In-Debate April/May by In-Debate (UK) Ltd

BE CREATIVE. BE CONTROVERSIAL. BE CURIOUS. BUT CRUCIALLY, BE INFORMED

In-Debate

APR/MAY ‘11 TM

BOTH SIDES OF THE STORIES

£2

FREE where distributed

Yes or No to AV: How will you vote?

Debates Debates on the month’s hottest issues, providing you with both sides of the story.

Plus-WIN

Listings Listings of the very best intelligent and inspirational talks, events and debates.

A big box of goodies and extra cool trinkets from Suck UK

Free 30 Day Trial plus Britain’s largest range of films and games

Free

Britain’s largest range of films and games – 70,000 titles and counting

£10 M&S Voucher

FREE first class post for DVD, Blu-ray & Games rental Thousands of films to stream instantly to your PC, TV or PS3™ at no extra cost No late fees or fixed contracts – cancel anytime

To take advantage of this great offer, simply visit www. lovefilm.com and enter DB3MAS in the box marked Start Free Trial Now.

1.This offer expires at midnight on 31/05/11. 2. To register for your free trial, a valid credit or debit card is required. 3. Your free trial expires 30 days after registration. 4. You will NOT be charged during the free trial unless you change your subscription package. 5. Depending on the package you choose, you may have 1, 2 or 3 discs out at any one time. 6. You can cancel your subscription at any time. 7. Existing subscribers or those who have previously enjoyed a free trial with any LOVEFiLM-powered site are not eligible. 8. At the end of your free trial, you will automatically become a paying member unless you cancel your subscription and return any of our discs in your possession BEFORE the end of your free trial. 9. To receive your free £10 M&S voucher, you must validly register for the free trial, put at least ten discs in your rental list and we must have dispatched your first disc to you. 10. Within 30 days from dispatch of your first disc, we will post your free £10 M&S voucher to you at the delivery address on your account as at the date of dispatch. 11. This offer may not be redeemed in conjunction with any other offer and is limited to one per household. Membership excludes pay-per-view services. 12. Terms and conditions apply. www.LOVEFiLM.com.

The debate starts here... Send us your feedback to letstalk@in-debate.com

e all love a little argument here and there, but how much do we really know about what we are arguing and how much about our own opinions has been shaped and moulded by the newspapers we read? We think that if you really want to win your argument, you need to know both sides to the issues - this way you can argue your opinion but be prepared for someone else’s, without being caught off guard. So every month In-Debate will give you four debates on the month’s hottest topics that you’re www.in-debate.com going to argue with your friends about!

Be creative, Be controversial, Be curious. but crucially, Be informed.

Contents

Apr/May'11

In-Debate

p.5 Does Britain still want the Monarchy?

All eyes are on the Royal Family right now, thanks to the most anticipated union of the decade – the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. A real-life fairytale is about to happen. But how much does the average Brit really care? Should we abolish the Monarchy or cherish the legacy the Royal Family has presided over for millennia.

p.9 Should Britain elect its politicians using AV?

With the voting referendum looming, tensions are mounting as political parties bid to swing voters their way. There are two campaigns: Yes, aims to implement a new alternative vote, and No, wishes to keep the current first-past-the-post system. Is time for a change or is it a case of if it ain’t broke don’t fix it? How will you vote?

p.15 Is it right to trade amnesty for intelligence?

Moussa Koussa’s defection from Libya to Britain has sparked outrage as many suspect Gadaffi’s former henchman played a part in the Lockerbie bombing. The moral lines are clearly blurred, should suspected war criminals be forgiven of their sins if they dish the dirt? Or should they be tried and prosecuted like all other criminals?

p.19 Should Big Brother return to our screens?

In 2010, the nation said goodbye to TV’s Big Brother in what we thought was the end of it’s 10-year span, but Channel 5 has now purchased the rights to host the show. Much like Marmite people either loved it or hated it, but with dwindling numbers leading to its demise, is there a need to resurrect a show that had seemingly run its course? Disclaimer: In-Debate’s goal is to offer a balanced platform where both sides of an argument are evenly represented. These views are not In-Debate’s, but a summation of what has been portrayed in the media.

In-List

In-Addition

p.23 Brain Food

p.12 Fantastic Facts

p.25 Mind Fuel

p.13 Let’s Talk

p.26 Inspiration p.27 IQ2 Debates

In-Competition

p.28 London Treats p.29 It’s No Debate p.30 Puzzles

Contact us Enquiries: letstalk@in-debate.com Media Enquiries: Daniel da Costa daniel@in-debate.com Editor-in-chief: Rob Lyons rob.lyons@in-debate.info London Treats: Chessie Felber f.felber@in-debate.info www.in-debate.com In-Debate Ltd W11 3LQ

p.31 Win a big box of goodies from Suck UK

All our debates can be recycled, but please don't quarrel with the environment!

Debate

Does Britain still want the Monarchy?

Image: AP/Reuters

By Lucy Mapstone

S Prince William and Kate Middleton tie the knot, all eyes are on the Royal Family. It’s a real-life fairytale, Kate, a normal girl, fell in love with a prince and will someday become Queen.

the Royal Family (after all, England has had a monarch for millennia and its customs are firmly rooted in our culture) there might be sufficient grounds for eradicating them in our current economic and social climate.

The wedding, however, with its media coverage and worldwide fixation has thrown up some recurring questions. Are the Royals relevant in modern society? Do they justify our time and taxes or should we simply abolish the monarchy?

We have to question whether the Queen and her brood are too much of a drain on our economy, whether they still matter to us, the other Commonwealth nations and even the rest of the world and if every member of the Windsor family deserves to be put on a royal pedestal because of birth or marriage.

While it’s difficult to imagine a life without

It's a little known fact that... News

Queen Elizabeth II is the 40th monarch since William the Conqueror.

Prince Harry’s correct name is Henry Charles Albert David.

The Queen’s real birthday is on April 21st, but it is celebrated officially in June.

The Queen introduced a new dog breed, the “dorgi” when one of her corgis was mated with a dachshund.

The Queen and her husband, Prince Philip, are third cousins. Queen Victoria is both their great, great grandmother.

Technically, the Queen still owns all the whales, dolphins and sturgeons for three miles off the coast of the UK.

