In-Debate Nov/Dec by In-Debate (UK) Ltd

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

In-Debate

NOVEMBER ‘10

£1.50

BOTH SIDES OF A STORY

FREE where distributed

Is Diana's legacy a curse for Kate?

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

Plus-WIN Cocktail experience at Flemings Hotel & dinner at Bar Battu!

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

Feedback In-Debate will be taking a nice little, well deserved (well we think so) Christmas break and will be back again in January ready to get stuck in on all that has happened over the festive period. In the mean time we would love to hear your thoughts on what you think of In-Debate so we can make our future issues the best they can be! If you drop us an email with some feedback we will enter you into a draw for a free meal for two at Bar Battu... (that’s a pretty good trade). So send it to letstalk@in-debate.com and tell us what you think of our little idea. Be it the design, content, or even a debate request; let us know... after all, it’s for you. We 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 going to argue with your friends about!

The debate starts here...

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

Contents

3 Nov '10

In-Debate

p.5 Britain’s future needs higher university fees

British higher education funding reforms have led to riots around the country. If the government decides to implement their proposals students could leave university with over £30,000 of debt, but for a government managing a debt ridden economy is this the only way to deal with Universities? Or are these measures taking away our ambition and drive to succeed?

p.9 Diana’s legacy is a curse for Kate The engagement of Prince William to Kate Middleton has been front page news around the world. Although a happy occasion many have tried to compare her to Princess Diana. Will Diana’s legacy be a curse for the future Queen or will she be allowed to form her own path in life?

p.15 Torture is a necessary evil

The use of torture has been catapulted back into public consciousness after George W. Bush condoned waterboarding in his autobiography and the British government paid compensation to 16 former Guantanamo Bay detainees. Serious issues have now been raised, but is torture the lesser of two evils or do the ends not justify the means?

p.19 President Obama has lost his magic touch

Barack Obama suffered huge losses in the recent mid-term elections. It would be appear that he has lost his magic touch that helped sweep him into power. Critics have accused Obama of back tracking on policies but his supporters still view his presidency as a great success. Does this mid-term shock prove that Obama has failed or are his critics judging him unfairly? 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.27 Inspiration

p.26 London Treats

p.29 IQ2 Debates

p.30 Puzzles

Contacts 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: Helena Fleur Rea helena@in-debate.info www.in-debate.com In-Debate LLP - OC347029 W11 3LQ

Our editorial comes from the award winning and globally respected opinion powerhouse Intelligence Squared. So you can be assured that only the finest in journalistic talent are scribing away for you. Check out www.intelligencesquared.com/indebate for more debates.

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

Debate

Britain's future needs higher university fees

Image: Selena Sheridan/Flickr

ritian’s higher education funding looks set for the biggest revolution in its history after Lord Browne, the former head of BP, suggested sweeping reforms on tuition fees. This has led to protest in and around London with one turning especially violent as 40,000 students descended on the Conservative HQ, smashing the entrance and setting fire to property. If the coalition government decides to implement these proposals, it will do away with the current £3,290 cap on tuition fees and allow

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

universities to charge whatever they want. As a result, it’s been estimated that the average student could leave university with £30,000 of debt. For those studying longer and more expensive courses, such as medicine, or at more prestigious universities that figure could be as high as £90,000. For a government managing an economy in so much debt is this the only way to deal with Universities? Or are these measures taking away our ambition and drive to succeed?

There are nearly 2.5 million students studying in the UK at under-graduate and postgraduate levels. Subjects allied to medicine make up the largest number of subjects studied in higher education. There are more than 120 full Universities in the UK.

In 2009, 960,000 students qualified for government loans; but only 80 percent took them. University College London (UCL) was the first University to accept women students. At Cambridge, women were not awarded proper degrees until after WWII.

In-Debate 5

+ 1

Britain's future needs higher university fees British higher education is in serious difficulties.

Britain boasts some of the world’s greatest universities; a glance at the QS (global network for top careers and education) rankings of the world’s top universities shows Cambridge at the top; Imperial, UCL and Oxford in the top ten, and King’s, Edinburgh, Bristol and Manchester in the top 30. But if we want to continue to set such high standards, as well as compete with the US, Far East and Europe, we have to move away from our current outdated funding model. The solution has to be to let universities choose the tuition fees they charge and compete for pupils. Under the Government’s proposals, journalist Benedict Brogan predicts: “Weaker institutions will struggle, and the market will drive the worst to closure, but new ones will emerge. This is an overdue recognition that all universities are not equal.”

Teaching will be better

Agree

Whatever rhetoric critics may say about the Government turning citizens into consumers, the fact is so long as there’s competition and the fear of losing business, organisations will respond to their customers. As things stand, British students are typically taught either by academics under such pressure to secure funding for their departments that they’re left with barely any time or inclination to dedicate to their teaching. Or by fresh-faced 20-somethings just trying to bolster their CVs while finishing a PHD. British students have little opportunity to criticise their lecturers or suggest improvements to their courses, while in the US the amount of money that students pay gives them a greater stake in how their courses are run. Look at the University of Buckingham, Britain’s only private, full fee-paying university, which consistently finishes top of the rankings for student satisfaction.

Students won’t just go to university for the sake of it

Ever since Tony Blair, in an ill-considered attempt at social engineering, decided he wanted 50% of the population to go onto further education, our universities have filled up with students taking Mickey Mouse courses and wiling away three years skiving lectures, getting drunk on themed nights out and watching Diagnosis Murder repeats. The Government doesn’t have enough money to

6 In-Debate

continue funding this, and nor do British taxpayers. What the increased cost of higher education will mean is that school leavers will have to really think about whether their course is worthwhile or not. Simon Heffer, in The Daily Telegraph, explains: “A young person faced with substantial debt to finance University will have to ask him or herself ‘Will the education I am going to get be worth it?’ This is not just a crude calculation about whether the salary likely to be commanded once the degree has been obtained would enable the loan to be repaid easily. It is also about whether the course being considered is likely to be sufficiently stimulating to merit the financial sacrifice. This consideration appears not to exist in the present era of cheap education, otherwise a course such as Waste Management with Dance, offered by Northampton University, would not exist.”

Endowment funds still allow poor students to go

The new measures will not deter bright students from disadvantaged backgrounds from applying to study at good universities. Speaking about Lord Browne’s report, Business Secretary Vince Cable stressed the coalition will insure that children from low-income families receive grants to allow them to attend. They have upped Maintenance grants from £2,906 to £3,250 for students from households earning less than £25,000, and partial grants will be available to students from households with incomes less than £42,000. The universities themselves have every reason to try to attract the most talented students, because their ability to operate as good universities depends on the quality of their students.

