825 by The Beaver

THE NAB: ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT | News: Tom Maksymiw on Exam Feedback

Beaver Issue 825 | 27.01.15

the

newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union

LSE Ethics Code ‘Streamlined’ Megan Crockett News Editor

Beavers On the Loose!

Beaver editor Jon Allsop, PartB editor Jade Jackman and former Comment editor Seb Ash made it to Vienna for free in 36 hours on the RAG Jailbreak this weekend, coming third overall. The event was being staged for the first time at LSE at the end of RAG Week, Photo Special page 12

A C A M PA I G N TO B E launched by two London School of Economics (LSE) postgraduate students, Aysha al-Fekaiki and Noelie Audi-Dor, calls into the question the School’s commitment to ethical investments. The campaign alleges that the School’s Ethics Code has been ‘streamlined’ in a series of meetings subject to confidentially agreements where paragraphs S2.6 on its commitment to human rights, S2.2 on anti-bribery, S2.3 on restricting parental and student donations as well as changing its dedication to sustainability were edited out or watered down. The campaign claims that “the new guidance document which is to be taken with the 2014 Ethics Code, is not legally binding and therefore permits LSE’s Ethical Policy Committee to allow investments into unethical and unsustainable funds”. The LSE bolstered its ethics code in the wake of the 2012 Gaddafi scandal and Woolf Report, yet the campaign alleges that the Ethical Policy Committee has diluted the binding clauses regarding investments made by the School. The streamlined Ethics Policy, the campaign suggests, tacitly permits investments in companies that formally may have been prohibited because of human rights,

bribery or sustainable concerns. The School does have a “programme of anti-bribery training” with over one hundred staff receiving the training in 2014, in addition to UK legislative obligations. Stephanie Allison, LSE Ethics Manager, told the Beaver “The Ethics Code continues to reflect the School’s commitment to a broad range of human behaviours including human rights, anti-bribery and anti-corruption. They remain an integral part of the Code, are included in policies referred in the Code and are embedded in separate guidance being developed that links to the School’s six core principles ... Jay Stoll also sat on the review group, giving the opportunity for student views to be fed into the process. Further consultation took place with student representatives through the School’s Court and Academic Board. In addition an open meeting was held with students which was publicised widely by the SU”. The campaign is putting forward a motion on the topic, suggesting that “This Union believes the new Ethics Code is legally insufficient due to its simplification for LSE’s ethical and sustainable standards and values” also, “[the] confidentiality contracts which bind members of the Ethics Policy Committee is not a transparent process and dangerous to the reputation of the School”.

Comment: LSE’s Morals Are at Stake: The Only Way is Ethics LSE’s ethical commitments are in doubt, and students should come together to fight for them

Aysha al-Fekaiki

LSE’S ETHICS POLICY Committee have radically changed the Ethics Code under a policy of ‘streamlining’. Removed paragraphs include: S2.6 on its commitment to human rights, S2.2 on anti-bribery, S2.3 on restricting parental and student donations, and changing its dedication to sustainability after they were found to be “problematic”.

We all know fully well the Gaddafi scandal that brought LSE’s ethical reputation into serious question. The Libyan dictator allegedly pledged a substantial donation of £1.5 million in exchange for granting his son Saif Gaddafi, a fake PhD. Following this scandal, and given the immense reputation damage LSE suffered as a result, the school’s management should be

Features PARTB

reaffirming LSE’s commitment to ethics and transparency, and expanding those commitments across the school. Instead, the school seems to be attempting to weave its way out of having to meet what would be considered fairly minimal demands in terms of ethical standards. The Ethics Manager at LSE attempted to assure us that the removed principles have been

Labour’s confused Review: LSESU Drama immigration stance Soc’s ‘A Slight Ache’ Page 25 Page 18

placed into a separate guidance document which supposedly states LSE’s acknowledgment of human rights, anti-bribery and sustainability. Effectively, LSE can still pursue unethical investment decisions as it is purely a set of advisory principles that are not legally binding, and yet to be released. Continued page 9

Room 2.02, Saw Swee Hock Student Centre, LSE Students’ Union London WC2A 2AE

Beaver

the

Beaver

Executive Editor Jon Allsop

editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Managing Editor Alexander Fyfe

Tuesday January 27, 2015

Established in 1949 Issue No. 825- Tuesday 27 January 2015 - tinyurl.com/beaver825 Telephone: 0207 955 6705 Email: editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk Website: www.beaveronline.co.uk Twitter: @beaveronline

managing@thebeaveronline.co.uk

News Editor Megan Crockett Mahatir Pasha

news@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Comment Editors Ellen Wilkie

comment@thebeaveronline.co.uk

PartB Editors Jade Jackman Vikki Hui

partb@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The City Editor Mike Morissette

city@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Features Editors Liam Hill George Harrison

features@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Nab Editor

nab@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Sport Editor Robin Park

sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Photo Editor Helen Hasse

editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Design Editor Liam Hill

Jon Allsop on jailbreaking to Vienna with RAG, and the Free Education UGM Motion

From the Executive Editor I’LL KEEP IT BRIEF THIS week as I largely left this edition to Alex in order to participate in the LSESU RAG jailbreak, along with Jade Jackman and Seb Ash. I sit here writing this on Monday morning having just got back from Vienna, where we somehow managed to travel for free in just 36 hours on Friday and Saturday. After taking a free bus from London Victoria to Lille (a real stroke of luck given the apparent difficulties other teams experienced in leaving the country), our next train from Lille to Ghent in Belgium broke down in the middle of nowhere, leaving us

marooned outside a freezing train station at 1am. Fortunately, the train company soon provided us with a free taxi to Brussels, where we stayed overnight with a friend of Seb. On Saturday we experienced a really remarkable run of luck, as Seb’s German took us all the way from Brussels to Vienna via Frankfurt, Munich and Salzburg. In the process we raised over £600 (and counting) for Spires, a small charity that does terrific work in helping London’s homeless and marginalised. The jailbreak has been a huge success both in terms of funds raised and overall distances achieved, and

will surely become a fixture on the RAG Week calendar. In other news LSESU voted to endorse free education this week. It is regrettable that this motion appears to have been treated as such a fait accompli that the SU didn’t bother to find an opposition until the morning of the UGM. The assumption of some on campus that it is automatically regressive to oppose free education deserved a betterprepared challenge. Even in a more propitious financial situation, there are surely worthier goals in need of funding than giving free degrees to the privileged.

design@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Online Editor Leen Aghabi

web@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Collective Chair Dorothy Wong

collective@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Collective:

A Badwe, A Doherty, A Fraser, A Fyfe, A Howells, A Laird, A Leung, A Lulache, A Moro, A Qazilbash, A Santhanham, A Tanwa, A Thomson, B Phillips, C Holden, C Hulm, C Loughran, C Morgan, C Naschert, C Hu, D Hung, D Lai, D Sippel, D Tighe, D Wong, E Arnold, E Wilkie, G Cafiero, G Greenwood, G Harrison, G Kist, G Linford-Grayson, G Manners-Armstrong, G Rosser, G Saudelli, H Brentnall, H Prabu, H Toms, I Mosselmans, I Plunkett, J Allsop, J Cusack, J Evans, J Foster, J Grabiner, J Heeks, J Jackman, J Momodu, J Ruther, J Wacket, K Budd, K Kalaichelvan, K Owusu, K Parida, K Quinn, L Hill, L Kang, L Kendall, L Erich, L Mai, L Montebello, L Schofield, L van der Linden, L Weigold, M Akram, M Banerjee-Palmer, M Brien, M Crockett, M Domenech Ensenat, M Gallo, M Jaganmohan, M Johnson, M Malik, M Morissette, M Neergheen, M Pasha, M Pearson, M Pennill, M Petrocheilos, M Rakus, M Rakus, M Strauss, M Warbis, N Antoniou, N Bhaladhare, N Buckley-Irvine, N Stringer, O Hill, O Gleeson, P Amoroso, P Blinkhorn, P Gederi, R Browne, R J Charnock, R Chouglay, R Chua, R Huq, R Kouros, R O’Rourke, R Park, R Serunjogi, R Siddique, R Soni, R Uddin, R Watt, S Ali, S Ash, S Barnett, S BrS Crabbe-Field, S Donszelmann, S Kunovska, S Povey, S Sebatindira, S Thandi, T Maksymiw, T Mushtaq, T Odayar, T Poole, V Hui, Z Chan, Z Mahmod Any opinions expressed herein are those of their respective authors and not necessarily those of the LSE Students’ Union or Beaver Editorial Staff.

The Beaver is issued under a Creative Commons license. Attribution necessary. Printed at Mortons Printing

From the Managing Editor Alexander Fyfe on the General Secretary’s response to the Counter-Terrorism Bill

IF ONE HAS A HUFFPO BLOG and is prepared to descend into clichéd, Orwell-inspired inanities, the fashionable thing to do is write about surveillance. I have neither a blog, nor a desire to use 1984 as an ingenious illustration of the 21st Century for the umpteenth time, but I do have an editorial and for once, I may actually use it to make a serious point. Happily, just as I was sitting down to begin writing about surveillance, a HuffPo blog with an Orwell cliché in the first sentence, written by General Secretary Nona Buckley-Irvine slithered into my news feed. It seemed the perfect place to start, so I sat down to enjoy myself and leapt straight in. Once you’ve yawned through the Orwell, Nona asserts that our status as the most “surveilled country in Europe” will be certified by the proposed Counter-Terrorism Bill. I don’t know where Nona was when Edward Snowden revealed the extent of worldwide communications surveillance, but I do know that the only measure by which the UK surveillance is ahead of European counterparts is by the number of CCTV cameras we have. And as far as I can see, CCTV is not mentioned anywhere in the draft bill. Nona says universities will have an expectation to “spy on their students”. Scary stuff. But if you read

the bill, universities must only “in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.” I find it hard to believe that Nona has a problem with universities, in the same way that they monitor and protect students vulnerable for other reasons, making an effort to prevent people from being drawn towards terrorism. Nona also takes issue with Channel, the agency tasked with deradicalisation. For someone who earlier said that “We should be worried. We should be worried,” about this bill, all Nona finds to worry about here is that it is unclear what might happen to someone’s data if they decline a support package. I hardly think it’s going to end up on Facebook, and is unlikely to affect your credit score, but feel free to be worried. Nona thinks deradicalisation training for frontline university staff is a “Spot a Terrorist 101” and that it will destroy staff-student relationships. Surely, staff and students alike should be universally in favour of identifying vulnerable students? Surely universities should be doing their best to provide support and guidance to vulnerable, at risk students? Again, Nona, if my academic advisor meetings suddenly are subject to a “chilling effect” as we discuss potential postgraduate

study, I’ll let you know. In addition, Nona is convinced that the guidance on identifying those at risk and in need of support “describes the average university student.” Upon reading this, I am convinced she didn’t read the actual guidance documents, or chose to ignore much of them. She fails to point out that whilst four “engagement factors” do appear to describe the average university student, there are 13 engagement factors in total that quite clearly describe potentially vulnerable individuals. In addition, these 13 factors sit within the first of three stages in the assessment framework, the second and third being the “intent” and “capability” to cause harm. Does Nona actually believe that counterradicalisation efforts – in this “most surveilled” country – cannot differentiate between a potential terrorist and a student campaigning to ban ‘Blurred Lines’? Nona says students convey their desire for political or moral change without fear of repercussion, and that’s precisely what will continue to happen. Don’t worry; if you attend UGM on Thursday, you’re not going to be offered a deradicalisation support package. Really, Nona’s shoddy appreciation of the evidence only proves that at least one person meets the criteria for a “desire of status.”

This Week’s Contents News: 3: Employability Scores 4: Counter-Terrorism Bill 5: UGM motions pass 6: RAG week rowing 7: Liberation and Photography Comment: 8: Why are we unemployable? 9: #TheOnlyWayIsEthics 10: The end of page 3? 11: FGM in the UK Photo: 12: RAG Jailbreak

PartB: 14: 15: 16: 17:

LSESU LOLZ Review: ‘A Slight Ache’ Lent term reads Win West End ticlets

THE NAB: 19: Arrested Development 20: LSE top trumps 21: Society space The City: 22: Piracy and the City 23: KweekWeek Features 24: Politics and language 25: Labour and immigration 26: Leaders’ debates 27: Narco-terrorism 28: PMQs 29: Unsung Heroes Sport: 30: Clash of the Beavers 31: MRWG sessions 32: Netball v FC

The Beaver would like to thank the LSE Annual Fund, whose generous financial support will soon allow us to replace our existing hardware. We intend to redistribute our existing Macs within the LSE community, more details to follow.

Alastair Duncan @LSESUActivities @beaveronline @lsesu I don’t actually own a drone... I’ve been practising with the SU’s one at home. Vrrrroooom. Jay Stoll @jaystoll I feel old, I proposed this same motion 3 years ago! LSE Students’ Union @lsesu @beaveronline quality. Hope a ship gets involved at some stage. GO BEAVS GO!

News

Tuesday January 27, 2015

Section Editors: Megan Crockett and Mahatir Pasha news@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Pictured left, Sebastian Bruhn, Community and Welfare Officer (centre) poses with two LSE students holding a ‘No Fees No Cuts’ sign on Houghton Street. Pictured right, participants of RAG Jailbreak, a programme stemming from RAG Week, smile for the camera before embarking on a journey to get as far away from the School as possible within thirty-six hours. The money raised will be going to Spires, a charity which aims to help homeless and disadvantaged people. Participants reached as far as Almuñécar.

