ANCHOR Alternative Party Perspectives

| ANCHOR | 1

2 | ANCHOR | CONTENTS A wild Hugo walks into a bar.

Anchor is back. A new team has taken the helm. The system has been shaken. We’re using shorter sentences.

Changing sections. Missing nothing.

With an upcoming General Election, and Bloomsbury having the largest concentration of students in the world, it’s sure to be exciting. We’ve had rejected interviews with minor parties (evidently the student vote isn’t so important to the Greens after all, whose leader is running in NCH’s own constituency of Holborn and St. Pancras) and sleepless nights just thinking about what Miliband’s going to be pictured eating next.

Politics however is not the only theme to run through this essay in journalistic competence. In preparing the issue you are about to read, we’ve learned how to source that rare electro-funk record you’ve always been missing, and discovered the best language to converse with a being from outer space. Even the hardy traveller is accounted for, with accounts of trying to break into failed Central Asian states.

Anchor remains institutionally opposed to the notion that print journalism is dead. To that end, keep supplying us with your most laterally composed prose.

Love, Soila, Hugo, Laura, and Lottie

By Millie Chip and Rory Keddie

CONTENTS | ANCHOR | 3

FEATUREd

Editors-in-Chief Soila Apparicio Hugo Stevensen

Sampling/Stealing/Appropriation p.4 | Democracy as a Project p.5

Deputy Editors Laura Dubois Lottie Patterson

POLITICS

Cover Designer Harry Sherwood

The Alternative Party Perspectives p.6 | I Will Not Be Friends With Putin p.9 Scandals Pull Out and Pop Up p.10

BLOOMSBURY

We Cannot be Apathetic Suffragists Any Longer p.12 | The List p.13 Style Stalker p.14

SCIENCE

Three Parent Ethics p.16 | How Do You Invite an Alien to Dinner? p.17 Gadgets to be Grateful For p.18 | Media Myths and Schizophrenia p.19

CULTURE

Recommends p.20 | The Film Review: Whiplash p.21 | Interpreting “Thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in Vain.” p.22 | The Evolution of the London Music Scene p.23

TRAVEL

Designers Soila Apparicio Laura Dubois Contributors Soila Apparicio Te Manu Boynton Veronica Caraman Tahmid Chowdhury Urte Cibulskaite Laura Dubois Alexander Hewitt Naomi Gann Jess Johnston Swara Kadir Rory Keddie George Lee Roman Müller Lottie Patterson Marius Sheldon Mike Smaczylo Hugo Stevensen James Thomson John Tsopanis With Thanks To Jamie Allcock Matthew Batstone Josh Dell Rory Keddie Marwan Naja

Visit Aotearoa (But Not For the Reasons you Think) p.24 | Crossing Borders p.25

COMMENTS

Queen Bey: Feminism’s Worst Nightmare? Bey-lasphemy p.26 | Worries of a Graduating Student p.28 | Beyond Bedford Square p.30

Anchor London Ltd. Registered in England.

Company Number 8862428

4 | ANCHOR | FEATURED

Sampling/Stealing/Appropriation mike smaczylo

“Politically I find it very difficult – for example that you often have white producers sampling rare black music and then not paying royalties. That feels to me like a form of exploitation. I feel like there’s a political and ethical dimension that rarely gets talked about.” – Matthew Herbert “Of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake, has most. For art comes to you proposing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments’ sake.” – Walter Pater, “Conclusion” to The Renaissance In the early months of 2015 we seem to be reaching the apotheosis of a politicising trend in music. Post-Ferguson expressions of anger in hip-hop from artists like A$AP Ferg and Kendrick Lamar have become mainstream, with Common and John Legend’s Grammys performance watched by 25.3 million viewers. Iggy Azalea has recently joined the likes of Lana Del Rey and Gwen Stefani in yet another controversy over cultural appropriation; this time over the music itself, rather than an ill-informed photo shoot in Native American headdress. And tonight, as I sit writing, Owen Jones will be talking on stage after Paloma Faith’s gig at the NIA in Birmingham. The last twenty years have seen hip-hop and soul in the US, punk and the free party movement in the UK, subsumed into a seemingly de-politicised mainstream endlessly reproducing inane platitudes like ‘pussy, money, weed’, the sparklingly produced guitars and the whinings of teenage angst, and legitimised but heavily regulated club nights with routine door checks and 3am closing times. But de-politicisation is a political move: by appropriating the popularity of political genres of music and art, repackaging them in sufficiently offensive, but ultimately banal, commercial forms, the revolutionary sting is amputated and these movements are divided into a sanitised and unthreatening mainstream, and a disillusioned but ultimately ineffectual underground. The controversy surrounding Robin Thicke’s ‘Blurred Lines’ was perhaps an early indicator of a rising mainstream awareness of issues of identity politics in pop culture.

The resurgence of controversy around this song sparked by the recent legal case in which Thicke and Pharrell Williams were found guilty of copying Marvin Gaye’s ‘Got To Give It Up’, brings me to the focus of this article, alluded to in the quote from Matthew Herbert: sampling or copying in electronic music and its relation to ethical issues of appropriation in general.

At the very basic level is a debate that stretches back to way before the notion of sampling even existed and one which somehow still goes on: the question of whether art can be divorced from politics. If we define the political as concerning relations of power, then all experience is political, and since art must in some way derive from (though not necessarily represent) experience, it therefore entails its socio-economic background. Even Pater and the aesthetes, with their insistence on ‘art for art’s sake’ were the product of their specific social and historical position – a period of decadence, the decline of traditional moral values and political anxiety as the death of Queen Victoria, with whom empire and power had become deeply associated, edged closer.

And yet, with only a few exceptions, this seems to be the attitude taken by most samplers in electronic music today. The argument has been raised, and I think it is a valid one, that what is important here is being informed and respectful of the material reproduced, which explains why artists like The Busy Twist, who spend vast amounts of time in Ghana recording material with local artists, and Romare, who emulates in musical form the collage work of African American artist, Romare Bearden, are not subject to the same criticism as someone like Iggy Azalea, who has been portrayed as displaying a potentially wilful ignorance about the origins of hip-hop (traditionally a very political genre) and, while not sampling it, appropriating from it indiscriminately, often taking what some see as regrettable aspects of that culture.

There are two other issues at work here that contribute to her controversy.

The first is a lack of originality: while she makes fantastic poprecords, Azalea brings nothing new to the rap game, perhaps apart from being both white and

female; the second is that she sells far more records than competing black female MCs – the controversy started with Azealia Banks noting that Azalea is happy to capitalise on black culture, but wouldn’t involve herself in race issues following the killing of Eric Garner, comparing her to a black and white minstrel show.

If we are to take Banks’ line, then in the case of sampling, the ethical issues only arise when nothing interesting is done with the samples, the sampler is either ignorant of or wilfully ignores the social context in which the samples were produced, and the economic imbalance is in favour of the sampler (particularly if they come from a privileged social class). The first two conditions here are points of respect and imply a moral duty to understanding the medium with which you are working. The third condition is more difficult.

The very earliest uses of sampling can be found in the musique concréte of Pierre Schaeffer and his contemporaries, but in the hands of the early hip hop turntablists, it allowed a generation of deprived African Americans, without access to instruments, to democratise the mode of production and express themselves through their own form of music. Today the ease with which production software can be pirated and samples be collected from all over the internet again allows an outlet of creativity to those who cannot afford to pay for it. This democratising element of sampling is something Matthew Herbert seems to ignore; it may well be easy with his studio equipment and regular income through his own label to avoid using samples from other people, but this is not the case for everybody. On the flip side to this, it has recently emerged (and sparked a fundraising campaign) that Richard L. Spencer of The Winstons, whose song, ‘Amen Brother’ produced the Amen Break, the most reproduced sample in electronic music and the cornerstone of jungle, has never received royalties for its use, and the drummer that played the break, Gregory Coleman, died homeless in 2006.

These two sides to sampling – the democratising and the imperial – explain my title. I have called this article ‘Sampling/Stealing/Appropriating’, rather than ‘Sampling, Stealing and Appropriating’ because these terms are equivalent, but arise from contradictory discourses. ‘Sampling’ is value-free and as a result, most commonly used when discussing sampling in music. ‘Stealing’ comes from the discourse of law and if we define a law as a rule made up and enforced, then ‘stealing’ is the language of those in power, as only they can be the enforcers. This legal language is closely tied up with the notion of private property, which, even if we are not to accept it as the root of all imbalances of power, is certainly on very shakey ground when it comes to art and creativity, where influence and intertextuality has always played a big part. Finally, appropriation is the language of the subaltern, the alienation of the self from one’s culture through it’s absorption into the culture industry of the dominant powers. By these definitions I would argue that stealing is good, appropriation is bad, but it is not so simple. Hardline protectionists like Detroit Techno visionary, Kenny Dixon Jr. have been quoted as saying that black music should only be sampled by black people, but without a free interchange of cultures they will merely stagnate.

The issue here then, as we can see, is around money and power. Simply ensuring that royalties go to where they are due is not enough when the dominant powers can impose their culture of consumption and homogeneity wherever they go, and cherry pick the best bits from other cultures to repackage as commodified goods to sell for their own profit. In a hypothetical world somewhere culture is taken on its own terms, without the insistence on reducing it to an economic value. As a result, in this world there can be no hierarchies between cultures, no imbalances of power, and there will be a free-flowing interchange of music and art and cultural information without the nasty connotations of imperialism. This seems impossible for our world.

We are backed into a corner by the logic of capitalism, with all its old institutionalised biases. We are forced either to appropriate, or to atrophy. But we should always do this with the necessary respect.

FEATURED | ANCHOR | 5

democracy as a project marius sheldon

On January 20th 2015, in celebration of Democracy Day, Michael Sandel, Professor of Government at Harvard University, presented a special edition of BBC Radio 4’s ‘The Public Philosopher’, posing the question; why democracy?

One could levy the case that the British people haven’t had their democracy directly challenged since the end of the Second World War, and as a result have become increasingly stagnant in their appreciation of the political system. Others will argue that now more so than ever, traditional British democracy is under threat, pointing to the rise of Islamic State, the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, and, even more closely to home, the surge in support towards parties further away from the centre of the political spectrum than is the contemporary norm. Regardless of what strand of argument is taken, the point of arrival is clear; the topic of democracy is one that deserves the spotlight.

Professor Sandel led the discussion in the Palace of Westminster, with an audience of MPs, peers, and the public. In searching for the point of democracy, that is to say, the reason behind its importance in our society, Sandel made the case that perhaps “the goal of democracy is to represent the people most directly”, drawing attention also to the potential significance of accountability of those in power as another essential facet of the political system.

There is a case for this claim. As the conversation reflected, the issue of the participation of young voters in past and future elections stands as testament to the fact that perhaps many within this demographic simply do not feel represented by the nation’s political candidates. With as many as sixty percent of young voters projected to not vote in May’s General Election, and just over half voting in the election of 2010, it is clear that this is a pressing issue for the British voting system. Accentuated by the recent legislation which has led to universities no longer automatically registering students to vote, the question that remains is whether the problem lays in an unappreciative young, or on the contrary, an aged voting system.

The rise in popularity of UKIP and the Greens provides further fuel to this fire. With its share of the voting having increased by over 10% since March 2012, UKIP has now easily supplanted the Liberal Democrats as Britain’s third party. The Greens, too, have seen a rise in their support, and the extent to which Labour and Conservative leaders shut their eyes and block their ears to their rising voice is dwindling.

It is from this questioning of the traditional British system of democracy that Sandel comes to his close. Taking a more abstract perspective, Sandel eloquently reaches the conclusion that “democracy is a project … about living together, that makes us, if it works, better than we would be.” It is the start of this assertion that should be given the most weight. Democracy is, both for Britain and for all nations whom adopt it, a project.

