of Manchester

United and safety in F1 and attempt to answer the question over Sportsmen’s pay. Concluding our Christmas issue is the ever-entertaining Dudley, and our Quiz has a Christmas upgrade. It is amazing that we seem to shorten the length of time needed to make The Martlet every issue, without compromising any of the quality of our articles. In fact, I think that we just keep getting better and better, and I hope you enjoy the latest fantastic edition.

supporters. Why? Because they see UKIP as a real threat. Recent events give the Tories cause for concern. They were the largest British party in the recent EU parliamentary elections receiving 27.5% of the vote and have 24 Members of the European Parliament (MEP’s). This, combined with their obtaining major party status in March 2014, has actually made them a genuine force to be reckoned with in British politics. UKIP are party number three after the Tories and Labour as a result of their increasing support in the UK (evident in the aforementioned European Elections). All this is happening while the Liberal Democrats are going in the opposite direction. Opinion polls place them firmly below UKIP in terms of public backing and Nick Clegg is viewed almost as David Cameron’s PA. So why has UKIP had such a surge in popularity? Frustration. People are tired of and frustrated by the larger parties making false promises on prominent issues, immigration in particular. Immigrants have been the standard scapegoat since the Middle Ages, but with a net migration of 250,000 people arriving on our shores last year, there is a cause for concern. The large parties have failed to do anything because of the EU agreement that gives all citizens freedom of movement. UKIP would leave the EU and hence be free to do as it pleases on the immigration front. However, UKIP will not be a major party for the foreseeable future. They do not care much for matters outside Europe. This means they can focus on policies that affect the people of Britain on a daily basis, rather than foreign affairs. Airstrikes halfway around the world, you could argue, don’t affect us that much. However, changes at home

do, and that’s the tack UKIP are taking in this election. It is ironic how, even though they’re going opposite ways, UKIP are reminiscent of the 2010 Lib Dems. All the fuss made about them amounted to very little in 2010. Will 2015 be a success for Farage’s purple people, or is he just using it as an excuse to have a free pint wherever he goes? The SNP’s struggle will continue. The SNP’s contrast in fortunes with UKIP couldn’t be greater. Their defeat in the Referendum cost Alex Salmond his job, with leadership being taken over by Nicola Sturgeon. Whilst UKIP’s stock is on the rise, the momentum gained from the Scottish Referendum campaign seems to be seeping away from Sturgeon’s party, and they are set to battle a beleagured Labour in the 2015 election. Whilst the leadership has changed hands, it isn’t all doom and gloom - Labour are struggling too, giving the SNP hope of a majority in Scotland by next May after the complete collapse of Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats. Could this be the year when the SNP (albeit an SNP that is struggling internally) kick the Big Three out of Scotland? The Green’s gain The Green Party have enjoyed a highly successful end to the year. Membership has doubled to over 23,000, and 2014 saw a total increase of 66%. In November, the Greens outpolled the Liberal Democrats for the first time in history before a General Election, perhaps a sign of things to come. With the political landscape of the UK breaking up, is the 2015 election the perfect opportunity for the Greens to break through?

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

News

Comet Hale

Rosetta spacecraft and landing probe

SCIENCE

One Step Closer to What’s Out There Toby Collins explores the Rosetta space mission.

fter 10 years and more than 6 billion kilometres, the Rosetta spacecraft finally caught up to Comet 67P on the 6th August 2014. Once it caught the comet, the craft successfully managed to enter its orbit. Next, the craft released a landing probe which landed on the comet on the 12th November. Since both of these aims were a success, the probe has started to relay information to a team of scientists in Darmstadt in Germany. This mission has been assisted by 2,000 people and cost one billion euros, or 800 million pounds. It has followed years of testing and multiple fly-bys but the landing was a huge success, breaking five records so far. It is the first craft to pass through the main asteroid belt; the first craft to pass close to Jupiter’s orbit using solar cells as its power source; the first craft to orbit a comet; the first craft to fly alongside a comet to the inner solar system and it also obtained the first images of a comet surface. The probe has now landed, but it wasn’t without incident. Mission Control looked for a landing spot on the comet once the Rosetta craft was in orbit and eventually picked a suitable site. It was flat and in the light of the sun so that the probe could recharge using its solar

panels. This landing site was called site J or Agilkia. The probe was set to land at

The landing wasssisted by 2000 people and cost one billion euros

this point where harpoons would launch through the feet of the probe and allow it to stick to the comet. But in reality, the probe touched down so well that the harpoons didn’t launch as they didn’t sense enough pressure. This meant that the probe didn’t actually land, but bounced instead. This created a period of uncertainty as no one knew what had happened, and the future of the mission was in doubt. It wasn’t until two hours later when the probe finally landed again that the scientists knew the probe had bounced.

Rosetta landing site, Agilkia

There was then a second bounce period of seven minutes before the probe came to a halt. This bounce was not without consequence as the probe landed away from the intended site. This means that recharging could be a problem and the harpoons have not properly latched onto the comet, leaving Mission Control in doubt about how stable Rosetta actually is. The team have a suspected location for the comet but it is hard to be sure and recent photos show the probe to be near the edge of a cliff. This means that Mission Control are still worried and are waiting to see how it fares over time. We know that the Rosetta mission has been a huge success but are we any closer to knowing about what is out there? The aim of the mission was not only to orbit the comet but to land on it and collect data. This is done through its onboard laboratory and then the data is sent back to the mission base. The probe takes pictures and measures the structure of the comet and the thermal, surface and subsurface properties. The probe can then send information back to mission control via radio waves which take about two hours to reach Darmstadt. This means that the data received by the probe can be further analysed on earth

and the conditions of the comet and its structure compared to what we already know. Although the probe has now landed, there has been no data released other than photos. So, can we say that we are closer to knowing what’s out there? Well, Mission Control now have the details of the comet coming through and are analysing them to see what they can find out. On top of that, we know that we have the

A huge success, breaking five records so far

ability to land on comets and our travel radius is continuously increasing. In the grand scheme of things, although this is the first step, we are still a long way off what we hope to achieve in space. Could we harness the minerals of the comet or even energy from it? Can we go still further than this in the future? It seems we are on the verge of finding out.

News

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

House Singing: SCHOOL

The Great Injustice Patrick Cole once again risks life, limb, and the wrath of competitive housemasters to bring us his candid review of this year’s House Singing.

ell here we are again; it’s always such a pleasure! The only chance for all the houses to come together in a fun and different competition that many people love and many people love to hate has been and gone. Whilst some describe it as ‘pointless’, ‘oppressive’ and ‘wasteful’, others see it as ‘an important item of the school’s calendar’. I am of course referring to the infamous House Singing Competition, which was, apparently this year, also the House Clicking, Instrumental Solo and Vague Arm Movement Competition. Our adjudicator this year was Mr Alexander L’Estrange, a composer, singer/songwriter and musician who said that above all what he was looking for was a performance that grabbed the attention of the audience and held it. As ever, we were off to a flying start with the Christodoulou’s rehearsal - I mean School House. With a high energy to blue shirt ratio, School were an excellent way to kick off the competition, and the adjudicator said of School that they had ‘good variety’. Next up, we had the amusing Crescent with a dance captain instead of a conductor, whose style of conducting

was highly entertaining to watch. The house overall were highly energetic and enjoyable, however the arm movements in the chorus were a little peculiar, albeit amusing. The adjudicator thought that there was room for a lot more movement, but their smiles really made the performance. Following them, we had Davies who were one of the only houses to actually pull off the falsetto, something the adjudicator picked up on. He also thought they were ‘tight and energetic’. In my view, they were entertaining and lively, however it was at this point that I had to run to find my house, so I unfortunately missed out on the end of their performance. The next performance, being that of my own house, I am unable to review without succumbing to bias. However, members of the audience I talked to said it had ‘good drums’ and that they ‘always hated that song anyway,’ so clearly, we were amazing! To wrap up the first half was the solo-rific Christodoulou’s House. A fun performance, with a dramatic parting of the crowd in the middle to accommodate for their soloist taking centre stage and the conductor throwing the baton away in favour of a violin. The

adjudicator said that the instrumental solos were great to hear and the soloists did a great job. He didn’t say anything about the house as a whole, perhaps an indication of their quality! After the interval, it was last year’s winners: Franklin’s. This year they continued the tradition of singing a high song low with a new addition of falsetto which was attempted by everyone, regardless of whether or not they were physically able. As usual, they stood in their trademark military square, but they were together musically as well as physically. We then had Cotton’s, who I know always love a sceptical review. Unfortunately, they were really good, so I can’t find anything to be rude about! They were true to the original, their ‘soloists’ were used in brilliant counterpoint and the clicking gave the whole performance a third dimension. Next up to the plate was Southwell-Sanders who were the most precise with the dress code I have ever seen: no tie was out of place, a teacher wore a green jumper and one boy even had a green cast! They were clearly a team in this competition and sang as one. I’m still bemused by the dog, but if it was an inside joke to produce a

smile then it worked! True to the motif of this year’s event, they too attempted falsetto, and it seemed as though everyone actually pulled it off. Webb’s were next. Their song was instrumentally really strong but there were a couple of occasions when I questioned whether everyone was singing. This was another good example of unorthodox conducting, but hey, if it works! Finally, we had the ever tiny (with a few large exceptions) Lower School. Their song, as always, had a different feeling to all the others, but it was not necessarily better. This was probably due to the fact that it sounded an octave higher (two octaves when the harmony came in). I always rank Lower School higher than the adjudicator does but, then, as you have seen from this article, I clearly know nothing. The final results were then tallied up before a rather lengthy speech, many a round of applause and a rather handsome trophy. The final result ended with a Southwell-Sander’s win with Cotton’s and Franklin’s taking second and third respectively. Reviewing my notes, I was surprised that my house didn’t win. It was at that point I realised we had no drums…

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

Debate

Head or Heart? SCHOOL

As Abingdon’s Fifth Form choose their A-level options, Blake Jones and Toby Jupp debate the pros and cons of different approaches to making those all important decisions.