In-Debate 5

+ 1

Does Britain still want the Monarchy? They add value to our nation

The Royal Family represent our culture and our values entirely. They’re a little bit imperfect (and not ashamed to admit this – how very British), they stand for propriety and are a key contributor to the structural design of our great land. There are good grounds to use Buckingham Palace or Sandringham House as reasons our monarchy is so unique to our country: these stately constructions are internationally revered so it would be deplorable to abolish the Royal Family and these historical monuments along with them. Additionally, over the centuries the rulings of our various royal families may be littered with scandal but that’s what makes our country great. Compared to a relatively new country, like America, we can boast of our detailed history - the good, the bad and the ugly.

The royal family are appealing to tourists

For

Of course, Britain is more than just the Royal Family – you only have to take a wander through one of our diverse cities or sip a customary cup of tea to realise that - but there is no denying how much they add to our economy. The rest of the world is fascinated with the Royals. Visit Britain has estimated the Royals bring in £500m in tourism revenue every year. And it’s not just the Royal Family as an entity that aids us – as individuals they attract a lot of attention. Princess Diana may not be with us anymore but she is still an icon; an example of decency and elegance, traits that we are proud to be associated with.

It’s a small price to pay for what we get in return

The cost of the Royal Family has gone down in recent years. In fact, the current upkeep of the Royals is 62p per person per year. That’s just over 1p a week, this doesn’t seem much when you think about how much we get in return: a highly profitable tourism industry, a cultural USP for our country and the chance to rejoice in esteemed customs. A couple of years ago Sir Alan Reid, keeper of the Privy Purse and Treasurer to the Queen, announced that the Windsors were conscious of our current financial state and had responded accordingly. “The Royal household is

6 In-Debate

aware of the difficult economic climate and has taken action to reduce civil list expenditure by 2.5% in 2009,” he explained. Our royal family may be the most expensive in Europe, but the cost to us as individuals is small change.

The Royals are integral to our national identity

They’re an on-going part of our zeitgeist because of their ability to adapt and change. We’ve had a monarchy for 1000 years and we can’t just throw it away because it’s 2011 and some of our values have changed. They do fit into modern society – the younger royals are as normal as they can be and Clarence House even updates us on Twitter. While Britain isn’t the global super-power it used to be, we should still be proud of how at one time “the sun never set on the empire”. YouGov recently ran a poll to find out how we as a nation feel about the monarchy and the findings prove that we largely believe the monarchy should remain – we’re proud of it and still think it necessary element to our national indentity. Former Conservative minister Edwina Currie supports this view. “The Queen is a good thing...she’s been bashing away at that thankless job for 60 years and is still trudging around being nice to medal-laden dictators.”

They’re human, real and entertaining to observe

The Royals have always been what some may call a tad corrupt – remember Henry VIII and his six wives? It just adds to the intrigue and makes them more accessible. They’re a useful source of entertainment, a real-life soap opera and, whether you love them or hate them, they’re an attentiongrabbing bunch of people. You can’t help but laugh when Prince Phillip drops a clanger, or roll your eyes when Harry stumbles around after a night out. Princess Diana is one of the most captivating public figures of all time; she’ll forever be tied to the UK. And, in this time of doom and gloom, isn’t it nice to have something to look forward to? The royal wedding is a global event, highlighting just how important our nation and our traditions are. Some may say to focus so heavily on two people saying “I do” is disproportionate, but what’s wrong with celebrating a happy occasion? It’s also giving us a reason to toast an age-old institution that, by the looks of things, isn’t going anywhere for a while.

In-Debate - News They have no real power

While it’s fair to say our reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, has some command it is important to note she is only a constitutional monarch as she does not govern the country politically. She may be the Head of State, but she is mostly redundant from the major decisions that shape Britain. Would we miss the ceremonial aspect of all that the Queen and her family do? Perhaps for a while, but we’d soon move on and there will come a point when we realise we’re better off without their pomp and circumstance rituals.

There are other British things that draw in tourists

Britain is a beautiful nation and there is so much more to us than a family of rich people who swan around knighting the odd public figure and showing up at polo matches. Our architecture, art, music, luscious landscape, cities, multicultural population and even our charmingly unpredictable weather make us what we are. Richard Dowden, head of the Royal African Society, sums it up perfectly: “Monarchy is good for tourism but not society – it is divisive and expensive.” Yes, tourism brings in millions every year but our country is more than just a holiday destination for eager foreigners.

Keeping the royal family costs us all

The royal wedding is said to be costing around £10m, while other sources claim the figure is actually closer to £50m. Most of the money will be going on security around the event itself, with the cost to the Metropolitan police on the day alone around £20m as police working the ‘royal wedding shift’ will earn double pay courtesy of David Cameron naming April 29 a Bank Holiday in light of the nuptials. Of course the full cost of the wedding won’t be our complete responsibility as taxpayers – the Queen and even the Middletons are adding their fair share to the wedding day kitty – but the cost to the country as a whole will be monumental in security and transport. Also, sources claim that the extra four-day Bank Holiday weekend, following the four-day Easter weekend will cost the economy around £5billion in lost business. That’s a lot of money for one wedding.

In a modern society, there is no need for old fashioned traditions

It’s 2011, not 1511. They’re neither important nor relevant in today’s culture. Political activist Peter Tatchell says: “The British people do not hate the Royals, but I’m not sure anyone really loves them either.” The royal family’s archaic traditions look dusty in our modern lives and they are largely no more than an addition to our obsession with celebrity culture and superfluous news. In addition, it’s often noted that the Royal Family are mostly about formal engagements and are rarely involved with issues on a day to day level. Australia and Canada, two member states in the Commonwealth overseen by Queen Elizabeth II, both have republican movements that argue that their Heads of State should be a citizen and resident of their countries. It’s not exactly a social uprising but the movements are there, highlighting the fact that people are unhappy at being ruled and watched over by an old-fashioned and, some might say, archaic form of government.

They are just regular people with way too much money

Against

They’re too human to be special – they all have their idiosyncrasies. They are only in their positions due to the fact they were born (or married) into the family. One of the biggest technical flaws of the monarchy is that it’s all down to heredity. If these people were born into any other family or lifestyle, they’d just be normal citizens and nobody would care about them. A prime example is Prince Andrew, fourth in line to the throne. He is never far from the focus of the tabloids. The most recent controversy involved his affiliation with billionaire American financier (and convicted sex offender) Jeffrey Epstein, and let’s not forget his well-chronicled marriage and divorce to Sarah Ferguson. Prince Harry has also earned himself a bit of a reputation as a “lad about town”, and has been photographed on numerous occasions reportedly drunk in public. He was also condemed for dressing in a Nazi outfit at a fancy dress party back in 2005. One has to wonder if people like this should have so much status...