LSE Scores Poorly in List of Universities Targeted by Largest Number of Top Employers Megan Crockett News Editor DESPITE BOASTING ABOUT high levels of graduate employment who typically have salaries of £50,000 only five years after graduation, it has become apparent that the London School of Economics and Political Sciences (LSE) is not as high up on employers lists as one would initially think. Assertions based on research from the ‘Graduate Market’ saw that the School was placed sixteenth on the list of universities targeted by the largest numbers of top employers for 2013-14; although the School moved up to become twelfth place for 201415, it is still disappointing that the School is not in the top ten. The ‘top employers’ the list is referring to are many of the employers the LSE boasts of; The Bank of America Meryl Lynch, Goldman Sachs and many more. As the stereotype for LSE students is to dream of working for such exclusive banks, it comes as a shock that these businesses may be approaching other universities before the School. It is apparent that some universities are consistently in the list of top ten targeted by the largest number of top employers. These are: Manchester, Nottingham, Warwick, Cambridge, Oxford, Bristol, London University Col-

lege (UCL), London Imperial College and Leeds with other institutions such as Durham and Bath moving in and out of the top ten spot. What is perhaps surprising is that both Manchester and Nottingham, universities who have held the top spot in 2014-15 and 2013-14 respectively, have much lower rankings in the Times and Sunday Times Good University Guide than the LSE. In 2014-15 the School came fifth in the Good University Guide whereas Nottingham came twenty-second and Manchester twenty-sixth. The Beaver asked the School to comment on its poor place in the rankings of employers but the School failed to respond. However students on Houghton Street seem shocked to find out that universities such as UCL and Leeds are seemingly more ‘employable’ than ours. A query raised by Khushboo Khanna was with reference to international students, “with an increase in international fees and maintaining over forty five per cent of [the student body being comprised] of international students, the fee isn’t helping if students aren’t getting their jobs they’re aiming for!”. Although there seems little we can do, this report may be food for thought for the students considering attending the School in the future. Read Khushboo Khanna in Comment, page 8

News In Brief This week’s Gearty Grillings: Mukulika Banerjee on voting in India

MUKULIKA BANERJEE, READER in Social Anthropology, discusses democracy in India and why the act of voting is so meaningful for the majority of the population. Dr Banerjee is the latest LSE academic to undergo a Gearty Grilling, a weekly series of short, to-the-point video debates from LSE’s Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) on key issues affecting the world today. Conor Gearty, Director of the IPA and Professor of Human Rights Law, subjects academics to a five-minute grilling to showcase the School’s world class research and faculty. This is perhaps even more relevant as Nupur Sharma, a graudate of LSE is currently standing for election in New Delhi.

Exploring why Germans convert to Islam A NEW BOOK GIVES A fascinating insight into why Germans convert to Islam despite suffering widespread marginilisation and hostility. Its conclusions will resonate with the growing numbers of converts and the role of Islam across Europe and beyond. Being German, Becoming Muslim: race, religion, and conversion in the New Europe, by Dr Esra Ozyurek of the European Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science, focuses on contradictions and challenges in the lives of converts to Islam, and aims to understand what it means to embrace Islam in a society that increasingly marginalises and racialises Muslims. The book was launched at LSE on Wednesday 21st January.It explores different ways in which converted German Muslims accommodate Islam to German identity and carve out legitimate space for Germans in the Ummah, the global community of Muslims.

Reward Pakistani tax collectors to boost their performance, says new IGC film SALARY INCENTIVES FOR TAX collectors could significantly increase the amount of taxes raised in Pakistan, according to a new film released by the International Growth Centre (IGC), based at LSE. The IGC’s latest film, ‘Taxing Pakistan: How to motivate civil servants’, shows the results of a ‘pay for performance’ scheme that was tested in Punjab, Pakistan. IGC-funded researchers found that incentivising tax collectors increased the amount of tax collected by 30-40 per cent.

Tuesday January 27, 2015

Counter-Terrorism Bill Letter Sent to Craig Calhoun Mahatir Pasha News Editor IN THE WAKE OF LAST WEEK’S UGM motion on the new counter-terrorism legislation a letter has been written to the Director of the London School of Economics (LSE), Craig Calhoun, expressing reservations and concerns with regards to the new legislation. The letter emphasises its “hope that the LSE will continue to remain a bastion of critical thinking and the free exchange of ideas”. The letter, which has been publicised on social media, is urging for students signatures, and already has over thirty students supporting the cause. Jasim Malik, President of LSESU Islamic Society is said to have had the idea of composing the letter and has led the process of its composition. Malik is also the one sending the email to the Director. The letter to Calhoun follows:

Dear Professor Craig Calhoun, The following representatives of the LSE wish to express our strong concerns on behalf of the student body and academic staff regarding the effects of the new counter-terrorism legislation on our university. We sincerely hope that the school will exert its’ influence to lobby the government in order to allow universities to be exempted from this legislation, and in opposition to the legislation as a whole. We also hope that the LSE will continue to remain a bastion of critical thinking and the free exchange of ideas, unhindered by unwarranted surveillance and any climate of suspicion and restriction. We hold that; 1) Freedom of expression is essential in allowing for open and constructive intellectual dialogue at our university, for students and academics of all viewpoints. 2) Mandating that all professors and teachers constantly be prepared to ‘report’ students who

appear to be ‘at risk’ of radicalisation actively curtails any such university environment. 3) Defining ‘at risk of radicalisation’ as any student exhibiting the following; • ”Being at a transitional phase in life” • ”A desire for excitement and adventure” • ”A desire for political and moral change” • ”A desire for status” Threatens to be so vague as to encompass every single student on campus. 4) Open and rigorous debate is the most powerful weapon against extremism, and this bill threatens to be counter-productive and give further fuel to fringe narratives. 5) The National Union of Students (NUS) has stated its strong opposition to this legislation. 6) The Joint Committee for Human Rights has said the bill would “stifle academic freedom”. 7) Universities UK have argued there is no evidence for a link between ‘student radicals’ and

violent extremism. 8) Forming committees dedicated to reviewing ‘suspect’ individuals for referral to CHANNEL surveillance and intervention risks alienating affected communities and creating a problem where none currently exists. 9) Singling out any one community of students as worthy of suspicion due to the actions of unrelated members of their wider community is an affront to the entire student body. 10) Policing thought and the exchange of ideas is a fundamental departure from deeply held British values. We sincerely hope that in light of the above concerns shared by the various student and academic signatories of this letter that the School will take the appropriate measures to oppose this bill as well as be transparent in the manner in which it will be implemented on campus.

Nona Buckley-Irvine SU, General Secretary Sebastian Bruhn SU, Community & Welfare Mahamid Ahmed SU, Post-Graduate Esther Gross SU, Anti-Racism Samiha Begum SU, BME Martha Petrocheilos SU, Democracy Committee Chair Katie Budd SU, Court of Governors Mahatir Pasha SU, Court of Governors Nadia Raslan SU, Environment & Ethics Emily Haimeed SU, NUS Delegate

Will Hamill Hayek Society, Secretary Achille Marotta Marxist Society, President Kaya Raveendran Women in Business, President Jasim Malik Islamic Society, President Millie Foster Jewish Society, President Jodie Brown Christian Movement, President Samantha Jury-Dada Labour Society, President Mark Malik Conservative Society, Vice-President Natalie Nunn Feminist Society, President Joey Davison Green Party Society, President

Kyle Houston-Floyd History Society, President Busayo Twins African Caribbean Society, President Bella Mosselmans Amnesty International Society, President Faeezah Taylor TEDx Society, President Noelie Audi-Dor Divest Society, President Shinaz Nivas Development Society, President Lina Lives Meditation Circle, President Waseem Samman Arab Society, Secretary Haneef Chowdhury Palestine Society, President

A total of twenty-nine people signied the letter, all of the signatories are listed below.

News

Tuesday January 27, 2015

A History of LSESU Activism Tooba Mushtaq Staff Writer ON THURSDAY 22ND JANUARY, LSESU and General Secretary Nona Buckley-Irvine hosted the event entitled ‘Democracy and Your Union’ at Denning Learning Cafe, Saw Swee Hock Student Centre. The aim of the event was to go through the history of LSESU activism and discuss the key changes made in LSESU and why those changes were needed. Former General Secretary Amanda Hart was the guest and speaker at the event. Despite the apparently enthusiastic response on the event’s Facebook page , the number of attendees was far below expectations, with just three students turning up to listen to the former General Secretary speak. Consequently, the nature of the event changed from being a lecture to

more of a round table discussion. The event started with Hart discussing the key events that occurred in 1989, the year she was elected General Secretary. She narrated the crises emerging from conflict between the police force and black youth all over the UK in the 1980s, which eventually led to a campaign by LSESU to secure the rights of wrongly convicted black men. The most striking aspect of her talk was that during the whole campaign, the turnout at UGMs ranged from three hundred to a thousand people turning up to support a motion. According to Amanda, 1989 was the year where LSESU came under the spotlight in national as well as international media. She received death threats and had to be escorted by Security Officials during the time when the campaign was at its peak. After her narration, the floor, or in this case the table, was

opened for discussion. BuckleyIrvine, the current General Secretary, started by asking whether the level of LSESU’s activism that Hart experienced, can be relived today and whether there is a climate for real change in these times. Hart briefed her limited audience about raising awareness being the most important part of a campaign. On the question as to why there was more widespread political activism at LSE in 1989, Amanda pointed out the nature of LSESU’s political parties in her time, which were greatly divided on the left-right ideological scale. This and the fact that the voting in UGMs was not online led to huge turnouts in the UGMs during her time as an LSE student and as General Secretary. The Question and Answer session ended with both Hart and Buckley-Irvine sharing their experiences as female General Secretaries and how possibly to lead

a successful campaign in the wake of the recent controversial Counter-Terrorism Bill that is currently before Parliament. In the end, Hart praised the new Saw Swee Hock building as the headquarters of the LSE Students’ Union and wished she had a building like this in her time.

UGM Motions Endorsing Free Education and Condemning Anti-Semitism Pass Amidst Complaints About LSESU Communication Liam Hill Features Editor TWO MOTIONS WERE PUT forward and passed at last week’s Union General Meeting (UGM), with Democracy Committee members Conor Rohan and Martha Petrocheilos filling in for Rayhan Uddin and Lena Schofield. The first motion, entitled Stop Anti-Semitism Now, was proposed by Lianne Mizrachi and seconded by Millie Foster. The motion passed with a large majority, with 370 students voting for the motion, and 32 against, a margin of 92% to 8%. The second motion, entitled Free Education, was proposed by Matt Myers and seconded by Ollie Hill. This motion also passed, but much more narrowly. 239 students voted for the motion, but 165 voted against the motion, a margin 0f 59% to 41%. No formal opposition to the motion condemning anti-semitism was put forward, while Disabled Students’ Officer Mark Malik and LSESU Politics and Forum President Christopher Hulm were confirmed late in the day as the opposers of the Free Education motion. Complaints about the lack of publicity given to the UGM motion have been aired. Malik posted on Facebook: “Democracy Committee should hang their heads in shame. What few UGMs there

have been have been so poorly publicised there hasn’t been any time to have a proper debate on campus.” He later told The Beaver “Last year, there was plenty of time time to have lively debates in the Comment section of the Beaver, on Facebook and on campus. There hasn’t been any of that this year beyond the UGM itself – which, as has been noted, is not well attended.” Christopher Hulm added “I think more people knew about what vegetables I had for dinner last night than about the UGM on free education.” As has become customary, the UGM began with reports and updates from the four full-time Sab-

batical Officers and postgraduate officer Mahamid Ahmed. Amongst the highlights of their reports were Nona Buckley-Irvine’s update on LSESU’s opposition to the counter-terrorism bill. She reported that new LSE Court of Governors Chair Lord Myners will criticise the bill when it progresses to the House of Lords. She has also written an article for Huffington Post on the subject. Education Officer Tom Maksymiw updated the UGM about his campaign to get LSE students, including students from Ireland and Commonwealth countries, who are eligible, registered to vote in time for the general election. Maksymiw also implored students to get involved with an upcoming Dodgeball tournament. The first motion, condemning anti-semitism, began with proposer Lianne Mizrachi offering a brief account of historical anti-semitism and suggesting that anti-semitism must be combated at LSE. Millie Foster, seconding the motion, said “it is important to have a framework for the response to incidents which take place on campus.” Finishing their justification of the motion, Millie Foster reminded the audience that “this motion has already been in place for the past three years, and we’re reaffirming it.” The motion on free education was contested strongly. Matt Myers, proposing the motion, condemned the failure of the coalition

government’s tuition fees policy and drew attention to the large amount of debt with which many students are “saddled” after they graduate. Seconding the motion, Ollie Hill said that “The mental affect of a huge amount of debt... means that a lot of students won’t fulfil their potential.” Mark Malik, opposing the motion, said that he could not “look in the eye” someone on low pay and ask them to pay for free education for students likely to earn large salaries after they graduate. In addition, Christopher Hulm, also opposing the motion, said that is it not fair for the “65% who don’t go to university to pay for free education for those who do,” before concluding that free education is a “quixotic, utopian proposition.” Questions have been also been raised about the fact that the two motions were debated in the same week. It has been suggested privately to The Beaver that these motions may have been included together to ensure quoracy was achieved for both motions. The minimum threshold for quoracy is 250 students, and in the past some motions have failed to attract a sufficient number of students voting. Last Wednesday, a banner reading ‘free education’ was hung from the bridge between the Old Building and the East Building, appearing to have the backing of at least one Sabbatical Officer.