It is a project which needs both time and attention to flourish. One that has been recently neglected and has had its importance questioned. This questioning has some justification. There are overt issues with the first-past-thepost voting system. MPs are seen as unrelatable and untrustworthy; more untrustworthy, it seems from polls, than doctors, teachers, and even estate agents. Indeed, David Cameron and Ed Milliband are hardly the average faces of society. Taking the rarely-popular side of the politician, perhaps it’s unfair to ask politicians to be both representative of and better than society’s average person. These are the by-products of an unsustainable, unrepresentative voting system.

Perhaps the real issue is that there are few better alternatives. Over-quoted as he is, Winston Churchill surely had a point concerning the topic of democracy. The benevolent dictator is, even in theory, a difficult case to argue for.

That said, in a comparison between India, the world’s largest democracy, and its political counterpart China, it’s the latter, by almost all measures of development, that comes out on top.

The point of democracy lies elsewhere. As Sandel argues: “Democracy as a project isn’t really about voting. It’s about reasoning together, arguing together, about big questions.”

Indeed, using the public discourse in order to strive towards a representative good is a traditional theme of Western republicanism. The cultivation of this facet of society is one that no other political system provides in the same way.

It’s imperative for progress that we discuss politics not just with those people with similar ideas to ourselves, but also with those with whom we disagree.

With the nation’s two main parties being accused of becoming increasingly centrist, debating on increasingly menial issues whilst larger problems are avoided, is perhaps the biggest problem British democracy is yet to find an answer to. If this is to continue as the nation’s political system, it is a threat to which British democracy must respond.

6 | ANCHOR | POLITICS

Sick and tired of hearing staunce Fib Dems heralding themselves as the nation’s saviours in the Con Dem government? Desperate to block out the repeatedly unenlightened remarks spouted weekly from “I’m not a racist but” UKIP? Fed-up of waiting for the Greens to find an economist who can add numbers? Ed Balls?

Anchor asked five cross-party supporters to say something nice about the party they just can’t stand. Some of them have been nicer than others.

laudable liberal democrats - Jess Johnston

On the eve of the General Election, the Liberal Democrats present the visionary promise of a ‘Stronger economy. Fairer society. Opportunity for everyone.’ At the heart of this vision lie five priorities, which together promise to create a better Britain.

Education is the focus. With guaranteed funding, free school meals, more free childcare, and discount fares for under-21s so that they can afford to travel to college or work, it is clear that Liberal Democrat policy is working hard to secure opportunity for everyone. A commitment to education is a commitment to a stronger economy and a fairer society.

Fairer taxes for a fairer society. The tax-free allowance will be raised to £12,500, cutting your taxes by £400. This £1.5bn tax-cut will be partly funded raising the capital gains tax for higher rate taxpayers (40p) from 28% to 35%. The Liberal Democrats will redress taxes to make Britain fairer, those who earn more will pay more in order to protect those struggling most at the bottom of the pile.

The budget will be balanced. The vision of a high skill low carbon economy is to be fulfilled by investment to make the UK a world leader in low carbon cars, energy efficiency and hi-tech manufacturing, as well as a continuation of the Regional Growth Fund to back growing businesses. Backing the Liberal Democrats is a vote for living within our means as a stable economy with a bright future.

Health will not be sacrificed. £8 billion will be spent on improving our national health service, bringing quality healthcare to all. A whopping £250

million a year will be spent on eliminating what Mr. Clegg refers to as ‘the institutionalised form of cruelty’; the current mental health-care provision for children in Britain.

A greener Britain. The proposed five green laws will protect nature and fight climate change. There will be council tax breaks for those who embark on the home insulation schemes, which will simultaneously protect the environment, cut energy bills, and create jobs.

We can agree that the above policies appear remarkable, it is a undoubtedly a vision for a better Britain. The Liberal Democrat campaign thus far has focused on their achievements over the last five years. The campaign has attempted to woo the electorate with reminders of the halving of the deficit, the raising of the tax free allowance to £11,000, and the protection of schools budgets and the visionary ‘pupil premium’ policy. What has conveniently been avoided is the elephant in the room: the plethora of broken promises.

There are a few examples of the Lib Dems implementing policy exactly opposite to their 2010 campaign promises. We have witnessed a raise in tuition fees, tax cuts for millionaires, a fall in living standards, the NHS in tatters, the abandonment of Lords reform, and 15,000 police officers taken off the beat, to name a few. The 2015 Liberal Democrat manifesto has essentially been rendered redundant. After their performance over the last five years, how could we possibly consider the Liberal Democrat vision for a ‘Stronger economy. Fairer society. Opportunity for everyone.’ anything other than another empty promise?

POLITICS | ANCHOR | 7

understanding of ukip - tahmid chowdhury For decades Britain has shifted between red and blue. Government after Government, Prime Minister after Prime Minister, has promised prosperity for our economy, protection of our health service, security of our borders, hope for our children. And time after time the British people have been misled.

For the first time in living memory, the electorate has a real choice this election; continue with the rhetoric of the mainstream parties, or stand up to the establishment and do politics differently. For those who choose the latter, the only credible option is UKIP. At the heart of UKIP’s policies is a single objective; bringing power back to you as a voter. It isn’t the job of MPs and Ministers to tell you how to live your life, and it certainly isn’t the job of some German beaurocrat in Brussels.

Instead, government should be working for you; giving you the opportunity to get on, encouraging hard work, rewarding innovation. And until government gets its sovereignty back, that is impossible.

Unfortunately the problems with the EU stretch far beyond the principle of national sovereignty. We are throwing over £8 billion a year into a Union run by career politicians often long past their sell-by date; a Union established to prevent war (and what a fine job it’s done), not risk the existence of our NHS, block our global trade, and grant 500 million people practically unrestricted access to our borders.

glorious greens - alexander hewitt The heart of a Green is, like that of a watermelon, a deep shade of red at the core. A few weeks ago, many of the most loyal and fervent Greens from all across the country descended upon Liverpool (not by car we assume) for the party’s annual spring conference. It was to be a most spectacular exhibition of political utopianism and economic incompetence.

Once all the presumably vegan sandwiches had been consumed and the folk music had died down, the attention of the congregation shifted to their leader’s speech. The time had come to deliver to the new party manifesto. Aptly named, Policies for a Sustainable Society, or, the Little Green Book, if I may call it that. Its proposals and suggestions were as vast as they were widespread; as radical as they were insane. Upon arriving in Downing Street for the first time upon being appointed Prime Minister, having no doubt shunned the traditional armoured Jaguar for a bicycle, Natalie Bennett and her newly founded administration of Greens would get to work. The first order of business would be the establishment of a new and exciting ‘citizens income’. Every comrade in Britain would be handed £71 a week from the state, straight into their pockets and non-returnable.

A more generous allocation would be given on top, to those already on benefits and other forms of social security. The cost of this is estimated to be £240-280 billion a year, or around twice the current health budget.

As if that were just mere teaser, much to the ululations of the audience, Natalie Bennett proceed to expand upon her and her party’s wider economic philosophy.

Britain was to become a ‘zero-growth economy’. Instead of broad and expanding economy, the nation should retreat (to the stone age possibly) to one with

That said, if the EU is bad, one need only look to its British political supporters to realise why it is so imperative to have a significant UKIP contingent in Parliament. Whether it’s trebling tuition fees, building plywood homes, wrecking the economy or screwing society’s most vulnerable, the other options available to voters have rarely looked so bleak. In contrast, UKIP is standing on a platform of hope, progression, and liberty.

Raising the personal allowance to £13,500 - because why should Richard working full time on the minimum wage shoulder the burden? Reintroducing grammar schools - gifted Rebecca deserves the best education she can get. Ending Labour’s awful PFI scheme - surely 70 year old Partha needs a healthcare system free at the point of use that works for him, not the highest bidder.

As a party, UKIP is prepared to be bold and fair; unafraid of making the big decisions, so long as they are made for the benefit of hard working British people. Scrapping the Department of Culture, Media & Sport to save £5 billion, whilst encouraging the private sector to take on the burden. Repealing the Climate Change Act 2008 and closing the Department of Energy and Climate Change; saving £18 billion currently being spent on what might happen in the future, rather than what is happening now. Leaving the EU and putting Britain back onto the world stage; trade that benefits us, skilled foreign workers that benefit us, laws that benefit us. The choice has never been clearer. It’s time to take back control.

a home based, ‘informal economy’. Without a growing economy, Britain’s defence industry — one of our largest — could be put to better use producing wind turbines and other eco-ornaments. The policies continued along the same line, etc, etc, etc, I would tell you more, but it’s not fair to steal a joke.

Now, I recognise that I may be giving off the impression that I am not a fan of the Green Party and that I am just a gibbering conservative zealot. But this is only half true.

The party are, much like their purple cousins, a party of the malcontent and the maladjusted. An eclectic cacophony of student hippies and old men who collect rainwater. But this is why I like them. I like their zest. I like their geist. Where UKIP provide the tweed and the nostalgic view of the past, the Greens provide the sandals and a utopian view of the future.

Our politics needs visionaries. It needs parties with leaders equipped with the zest and the confidence to go on national radio a discuss policies so absurd that no thinking person can or should take them seriously. It may just be its infancy, but I get the impression that the Green Party, more than any other party, exists because it wants to do something good. It provides me with a sense of vitality and effervescence that no other parties do. Often, I find myself looking at other parties with a degree of superstition, as if their intentions aren’t wholly good. Not with the Greens. Their heart is in the right place.

8 | ANCHOR | POLITICS

loving up labour - Hugo stevensen Low Pay And we’re off! With a statistical punch in the face, turns out 13 million people live in poverty in the UK and half of them in a house where someone is in work. How can this be? Low pay (obviously). Labour have two ideas for how to fix this. The first, raising the minimum wage to £8 over the course of the next parliament, is quintessentially Miliband in its lack of originality and fundamental misunderstanding of basic economic principles. The second, giving a 12 month tax break to businesses signing up to pay the living wage, just might be a little more effective – profit incentives always go down a treat.

The NHS Lots to talk about here, unsurprisingly. Most of this section of the manifesto is made up of unsubtle attacks on government policy with little suggested to make up for their failures. “Where have all the night-time nurses gone, Dave?” the voiceover might as well jeer. There are some positive points, though. It’s hard to argue with guaranteeing GP appointments within 48 hours, as almost anyone who has used the NHS will surely tell you. Also, assuming all goes according to plan, the NHS will get 20,000 new nurses and 8,000 new GPs. “Gosh how nice,” I hear you cry, “but won’t that be terribly expensive?” There you go noticing the bleedingly obvious again, and I don’t think Labour’s proposal of a “levy on tobacco” will quite cover the bill, we live in hope, though.

Skills and Apprenticeships Here I find myself predisposed to be lenient, Labour have identified a real problem, that four times as many people start a university degree than an apprenticeship. Quite apart from devaluing the status and purpose of university education the situation has an increasingly negative effect on the economy, and it turns out Labour have set themselves a gargantuan task to remedy it, guaranteeing as many people in apprenticeships as in university by 2025.

This is a noble goal but it’s difficult to be quite so excited about the means of achieving it – Labour claim they will create “thousands” more apprenticeships in the civil service. The notion of paying someone to dig a hole and fill it back in again springs to mind.