In-Debate 7

Image: AFP/Getty Images

By Jules Norton Selzer

N May 5 the UK will go to the polls in a referendum on reform to the voting system. The electorate will be asked to choose between the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system or the Alternative Vote. th

In FPTP the candidate getting the most votes in a constituency is elected. Under Alternative Vote, voters rank candidates in their constituency in order of preference to find one with more than 50% support. With the vote almost upon us and recent polls showing deadlock, the gloves are off

It's a little known fact that... Politics

Debate

Should Britain elect its politicians using AV?

in what has become an increasingly ugly campaign. Not only has it split the Labour Party, but frictions within the Coalition have been laid bare with David Cameron clearly disagreeing with Nick Clegg on the issue. So what’s all the fuss about? The No campaign wants to keep FPTP because it is simple and clear, while Yes supporters say AV will revitalise politics by increasing competition and voting choice. What do you value, clarity or consensus? Does our system need more “fairness”, or will AV give rise to extremists parties like the BNP?

As of 2010 there are 650 constituencies. The modern Conservative Party was founded in 1834 as an outgrowth of the Tory movement or party. The Liberal Democrats were formed in 1988 by a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party.

Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman became the 1st “actual” British prime minister in 1905. In 1918 Britain became a ‘full’ democracy by introducing votes for all adult males and votes for women aged over 30. From 1688 to 1832, less than 10% of the adult male population had the right to vote.

In-Debate 9

+ 1

Should Britain elect its politicians using AV? We need to renew democratic change

For

Voters are dissatisfied with the current system, and the public reaction to the MPs’ expenses scandal in 2009 exposed an unhealthy disconnection between the political classes and the public. AV is an opportunity to bridge that gap. As The Independent asserts: “Now is the time for the British people to fling those doors to a better politics wide open by rejecting apathy and voting Yes to AV.” It is about making a fairer system. The argument from the No camp that AV will ‘legitimise’ and increase support for extremist parties is irresponsible scaremongering. The Institute for Public Policy Research recently used a statistical analysis to demonstrate that AV is unlikely to aide the BNP anymore than the current system. As Chris Huhne, the Climate Change Secretary underlines, the BNP wants to keep FPTP, while Operation Black Vote supports AV. This demonstrates on which side of the dividing line progressive politics stands.

FPTP votes are wasted

The facts speak for themselves. Under the “winner takes all” FPTP system, elections in the UK are decided by a handful of voters in marginal seats. In the 2010 General Election 69 per cent of the electorate cast votes that made little difference. As Nick Clegg argues, this means MPs only need to court the votes of a few thousand people in swing seats and can ignore the rest. In his Daily Mirror blog, columnist Andrew Penman said that he was so “disillusioned” with the unfairness of the British voting system that he doubted he would ever vote again unless the system was changed. By ranking your preferences in a 1-2-3 order, AV allows second and third choice preferences to matter. Essentially, your vote is more likely to count under AV, so more people will take part in elections. That has to be good for democracy.

It will create more competition for seats

With voters having the option of a 1-2-3 voting preference, many constituencies that were previously “safe seats” will become genuinely competitive for the first time. This will change the face of elections, forcing complacent MPs to reach out to communities whose second or third choice

10 In-Debate

votes could tip the balance in their favour. Chris Huhne wrote in The Guardian recently: “AV makes lazy MPs work harder and reach out beyond their tribe. It is what Britain needs to clean up politics.” This empowers individuals with a greater say over who their local MP is, and offers greater choice beyond the black and white option of ticking a single box. It is worth remembering that you don’t have to put three choices if you don’t want to, you can still just tick one.

Don’t be fooled - AV is important

One of the most unedifying features of this campaign so far has been the misleading advertising strategy of the No campaign. One advert seeks to link AV to the death of British troops in Afghanistan: “He needs bulletproof vests, not an alternative voting system” reads the text next to a picture of a soldier. The website of the No campaign claims: “Schools and hospitals, or the alternative vote — that’s the choice in this referendum”. As Rachel Sylvester argues in her comment piece in The Times, this sets up a ludicrous false dichotomy between saving hospitals and changing the voting system. The estimated cost to change to AV is only £150m, a pittance compared to the £167.9 billion we are set to borrow as a country this year. What could be more important than deciding how a country chooses its government? £150m is a small price to pay to decide what kind of democracy we want.

It is simple and an improvement

AV is an upgrade to our current voting system. Les Donner, a Liberal Democrat councilor, points out that AV builds on the current system, eliminating many of its weaknesses and strengthens the link between MPs and their communities. Voters can vote for the order of candidates they really want, so there is no need to vote tactically. The contention from David Cameron, and various Labour MPs like Jack Straw, that AV is too “complicated” for the British people to understand is an insult to our intelligence. In a recent poll twothirds of voters say they think AV is “fairly” or “very easy” to understand, while the system is already used in UK mayoral elections. AV better reflects the modern shift to multi-party politics - people are not “tribal” party political supporters anymore and have a range of preferences when they vote.

In-Debate - Politics AV is unfair

In a democracy, it is a fundamental right that every citizen should cast an equal vote. Jim McConalogue, an analyst at the European Foundation, argues that AV is unfair. It would create a voting system in which if the candidate closest to first does not achieve 50% of the vote, then it falls to the votes of the lowest ranked candidates which are counted until one of those candidates gets over the winning margin. Rather than the candidate who receives the most votes winning the election, the person who finishes third could be declared the winner (no wonder the Liberal Democrats like it). Conservative Party chair Baroness Warsi points out that AV is likely to provide legitimacy and electoral support to fringe extremist parties who could have their votes counted several times. Meanwhile, those voting for mainstream parties have their votes counted just once. AV thus violates the basic principle of “one person one vote” and to not have that vote reallocated in any other way.

FPTP is simple and works

FPTP is simple, clear and decisive. It has been effective throughout British history in delivering unambiguous election results – there is a good reason it is the most used electoral system in the world. It ensures there are strong, stable governments who can then be held accountable for their manifesto promises. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, has said AV is the “worst of both worlds” and “the trouble with the AV system is it is a likely to produce election results which are more indecisive, are more disproportionate, and are even both at the same time.” Crucially FPTP gives the electorate the chance to kick out a government they are fed up with, this would be severely undermined under an AV system.