We should change our attitude toward debt

The state is forking out in offering very generous terms for the debt under the Governments proposals. Student debt will not be the same thing as mortgage debt, and failing to keep up with payments isn’t going to lead to anything as brutal as your house being repossessed. Student debt will be structured so that nobody will have to pay off what they can’t afford and won’t require a penny to pay up front. Debt no longer has the same implications it did years ago, students have a whole lifetime of work ahead of them and shouldn’t be disconcerted by the prospect of starting their careers owing money.

In-Debate - Education The amount of debt is horrendous

Imagine you’re a teenager starting sixth-form this year. You’re bright but not brilliant, your parents aren’t particularly wealthy, and you’ve read horrendous stories in the newspapers over the last couple of years about graduates who just can’t get a job. Reading about the rise in tuition fees, and the prospect of coming out of university with debts exceeding £30,000 with no guarantees of getting anything better than temping or bar work, what are you going to do? The sad truth is that you’ll probably think twice about heading to university and compromise your educational aspirations. The decision to raise fees is being taken by a generation of politicians who, thanks to the maintainance grants provided by the 1962 Education Act, didn’t have to pay a penny for their time at university. They should know better.

It’s wrong to judge education on how much people end up earning

With just one hastily assembled report, the coalition have done away with the idea that educating people to a high level should be beneficial to both the individual and society at large. Now the mask has slipped, the Government has admitted they’re only interested in the economic benefits. This long-cherished belief that it was beneficial to spend three years learning about obscure histories or ancient languages has been an important part of what separates Britain from more vocational European educations. We allow students to develop academic interests, and we produce more rounded, interesting graduates as a result. Now though, the new proposals will discourage all but the richest from enrolling in non-vocational humanities courses, and push reluctant students into sectors like law, banking and management consultancy simply so they can pay off their debts. From now on we will be educating people not to learn, but to earn. They might as well be machines.

Only the rich will be able to attend

A university education gives hard-working teenagers from poor homes the chance to get ‘better’ jobs than their parents had. Widening

university access is the most important factor in promoting social mobility. Thanks to the Sutton Trust, we already know that many bright youngsters are discouraged from applying to Oxford because they perceive that the costs are going to be higher. Allow universities to charge the market rate in tuition fees, and the costs at elite universities really will soar. This can only mean that fewer poor youngsters will aim high. As Jonathan Freedland writes: “Instead of promising a vastly increased salary, a degree may be a basic requirement to enter large swaths of the whitecollar British workplace ... the implications for social mobility will surely be profound.”

Other parts of the economy must be fixed first

It is not that it is impossible to imagine this sort of system working. But much has to change in Britain before it could, and these reforms put the cart before the horse. OK, there are places like Switzerland where families carry interest-only mortgages from generation to generation. But these rely on a great stability in life-plans, on a trust that the next government is not going to perform another revolution in taxation, savings and treatment of financial affairs. And it requires an economy that can sustain stable life-planning, not the economy we have that is built on frail financials and a declining manufacturing base. Sure, make us happily indebted, but not before the government has fixed the other broken parts of the economy.

Disagree

We have to look to the future

The Government seems to have a very hypocritical stance when it comes to thinking for the future. Our whole energy budget and outlook on being green is to protect our children and their children. So how can a government with so much onus on the future abandon the youth of today. These students will be the next generation to develop our nations infrastructure, cure cancer and develop huge advances both economically and scientifically. It is surely absurd to bail out failing banks to the tune of billions and not invest in the future of our children. If we want to continue to be a great nation then we must nurture and further great minds.

In-Debate 7

Debate

Diana's legacy is a curse for Kate Image: Rex Features

is no such thing as a simple “I do” when it comes to the monarchy. Kate will become royalty, as Diana did before her, and the world will follow her life in the same way.

However, as one would expect, their happy news is marred by the shadow of Princess Diana’s death. She was, and still is, one of the most famous public figures of the 20th Century, both for the dramatic events of her life as well as for her charitable spirit and media popularity. Romance aside, there is a lot of responsibility for Will and Kate – there

In their first interview with ITV, Tom Brady posed the question of whether Diana’s legacy is something that may hang over Kate. William responded that she will form her own path in life. But will Diana’s legacy as the Princess of Wales be a curse on the future king and queen forevermore? Or will they be able to expel themselves and live on without her memory governing their lives?

he day has finally arrived: Prince William and Kate Middleton are engaged at last and next year’s royal wedding at Westminster Abbey is front page news around the world.

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

Prince William was born William Arthur Philip Louis on June 21, 1982.

Prince William was 15 when Diana was killed in a car crash in Paris in 1997.

William met Kate Middleton at St Andrews University in Scotland, where they began studying in September 2001.

Princess Diana’s engagement ring was worth £30,000 in 1981 and consists of 14 diamonds and a sapphire.

Kate earned the nickname “Waity Katie” as she waited for William to pop the question.

Diana’s wedding was broadcast in 74 countries and watched by 750,000,000 people worldwide.

In-Debate 9

+ 1

Diana's legacy is a curse for Kate Diana set the bar too high as the “People’s Princess”

From the moment Diana and Charles tied the knot to the moment she died, and even after her death, millions revered her. After her tragic death in August 1997, Tony Blair notably referred to her as the “People’s Princess”, and that she was. Although born into a family with royal roots (a descendant of King CharlesII) she was always considered a rather normal, humble young lady. As well as her official duties as the Princess of Wales she was celebrated for her charitable efforts. She had a genuine interest in the sick, the poor and the needy. Even if Kate turns herself into a angelic ambassador for numerous good causes it’s unlikely she will have the same widespread appeal. Diana’s tragic death led to her being memorialised as almost saintly, something Kate can never live up to and this will impact her success as a royal. She can never replace Diana.

Agree

Like father, like son, how different is William?

Diana’s life will have undoubtedly influenced William. With her divorce from his father and her subsequent death, how can he not be concerned about the future of his own marriage? Kate too is probably worried about their future, mindful of the history of her new family. In 1995, Diana famously told Martin Bashir: “There were three of us in this marriage”. She referred to Camilla Parker-Bowles, Charles’ secret lover. He dated Camilla before he married Diana, and obviously their bond was too strong to keep them apart despite the ring on his finger. William has been linked to a few women over the years and although these may all be rumours there will always be doubts – it all depends how much William has been affected by his parents’ past. After all, as the saying goes, “like father, like son”.