Living Standards Did you know that those at the top have seen their wages increase as the economy has grown? Of course you did, that’s how business works, but the news has clearly shocked Labour into action. The problem, according to generic-regional-voiceover-man, is that too many jobs created in the economy are low paid and insecure. The goal, then, is to create more high skilled and better paid jobs, something Labour hopes to achieve through a myriad of policies some which bear supporting and many which constitute a level of institutional stupidity previously unseen in political theory – like founding a British investment bank, I mean where does one even start? It seems like a pretty solid idea to ban zero-hours contracts, though, and cutting taxes for small businesses has never been a bad idea. Sadly, of course, we’re talking about economic issues, and let’s face it, Miliband is never going to convince anyone to support him on those.

concerning conservatives - James thomson Workers and Shirkers The Tories are big fans of the former, ‘mates’ you could say - although, they probably wouldn’t - and their economic policies are all about working people. Actually, that’s a bit lefty, so really they’re about Hard Working People (or HWPs for short). What separates the working people from the HWPs isn’t expressly mentioned in the manifesto, but an educated guess might suggest that it’s the wall around the City of London and some sort of glass ceiling, probably located in the Shard. Who the Shirkers are exactly isn’t clear, but it’s probably safe to assume they’re all those people who aren’t the Workers.

They probably sit on the sofa all day smoking marijuana, hell, that’s probably what they spend all their benefits on. So, in a wise move to cut down on their probable crack habit, the Tories are taking the benefit cap down by £3000 a year - got rent, bills, dependant relatives, children and no available jobs? Stop your shirking.

Children and Criminals Not two groups often considered together but with the lack of Hoodie Hugging going on in our Big Society at the moment one seems to be leading straight to the other. That’s why the Tories have promised “A good primary school place for every child with zero tolerance for failure” (the exact punishment for those incessantly useless toddlers who fail to learn the alphabet is not specified). As for criminals, look, let’s be realistic, some criminals are propping up this economy (see ‘Workers’, above), but the others, for them there’ll be “tougher sentences so communities are protected and justice is done.” See, while the other parties might want justice ‘served’, the Tories get out there and ‘do’ justice.

Cash and Other Catastrophes It doesn’t really matter what they say about the economy because, really, who’s going to trust Red Ed with that? Labour and the Conservatives are neck and open neck collar in the polls at the moment, except when it comes to the cash question - there it seems people have decided that since the Tories have got so much money, they must have some idea what to do with it. Perhaps this explains the Tory’s interesting strategy of reverse-campaigning on matters of the economy; under the appropriate section of their manifesto is simply an infamous picture of a bacon sandwich with the word ‘Really?’ written in capitals above it.

Europeans and The Scottish Neither are all that popular. But, if we had to choose (which we did) we’d choose the Scottish (which we did). The problem with Europe is that it’s absolute rammed with Europeans (‘benefit tourists’ in Tory lingo), the struggle is real and the Conservatives are offering a solution: an ‘in out referendum’ in 2017. Yes, the Scots had a similar idea, ‘go our own way, stop a city hundreds of miles away from writing legislation that only applies to us, bring control back to the populous’ and yes the Tories were ardently opposed something quite so ridiculous. But that was entirely different, I mean, they were Scottish, for a start.

POLITICS | ANCHOR | 9

I will not be friends with putin URte cibulskaite

It seems that political motivation can come from anywhere these days. I was watching ‘BBC HARDtalk’ in the gym recently, with General Sir Richard Shirreff, the former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander for NATO, as the guest. The men were talking about the crises in Ukraine and Syria, with reference to the Baltic States. The fact is, Putin’s interest in the Baltic States is a real threat. If Putin chose to invade, the Baltic States would be left to fend for themselves. When there was so much hope in the NATO forces stationed in Siauliai, Central Lithuania, Shirreff’s admission of NATO’s incapability to protect the three of its members in case of a military emergency, came as a real, even though long expected, disappointment.

Sir Richard Shirreff added that if the Baltic States were indeed attacked by Putin’s forces, the Lithuanians, the Latvians, and the Estonians “would leave Putin with a bloody nose.” Without thinking, my reaction was to shout “You’re bloody right mate!” (using the Lithuanian equivalent) and, of course, being in a public gym, a few stares we given in my direction.

The notion of an invasion of any Baltic State

by Russia might be considered to be quite a ridiculous and an unrealistic one. However, there is a possibility of this occurring and should be taken very seriously; especially in countries that know from history how easy it is to lose the freedom of self-determination.

The truth is, the Lithuanians, as well as the Latvians and Estonians (but as Lithuanian

myself, having that particular knowledge, I will focus on Lithuania), have lost their sovereignty so many times over the last few hundred years that it has become extremely important to protect their sovereignty by any means possible.

Underestimating what Mr. Putin is capable of is very dangerous. “While Vladimir Putin is certainly an opportunist, dismissing his actions as adventurism fails to acknowledge the seriousness of his threat”, wrote Alexander Woolfson, a writer and defence analyst, in his article published in this year’s January/February edition of “Standpoint”, and I think he is right. NATO and the European Union must establish a greater presence in the states bordering the Russian aggressor. They have to stop putting up with and allowing for aggressive or provocative actions. Sir Shirreff seems to be arguing for stronger NATO and EU policy towards the external threats too; “I am frightened and concerned that the forces that are ranged against us - whether it’s Russia in Eastern Ukraine, whether it’s the Islamic State in the Middle East - those will prosper as a result of weakness.”

It would make sense, both politically and economically, since a great part of Lithuanian exports are sent to Russia and other eastern, ex-soviet, countries, to be on friendly terms with Russia.

Choosing not to be an ally of Russia’s is a risky one. Neither the EU, nor NATO were able to do anything substantial in the Ukrainian Crisis or the annexation of Crimea, to name a few examples. It is understood that both situations were, and still are, terribly tricky because of the instability of the regions, but that does not justify the fact that not much was done to aid the people struggling

against a Russian invasion. Could a parallel be drawn between the Europe of the 1930s with demilitarized democracies and the Europe of today? Are we heading towards another great conflict? The weakness of their allies, however, does not mean that the Lithuanians will chose to cooperate with their aggressive neighbor. Acceptance of the Euro as Lithuania’s new currency showed Russia that this Baltic Country was not planning to ally itself with the East any time soon.

Even if the worst comes to worst and another invasion of their homeland does indeed happen, I believe the Lithuanians as well as the Latvians and the Estonians will fight protecting their homes till their death. I admit, this sounds very nationalistic, but consider your home being taken away from you and your country being erased from the world’s map, would you not feel the same?

10 | ANCHOR | POLITICS

scandals pull out and pop up Soila Apparicio and hugo stevensen

British politicians have fessed up to over 100 scandals and sleazes over the last century. From duck house expense claims to fake suicides, and an all-inclusive show of sex, lies, bribery, and fraud whilst serving as Members of Parliament (we are however still waiting for the ‘sex in the Commons’ scandal, and not the more tame ‘lying about sex in the Commons’). Since a General Election is on the horizon, we thought we’d help you decide who to vote for based on what they don’t tell you in their manifestos…

1. the iraq war Is it a scandal or not? It’s so hard to work out, especially when even those selected by government to investigate exactly this question aren’t even allowed to see all the evidence (I’m looking at you Chilcot). The debate now essentially boils down to working out exactly which bit of the Iraq affair constitutes a scandal. Was it the creative approach to military intelligence employed in the drafting of the so-called ‘dodgy-dossier’? Was it the government’s decision to simply ignore the one million people who marched on parliament to protest against the war? Or perhaps it was the simple fact that another outing for Team America, World Police resulted in a sobering 200 estimated British deaths and close to a million dead Iraqis - looks bad when it’s written down, doesn’t it? Part of the problem has been the blatant incompetence of the Iraq War Inquiry which was supposed to disclose its findings first in 2012, then in 2014 and now after the 2015 general election. The report, now seen by a number of government officials and journalists, takes close to a million words to say, well, pretty much nothing. Hardly surprising when the wealth of conversations identified by the Foreign Office as key to understanding the process of the decisions which led to war, have been vetoed by… the Foreign Office. As Russell Brand aptly put it when responding to Blair’s criticisms of his own political advice, why bother having an inquiry which is unable to review its own evidence? It seems to constitute a scandal in and of itself.

2. Cash for Influence/Access/ Questions/Peerages Politicians have a way with words, especially if they are paid for. Over the past 20 years, several high profile MPs and Lords have been hit with allegations of ‘wrongdoing’ in enabling questionable businesses, or the more common provoking journalists, to have a much more prevalent (and secret) voice than possibly the average voter. Of course, this very is different to large tobacco companies and million member trade unions giving particular parties a substantial donation in return for influence or access, or even questions.

Cash for Influence, which hit the news in 2010, saw three former Cabinet ministers offer Channel 4’s Dispatches (obviously under a pseudonym) their services to influence public policy for up to £5,000 a day. Although caught red-handed (albeit in this case set-up by the media) nothing too damaging came of the scandal, they were politicians after all. Cash for Questions in 1994 gave Harrods owner Mohamed Fayed the opportunity to pay Conservatives Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith for questions to be asked in the Commons, although, no police investigation was launched.

Our favourite ‘cash for’ scandal however has to be Tony Blair’s outstanding achievement of becoming the first Prime Minister in British history to be interviewed by the police as part of a corruption inquiry, when his party was ‘loaned’ £5 million to support peerage nominations.

POLITICS | ANCHOR | 11 Enshrined in British political history, John Profumo’s sex life in the early 1960’s became notoriously scandalous. Macmillan’s 46-year-old Secretary of State for War’s relationship with 19-year-old ‘model’ Christine Keeler opened up the vulnerabilities of national security in relying on old white men as well as unsavoury but popular pimps and part-time gangsters to keep the social order.

Keeler at the time had also been linked to Yevgeny Ivanov, a Soviet naval attaché, by Stephen Ward, a pimp and another of her lovers who was friends with both the aristocracy and the underworld. What was even more mouthwatering still was that a fourth of Keeler’s lovers, West Indian gangster Johnny Edgecombe, arrived at Stephen Ward’s house and began shooting at the door

3. The profumo affair

4. ‘plebgate’ Perhaps the most infamous of all recent political scandals has been the ‘plebgate’ row and its surrounding issues. The progression has been difficult to follow, turning on just about everyone involved in (and commenting on) the event. Let’s look at the way the outrage developed: first, “cabinet minister calls policeman a pleb! What an entitled, smarmy bastard, this smacks of the worst excesses of privilege”; then, “wait, the police lied about the whole thing! How can we trust the authorities ever again, poor old Andrew Mitchell”; followed by, “oh, so he did call that policeman a pleb? Good so he’s still a bastard. But the police also lied, they’re just as bad as each other”; and finally, “the police saw an opportunity to oust a cabinet minister and played it up! Could they be worse than the politicians?” The conclusion appears to be: maybe. The two officers involved have, of course, been sacked and Andrew Mitchell has lost his High Court Ruling on the treatment of the story by Murdoch’s News Corp, but the fact remains that almost everything alleged to have happened, did. The entitled politician called the copper a pleb, the socalled plebs were in fact corrupt and incompetent officers, and their dealings with Mitchell were to a large extent orchestrated by the Metropolitan Police.

Oh dear.

and was subsequently arrested. The Profumo affair, through one woman, encapulated the turning point in British society; promiscuity, race, the Cold War, and the end of a more in-your-face establishment era.

It is acknowledged that as a result of Profumo’s lies to Parliament and subsequent resignation, Macmillan lost his control of Parliament. It’s also a shame that later in 1987 then-Conservative MP Jeffrey Archer didn’t learn the lessons of sleeping with prostitutes and subsequently lying about it under oath himself, otherwise he may have avoided his stint in prison. At least he got to keep his peerage. Profumo went on to do charity work.