AV is discredited, expensive and complicated

Under AV, hung Parliaments would become the norm rather than the exception. George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, argues that AV encourages “exactly the sort of dodgy, behind the scenes shenanigans that people don’t like about politics”. With the formation of Coalitions more likely, political party manifestoes become meaningless and broken promises become even more regular. Why vote

for an MP, within the context of his/her Party, when once elected they abandon all pledges for a rehashed agenda which the electorate did not vote for? AV will make MPs less accountable. Moreover, calculating the results is a complicated process which would cost the taxpayer millions. There are good reasons why only 3 countries in the world - Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea – actually use the system.

No one wants it

The AV vote is politically motivated

Despite the increasingly antagonistic campaigning, none of the political parties actually want AV. In their manifestos for the last General Election, both the Green Party and the Lib Dems proposed a form of Proportional Representation – quite different to AV. Ben Bradshaw MP, Director of Labour Yes to AV, wrote in November 2009 that AV “does not deliver” more public trust or confidence in political system. Chris Huhne wrote a similar piece before the election, arguing that AV is not better at reflecting the will of the public than FPTP. Most damningly, in an article for The Guardian last year, Nick Clegg called AV “a miserable little compromise”. This underlines the notion that AV is a middle-of-the-road, fudged settlement. The AV system is not a move towards greater proportionality – in many circumstances it is even less proportional than the FPTP system.

Against

The decision to have an AV referendum was a political, rather than democratic, decision. It has nothing to do with renewing democracy, but was the price the Conservatives had to pay to convince the Lib Dems to form a coalition. Matthew Elliott, the Campaign Director of No to AV, said AV is “a politicians fix, bargained for by Nick Clegg last May, and enabling him – and not the voters – to choose the Government.” The intention of AV is to make the Lib Dems kingmakers after each election and give them the balance of power over Parliament. If we’d used the AV system in the last election, Gordon Brown could still be Prime Minister. In Australia they have a Labour Prime Minister even though the Conservative candidate, Tony Abbott, received the most first preference votes.

In-Debate 11

Fantastic Facts Every time you lick a stamp, you’re consuming 1/10 of a calorie. The very first bomb dropped by the Allies on Berlin during World War II killed the only elephant in the Berlin Zoo. Months that begin on a Sunday will always have a “Friday the 13th.” The word “queue” is the only word in the English language that is still pronounced the same way when the last four letters are removed. In every episode of Seinfeld there is a Superman image somewhere. When Anders Celsius, first developed his scale, he made freezing 100 degrees and boiling 0 degrees. Fellow scientists waited until Celsius died to change the scale.

Your address... It’s that easy!

Berengaria of Navarre, who was married to King Richard of England, never once stepped on English soil. In the Great Fire of London there were only 8 casualties. Yahoo! is a short name for “Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle”. It was coined by PhD candidates at Stanford University: David Filo and Jerry Yang. Hyperpolysyllabicomania is a fondness for big words. The dinosaur noises in Jurassic Park came from slowing down the sounds of elephants, geese and horses. The WD in WD40 means “water displacement.” The 40 comes from the 40 attempts at creating this product.

Get a guaranteed copy of In-Debate delivered to your home or office every month... for free!

Just e-mail: iwantone@in-debate.com

In-Debate 12

/LONDON

CALL US NOW 0N

0800 083 8898

Londoners save on your insurance!

WWW.CLICKCOVER.COM/LONDON These are a selection of extracts from readers comments from last month’s issue. Join the debate on Facebook, Twitter or e-mail us at Letstalk@indebate.com and get your views featured. “Realistically nuclear is one of the only options. Wind farms will have to play a major role in my opinion. Interesting topic.” NunuMcCann, Twitter “Absolutely not. Nuclear is dangerous, however solar energy is clean and free. I don’t want other disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima. - Graziano79, Twitter “I’m sorry to say it, but we have a moral obligation to civilians in Libya. Imagine if something happened here and the world just stood and watched.” - Azit Tao, Islington “To me this has nothing to do with money, but resources. How can we ever expect to win in Afghanistan if we are stretching our resources to the limit?. We can’t continue to cut our defence budgets and expect results.” – Erika Craner

Let's Talk “I think your point about a security risk is very important. What happens when a women in a burqa goes through passport control? I would love to know.” – Jamie Kelly, Brixton “The mere fact that we haven’t banned it is what makes us different. And different is a good thing. Let’s be the freest country in the world.” - Elliot, Hampstead ““I mean, there’s not much you can say other than genius, he represents life.” CharliesMaSheen, Twitter “By giving so much attention to celebrities the press are only making them more ‘infamous’. This isn’t a moral question but one of attention seeking. If we don’t dangle the carrot of notoriety in front or them, then the need to publicise of prolong their downfall becomes irrelevant and I bet it makes them better quicker!” – Susie Cartwright, Westminster

In-Debate 13

Something worth celebrating... Bet for the first time on your mobile today and we’ll give you a £5 free bet* - Visit sportingbet.com on your mobile - Sign-up, deposit and place your first bet - Receive a £5 free bet*

Official Sponsor of Wolverhampton Wanderers Mobile bonus available for new clients joining before 01.05.11. Free bet is ‘winnings only’ (stake not returned). Minimum bet of £10 See website for full T&Cs

Debate

Is it right to trade amnesty for intelligence? Image: 123RF/Photoshop

ByJonathan Sebire

ITH Moussa Koussa’s arrival in the UK following his defection from Libya, a can of worms has been opened around the morality of offering suspected war criminals amnesty in exchange for valuable intelligence. Since the 1946 Nuremberg trials when Nazis were brought to justice for crimes against humanity there has never been a more emotive issue in international relations than the conviction of war criminals, and it plays a major role in healing the collective psyche of nations who have suffered atrocities.

It's a little known fact that... News

However, prosecution is not always the first concern of nations. There is a long history of war criminals being offered amnesty in exchange for spilling secrets and the former Gadaffi henchman appears the latest in line. This has irked many victims of the Lockerbie bombing as despite Koussa’s links to the atrocity he has received the right to asylum in the UK. Is it right to offer amnesty if it means saving lives in the future? Or should no crime go unpunished?

Peter von Hagenbach’s trail in 1474, was the first for “international” war crimes.

Moussa Koussa holds an MA from Michigan State University in the US and speaks fluent English.

On July 1st, 2002, the International Criminal Court was set up in The Hague.

He was head of Libya’s External Security Organisation, making him Libya’s de facto spy chief.

The punishment for war crimes was capital punishment, but many cases, spent life in national prisons.

He was expelled from Britain in 1980 after giving an interview advocating the use of violence to silence Libya’s critics.