Follow your passion

n life, should you choose morality or money? Happiness or success? When it comes to academic studies, do you pick what interests you or what will be of most use to you? Different dilemmas arise over our lifetimes, but one of the first decisions which has a real bearing on your life is what subjects you choose at A-level, and later on, what you read at university. The question divides into two main areas of consideration: should you study the subjects you love or the subjects that will be most useful to you? The obvious answer is what will be most useful to you and what you enjoy most, but the decision between the two is most challenging. I propose that choosing to study what you love is the way forward. The essential things to consider in choosing subjects is the level of hard work required for a good grade, and your own motivation for studying them, though these are not the only deciding factors. What you get out of a subject is proportional to the work you put in. An A* is an A* and for some courses it does indeed matter what that A* is in, yet for an employer an A* in Ancient History is more impressive than a B in Chemistry. Furthermore, at university level,

ou can’t always, as nice as it would be, choose with your heart. And when you are thinking about things as important as your future career, you need to think ahead and be practical. In life, there are always going to be things that you have to do that you did not want to. You need to choose your A-levels with your future in mind rather than what you currently enjoy: happiness doesn’t pay the bills. Some subjects only offer advantages to very few professions. Sciences are often only mandatory for Medicine and Engineering, so if you’re sure you don’t want to go into those careers then you don’t necessarily need to choose them. If you are considering studying Music or Drama, ask yourself: am I convinced I want to go into entertainment? Choose the subjects you enjoy, yes, but only if they are going to help you. If you have no idea whatsoever what it is that you want to do (which is absolutely fine), perhaps spread your selection. Be proactive and choose a subject that will set you out from the crowd: choose

Blake Jones explains why you should only chose the subjects you love. the most fundamental requirement is passion for the subject, especially at top universities. The reason for this is simple: without passion it is very unlikely that you will be able to keep up with the work demanded by the course. For a course which might create better job opportunities but is less interesting to you, you would most likely have to go to a less distinguished university. When an employer is hiring for a job and is faced with two candidates, provided that the job does not rely on particular knowledge from a degree, the one who has the degree in a less ‘useful’ subject but from a higher university is more likely to get the job than someone with a more ‘useful’ degree but from a less established university. The passion you have for your subjects is mirrored by how successful you are in your future. Studying anything at all increases your academic abilities in general and gives you skills which can be applied to many careers, so you may as well do what you love. If what you study is very obscure there is probably a job which you can happily do. If such an opportunity should arise, take it as a blessing. All A-levels and university courses increase knowledge in one area or another. A.E.

Housman, Classical scholar and poet, once wrote, ‘All human knowledge is precious whether or not it serves the slightest human use.’ So if all knowledge is useful, take the bountiful opportunities you have and study the subjects that you truly want to study. Above all, the quality and success you have with your subject depends on your passion for it. If you truly love a subject, that passion shines through in the work you do for it. Perhaps it is more noticeable in an English essay than in a Science paper. The unending love you have for a subject will make the work more interesting and innovative, more thought-provoking and poetic, more riveting and full of real opinions. If you are worried about your future, remember that for the subjects you love you will produce a better quality of work, and achieving high grades should look after you in your future. The Martlet asked members of the school how they felt about making this decision: ‘There’s no doubt that since 2008 and the financial crisis, people have felt less secure and more inclined to make choices based on utility rather than “love”. But life is a long game, and as David Mitchell

reminded us on his recent visit, it is surely still OK at this stage to try something you absolutely love, regardless of whether it leads to a secure job. In any case, how many of those are there these days? Better surely to be passionately interested in something and give it your all rather than go through the motions in something “safe” because you - or someone close to you - thinks you should.’ – Mr Taylor, Head of Drama ‘Jim Carrey says, “I learned many great lessons from my father, not the least of which was that you can fail at what you don’t want, so you might as well take a chance on what you love.” I would always advise choosing a subject that you love. If you have a genuine passion for a subject you will inevitably enjoy the process of learning more, be more open to working outside your comfort zone and taking risks.’ - Mrs O’Doherty, Head of Art and Design ‘It is a no-brainer to choose the subjects that you feel passionate about. As you are going to need to spend such a great amount of time studying them, you need to choose what you are going to enjoy doing. Utility is almost a dirty word in education.’ – Dr Burnand, Head of Scholars and Classics

Choose with your head

Toby Jupp explains why it is important to be practical. something like Latin or Modern Languages, or maybe something completely leftfield such as Business, Economics, Politics or Philosophy. Choose things that are going to make employers interested in you. Perhaps more importantly, choose subjects to help you get into a good university. So yes, choose subjects that you are good at, obviously, but don’t choose only on that basis because otherwise you could find locked doors when looking at one of your preferred careers. For example, if you chose Geography, because it is your favourite subject, over Maths but had long-term ambitions to be an accountant or in the financial sector you could be left with regrets. Besides that, there are two other things to consider: time and money. These are two of the keys to happiness. Money won’t buy you happiness, but it often leads to a better lifestyle. You need other things besides money of course, but if you have lots of it - life will become easier. I am NOT saying to choose Law or other high-paid professions just to earn money, but when you make your A-Level choices

you need to think: “Am I going to make any money out of this?” If your answer is no, and it bothers you little then that is fine. But if this does bother you, then you need to choose something that will lead to a job that pays relatively well. Some people want less money than others, and are still extremely happy, but don’t do something that won’t earn you enough to give you satisfaction. Money is very important, there is no getting away from that. Even though there are many other important things in life, few come close to this; it must be taken into careful consideration. The other aspect is time. The importance of this will vary for different people; some will relish the prospect of bringing their work home if they are passionate about their job. Most, however, will probably want a clear barrier between work and home. So don’t tie yourself down to a career without thinking about this carefully. If you decide to be a solicitor but the working hours (they often have to work at weekends and evenings) don’t suit you, you don’t want to think, “If only I hadn’t burnt those bridges!” Nowadays,

people change career about three times on average. Time is crucial if you are someone who wants to raise a family. You want to be flexible, which is a major reason to be sensible and think with your head. Yes, narrow your options, but also choose subjects that give you the flexibility for two, three or four career paths. Therefore, you must listen to your head in choosing suitable A-Level options. So unless you are at least 99.99% sure of your career, it is necessary to think with one’s head. Certainly, risks will need to be taken, but at the moment it isn’t necessary. It is perhaps more naïve to believe fully in the cliché, “Money doesn’t buy you happiness” than to think the opposite. The subjects to choose are ones that give you a mix (unless absolutely sure of profession) of facilitating, well-regarded subjects such as History, Maths, English and Science, and some different ones to make you stand out such as Classics, Economics or Languages. Give yourself flexibility, variety and identity - choose with your head, not your heart. Because usually, your head is right.

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

World News OPINION

Give 'Em Enough Rope:

The Hong Kong Pro-democracy Protests Michael Man argues that argues that the pro-democracy protests do more harm than good. All Photos by Michael Man

Protesters walk over a banner of the city’s leader - CY Leung. On his face are the words “I want universal suffrage”, indicating the city’s desire for real elections in 2017.

t’s been just over a month since the people of Hong Kong came out onto the streets campaigning for democracy. Naturally western media is biased in favour of democracy, showing the world the best of the protests, the worst of the Hong Kong Police and that democracy is ultimately beneficial to the former British colony. However for Hong Kong to weather this storm, it must come to terms with the gruelling fact that democracy is not ideal for this Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. Student activist Joshua Wong is one of the student leaders of the Occupy Movement. Despite attempts by Time and The Economist to glorify him as the liberator of an oppressed people under a tyrannical government, he is a short, unflattering 18 year old boy who speaks with a fiery emotion. Faced with the cameras of his over-eager supporters,

his character shrinks back to a size proportional to his short stature, smiling awkwardly as his knees momentarily

ic requirement to get into the city’s universities, or that he led a group of students to raid the government head-

Democracy is not ideal for this Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

give way when his picture is taken. Foreign media seems to have also ignored that he scraped the minimum academ-

quarters that sparked the protests - a clear disruption of social order. Infatuated with the belief that he is right, it is

no surprise that Wong fails to grasp the fact that neither the Hong Kong government nor China, with a population of 1.4 billion and an infamous record of violent crackdowns on student protests, will kowtow to a handful of student leaders. Another student activist, Alex Chow, was invited to appear on a local English television talk show a few months before the Occupy Movement started. Host Michael Chugani confronted him with the fact that agreements between Britain and China over Hong Kong’s handover are still being upheld by China. The region’s democracy and personal freedoms are preserved, with Hong Kong clearly remaining a semi-autonomous region within China, with its own passport and judicial system. Chow was completely wrong-footed, and summoned the last of his limited English to admit that he was confused by Chugani.

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

An Occupy supporter rallies the crowd with a loudspeaker.

A police constable forms part of a police cordon, seperating the public from a new barriacade in Mong Kok.

Connaught Road Protest Camp in Admiralty at night. Chow then went on to suggest that freedom of press was actually being corroded, a claim that Chugani (who is also a freelance writer for the city’s major English newspaper the South China Morning Post) swatted down with enjoyment. Again, it is unsurprising that one month later, when the protests were in full swing, Chow emerged as a character who rallied the people under the claims that China was eroding Hong Kong’s democracy completely. These are the student leaders of Hong Kong’s Pro-democracy Movement: arrogant and indulged with the fantasy that democracy would solve the city’s many problems - such as high housing prices and unemployment overnight. As for the people that they lead, they tell tourists how corrupt the government is, and refer to the city’s leader - the Chief Executive CY Leung as “the president” to foreign journalists.