5. MPs expenses The scandal to dwarf all others, this one suffered from a benefit and a curse.

The scale of the problem was juicy enough, sucking in almost every political party in existence with a number of high-profile screw ups (including six cabinet resignations). But the issue presented voters with a daunting problem, who to blame? The problem was that as almost everyone in politics had asked for more than they were due, the public could either have blamed all of politics or, if they were feeling particularly cynical, the human condition. In the end it was all of politics, and public perception of MPs, already disastrously low by 2009, has never truly recovered. So what have we got to show for certainly the widest ranging scandal in British political history? Well essentially the “bad culture” that had resulted in so much shoddy accounting could be traced to a lack of checks and balances. MPs had been responsible for filling out and verifying their own expenses accounts, leading many to allocate themselves a little something on the side. Queue Harriet Harman, who announced the creation of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in 2009 with a view to distancing pay and expenses decisions from parliament itself. But that’s not really the point, rebuilding public trust in parliamentarians is the order of the day, and that’s going to be a much longer process.

12 | ANCHOR | BLOOMSBURY

we cannot be apathetic suffragists any longer soila apparicio

Feminism is a topic that is too often used as both a means of praise and of prejudice. It has been a movement that has encouraged international equal rights for women, and been criticised by the ostensible campaign ‘Women Against Feminism’, among many others. As a political, social, and economic movement, many regard feminism as an attack on patriarchal society, which at its core herald’s the “advocacy of equality of the sexes and the establishment of the political, social, and economic rights of the female sex.” Whilst contemporary feminism diversifies and modernises across the globe, equality for women in Britain still has a way to go.

The House of Commons, as it stands, is one of the most unrepresentative parliament’s in the world.

With an almost even split of men and women population-wise (51% female, 49% male, <1% other), only 28% of the Commons are women. Of course, one does not have to be a women to advocate women’s rights, but it is questionable when, since the 1918 Representation of the People Act which granted the vote to women over 30 years of age who owned property, only 6% of Members of Parliament elected have been women. To reiterate, over the course of almost a century, 94% of MPs have been men. This lack of representation of women in positions of power and influence substantiates the notion that, on women’s issues, men should never have either the first or last say.

When it comes to elections, although not as much of a gap, a higher proportion of women than men simply don’t vote. With this in mind, considering the upcoming General Election, it may be time to delve back into the history of women’s suffrage,

and, being in Bloomsbury, we should focus on none other than a previous occupant of No.2 Gower Street.

Millicent Garrett Fawcett was a suffragist. (To distinguish from a suffragette, a suffragist is the more general term for the advocation of women’s suffrage through more peaceful and arguably practical means.) Through her activism and writing, she became a renowned voice for women’s suffrage, and particularly encouraging of women in educational establishments, as well as becoming involved with the Personal Rights Association, which took an active role in exposing men who preyed on vulnerable young women, something akin to the Gulabi Gang in India now.

Hugely influenced by both MP and political writer John Stuart Mill, and husband and MP John Garrett, Millicent found herself on a path of intellectual teaching, co-founding Newnham College, Cambridge in 1871.

For just over twelve years, Fawcett was also the President of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (the NUWSS), uniting two previously separated suffrage groups. Unlike the suffragette WSPU, the NUWSS, with Fawcett’s direction, by 1914 supported over 500 branches throughout Britain, with more than 100,000 members (more the Liberal Democrats and UKIP’s current combined total). In another contrast to the WSPU, men were allowed to join the organisation, and campaign with women on suffrage and other social campaigns for women’s rights.

Where we get caught up today is in debating where our feminist attention should be more

focused. ‘Women Against Feminism’ as a campaign and viral phenomenon takes this to the extreme, and showcases the backwards nature of such debate. Their social media pages are filled predominantly with women cheerfully holding up their handwritten anti-feminist testimonies.

Some of the pleas from these self-professed anti-feminists have a Margaret Thatcher feel, an “I owe nothing to women’s lib” quirk about them.

One of these messages reads “I don’t need feminism! I don’t need something that tells me the actions of a slut are okay.” Another; “I respect men. I refuse to demonise them and blame them for my problems.” We still have some way to go.

Feminism is remains a movement which seeks suffrage for women in Saudi Arabia and equal pay in the United Kingdom, which seeks equal education for women in developing nations, which seeks convictions for rape and sexual assault. Most importantly, ‘Women Against Feminism’ gives women the voice to be anti-feminist, something which could not have been achieved without feminism, and most importantly, suffragism, and something which Margaret Thatcher never seemed to give respect to.

Whether or not you as a voter, and particularly as a female one, has found someone to vote for; and whether or not you believe in, are apathetic towards, or wish to see the destruction of the system, women and men ended their lives for us all to mark a small X in a small box. And although not the only means of political expression, and however many flaws our democracy may uphold, that X means so much more than a simple cross in a box. Use it.

BLOOMSBURY | ANCHOR | 13

THE LIST: four must-visit Bloomsbury record stores

Black Market Records A personal favourite and the only one I’ve used regularly, BM Records (as they are known) specialise in UK rave music.

A key record shop in the development of the Jungle, Dubstep and London Tech House scenes, the shop features an in-house DJ of serious repute. Until recently it was Dubstep stalwart, Youngsta. Sick.

Sister Ray Described by the majority of hipsters as “iconic”, Sister Ray has been a staple of the alternative music scene since its introduction to Berwick Street. The focus here is on rare and well-cultivated indie vinyl but the selling point must surely be the staff, always ready to make an obscure though usually justified recommendation.

Reckless Records The longest-standing of all in our selection, Reckless have been purveying jazz to the streets of Soho since 1984. All records are second hand and don’t be put off by the Jazz legacy, they do a great line in reggae, soul, funk and pop as well.

Phonica Records BM’s biggest rival, Phonica are the second rave scene record shop featured here. But whereas BM can claim to be moving the sound of the scene forward, Phonica undoubtedly throw the best parties. Renowned for their club nights by people who don’t even know they are a record shop, they also good for recommending someone else’s night out – like a real-life Resident Advisor.

14 | ANCHOR | BLOOMSBURY

LEFT

RIGHT

Millicent is wearing a functional but fashionable lace ensemble.

We are loving the plats, very suited for multitasking - after all it’s tough work to be an activist and keeping up with the fashion at the same time.

It doesn’t seem like Jeremy lost his head over his outfit, since he is still in his dressing gown. We can’t help but wonder if he is about to donate his body to something else than science? It might be a case of tactical choice of clothing.

Millicent Fawcett

Jeremy Bentham

Charles Darwin

John Scott, Lord Eldon

BLOOMSBURY

STYLE STALKER laura dubois

LEFT

RIGHT

By the look of his face we can tell Charles is preoccupied with the evolution of his outfit. We are sorry, but fashion is all about the survival of the fittest and the crumpled coat is not helping. Bonus point for the strong beard game, though.

With this careful combination Lord Eldon is certainly ready for any black-and-white party. If he will be able to dance in this heavy overcoat is a different matter. Our verdict: classic, but a bit boring.

BLOOMSBURY | ANCHOR | 15 Esther

Tom

LEFT

RIGHT

Looking like she has come fresh from the hunt, Esther is working the animal themed Christmas jumper surprisingly well. Is her bag just a fashion accessory though, or is she actually carrying a gun? This outfit is full of mysteries.

We have never encountered anyone who can pull off pajama day this well. We should all learn from Tom to combine comfy clothes with flashy accessories and sunglasses for the ultimate hippie chic look. Very suited for comfortable napping in the last row.

HELLO SAILOR SWIM MAN-OVER-BOARD SINK SHARK ATTACK

Chloe

Nik

LEFT

RIGHT

We are loving the layering of patterns and fabrics as protection against March weather in London. Notice the effortless details, such as the white collar, and paired with a lovely smile, it almost makes you feel like summer is here!

Nik takes color blocking to a next level with his eye-catching red and black ensemble of casual but well-picked clothes. A minimalist masterpiece.

16 | ANCHOR | SCIENCE

three parent ethics naomi gann The phrase ‘three parent babies’, as used to refer to children formed using biological material from three adults, is misleading and emotively laden.

What is being referred to here is cytoplasmic transfer, which involves the transfer of cytoplasm, the material in which mitochondria reside, from a donor egg is into the egg cell of the mother, pre or post fertilisation. This method aims to allow a mother with diseased mitochondria to carry a child free of these diseases, as after healthy mitochondria are transferred to the mother’s egg, they function within the cell as normal. This process has been used successfully in the past, with the first such child born in Pennsylvania in 1997 having so far had no associated health problems.

The method is currently the subject of fierce public debate in the United Kingdom, where, on 3rd February 2015, MPs voted overwhelmingly for the technique to be available through the NHS. An affirmative vote from the House of Lords later this spring would make this a reality in the very near future.

The distinction between the genetic roles the two women play in the procedure of cytoplasmic transfer is crucial in accounting for a common misconception that a child as a result of this technique will embody the genetic characteristics of the same kind, from three individuals, equally.

One has to look specifically at what genetic role the mitochondrion plays to see how misleading a portrayal this is. The mitochondrion is a collection of enzymes that turns nutrients into energy to power cell function, and is present in almost every cell in the body – from brain cells to muscle cells. Although mitochondria contain 37 genes themselves, their role is merely to encode functions associated with cell energy production; the mitochondria contain no encoding for the differing traits in individuals that we associate with appearance, personality, skillsets, etc. that are found in the nuclear DNA in the chromosomes of each parent.

The term parent here should not be used ambiguously – terms such as ‘three parent babies’ mislead us by suggesting that an individual conceived by this method would be as genetically similar to all three ‘parents’ as a conventionally conceived child is to two ‘parents’. Assuming that opponents of this procedure are committed to the view that some genetic material is fundamental to a person’s identity, in reference either to biological fact or an individual’s conception of themselves, surely this need not include mitochondria, which effectively act as a batteries to power cells, including those cells that determine various genetic functions that are considered to connect us significantly with our parents, such as tendency towards various behaviours, appearance, susceptibility or resistance to certain illnesses, and so on. The two types of DNA, nuclear and mitochondrial, are therefore too diverse to be bracketed together as jointly sharing the ‘parent’ role. Mitochondrial donation is surely better portrayed as analogous to organ donation, the difference being our squeamish tendency to envisage genetic interference of any kind as a slippery slope to some Brave New World of genetic caste systems, or ‘designer babies’.

One might make the argument that in the case of ‘designer babies’, as with mitochondrial donation, the intention of those responsible for editing the DNA of the unborn child is to maximise the potential for this child to thrive. Modern understanding of the structure of DNA entails the very real possibility of being able to replace undesirable genetic traits with desirable ones, and concern has rightly been raised about the ethics of such practises. I think the line to draw between justified and unjustified modifications of DNA must arise not from a blanket rejection of ‘playing god’, which sees any practice of this method as inherently wrong no matter what the possible consequences, but must involve a subtle distinction that focuses absolutely on the welfare of the unborn child in question, whilst (crucially) simultaneously disallowing such procedures to reflect contingent and superficial prejudices of the societies into which the child is born. It is with these two commitments in mind – those of acknowledging the right of any human being to a basic level of health, and to the values we would like to see exemplified in society – that the line should be drawn, and the slippery slope avoided.

The latter requirement would clearly, for example, rule out the preference of male children over female, as has already been the case for decades in parts of China and East Asia; it would likewise see factors concerning mere physical appearance of any kind to be an insufficient grounds on which to manipulate genetic code. It is essential that our criteria for genetic modification remains limited to those biological requirements necessary for life in a world assumed to be free from prejudice and inequality, because that ideal should be the simultaneous aim of society.

The extent to which a child might benefit from embodying a specific biological gender or appearance is, and has always been, considerable.