In-Debate 15

+ 1

Is it right to trade amnesty for intelligence? Intelligence saves lives and heals wounds

For

Offering Moussa Koussa conditional amnesty in exchange for information on acts of terrorism, such as Lockerbie or IRA bombings supported by the Libyan state, can allow security services and relatives of the victims to get vital answers. Dr Jim Swire, who’s daughter died in Lockerbie, told The Telegraph: “Koussa was at the centre of the regime in 1988, so if anyone knows the role Libya had to play in it, he would. It’s important for us to get any information that we can.” The amnesty for Mr Koussa also allows him to meet with rebels and try to prevent Libya becoming entrenched in civil war. Throughout the cold war the only eyes and ears the CIA had in Soviet bloc countries were from spies recruited by ex-Nazi official and West German head of intelligence Reinhard Gehlen. Gehlen recruited hundreds of ex-German spies that aided the CIA and MI6 and protected US and British interests.

You can’t prosecute evil

Hannah Arendt, writing about the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, said: “The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, they were neither perverted nor sadistic, they were terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together.” This hypothesis that many war criminals were normal people in abnormal circumstances was used by the CIA to justify inaction over the apprehension of Eichmann and Reinhard Gehlen. Documents released in 2006 show that the CIA were aware of Eichmann’s location in Argentina but were worried he could expose the then current German national security adviser, Hans Globke.

Prosecution can be counter-productive.

Enforcement of international war crimes legislation can sometimes hinder a country’s postwar development. In 2006 the Ugandan authorities informed the UN that they would be offering amnesty to rebels from the Lords Resistance Army (LRA). The LRA were notorious for using child soldiers and committing other human rights abuses, such as torture and institutional rape,

16 In-Debate

during the 20 year conflict that had ravaged the country. Uganda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sam Kutesa, described the “painful” decision to offer amnesty to the UN: “Painful in the sense that we do not condone impunity,” Mr. Kutesa said. “We are, however, convinced that the alternative traditional justice system that we intend to apply is an equitable solution.” Yasmin Naqvi notes: “Where states in transition have enacted such amnesties it is important to consider whether such amnesties will be given international recognition.” In Uganda LRA leaders such as Joseph Kony still faced indictment from the International Criminal Court (ICC). This led to Kony going underground as he refused to stand trial at the ICC. He is currently still leading the LRA.

There is no time limit on the intelligence/benefit

After World War II the U.S. Government ran Operation Paperclip, which sought to bring the cream of the Nazi science machine to America in order to gain intelligence and brain power that could be used against the Soviets during the Cold War. The project led to hundreds of scientists and aviation specialists emigrating. The scientists were naturalised in the early 50s being brought in through Mexico and becoming official U.S. Citizens. One of the key figures was Wernher Von Braun, a Nazi rocketeer who enjoyed a NASA career that included working on the Saturn rockets. Despite this amnesty there were several investigations into the scientists activities in World War II throughout twentieth century, although there were no prosecutions.

The national interest must be prioritised

In countries such as Afghanistan, which has seen consistent turmoil for over 30 years, prosecution of war crimes can escalate sectarian violence and lead to accusations of “victors justice” from minority groups. In 2007 the Afghan parliament, under the auspices of the western appointed Hamid Karzai, passed the National Stability and Reconciliation Law which ensured that all those engaged in conflict before the formation of the Interim Administration in Afghanistan would enjoy all their legal rights and not be prosecuted. This measure was seen as vital to rebuilding a centralised, stable Afghanistan.

In-Debate - News It undermines democracy and the rule of law.

Not applying International Humanitarian Law to war criminals undermines the legitimacy and power of the UN. Richard Dicker, Director of Human Rights Watch, says: “Bringing criminals to trial is a way of honoring the victims of these crimes, as well as inserting the rule of law in what are undoubtedly some of the worst circumstances.” The recent news that Egyptian ex-President Hosni Mubarak would face prosecution for ordering the shooting of protesters in Tahrir Square was greeted with joy within Eygpt. If there is to truly be a democratic end to the Arab uprisings then there must be seen to be justice for the actions perpetrated by totalitarian regimes.

We do not negotiate with terrorists

Both George W. Bush and Tony Blair reiterated in the days after 9/11 that negotiating with terrorists would be beyond the pale. There has been outrage from the press and government on both sides of the atlantic after Moussa Koussa was offered asylum. Conservative MP Robert Halfon, whose family fled Colonel Gaddafi’s regime when he seized power, told The Scotsman: “Many people will be anxious that Britain is being used as a transit lounge for alleged war criminals.” Mr Koussa was at the heart of the Libyan regime which committed acts of state sanctioned terrorism with the bombing of Pan-Am flight 103, and later supplied the IRA with semtex used on British soil. He should be held accountable for his actions not given amnesty.

Justice is imperative for collective post-war healing

“Criminal prosecution of those accused of committing war crimes is a fundamental aspect to a victim’s right to justice.” says Yasmin Naqvi of the Red Cross. In a New York Times article on Rwanda’s efforts to sit in self-judgement following the war crimes committed in the civil war between the Hutu and Tutsi factions, it said: “Prime Minister Faustin Twagiramungu’s determination to proceed with the trial and execution of thousands of civilians accused of war crimes in Rwanda speaks of victor’s justice. Mass trials in suspect circumstances can now

only deepen the divisions. Far better for the world as well as Rwanda to seek justice before an international tribunal under United Nations auspices.”

Prosecution protects against abuse of power

Freedom from prosecution removes the last incentive against committing atrocities that some dictators may pay attention to. But it is not only totalitarian regimes that need the spectre of war crimes to be enforced. Writing on Human Rights Watch (HRW), Clive Baldwin, senior legal advisor, said: Last year, HRW revealed evidence of the complicity of British agents in torture by the Pakistani intelligence services. This could and should be investigated as a crime. Any eventual prosecutions could well reveal severe incompetence in allowing such complicity to take place.” This together with accusations of abuses under extraordinary rendition and torture in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan by American and British forces highlights the need for self-policing. If there is no international system for enforcing basic humanitarian values then it undermines the legitimacy of foreign intervention.

It’s illegal...or at least it should be.