Perhaps this might be a case of poor English proficiency, but if they genuinely believe that one of Asia’s most law-abiding governments is “corrupt”, they do not grasp the real political situation and are just blindly regurgitating what the protest leaders are saying. Well then, what right do they have to occupy main roads for the sake of a democracy they know only in name? These are a group of people that believe civil disobedience is a mere game, played at the expense of wider society and at game’s end would happily hand themselves in to police. They defy laws and court orders as they see fit. They achieve nothing but polarise society in a detrimental way. Caught between the two sides are the Hong Kong Police. International media have not been sympathetic to the Police, framing them as a tool used by the government to oppress peaceful demonstrators. In fact, to quote the

An elderly supporter of the protests with a placard. Force’s Public Relations Officer, the police have been using ‘minimum force’. When faced with hundreds of protesters filling the streets, tear gas was used, invoking strong criticism. In hindsight, it was ironically an ethical decision as the effects of tear gas would be more temporary than the other more lethal methods of crowd control. When compared to other riot police around the world, the Hong Kong Police are indeed using ‘minimum force’. Despite being incriminated and taunted by protestors, the officers have carried out their duties with no political inclination, maintaining public order and protecting individuals regardless of their political stance. During the only press appearance of the city’s police commissioner, he condemns the protestors, stating that if the organisation upholding the law is ignored, the rule of law would subsequently be undermined. Rightly

said: it is this that maintains the clear distinction from mainland China. As the protest stretches into its second month, the question is no longer whether or not democracy is good for Hong Kong. The city has a misconception that democracy is the best, with a society believing so strongly in their own views that they feel justified in committing illegal activity against the government. The real problem is Hong Kong’s relationship with China. For the past two months, China has been looming over Hong Kong. As a result of the daily communiques detailing the region’s protests, the Chinese leadership could now be convinced that a tougher stance towards Hong Kong is needed. As the pro-democracy protests continue, China is merely giving the people of Hong Kong enough rope, patiently biding its time for an opportunity to strike back.

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

Society

Feminism - whose fight is it? OPINION

Is Feminism just a woman’s fight? Tom Foster and Charlie Landells think they have the answer.

or those of you who may be unsure, the driving force behind Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. So this would include seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment, and stems from legitimate inequalities between the two genders. But in this new era of widespread Feminism, do those people who don the label of ‘feminist’ really understand the meaning of equality? Or have they forgotten that there’s another gender involved? Many people who label themselves as feminists, if you asked them, would not know the origin of the movement. ‘First wave’ Feminism actually originates from the late 1960s, and stemmed from unequal pay in the working world between men and women. In 1970, the Equal Pay Act was passed, and appeared to solve the fundamental issue. It could be argued that Feminism originated from the Suffragettes, when women began to protest against their lack of right to vote in the late 19th and early 20th century. However, if you asked many ‘Feminists’ today what they were campaigning for, we’d place good money on it being neither for the vote nor pay, especially considering that Marilyn French, a published feminist author, has been quoted saying ‘All men are rapists, and that’s all they are’. Is Feminism a fixed concept? And if so, has it been misinterpreted? Some of the more volatile, vocal, feminists might come across as strong, whilst holding little (or arguably no)

substance to their argument and in some, if not most cases, do not even understand the cause they fight for. People like this usually make a point, and then go out to find evidence for it, instead of forming the point from pre-existing evidence. For example, in October a young woman in New York made a video entitled, 10 hours of walking in NYC as a woman. In the video, she attempts to make the point that men are ‘stare-raping’ her, and being perverted and derogatory toward her appearance. But when watching the video, we’re

each video, two actors, a man and a woman, would swap roles of the abused and the abuser in two different scenarios, all done and recorded in public. When the woman hits her “boyfriend”, there is no reaction from the public, some passers by even laugh and stop to watch. However, when the man hits his “girlfriend”, there is public outrage. People threaten to call the police, restrain the man on the ground, and the woman is even led away in one case, being told she is an “independent woman” and she doesn’t “need to stand for that sh*t”, even though 44%

All men are rapists and that’s all they are - Marilyn French sure we’re joined by many others when we say that a good majority of the men were not doing this at all. Most were simply saying “Hello” or “Have a lovely evening”, which this woman does not respond to. If anything, she was being incredibly rude; these men were trying to wish her a good day or likewise, and she ignored all greetings, instead claiming they were ‘perving’ on her. In addition to this, ‘extreme’ Feminists tend to miss the fact that men also have inequalities in the men vs. women debate. An array of viral videos surrounding the topic of domestic abuse brought this to light for many people. In

of all domestic abuse is against men, a statistic recently found by a study co-ordinated by Scotland Yard. At the time this really outraged men, because many feminists continuously see women as the only ones who are hard-done-by. But in its original concept, Feminism talks about equality, and in my opinion, true ‘equality’ goes both ways. When Feminism is understood as a two-way street, it’s a great thing for today’s society and we believe that equality is an essential concept in life. Recently, the actress Emma Watson, best known for her portrayal of Hermione Granger in Harry Potter, gave a speech

in her new job as Goodwill Ambassador for UN Women talking about how some aspects Feminism have gone too far. To quote directly from her speech, ‘fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating’. For us, it’s important that she had recognised that in some cases Feminists had seemed to have lost the idea of what they are really fighting for. She goes on to mention how in order for the idea of Feminism to be truly implemented across the world, Men need to be involved as well. She says ‘that in order for gender equality to be achieved, harmful and destructive stereotypes of and expectations for masculinity have got to change’. We can’t speak on your behalf, but for us, we think it is extremely important that Feminists consider that it won’t just take 50% of the population being involved to truly resolve the issue at hand. And so, by stating that feminism can’t just be a one way street, we believe that we as a population can finally attack the problem at hand, and in turn eradicate it. At this current point, it seems that the very foundation of Feminism, that being equality, has been lost. Many women see the battle for equality as their fight and no-one else’s, some continuously making campaigns and messages targeting the male gender, forgetting that many want to join the fight for equality. Their attitude to men is not at all productive toward this cause of equality, by generalising and disregarding them as ‘rapists’. For Feminism to actually work, the assumption that all men are ‘rapists’ and ‘pigs’ needs to change, and both genders have to work together to achieve the objective of equality.

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

World News OPINION

Afghanistan: Feat or Folly? Nick Harris assesses the successes and failures of the British mission.

n the 27th October 2014, the United Kingdom and the United States officially ended all combat missions in Afghanistan. This thirteen year war, which started as a result of the 9/11 attacks, has become a constant for my generation, having grown up as it was being fought. But, with the withdrawal of troops in the last few months, the war has come under scrutiny as to its success in improving the quality of life for the people of Afghanistan. For me, critics of the war are missing the big picture; many positive changes have been made in Afghanistan. Just after the fall of the Taliban in November 2001, Kabul could be compared to a post-war Dresden and, in many ways, the entire country could have been a close parallel to post-war Germany. Its government and infrastructure had been utterly destroyed, millions had fled the country and thousands of towns and villages were wracked with poverty. However, since then, thousands of women have been introduced to education and the refugees have returned to ample new jobs created by their new, democratically-elected government. The idea of voting in an election would have seemed alien for the people of Afghanistan 15 years ago. Furthermore, life-expectancy for the average Afghan has now increased significantly from 18. Much of the business and infrastructure which was lost under the Taliban regime has now been rebuilt, and in many cases improved upon. Moreover, improvements have been made to our own armed forces; when we arrived in Afghanistan, we were woefully ill-equipped for the kind of modern war that we will have to face nowadays. Our soldiers were driving Land Rover

British forces in Afghanistan

The union flag is lowered for the last time at Camp Bastion Defenders, nicknamed the ‘mobile coffin’, and for good reason; a soldier driving over an IED in one of these deathtraps would have been condemned immediately. But, in 2012, the first of the MoD’s new Foxhound vehicles arrived

much more efficient and useful weapon for the future. This is an answer to those who say this has been a waste of money and resources for the British Army. On the contrary, the Army has been vastly improved in many areas from standard

Critics of the war are missing the big picture bearing sophisticated armour to protect against IEDs and roadside bombs. Vast improvements have also been made to the standard issue SA80 Rifle which has gone from being plagued with jamming and, in some cases, simply falling apart. It has been transformed as well to a

issue weapons to the vehicles they drive. Perhaps the biggest issue for me, however, is that the Taliban have not been expunged from the country. We have never fully vanquished them and leaving the Afghan National Army in charge of the security of a country in

such a precarious situation is certainly a worry since ANA is a force using weapons cobbled together from the Soviet-era. Critics of the war would say that this is our greatest failure; we have not left behind a country which this under-equipped and under-trained force can protect. The true reason that Western forces have withdrawn from Afghanistan is because of electoral pressure rather than because the job which has been finished. The war has only been slightly less unpopular than the Iraq War and the politician who calls for an end to it will obviously see it as a significant boon to their election campaigns - particularly David Cameron with the General Election coming next May. It is impossible to say at this moment if the government left behind will be able to cope with the pressure they will face following international withdrawal, but what can be said is that if the Taliban attempted to retake power in the next few months then there would be many who would not have faith in the ANA to stop them. So what can we say about the war in overall? As I touched upon earlier, vast improvements have been made to the country itself as long as our own armed forces. But as I say, I do not think now is a suitable time for us to withdraw. With Islamist extremism on the rise around the world thanks to groups such as ISIS this could rejuvenate Taliban efforts in Afghanistan. And whilst I am not saying that we should have kept troops there indefinitely, I question whether we have left the country in a fit state for it to survive on its own. So yes, the war in Afghanistan was worth the cost. But are the improvements made in Afghanistan enough for it to exist without Western support?

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

World News

The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) assumed national administration on the evening of 22 May 2014

Thailand: OPINION

The truth speaks

Pawin ‘Pea’ Sermsuk explores the history of his homeland, one of the world’s most coup-prone countries.