However, we must maintain that outside of the baseline biological requirements for living as a thriving organism with which this technique is concerned, it is social attitudes, rather than the human genome, that needs to be altered, if we are not to surrender the potentially life-saving rewards of technologies such as cytoplasmic transfer to the threat of hyperbolic generalisations in public discourse.

The medical risks associated with this method need to be addressed, of course, and given that the genes present in mitochondria are transferred through generations in the same manner as nuclear DNA, so too might slip-ups or undetected issues from the artificial transfer process. It is vital to take seriously these possibilities, and therefore the interests of the individual in question, who can’t actually consent to being born at all, let alone have fundamental decisions about its quality of life made for it. We must keep in mind, however, that those kinds of decisions are made every time someone decides to have a child, not least when genetic diseases are a factor. It is similarly difficult to comprehend why many, often on ill-advised or superstitious grounds, condemn even further research into the safe application of this technology, so that the wish to have a child, dubiously referred to often as a ‘right’, might be indulged without committing the resulting human life to an existence of unnecessary suffering.

SCIENCE | ANCHOR | 17

How to invite an alien to dinner Rory keddie

Scientists have theorised that life may have been sent to Earth by extraterrestrial beings. The question of how to communicate with our alien friends now becomes more pressing than ever.

But is this really something we should endeavour to do?

How did life begin? Questions don’t usually come bigger than this. It’s certainly up there with the likes of ‘Is there a God?’, ‘What is Consciousness?’ and, of course, ‘What is Love?’ (Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me no more).

So perhaps a diluted version of the first question may be easier to grapple with. How did life on Earth begin?

There are many theories but one of the most enticing proposes that life on Earth may have occurred upon the arrival of tiny metal spheres containing microorganisms that were sent to earth by extraterrestrials. As wacky as this may sound, it is not the product of a pseudoscientist’s love of aliens coupled with a lust for recognition. The idea was first proposed by Francis Crick, Nobel Prize laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. So given Crick’s infinite wisdom and my credulity, I can’t help but wonder how best to reunite with our alien forefathers, I use this term without suggesting we’re actually related, although, who knows, we might be. Any reunion will have to involve some form of communication; a greeting, or perhaps a warm invitation to a fancy dress party, but this requires knowing the best form of communication.

A knowledge that may one day be verified by a response - an RSVP to that fancy dress party perhaps. However, we may come to find that our quest to communicate was not a wise mission to embark upon.

First to the best form of communication. Do our alien friends speak English? That would be too predictable - I think Mandarin is probably a safer bet. Yet, given that Mandarin isn’t even spoken invariably throughout China, it is unlikely that its phonetic peculiarities can be understood throughout the cosmos.

Mathematics may provide the answer to this conundrum. Its symbols can be universally applied and understood. The concept of the number ‘two’ in English does not translate into ‘four’ in Spanish; neither would π become 4.14189 if we were on mars. This unanimous meaning is what propels maths to a universal status and can distinguish it from traditional languages.

With this in mind, our best bet would be to send out an equation describing Earth to our alien forefathers, upon receipt they would recognise the dimensions, come to realise that an intelligent life form would be required to send such a message and then decide to pop round for a cup of tea.

However, the dimensions that correspond to our world would map out a three-dimensional Euclidean shape. According to Cliff Pickover, writing in an article for The New Scientist, it is possible that aliens could exist in a four dimensional world.

Despite attempts to depict a 4D world (Salvador Dali painted the three dimensional net of a 4D hypercube), we are not capable of imagining a world in four dimensions; our faculties of perception just won’t permit it. But is this really a hindrance to our extraterrestrial chit-chat?

Maths has the capability of describing anything in any dimension. “The Monster” is a shape that exists in 196,883 dimensions, hard to express in English, made easier with the help of mathematics. Whether our alien friends live in a world of three dimensions or three hundred, maths is the best way to send our warm invitation. It is a telling fact that SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), a NASA-endorsed organisation, already purports to have sent mathematical communications to the world beyond.

A reply to our mathematical messages may be the only way to fully establish whether Maths is the best way to communicate with extraterrestrial life; however, according to some this should not be eagerly anticipated. Stephen Hawking compares what he believes is the most likely alien visit to the treatment of the Native Americans upon the arrival of Christopher Columbus on the 24th September 1493. Definitely not something we should look forward to.

If Maths is ever proven to be understood universally, the human race may live to regret sending out that friendly invitation in the first place.

18 | ANCHOR | SCIENCE

gadgets science gave you to be grateful for The da Vinci Machine

Tiny cameras. Flashing lights. Robotic surgery.

Welcome to the future. Named after the artist and inventor whose study of human anatomy eventually led to the design of the first known robot in history, the da Vinci machine is the latest in shiny new toys being used in hospitals. Eclipsing previous surgical robots and making traditional surgery look archaic, the system comprises of a four armed surgical contraption and a separate console for the surgeon. The surgeon has a 3D view of the surgical site and carries out the surgery within his console, much like playing a video game. The surgeon’s hand movements are translated into precise manoeuvres of the instruments in the actual operation on the patient, ignoring any tremors and eliminating human error. There is less chance of collateral damage, less bleeding, faster recovery times, and at the end of it all you are left with a minute scar.

Sadly however, inventions like this come with a hefty price tag - a single robot costs approximately $2 million. However, for some perspective, this is still less than the average salary of a premier league footballer.

Although the surgeons console is usually placed in the room with the patient, this technology does open the door to the possibility of having a surgery done by a doctor on the other side of the globe.

Imagine having the best surgeons in the world all

available in the same place, without geographical or time constraints. This sort of surgery has been done previously using a Zeus robot (the heroic names are a running theme) in the first ever transatlantic surgical procedure known as ‘operation Lindbergh’. This surgery showed that robot assisted remote telesurgery could be carried out across vast distances, in this case between New York and Strasbourg. The operation did highlight issues with the time lag on existing lines of telecommunication, and so this dream may not be realised in the near future.

Approved by the FDA in 2000, physicians have used the da Vinci System successfully worldwide in approximately 1.5 million various surgical procedures, with almost 90% of complicated surgeries such as prostatectomies being done using robotics. It cannot be denied that the da Vinci machine is changing the experience of surgery for patients and surgeons around the world.

NIH Connectome Project

Have you ever wondered why some people seem to have a knack for certain skills? Why some people can paint a masterpiece without effort and others can barely manage a stick man? Well with this exciting and ambitious new study we may be about to find out why. A purpose built MRI scanner (one of the most powerful in the world) has been set up in Massachusetts General Hospital in the hope of scanning and mapping over a thousand people’s brains. The aim is to show how a person’s unique brain structure influences their

talents and behaviour and could explain why some people are naturally more artistic, scientific or musical.

What is an MRI? Magnetic Resonance Imaging is the short answer. By using magnetic and radio waves, an image of the brain can be created and viewed on computers. This scanner’s magnets need 22MW of electricity to function, which is roughly enough to power a nuclear submarine.

So how does it work? The subjects of the project have their brains scanned for a total of four hours, during which time they carry out tasks such as basic arithmetic and listening to stories.

The scans then show the parts of the brain which are activated during these tests, how the different parts of the brain are connected by nerve fibres and the thickness of said fibres (thought to be an indication of the strength of the connection) creating a sort of wiring diagram for each person’s brain. Researchers can then see if an individual’s brain wiring is related to their skills. Exciting stuff.

Mapping the human brain is one of the great scientific challenges of the 21st century. Inevitably this research will be key to the study of brain disorders such as Alzheimers, or psychiatric problems such as obsessive compulsive disorder.

However at the moment one of the biggest issues is that the data is so advanced and complex that the analysis has been tricky.

Ultimately, the Human Connectome Project will lead to major advances in our understanding of what makes us uniquely human.

SCIENCE | ANCHOR | 19

Media Myths and Schizophrenia lottie patterson

Schizophrenia. A word that makes many people uncomfortable. Described as ‘the modern day leprosy’, very few mental illnesses are as feared and misunderstood as schizophrenia. A relatively common illness, with around one in a hundred people developing schizophrenia during their lifetime, it is still extremely stigmatised. In a recent survey conducted in America, supposedly one of the frontrunners in mental health awareness, it was found that 77% of people would feel uncomfortable working with a diagnosed person who has not received treatment. More importantly a further 24% would be uncomfortable working around a person with schizophrenia, even if they have received treatment as they fear that the individual might ‘go berserk’ and attack someone. In the medical field however, it is accepted that with treatment there is no reason why a sufferer of the condition should not go on to lead a normal, happy, and productive life. So why in the 21st century are these erroneous beliefs so common?

One of the biggest contributors to the propagation of these negative stereotypes is the mainstream media. A 2004 study (Wahl) showed that the way that a majority of people got their information about mental illness was through mass media...

Firstly; movies and TV shows. In a study on 41 movies released between 1990 and 2010 involving a main character with schizophrenia, it was found that a majority of the characters were involved in violent behaviour, and almost a third were committed murderers. Secondly; the portrayal of schizophrenia in news broadcasts. In a similar study done in 2012 (Haslam) on the content of every story involving Schizophrenia published in major new outlets across the country, it was found that 47% of the stories were of a violent nature and linked the crime with the psychosis and 28% linked the condition with homicide. Shockingly, when the researchers found a story involving violence and a schizophrenic in one of these news stories, it was six times more likely that the person with the condition would be the perpetrator rather than the victim. This does not match with the truth that people with schizophrenia more often tend to be victims rather than perpetrators of violence. Even in children’s entertainment, there are surprising amounts of negative connotations attached to mental health. Disney seems to vilify ‘craziness’ so that it is feared, be it in Beauty and the Beast or Dumbo, whereby Belle’s father and Dumbo’s mother are locked up. Viewer’s attitudes and opinions are influenced by the information they receive through these well-known and trusted media channels.

The most important and alienating view held about schizophrenia is that people with the condition are dangerous. Although there have been links made between the condition and criminal convictions, violence is not a symptom of schizophrenia. Unfortunately some people with the illness may become violent because of delusional beliefs or the use of drugs or alcohol.

The National Institute of Mental Health has concluded that substance abuse

“always increases violent behaviour, regardless of the presence of schizophrenia”. Therefore just as there is a small minority of the general public who may become violent due to substance abuse, a similar minority of people with schizophrenia will become violent in the same situation. However, due to the unusual circumstances surrounding theses violent incidents the media tends to focus on the mental health aspect of the attack, creating fear and social stigma in the general public.

Another extremely common myth concerning schizophrenia is that people with the illness have a split personality. In a recent survey taken in America, it was found that 64% of people believed that the symptoms of schizophrenia included multiple personalities. This error stems from the fact that the name ‘schizophrenia’ was coined from the Greek words ‘skhizein’ and ‘phrēn’ meaning ‘split’ and ‘mind’, representing the splitting of mental functions in people with the illness. This myth is again perpetuated by the media. In the previously mentioned 2004 study (Wahl), it was found that in all of the mainstream stories relating to schizophrenia the term was misused as a metaphor for split personality in 13% of cases.

Finally there is a general idea that mental illnesses are impossible to recover from. This is illustrated by the popular tv show ‘Monk’, where a character with OCD regularly attends therapy and never improves as the treatment is ineffective. Even though there is no ‘cure’ for schizophrenia yet, people with the condition are able to lead a relatively normal life with treatment and integration into society. In fact up to three in ten people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia will have a lasting recovery, and one in five show significant improvement.

So what is schizophrenia? It is a psychopathological disorder affecting the totality of a person’s moods, feelings, perceptions, thoughts, behaviour, and ability to communicate. For both men and women, the most common period that the condition will develop is between the ages of 15 and 24, which is a period of confusion and change in most people’s lives even without the added difficulty of a mental disorder. During acute episodes of schizophrenia many patients experience feelings of intense panic, as their thoughts and perception of reality become distorted and disconnected.