Against

In 2010 Amnesty International reported that despite the massacre of over 100,000 people in East Timor, between 1974 and 1999, it was unlikely that anyone would ever be held accountable as amnesty was being offered to those responsible. Isabelle Arradon, Amnesty International’s Reasercher on East Timor, said: “Survivors of decades of human rights violations in Timor-Leste are demanding justice and reparations, but the authorities’ routine use of amnesties and pardons has created a culture of impunity.” In fact several people were prosecuted for crimes against humanity in 1999, but they were later released by the new government. “The authorities in Timor-Leste are compromising on justice to seek peace – but trading away justice for such serious crimes only undermines the rule of law, and cannot resolve the trauma of the past,” said Arradon. There needs to be universal enforcement of war crimes if they are to hold any weight at all.

In-Debate 17

In-Debate BOTH SIDES OF THE STORIES

Sign-up now! Get a guaranteed copy of In-Debate every month! Due to popular demand (very popular demand!), we have decided to continue offering our 6-month free subscription to have a copy of In-Debate delivered to your door. If your a fan of In-Debate or are a first time reader and love what you see then sign up today. We don’t want you to have to root around all morning to find a copy of In-Debate especially as they are going like gold dust, so sit back relax and let us do the work for you! All you have to do is e-mail iwantone@in-debate.com with your name and address. If you subscribe today we will offer you the first 6 month’s absolutely free... and each issue after will be only be £2! (but you can opt out after the 6 month free period).

Subscribe to In-Debate today! *No emails will be shared with any nasty 3rd parties... that we promise!

BE CREATIVE. BE CONTROVERSIAL. BE CURIOUS. BUT CRUCIALLY, BE INFORMED

Debate

Should Big Brother return to our screens? Image: Channel 4/Big Brother

By Nimmi Maghera-Rakhra

N September 2010, the nation said goodbye to TV’s Big Brother in what we thought was the end of a 10-year span of a much talked about and controversial show. It was a series that turned TV viewing in the nineties on its head; kick-starting a new era in reality television. In what started out as a unique social experiment, it soon became more and more outlandish with each series, rivalling TV soaps as it played out real-life dramas. A tabloid newspapers dream, it soon dominated column inches with the antics

It's a little known fact that... Entertainment

of such characters as the late Jade Goody, John Tickle and ‘Nasty’ Nick Bateman. But, much like Marmite, you either loved it or hated it. And, so, while there were some who rejoiced at its demise from our screens after the Press lost interest and audience numbers dwindled, there were others who shed an unashamed tear at its departure. So, now that Channel 5 has snapped up the rights to the show from its makers Endemol, it leads us to ask: is there a need to resurrect a show that had seemingly run its course?

In total, 144 housemates have walked through the doors of Big Brother over 10 years – 66 male and 78 female.

20m calls were made to the Big Brother eviction line.

Housemates have spent a total 685 days in the house which adds up to 16,440 hours.

The show’s name comes from George Orwell’s famous 1949 novel 1984, a dystopia in which Big Brother is the all-seeing leader.

38m viewers watched Big Brother at least once (69% of population).

The Big Brother TV format has so far been sold to 49 countries around the world.

In-Debate 19

+ 1

Should Big Brother return to our screens? The public are anticipating its return

For

Online forums have been red hot since news spread of the show’s return. One such site, bbspy.co.uk, which has been championing the return of BB ever since it left our screens, is once again buzzing with delight, charting every last detail of the set-up of the new show. Its elated followers such as HappyBBfan write: “It’s like being a child at Christmas.” Another, Shontelle, writes: “Yay, so happy! We been waitin and hurtin (SIC) so long!” The very fact that Channel 5 is investing £200million in a five-year deal with Endemol is evidence of their confidence in the show’s success. Chris Allen, head of vision at media agency MPG, told The Guardian that he believes it may earn Channel 5 more than £25million in advertising revenue in its first year alone. Even former host Davina McCall said: “I truly believe that Big Brother has legs. It is an amazing programme that I have loved and dedicated a huge and brilliant part of my life to.”

It encompasses what a generation is about

It is no overstatement to say that BB played its own unique part in the rise of our social media and the emergence of the Facebook generation. It left viewers with a thirst to know what the new ‘celebrities’ were doing and this is exactly the thinking behind popular social networking sites such as Twitter. The show also trail blazed the way for reality TV. Nowadays you can’t flick to any channel without coming across a reality series – from property shows, to endless series following the trials and tribulations of celebrity life such as glamour model Katie Price, to interactive programmes like The X Factor. Through voting, audiences have the power to decide the outcome and it creates an intimate relationship between viewer and TV show.

It’s of interest to psychology

BB initially was touted as a unique social experiment. In its raw version, it is in fact a psychological show. It charts the patterns of behaviour of a group within a confined space, where there is no entertainment as we know it – TV, radio or books – and where partakers are completely blocked off from the real world. BB residents are left to their own devices to both

20 In-Debate

entertain themselves and to get on with each other. Viewers cannot help but become amateur psychologists, fascinated by the behaviour and motivations of the housemates. As Peter Collett, a former resident psychologist on BB and exOxford don, has said: “The balance between the competition element with nominations and the cohabitation and co-operation elements in working together as a team creates a fascinating dynamic.”

It gives ordinary folk the chance to become famous

Many of BB’s alumni have gone on to forge successful careers in showbusiness or the media, that without the show would have been unlikely. The most successful of which would undoubtedly be the late Jade Goody who earned a vast amount of money through interviews, endorsements and her very own reality show. Other notable contestants include Craig Phillips, who now regularly appears as a DIY expert on property shows; Brian Dowling who for a while presented SMTV alongside Tess Daly; and Kate Lawler now a radio DJ. Ex-contestant Nikki Grahame, from series seven, said she wanted to do something extravagant to change her life and BB gave her that opportunity. Michelle Bass, who took part in series five, and is now a fashion and glamour model, writes on her website: “It’s given me some fantastic opportunities and I’m grateful for everything I’ve been able to do - it’s a dream come true.”

It allows people to escape the daily grind

As so often is the case with TV soaps such as EastEnders or Coronation Street, the programme provides people with an escape from their daily lives for a while. Instead, viewers focus, and can sometimes even relate, to issues on BB. As with The X-Factor and Britain’s Got Talent too, the show allows its audience to enjoy the escapism that comes with following the lives of strangers, the dreams of some who want to be the ones sprawled over the tabloids, and the laughter of others who take pleasure in watching misfortune and car-crash television. The show allows for a sense of fanstasy in most peoples altogether mundane lives. Nothing highlights this fact more than the plethora of message boards entitled ‘escapismatitsfinest.com’ and ‘escapism.co.uk’, that all centre around Big Brother discussion.