Protests broke out onto the streets of Bangkok

n the evening of 22 May 2014, the Commander of the Royal Thai Army, General Prayuth Chan-ocha, announced, through a televised address, that the armed forces were assuming control of national administration, formally launching a coup d’état against the caretaker government and establishing the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) to rule the state. The council declared martial law and a nationwide curfew; banning all types of political gatherings. Not long after the coup was launched, politicians and anti-coup activists were arrested, internet censorship was imposed, and all the media in the country were taken over. The coup was the 13th since the end of absolute monarchy in 1932, making Thailand one of the world’s most coup-prone countries. Thailand’s long and complicated story of coups dates back to the Siamese Revolution of 1932, a crucial turning point for Siam (the original name of Thailand) that changed the government system from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. It ended 150 years of absolutism under the Chakri Dynasty and almost 700 years of absolute rule of kings over Thai history, resulting in the people of Siam being granted their first constitution. After the revolution, the people of the country expressed their power in democracy through demonstrations which resulted in coups and crises towards the country. In 1976, the Thammasat Univer-

and critics accused him of corruption and autocratic rule. The people of Thailand are split into two groups. The red shirts, formally known as the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), have a focus of campaigning for Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Members are mainly rural workers from outside Bangkok. But the red-shirt ranks also include students, left-wing activists and some business people who see attempts by the urban and military elite to control Thai politics as a threat to democracy. Like the reds, it was Thaksin Shinawatra that initially united the yellow-shirt camp. The yellow shirts are a loose group made up of royalists, ultra-nationalists and the urban middle class, also known as the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD). The utterly-opposed Thaksin accused Mr Shinawatra of corruption and the abuse of power. Street protests by the yellow shirts in Bangkok in 2006 attracted tens of thousands of people, shutting the capital down, and on 19 September 2006, after 5 years under Thaksin government, the army staged a coup d’état, withdrawing Thaksin and his party from the government, causing the main government to collapse. Chamlong Srimuang, who introduced Thaksin into this powerful politics world, expressed an utmost regret at getting “such a corrupt person” into politics. The 2006 coup seemed as if it was the end of Thaksin absolutism, but the fact was that it was far from over. After the coup, the Supreme Court stripped the Shinawatra family of 50bn THB (£910m)

sity Massacre became one of the most significant event in history. A demonstration lead by students from various universities against the return to Thailand of former military dictator Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn led to a deadly battle between the army and civilians. The attack on students and protesters that occurred on the campus of Thammasat University resulted as the death of 46 students and civilians, and 167 others wounded. In the late 90s, politicians in Thailand

villagers, promising them unrealistic campaigns to support their businesses. The majority of the population voted in favour of him, and in 2001, he swept into the prime minister’s office, narrowly defeating the Democrats. He introduced a range of policies to lessen rural poverty; highly popular, they helped reduce poverty by half in four years. Next, he embarked on several programs of investment for the country as well as infrastructure investment for roads, public transit, and

The Siamese Revolution of 1932 ended almost 700 years of absolute rule of kings over Thai history started to see the wide gap between the rich and the poor people in the society. The majority of the people in Thailand are in fact farmers and lower-class workers in need for money to support their businesses and careers. As a newcomer to the territory, telecommunications billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra stepped in and rapidly became well-known to the people of Thailand. He built his political power on policies popular with Thailand’s rural

Suvarnabhumi Airport. Nevertheless, public sector debt fell from 57% of GDP in January 2001 to 41% in September 2006. In addition, levels of corruption were perceived to have fallen along with an improvement in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, which mirrors a strong development in the politics world. His success ruffled a lot of feathers among the country’s established elites,

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

Ex Deputy Prime Minister of Thailand and protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban

since October 2013, and remained in the city until the coup in May in contested assets, over allegations of corruption and conflict of interest, but he remains determined to play a leading role in Thailand. The new rulers, led by General Sonthi Boonyaratglin and organised in a Council for Democratic Reform (CDR), issued a declaration on the 21st September setting out their reasons for taking power and giving a commitment to restore democratic government within one year. They later appointed retired General Surayud Chulanont as Premier. Elections were held on 23rd of December 2007, after a military-appointed tribunal outlawed the Thai Rak Thai party of Thaksin Shinawatra and banned TRT executives from contesting in elections for 5 years. Thaksin was still determined to take control over Thailand and, from Dubai, he formed the People’s Power Party in 2007, and with the support of the Red Shirts and the rural villagers, the majority of the population, the People’s Power Party was elected prime minister once, and was appointed by the House of Representatives once more, both in 2008, which led to even more protests by the yellow shirts. In December 2008, the Constitutional Court found the ruling party, led by Mr Thaksin’s allies, guilty of electoral fraud and banned it. The People’s Power Party was dissolved, and Abhisit Vejjajiva from the Democrats was appointed Prime Minister of Thailand by the House of Representatives. The English-born, Oxford-educated Prime Minister, Abhisit, remained the Prime Minister of Thailand through to

the rest of this term, despite the red-shirted opposition protesters marched on Bangkok, and in July 2011, a general election was held in the country. Abhisit’s main rival, Yingluck Shinawatra, a former businesswoman, was following as prime minister in the footsteps of her wellknown brother, tycoon-turned-politician Thaksin Shinawatra. She performed well on the campaign trail - people seemed to warm to her, and in the election, the same voters who had put her brother in

Tycoon-turned-politician Thaksin Shinawatra (right) with his sister Yingluck (left) long-standing claims that her government is in fact controlled by her brother. As a result, protesters returned to the streets, revealing Thailand’s bitter divisions yet again. It was the Yingluck government’s proposed political amnesty bill that provided the trigger for the protests. Opponents said it was intended to facilitate the return of Mr Thaksin to Thailand. Within a month, Suthep Thaugsuban, a former Thai deputy prime minister, resigned

The Supreme Court has stripped the Shinawatra family of 50bn THB (£910m) in contested assets power backed the Pheu Thai party, which formed a ruling coalition. Yingluck became Thailand’s first female prime minister when she led the Pheu Thai party to victory in the July 2011 general election. Under Yingluck’s authority, Thailand savour relative stability for just over two years. But unfortunately failed an attempt to pass a political amnesty bill in November 2013 leading to a return of simmering tensions, facing

from the opposition Democrat Party to lead protests aimed at dislodging Thailand’s government. He said the demonstrations “will not stop until Thaksin’s regime is wiped out.” His main supporters are among the urban elites and middle class, most of which centres in Bangkok. Together, they form the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC).The ultimate goal of the PDRC was to have the Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra

resign from the government for good. They achieved their goal when Yingluck and nine other senior ministers were removed from office by Constitutional Court on 7th May 2014 after finding her guilty of abusing her power. She has also been indicted over a controversial subsidy scheme, which paid farmers well over market rates for rice, and is currently facing possible impeachment that would see her barred from political office for five years. The military then seized power in a coup d’état on 22nd May, a move which was applauded by many PDRC protesters. The PDRC was disbanded shortly after the coup. On 21st August, Prayuth Chanocha was named prime minister by the legislature, in a move that was widely expected. Under his control, the military had carefully hand-picked the legislature, populating it with mostly military and police figures. It also issued an interim constitution in July that gives the military sweeping powers. However, such moves have triggered concerns that the military is seeking to strengthen its hold on the country as it initiates political reform. But Gen Prayuth and junta officials have argued that military rule has brought stability to Thailand following months of violent protests between the pro- and anti-Thaksin camps. They have promised a return to democracy and says elections will take place after October 2015. I do believe that, after decades of chaos, the country is finally heading in the right direction.

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

Culture

Start Watching Game of Thrones NOW TELEVISION

If you’re not one of millions of Game of Thrones addicts, Nick Harris explains why you’ve been missing out.

ame of Thrones has been a phenomenon in the recent years it has been aired. It has fascinated many: Season 4 attracted over 7 million viewers, not including the millions further who watch it illegally and online (of which I am certainly not one). But why is the show so captivating? Why has it continued the fantasy rejuvenation began by Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter franchises? And why does it appeal to fans, arguably, more than those two series altogether? The first reason has to be the absolutely brilliant characters. Unlike series such as Lord of the Rings, these characters are complex, interesting, and entertaining. The fact that the characters are flawed in such a multitude of ways makes them in many ways more likeable and closer to us, the audience. No-one in this world is perfect, and the same is true of characters in Game of Thrones. Whilst we can love Eddard Stark for his honourable character and good intentions, he ends up being awful at politics which does not turn out the best for him. The Hound is in many ways despicable, but at rare moments his heroism can be seen seeping through. Characters the entire audience are behind, such as Robb Stark, can end up making rash and reckless decisions which lead to their

own destruction. Unlike other fantasies, Lord of the Rings for example, where it is set out quite clearly who is good and bad, in Game of Thrones one does not have that ease of viewing; every character is made up of parts good and bad. Guessing what is going to happen

Sure, perhaps a minor sidekick may get killed off at some point, but who cares, Good will prevail in the end. You could never say that of Game of Thrones. The amount of social media abuse received by author of the novels it is based on, George RR Martin, after Episode 9 of

The fact that Game of Thrones is so comparable to today’s world and current affairs is perhaps what has hooked so many people next is an impossibility. ‘My problem with it is that it is quite clear that Robb Stark is going to win’ is what one person told me when he was partway through Season 2. As he, and many others, have since learned, Game of Thrones never has a foregone conclusion in that way. In so many series you can guess that, eventually, the ‘good guys’ will win.

the Season 3 should show you this. Approaching Game of Thrones with a clearcut view of who is good and who is evil is certainly not the way to go about it. Furthermore, the show presents a number of startling similarities to our own lives: a wall, preventing the mass of Wildlings crossing the border over into the oh-so-much-more-civilised world

of the Westeros, a fragile economy staggering under a mountain of crippling debt, politicians working for their own ends at the expense of ordinary people, and even armies decimating entire lands as a result of the squabbles of those in power. Game of Thrones has them all and it is easy to see several similar events going on in our world or, at least, supposedly. The fact that Game of Thrones is so comparable to today’s world and current affairs is perhaps what has hooked so many people to it and why many, including myself, continue to watch it. The final, captivating aspect of the show has to be the simple fact that it is a fantasy. Ice zombies, 800 feet high walls on the edge of the world, great castles, and, of course, dragons. The world of Game of Thrones is so interesting, exotic and diverse that it is often hard to keep track of what is where. The idea of seeing our everyday human problems making their way into a world where dragons roam the skies, lords and kings rule from their castles and where terrifying Dothraki tribes live just across the sea is truly staggering. Putting humanity’s good and bad aspects in this kind of world is an epic prospect and what makes the show truly unmissable. So what are you waiting for?