There are many myths of the topic of schizophrenia, some being more false than others. The problem occurs when the widespread acceptance of these myths as truths leaves sufferers of a mental illness feeling rejected and separated from society. This alienation may refer people less likely to seek the help they need from mental health services. There is a need for more accurate information to be produced in the mainstream media, and an effort made to stop the widespread stigmatisation of severe mental health disorders such as schizophrenia.

20 | ANCHOR | CULTURE

ANCHOR RECOMMENDS: five sweet ass cinemas 1. Odeon 30 Tottenham Court Road, W1T 1BX

This brand new cinema from our favorite corporate chain resides just off Bedford Square on Tottenham Court Road, perfect for a movie break in between library sessions or after a lecture. Very strategically placed next to a couple of pubs for post-movie discussions over a pint or two. Head over there for a completely average cinema experience - they even have Ben & Jerry’s!

2. Prince Charles 7 Leicester Place WC2H 7BY

The most fun cinema in the area has everything your heart can wish for: from classics to cult movies, cartoons, theme nights, and of course the legendary singalong sessions. Watch out for the kids running around though, especially with the recent announcement of a ‘Frozen 2’. Or bring your pajamas next time you plan on a 9 o’clock at Senate House, and settle in for an all-nighter at the Prince Charles. We guarantee it will be worth it.

3. Everyman 96-98 Baker Street W1U 6TJ

Every man and woman looking for an underground cinema to impress your date with fancy cocktails and knowledge about obscure international films with subtitles (if you’re lucky) must hit Baker Street. This is the perfect spot to show off the content of your wallet (it’s quite pricy), and your trivia knowledge of unknown black-and-white movies. The beautiful interior makes up for the overpriced drinks, promise.

4. Curzon 99 Shaftesbury Avenue W1D 5DY

Surprisingly cheap beer served in two fancy-enough bars and good independent movies - what else do you need? However, be careful with the ticket sellers though, an experienced Anchor Ed was once planted with a ‘two for the price of four’, resulting in huge seat drama during the advertisement. It was worth it though, and we can report that Curzon offers a great view of the screen, even from the back row.

5. Screen on the Green Providence Place N1 0NU

Take off your shoes to enjoy new underground films from international directors and film festivals on sofas with footrests, if your budget is not too tight that is, because all that ultra-relaxed film viewing equipment costs extra. Probably the cinema with best selection of snacks at the bar, too, including hummus, garlic bread, and pizza.

CULTURE | ANCHOR | 21

whiplash (Dir. Damien Chazelle, 2014) Review Swara Kadir

We use “blood, sweat, and tears” as an abstract idea to symbolise putting our energy and time into a task, hobby, career, passion, etc.

Whiplash (2014) literalises the metaphor - Andrew Neiman becomes a body in which blood, sweat, and tears can be explored literally. The film creates conditions in which those bodily entities have to be physically represented. So when Fletcher tells Neiman that Jo Jones threw a cymbal at Charlie Parker’s head to force him to be a better player, this foreshadows the conditions under which Neiman will be working under Fletcher’s “guidance”. These conditions give birth to the metaphor. The Parker story is, at most, a myth, a twisted myth that both characters establish in their minds, using it to justify their own obsessions for perfectionism.

Much criticism has stated that the film gives the message that these sadistic conditions created for Neiman will make anyone better at their craft or art. This reader-response criticism has been marked against the film. Though it may be a valid point when applying Whiplash to the world we inhabit (the real world), it precisely leaves out the underlying metaphor that drives the film blood, sweat, and tears - and its intention to literalise it.

Forrest Wickman, writing for Slate.com, argues “The movie fudges the story - though many reviewers seem to have taken it at face value - to support the case for the methods of an emotionally and physically abusive teacher”, with reference to David Edelstein’s review of the film on Vulture.com. Wickman believes that the film is a case for such abuse from a mentor toward a student, because the film purports that this is how musical geniuses are made. Wickman’s argument

then crosses over to the general audience’s perception of the film; “Most Americans believe that hard work is the key to success, and they’re likely to go along with Whiplash’s Rocky-withdrumsticks tale because of it.” Wickman then points out; “Fletcher isn’t making a Charlie Parker. He’s making the kind of musician that would throw a cymbal at him.” Valid arguments. However, Wickman has convoluted his own reading of the film with what he believes the readings of the general audience are. Furthermore, Wickman only refers to American audiences - a very specific audience with a very specific history.

This type of criticism also assumes that Whiplash has an overall message. So, does Whiplash have a message? If the essay attempts to answer that question, then the argument would fall into the realm of hypocrisy, or, more in the favour of the essay, of paradox.

If the spectator makes valid points about how a film made them think or feel, then who is to say they are wrong? Fair enough. But where does objective criticism come into the argument? Or, rather, how do we obtain an objective critical perspective? We first must begin with limiting our analysis to the film - its structure, form/s, content, and the themes that underpin them all.

Then we can open up the critical perspective to theory. Then open it further into the reality we inhabit; what does it say about our own existence, if anything at all? How naturalistic is it, or is it in fact using naturalism for its own conceit?

And other such questions. Yet, we would still find ourselves in subjectivity. It all depends on how one sees the piece of work, and what kind of prejudices, as well as how much, they bring to their argument. Either be completely subjective without referring to the audience, or if you turn

towards an objective modus operandi, then be aware of making general statements and statements always need backing up from the text.

Paradoxically, to be completely subjective - as in, telling the readers that one is aware that the argument they are making is their own opinion yields more to the objective criticism that is held so dearly in the literary community. Poststructuralists argue that there can be no one interpretation of a text that encompasses the “meaning” of it. Well, what if we had a cornucopia of interpretations, none claiming to be the “true” interpretation, that when collected together, can give a better understanding of the work? What if those critical perspectives can be engaged with, disputed, refuted, agreed and disagreed with in order for new and original interpretations to be given birth to?

In any case, what we are left with at the end of the film is a buzz and a comedown greater than any drug will give you. There is an emptiness that pervades the film that only comes into light after your viewing. Neiman has his grand moment, but his life, from then on, will only work towards “mere” grand moments, moments that come close to the experience of Fletcher’s approval. Therefore, not only is he a symbolic shell containing the metaphor that he can literalise onscreen, his life will be empty elsewhere and sooner or later the blood, the sweat and the tears will run out faster than Fletcher can throw a cymbal at Neiman’s head.

Fletcher and Neiman’s relationship is just a microcosm of what makes Whiplash unsettling.

Consider this perspective to the critical minefield surrounding it.

22 | ANCHOR | CULTURE

Interpreting “Thou shalt not take the lord’s name in vain.”

George lee

I am neither a devout nor religious person, but the way that religious texts are interpreted still have socio-economic impacts. Not only in extreme instances such as the perception of the Qur’an amongst conservative elements of Islam, or historically with the Crusades, but also in the modern life of the average individual. As such, it might be useful to revisit religious texts to explain them in a way that offers greater utility.

An illustration of this comes in “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” (Exodus 20:7). Many definitions of this can be found in both Jewish and Christian-based religions. In my mind the most irritating of which is the use of the name itself; it is regarded as being holy and should only be applied respectfully. This has led to countless, what seem to be redundant reprimands as a child. This is perhaps particularly ironic considering how widespread apathy towards a Divine Creator has become.

A better interpretation may be found in considering how often those who represent or appeal to a higher power use it to justify conflict. As such it may be preferable for the Commandment to be taken as “One should not appeal to God or ideals” to justify actions not linked to them. This may go some way in resolving instances where violence is incurred due to those representing a higher power, not to mention avoiding the somewhat bizarre issue of children being told off for uttering a word in a seemingly disrespectful context.

Although originally directed towards religion, such an interpretation could more usefully be applied elsewhere. To a great extent the values that are held by modern societies are used to defend or excuse acts which would otherwise be considered as wrong. Most prevalent in my mind is freedom of the press.

Such a value is clearly admirable but its usage has in my mind been conflated to justify reporting private information which the public does not need to know but will certainly sell papers.

This is perhaps best illustrated in the examples given by prominent figures to the Leveson inquiry. A poignant example was given by J.K. Rowling, who said: “I would find myself, at the age of 21, at midnight, running down a dark street on my own with ten men chasing me. And the fact they had cameras in their hands made that legal.” Other prevalent ideals that are appealed to in justification of unrelated issues include national security and the greater good. I’m not suggesting that in all instances where we appeal to ideals the argument itself is invalid, but rather that conflating the matter at hand with an ideal confuses the issue and only leads to allowing behaviour which we otherwise would not tolerate.

CULTURE |ANCHOR | 23

The evolution of the London music scene since the 1990s roman muller

Up until the 1960s and 1970s, producing music was all about mastering the art of analog studio recording, pressing recordings on a vinyl disc or an analog tape and reproducing those sounds on a live stage. Everything changed within the next two decades with the advancement of technology.

We saw the rise and fall of the iconic compact disc (more commonly known as CD) and the development of digital formatting, as well as the digital producing of sound through sampling, synthesising and, later, the use of software material and all sorts of add-ons. These were complemented by MIDI-controllers and digital instruments to replace or offer a new way of making music; your view depending on how much of a hipster you are.

It is therefore no surprise that some of London’s most iconic venues opened up their doors for the first time between the early 1990s and more recent years, with institutions such as Ministry of Sound (1991), Fabric (1999), the Coronet (2003), KOKO (2004), and Electric Brixton (2011) being a few representatives.

The rise of EDM (Electronic Dance Music) throughout Europe has for the last three decades enabled younger generations to define themselves as part of a cultural movement that clashed with their parents’ generation. EDM became the new rock’n roll. From Detroit techno and Chicago house, to Manchester and London, raves added to Berlin’s notorious clubbing scene, electronic dance beats propelled themselves across the globe, giving birth to a whole new plethora of music genres, characterising the decade that was the 1990s.

The impact of the rise of electronic music has had on the youth and its culture in London since its

early days in Detroit is tremendous. From 24-hourlong raves in King’s Cross during the 1990s, to weekend-long music events, such as Fabric’s fifteenth birthday last year, lining up guest producers week after week from industry-leading record labels such as Hyperdub, N.T.A, Ostgut Ton (Berlin), Rough Trade or Ninja Tune. The evolution of London’s music scene could not have been heading anywhere but towards the top of its league.

With a current population of over 9.5 million, of which over 35% are foreign-born, the city’s cultural wealth adds significant weight in the way music has been produced and perceived across generations, allowing for the co-habitation of live perform-

ing venues, concert arenas and notorious nightclubs blasting out the most cutting-edge musical productions of their generation through some of the world’s most prized sound systems. The popularity of EDM added to the rebirth of the vinyl industry (global vinyl sales being higher today than they were in 1991), together with global recording artists such as Prince and Noel Gallagher who recently headlined pop-up exclusive gigs in North London, the cultural clash of old and new provides London with a brand new musical and cultural heritage, redefining the city’s music scene for the years to come.

24 | ANCHOR | TRAVEL

Visit Aotearoa (but not for the reasons you think) Te Manu Boynton

Everyone knows all the humdrum reasons for why you should go: the scenery, the greenery, the people, the scenery, the adrenaline-packed activities, the scenery, the scenery… the scenery. OK, we get it. It is, of course, beautiful, but many places across the world also tick this box. There should be more on offer than beauty, however, to attract cash-wielding tourists (especially if they’re trekking from the other side of the globe). Many people enjoy immersing themselves in the cultures of wherever their travels take them, so it would only be appropriate to explore New Zealand’s indigenous Maori culture and how this can feature in your travel plans in New Zealand...