THERE ARE NO PLANS TO continue with any sort of rebrand, the website will not be redesigned, and the 22-year-old logo will be looked at but “not anytime soon”, Principal Ed Byrne told Roar. It is unlikely the College will ever be able to put a final figure on the cost of the rebrand, which is anywhere between £87,000-£300,000, as spending was tangled up with the general marketing budget. Principal Byrne said there had been “unanimous support” from the highest governing board – College Council – to bin the rebrand when he phoned them all individually. Although the plans propose changing the brand name to King’s London, the legal name of the university would always have remained King’s College London.

REFERENDUM IN UCL called as sabbatical structure is ‘kind of ’ decided. UCL’s usual attitude towards any democratic proceedings has returned. With the adjournment of the well-attended General Assembly last year, the second General Assembly held on Tuesday 20 January was called in order to finish the conversation. The Assembly was held primarily to discuss the structure of UCLU’s sabbatical officers although a number of other proposals and motions were put forward as well. However, only around 140 union members actually turned up, failing to meet the quoracy of 175 needed for the meeting to take place. The poor show from UCL students, now including students from the Insitute of Education (IoE), was a great disappointment to all those involved.

CONTROVERSY HAS BROKEN out over the decision by 69 of the 151 Universities eligible to take part in pressure group People & Planet’s University League to pull out of the survey. Imperial College was one of the institutions to not submit a return this year. The survey, known until this year as the ‘Green League’ ranked universities based on factors attributable to environmental sustainability. Factors in this year’s survey include water and carbon reduction, staff and student engagement, sustainable food sourcing, and ethical investment policies.

News

Tuesday January 27, 2015

LSE Graduate Fights State Election Against Ex-Chief Minister in New Delhi

The Word on

Anup Aryl Beaver Business Team

Tooba Mushtaq Following the week 11 UGM, our Beaver reporter took to Houghton Street to find out what LSE students had to say about Home Secretay Theresa May’s proposals in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. The bill has passed through various stages in parliament with great speed, making it likely to become law in early February. It was difficult to find students who were well-informed about the bill, perhaps because of its speedy progression in parliament. Here is what the limited number of students who knew about the impending bill, had to say. I really don’t know why the Government would think that such bills can reduce terrorism; they need to improve their Intelligence Services first. Diedre Meinke, 2nd year Geography A quick fix solution, or could be an attempt by Government to put out a strong face in wake of increasing terrorism worldwide. Sabrina Goebel, 1st year International Relations and History Honestly, now that I am hearing from people what the Bill says, I feel terrorized by the Government. Misha Mahmood, 2nd Year, Environmental Policy with Economics Think about the scenario where a teacher is expected to report any student with extremist thinking, I mean, it will completely destroy the equation students have with their teachers. Emily Jackman, Post Graduate, Law Its like I am put under a spotlight every time I go to my class or say something, do they really thing students, out of all the people, students are suspects? Gilbert Qi, 2nd year, Maths and Economics The Bill is shit. Fareen Mahmood, 2nd year, Law The Government seem to think they are protecting our freedom by restricting the freedom of the Muslim community. The bill compromises our liberties, our freedom of expression and our trust in the government we have representing us. Samiha Begum, 2nd year Sociology, BME Officer

Students Row From London To Edinburgh For RAG Week Kanan Parida Deputy News Editor KICKING OFF RAG WEEK ON Monday, the London School of Economics (LSE) Rowing Club pledged to row the equivalent distance from London to Edinburgh over a twelve-hour period- from 6am to 6pm- in order to raise money for the three charities sponsored by RAG: Spires, IntoUniversity and WarChild UK. Holding true to their promise, the rowers ended up rowing nearly five hundred and fifty kilometres on the day. Participants ranged from novice rowers to senior team captains. The Rowathon also featured administrators, professors and our very own Sabbatical officers. The special guests included Professor Danny Quah, LSE’s

Chief Financial Officer Andrew Farrell, General Secretary Nona Buckley-Irvine and Activities & Development Officer Alastair Duncan. Assisting the rowers were RAG volunteers, or “bucket shakers”, who went around Houghton Street attempting to fundraise on behalf of the rowers. With the sale of tickets for the RAG Battle of the Halls and representatives from IntoUniversity at the Saw Swee Hock Centre, Houghton Street was buzzing with RAG week fever. The Rowathon was a spectacle in itself, attracting the attention of random passers-by, friends of the rowers or even students that wanted to see Professor Danny Quah break into a sweatt. With tremendous effort by the LSE Rowing club, each participant contributed a little in a collaborative effort to

achieve the overall goal of rowing to Edinburgh. Though it was a relatively slow day for donations on Houghton Street, the Rowathon did generate a lot of questions about what was going on and what charities were being supported, as well as promises of donations further on in the week. Moreover, with the option to donate online, a total of £231.33 was raised as a result of the Rowathon, demonstrating a promising start to the week. The Rowathon kick-started a week where Houghton Street was entirely invaded by RAG; it was only one of the many outlandish, but effective, attempts throughout the week to raise money for RAG’s three chosen charities. Other events included RAG Jailbreak, Cider Tasting, a Pie Eating Contest among other events.

NUPUR SHARMA, A RECENT graduate from the London School of Economics (LSE) has made headlines in Indian media for her nominations against the ex-Chief Minister in the upcoming state elections of New Delhi. In previous years Sharma was part of the youth wing of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as well as holding the title of Delhi University Student Union President. Currently, she represents the right leaning BJP party which won the last general election, 2014, with landslide victory. Sharma studied LLM degree at LSE in 2010-11 and has been active in state politics thereafter. After her nominations, she said “I think what the people today are asking for is one who is capable, somebody who sticks to their stand and somebody who is willing to deliver”. She also reiterated the fact that she has more experience than her rival candidate as she started her political career during her University days. The current Indian political system under represents women, especially young women, with the majority of the leg-

islature becoming composed of men; in the last state elections of New Delhi, there were only seventy one female candidates yet seven hundred and thirty nine male candidates. From these candidates only three female candidates were successful in the attaining one of the seventy contested seats, meaning less than five per cent on the legislature is female. In such a context, Sharma’s nomination comes as a breath of fresh air in an otherwise complex multiparty democracy, which is often mired by coalition governments. The previous coalition government tried to introduce a ‘Women’s Reservation Bill’ which is currently still a pending bill and proposes to amend the Constitution of India to reserve thirty three percent of all seats in the Lower house of Parliament and in all state legislative assemblies for women. The fate of New Delhi state election relies on the agenda surrounding local governance, employment and women’s security. In light of the strong women’s safety and empower ment agenda, Shar ma’s candidature is seen as important step by political analysts. Whether it changes the political debate in favour of women empowerment is yet to be seen.

Above: Nupur Sharma an LSE graduate smiles for the camera. Below on Houghton Street: General Secretary Nona Buckley-Irvine and Chief Financial Officer Andrew Farell breaking a sweat on rowing machines.

News

Tuesday January 27, 2015

In Focus: Exploring Liberation and Photography ON TUESDAY EVENING, the Saw Swee Hock Centre’s Venue, normally the location of the Friday night ‘club’ known as ‘Saucy’, played host to a wonderful panel event organised by the London School of Economics (LSE) Students’ Union (SU). Entitled “In Focus: Exploring Liberation and Photography”, the theme of the evening was the many facets of photography, which was explored by a series of incredibly interesting panellists. University College London (UCL) lecturer Tamar Garb started proceedings off, commenting that ‘photography is a promiscuous technology’ and noting that it was important that photography should not be looked at as a homogenous entity but a range of different genres each with their own merit. Matt Daw, from the charity PhotoVoice, provided the audience with an insight into the fascinating work that his organisation does. Noting the versatility of photography, Daw noted that “there’s something common there that people can engage with, no matter what their background”. PhotoVoice uses the concept of participatory photography to build skills

collaborative project with his sister Roxana, entitled Seven Years Later. Allison’s deeply personal experience of being in prison profoundly affected his work and was the inspiration for the project, where he commented that “the only way I found freedom was through creativity”. Coincidentally, he had been commissioned by Hackney authority to portray the very prison that he spent time in, where he said that his experience of visiting it as a photographer was completely different to “being a photographer living the daily life inside”. To round off the evening’s presentations, Mark Sealy MBE, Director of Autograph Association of Black Photographers (ABP), gave an insightful talk on the topic of photography and cultural violence. First speaking about the formation of Autograph ABP, Sealy described it as being born in a political space in the late 1980s, post Brixton riots era, to combat the feeling that “photography has often framed us in a way we cannot escape”. He depicted Autograph ABP as a photographic organisation that uses photography with a political underpinning, that “wanted to challenge the very idea of what photography is about...through a new agenda, a new voice and a new space”.

within marginalised communities both in the UK and abroad to empower its subjects and effect social change. Daw presented some great examples of PhotoVoice’s work; showing the diversity of the groups the charity works with and how they can be engaged through photography project. British-Mexican photographer Pablo Allison then spoke about his experiences with photography as a liberating tool, specifically with regards to his

Sealy then guided the audience through American collector James Allen’s ‘Without Sanctuary’ project; a series of images depicting Deep South lynchings that were sold in the form of postcards and traded in America as commodities. This whistlestop tour of these, sometimes shocking and uncomfortable but undeniably important, images illustrated the acts of state violence and the powerlessness of the individual, supporting Sealy’s interest in the idea of photography and its plac-

Suyin Haynes Deputy News Editor

LSESU Education Officer Tom Maksymiw Talks to the Teaching and Learning Centre About Exam Feedback

Why have you decided to make exam feedback for undergraduate students a key priority of your sabbatical year as SU Education Officer? It’s a priority because I think lack of exam feedback has a real and significant effect on learning of students at LSE. I put exam feedback in my manifesto and it has been the one of the issues which has resonated most with students. Exams play such a huge part in determining student’s grades and their final degree classification so I think students deserve and desire more feedback on exams than just a two digit number. The other factor is that the school has recognised that ‘Assessment and Feedback’ scores in NSS are not good enough, especially this year and so I felt that, as exam feedback is something which improves students’ learning (not to mention NSS scores in those departments that provide it), it should be something I prioritise for this year. Why do you think individual exam feedback is important for student learning and satisfaction with their university studies? I think exam feedback is important because it really connect the dots between learning and assessment. At the moment exams are treated as assessment of learning as if they were some neutral test of knowledge and skills already learnt in the course, but exam technique and producing exam style arguments are skills which must be learnt and developed. Exam assessment is itself part of the learning process and so it is important students have the feedback

necessary to learn skills needed for that form of assessment. That’s why some students feel frustrated when the marks they receive on formative assessment don’t match their summative marks, or students who may not do badly but achieve basically the same exam results throughout their three years feel they are unable to improve. They may not be clear what part of their exam technique needs working on and feedback gives them the opportunity to clarify that. Similarly exam feedback is relates to common students complains like ‘I got my lowest grade in the exam I thought I did best in’ or ‘I went through exam solutions and can’t see how I got the mark total I did’. So exam feedback can complete the learning ‘feedback loop’ at LSE, give students guidance on their development and thereby improve their satisfaction with the university experience. What are the key challenges and opportunities in convincing academic departments in the School of the importance of exam feedback? The poor NSS results and the school’s own Assessment and Feedback review has offered the opportunity to talk to departments about this issue. The devolving of Assessment and Feedback policy decisions to departments has allowed innovations to take place and means departments are more willing to try new things, especially where such changes in other departments have improved learning. The reverse side of that means that my job is made more difficult – I now have to convince members of all of LSE’s 23 departments of my case rather than just the school management itself, which can prove logistically difficult. It also means that students who pay the same fees can often be receiving dif-

ferent products, if you want to speak about in purely market terms, which will hopefully lead to a sharing of best practice rather than a race to the bottom. Having said all that, most departments have been really open to the idea of exam feedback. Most departments recognise its value, the biggest challenge is convincing departments that such value outweighs the potential costs in academic and administrative time (most of which prove to be far less significant than expected). What other issues are you focusing on this year? Exam feedback is one of my three main priorities the other two are space and academic culture. Space is, I think going to be huge issue for all stakeholders in the school over the next few years during the development of the centre buildings. Study space for students is a particular concern, fortunately here I have been able to work with the school and the library to secure some temporary, and some hopefully permanent, additional study space for students. Academic culture is the phrase I’ve used to describe the interaction between staff and students at LSE. This includes more formal interactions such as those in office hours but also informal interactions, which I think are key to building a sense of school spirit and community at LSE. Some departments facilitate this sort of interaction very well, for instance via the Philosophy and Anthropology band socials and therefore are good at getting students to feel at home in those departments. In trying to facilitate these sort of interaction I have hosted discussion events and quizzes and will be holding on Wednesday of week 3 a staff/student dodgeball tournament! I’m also keen to help to departments who want to do their own social events.

ing within history. He rounded off his powerful presentation, and the evening’s talks, with the assertion that photography invites us to play a critical role in the present, and that “the problem with violence, power and so-

cial change is that we imagine it as part of a past problem”. The panel event was a great success, and it is hoped that the LSESU will be able to host more with speakers of such diversity in the future.