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

Technology

Watch This Space ... GADGETS

Howard Hawkes reviews Apple’s latest innovation.

he Apple Watch is a revolutionary new piece of technology, or is it? This question has been asked repeatedly by opposing companies with rival smart-watches and by members of well-known IT websites. In this article I intend to answer this often asked question. The Apple Watch can play music and measure your heartbeat; it also sends texts to phones and to other watches. Using Apple Pay, it will act just like a credit card. It can be used as a TV remote, generate replies to text messages so you don’t have to do it yourself, unlock locks (specially fitted) and of course, it can tell the time. But are all these features worth it for $349? Some people would argue, “Why not just use your phone for all of these seemingly mundane tasks?”. As well as this, without an iPhone 4s or above it won’t work with Apple’s smartphones. It would just be an iPod, and a small one at that.

However, compared to other recently released smartphones, the Apple Watch looks to be by far the best. Unlike the others, it has Retina Display, which is equal to that of an iPhone 5s. It is compatible with Wifi, unlike Samsung and Pebble’s attempts. Despite these obvious advantages, the Apple Watch is more than $100 more than the other products like it. That’s a lot more money for less than five actual additions to the past smart watches. The launch of the Apple Watch provoked a flurry of activity from the critics. Tech Radar, after a hands-on session with the device, said that it’s: ‘Probably one of the best smart watches on the market, but still not enough to convince us that this is an actual category’. It reported that it was quite stylish but a bit chunky and that whilst it feels good on your wrist, it looks like you have paid a thousand dollars for it. This sum isn’t far off for the special edition, which is made of 18 carat gold and is sapphire encrusted. They also

said that it was a ‘mishmash’ of different things: it wasn’t a fitness band, fashion accessory or a watch. They believe that this will make buyers find it difficult to justify their purchase. TNVV came out with six reasons to not buy the Apple Watch. These included the nightmare scenario of people asking

you for a demo in the street which happened with the iPhone and the iPad. The Apple Watch really doesn’t seem to be worth it. All the things it does could easily be replicated by other products, and with only slightly more time taken. Is it really worth paying $349 (£215) for convenience?

ONLINE

Harassment at Home Dan Alcock investigates the issue of online abuse.

itting at your desk surfing the web seems harmless, you feel safe in your own home as you enjoy reading tweets posted by your favourite celebrity. But what if they say something you disagree with? You might fancy voicing your feelings towards them in the form of a tweet, maybe even throw in some offensive language, or a threat to catch their attention. A few months later you’re sitting in court facing a two year trial. This is now a reality in modern society, and it’s the right way to go. Someone who regularly engages in acts of online harassment, or a ‘troll’ as they are often referred to, is a common creature in the world of the internet. They populate the biggest websites out there. In fact on every (at least semi-popular) video on YouTube you will see comment after comment filled with insults and abuse, and to be honest many of us don’t really take note of it anymore as it’s just become the norm. This has led to more content creators on the site deciding that it’s best to completely remove the comment section from their videos; not only to stop the frightening messages thrown at them, but also to prevent fights from occurring

between users. Many people will defend their view or opinion as best as they can, and this leads to serious problems such as death threats. One big issue with posting these sorts of things on the internet however, is that it’s there forever. If someone is affected by a comment and decides to report it, all the evidence is ready to be investigated.

a comment, admittedly thoughtless and insensitive, on the convicted rapist Ched Evans, claiming the crime he committed was ‘not violent.’ Despite the fact that Judy apologised for this remark, her daughter was sent vicious and aggressive threats over Twitter. Many users decided to send chilling rape and death threats towards her causing Chloe to feel

“ ”

The truth of the matter is that ‘trolling’ affects people

The truth of the matter is that ‘trolling’ affects people; it can scare and hurt them. A big scandal recently covered in the media is the targeting of Chloe Madeley on Twitter. Her mother, Judy Finnigan (from Richard and Judy), made

extreme discomfort. ‘Insulting, threatening, violent – the words horrified me.’ she said during an interview. I’m confident that the people behind the glare of their computer screen typing these pathetic comments thought nothing of

it and believed that there would be no consequences, but her father, Richard Madeley, has said he’s ‘noted every sick troll’ adding ‘prosecution awaits,’ before then promising it would lead to a police investigation. The fact is that threats to this level are serious; it causes the victim to feel unsafe and uncomfortable. Death threats online need to be considered seriously, and that is what is now occurring. Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, has announced that internet trolls could be jailed for up to two years. The changes will allow magistrates to pass on the most serious cases to crown courts. Of course, some justice has already been administered. Isabella Sorley sent threatening tweets including the phrase ‘go kill yourself’ to feminist Caroline Criado-Perez who was campaigning to get a woman on a bank note, leading to her harasser getting a 12 week prison sentence. Isabella was one of the first people to get a sentence for committing an act of this kind, and more and more bashful people will be facing the same fate. Now some people need to think more carefully about how they express their thoughts, and to think of the consequences that could now face them.

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

Sport

Rugby: HISTORY

How did the country’s toughest sport begin? Will Sutcliffe tackles the real story behind Rugby.

he common perception of how Rugby came about is that it started the moment William Webb Ellis took the ball in his arms and ran with it, thus originating the distinctive feature of the Rugby game. Although this is in fact widely circulated as being true, despite there being little in the way of evidence to prove it, it is, nevertheless, the popular view. So much so in fact that the International Committee named the Rugby World Cup the ‘William Webb Ellis Trophy’. At the school of Rugby, there is a bronze statue of a boy running with a rugby ball to commemorate William Webb Ellis. The bronze plaque beneath the statue says, ‘The local boy who inspired the game of Rugby Football on the close at Rugby school in 1823.’ Various early ball games were played during the Middle Ages from the 5th to the 16th century and are sometimes referred to as folk football, mob football or Shrovetide football. Such games would usually be played between neighbouring towns and villages, involving an unlimited number of players on opposing teams, who would fight and struggle to move an inflated pig’s bladder by

any means possible to markers at each end of a town. Authorities would later attempt to outlaw such dangerous and unproductive pastimes. Some of these games still exist in the United Kingdom to this day. For example in Alnwick, in Northumberland, where the Duke of Northumberland drops a ball from the battlements of Alnwick Castle.

to its adoption by other schools. By 1860, many schools beside Rugby played the game according to Rugby rules. During the middle of the 19th century, Rugby Football, up till that time a regular game only among school boys, took its place as a regular sport among men. The former students of Rugby School started to spread their version of football far and

The Rugby Football Union was founded in the Pall Mall restaurant on Regent Street. The question as to why the game from Rugby School became so popular in preference to the games from other schools, such as Eton, Winchester or Harrow was probably largely due to the reputation and success of Rugby school under Dr. Arnold, and this also led most probably

wide. The first notable event was a former pupil, Arthur Pell, founding a club at Cambridge University in 1839. The Old Rugbeians challenged the Old Etonians to a game of Football and controversy at the Rugbeians’ use of hands led to representatives of the major public schools

meeting to draw up the ‘Cambridge Rules’ in 1848. To begin with, men who had played the game as schoolboys formed clubs to enable them to continue playing their favourite school game, and others were induced to join them. While in other cases, clubs were formed by men who had not had the experience of playing the game at school, but who had the energy and the will to follow the example of those who had had this experience. The introduction of railroads during this period assisted in the game’s ability to spread across the British Isles. The Rugby Football Union was founded in the Pall Mall Restaurant in Regent Street, Charing Cross, and London to standardize the rules and removed some of the more violent aspects of the Rugby School game. The secretary of Richmond Club, who submitted a letter to the newspaper which read, ‘Those who play the rugby-type game should meet to form a code of practice as various clubs play to rules which differ from others, which makes the game difficult to play’. Since these rules were drawn up, the game has changed very little and it is this historic game that we continue to play to this day.