Since living in the UK, I have repeatedly heard just three main reasons for visiting NZ: the clean and beautiful landscape, the Maori culture, and “Hobbiton”. Actually, New Zealand isn’t so clean, with a dismal greenhouse gas per capita ranking of 176th, and some of the beautiful hills have been hit by deforestation. Secondly, a lot of the ‘Maori culture’ you’ll see as a visitor isn’t authentic, but rather an orchestrated recreation of what it was to be a Maori warrior in the 19th century. These packages are particularly found in Rotorua, or Rotovegas (to give you a heads up). Thirdly… actually, no qualms with The Shire. You should go there.

To get a genuine insight into Maori culture and history, you might want to head up to Waitangi - a few hours north of Auckland. It is here that the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840, New Zealand’s most disputed official document in which the Maori version saw “governance” being ceded to the British Crown whereas the English version saw “sovereignty” being ceded. Disputes over this translation are very much part of New Zealand’s contemporary political debate. Here you will find the historic residence of New Zealand’s British Resident, James Busby, as well as the flagpole where the Treaty was signed. A short journey south and you will find yourself at Old Russell, or Okiato, the first capital of New Zealand.

The laying down of the challenge, or the haka, that you’ve witnessed if you’ve ever watched an All Blacks game, can be experienced up close too. Kapahaka (Maori performing arts) competitions such as Te Matatini bring together kapahaka groups from across the country in a breath-taking display of traditional Maori dance, singing and haka. As you meet people, you may be gestured to press noses together to greet - the hongi. If you’re lucky, there may be hangi on sale - essentially all the ingredients of a roast cooked on a bed of stones beneath the ground. Exquisite.

For those interested in the battles that helped shape New Zealand into what it is today, a look at the remnants of the battle sites may be of interest. A tour through Waikato, just south of Auckland, gives you a glimpse of the Waikato Wars, one of the most, if not most, important wars of the New Zealand wars between British colonial forces and Maori tribes. The remainders of trenches and other fortifications can be seen as you take a step back into New Zealand’s colonial struggle.

Don’t let this portrayal of New Zealand be representative of all there is to do in the Land of the Long White Cloud. Yes, indulge in the sights and jump out of a plane, or off a bridge. These are just a few of the many alternative cultural experiences that can be taken advantage of.

Do make the trip. It’s a small, friendly country. The Prime Minister even greets you at the airport. Don’t believe me? See for yourself.

TRAVEL | ANCHOR | 25

Crossing borders hugo stevensen

For many of us the woes of travel are restricted to complaints about the intrusive nature of airport security, or the annoying length of a car journey. Anyone who has travelled in the European Union will know that one could sail, rail or drive from Inverness to Istanbul with nothing but a driving license for identification. But leave the comfort and open territory of the First World and things go from ‘a little different’ to ‘life threatening’, and it’s during the crossing of borders that such choices are made, usually by a uniquely unimpressed man bedecked in military garb and automatic weapons.

Last summer I took part in the annual Mongol Rally, a ramshackle collection of adventurers attempting to drive, and in some cases drag, ancient cars from London’s Hyde Park all the way to Ulan Bator, the capital of Mongolia. The journey took us across some of the easiest-to-cross borders in the world, and some of the hardest – officially the second hardest, in the case of Turkmenistan. For those hoping to enter the most isolated, and in many cases hostile, nations in the world, it can be daunting to have heard little about how the process actually goes down. So here’s how to chat up the police, navigate customs, and what to do if your guide has you strip searched at gun point.

Entering most nations in the world is as easy as ensuring you’ve written the correct dates on your visa, but we’re more interested in the complications, and for that purpose we’ll focus on three nations I had to enter, and exit, last summer on the road to Ulan Bator.

Let’s characterise them as easy, medium, and hard, and so, with the easiest, we’ll start with Russia. The first problem encountered at the border checkpoint is the main one – everyone in Central Asia wants to go there. Russia is the biggest importer of Central Asian goods and in the far reaches of the Siberian East border guards do not sort traffic into commercial and tourist lanes, causing us to suffer through a three day queue to enter the country. Fortunately a long wait before reaching the border was all that we had to worry about; customs in Siberia were perhaps the best on the whole trip, and as we entered their depot, the final point before entry into Russia, a guard walked over, looked at our car and asked, “Excuse me you have Uzi? Nyet? Cannabis? Nyet? OK…” and we were off.

Russia’s border was badly organised but posed few problems; nothing compared to what might be termed the ‘institutional’ difficulties we faced trying to enter the small Caucasian country of Azerbaijan, our medium example. Memorable issues in the farce of enter-

ing and exiting this oil rich desert involved three elements – the visa, the fixer, and the ferry. Visa’s are still required when travelling outside the European Union but most nations make the astute assumption that tourists will want to acquire one.

Not so Azerbaijan, and a number of other small and isolated nations I entered last summer. Visa’s are almost impossible to obtain from Azeri embassies, making entry to the nation officially impossible. Getting one therefore involved us hanging around their embassy in Georgia unsubtly offering the Consul higher and higher bribes to sort the paperwork, a process that can take days.

We lucked out on our first offer of two hundred US dollars, which saw the entire visa process completed in just two hours, expensive though it was.

But getting a visa is the easy part, getting out of the country proved to be quite a bit more difficult. The first problem was learning how to deal with the fixer, a savvy and fickle twenty-fouryear-old street hustler named Hassan. He was the only ferry-ticket-fixer in the whole of Baku who could speak English and, as a result, had been the only point of call for ralliers over the preceding three years. Sadly this year he had realised that fact, and consequently raised his prices from an eye-raising but still affordable $200 to a whopping and ridiculous $900. Eventually, we managed to heckle him down to $500, a price we were glad to pay if it meant spending less time avoiding the Azeri police. There was, of course, one last trial to go through – the wait for the ferry.

“Listen,” remonstrated Hassan, “you make sure you at port midnight, no later! Otherwise go get more ticket”. So there we were, and yet found ourselves waiting all night for the ferry to arrive, two days later. Oh well.

Neither nation, however, had anything on the world’s second-most-extreme dictatorship, the ‘Republic’ of Turkmenistan. To be fair, we were prepared to face more serious issues here. The Dear Leader runs a policy of no tourism under almost any circumstances, so getting a pre-visa had taken six months of embassy negotiations.

Getting through the border, however, was one the most unnerving experiences of my life. It began at five o’clock in the morning when our ferry finally docked in Turkmenbashi. The first stage of the process was a strip search at gunpoint, all the way down to the underwear. This is a degrading

experience at the best of times but made considerably worse when it is fully unexpected and conducted entirely in the Turkic language, we had literally no idea what was going on, especially as they only asked for our passports afterwards. Then came the ‘room system’, a con trick of legendary note among seasoned ralliers. It works like this: anyone who wishes to enter Turkmenistan must go through a series of eight rooms, each containing a different border official with increasingly Orwellian job titles – one of them, whose job was to take fingerprints and photographs of travellers for government records, was a Staff Sergeant in the military’s Citizen Analysis bureau – and to pass through each room a fine had to be paid.

To successfully make it through the room system, however, one must be respectful as well as solvent; the authorities look sternly on travellers who do not show sufficient deference to the Dear Leader. This is actually harder than you might think considering the fact that the leader has a penchant for ridiculously large hats, staring down from the photographs on the walls – imagine Kim Jong Un in a Stetson and you get something close.

It is around this time that the intimidation starts.

Groups are split up and each individual is personally interviewed by what I can only assume is the Secret Police. Again, language is a problem and the process effectively boils down to an angry looking man in black military uniform looking disapprovingly at your documentation and occasionally saying words like “trafficker?”, “journalist?” The main function of your meeting with the Gestapo is to decide your route through the country; travel through Turkmenistan is heavily restricted and involves checking in with the Secret Police about once every hundred kilometres.

Finally there is the petrol tax to pay, fuel in Turkmenistan is subsidised by the government meaning a tank that would normally cost $250 to fill costs only around $4. To make up for this however, an upfront fine of $300 is required, but the payment process revealed an interesting conversation with one of the few border guards who spoke English. “Who your leader?” he asked jovially. “Um he’s called David Cameron,” I replied. “Hmm, David Cam-er-on, he good yes?” I briefly looked up to reply “he’s okay” and immediately saw a look of shock cross over his face.

Apparently he’d never heard a “leader” described as anything other than fantastic. For a moment I thought it might lose us the visa, but as usual, money talked.

26 | ANCHOR | COMMENTS

Queen Bey: Feminism’s Worst Nightmare? Bey-lasphemy JOhn tsopanis

The previous issue of Anchor published an article entitled ‘Beyonce: Feminism’s Worst Nightmare?’

The writer, Lizzie Hughes, argues that because the music industry is male dominated and has traditionally dictated female sexuality, women who are a product of that system, Beyoncé for example, cannot meaningfully express their sexuality or feminist identity without perpetuating harmful male-created norms, and therefore be anything but counter-productive to the feminist movement. After all, how can one meaningfully advocate for female emancipation when working within “a big ol’ man-made-money-machine?” Beyoncé’s attempt to contribute to the cause is not only undermined, but actively harmful to other women, because, “would people care if these alleged mouthpieces for feminism weren’t pretty, rich women?” Look, “Beyoncé can’t be a feminist because Beyoncé ‘The Brand’ wants you to buy her records, and wants you to fancy the pants off her.”

I feel this argument could be better put under the heading, “reasons why the pressures of institutional sexism are bad”, not “reasons why institutional sexism are worsened by Beyoncé’s advocation of feminism.” It’s important to understand that hy-

per-sexuality is endemic to the entertainment industry. So, the real question here is, if it wasn’t Beyoncé on stage, then which other faceless, much more easily manipulated product of the system would it be and would that be worse for women? Firstly, the alternative would certainly not be an individual with two decades of genuine claim to female empowering music and image behind her. Secondly, when one of the most powerful women in the world puts a 50ft sign of the word ‘FEMINIST’ at the forefront of the headline performance at the VMA awards, we have to ask, how does this alienate and not galvanise a demographic of would-be feminists, both male and female, that have previously never been enticed by the world of feminist literature as pushed by politically active university-elites? But more than that, and the much more harmful foundation of this Bey-lasphemous argument, the entire crux of which the writer decides to savage Beyoncé’s form of feminism, is the idea that feminism has a correct form in the first place, and those who don’t adhere to it, be damned.

Intuitively, it seems absurd to suggest that those women who currently hold the most political cap-

ital in society; Beyoncé, Michelle Obama, Miley Cyrus, Emma Watson, Anne Hathaway, Victoria Beckham, Angelina Jolie et al are “feminism’s worst nightmare” because they choose to express their thoughts on feminism through pop culture.

It seems unfair to dismiss this contribution, be it by instagram or fluorescent pink leotards, as merely “shiny, shimmery, pretty surfaces that are deflecting away from the real problems women face around the world.” It seems unreasonable to undermine the intentions behind the decision of autonomous individuals to use their position in society to take part in this discourse because, “would people care if these alleged mouthpieces for feminism weren’t pretty, rich women?”.

No, of course not. But given that the ability to support the concept of female emancipation and gender equality is independent of wealth and attractiveness, yet the ability to be heard as a woman is very much dependent on both, a world in which women who are most able to put feminism at the forefront of public discourse, choose not to, because the only way they got their platform was by being rewarded by the patriarchy for being pretty, is a world in which you never get any representation of feminism at all.