If you want to see your work published in the News section send an email to news@thebeaveronline.co.uk. We’re always looking for new writers for The Beaver!

Comment Section Editorial:

SCOTLAND HAS ELBOWED its way to the front of my mind this week. Burns Night this year brought with it the mildly controversial news that the SNP would be included in the televised debates in the run up to the General Election, as part of a seven party line up. This weekend also saw a visit to London from Fife by my cousin and his fiancé, who both revealed over rather too many Brew Dogs (which are Aberdonian and thus relevant to this story) that their vote in the independence referendum went to Salmond with the Yes campaign. While I was very much in favour of the No campaign, I was glad to hear that they did agree with the sentiment of Rohan’s comment piece this week. They, and I, agree with Rohan that Scottish Nationalist Parties should not have a deciding role in English elections, and their ability to do so is outrageous. It seems that despite the referendum delivering a decided no vote, issues north of the border still require some consideration. Thankfully, AD for A&D has put on a timely ceilidh where we can brainstorm ideas over a strip the willow, whisky and a haggis. Braw!

Comment

Ellen Wilkie

Tuesday January 27, 2015

Section Editor: Ellen Wilkie comment@thebeaveronline.co.uk

London School of (Un)Employability We attend a top university so why are we not desirable to employers? Khushboo Khanna AS STUDENTS, THE MOST common lie we are told is that if we study for this exam, we will get to live life large and that’ll be it. It’ll be worth the struggle and sleepless nights once its over. What nobody tells us is that “this exam” is a term that never stops repeating itself. There’s always a higher qualification waiting in the future for us to get to it and another one just around the corner follows it. Nevertheless we never stop trying or writing these exams, in the hopes that one day, as promised, it will all be worth it. For anyone who gets into a world-renowned university, that is probably the pay off. The struggle landed them a spot in the realm of the elite. The academicians and brilliant minds that will one day change the world. Most of us take it for granted that getting to these universities is enough to land us a job because lets face it, we pay what many would consider a lifetime’s worth of savings to fund our years at prestigious universities, there’s got to be a pay off right? That’s how karma is supposed to work or at least so we believe. Imagine the sheer disap-

pointment then when your are told despite landing yourself a coveted spot on one of the most competitive programs in one of the top listed universities across the globe, that you aren’t one of the most desirable candidates in the graduate recruitment market. And hey, don’t get them wrong, its nothing personal. It is not anything to do with your caliber, just that your university no longer seems like the prime

“ It is nothing less than cringeworthy to see Manchester top the graduate recruitment list, where LSE is placed #12.” choice for recruiters. That moment feels like someone took a glaring look at you and slapped you back to reality. All your hope and confidence that you will be getting a job just because you go to a nerd school come crashing down. Hold your horses, you’re about to face the same dilem-

ma reading further, so beware. Firstly, congratulations on your feat; you got into the London School of Economics and Political Science which is ranked among the top most universities globally and in the current academic year and managed to knock off Oxford and Cambridge to top the list of best research universities in the UK. Having said that, before you gloat in all its glory, you might want to take a breath and read this- LSE does not appear on the top 10 most desired universities for graduate recruitments. Surprisingly, we ranked 16 the last academic year and have jumped the queue to 12 this year but it still feels like a mockery. This comes as a shocking development considering that it ranked 2nd in 2012, only overtaken by Cambridge and beating Oxford by a spot. You might understand my remorse as an international student then, hearing the proposed laws against providing work visas to international students. For information sakes, LSE has the highest no. of international students in all universities in the UK, supporting a staggering 51% to 49% ratio of foreign nationals to home students. Yet, we are left with the painful re-

minder that getting here may not be that great a thing after all. Not to underestimate or degrade any institution, with all due respect, it is nothing less than cringe worthy to see Manchester top the graduate recruitment list, followed by Nottingham and Warwick. Arch rivals Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial also appear in the top 10 but LSE stays put at #12. As shameful as this is, the greater question this survey raises is “why?” Having all the resources and a very dedicated students union, an envy worthy staff of academicians and world leading programs, what are we missing? There has to be a reason as to why the rankings have slipped so low and what makes LSE graduates less desirable for recruiters. The institution brings in its 120th year of inception in 2015, and the celebration wouldn’t be as grand if we can’t carry forward its legacy. The motto of the school reads, “Rerum Cognoscere Causas” which when literally translated to English means, “To know the cause of things” It’s high time we practice what we preach and get to the bottom of this issue.

Getting Off Scot-Free At The Election Nationalist parties do not have a place in Union assemblies Rohan Ahlawat I DON’T MEAN TO BE RUDE but, you lost, so get lost! I talk of the Scottish National Party (SNP). In a week when the new leader of the SNP has stated clearly a new approach to SNP MPs and their abstention on matters of English only laws, I say to them, you are very bitter losers. Sturgeon believes that Scottish MPs need to vote on NHS reforms that only affect England because they have an impact on Scotland. Whether this is or isn’t the case, there is a fundamental principle that no matter from which party one belongs to, representatives in Parliament should vote on matters that directly affect their constituents. What more do the SNP want? They got the so called ‘Devo Max’ and

new tax and spend powers, so they cannot complain about independence because they lost by 10%, simple as that. What is most worrying for the sane individuals in our Union is that there are people in Scotland who still believe they would do better independent from the rest of the UK. I say this is because the current reductions in oil prices would have been absolutely catastrophic for the Scottish economy had they gone it alone, but they are being propped up by their brothers and sisters who make our United Kingdom prosperous and specialised in differing industrial sectors, which allows every nation to put in and take out. So why am I angry, and why should you be angry? Not a single person in England, Wales, Northern Ireland, voted for the SNP. They are a na-

tionalist party, the hint is in their name. It baffles me that a nationalist party in Scotland that does not stand anywhere else in the Union should have a say, and not just a say, but a potentially definitive say in English Laws. This argument, as many of the arguments of advocates of Nicola Sturgeon, falls short of explaining why the Conservatives would unite with the DUP and vote on English only laws. I recognise this criticism, but must also infer that Holyrood is the most devolved parliament in the world following recent events. The Scottish Parliament will now for the first time combine the freedom to decide what happens in their schools, hospitals, surgeries and police stations, and have the responsibility of determining how around 60 per cent of public money in Scotland

is spent. However the new legislation has more to it; for the first time the majority of the money the Scottish Parliament spends will be raised north of the border in Scotland also. The DUP cannot do this, in their own devolved institution. Even more worrying than Scottish MPs voting on laws that only affect people south of the border is that they may hold the balance of power in choosing the Government in the next parliament. For me, as a British citizen before an Englishman, is a problem. It is stupidity, almost as stupid as the election of Mr Junker, the well known individual who we all had a chance to vote for. Why am I worried? Well the SNP are a nationalist party with a nationalist agenda, and thus should be nowhere near the government of the United Kingdom.

Comment

Tuesday January 27, 2015

LSE Morals At Stake: The Only Way Is Ethics Aysha al-Fekaiki Continued from page 1 The Finance Committee’s ability to avoid any binding ethics code is also unacceptable. When considering investment decisions, members should refer to the ‘Socially Responsible Investment Policy’. The Chief Financial Officer claimed that the policy is legally binding, as it refers to an old Ethics Code. However, as stated previously, the old Ethics Code has been diluted. In practice, LSE’s ethics policy is like playing with Russian dolls, by having what appears to be a legally binding investment policy that actually depends on a non-binding set of ethics. Furthermore, the Ethics Policy Committee members are obliged to sign a confidentiality contract to ensure information does not leave the confines of the room in which decisions are taken. This is clearly in contradiction to LSE’s expected values to transparency. In response,

the Ethics Manger explained that this is only with regards to “information on individuals or organisations that might be provided such as in relation to specific grants and donation cases.” This line of argument conjures up vivid memories of concealing untrustworthy, immoral and controversial sources of funding that LSE has involved itself with in the past, namely the Gaddafi scandal. What is at stake here is what is obvious to most of us to begin with. Human rights, anti-bribery and sustainability should be at the core of LSE’s legally binding Ethics Code with regards to investments, especially given that we are the leading research university in the UK. LSE’s 2015 investment portfolio is already short of an appropriate sustainable and ethical standard. Funds have been funnelled into BG Energy Capital, a British multinational oil company who was listed as the 7th most environmentally and socially controversial company in the world in 2010. If that wasn’t bad enough, LSE

also invests in General Electric, who provides the Israeli military with engines for the F- 16s and Apache helicopters that were indiscriminately used on Gaza. Allowing this change to the Ethics code will give LSE the freedom to operate without scrutiny, and to make investments that may be detrimental to human rights and sustainability, as well as to LSE’s reputation. We have a responsibility as students of this institution to prevent the school from avoiding what should be its legal obligations to ethics and sustainability when considering its investment options, especially since much of the funding comes from our extortionate tuition fees. The student body has been insufficiently consulted on the proposed changes. We as students need to have a greater voice and involvement in these processes, especially as the Ethics Framework Review Group stated that “it would not be practicable for the ERFG to replicate a consultation exercise on that scale” (referring

Cartoons by Jack Hodsoll

“The student body has been insufficiently consulted on the proposed changes. We as students need to have a greater voice and involvement in these processes” to the creation of the original Code). At a global university, our voices should be crucial when it comes to deciding where our money goes, especially if it contributes to bribery and the violation of human rights around the world. If we do not stand up, who will? Noelie Audi-Dor and I are setting up #TheOnlyWayIsEthics campaign in response to LSE’s actions. We call for: 1 - A centralised, clear and coherent system whereby all LSE

investment committees are committed to human rights, anti-bribery and sustainability within one legally binding Ethics Code. 2 -An expansion in student consultation by including all Sabbatical Officers and the Ethics and Environment Officer on investment committees, which should keep all students informed about LSE’s investment policy and about any future changes to the Ethics code. 3 - Greater transparency from the school hierarchy about the LSE’s investment policy and the removal of confidentiality contracts. If you would like to join our campaign to make LSE more ethical and transparent, you can contact Aysha Al-Fekaiki on a.z.al-fekaiki@ lse.ac.uk. Join the discussion and find out more at our ‘The Future of Finance: Ethical Investing on a Warming Planet’ event on 29th January in room CLM 2.02 at 19:00. Vote for our ethical investment motion due to be submitted to a Union General Meeting within the coming weeks!

Comment

Tuesday January 27, 2015

The Beginning Of The End Of The Patriarchy

The Sun’s most controversial page may be on its way out, but what else can we do to end the patriarchy? Gabrielle Beran THIS WEEK THE TELEGRAPH reported the end of Page Three of The Sun’s tradition of displaying a scantily clad woman. Despite the confusion over the fact that there were breasts on page three some days last week and not on others and with the breasts returning this week, I hope this means that the fading out of the “feature” is in full swing. This exercise showed another overly long, unjustifiably debated, request of the feminist community being granted. Excuse me for not burning my bra in joy. Of course I am delighted that there is one less British “institution” objectifying women and encouraging a society to feed off naked breasts on their daily commute. However, if the debate and actual rage of those trying to keep Page Three tells us anything, it is that we have a long, long way to go. We have so far to go because institutionalised sexism

“Institutionalised sexism is so ingrained into our culture that all sexes have trouble seeing it.”

CC Licence

is so ingrained into our culture that all sexes have trouble seeing it. I had to listen to many people telling me that if women want to be photographed topless and paid for it, who am I to tell them not to do that with their body? Yes, because of course that is the reason that women are in Page Three, because they are just really happy to be the object of a daily fetishisation of the female body. No! If women are glad to be objectified in such a manner it is because our society has told them that that is something to aspire to, that that is all they are good for and that they should be happy, nay grateful, that some old guys want to stare at their bodies. When you think about it like that, it is pretty scary. I have also been told to stop being so petty and to focus on the big issues like FGM or sex trafficking and stop worrying about something so “trivial” as a pair of breasts a day. From my coffee stained, notebook covered desk at the LSE I could be changing the whole world but is it not also a valid use of my time to clean up my back garden first? The list of bizarre arguments for keeping Page Three that we have listened to and read go on. I choose to be optimistic, I choose to think that maybe some of this discussion has struck a chord with our soci-

ety and maybe we could use some of that discursive power to make some other changes to day-to-day life in Britain. Here’s my introductory wish list to removing some of the power of the patriarchy:

“I would place a bet that every girl on campus has had an experience of catcalling in the last week, and that none of them enjoyed it.” 1. Eliminate the societal expectations that women will have no hair on their bodies apart from their long eyelashes and luscious locks. I’m sorry but “I got a Brazilian wax because it was a pleasant and enjoyable experience” and “I love the searing pain of having my underar m hairs ripped out” said no-one. Ever. 2. No more unwanted verbal objectification. Catcalls, hollering or whatever else you want to call it; being yelled at out of a car, from a passing bicycle or while you’re waiting at the traffic lights is not okay in a civilised society. I would place a bet that every girl on

campus has had an experience of this nature in the last week, and that none of them enjoyed it. 3. While we’re talking about talking, no more sexual harassment full stop. Not in the workplace, not on the streets and not at our university. Some blame ‘Lad Culture’ for these activities, but wherever it is coming from, it needs to stop. 4. Let women have an equal opportunity to rise to the top of all industries. 5. While we’re at it, let the other sexes earn the same amount as men. 6. Stop criticising other women for not being feminine enough or “girly” enough. Can we all stop judging women on preconceived notions of what it means to be a woman and let every soul decide for herself without society having their say. 7. Celebrate stay-at-homedads. Children who spend extensive time with their fathers are more emotionally adjusted and tend to face adversity better. We should encourage men to see raising their children as a viable prospect and respect those who choose to for no other reason than that they want to. 8. Refor m the laws relating to prostitution so that women who are in the industry can run their own businesses as

they please and at least have the option of working from a brothel where support and more regular hours can be available. 9. Stop telling me that equality between men and women is never going to happen because of biology. My 22-year-old male flatmate had the gall to say this to me this week. And it’s because of the attitudes of boys like that that we are being held back. Just because I have a vagina does not make me less capable.