In-Debate - Entertainment The audience numbers dwindled

When the show was pulled from Channel 4 in 2010, it had run out of steam and come to its natural end after 10 years on our screens. The public had become tired of the show and this was reflected in the dwindling number of viewers over the years and the fact the Press reported on the show less and less with each series. The show’s producers relied more upon introducing stranger contestants to try to boost ratings than to stick with its original ethos of it being a social experiment.

It became rather stale

It started out as a unique TV and social experiment, but it soon turned into a tired formulaic show, famed more for its unusual contestants hungry for their five minutes of fame than for its entertainment value. Even former contestant Brian Belo, who won the eighth series, told OK!TV: “There are people in there that if you walked down a dark alley you’d be like, ‘I’m scared of you.”’ At its peak, around 10million people watched the show, but as it switched from an innovative social experiment to more of a tawdry show, numbers dwindled to around 2million for the final series. Dan Jones, author of The Psychology Of Big Brother, commented that it “became a freak show”, and this sentiment was reiterated widely amongst the national media and viewers.

It has dumbed down TV

Though it wasn’t the first ever reality show on television, it was the one with the biggest following at the time of its launch, popularising the format to a degree that no one could have envisaged. It opened the floodgates to endless reality TV shows and now it seems you can’t turn the channel without seeing this lazy genre. From endless property programmes and talent shows, to following the every moment of vacuous celebrities such as The Kardashians, it has led to a dumbing down of TV and audiences for the sake of cheap and cheerful programming. A particularly low moment in BB came in series six, when contestant Kinga Karolczak performed a sex act with an empty wine bottle. It’s no wonder now that young children’s aim is simply to be “famous”. They see reality TV and notoriety as their ticket to fame and fortune.

The money should be used for new drama

Many people argue that reality TV has killed off decent British drama, by using up resources which would have otherwise gone into new, innovative programming. This has led channels to resort to importing more and more shows from America. Reality TV is much cheaper to film, so why would British broadcasters spend lots of money, time and resources on high end dramas when they can spend little and still pull in viewers? In an interview on BBC Radio Four Dominic West, star of The Wire, said that UK television lacks high-end drama. Similarly, Richard Briers, well-known for his parts in The Good Life and Monarch Of The Glen, warned that Britain risks its reputation for good drama for the sake of cheap reality shows. Speaking to the Daily Mail, Briers said: “You can become wellknown now just for knowing how to plant a few flowers or swearing at people in a kitchen. The age of the actor and quality drama seems to be over and it’s a great shame.”

It clearly exploits the vulnerable

Against

It can make some people famous, but it can also break others. The media, and clever editing, often decides how someone comes across, labelling people good or bad, which can affect them long after the show has finished. Many argue that the production companies play upon the fragility of people’s emotional state and the humiliation they suffer during filming is immoral. For example, there was an outcry when Nikki Grahame was allowed to take part in Big Brother Seven. She had spent much of her life in psychiatric hospitals battling with the eating disorder anorexia and her behaviour and frequent tantrums on the show demonstrated how fragile she still was. Endemol was criticised for extorting her state to boost their viewing figures. Deanne Hade, founder of the National Centre of Eating Disorders, branded them “scurrilous”. Cynthis McVey, head of psychology at Glasgow Caledonian University, said she should not have been allowed to take part. She told the Telegraph: “If you put people under stress and they are emotionally vulnerable, then their vulnerabilities will come to the fore. There is a real potential for disaster.”

In-Debate 21

Listings Live talks, events, debates and inspirational listings

“Ngomba, 22, got her internship through WEXO, a new internet company which matches graduates with positions in small companies and organisations” The Independent

It’s not who you know, It’s who you are.

Work Experience, Internships & Jobs In-Debate 22

Listings Brain Food Live talks, events, debates and inspirational listings Our events calender is now back in full swing with a plethora of events for May, and there really is so much going on this month, (so don’t ever complain you’re bored!). We have sifted through what’s on offer and have pulled out the very best events, talks and debates that will keep your brain ticking for a good while. For more information on any event please visit the event providers website, but if you have any problems please let us know.

Business

Politics / Society

The Greek bail-out one year on: how can Greece return to growth?

Tony Benn

LSE – 3rd May, Old Theatre, 6.30-8pm, Free One year after Greece agreed a rescue package with the EU and the IMF, this debate considers how best Greece can secure future economic growth. Is the austerity plan working? Join Costas Meghir, Prof Economics, UCL; Douglas A. Warner III co-director ESRC, and Herakles Polemarchakis economic advisor to the prime minister of Greece.

Effective communication, building advantage and reputation

CASS – 4th May, WC1B 4HP, 6-9pm, 18:00-21:00 How can effective international communications help you build competitive advantage? Building reputation through employee engagement is as vital as effective use of social media to engage customers. Join Sean Trainor - MD of Uber Engagement, Paul Wilkinson - PR and Marketing specialist, Colin Spiller - Business Consultant, and John Neilson FCIPR, Director of Communications, BAESystems plc for this unique event focusing around how to be effective on a global scale.

Capitalism for the Long Term

Chatam House – 10th May, SW1Y 4LE, 6-7.30pm Dominic Barton will make the case that the one of the most far-reaching outcomes of the recent financial crisis is the challenge to capitalism itself. He will argue that business leaders must lead a shift away from ‘quarterly capitalism’ towards long term capitalism. He will outline his views on what needs to change in the way we govern, manage and lead corporations, and the role of business in society.

Equality, growth and sustainability – an impossible combination?

LSE – 16th May, Old Theatre, 6.30-8pm, Free Equality and growth are often considered to be conflicting goals. Welfare cuts in order to achieve fiscal sustainability are now on the agenda in a number of European countries. In Norway, an abundance of natural resources has offered a favourable starting point. Yet it has presented a number of new dilemmas. Can a small country like Norway hold some larger lessons? Join Sigbjørn Johnsen, Norwegian Minister of Finance to discuss this pressing issue.

A Lecture by Sheryl Sandberg

LSE – 25th May, Sheikh Zayed Theatre, 6.30-8pm, Free Sheryl Sandberg is Chief Operating Officer at Facebook. She oversees the company’s business operations including sales, marketing, business development, human resources, public policy and communications. Prior to Facebook, Sheryl was Vice President of Global Online Sales and Operations at Google and was named as one of the 50 Most Powerful Women in Business by Fortune.

South Bank Centre – 23rd May, SE1 8XX , £18/£15 Tony Benn, one of the UK’s greatest political figures, speaks on the subject of English Radicalism, a topic close to his heart during a lifetime in politics. Join us for an evening in the company of a legend, looking back through history and exploring what radicalism can mean today.