Kate and Diana have a lot in common

Oedipal implications aside, there is a lot to be said of Kate’s similarities with her mother-in-law Diana. Their physical attributes (other than the hair, of course) are similar – both are tall and slim with petite and pretty features. Both have won critical acclaim for their fashion sense, and both speak delicately with poised, plummy diction. These exterior resemblances could also

10 In-Debate

mean they share deeper, emotional qualities. After her split from Charles, Diana admitted she was troubled and often felt ignored by her husband, which contributed to her bulimia. She was plagued by this eating disorder for many years - a combination of abandonment, media focus and general unease. Kate may seem fine now, but there is every possibility she may head in the same direction of depression and angst, especially if her husband is often absent or fails to show his love in the way a partner should. Prince Charles made that mistake, and there is every possibility William may too, what with all his royal duties as well as his RAF responsibilities.

Diana’s shadow will always hang over their lives

Diana will be the elusive third person in Kate and William’s lives, leaving them unable to make their marriage completely their own. Kate will wear Diana’s sapphire and diamond engagement – a ring that many believe is cursed. It represents the failed marriage of William’s parents, and now he has given it to his new bride seemingly unaware of the emotional implications. Also, with their wedding at Westminster Abbey – the venue of Diana’s funeral – her life will be an echo on theirs whenever they think back to their happy day.

A relationship this famous is bound to have its issues

Few marriages in the public eye stand the test of time. Celebrity relationships and royal unions are thrust into the spotlight and treated as real-life soap operas. The pressure on famous couples is immeasurable as Diana and Charles learned back in the 80s. The media followed their every footstep and privacy was never a reality. Even when they were locked away behind closed doors, people were speculating. The same will happen with Kate and William. The sheer amount of interest these two generate is almost infinite. Following the announcement of their engagement, the story ran on TV channels around the world all day. The next morning, every newspaper had the story on its front page. Commemorative wedding memorabilia has already been released. The public lap this stuff up and the scale of media intrusion William and Kate will experience is only going to increase as one day they’ll be crowned King and Queen and start the next generation of royal heirs to the throne.

In-Debate - News

Even though many people are blasé about the royal family (a recent poll by MSN showed that 66% of voters are bored of the engagement already) it is fair to say that Kate is a pretty likeable young lady. She comes from a family of self-made millionaires, she attended university (and bravely wore a see-through frock at a fashion show) and she doesn’t take herself too seriously. Diana had her qualities, but none that can’t be matched, or even surpassed, by Kate. To say she is “cursed” by Diana’s legacy is a redundant statement – why compare a woman who was eminent almost 30 years ago to someone who is going to marry into the royal family today? They are both women of their respective times.

History doesn’t always repeat itself

To suggest that William and Kate will suffer the same fate as Charles and Diana is unfounded. There should be no more worry for them than that of any other couple about to tie the knot. When Charles married Diana, he had previously dated her older sister Sarah as well as other women. It later became apparent that despite their divorce becoming official in 1996 their marriage had ‘broken down’ as early as 1986. Could the speediness and hype of their marriage been a reason for their troubled marriage and consequential split? Many questioned if they should have even married at all, and have hinted that it was purely a marriage of convenience. It is also supposed that the Queen was never fond of Diana, but she appears to have taken a shine to Kate. Diana’s legacy is the opposite of a curse if this is true – all may prove much easier for Kate. Diana spoke of never feeling quite right within the royal family, but with more of the family’s approval Kate will find it easier to fit in. She has already admitted she feels a part of the family.

Similarities in Kate make for a respected public figure

The “realness” of Kate will only be an asset to her, both in the view of the public and in her marriage. Sure she is comparable to Diana in many ways, but the parallels could prove to be beneficial rather than detrimental. She can, and will, learn

from her late mother-in-law. There is nothing outrageously off-putting about her – same as with the truly pleasant Diana. If she gets the nation on her side, they are more likely to leave her and William alone in their lovely little Welsh cottage, thereby giving them the time and space to cement their marital harmony. Scandals are an inevitability in their future, but with the support of the majority of the country,they needn’t be so difficult to overcome. If Kate reminds people of Diana, it will only help her to win our hearts.

The symbolism of Diana’s ring will strengthen the couple’s bond

William is a mature 28-year-old man who is capable of making reasonable decisions. He has given his bride-to-be his mother’s engagement ring out of love. The statement it makes is unique, no other ring would have sufficed. Surely Kate understands the implications of wearing such a vastly important family heirloom and will therefore strive to be the best possible wife and the best possible Princess of Wales (and future Queen). If Diana’s legacy resounds on Kate, it will be for the better. Wearing that ring will strengthen her - both as a wife and as a member of the royal family.

Disagree

Who’s to say Kate won’t have the same appeal as Diana?

The love is stronger between Kate and William

Charles and Diana only dated for roughly a year before getting married. We can only speculate if real love was ever present. William and Kate have been in a relationship, on and off, for eight or so years. The love between them is strong (why else would they have reunited after their 2007 split?) which stands them in good stead. Watching their first interview after their engagement, it becomes clear that they are a couple of rather normal young people who fell in love at university, dated for an appropriate amount of time and became engaged when the time was right for them. The engagement and wedding of William’s parents, Charles and Diana, happened quickly as was the norm back then. Kate and William are a thoroughly modern couple for whom marriage is merely the natural step in their relationship – not a necessity of royal tradition. Thanks to their true love, they may just get their fairytale ending.

In-Debate 11

Fantastic Facts The full name for Los Angeles is, “El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciuncul, (the Town of Our Lady, Queen of the Angels of Porciuncula). Scientists believe that the chicken is the closest relative to the T Rex. Cocaine was the first local anesthetic which was isolated from coca leaves by Albert Niemann in Germany in the 1860’s. The first ever condom was made of linen in the 1500’s. Humans shed about 600,000 particles or 150 pounds of skin in a lifetime.

Google is actually the common name for a number with a million zeros. It cost $7 million to build the Titanic and $200 million to make a film about it. In most watch advertisements the time displayed on the watch is 10:10 because then the arms frame the brand of the watch and make it look like it is smiling. Colgate faced a big marketing obstacle in Spanish speaking countries as Colgate translates into the command “go hang yourself.