“Can we all stop judging women on preconceived notions of what it means to be a woman?” 10. Finally, we must all remember about Caitlin Moran’s motto for deciding whether something is sexist or not; “And are the men doing this as well? Every time the answer to that is no, let’s have a think about it. I’m already waiting for all the comments about how I must be a “raging feminist,” or, more likely “a crazy bitch” but in the words of Tina Fey, “Bitches get stuff done.” Now, let’s get to work.

Comment

Tuesday January 27, 2015

What Can Be Done About FGM In The UK?

LSESU Amnesty Society unpacks the issues surrounding Female Genital Mutilation Asha Chadeesingh FGM, OR FEMALE GENITAL Mutilation is a practice rooted in gender inequality, with one of the most common motives for performing the procedure on a young girl being to ensure she remains a virgin before marriage. There are no health benefits to the FGM, and the practice will often result in physical and psychological problems for the rest of the girl’s life. When attending ‘The Cruel Cut’ workshop last October, one speaker whose words really resonated with me was Dexter Dias, a human rights barrister who stated that FGM was the biggest human rights violation happening in the UK, yet so little was being done to stop it. In the past couple years; FGM has for the first time gained true international awareness with media outlets commonly reporting on it, and FGM charities gaining increasing support. However, despite

this we are far from reaching an end to FGM, where in the UK 60,000 girls under age 15 are at risk and 3 million girls worldwide undergo the procedure each year. FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985, however this first prosecution did not take place until March 2014. FGM is usually performed on a child under the age of 10, either by a family member or with the consent

“FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985, however this first prosecution did not take place until March 2014” of a child’s family. This is one of the features that make it increasingly difficult to end, as a

young child is highly unlikely to speak out against their own family. Furthermore, the fact that FGM is a practice which is more often carried out on girls of certain ethnicities, means that historically, there is a certain fear of being seen as attacking particular communities and cultures when criticising FGM. FGM is not a requirement in any religious scripture, and recognised internationally as a human rights abuse. I believe one of the obstacles preventing us from ending FGM in the UK is this fear, but we should not let it prevent us from ending this abuse, instead, we should be sure to carry out the work in an appropriate way. In Week 4 of this term, from 2nd to 6th February, Amnesty International Society is holding a campaign week for Gender Equality. This will feature numerous events, such as a panel discussion titled ‘Progress and Shortfall: Women’s Rights in the 21st Century’ and a stall in Houghton street raising

money for educational empowerment charities, and awareness through a photo petition.

“There is a fear of attacking particular communities and cultures when criticising FGM. I believe this fear is preventing us from ending FGM in the UK” The week will also include a workshop on February 5th titled ‘How do we end FGM”, at 6:30pm in NAB 2.04. With February 6th being international ‘Zero Tolerance to FGM Day’, I felt the week running up to it would be a great opportunity to hold an event at LSE which helps us answer the question

of how we can put this goal of Zero Tolerance into reality. The workshop ‘How do we end FGM” will consist of a discussion of how we can end a practice surrounded by so many complex issues. Louise Robertson, Communications Manager at ‘28toomany’ will discuss how NGO’s can drive change, and what its like to work with the government to end FGM. Ebru Sahin, a masters student who incorporated FGM into a photo documentary will also explain what how we can achieve an end to FGM by bringing advocacy against it into other disciplines. We are also extremely fortunate to have a survivor of FGM speak to us, to show the impact this practice has on real lives, and therefore how important it is we take a stand to end it. This workshop will be a great opportunity to learn and really unpack the many issues surrounding FGM, and help us answer the question of how can we end it.

Crimea River: Ukraine Isn’t The Only Victim

A Russian driven to vote Putin by Ukrainian complaints about Crimean invasion Maria Komarova I AM A RUSSIAN AND A patriot. Having said that, I do not love every aspect of my country and am not prepared to stand for the atrocious behaviour of Russia’s leaders. Having said that, when I listen to some of the things that the LSE Ukrainians come out with I am willing to put a tick in Putin’s box on the next ballot. I would guess that I am more Ukrainian by blood than the majority of the supposed members of Ukraine at LSE, who seem to be more Russian than I am. It seems to me that a lot of their parents moved to Ukraine for some sketchy business opportunities back before the break down of the USSR and now drink cocktails on the rooftops of Kiev, far away from all the trouble. In the ex-USSR countries there is no pure blood, everyone has been mixed about since before any of us can track back. So if you are not all that Ukrainian, why should you have the right to come out with hateful comments and express anger towards the moreUkrainian-Than-You Russians? Shouldn’t you really be directing your anger at your own

government or the one and only Mr. Putin, who’s genius ideas are behind all of this?

“The Russian future is looking rather dim, considering that we now make a new toast - ‘To Crimea!’ ” At the end of the day, what the nationalist Ukrainians are forgetting is that we are all brothers and sisters. Our countries are not just neighbours; we have historically been the closest out of every other soviet state and to this day our cultures have been mixed so much, that only a few things really define Ukraine as different to Russia (the two major ones being a different name for vodka and a bit of salty pig’s fat, which LSESU Ukrainian Society was proudly flaunting at Freshers Fair). Now I will discuss the crisis. Having spoken to people inside the UK (from all around the world, who have the privi-

lege of free press and variety of opinions) and also back at home in Moscow, I can say that the Russian future is looking rather dim, considering the fact that we now have a new toast - “To Crimea!” and also that the people believe annexing it was a good decision. They tell me that “Putin is the most courageous leader! We must believe in him as he has done so much for this country. Make sure you do not say bad things about him in public or online, because that might cost you your future in this country.” When I asked my friends why they think that the whole world is sanctioning us, the usual response was “because no one wants Russia to be strong again and they are scared we will annex the rest of what is close to us, just like we did with Crimea”. This is equal parts shocking and hilarious. The amount of brainwashing that goes on in both countries is beyond belief. It is time that our generation seriously considers getting to know more sides of the web than Facebook and pornography. My hope in liberal Russia, however, is not lost. Some of my more educated and motivated friends have given me

the responses that I needed. We are scared. The inability to see the future and being faced with what is going on with the Russian economy and seeing scarce food supplies doesn’t leave you with much comfort. Troops are being sent over the border in secret, who are then left to die without their families ever knowing what has actually happened. Funny, because the majority believe that if Putin was to really send the army across the border there would be no more Ukraine. Thank you, federal television.

“The Western population do not understand the struggles of living under one of the most powerful and selfish men on Earth” Educated, liberal, people that oppose Russia do not care for Crimea. We were able to enjoy it as part of the Ukraine

more so than now. No one ever asked if we were okay with having an extra burden on the honest taxpayers and struggling government budget. What we want is for the crisis to be over. One way would be for the incompetent Ukrainian government to take things into their hands and stop the separatists. Another more utopian approach, would be for the “beloved” Vladimir to leave us all alone. I have raved about this subject on multiple occasions but the issue is that the Western population that have been spoiled with democracy would never be able to understand the struggles of living under the regime of one of the most powerful and selfish men on Earth. The protection of his political power takes priority and he has done everything in his ability to let absolutely nothing jeopardise that. With the Rouble halving in value I am now a sober, walking student. It is in my interest to remind the Ukrainians that they are not the only ones suffering, we Russians are too. Lets stop the hate, we have done nothing to deserve it. Take back your Crimea and give us back our peace.

RAG Week Special

Photo

Tuesday January 27, 2015

The Beaver 09.10.2012

PartB Cover credit: Flickr - Tambako The Jaguar

Tuesday January 27, 2015

PARTB LSESU LOLZ: THE NEW COMEDY NIGHT

INTERVIEW WITH CARL DONNELLY

HIS week we had the honour to interview the headliner for LSESU LOLZ: The New Comedy Night. Carl Donnelly. The Laughing Horse New Act of the Year 2006, Chortle Awards Best Newcomer 2007, and nominee for Edinburgh Comedy Awards Best Newcomer 2009 and the Edinburgh Comedy Award 2013, divulges his comedic secrets, recounts memorable moments in his career, and gives his two cents on comedy at universities in this insightful interview.

How did you start out in comedy? I started out by chance really. I grew up a comedy fan but never had designs to do it until I first saw live stand up comedy at the age of 20. Watching it on video or listening to comedy albums never had the spark for me that the live environment did so as I sat watching it properly for the first time, I had a revelation that I wanted to do it. The next couple of years were spent building up the courage before finally diving in. I knew after my first gig that I needed to do it forever as I'd never done something that felt so right before. We noticed that you did stand-up on planes, how did you find the experience? I don't think I've ever been as nervous as when I did the gigs on the plane to and from Edinburgh. The risk of having a bad gig and then having to sit with the audience in a locked tube gave me sleepless nights. The thought however of being one of a tiny number of comedians on earth to perform on a plane was too exciting to turn down though so I said yes and bizarrely they turned out to be very fun gigs. The passengers/audience seemed equally excited to be seeing comedy in such strange circumstances that they were behind me from the word go. We ended up having loads of fun. Let us in on the secret, how do you put together material for your shows? My shows are all autobiographical so there's no real secret as to how they come together. I basically live my life which luckily for my comedy tends to be quite varied and when things happen to me I think are interesting enough, I note them down and talk about it at new material nights until they're funny enough to make it into the show. I'll also pepper them with observations that normally come out of stuff I say to comedian Chris Martin and he suggests I say it onstage. It has been said that "it wouldn't be a Donnelly gig if he wasn't distracted by what's going on around him." What is your most memorable 'distraction'? My all time favourite was Edinburgh 2012. I was telling a story from my youth that involved a friend I'd not seen or heard of in 16 years (I later learned he'd spent part of that in prison). I mentioned him by name then heard two people start talking under their breath in the audience. I asked what was going on as couldn't see them in the dark and I just heard a voice say "it's me Carl". I walked nearer to the crowd to see my childhood friend Louis and his wife sitting in the third row. I couldn't believe it and the crowd couldn't either. We both got quite emotional and I went over and hugged him and everyone cheered. It was an amazing moment.

Photo credits: www.carldonnelly.co.uk

How would you compare doing comedy in different outputs (such as live shows, podcasts, and even simply on social media)? Do you have a preference? Nothing compares to live comedy but I think my second favourite output is podcasting. Me and Chris Martin do one weekly that is always a fun afternoon of us just shooting the breeze with a guest. As it is just conversation it lacks the pressure to be non stop funny so it allows us to really mess around with topics. I'm on social media but not as fond of it as prefer speaking to writing when it comes to comedy. Do you think it's a good idea to start comedy on campus? The more comedy going on at universities the better in my opinion as it gives people the chance to see it live at a young age and if they do have any desire to give it a go then they have the time and years to do so. Follow Carl on www.carldonnelly.co.uk! VIKKI HUI

REVIEW: LSESU LOLZ

What to say about LSESU LOLZ? Well the frst comment must of course go to genius branding - the expert use by the LSESU of today’s buzzword ‘LOLZ’ captured the imagination of students and 6 year olds alike. There were no 6 year olds at the event in question, but there were nevertheless a clutch of LSE students waiting expectantly for the LOLZ to be unleashed by the start of LSESU LOLZ. (Ed. That’s enough LOLZs now). Fair play to the intrepid comedians who graced the makeshift stage of the Tuns. In front of what might politely be described as a ‘rambunctious’ crowd, Comedian Number 1, Comedian Number 2 and Mr R. Peacock, the intrepid compere for the evening, took the continual interruptions of the crowd in their stride for the most part. Unfortunately the lethal combination of Media Group Give-It-A-Go

‘Refreshments’ and a confidence (arrogance?) born of 3 years at LSE led some audience members to conclude that their drunken insertions were by far the highlight of the evening. One can only feel pity for the BNOC couple on their first date in the back of the Tuns. Still, maybe you bonded over the awkwardness of witnessing half a dozen hacks drunkenly demand that one of their number be given the chance to ‘perform his 6th Form Comedy Routine because it’s probably funnier than this.’ So were the comedians funny? Good question. This reviewer found them more than mildly entertaining, although attempts at gathering a second opinion from the Pack O’ Hacks present proved futile. Although I suppose the comment ‘I wish I could remember more of the night’ could be construed as a positive review? LOLZ indeed..