COMMENTS | ANCHOR | 27 Figureheads like Beyoncé are unique to the feminist cause because they are accessible to those who were previously not a part of it and perhaps most importantly, those who are the most harmful to its goals. These feminists are among an elite few who can transcend the secluded conclave of student activists and intellectuals who are the predominant contributors and champions of feminist literature. With Beyoncé championing feminism, it is more likely that women who don’t identify as feminists are more likely to self-identify with it, because Beyoncé and others in the entertainment industry have normalised, better than any intellectual, the idea that it’s socially acceptable and ‘cool’ to be a feminist. It is more likely that the sexist man will be called out by a male friend when making a sexist comment because one of his mates watched the #HeForShe speech and thought that the idea that men don’t have to buy into macho-bullshit was a good one, and it’s now OK to vocalise that thought because Emma Watson said it. It is more likely that policy makers will react to calls for female affirmative legislation when the individuals who are calling for it aren’t a small group of intellectuals and student activists shaming prominent advocates of feminism for being ‘feminist-lite’, but from those alternative advocates; celebrities, women and men from across all sections of society, whose message can only be transcended and harmonised by women like Beyoncé.

So when you hear the dismissive voices of “it isn’t so great that millions of women are still subject to inequalities every day – and I’m pretty sure that a catchy song and flashy pyrotechnics won’t change that.” Well, no. Societal change happens, and change needs its champions. If you can change the way that people think, you can change the way people act, and Beyoncé with her consistent and prominent calls for female empowerment over the past two decades have been a culturally significant part of the way people have changed their thoughts about of what it means to be a sexually empowered woman in modern day society.

And so, when you hear attacks on Beyoncé’s ‘brand of feminism’ because it has normalised it being “fashionable to call yourself a feminist, not necessarily because you believe in the cause, but because it’s a recent ‘thing’... a new hashtag

for their pictures,” I have to ask, in what possible world could feminism not be socially accepted and be both immediately better for the progression of female rights, and better for the anti-perversion of the brand of feminism that is attacked? A world in which it is not “fashionable to call yourself a feminist” is a world which looks a lot like the preceding few millennia of patriarchy, in which women lacked a social platform to express a political view, in which women have lacked a female anchoring point to spark the normalisation of talking about women’s rights into everyday discourse.

This brings us on to the most harmful, most pernicious and most striking obstacle that the feminist movement faces today, because, the writer, at the beginning of the article, outlines the problem she feels Beyoncé et al pose to feminism: “Female pop-artists are part of a ‘feminist lite’

ceptible to. Given that the music/movie industry is predominantly run by men, and has a long history of sexualising women, it is nothing short of remarkable that a female that has been susceptible to sexualisation within that industry can use that platform to make sellable music and convince their record label that it can be about female empowerment, not female subservience.

Even if, in the very worst case, the writer’s only problem is with Beyoncé’s very specific type of nipple-tassel wearing, twerk-heavy feminism; at the very least, its popularity sends a message to record labels that this is what galvanises their consumer base, which whilst simplistic, solves the above problem by giving diversity to feminism through pop culture. This industry acknowledgement of the power of feminism has allowed Beyoncé, Miley Cyrus, Nicki Minaj, Lorde, and other female pop stars to push an overtly feminist agenda in 2014, and open the door for other artists to do so in 2015.

Simply put, given that pop culture has supported the misogynistic rhetoric that has led to the subordination of women for decades, challenging that culture on an equal and accessible platform BY WOMEN can only be positive in challenging the male-driven norm of that industry.

A criticism, by a woman, against successful women, who are advantaged enough in society to probably be OK if they don’t speak out in favour of gender inequality, but who decide it’s an important enough issue to deviate from the realm in which they’ve traditionally been successful, and partake in a much more difficult, uncomfortable realm, for no seemingly obvious benefit to themselves.

And, even if there was such a thing as a pure form of feminism, and even if Beyoncé with her nipple tassels was promoting a perverted, secretive extension of patriarchy under the heading of feminism, and even if women were being brainwashed into treating themselves as objects even more than they were before Beyoncé took to the stage in an attempt to promote feminism, you wouldn’t get the convergence of the widely understood “perverse” branch of feminism and the idealised “pure” branch of feminism without a fair, and not dismissive, critique of these differences. It is this dismissiveness and polarity of critique that poses a problem for feminism today and one which too many angry writers bluntly and stupidly destroy the opportunity for, alienating countless number of people in the process.

Seems pretty selfless. Seems unfair to criticise the efforts of those who give a shit enough to use their highly fragile platforms, in a ruthless industry, to talk about feminism, and then demonise them as ‘feminism’s worst nightmare’ for associating feminism with the patriarchal structures they’re sus-

A world with Queen Bey is better for women than a world without her, let’s not misplace our criticism of an entire industry onto the individuals who operate within them, especially when those individuals are championing change far beyond what us mere mortals could ever achieve.

group, who don’t ‘represent wholeheartedly the depths of feminism’. In other words: they’re hopping aboard the bandwagon but aren’t really sure why.”

Feminist-lite.

28 | ANCHOR | COMMENTS

worries of a Graduating student Veronica caraman

“So, how’s third year going?” This has become my most feared question to answer. It is usually followed by, “what are your plans for next year?” My first impulse is to run and hide, but I must remain strong and wear a polite smile. I must give an account of my (failed) attempts at sorting my life out, at the same time as going to university in my final year, doing a lot more than the average student, as well as holding down a part time job.

I start by saying that I want to work in the City, being an Economics student, and, if it is a male asking the question, then I usually feel like I need to stay composed when he checks me out again, head to toe, as if to make sure that I have what it takes (because, obviously, you see that by deciding whether I am fit enough)! Then, depending on how much my interlocutor wants to make sure if I’m worth a job in finance, they will ask what steps I have taken so far, how much experience I have gained, which companies I have applied to, and mostly, if that is absolutely what I want to do.

Well, let me tell you something: it is exactly what I want to do! Why else would I have spent hours on applications? And according to NCH’s Director of Professional Development Swatee, and to me even, I haven’t done nearly as much as I should have. But how do you do it all? How do you juggle home, university, a limited budget, a part time job, and apply to around 15 companies, tailoring each application according to their wants? No, don’t tell me that it’s all about time management! I have managed enough of that for far too long.

Time management is an essential skill and I have worked well at using it so far. But it has a way of failing on me as soon as my boss calls to ask a quick question that turns into two hours of work, or when an essay takes seven hours instead of four.

Time management doesn’t really teach you how to readapt your expectations, and I end up working half the night when I thought I was the ‘Queen of Perfect Planning’ and finally may get a chance to finish reading that book before going to bed.

I guess this is one of the tough times, when nothing is certain, starting with what the home address is once university is over, and ending with the answer to employers’ favourite question, “where do you see yourself in five years?” As one wise biblical verse says, “ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” I must keep knocking at doors, ready to ask for advice and seek people willing to help me make my five year plan a reality, by giving me a chance.

| ANCHOR | 29

New College of the Humanities launches postgraduate study From September 2015 NCH will offer postgraduate diplomas in: n

Economics

n

Politics

n

International Relations

n

Social Sciences

These one-year, postgraduate diplomas are taught through one-to-one tutorial and small group lectures with our world-class faculty, in the Collegeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stunning Grade I-listed home in the heart of Bloomsbury.

They are ideal for recent graduates looking to get a well-respected and recognised qualification in an unrelated area to their undergraduate degree choice, perhaps to open up further study or work in a field in which you have become passionate about since first choosing your undergraduate degree.

If you believe you have the potential to flourish in our rigorous academic and highly supportive environment, contact our Admissions Team on 020 7637 4550 for more information, or order your free postgraduate prospectus at NCHum.org.

Where quick minds

30 | ANCHOR | COMMENTS

beyond bedford square Holly Mcnish Anchor spoke to poet, spoken word artist, and UK Poetry Slam winner Hollie McNish, about her mixed views of London and life as a poet.

COMMENTS | ANCHOR | 31 What’s your earliest memory of London?

Going to Covent Garden with my Mum and Dad once a year to buy something new for my Dolls House from this little Dolls House shop there. And having a go on the moving ten pence machines in the same little arcade area.

It was like a magic trip.

What’s the most unusual venue you’ve ever been to for a poetry event?

Someone’s living room - although they didn’t tell me it was their living room till I got there. No, actually, on a bus on the outskirts of Paris. A normal bus at morning rush hour. That was horrible. For me, and the passengers who had to listen!

Describe your ideal day out in London...

Just seeing my mates who live there. Nothing fancy, I hate all the fancy arse stuff. Going to a pub to see my friends or taking my little one on a bus round London would be cool. Eating anywhere that serves food on an actual plate, not a piece of slate or roof-tile or driftwood or something!

What’s your favourite word (today)?

Immigration comes up a lot in your work - what questions should we be asking?

What are the actual issues involved in immigration, where do they happen and how can we make them work better? It’s not a blanket thing across the country that effects all people in the same way. It differs place to place, person to person. Also – really? Is that really true? And always – where is the evidence and when there is evidence – who did the research, who was it funded by, what was it’s purpose?

North or South of the river?

I’m not from London, I have no idea. To me it’s just London, good parts North and South.

Boris or Ken? Really? Boris? I just get baffled that’s even happening to be honest.

We’ve all heard the old trope, “If you’re tired of London, you’re tired of life.” What’s your favourite pithy quote about London?

Sleep. That’s my dream word most days! Nah, I don’t know, I don’t have a favourite word really. Never thought about it!

I have never ever heard that! Possibly because I was brought up and lived in villages all my life! I would possibly say, “If you’re tired of London, that’s understandable!” Sorry. I do love London, but I travel round the UK a lot and there are so so many places just as good I think.

Last time we saw you, you were in the early stages of working on a play about the history of women’s football - how’s it coming along?

And I don’t mean to annoy you, but I don’t know any quotes about London!

Yeah, good. We’ve finished the first research and writing stage and now just seeing about making it into a full production if anyone wants to take it on.

And I went to watch the Women’s England Germany match at Wembley, which was brilliant to go to.

And finally – what makes you get out of bed in the morning?

My daughter. Literally.

Have you got used to introducing yourself as ‘a poet’?

I guess so, but only because I feel I should. I felt funny doing it ‘cos I felt I wasn’t really a proper poet. But that only comes from the sort of hierarchies in our society and I guess I shouldn’t follow them! I mean, I felt like because I’m not doing a certain type of poetry its not ‘proper’. But actually, that’s rubbish. And it’s my full time profession, so really, I need to get over it!

What is the most poetic language?

I don’t think I can possibly answer that without being able to speak lots of other languages. I think any language can sound beautiful and also horrible depending on how it’s said. Creole is pretty good for punchy poetry as there are so many one and two syllable words. It works amazing for rap I think – check out Admiral T, a rapper from Guadeloupe who raps in Guadeloupian Creole a lot. But yeah, not sure.

The best Anchor articles are posted to our News Hub profile at the-newshub.com/@anchormagazine

What do you like the most about London and what do you dislike the most?

Articles posted to the site are in with a chance of earning the journalist £20

I like the fact that it is one of the world’s best examples, despite still lots of problems, of tolerance and of many people from many places living together in one space. I dislike the arrogance of London politics and how much it ignores the entire rest of the country.

Do you have any rhymes/lines from your poems that you now regret?

Yeah, the first one I wrote when I was seven went; ‘My Dad is short and fat and hates cats. My mum is tall and thin and looks like a pin.’ Not nice Hollie, not nice. I’d take that one back...

If an article reaches the top 10% the journalist will recieve £20 Please support our journalists by visiting the site and up-voting your favourite Anchor articles

32 | ANCHOR |

Have something to say? want to advertise in anchor? get in touch To express any comments, criticisms, or queries, get in touch via the below methods. Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll only respond if you follow us. email: ed.anchormagazine@gmaiil.com twitter: @AnchorMagazine facebook: facebook.com/anchormag You can also view some of our previous articles online, via The News Hub, at: the-newshub.com/@anchormagazine