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

Sport

FOOTBALL

The Downfall of Manchester United Dan Brown explains why Manchester United are no longer the force they once were.

anchester United is the most successful English club in history, with 20 league titles. However, they were not always a huge team and a huge global brand: they were a mid-table team believe it or not. The rise of Manchester United was marked by the club getting new owners and the appointment of Sir Alex Ferguson. With this new setup, the new manager signed world class players, but also created the astonishing group of youth players which became known as the ‘Class of 92’. This group included the likes of Ryan Giggs, David Beckham, Nicky Butt and the Neville brothers. Using these players as a base, in 20 years this Manchester United team went on to win 13 Premier League titles and 2 Champions Leagues. However, the retirement of Sir Alex Ferguson has brought on a huge drop in status of the club. They finished seventh in the next Premier League season, meaning that they didn’t qualify for European football. This disastrous season was blamed on the chosen successor to Ferguson, David Moyes, who was later on sacked three games from the end of the season. The irony is that this was essentially the same team who had just previously won the Premier League the season before, baring the panic buy of Marouane Fellaini, who never really justified his price tag of £27.5 million. Personally, I am unsure as to whether the dramatic drop in league rankings was Moyes’s fault. This is because many hold the theory that the team he inherited was old and, to put it nicely, not that spectacular. Commentators say the team only won the League that year because of the skill of the manager, and because of the likes of Robin Van Persie having

their best ever seasons. Therefore, some claim that Moyes didn’t stand a chance and deserved more time. He also decided to give many youngsters a chance, such as the likes of Adnan Januzaj. On the other hand, many claim he did not address the needs of the team in the summer transfer window, with no purchases except the aforementioned Fellaini. He also then went on to spend £37.1 million on Juan Mata in the January transfer window. He is a great player, but the no. 10 role was certainly not the place where the United squad was lacking. So all in all, the next season was up

sacked after a run of defeats before the end of the season, so the role was filled by United legend Ryan Giggs until the end of the season. So next in, after the temporary management of Giggs, was Louis Van Gaal. He was straight away a hit with the fans, due to the fact that he is a manager who has managed big clubs like Barcelona and Bayern Munich in the past, and won several trophies to boot. This is the main difference between him and Moyes, as Moyes has never done anything of that stature in his career. Van Gaal certainly did have an impact on arrival, signing Ander Herrera, Angel Di Maria, Marcos Rojo, Daley Blind, Luke Shaw and Radamel Falcao on loan. This summer spending spree added up to around £150 million, an absolutely massive total, including the English record signing of Di Maria for £59.7 million. However, Van Gaal was not to be the immediate answer to United’s woes as they went on to lose their opening game of the season 2-1 to Swansea City. Their form did not pick up from there either with another huge upset at Leicester

The season was indeed a record breaking season but for all the wrong reasons and down, but mainly down. Exits out of the league and FA Cup to the likes of Swansea and Sunderland is poor for a club the size of United. The Champions League was slightly more successful, where they reached the quarter final. In fact the Europe was the only chance of respite for Manchester United and Moyes, with some great victories (notably the 5-0 against Bayer Leverkusen). In contrast, domestic football did not go very well! Home losses to West Bromwich Albion among others led to a record breaking season but for all the wrong reasons. Moyes ended up being

City (5-3) after being 3-1 up. There were other disappointing results with a 0-0 draw to newly promoted Burnley, and a narrow 1-0 loss to their local rivals Manchester City. There were some high points: a 4-0 win against QPR and an impressive 1-1 draw against Chelsea at a time when they were running rampant. So how is Van Gaal doing? It is difficult to say, because of the enormity of the challenge. Nothing was ever going to go perfectly to plan, as the team will have to get use to the changes being made all around the club, including new players and new coaching staff. In truth, the ear-

ly season has been disappointing, with an early Capital One Cup exit to League One MK Dons perhaps the lowest ebb: it was a complete embarrassment to the club. At the time of writing, United are sitting in 7th after 11 games. Surely this is not right after United’s summer of spending? Were the players who were brought in the kind of players needed? For example, Falcao was brought into a position already occupied by players like Wayne Rooney and Robin van Persie. Also, the position that Di Maria has arguably played best in is the no.10 role, for which there are a number of candidates who would love to play (such as Juan Mata, or even Rooney as it seems to be his preferred position). The real problems for United lie at the back and in holding midfield. What has Van Gaal done to solve this? He allowed both Vidic and Ferdinand to leave the club after being the rocks at the back of United for years, and replaced them with a single relatively inexperienced defender in Marcos Rojo. He also allowed the previous skipper to leave in Patrice Evra and replaced him with the very young Luke Shaw. In one way the new defence had much potential, teaming up with other young and upcoming defenders Phil Jones and Rafael. However, there were injuries from the start, meaning that often youth players had to fill the gaps and the defence was simply not good enough: they have let goals in almost every game, and so the rest of the team was left the difficult task of outscoring the opponent! So Van Gaal has also not been the immediate answer to getting United back to their trophy winning ways, and he has created a very top heavy team. But I personally believe that with time he could be instrumental in rebuilding the club. I also think that he will have time to do this as, in a way, the United fans are becoming more lenient after every season. This is because in the Moyes era, United had just won the Premier League, meaning that the expectations were very high and there was no room for failure. However, last season United had just finished 7th: it means that there is a little less expectation, therefore allowing him to have a bit more time to do what he wants with the team.

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

Sport FORMULA 1

The Terrible Paradox at the Heart of F1 Toby Jupp looks back at the most controversial talking ponts of 2014.

he 2014 Formula One season certainly was an improvement on previous seasons: the battle between Mercedes teammates Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton was intense and went right down to the wire, with Hamilton ultimately crowned World Champion. F1 also found a new winner in Australian Daniel Ricciardo who won three races for Red Bull to deny Mercedes complete dominance. We also saw the long-awaited revival of Williams and the continued fall-fromgrace of Ferrari, which led to Stefano Domenicali (Team Principal) and Luca di Montezemolo (President) resigning, along with Fernando Alonso who had quit the team two years early. The development of Team Red Bull, which won them four consecutive driver and constructor titles, seemed to finally plateau and they saw themselves fall behind Mercedes. However, perhaps the biggest talking point is the shocking injury sustained by Marussia’s talented young driver, Jules Bianchi, at Suzuka in October, which highlighted the terrible paradox at the heart of F1. It got worse for Marussia too; on 8th November, they ceased trading, in other words, became extinct and their loss will be felt heavily along with that of Caterham who also went into administration. Safety in Formula One has come a long way since Ayrton Senna was killed at Imola in 1994. The sport was hurt deeply by that fatality and many have strived ever since to make sure that F1 becomes safer for all involved: drivers, mechanics, marshals and others. The incident of Jules Bianchi (a member of the esteemed Ferrari Academy and widely-tipped to be a future Ferrari driver) occurred in wet-weather conditions in Japan. Safety concerns had

dominated the weekend with formidable Typhoon Phanfone forecasted to hit on the Sunday - race day. The FIA (Federation of International Automobile racing) declared it impossible to change the date or time of the race in order to appease concerns and on lap 43 Bianchi went off at a corner. Unfortunately, a recovery vehicle was retrieving Adrian Sutil’s Sauber, who crashed in exactly the same corner on lap 42. Williams’ Felipe Massa, who sustained a major injury at Hungary in 2009, said of the incident: “I was already screaming on the radio five laps before the safety car that there was too much water on the track.” The governing body, the FIA, is faced with a horrible paradox at the centre of the sport: though organisers, fans and drivers all want the tracks to be challenging, safety must still take priority. On the podium, after the race, the atmosphere was very subdued, and the following weekend in Sochi, the race winner, Hamilton, dedicated his victory to Bianchi. The FIA has investigated several methods to improve safety including closed cockpits, more head protection and a virtual safety car which would ensure that drivers slowed down in similar incidents, preventing another accident of this scale. F1 will continue to improve its safety and, indeed, the sport has never been safer. Jules Bianchi was just a very unfortunate casualty and I hope that the Frenchman recovers fully so that he can drive again. Another talking point that emerged out of 2014 was the interesting concept of three-car teams. The F1 Concorde Agreement explains that if less than ten teams commit to the sport then the existing teams are obliged to field three cars. While the change won’t be implemented in time for 2015, only

POSSIBLE GRID 2016 Mercedes: Hamilton, Rosberg, Bottas McLaren-Honda: Alonso, Magnussen, Hulkenberg Ferrari: Vettel, Perez, Grosjean Red Bull-Renault: Ricciardo, Kvyat, Vergne Williams-Mercedes: Massa, Gutierrez, Wolff Force India-Mercedes: Bianchi, Vandoorne, Juncadella Lotus-Mercedes: Maldonado, Ericsson, Nasr Toro Rosso-Renault: Verstappen, Sainz Jr, Lynn Haas-Ferrari: Sutil, Rossi, Marciello Italics = Drivers who would benefit from the extra car proposal

three teams, Ferrari, Mercedes and American newcomers Haas, have committed to 2016. It is highly unlikely that only three teams will compete in 2016 with Red Bull, Williams and McLaren all very likely to commit, while there have been no concerns that Toro Rosso may drop out. Force India operate on a small budget but their concerns are not so extreme as to force them to drop out of the sport altogether. However there has been concerns over whether Sauber, Caterham and Lotus can support themselves financially and their competitiveness has been slowly deteriorating. Lotus will expect to improve next year with the superior Mercedes engine and will hopefully survive but that only leaves eight or nine teams with question marks over Lotus and Haas, because many new teams in the past have tried to join only to fold, not least USF1 in 2010. There have been rumours that two new teams in Audi and a Romanian-based Forza Rossa outfit would look to join the sport but these seem far-fetched. The three-car teams would ensure that more drivers would be in the top teams which would make it more competitive, it would also hopefully make for unpredictable qualifying sessions with many teams being able to compete. It would allow the likes of Nico Hulkenberg, Sergio Perez, Romain Grosjean and Valtteri Bottas, who are all very talented drivers, to move up the grid and give increased opportunities to young drivers like Marussia test driver Alexander Rossi, Raffaele Marciello of Ferrari’s Academy, British GP3 Champion Alex Lynn, Force India test driver Dani Juncadella and McLaren’s Belgian prodigy Stoffel Vandoorne, and we may even see female drivers such as Susie Wolff get a chance (see possible 2016 grid). We could see a team take a chance on Jules Bianchi after his injury now that they would have two other drivers to rely on. It may also provide a lifeline for the likes of Esteban Guti-

errez and Jean-Eric Vergne. Hopefully this proposal will allow more opportunities for drivers to compete with one another and above all make for more interesting races and championships. The gripping battle between Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg was also, of course, a major talking point. The battle reached boiling point at Spa when Rosberg ran into the Briton (who was leading) and caused him to retire; prompting Team Principal Toto Wolff to condemn Rosberg’s involvement as “unacceptable”. Of the incident in Spa, Hamilton said: “He said he could have avoided it, but he didn’t want to. He basically said, “I did it to prove a point.” However, over the course of the season, Hamilton has shown that he is a superior race driver and displayed greater tenacity in the face of adversity. After Spa, he was 22 points behind, but quickly built a strong lead; after USA, he had won five on the spin and had a 24 point advantage. He won more races than his German counterpart, and even passed him in six separate races while Rosberg never made a pass stick on him: the only major attempts he made involved in the infamous Spa incident and in Bahrain where he was completely outfoxed by the former-McLaren man. Rosberg is a 9/10 driver but Hamilton is one of only two drivers who are truly world class, Fernando Alonso being the other. Few could deny the Briton his well-deserved world title. I expect his dominance to really shine through next season and he should win the 2015 title unless McLaren can deliver Alonso a truly competitive car. Formula One had an interesting season in 2014 and will hopefully become more competitive outside of Mercedes. However, I firmly believe the sport will, and must, continue to become safer, having been reminded of the dreadful paradox: drivers must drive the car as fast as they can, but the faster they drive, the more likely they will get hurt, or worse...