Supporting Sustainable Transition in Afghanistan: an interagency approach

LSE – 17th May, New Theatre, 6.30-8pm, Free This event will examine the challenges faced by those responsible for overseeing the transfer of state power from external organisations to domestic institutions in conflict affected states. John Lorimer is chief of Defence Staff’s strategic communication officer, Ministry of Defence. Moazzam Malik, Department for International Development and the Stabilisation Unit, and Karen Pierce, director of South Asia and Afghanistan at the Foreign Office.

American Intelligence and the Iraq War in Perspective

British Library – 9th May, Conference Centre, 6.30pm, £7.50 Drawing on his long experience as a consultant to the CIA, Robert Jervis will argue that the inferences that intelligence drew about WMD in the build-up to the Iraq War were actually quite plausible given the information available, but that errors arose from insufficient self-awareness in the intelligence community about how information should be gathered and interpreted.

The Future of Power

RSA – 10th May, WC2N 6EZ, 6pm How is power changing in the 21st century? How do the financial crisis, global epidemics and climate change affect an increasingly interconnected world? What are the resources that confer power in the global information age? Joseph S. Nye, Jr, one of America’s leading policy intellectuals, visits the RSA to look at what has happened to American power from the time of Kennedy and Khrushchev through to the present day.

Health Care Reform in the US

LSE – 31st May, Sheikh Zayed Theatre, 6.30-8pm, Free Spiralling health care costs are currently threatening the future of the US economy. Peter Orszag offers insight on possible approaches to reduce health care costs over time without impairing the quality of medical care or outcomes. Peter Orszag is vice chairman of Global Banking at CitiGroup. He recently served as director of the Office of Management and Budget under president Barack Obama.

In-Debate 23

Listings Live talks, events, debates and inspirational listings

In-Debate 24

Listings Mind Fuel Live talks, events, debates and inspirational listings

Art / Literature

Science

The Importance of Books and Writing

Pleasure and Pain

Preview Screening - Mexico! Living With Hitmen

Has the science establishment let down young researchers?

Editorial Intelligence – 11th May, The Hospital Club, Join great speakers to discuss why books are still so important in today’s world and why writing must be promoted. Speakers include Jonny Geller, Literary Agent and Managing Director of Curtis Brown; Sarah Hunter, Head of UK Public Policy at Google; David Nicholls, Author and Screenwriter; Alexandra Pringle, Group Editor-in-Chief, Bloomsbury Publishing, and Polly Samson, Author, ‘Perfect Lives’.

Front Line Club –9th May, W2 1QJ, 7pm Discussion with Journalist Lucy Souza, Reporter Evan Williams, Producer Alex Nott chaired by Siobhan Sinnerton, Commissioning Editor for News & Current Affairs, Channel 4. Reporter Evan Williams and Producer Alex Nott travel to Mexico where they find journalists increasingly under attack for reporting what’s really happening in the country’s drug war. In the nation’s deadliest city Cuidad Juarez, where 3,000 people were killed last year in a vicious and bloody war between drugs cartels and the security services, they meet a remarkable journalist, Lucy Souza who has been hailed as one of “Mexico’s most courageous women”. The discussion will follow after the preview screening.

AC Grayling and Rowan Williams

South Bank Centre – 11th May, SE1 8XX, 6pm, £15/£12 AC Grayling is one of Britain’s most popular and widely read philosophers. With The Good Book, he has created a secular bible, which he discusses with Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, at this exclusive event. Together they explore the inspiration, encouragement and consolation which can be sought from a secular or religious life and they also take questions from the audience.

In Focus – Normski In Conversation

V&A – 13th May, 7.15-8.15pm, Free Normski is best known for his work in television, as a journalist on youth culture magazines and a producer and director of UK music promos. He is also a keen and prolific photographer capturing urban street culture and the Hip Hop scene in the UK and USA. Normski will discuss and explore identity, masculinity and contemporary music and fashion in post-apartheid South Africa with BBC music journalist Jacqueline Springer. He will use images from the exhibition juxtaposed with his own photographic work.

The Royal Institution – 11th May, W1S 4BS, £10/£7 Research into the neuroscience of pain and pleasure has only just begun to untangle how they act upon us. What was once thought to be two opposing sensations delivered by distinct networks in the nervous system is in fact much more complex, with pain and pleasure pathways having much in common. In the first part of the talk, Prof Morten L. Kringelbach discusses pleasure and in the second, Prof Irene Tracey looks at pain.

The Royal Institution – 24th May, W1S 4BS, £10/£7 It’s the scientists and the engineers who will ultimately develop and build the supply of clean energy we will need, the artificial organisms key to future biotech, and the robotics crucial to our growing strength in the space sector. But, young scientists are fed up with short term contracts, poor salaries and uncertain career progression. Do the ‘great and the good’ have their interests at heart? Grassroots campaigners Science is Vital will debate with top academics whether post-docs should be revolting.

The Future of Humanity

LSE – 31st May, New Theatre, 6.30-8pm, Free The Homo Sapiens Foundation is part of an official project of UNESCO’s education for sustainable development. Michael Wadleigh’s highly visual presentation will take a broad look at the complex issues mankind will be facing over the next century. Michael Wadleigh is an Oscar winning film director and co-founder of The Homo Sapiens Foundation.

Compared to this, the Industrial Revolution was nothing!

British Library – 25th May, Conference Centre, 6.30pm, £7.50 Is the ‘ultimate reboot’ coming as the Genetics, Nanotechnology and Robotics/AI revolutions intertwine and pick up speed? Are we heading toward a radically different society where our notions of old age, scarcity and our institutions have to be radically rethought? Or have we heard it all before? Trying to shed light on these intriguing questions will be our speakers who include Richard Jones author of Soft Machines: Nanotechnology and Life and Anders Sandberg of the Future of Humanity Institute.

Alexander McQueen: Genius Of A Generation

V&A – 16th May, 7-8.45pm, £15 The late Alexander McQueen CBE was an influential and celebrated couture designer, best known for his contemporary take on classic British tailoring and theatrical catwalk shows. Kirstin Knox, author, fashion journalist and professional blogger will pay tribute to McQueen’s extraordinary career in this talk, discussing in further detail his inspirations, trademarks and iconic collections.

Image: ‘Cut From A Different Cloth’ collection by Temper

In-Debate 25

Listings Inspiration Live talks, events, debates and inspirational listings

Inspirational