PARTB EDITORIAL TEAM PARTB

FASHION

FILM

Jade Jackman Vikki Hui

Sanya-Jeet Thandi

Jade Jackman Maryam Akram

partb@thebeaveronline.co.uk

fashion@thebeaveronline.co.uk

film@thebeaveronline.co.uk

FOOD

LITERATURE

MUSIC

TECHNOLOGY

THEATRE

VISUAL ARTS

Caroline Schurman-Grenier

Gareth Rosser

Rohan Soni

Jon Rhys Foster

food@thebeaveronline.co.uk

literature@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Conor Doherty, Will Locke & Dominic Tighe

techonology@thebeaveronline.co.uk

theatre@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Jade Jackman Maryam Akram

music@thebeaveronline.co.uk

visualarts@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Tuesday January 27, 2015

THEATRE A Slight Ache? More Like A Slight Succes s Pinter’s ‘A slight ache’ at first may not seem an ideal fit for the cut and thrust of the LSE, but a play about insecurity and self-identity is in truth quite at home in the Saw Swee student centre. ‘A Slight Ache’ follows a middle aged couple on the longest day of the year, as they deal with a mysterious and silent match seller stood at their back gate. As they continue to question the spectre at the gate, we see them both struggling with their own dreams and desires. Under the direction of James Dunn the production marks a strong start to the Drama Society’s Lent term season. Resisting the temptation to use extravagant lighting or sound, Dunn places his faith in the script and a strong cast to offer up a simple and quite beautiful performance. The piece is nicely paced and allows the script room to breathe, avoiding the common pitfalls of seeming either too short or too long that many one act plays fall into.

Get Ready For the next play from LSESU Drama Society

Surprisingly, the use of the 6th Floor Studio is a further plus, adding to the play’s atmospheric tension. The simple lighting and stark set, places the emphasis firmly on the cast’s performances. Fortunately, Dunn’s faith is not misplaced - any cast comprised of only three characters is likely to place strain on the actors, even more so when faced with a playwright as challenging as Pinter; however in this case the cast perform admirably. It is Nikhil Parmar's Edward who arguably has the most work to do. It is the character of Edward who dominates the dialogue and is the most obvious focus of audience attention. Parmar responds with a strong performance, delivering his typically Pinteresque monologues with aplomb and offering moments of wonderful physicality, unravelling in a manner which is chillingly convincing. Opposite Parmar, Celine Buckens provides an appropriately subtle performance. Her Flora is a tender, quieter

portrayal and offers a nice contrast with Parmar’s frantic energy. Her underplaying of Flora’s teenage rape, provides a particularly powerful and impactful moment. Between them Parmar and Buckens find the right balance within the script, giving a deeply moving performance whilst also managing to unearth the wit and humour in Pinter’s script. However, in a cast of strong performances it is Josh Terry’s match-seller than stands out. To be on stage for an hour without a single line of dialogue and still hold the audience’s attention is a special achievement. Even in the earlier scenes before his first appearance, Terry’s presence can be felt. From the moment he emerges from the audience his matchseller is a malevolent, unnerving figure, mirroring the mental turmoil of Flora and Edward. Praise must go to both actors and director for creating a production that stays in the mind long after the final curtain falls. by Jon-Rhys Foster

Things may get a Tiny Winy, Teensy Weensy Bit Silly

Tuesday January 27, 2015

FASHION/LITERATURE

Relax in a luxury fashion: Dusit Devarana An “uber luxury urban” resort in Delhi. If modern luxury is your style this place is hotel perfection. A minimalist yet opulent aesthetic surrounded by trees and all the greenery you could want, Dusit Devarana really is the most luxurious respite one could get from the Delhi heat. The location feels a million miles away from the polluted burning air ever-present in the city. It’s no surprise that many a stalwart on the Indian fashion scene hangs out here since its recent opening in 2014. Having recently won "Most Outstanding Luxury Resort" in India award, at

the Travel & Hospitality Awards ceremony, it’s no wonder the Jabong Fashion Week was hosted at this retreat. This place beats Taj and Oberoi hotels by a million miles. If any of you happen to be hitting India over Easter, summer or during your gap yah this place is a must. With its 100 metre long swimming pool, a private temple, a killer restaurant and bar, spa and dream fitness centre Dusit is genuinely the perfect place to relax and indulge in yourself and your senses. Sanya -Jeet Thandi Fashion Editor

Reading List for a Lent Term Brain It’s Week 3 of Lent Term, and I for one am tired. The Christmas celebrations seem like a distant memory, the New Year’s Resolutions have long fallen by the wayside and the future stretches ahead in a sepia tinged blur of work. Never has reading a book ‘for fun’ seemed less appealing, and yet it is at these times that reading can do the most for one’s sanity. It is with this in mind that I present to you my own list of Lent Term Books, to remind you that reading doesn’t have to be a chore…

High Fidelity by Nick Hornby

The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier

You think you’re miserable in LSE Library at 1am on a Saturday? Pah! Savour the exploits of Rob, a man who treats self-pity as an art form. A cornerstone in Hornby’s pantheon of middle of the road stories, High Fidelity charts the life of Rob Fleming, a middle aged man who can’t help but push his own emotional self-destruct button at every opportunity. Some of the references to music and culture are a little dated, but Hornby’s writing draws you in and will leave you thinking ‘Thank goodness I’m not this guy’.

The Chocolate War is described as both a 'modern masterpiece' and 'one of the most engaging works of Young Adult Fiction in our time'. But don’t let that put you off; this book is actually pretty good. It features teenage boys doing what teenage boys do (second?) best - being massive dicks to each other. The Chocolate War sees average school boy dare to do the impossible and disobey the shadowy Virgils, a gang of students whose control of the student body is known and embraced by staff. A perfect Lent Term read,the plot is enjoyable and sprinkled with enough obvious subtext to make you feel that you’re a genius literary editor like myself. It even has a T.S. Eliot quotes.

Tuesday January 27, 2015

PARTB

JOIN PARTB WE ARE CURRENTLY RECRUITING FOR A:

TECHNOLOGY EDITOR FOR MORE DETAILS, CONTACT ROHAN SONI AT:

technology@thebeaveronline.co.uk TO APPLY, PLEASE SEND A SHORT PARAGRAPH TO:

partb@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Beaver 09.10.2012

PartB

Cover credit: Flickr - Ken Teegardin

LABOUR INVADES A-ROQ It’s Alastair Duncan’s...

If you have an opinion contrary to that of the Sabbs and were thus not invited to last week’s UGM, you can now catch up on demand using The Beaver’s new NETFIX service... There is a hilarious mix-up as Buster-sick-beat accidentally becomes a Predator Drone and rains down on Berrylands, screaming ‘I’M A MONSTER!’. Men’s Rugby are heard agreeing.

Meanwhile, Seb Bruhn (he’s very good) spends his week painting the Free Education stair car. Be careful of hop-ons, particularly rich people free-riding on the backs of the poor.

Finally, the LooSE seal bites off the SU’s hand for a job...

“There is always money in the banana stand for unaffordable, uncosted campaign pledges”

... and Operation Liberation gets to work busting George out of prison

Next week on Arrested Development... ‘For Craig’s Eyes Only’: John Sweeney rescues North Korean orphan Annyong from a conspiracy orchestrated by LSE CFO Mr F.

Tuesday January 27, 2015

THE NAB LSE STUDENT TOP TRUMPS THIS WEEK: HILL V DUFFIELD

OLLIE HILL

WILL DUFFIELD

Location: Ukraine Weapon of Choice: Bazooka Favourite D ocument: American Co nstitution Political Sp ectrum A right gender ed insult

Location: Greece Weapon of Choice: Trombone Favourite Document: Beveridge Report Political Spectrum: Best left to his own devices

D L E I F F U D S N I W

SOCIETY SPACE LSESU CYCLING

LSE CC has teamed up with Edge Cycle of Leather Lane to bring you four spin classes for only £5 each with a fifth free. Exclusively for LSE students and only a 10 minute walk from campus, Edge has a £30,000 sound system and is the biggest spin studio in London. With prices usually £15 per session you have no excuse.

LSE Cycling Club Casual Ride to Wafflemeister in South Kensington from Saturday. Next Sunday they head to the Cereal Killer Café in Shoreditch.

GENDER AND RESISTANCE IN OCCUPIED PALESTINE Come and join LSESU Palestine Society and LSESU Feminist Society for a fantastic discussion exploring gender and resistance under Israeli occupation. These issues will be touched upon by an incredible all female Palestinian panel as well as inspiring poetry from a member of the The SOAS Spoken Word Society.

Classes will be run by Jono Woodward, Richmond and London Wasps rugby player. Tickets cost £20 and that gets you four classes, with an extra free. bit.ly/LSECC-Spin

27th January 7pm EAS.E171

Tuesday January 27, 2015

SOCIETY SPACE

Wednesday 28th January: Media and Spin: Lessons from the last Labour government Speaker: Matthew Doyle CLM 2.05 5pm

The City Section Editorial:

TO START THE WEEK, LET me just say ‘hi’ and introduce myself as the City Section’s new editor. One thing I would really like to focus on during my short oncoming stint as Section Editor is that the City as we know it is not just about banks, hedge funds and wads of invisible money travelling electronically across the world. The business community, as part of the wider economy as a whole, touches all kinds of interesting aspects of human life; it’s a community we interact with every day, often without even realizing it (did you tap your Oyster Card today? when was the last time you downloaded a song off iTunes?), and one which, like it or not, many of us at the LSE will join once we enter the ‘big wide world’. On that note, this week’s spread hopes to be a testament to that, showcasing a range of businesses and business-related events, from ticketing and social event pro motion, to fashion, retail and communications all the way to piracy.

The City

Mika Morissette

Tuesday January 27, 2015

Section Editor: Mika Morissette city@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Features: How Language Shapes our Politics Page 24

Sport: Head to Head: Liam Hill v Robin Park Page 30

The ‘Piracy Service’ at Tower Hill Station What secrets does our City hide? This commercial law firm has become a leading global expert on dealing with Somali and East China sea piracy.

Mika Morissette City Editor NESTLED AWAY ON THE SMALL streets just north of Tower Hill station is a little known section of the City which sprouted up in the shadows of Lloyds Register of Shipping, the maritime giant founded in 1760, and now discreetly houses some of the world’s most important maritime finance, insurance, legal and certification experts. Don’t let their sobriety in comparison with the more flashy hedge funds just east of them fool you: with the vast majority of everything we consume coming from overseas trade, this is no small business. Through these twisty streets reminiscent of a time when Britain was at the heart of a sprawling trade empire and the neighborhood’s first firms started opening shop, one comes across a relatively small commercial law firm called Holman Fenwick Willan. Its small size compared to ‘one stop shops’ like Norton Rose Fulbright or Baker & McKenzie is due to the fact that it has decided to stay faithful to the cause it was founded for in 1883, international (and especially maritime) trade and transport, one it remains the global leader in today. It has, however, recently also

Photo Credit: US Navy

developed one new and perhaps surprising niche: global piracy. Richard Neylon, once a specialist on the comparatively mundane world of maritime ‘casualty’ (accidents while at sea, damages to cargo, etc.), became a de facto piracy expert when Somali piracy started being a real problem in the early 2000s and victim firms had no one else to call in a crisis. (“Where do you find a ‘piracy service’?!”) Neylon now gives talks at organizations across the world, but I first heard him at a career event hosted at his firm. Shuffling awkwardly through the day in my ill-fitting suit, the most exciting thing I was expecting to hear involved application deadlines until Neylon took the floor and raised a question I had never expected to hear in what I perceived as the tame world of corporate law: what would you do if it’s 2 a.m. and suddenly you get a frantic call from a panicked Danish ship owner whose boat, along with its millions of dollars of cargo and large crew, has just been violently seized off the Arabian Sea? Obviously I knew that piracy, and not just the digital kind, was still a thing in the 21st century, but my mind was blown to find out about what a complicated and far-reaching issues it was, let alone one that had anything to do

with the peaceful London I live in. So how does one deal with a piracy crisis legally? The answer is ‘with difficulty’. “The first thing I do is to ask my clients to make an extremely difficult decision, but one they can’t avoid,” says Neylon. That choice is, obviously, between refusing a ransom for ethical reasons or saving a ship housing dozens of human lives – the lives of colleagues, perhaps friends, employees the firm has an ethical duty to protect and crew often from developing countries whose governments will not put on expensive PR campaigns for their return. This service lies somewhere between international criminal law, employer liability, property rights and domestic criminal law, in a moral grey zone that essentially means that there are no proscriptive dos and don’ts. “Under English law the payment of ransom is not in and of itself unlawful” HFW points out since ‘pirates’ do not fall under the definition of religious, politically or ethnically motivated ‘terrorists’ with whom the UK categorically “does not negotiate”. For this reason, it is not uncommon for governments to take a hands-off approach and leave the difficult decisions to the affected firms and their legal representatives. Not a single party is unaware

of the moral liabilities at stake. As Andrew J. Shapiro, Assistant Secretary at the US Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, pointed out during an address to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on 13 March 2012, “the U.S. government is acutely aware of the dilemma that ship owners face when ships and sailors are taken hostage. While the safety of the crew is critical, industry must face the fact that submitting to pirate ransom demands only ensures that future crews will be taken hostage. A vicious cycle has formed where ever-rising ransom payments have not just spurred additional pirate activity, but have also enabled pirates to increase their operational capabilities and sophistication”. And yet HFW is very clear about its motivations. “In a perfect world one would not wish ransoms to be paid, for reasons, among others, as summarized by Mr. Shapiro. But in a perfect world there would be no hijackings or kidnappings,” it points out in a publication. Moreover, the victim firm is far from out of the woods once this difficult decision has been taken. HFW’s response to undertaking ethically questionable actions is to deal with them in the most open way possible, making sure that all ransoms are treated as taxable distributions and transported ethically. Let’s just take a minute, however, to consider how difficult it is to withdraw 10 million US dollars in cash (weighing close to 100 kilograms all together) from a recognized law-abiding bank, insuring its open travel across several borders and purchasing liability insurance for its movements, including its final drop from a helicopter hovering high above the besieged vessel in the middle of the ocean. No biggie. In Neylon’s words, “to be honest, I would be delighted if piracy stopped and our cases dried up, but until that happens it needs to be addressed.” All this is to say that you would be amazed at the things that go on between Temple and Canary Warf Tube stations. Next time you consider scoffing at the hoards of suited drones shuffling through central London, take a minute to consider that they might be doing something way cooler than you think.