When bats exit a cave they always turn left.

In the movie E.T, the sound of E.T’s footsteps are made by someone squashing rotten oranges.

A Giraffe can clean it’s ears with it’s tongue.

A piece of paper cannot be folded more than 9 times. Try it

In-Debate 12

Available in

New start up, Manflu company, introduce the World’s first ‘male comfort drink’ Manflu Soothing Hot or Shot drink delivering the ultimate in swift comfort - for men that matter. With no preparation and no fuss it can be drunk straight out of the bottle for an instant boost, or in a mug of hot water for a more soothing sensation. The natural lemon-lime and honey flavours combine with a huge dose of Vitamin C plus Echinacea and Zinc to make this the modern man’s version of granny’s secret recipe. “Most men are delighted that, at last, someone has recognised how they feel”. There’s no medical cure for men’s afflictions so anything that can offer them some extra comfort, soothing and sympathy is bound to go down well. If it is a boost of comfort, soothing and sympathy that’s needed - it’s all in Manflu Soothing Hot or Shot drink. Best served ‘hand delivered’ in bed or on the sofa. Designed for modern man, Manflu Soothing Hot or Shot drink contains no artificial colours or flavours and no sugar, no carbs, no caffeine and only 7 calories per bottle! For more information go to www.manflu.com 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. “It is ridiculous that there is no law for Cyber terror. Why are we always told to move on with times but the UN and NATO are stuck in the 1990’s!” - Jennifer Tate, Camden “I never really considered the media’s motives to exaggerate a story like this but your point one makes sense... Booz Allen Hamilton have a lot to answer for!” - Hamed Uza, Holborn

Let's Talk “This debate (X factor) was amazing I’m so glad someone else thinks the show is completely rubbish... your right it is sad and this season just proves its fake!” – Lynn Marks, Hyde Park “I think it’s unfair for anyone to label the show as ‘sad’ and ‘escapism’. It does what it says on the label... it’s an entertainment show and it needn’t be looked into any deeper than that.” - Chris Olivers, Shoreditch

“What other options do these workers have. I think Britain needs to take a good look at itself, if our footballers are on £100k... our priorities are wrong!” - Phillip Dyer, Oxford

“I saw the film just before I read your debate and I completely agree that Facebook is a Fad. Granted it has done very well for itself but so had MySpace before it. Just wait for Googlebook.” - Tom Bradley, Clapham

“The government needs to put it’s foot down with these strikers. There are millions unemployed with no income and these tube drivers complain they don’t get enough... I mean seriously.” – Jesse Sewn, Shoreditch

“It is quite amazing the effect social networking is having and it’s now such common practice it’s so much easier to get in trouble... Just look at Stephen Fry and his sex comments!” – Chantelle Smith, Mill Hill

In-Debate 13

In-Debate

BOTH SIDES OF A STORY

Christmas Offer Get a guaranteed copy of In-Debate every month! We know it’s getting colder and 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 we have decided to make your life that little bit easier and offer you a seasons gift of In-Debate delivered to your office or home each month... 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 for the first 500 readers that sign up we will offer you the whole year free! We can’t think of a better free Christmas gift.

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

Torture is a necessary evil

Image: Museum of Torture

he use of torture in the War on Terror has been catapulted back into public consciousness this month after George W. Bush condoned waterboarding in his autobiography as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;highly effective enhanced interrogation techniqueâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; on extremists and argued that it had helped prevent terrorist atrocities in the UK. The issue was further scrutinesed when Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke, announced the British government will pay compensation to 16 former Guantanamo Bay detainees who claimed they were tortured by British personnel before arriving at Guantanamo.

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

The torturing of terrorist suspects raises a host of diverging opinions with some arguing it is only through such techniques that terrorist attacks like 9/11 can be averted. Others maintain that for democratic societies supposedly upholding liberty, freedom and the rule of law, torture is a scandalous hypocrisy that undermines the very moral foundation of our society that we are fighting to defend. Do the potential lives saved from the use of torture make it the lesser of two evils or do the ends not justify the means?

At least 98 detainees have died while in U.S. custody in Iraq or Afghanistan.

At least six men detained in Guantanamo have alleged UK forces were complicit in torture.

Only 12 of these deaths have led to punishments of U.S. personnel.

Only 8% percent of 517 Guantanamo detainees have been considered al Qaeda fighters.

There have been nearly 600 criminal investigations into allegations of detainee abuse.

British law has banned torture for over 300 years and is one of 127 signatories to the UNâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Convention Against Torture.

In-Debate 15

+ 1

Torture is a necessary evil Torture is permissible to save lives

The no-torture principle is not unbreakable. Harvard Law professor, Alan Dershowitz famously argued that torture can be justified in the case of a “ticking time-bomb terrorist”. This idea particularly gained popularity in the post-9/11 climate. A recent BBC poll showed that a quarter of UK respondents thought it acceptable to use some degree of torture to combat terrorism. A government’s primary responsibility is to protect its citizens and if the likelihood is that the interrogation will extract valuable intelligence that can save thousands of lives then it is a reasonable response to a horrific threat. It is easy to make a dispassionate stand condemning torture, but when it comes to the lives of our family or friends we would all do anything to make sure they survive.

Torture should be used to prevent rather than punish

Agree

Torturing a terrorist maybe unlawful, but surely saving thousands of lives outweighs this. Is torture a barbaric practice? Yes it is, but mass murder is far more barbaric. Letting innocent people die when there is a chance to avert such a scenario, whatever the method, is moral cowardice. Taking this position, however, does not advocate torture as a form of punishment. Punishment is addressed to deeds irrevocably past, whereas torture should only be a means to prevent future evils. And besides it is far less objectionable than many existing punishments like the death penalty.

Terrorists relinquish their human rights

Charles Krauthammer, a right-wing American columnist, spoke for many when he recently argued that a terrorist “Is entitled to no protections whatsoever”. A crucial purpose of the Geneva Convention was to underline that combatants would be denied the protection of the code if they broke the laws of war and abused civilians themselves. Opponents of torture claim it violates fundamental human rights and dignity, but a terrorist who uses our democratic system of freedom and liberty in order to indiscriminately murder people surely abdicates his or her civil rights. What about the rights and dignity of the

16 In-Debate

innocents who died on 9/11, in Madrid and London, and in other terrorist atrocities? No one complains if a policeman shoots dead a crazed gunman who is rampaging and killing innocent people. So why should there be blanket protection for someone who withholds vital information that could help save the lives of innocent civilians?