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

Sport OPINION

Sportsmen: Are They Worth It? Toby Jupp argues that elite sportsmen can justify the large sums they get paid.

hen Wayne Rooney signed a £300k a week deal back in February, I wondered what sport was coming to. The concept that one person can earn more in a day than what most people will earn in a year often affects people’s views on top level sport - particularly football. Of course football is not the only sport with astronomical sums being paid out to its stars: Formula 1, Boxing, Basketball and the rapidly growing Twenty20 Cricket industry all pay their participants very well, although the former two are renowned for being some of the most dangerous sports. Top sportsmen in other sports such as Tennis and Golf will earn more through endorsements than wages and prize money. I personally think that sport is so important to so many, that £300k a week (or almost £200 while you read this article) is not such a ridiculous sum as it may seem. My argument is that although one person’s actions on whatever field of play they are on are not worth close to £50k a day, their actions on and off inspire millions of people across the globe to get out of the house and get some exercise. So I ask the more critical question: can a price be put on that? In my opinion, no. Continuing with the Wayne Rooney example, while his onfield exploits are not worth more than a million a month, he inspires, just on his own, thousands of people to get involved and join a local football team. Rooney will also earn a lot in sponsorship as England’s most marketable player and captain, he will endorse many products which will encourage young and old (and all in between!!!) to get off their settee and into action. Sportsmen also entertain, an incredibly important thing to remember. And they don’t just entertain millions, it is closer to billions. Most people enjoy being entertained, which is why entertainment-based industries like Sport, Music and Film are paid very highly. Robert Downey Jr was recently paid $50M for starring in the third Iron Man movie. This is more than the top footballer will earn in a season, yet this is not met with the same scepticism because more people will watch Iron Man 3 than Man United v West Ham. So as well as inspiring generation after generation, they also entertain their fans. Sadly, what often blackens the image of sportsmen is the idea that players, in football in particular, move

Top 10 paid sportsmen (annual earnings) 1. Floyd Mayweather Jr. (Boxing) - $105m 2. Cristiano Ronaldo (Football) - $80m 3. LeBron James (Basketball) - $72m 4. Lionel Messi (Football) - $65m 5. Kobe Bryant (Basketball) - $62m 6. Tiger Woods (Golf) - $61m 7. Roger Federer (Tennis) - $56m 8. Rafa Nadal (Tennis) - $45m 9. Matt Ryan (NFL) - $42m 10. Lewis Hamilton (Formula One) - $40m (Footballers Zlatan Ibrahimovic, Gareth Bale, Wayne Rooney, Neymar and Radamel Falcao all are in top 20)

Rooney’s wage compared to other United staff

Top 5 transfer fees for players (since 2009) 1. Gareth Bale (£86m) Spurs to Real Madrid - 2013 2. Cristiano Ronaldo (£80m) Man United to Real Madrid - 2009 3. Luis Suarez (£75m) Liverpool to Barcelona - 2014 4. James Rodriguez (£63m) Monaco to Real Madrid - 2014 5. Angel di Maria (£60m) Real Madrid to Man United - 2014

Wayne Rooney (Captain) - £300k p/w Robin van Persie (Vice-Captain) - £220k p/w Radamel Falcao (Player) - £250k p/w Angel di Maria (Player - GB Transfer Record) - £190k p/w Louis van Gaal (Manager) - £130k p/w Albert Stuivenberg (Assistant) - £10k p/w Ryan Giggs (First Team Coach) - £15k p/w Dr Steve McNally (Club Doctor) - £3k p/w Neil Hough (Head Physio) - £2k p/w Pitch Groundsman - £500 p/w *Estimates

to another club for no apparent reason other than money. Recent examples in Football include Bacary Sagna, who left a key role at Arsenal to join Man City (who more than doubled his wages) and has spent the vast majority of the season so far on the bench. Radamel Falcao’s initial move to Monaco in 2013 was met with similar scepticism. The fact that three players this summer (James Rodriguez, Angel di Maria and Luis Suarez) were transferred for more than £50 million makes a mockery of the sport sometimes. It seems inevitable that we will soon be talking about the first £100 million player - a completely absurd concept even as recently as five years ago, and for these reasons I can see the validity in some of the criticism directed at the Football industry. The fees are ridiculous, but don’t confuse them with salaries. The sportsmen at the elite level also have a very small timescale, compared to other top-paid professions, in which to earn their living. The top F1 drivers, boxers and cricketers have 15-20 years to make enough money to last the rest of their lives, footballers even less. A top doctor or barrister will spend about 30 years at the top,

remaining very well-paid all the while. Sportsmen and women have had to put in so many more hours of training from a young age than any other profession, and because of the hours that they have to put in, for many it becomes their only goal in life and they have no real qualifications - it is the balance of risk and reward (and the risk is huge) so it is only fair that the reward is fitting. The last thing to consider is the immense pressure and scrutiny that these people have to deal with on a monthly, weekly and sometimes daily basis. Individual sports such as Formula One and Boxing are often extremely pressured environments; Nico Rosberg was ruthlessly chased down and passed by Lewis Hamilton on a number of occasions as the title reached its climax - an example of the pressure and the nerves that they have to deal with. Boxers know that every time they walk out into the ring to fight that it may well be their last. Footballers are scrutinised on a daily basis, everyone seems to be interested in what they get up to; their privacy is very minute, if they have any. Every sports fan wants to know what they are up to and as a result their privacy is compromised.

If a footballer commits a crime - for example ex-Sheffield United striker Ched Evans who is now a convicted criminal - their chances are severely weakened of ever being allowed to resume their careers. Fans simply will not cheer the name of a convicted criminal, no matter how good they are. Ched Evans will probably never kick a football again despite serving his punishment, which is an example of the responsibility that sportsmen must bear. Paralympian Oscar Pistorius is another example of someone whose reputation has been ruined, arguably because the stress of being a public idol causing him to be paranoid. US cyclist Lance Armstrong felt so much pressure that he took drugs to win his seven consecutive Tour de France. So the next time you decide to say, “Sportsmen get paid far too much” or, “£300k a week is frankly ridiculous”, I ask you to remember the pressure and scrutiny they must deal with, the entertainment and joy they bring to millions of people and the inspiration they are to billions of people. Worth it? I think so. As legendary footballer Ryan Giggs once said, ‘Sportsmen deserve every penny.’

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

Christmas

Essential Reading: Part 2 HUMOUR

Henry Waterson suggests some titles for this year’s Christmas reading based on the Diagram Prize.

he Diagram Prize is awarded annually to the book with the strangest name in the English language. It was first awarded in 1978 to Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Nude Mice, but has recently been won by previously reviewed titles How to Bombproof your Horse (2004), and The Stray Shopping Carts of Eastern North America - a Guide to Field Identification (2006). Following on from the last issue, I present to you my personal top five titles from the list of Diagram Prize winners. Do understand that I have not actually read any of these…

How to Avoid Huge Ships (Winner 1991)

Author: Captain John W. Trimmer Pages: 112 (paperback) Retail Price: £102.91 (out of print) At online outlets, this seaman’s guide to sea-lane safety is heavily ridiculed. If sarcasm is taken as the lowest form of wit, then this book’s Amazon page is low indeed, saturated with satirical tales. A typical comment recounts a hard life of sudden collisions with huge ships and how, after reading this book, one would not be struck by a huge ship ever again. In fact, among the stacks of facetious parodies, very little detail about the book itself can be interpreted. After trawling through, in the manner of a trawler (a huge ship), I discovered that this book does not have enough diagrams and the extent to which it actually helps a reader to avoid huge ships is debatable. I myself have never been struck by a huge ship and do not perceive an immediate threat, so at £102,91, this book is probably best left on the shelf.

Crocheting Adventures with Hyperbolic Planes (Winner 2009) Author: Daina Taimina Pages: 160 (Hardcover) Retail Price: £25.64 This book rocked the world of silly titles so hard that it won the Diagram Prize in the same year it was published. Crocheting Adventures with Hyperbolic Planes has even received the Euler Book Prize from the Mathematical Association of America; clearly Miss Taimina was on to a winner when she sat down to write her contribution to modern maths. As one Colin Harrison was disappointed to find, this book does not actually teach you how to crochet. Instead, it explores the history, theory and application of hyperbolic planes through the creative medium of decorative needlework. Reading this book will help a mathematician understand this tough aspect of non-Euclidean geometry while opening his/her mind to the wonderful world of crochet, both pastimes requiring no small amount of expertise.

Highlights in the History of Concrete (Winner 1994)

Author: Christopher C. Stanley Pages: 44(Pamphlet) Retail Price: £44.99 Concrete is everywhere. It keeps our pavements flat and our fence posts upright. Published for the last time in pamphlet form in 1982, this thoroughly historic title is denied a product image and product description by Amazon. Nevertheless, the antiquated publication is not to be underestimated. Included is all the information on mankind’s wonderful mixture of water, cement and aggregate that a concrete enthusiast could ever want, or need. Stanley explains, in commendable detail, how concrete came to be such an integral part of our way of life. The author uses part of his guide to dispel common misconceptions about concrete, including the myth that Jimmy Hoffa was mixed into the concrete to build Giants Stadium, examined from the unbiased perspective of the concrete itself. Nowadays, Highlights in the History of Concrete will set you back £1 for every page, but just imagine having the entire 7600 year history of concrete at your fingertips.