The City

Tuesday January 27, 2015

City Society Space: LSESU Entrepreneurs Society

Social Scene: Up Close with KweekWeek

EntSoc recently invited the savvy founders of successful London startup KweekWeek to talk social media, the future of the internet-based business and about all the great opportunities open to tech-savy students

THE FIRST EVENT OF THE Lent Term was kicked off by Mehdi Nayebi and Tina Mashaalahi of KweekWeek. The London based start up is a holistic platform which connects event organisers and consumers in a single space, operating in both mobile and desktop. It has raised $3.25 million in seed investment from several angel investors, having sold over 150,000 tickets and seeing over 100,000 visitors since the beginning of 2014. Mehdi Nayeli is the CEO of the start-up, previously occupying several senior positions at Deutsche Bank and Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Tina Mashaalahi is the co-founder and COO at KweekWeek, having grown up in London and leaving a successful career in property development to cofound KweekWeek. The event was arguably one of the best that the Entrepreneurs Society has hosted this year because it gave the audience such a wide perspective on the business environment,

and guided them step by step on how the start up achieved success. The speakers started by saying that there is still huge potential in the internet, and there is a huge shift happening there. This potential was realised by the co-founders who noted that there isn’t a single good quality platform which connects event organisers and consumers for the UK market. They started KweekWeek to fill in the market gap, with most of the initial funding coming from wealthy investors who knew Mehdi (the cofounder) because of his time and reputation at the bank. One of the first lessons for entrepreneurs is that you have to know the fundamentals of your business; the founders took a programming course to familiarise themselves with the basics of coding. Nowadays, it is much easier with online platforms such as codeacademy.com and code.org providing the training for free! One of the things that made it easier to invest in the business is a UK tax relief scheme (CIS) which significantly reduces the risk of investment into the business. Another lesson is that you have to

do the dirty work in the beginning yourself. The team regularly made calls to event organisers to host their event on the platform, and organised a hugely successful event themselves by bringing in a famous DJ. They marketed their product on Twitter and Facebook aggressively, a result of which a famous band used their platform to host a shirt signing ceremony. Lastly, the speakers stressed the importance of having a workable business model because the idea might be good, but if the fundamentals a r e not in

place, than it will not generate revenue. One of the questions asked during the session was about a previous ticketing start up which had failed, to which the the speaker replied that it had burned too much money on needless things, which highlights the importance of having a lean start up. Another question was posed to Tina about the prospects of female entrepreneurs, to which she replied that the prospects are encouraging with more and more women pursuing entrepreneurship. The speakers even recommended a book

by Raymond Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near. Lastly, two students showed off their own self-developed app to the speakers, which matches fashion tastes with friends recommendations. The app received positive feedback, which just goes to show the vibrant start up scene at LSE and in London!

Photo credit: KweekWeek

Choudhry Azizuddin LSESU Entrepreneurs Society

Also taking place this week... Entrepreneur Tuesdays: ‘What Makes a Winning Retail Consumer, or Fashion Startup?’

‘A CEO’s Insight into Digital Marketing and Crisis Communications’ @ LSE CareerHub

EntSoc will be hosting Richard Brick, an associate at True Start. True Start is Europe’s first retail and consumer innovation hub, and was created to invest in young innovators and help them shape the future of the retail industry. Richard has a wealth of global consumer, retail, and finance experience attained through a career of M&A with special expertise in e-commerce and brands. We look forward to hearing more about how to succeed in the cut-throat world of style and hope to see lots of you there!

Anthony Payne, CEO of Peregrine (a multi-award-winning asset management marketing communications agency), gives an insight into the modern communications landscape. Anthony will explain crisis communications using a real case study which demonstrates the the critical role of communications companies. Anthony will outline the skillset required to succeed in this fascinating sector, something which is particularily valuable since Peregrine is currently recruiting interns for 2015!

Where?: NAB.2.06 (make sure you have your LSE student ID card!) When?: Tuesday at 19:00

Where?: NAB.1.04 When?: Wednesday 13:00 to 15:00 remember to book at LSE CareerHub

Features Section editorial: MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE a free education, we simply cannot afford to complacently kid ourselves into thinking emancipating what are mostly middle-class gradtuates from a debt they will only pay back when they earn above £21,000 is any kind of priority. Even the if money to immediately institute free education in the UK were available, which it isn’t, any serious progressive worth the time of day would surely have trouble putting free education amongst their top spending priorities. Abolishing the bedroom tax, securing the future of the NHS or making childcare or old age care more affordable are progressive priorities. Adding to the salaries of graduates earning over £21,000 is not. Unfortunately, we may be about to find out exactly what happens when such unreasonable demands are made of a state in practise. With Syriza set for form the next Greek governmemnt on a radical leftwing platform, it shouldn’t be too long until either voters are let down by the necessity of pragmatism or Greece is punished its farleft’s warped priorities.

Features

Liam Hill

Tuesday January 27, 2015

Section Editors: Liam Hill and George Harrison features@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Deputy Section Editors: Zita Chan, George Greenwood, and Taryana Odayar tweet @beaveronline

Our NHS is Already Weaponised: The Loaded Lexicon of Politics George Harrison Features Editor THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE word parliament is rooted in the French words parler and ment, which together translate as “to speak one’s mind”. Indeed, since ancient times, politics has always been inextricably linked with linguistics, as a field in which oratory skills, rhetoric and lexical choices reign supreme; this remains the case today. This has recently been made evident by the pressure placed on Ed Miliband to comment on his alleged desire to “weaponise the NHS” during Labour’s general election campaign. The comment was reportedly made to a group of senior BBC executives in November last year, although Labour has so far failed to deny the claim. The language used by Miliband was described as “toxic” by one of Britain’s most senior A&E doctors, although this is just one of many examples of choice political lexis that we are exposed to. Often this exposure comes on such a routine basis, and is so deliberately designed and ingrained, that we fail to notice it. It is a common election strategy to decide on a key phrase and repeat it incessantly, as we’ve seen with David Cameron’s “long-term economic plan” and

Labour’s “cost of living crisis”. Many more ingrained, cleverly engineered phrases have percolated through our society, such as the very simple yet deliberate use of the pronoun “our” when describing the NHS. By providing deliberate political ownership over the NHS, many left leaning politicians and bodies are able to exploit this subtle technique to create a lexical monopoly and ward off those who would make cuts to “our NHS” or privatise “our NHS”. By creating a somewhat tribal sense of “them” and “us”, political control over the NHS can be wrangled, allowing certain debates to be effectively shut down. The notion of “privatisation”, particularly with regards to “our” NHS, also lends itself to highly emotive lexical choices, with many opponents of privatisation referring to anonymity, ambiguity and facelessness when describing the companies involved. The deliberate choice to refer to this semantic field is coupled with the regular degree of hyperbole and emotion that enters any debate surrounding such a contested topic. Likewise, the language of austerity, in an economic and political sense, is inherently pejorative. The language of “cuts”, and even the dictionary definition of “austerity” itself, conjures associations with pain and hardship.

Meanwhile, the language used by those making the “cuts” is just as loaded with inferred meaning; the description of organisations as “bloated” creates subliminal associations with greed and overindulgence. As such, it is guaranteed that any debates regarding the scaling back of the state, or austerity measures in general, will be loaded with deliberate lexical choices aimed at manipulating the perceptions of anyone involved. This is not the only debate that is undermined by deliberate lexical choices; those who protest against the existence or severity of climate change, or question the degree to which it is anthropogenic, are labelled “climate change deniers”. To be a “denier” in the 21st century is to risk lexical vilification; the choice of the word “denier” draws subliminal parallels with holocaust denial, a criminal offence in multiple European states. As such, even the most moderate climate change sceptics can be labelled pejoratively as “deniers”. Prominent linguist George Lakoff hypothesised that American conservatives use language at a higher level of proficiency, and to better effect, than their liberal counterparts, although in reality most politicians are adept at manipulating language. This may be a fundamental reason for the general distrust of politicians that

exists amongst the populations that they supposedly serve. The exceptional linguistic command possessed by many politicians does mean that they have vast arsenals of persuasive and subtle manipulative devices at their disposal, something that the electorate should be aware of when listening to a masterful speech in Parliament or a well-constructed yet spontaneous seeming tirade on Question Time. It is fair to assume that political speech is nearly always crafted to a deliberate, meticulous degree, with every word and phrase chosen for maximum persuasive effect. The dangers of allowing politicians to monopolise language have already been highlighted by George Orwell; in the dystopia of 1984, the word “freedom” has been written out of the dictionary, resulting in generations who have gradually forgotten the very meaning of freedom and no longer yearn for it as a result. Although it would be a considerable exaggeration to suggest that we are living in Orwell’s nightmarish dystopia, it remains important to be cynical of political lexis. If we can consider motives and methods during parliamentary addresses and pay critical attention to the language of politics, then we will most likely become better informed and better equipped voters.

Source: Flikr, Cory M. Grenier

Features

Tuesday January 27, 2015

Labour’s Immigration Policy: A Progressive Perspective Joe Walters Postgrduate Student IMMIGRATION, AND HOW the parties claim they will control it, is one of a handful of issues that will be pivotal in swaying swing voters either right or left in this year’s general election. The dissatisfaction with the efforts of both Labour and the Conservatives to curtail immigration, particularly from poorer areas of the European Union, has resulted in the anti-Europe UKIP gaining widespread support across the country, threatening to take seats from both major parties. The reaction to the rise of UKIP has been imitation, with the Conservatives promising a referendum on EU membership in the next parliament and Labour adopting a new “tough and fair ” stance on immigration. What does Labour’s new “tough and fair” stance involve? A quick look at their proposed policies is all that is needed to realise the answer to this question is nothing. This “tough” stance on immigration is devoid of content, and therefore fails to engage with the concerns people have on the issue. The first promise by Milliband’s party is that under Labour we will see stronger border controls. The reality is that there is only so much you can do to stop people crossing the border illegally. Also illegal immigration is not the biggest concern of the ordinary voter. What people are worried about is immigration from the European economic area, and even a 50-foot wall and militarisation of all UK borders would do nothing to prevent EU citizens from exercising their right to find work in the UK. The second proposal is that “people coming here won’t be able to claim benefits for at least two years”. This policy is based on two myths, and aims to placate the more extreme factions of the anti-immigration movement. The first myth is the mistaken belief that EU residents can come to the UK and immediately claims benefits. European citizens must pass a habitual resi-

Disagree with any of our writers’ analyses? Send in your own to features@thebeaveronline. co.uk or submit online!

dence test in order to show they are looking for work and not here purely to exploit our welfare state. The second myth is that benefit tourism of this type is actually a large scale problem. A research paper on the fiscal benefits of immigration released by UCL last year, found that between the years 2001-2011 EU migrants paid 20 billion more in taxes than they received through entitlements. It is no mystery as to why Labour has based policy on these false premises. This is a concerted effort to appear to be as tough as UKIP on immigration, but the majority of voters concerned by the issue will see through this contemptuous ploy. The new proposals also include a pledge to prevent employers exploiting immigrants by undercutting wages. This is the only attempt to actually tackle the

imitated some of the rhetoric of UKIP, but not the policies. Is it actually possible for Labour to engage with concerns over immigration in a way that is compatible with its progressive values? The reality for many on the left is that an admission of any concern with immigration is abhorrent and based on xenophobia and bigotry. The advocates of this view point to facts such as immigrants from the EU paying more in taxes than they have received from the welfare state, to prove that those who have concerns with the high levels of migrants entering the UK must be motivated by a simple dislike of foreigners. This misses the point. Just because immigration has been beneficial to the government’s balance sheet does not mean it has not had adverse effects for a substantial amount of

likely the effect that globalisation has had on the labour market. With firms able to operate in China, India and the former Soviet Union, around 1.5 billion workers were added to the world economy in the latter decades of the 20th century. To add to this, from the 70s we also see the percentage of GDP that goes to manufacturing drop from around 40% to just 13% by 2013, which will have a big effect for the wages and the opportunities of low skilled workers as there are less prospects for them in a service sector dominated economy. The Labour party therefore should take peoples concerns over immigration seriously. With wages stagnating and opportunities diminishing for many, it is understandable that they will not be thrilled by the idea of immigration increasing labour market competition further.