Torture is necessary In extreme circumstances

According to George W. Bush only 30-40 people were ever subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques”, of whom one was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the organiser of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre that killed almost 3,000 people. An important reality to recognise is that the security services did not perpetrate a carteblanche campaign to torture random suspects for amusement, they were targeting a specific few terrorists who most likely knew crucial information that could stop further bloodshed. These are not unfortunate people who deserve our sympathy or mercy, but fanatical murderers who openly call for the destruction of our way of life and would do much worse given the chance.

There is a massive grey area with torture

The rights afforded under the UN’s Charter of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention apply to citizens within nation-states, as it is countries that are signed up to them, not individuals. Terrorists, however, fight under the flag of a religion or cause not a nation and are considered “unlawful enemy combatants”. In a conflict, like the Second World War, an agreement is made that neither fighting side use torture on prisoners of war. But under the letter of the law non-state terrorists are not legally entitled to Geneva-level prisoner of war protection. Therefore is there any reason why the type of psychological and physical intimidation and coercion that is routinely meted out in basic military training to turn soft civilians into warriors should not be meted out to unlawful enemy combatants? The disclosure of classified information about British officials subjecting Binyam Mohamed to sleep deprivation and yelling might be distressing, but it is hardly lethal. In the army this is called “drill training” rather than “torture”. The dividing line between enhanced interrogation and torture is a grey area. There are no absolutes.

In-Debate - News Torture is wrong in principle and violates human rights

The George W. Bush school of logic that claims ‘valuable’ intelligence is gained through torture misses the crucial point. Torture is a barbaric and uncivilised custom that dehumanises people by treating them as pawns to be manipulated as a means to an end. It therefore violates the rights and human dignity of the victim, including their right to remain silent when questioned. This is enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which applies to everyone nation regardless if it is questioning a prisoner, terrorist or law-abiding citizen. In Democratic societies foundered on the ideals of liberty, tolerance and rule of law no form of torture can ever be accepted even if has the potential to save lives. It is unacceptable to sacrifice principle to achieve these ends, whether the victim is a terrorist or not.

Torture undermines a State’s legitimacy

A nation that prides itself on being civilised cannot keep the moral high-ground if it commits acts of torture. In Barack Obama’s words, torture ‘corrodes the character of a country.’ What moral authority do we have to condemn Burma, China, Egypt or Iran about human rights if our own government has seemingly colluded in torture? In February this year, three British judges forced the disclosure of classified information about the controversial role of ministers and MI5 officials in the conspicuous case of British resident Binyam Mohamed imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. The court’s judgment condemned the Government for its ‘cruel, inhuman and degrading’ behaviour and described how Mohamed had been ‘intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation’. Not only does this undercut Britain’s moral standing, but such evidence is used as a recruiting call for extremists and to incite violence.

Torture doesn’t work

On a practical level, torture is an ineffective interrogation tool. George W. Bush’s claim that the use of waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah ‘saved lives’ and averted an attack on Heathrow Airport lacks proof. The Chair of the Parliamentary Security Committee said he was not aware of any valuable information

these techniques uncovered about plots against Heathrow, Canary Wharf or anywhere. Torture may produce information, but as David Cameron said: “It doesn’t produce reliable information”. This is as the torture victim often reveals only information he believes the interrogator wants to hear, regardless of whether it is true. Under torture, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi claimed there was a link between Saddam Hussein, al-Qaida and WMD; while the Tipton Three all confessed to meeting Osama Bin Laden, despite being in the UK at the time.

The ticking time bomb is a fallacy

The ‘ticking time bomb’ argument – that by torturing a suspect a catastrophe can be avoided and lives saved is a hypothetical scenario with no basis in reality. It presupposes that security officials a) know a bomb had been planted somewhere b) that it is about to go off c) that the terrorist has the information and d) that this information would be revealed – all within a few minutes. George W. Bush’s assertion that harsh interrogation techniques have ‘stopped plots’ in the UK and elsewhere has an unacceptably vague premise. How advanced were these plots? Would they have been detected anyway without torture? Jane Mayer, creator of 24, stated in a New York Times article: “Most terrorism experts will tell you the ‘ticking time bomb’ situation never occurs in real life. It is used to distort a complicated reality into an artificially simple binary ethical calculation that, for ‘patriots’ like Jack Bauer, the ends [saving lives] justify the means [torture].”

Disagree

Any licence to torture will be abused

Any licence to torture leads to a slippery slope on the mere speculation that it could save lives. If the “ticking time bomb” justification is accepted, there is no reason in principle why torture should be limited to suspects. Why not torture the family and friends of the detainee to make him compliant or see if they have information? Adopting a utilitarian approach would allow nine innocent people to be tortured as long as the tenth offered a full confession. Any relaxation of the prohibition on torture would lead to it becoming the norm, rather than the exception.

In-Debate 17

greatmindsdesign

SERVING UP FRESH IDEAS WEB DESIGN • BRANDING • SEO quote “in debate” and receive a 10% discount www.greatmindsdesign.com • info@greatmindsdesign.com • 020 8202 1099

Debate

President Obama has lost his magic touch Image: Nasa HQ/Flickr

arack Obama was inaugurated as President on the crest of a wave of change sweeping through America, but in the recent November mid-term elections his party suffered the heaviest losses in 70 years with Republicans winning 60 seats and taking control of the House of Representatives. A dejected Obama took responsibility for the Democrat’s “humbling” defeat and pledged to find common ground with the Republicans as they vowed to squash his most cherished policies. On the road to

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

the White House in 2008, Obama proved himself a brilliant campaigner with a populist touch. However, now the magic seems to have worn off and many voters have defected to the increasingly popular right wing Tea Party, championed by former Vice President nominee Sarah Palin. Critics have accused Obama of back tracking on Tax policies and talking hot air, but his supporters still view his presidency as a great success. Does this mid-term shock prove that Obama has failed or are his critics judging him unfairly?

Obama won a Grammy in 2006 for his memoir, Dreams From My Father. Tickets to see Obama’s inauguration were being sold online for as much as $40,000. Obama is a smoker but wants to quit as there is a nonsmoking policy in the White House.

In a recent NY Times/CBS poll 57% of respondents thought George W. Bush was a good President. The Republican Party was formed by anti-slavery activists to fight the Democrats. The Democratic party was started by Thomas Jefferson in 1794.