The Theory of Lengthwise Rolling (Winner 1983)

Author: G.S. Nikitin, S.E. Rokotyan and Alexander Tselikov (Rus) Pages: 342(Hardcover) Retail Price: £74.99 This weighty book is not, as the name might imply, aimed at those of us wanting to hone their ability to get from the top of a hill to the bottom with the lowest centre of mass possible. The ‘lengthwise rolling’ discussed in this material is the reserve of pioneering steel manufacturers. It is an industrial process whereby steel sheets are rolled in a lengthwise fashion. This book is dedicated to the study and analysis of that process. I suppose it might discuss whether or not it is superior to crosswise rolling (if there is such a thing), but that’s really all there is to it. I do not imagine that anybody who does not manage a profitable foundry can extract any entertainment from this book, but that is not its purpose. In these abundant, unillustrated pages may lie the key to more efficient steel rolling for future generations.

Managing a Dental Practice the Genghis Khan Way (Winner 2010)

Author: Michael R. Young Pages: 134(Paperback) Retail Price: £26.59 In this book, Genghis Khan, the bloodthirsty Mongol warlord (1206-1227) and dental practice management converge for the first time in English literature. Genghis Khan almost certainly did not brush twice a day, so what exactly was ex-dentist Michael Young getting at when he wrote this practical and highly acclaimed guide to developing the management skills of one’s dental team? Well, as we are aware, Genghis Khan is renowned throughout the West for his quick learning, intelligence gathering, understanding of his opposition’s motives and successful people management, and therein lies the similarity. However, if your dentist has been known to conduct surgery without anaesthetic using a scimitar, toss diseased corpses into the street, set light to rival practices or spill vast amounts of blood in the waiting room, then find the copy of this book on the premises and destroy it before your dentist conquers the known world.

THE MARTLET CHRISTMAS ISSUE 4

Christmas HUMOUR

The Morality of Christmas Sam Chambers asks whether we’ve lost sight of what the festive season is really all about.

ith the festive season almost upon us, the question people will be asking is, “What are you getting for Christmas?” But is this what Christmas is really supposed to be about, simply wanting and demanding the latest Xbox, iPhone or designer clothes and being bitterly disappointed if you don’t get them? Even if it is: it shouldn’t be. Traditionally, Christmas was a time where you stayed at home with your family, went to church as the main event of your day. You ate Christmas dinner and exchanged small gifts with your relatives. It was a religious event, but these

days, the true meaning of Christmas has been lost to the mass-consumption society that we live in and the commercial opportunity that it presents to the retail industry. In America, 2012 saw three trillion dollars of revenue generated over the Christmas period alone and made up twenty percent of the total sales for the whole year in the retail sector. Another aspect of Christmas is its negative impact on people. Parents often will buy gifts more expensive and lavish for their children than things they would buy for themselves. This may be because they are simply trying to keep up with the demands of the

child but these demands are often made to keep up with friends who supposedly have everything. For many children, Christmas is not religious, but just an opportunity to get money and presents. Religion, as I have mentioned before, is more or less lost in the meaning of Christmas today. In the UK, about 5% of people go to attend a Christmas church service on the 25th of December. If anything, this reflects badly on society as a whole as it shows that we are more greed driven and less conscious of the moral values that are the cornerstones of the Christian faith. Another shocking fact is that eighty

percent of non-Christians in America Celebrate Christmas. This shows most definitely that Christmas is not the religious festival that it once was and that it has become something more on a corporate level than a personal one. I’m not trying to be Scrooge or anti-Christmas. Don’t get me wrong; I love Christmas, but I do not agree with what it stands for and what people expect of Christmas as an event. So, when you receive something this Christmas, whether you like the gift or not, be thankful that someone cares about you that much, not disappointed that it wasn’t what you wanted.

HUMOUR

Dudley’s (Christmas) Dilemma

Abingdon School’s unofficial mascot takes the time to respond to our most trivial of problems. By Henry Waterson and Blake Jones. Dear Dudley, Please help me. I’m in the third year and I’ve been at the school for a few months now and I don’t know what to do. I like nearly all of my teachers and I always used to give my teachers gifts at Christmas. However, I don’t want to seem weird at Abingdon or overly keen. I considered just giving presents to a few teachers, but then the whole class would say that I have a crush on Miss. If I give presents to everyone then that includes the grumpy one and I would feel really awkward giving a present to him, but if he’s the only teacher I don’t give a present to then he might talk to his teacher-friends in the staff room and he’d find out that they all had a present and then he’d think I hated him and he’d shout at me even more. I don’t really hate him. So Dudley, please advise me, what should I do this Christmas? -Anonymous Third Year

Dearest Client, I am honoured that you have chosen to come to me, Miss Lusk’s fully literate dog rather than Abingdon’s professionally qualified counsellor, with your deepest perturbances. Pupils and staff seeking my advice are seldom disappointed, and I am confident that your case will be no exception. As you are no doubt aware, our Common Room and support staff work their weary fingers to the bone for the sake of your education, and sometimes it can be hard to aptly express your gratitude. From day to day, a fleeting ‘Thank you’ over the shoulder as one leaves the room is sufficient, but when the festive season draws near at Abingdon all of the warm fuzzy feelings accumulated over recent months rise to the surface. A common outlet for this overpowering sentiment can be found in the generous giving of Christmas presents. Unlike inviting your teacher to dinner or reading them poetry, the distribution of wrapped gifts is viewed as socially normal and is widely appreciated by all echelons of school society. With regards to your grumpy teacher - nobody deserves to be alone at Christmas. The next great challenge is selecting the best offering for your chosen educator. If you are keen to maintain the element of surprise when you present your gift on the last day of term then you ought to consult a reliable secondary source. If you are unable to approach an immediate relation or family friend of theirs for suggestions, you must tactfully acquire the information in your own free time. Many members of staff write a lengthy letter to Santa every year. This article can usually be located about their desk since most spend many hours drafting and editing such letters. Though such alternatives as internet hacking and rummaging through the bins for receipts have been tried, a search of their classroom is without a doubt the most reliable way of covertly finding out what your favourite staff member would most like for Christmas. For your convenience, I gather that Mr Price is fond of his red wine, while Mr Davies is always grateful for generic foreign lager. Merry Christmas to all. Dudley p.s. As a small token of your gratitude, perhaps consider the following: Pedigree Dentastix (small dog, 28 sticks), Rake by FURminator, faux leather booties (small) by Wag-a-tude, The Interpretation of Dreams by Sigmund Freud. Please send any gifts via Mr. Dawswell’s office.

The

{Big}

Quiz

Test your wits against this mega quiz by Toby Jupp Christmas

General Knowledge

1. What was the 2013 Christmas number 1 single?

11. Who wrote The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe?

2. Christmas Island, discovered on Christmas Day, is a territory of which country: China, Japan or Australia?

12. What is the capital city of Morocco?

3. Which actor plays the role of Mr Maddens in The Nativity!?

14. Which currency is used in Switzerland?

4. Which medieval monarch had himself crowned on Christmas Day?

15. Who is the prime minister of Brazil?

5. If you are born on Christmas Eve, what is your star sign?

16. What is the most commonly eaten fruit in the world?

Sport 6. What is the name of the trophy that is contested annually between Scotland and England as part of the Rugby Six Nations Championship? 7. Which cyclist won the 2014 Vuelta a España?

17. In which US city will you ﬁnd MLS side Fire, NFL franchise Bears and NBA outﬁt Bulls? 18. True or False: the total money raised, on its night of broadcast, for Sport Relief exceeded £50 million. 19. Who was the Greek god of the seas?

8. Which player scored the point that meant Europe retained the Ryder Cup?

20. On what charge was South African paralympian Oscar Pistorius found guilty at his trial in October?

9. Which stadium will host the 2015 Champions League Final? 10. Who won the 2014 US Open, winning the ﬁnal against Kei Nishikori?

0-5

13. What is the most commonly chosen A-Level subject?

5-15

Hmmm, maybe you’re not making the most of that private school education. And this wasn’t even that hard. Are you sure you’re not better off reading The Blazer?

A decent score, but still not exactly setting the world alight. You’re probably sitting in G3 territory at the moment. You better get those books out and start cramming.

15-20

Either you deserve that scholar’s tie, or you were looking at the answers! You must be the captain of the House General Knowledge team!

Christmas Picture Quiz

The Martlet asked six members of Abingdon staff to don Santa’s beard and hat. Can you identify them?

1. Skyscraper (Sam Bailey) 2. Australia 3. Martin Freeman 4. William I (William the Conqueror) 5. Capricorn 6. Calcutta Cup 1. Mr Fieldhouse 2. Mr Colborn

PUBLISHER Emma Williamson

CONTRIBUTORS Peter Wang

MANAGING EDITOR Thomas Harkness

STAFF WRITERS Blake Jones Charlie Landells Daniel Alcock Daniel Brown Henry Waterson Howard Hawkes Michael Man

DESIGN EDITORS Blake Jones Pea Sermsuk George Jeffreys Asten Yeo

Nick Harris Patrick Cole Pea Sermsuk Samuel Chambers Toby Collins Toby Jupp Tom Foster William Sutcliffe Contact us at martlet@abingdon.org.uk Initial design by Asten Yeo

Printed by the Newspaper Club

7. Alberto Contador 8. Jamie Donaldson 9. Berlin Olympiastadion 10. Marin Cilic 11. CS Lewis 12. Rabat 13. Maths 3. Mr Barnes 4. Mr Newton

14. Swiss Franc 15. Dilma Rousseff 16. Mango 17. Chicago 18. True 19. Poseidon 20. Culpable Homicide 5. Mr Poon 6. Mr Moody