In-Debate 19

President Obama has lost his magic touch

Healthcare: Health reform is a waste of money in a global recession

Healthcare is an important issue, but this was not the time to fight for it. With the near-collapse of the financial system in late 2008, Obama’s insistence on health reform over shoring up the faltering US economy only exacerbated existing political divisions and ran the momentum of his victory into swampy ground, just when he needed most consensus and energy to ensure recovery. Obama’s political gamble over healthcare has made some baby-steps in the direction of better health policy, but at the risk of plunging the US ever deeper into debt. The poor may be helped by Obama’s health reforms, but they will be hurt even more by a long-term economic slump.

Foreign Policy: He hasn’t achieved any of his own foreign policy goals

Agree

Two years in, prisoners are still in Guantanamo, Iran is still threatening to acquire nuclear weapons, the Israeli/ Palestinian situation is as intractable as ever despite much-heralded talks, and Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize looks like a bitter satirical joke on the part of the Norwegian parliament. Opening diplomatic channels with Iran has simply allowed Ahmadinejad to squeeze the West for concessions while continuing his steps towards building a nuclear arsenal. There is a general lack of purpose in Obama’s foreign policy: by attempting to be both tough and diplomatic, understanding and aggressive, he has allowed allies to perceive him as unreliable and enemies to see him as weak.

Economy: His economic stimulus lacked courage

Obama was right to inject stimulus money into the economy, but wrong to opt for frugal caution. Stimulus requires heavy investment. Rather than reach for an elusive middle ground by asking Congress for a modest stimulus package, Obama should have insisted on a full recovery plan with an impact big enough to quiet detractors. In the event, the US ended up with a stimulus deal amounting to less than 6% of GDP. This has inevitably failed to head off the prospect of a double-dip recession, lending unwarranted

20 In-Debate

credibility to the Republican argument that the stimulus was misguided and pointless. Had the Democrats committed more strongly to borrowing and spending their way out of the crisis until the economy was strong and stable enough to address the deficit, they would have not only secured the recovery but also decisively proved to their opponents that stimulus measures are the correct treatment for depressed economies.

Society: Obama’s empty promises have resulted in more discord than ever

At the beginning of his rise to power, Obama’s big idea was unity: underneath the divisions of red states and blue states, white and black, poor and rich, he suggested that everyone was equally invested in the grand project of American society. This has turned out to be pie in the sky. Obama simply hasn’t stuck to his promises and the public are rejecting his ideals of big government. During the election Obama won voters with incomes over $200,000 and under $50,000. This has now contracted especially among the poor who feel he has broken numerous promises on taxes. Obama’s idealism was his worst mistake, he concluded that political and cultural division could be made into a thing of the past by wilfully ignoring it. He was wrong. It is very easy to play the race card with the public turning to the far-right Tea Party, but it is simply the only alternative for those fed up with his failings and the Tea Party are now winning over Obama’s lost ‘grass roots’.

Politics: Rise of the Tea Party highlights Obama’s failings

The mid-terms were the clearest sign that Obama’s agenda has been rejected. More than $670bn in tax increases has come into law since 2009, of which at least 14 are violations of promises he made. The Tea Party was created for this precise reason ‘Taxed Enough Already’ and it revives a very traditional form of American idealism. The nation’s citizens should be trusted to run their own lives, without bossy bureaucrats calling the shots. This may seem angry and simplistic, but it is passionately held by many Americans who feel let down by the status quo. If Obama doesn’t sort out this problem in the next two years then the average American will vote Republican regardless of their policies because they feel disenfranchised by his administration.

In-Debate - Politics Healthcare: Universal access to medicine for all

By far one of Obama’s biggest successes has been his Healthcare reforms, now America will have universal healthcare much like the UK. Any president serious about fixing the unequal US healthcare system had to be prepared to lose support and make enemies: Obama took the bull by the horns and gained significant ground that will make a real difference to ordinary people. These sweeping changes have been furiously resisted and as a result of these entrenched forces Obama had to spend a lot of political capital pushing through his healthcare reforms. But it was worth it, not least for the 15% of American citizens who were without healthcare coverage in 2007 and will now have access to health services.

Foreign Policy: Obama has repaired America’s standing in the world

Obama’s June 2009 speech in Cairo marked a complete break with the Bush era, demonstrating a far more balanced foreign policy approach. Obama has brought a new, more diplomatic tone to the USA’s dealings with other countries. The intention to close Guantanamo Bay sends a strong signal that the US will no longer perpetrate human rights abuses in the name of the ‘war against terror’. Critics conveniently ignore achievements like the signing of the New Start nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia and that he has managed to bring Israel and Palestine back to the negotiatiating table. And we cannot forget Iran’s nuclear development which Obama’s approach has made some peaceful headway. Obama has been thoughtful in his foreign policy and has already begun to repair some of the diplomatic problems he inherited from Bush.

Economy: He averted a depression

Without decisive action in the US, failing banks could have taken the global economy down with them. Obama was sufficiently critical to recognise that the banking system had seriously faltered. He was also supportive enough to effect a robust rescue, followed by legislation tightening up regulation. And these measures worked as the US economy has emerged from recession and is

steadily growing. The $82bn rescue of the Detroit car industry also worked as it saved thousands of jobs, and looks likely to be repaid back to the Government. The doomsayers who predicted financial apocalypse in the wake of the meltdown should admit that Obama’s bailouts successfully averted disaster.

Society: His presidency is an achievement in itself

The electing of a black President was a momentous event in American history as the country finally overcame its deeply entrenched racist past. However, it has not been completely eliminated as many right-wingers may have hated Bill Clinton’s socialist leanings just as much as Obama’s, but their antipathy towards him is intensified by race hate. Clinton was hounded about his sex life, but no one ever accused him on tearing down the US system from within. Obama, though, has created a formidable political machine. This was a revolution in political mobilization and he has brought a new cohort of younger activists and voters into politics because he was prepared to let go and trust supporters with the power to organise on his behalf.

Politics: The Tea party is nothing to worry about

Disagree

Obama’s presidency has seen the rise of an extremist trend on the right in the form of the Tea Party. Alienated by his urban, professorial style, the white working classes have been driven into the arms of Republicans like Sarah Palin - and with the party’s biggest gain in seats since 1948 some would argue they are now the most popular political movement. However, it would be a grave mistake for the Republicans to give themselves a pat on the back. Not only does the Tea Party’s affiliation with anti-welfare interest groups mean they are unlikely to do anything to improve the lives of the average working class family, but the movement is also too incoherent to be a serious political force. The movement is a muddle as Andrew Sullivan writes in The Sunday Times: “Their partisanship and cultural hostility to Obama is far more intense than their genuine proposals to reduce spending and taxation. And this is largely because they have no genuine proposals to reduce spending and taxation.”

In-Debate 21

Listings Brain Food Live talks, events, debates and inspirational listings So for the last time this year we have sourced events from some of the leading institutions in London. We have spent the month fine-combing the best on offer throughout December, which are guaranteed to keep your brain ticking and we hope they provide some great viewing over the Christmas period. For more information on any event please visit the event providers website.

Business

Society / Politics

Hidden History of the Financial Crisis

Ken Clarke – An interview with Mr Justice Cranston

RSA – 2nd Dec, WC2N 6EZ, 1pm, Free As soon as the financial crisis erupted, the finger-pointing began. Should the blame fall on greedy traders, misguided regulators, cowardly legislators, or clueless home buyers? Award-winning investigative journalist Bethany McLean, who exposed the Enron scandal, shows that the crisis wasn’t about finance at all - it was about human nature. Chaired by Paul Mason, economics editor of the BBC’s Newsnight.

Michael Ross- Co-Founderof eCommera

UCL – 2nd Dec, Roberts Building, Malet Place 5.15pm, Free Michael Ross is the co-founder and Director of eCommera. Prior to eCommera, he was CEO of Figleaves.com, the world’s leading online retailer of multi-brand lingerie, underwear, hosiery and swimwear. Prior to Figleaves, Michael was at McKinsey and Company where he worked with media and retail clients in the early days of the Internet Michael is also a non-executive director of GlassesDirect.com and Spreadshirt.com and adviser to WarehouseExpress.com.

LSE – 9th Dec, venue tbc, 6.30pm-8pm, Free (Ticket Req.) Mr Justice Cranston will be interviewing Ken Clarke, QC, MP, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor about his legal and political career. Kenneth Clarke QC MP was appointed as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice on 12 May 2010. He has previously served as Chancellor, Home Secretary, Secretary of State for Health, and Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Europe in 2011 and beyond with János Martonyi

LSE – 7th Dec, European Institute, 12pm-1pm, Free János Martonyi is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Hungary, a position he has held since May 2010. He is actively involved in politics as the President of the Free Europe Centre for European Integration of the Fidesz Hungarian Civic Union.

Scanning the Deepwater Horizon:

Is 50% too much? Access to higher education in an age of austerity

‘Making Better Law’ - New publication from the Hansard Society

The Big Society - the anatomy of the New Politics

Repercussions of the Macondo Blowout on the Oil Industry Chatham House – 1st Dec, 5pm-6.30pm, Fee Paying US petroleum expert Lucian Pugliaresi will give his assessment of the economic, environmental, production and policy consequences of the blowout on the Macondo well. Mr Pugliaresi’s will also assess the consequences of the moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and all offshore petroleum provinces in the state of Alaska.

The Hansard Society – 14th Dec, Portcullis house, 6.15pm Making Better Law examines the process of law making and how greater expert input during the development of legislation would improve the final outcomes. Authors Dr Ruth Fox and Matthew Korris will give a presentation on the report’s findings, and be joined in a discussion by an expert panel: Peter Riddell, Rt Hon Sir George Young MP, Chris Bryant MP, Graham Allen MP, Baroness D’Souza.

Economic Sciences as Mostly a Procrustean Bed

LSE – 7th Dec, Old Building, 6.30pm, Free (Ticket Req.) We cover the inapplicability of economic methods statistically, methodologically, empirically, and, mostly, ethically. Nassim Nicholas Taleb is Distinguished Professor of Risk Engineering, NYU. His previous books have been published in thirty-one languages. This event marks the launch of Taleb’s new book The Bed of Procrustes: Philosophical and Practical Aphorisms.

RSA – 9th Dec, WC2N 6EZ, 1pm, Free Should we be radically rethinking access to higher education - how many should go, who should pay and how much? Business Secretary Vince Cable said Labour’s 50% target for HE participation had been “a mistake”. Join an expert panel at the RSA to debate whether we should be radically rethinking access to higher education - how many should go, who should pay and how much?

RSA – 9th Dec, WC2N 6EZ, 1pm, Free The idea of a ‘Big Society’ is already shaping the agenda of the Coalition Government. But what is the Big Society? Is it a genuine vision for the future, or simply a smokescreen for stringent cuts in public spending? Jesse Norman MP and an expert panel visit the RSA to explore the Big Society’s roots in neglected British intellectual and social traditions.

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process: prospects for 2011 and beyond

LSE – 2nd Dec, Clement House, 6.30pm-8pm, Free Professor Sayigh will examine Palestinian political dynamics, as a critical element in what will happen in the wider context of relations with Israel and of what outside powers can or should do. Yezid Sayigh is professor of Middle East Studies, King’s College London. In 1990-1994 he was an advisor and negotiator in the Palestinian delegation to the peace talks with Israel, and since 1998 has been a permanent consultant.

In-Debate 23

Where to dine in Madrid? Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s no debate... Insider guides to over 200 destinations, online and always up-to-date www.globalista.co.uk

The Sophisticated Travellerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Ultimate Online Guide

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

Science Transitioning Gender: Radical Technologies

Kings Place – 1st Dec, Hall Two, 6.45pm, £9.50 World-class experts will engage directly with the public on topics of gender and radical bio-medical advances of the 21st Century. What can the latest scientific advances tell us about gender; what will be possible in the future and why does it matter? Speakers include: Professor Richard Green Visiting Professor, Psychological Medicine, Imperial College; Professor Judith Halberstam is a professor at University of California, San Diego; Dr Jens Scherpe is a lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge; and Ben Thom

Relatively Speaking: 100 years of Einstein’s E=mc2

UCL – 8th Dec, Wilkins Building, 6pm-7pm, Free Professor John Humberston will reflect on the history and continuing significance of Eistein’s famous equation.

TalkScience@Christmas: Lets get quizzical

British Library – 7th Dec, BL Restaurant.6pm-9pm, Free Our Christmas event in the TalkScience@BL series is a Science Quiz; giving you a chance to flex your brain biceps and find out how knowledgeable you are when it comes to scientific concepts, findings and general trivia. Expect tears, laughter and complaining as we delve into biology, medicine, environmental science, physics, chemistry and much more, all with a token reference to the festive season. Come and compare your ‘Science IQ’ and battle it out with other teams for the coveted 2010 TalkScience Champions trophy!

Counterfeit, Falsified and Substandard Medicines

Chatham House – 16th Dec, 8.30am-5.30pm, invitation, contact Ian Perrin Counterfeit and substandard medicines pose a considerable and growing threat to health security. The threat from counterfeit medicines is growing, particularly in poorer countries with weak regulatory mechanisms and poorly monitored distribution networks. Counterfeiting can be very profitable, and counterfeiters are increasingly sophisticated.

Anthony Penrose: The boy who bit Picasso

V&A – 3rd Dec, 7pm-8pm, £8/£6 To mark the publication of his book The Boy who Bit Picasso, Anthony Penrose, son of the the acclaimed photographer Lee Miller and writer Roland Penrose will talk about his childhood growing up surrounded by leading artists of the 20th century and his childhood friendship with a 70-yearold Pablo Picasso. In collaboration with Thames and Hudson

GSK Contemporary - Aware: Art Fashion Identity The Royal Academy – 2nd Dec – 30th Jan The Royal Academy’s third season of contemporary art at 6 Burlington Gardens will focus on how artists and a number of designers examine clothing as a mechanism to communicate and reveal elements of our identity. The exhibition will contain work by over 30 international contemporary artists and designers, including some newly commissioned work.

English language question time

British Library – 5th Dec, Conference Centre, 2.30pm-4pm, £7.50/£5 Bring your favourite phrase, query or gripe for answers and discussion from our panel of experts: Susie Dent, resident lexicographer on Countdown, Peter Gilliver, Associate Editor Oxford English Dictionary, author and broadcaster Philip Gooden and the Daily Telegraph’s Simon Heffer. Hosted by broadcaster and writer Victoria Coren, presenter of the BBC series on language Balderdash and Piffle.

John Waters

South Bank Centre – 3rd Dec, Queen Elizabeth Hall, 7.30pm, £12/£6 The incomparable John Waters makes a rare live appearance to discuss his work as film director, artist and writer on publication of Role Models. A self-portrait told through intimate profiles of his favourite personalities, Role Models provides a fascinating insight into Waters’ unique aesthetic, and exemplifies the hilarious and neurotic mind behind masterworks such as Pink Flamingos, Desperate Living and Hairspray.

Art / Literature Alex Ross

Daunt Books – 1st Dec, Marylebone, 7pm, £8 Alex Ross’s award-winning international bestseller, The Rest is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century, has become a contemporary classic, establishing him as one of our most popular and acclaimed cultural historians. In his new work, Ross, the music critic for the New Yorker, looks both backwards and forwards in time, capturing essential figures and ideas in classical music history.

John Waters discusses his work at the South Bank Centre.

In-Debate 25

London Treats

By Helena Fleur

EAT High Tea with Le Cordon Bleu Sample the future talent of London and taste creations by the top chefs of tomorrow. Every month guests are treated to beautiful pastries, cakes and delicate deserts in the surroundings of the 108 Marylebone Lane Restaurant and Bar. This tea is designed with real foodies in mind as Le Cordon Bleu is a culinary global brand, renowned for excellence with over 35 schools worldwide. It has produced some of the most esteemed chefs in the industry and this afternoon gives the opportunity for the current students to blow guests away with their incredible skills and creativity.

www.108marylebonelane.com or call 0207 969 3900 for reservations.

DRINKThe Anarcho-Dandyist Ball The creators of Chap magazine are converting the pages of their Gentleman’s journal into the year’s most dapper shindig to celebrate 10 years of its existence. Being held in one of London’s only remaining art deco ballrooms, this promises to be an evening of old-world jollity where you will be swept back to the 1920s and 1930s with delicious retro cocktails served by Bourne & Hollingsworth. Taking place on 4th December at the Bloomsbury Ballroom, the dress code is strictly 1920s villainy, 1930s glamour and 1940s spiv, so we wouldn’t recommend polyester!

www.anarcho-dandyistball.com or call 0207 724 1617 for reservations.

SLEEP Andaz Based in the heart of London, adjacent to Liverpool Street Station, this stunning hotel combines luxury with history and architecture perfectly. It may be housed in a beautiful red brick Victorian building dating back to 1884, but guests are treated to the splendour of innovative and stylish interiors with contemporary art and modern design. Service is impeccable, and with five bars and five restaurants, including the highly acclaimed 1901 Restaurant, there is something to suit all tastes, in a variety of surroundings. Our favourite room is the incredible secret Masonic Temple hidden within, but you’ll have to ask them about it. Shhh…

In-Debate 26

www.andaz.com or call 0207 961 1234 for reservations.

Listings Inspiration Live talks, events, debates and inspirational listings

Inspirational The English vernacular: A celebration of swearing and profanity!

British Library – 15th Dec, Conference Centre, 6.30pm-8pm, £7.50/£5 Among the riches of language must be included a vast world of expletives, taboos and ribaldry that can blend great humour with shocking insult. Enjoy some discussion of obscenity at its finest with Peter Silverton, author of Filthy English: The How, Why, When and What of Everyday Swearing, the creators of Viz Magazine’s great collection the ‘Profanisaurus’ and writer and ‘swearing consultant’ on TV series The Thick Of It, Ian Martin.

Steve Bell & Bryan Talbot

ICA – 1st Dec, Cinema 1, 6.45pm, £12/£11 Steve Bell’s sharp-as-a-tack If... strips in The Guardian continue to skewer everything from the Muhammad cartoon riots of 2006 to the ConLibDemolition. Bryan Talbot is celebrated as this country’s father of modern graphic novels, from Arkwright and Tale of One Bad Rat to Alice in Sunderland and Grandville. Two of Britain’s most brilliant graphic storytellers swap tales of their prolific careers, from their underground comix origins to their latest full-colour hardcovers, If... Burst Out and Grandville - Mon Amour (Jonathan Cape). Followed by a book signing.

John Lanchester On Enough

School of Life – 12th Dec, WC1R 4RL, 11.15pm-1pm, £12.50 Enough is enough. Like the morning after the Christmas-do the night before, it’s all too clear that free market capitalism’s victory party is over; we’re seriously in debt and it’s time to pay the bill. Novelist-turned-economist, John Lanchester, will take to our pulpit to tell us to slow down, calm down and realise when we’ve had enough.