main detrimental effect of mass immigration, which is the downward pressure it places on wages. However this, like the rest of the party’s new stance, is nothing but superficial political posturing. There has been no explanation as to how a Labour government will be more effective in preventing employers paying migrant workers below the minimum wage than any previous government. Labour’s new proposals for controlling immigration have succumbed to the populist demands for tighter immigration controls without actually engaging with the issues that the anti-immigration movement is based on. Also by adopting such a superficial stance they have left themselves open for their political opponents to point out that their allegedly tough stance on immigration will do nothing to reduce the number of Europeans who can enter the country. Due to the free movement of workers, the only way to truly control immigration will be to leave the EU. Labour may have

the population. One such adverse effect may be that large flows of immigration, and subsequent increased labour market competition, are partly responsible for the decline in wage growth for the British people. Real wage growth has declined since the 1970s, the decade in which the UK joined the EU. We also have to consider that the modest rises in wages during these decades are possibly due to the large rises in income that top earners have experienced. This suggests that real wages for large parts of the working and middle class may have stagnated or even decreased. Incidentally, another UCL research paper on the subject of immigration and wages has found that it is unskilled workers’ wages that have been hit hardest during this period. To what extent can the downward pressure on wages, particularly for low-skilled and unskilled workers, be attributed to immigration? The biggest reason for the stagnation of wages is most

So what should a party that claims to be “for the many” do about immigration? Most commentators would claim there are only two options, a slide into protectionism or a complete acceptance of globalisation in its current form. The problem with protectionism is that even if we assume it would lead to a rise in wages for the average Brit, depriving the poor workers of countries like Poland and Bulgaria the opportunity to earn a living in order to protect our own relatively well off workers, seems to fly in the face of the progressive values that the Labour party stands for. The second choice is for the UK public to simply accept free movement of workers as a corollary of free trade and capital. The problem with this view is that it sees globalisation as a monolithic natural force that shouldn’t be tampered with, instead of something that can be moulded to meet the needs of a particular nation. It appears to me that the current debate on economic integration

across countries and continents is characterised by a lack of imagination. For those who believe not only can globalisation work for the many and not the few, but that it has to, innovative thinkers like Joseph Stiglitz and Roberto Unger are starting to envision alternatives; I would encourage you to read their work. There are also practical measures that could be taken in the short term to ensure the benefits of immigration are felt more widely. For example, the 20 billion pound that immigrants added to the government purse could be used to help the unskilled workers most adversely affected, acquire the skills and training necessary for them to participate more productively in a knowledge economy. Of course this will not be easy, but the first step is viewing the problem and the solution as inextricably interlinked with other issues that concern the British public, such as living standards and social mobility. Some may claim that voters would not react well to a move away from the typical approach of parties bickering over singular issues, but I would contest that it is this cynicism that has prevented the Labour party from gaining the support needed to win the upcoming election outright. In an episode of the US TV series The Network, Jeff Daniels character asks a progressive “If liberals are so fuckin’ smart, how come they lose so goddam always”. The answer may be because they treat the public like idiots, and the Labour Party are better than anyone at this. Labour may well end up in power after the election with the help of a coalition agreement, but after five years in opposition they have failed to convince the working and middle class that they would fare better under their leadership, than under a Conservative party who are blinkered by a devout belief in shrinking the state and unrestrained markets. They need to stop treating the electorate with such contempt and lay out the blueprint for a real progressive alternative. They could start by levelling with us on immigration.

Features needs you! Send in your articles (500-1000 words) or columns (350 words) to features@thebeaveronline. co.uk

Features

Tuesday January 27, 2015

The Pocket Economic Democratisation: A Viable Alternative? Philosopher: Teaching Us How To Live Zwan Mahmod First Year Undergraduate

Louis van der Linden Pocket Philosopher ROUSSEAU OBSERVED THAT “we are born unprovided … stupid and [lacking] judgement”. From this realisation, he begins the quest for a systematic curriculum. Certainly, children must be taught reading and numeracy. Most agree they should also be taught some content: facts of history, awareness of geography, appreciation of art, and so on. But where does the boundary lie? Moving down the list, more and more values are included in what is being taught. The problem is that those values are ours, and might not be identical to theirs. Philosophers like de Montaigne think that is exactly the point: philosophy is the art that teaches us how to live and children need more, or at least as much, instruction as anyone. But this sentiment is slightly disconcerting. Seemingly, what constitutes as the “good life” is very much a private matter. If that is the case, then telling a child how to live is at least wrong, if not outright contradictory. So, we must strive to teach skills independent of values. But how? In teaching children to read by giving them a book, we automatically endorse the values it reflects. In teaching children about history, the mere selection of a specific region or time-period will frame the way they see the world. Surely, many of you will say, that might not be such a bad thing. What’s the motivation for getting a learner to reach self-sufficiency as economically as possible? The values that parents pass on tend to be very good, if not vital. If you have spent any amount of time with young children, you are surely aware that they are capable of acting immorally. Or rather, with greater precision, even amorally. That’s all true, but self-exploration of the world strikes me as particularly important. There is a difference between knowing a rule and understanding it: a difference which I contend is the same as the difference between being taught that rule and learning it from trial and error. The virtuous answer lies somewhere between the extremes. Young children are not yet capable of exploring the world on their own, but education should focus on skills, not values, leaving room for self-exploration and discovery later on.

DEMOCRATISATION IS A process typically associated with politics. A government or a political system can be democratised but can this concept or process be applied to an economy? Firstly, the concept of workplace democracy requires consideration. This includes any measures which allow people to exercise meaningful control over their places of work. This involves councils or boards not made up of CEOs or shareholders but of those who work there in order to make administrative decisions about what will be produced and for what purpose. This role will differ depending on the place of work, with an office having a different purpose to a factory. Yet the principle is that workers can influence and make decisions which affect their company. Workplace democracy is not only applicable to administrative decisions but also to the issue of ownership. Workers own their workplace in that they have a stake in it rather than ownership being concentrated in the hands of one or a few. Both administration and

ownership are crucial in allowing for democratisation. However, are workers actually able to fill these roles and would such a workplace be viable? The Mondragon Corporation (MC) in the Basque region of Spain is one of the largest and most successful cases. The corporation is composed of cooperative enterprises running different areas of industry, finance, retail and knowledge. The workers in each cooperative collectively own and direct the enterprise. This includes electing the directors and being able to remove them. Decisions about what to produce, how to produce and what to do with the profits are also made by the workers. Interestingly the pay of the highest member is limited to 6.5 times that of the lowest worker. The significance of this lies in the implications of this type of organisation. Inequality is reduced as the cap means the highest worker simply cannot drastically increase their own wage or have it increased by the directors. Secondly, workers earn more of the fruits of their labour and are not alienated from it. Not only are people better off, but they gain greater satisfaction from their work and from knowing they have meaningful control over their

workplace. The arguments exist to say that democracy in a workplace is an unnecessary development with capitalist production being an efficient form of economic organisation and being able to pay well as it is. But, As of 2010, Mondragon had 85,000 workers and the corporation has stood the test of time. Its example shows that inequality, which does undoubtedly exist within our current form of organisation, can be counteracted and that efficiency need not be compromised. Another idea which requires consideration when discussing economic democratisation is public ownership of energy resources. This consists of fossil fuels and renewable sources. Public ownership, though, does not mean state ownership on behalf of the public as was the case prior to the 1980s. Instead, communities can and do own their own energy companies in their own areas. The structure is the same as that of the democratic workplace, whereby residents of an area have a say in the energy company and they have a share in it. Therefore they benefit economically and have power in running the company. The reason why energy is such a significant example is

its universality. Everyone requires it and therefore those that control the supply help affect the price which impacts upon everybody. This may be countered with the argument that private energy companies efficiently provide energy and are better private run than state run. However, this argument is redundant when addressing the idea of community based energy ownership as it is people run, not state run, which is significantly more decentralised and efficient. In Germany, this is more prominent where 65% of all renewable energy is community owned. With one of the world’s largest renewable energy industries this shows the great extent to which community ownership is possible. This traverses the possible problems of state inefficiencies and the unaffordable prices that private ownership endows. Community ownership would also, at the least, benefit people financially by allowing them a stake in the companies that provide them with energy. Of course, democratisation would require administrative control too, as in the example of the workplaces, but any extent of this drive towards greater economic democracy would mean progress for affordable energy and clean energy.

How Leadership Debates Could Ensure Coalition Zita Chan Deputy Features Editor ON JANUARY 23RD, IT WAS announced that the BBC and ITV planned to televise the debate featuring the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems, Green Party, UKIP, the SNP and Plaid Cymru. It is likely that all seven of the party leaders, including current Prime Minister David Cameron will participate in the debate. This has aroused great contention in light of the large number of parties that would participate; the greater question is whether this would undermine political cohesion and traditions in the UK. One line of the argument is the ideal of democracy itself. The inclusion of seven parties, including those that are normally regarded as more ‘peripheral’ parties, increases the representative function of elections. Despite being less important on the stage of traditional British politics, SNP and Plaid Cymru play a role when it comes to upholding the representative function of the General Election. These two parties are regional parties, with their leaders selected locally. With the inclusion of regional parties, the Welsh and the Scottish are truly given a voice within the Election, thus corroborating the

legitimacy of the UK Parliament. Furthermore, smaller political parties, like the Green Party and the UKIP, do represent the interests of certain groups. Democracy is one of the founding principles of the British government; it is woven into the British milieu as an integral element within the British moral fabric. By including regional and smaller political parties that are otherwise likely to be pushed to the fringe of British politics, the General Election is more representative and democratic. Another argument in favour of the seven-party debate would be the changes in the dynamics of British politics. Despite having a substantial number of seats within Parliament, the Lib Dems have declined in terms of popular support. On the other hand, the Green Party has just one MP in the party. Nevertheless, this has been deemed to be an optimistic precedent as the Party’s influence has been rising ever since one of its leaders being elected into the Parliament in 2010. UKIP, with just two MPs has been very relevant amongst the British popular masses and in British politics. These parties are likely to become key players influencing British politics in the coming years. Therefore, including these parties would make the debates truly reflective of and relevant to British

politics at the moment. However, the media’s increasing role in politics is worrying for some. BBC and ITV have taken an active role in planning the General Election debate. The debate is a crucial part within the entire process of election and the fact that the media is dipping their hands into the waters of British politics may be implying its growing inﬂuence. Instead of the public eye, answering to the media may have become a prime concern for politicians. Some of the public’s ability to scrutinise public policies and hold the Parliament accountable to public policies may have been displaced to the media; this not only does nothing to uphold democracy, rather, it undermines the ideal of democracy by taking away scrutinising powers from the public and giving greater power to the media. Apart from compromising the ideal of democracy, introducing such new voices within the Parliament may be problematic practically. With more parties taking part in parliamentary debates, interests of more stakeholders are involved. It would call for more lengthy debates to come up with a policy that answers to the interests of all parties. In addition, it is impossible for one policy to satisfy the interests of all concerned parties, therefore,

the outcome is likely to be aimed at satisficing. This suggests a certain process of giving-and-taking. Every party would have to sacrifice some parts of its agenda and make compromises. This may result in greater dissatisfaction and tension within the Parliament and among political parties. Delays and inefficiencies of policy-making due to ping-ponging and blocking would be very likely and not conducive to policy-making, which would ultimately be unjust to the people of the UK. The introduction of more parties into the debate answers to the present political trends in UK and democracy ideally. Nonetheless, it may cause detriment to democracy in reality and introduce undesirable qualities into the disposition of British politics. Therefore, the inclusion of more political parties may be an appropriate symbolic gesture, but it does not discount the potential detriment that may arise as a result when practical considerations come into play. Ultimately, the inclusion of more political parties into the debates heralds an era in which coalition government becomes a definitive character of British politics. Should there be such a change, the UK would have to anticipate a drastic departure from political traditions and ready itself to embrace it.

Features

Tuesday January 27, 2015

The Crime-Terror Continuum:

South Korea’s War Against Narco-Terrorism Taryana Odayar Deputy Features Editor T H E T E R M “ N A RC O terrorism”, first coined by former Peruvian president Belaunde Terry, refers to the ability of narcotics traffickers to manipulate a government or society by threatening or using violence and intimidation. The USA’s Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), takes this definition one step further, defining Narco-Terrorism as the “participation of groups or associated individuals in taxing, providing security for, or otherwise aiding or abetting drug trafficking endeavors in an effort to further, or fund, terrorist activities.” In an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world, Narco-Terrorism and other means of funnelling funds to terrorist organizations have posed a veritable threat to the economies of individual nations, such as Mexico, Columbia, Peru, and the countries of the Golden Triangle and Golden Crescent. Although the Republic of Korea is not specifically affected by the issue of drug-related terrorism, it’s reputation for not having severe drug abuse problems and the fact that the port of Busan in South Korea is the second largest in East Asia, act as incentives for others to use South Korea as a transhipment point for illegal drugs (for instance marijuana, hashish, heroin, ecstasy) en route to countries such as Iran, North Korea, USA, China, Thailand and South Africa. Furthermore, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the stringency of anti-drug laws under the 1988 UN Drug Convention led to an immense surge in prison populations worldwide, which in turn led to the liberalization of drugs such as cannabis. The term “drug liberalization,” refers to the process of eliminating or reducing drug prohibition laws. The liberalization of cannabis, the most widely trafficked and easily available class of drug in the world, is a subject which has been under constant debate. Marijuana, a form of cannabis, is cultivated legally as hemp in the northeast and southwest regions of South Korea, and is used to produce fertilizers as well as fibre for traditional handmade funeral clothing, with only a portion being diverted for illegal use. However, historically, the reason the Republic of Korea is considered a relatively drug-free country, compared to the USA,

Japan, and other countries, is due to its policy of severe punishment for drug-related crimes, including simple drug abuse. The death penalty, life imprisonment, and prison terms for not less than 10 years, have been chosen as the preferred strategy in an effort to build a healthy and drug-free society. The South Korean parliament has thereby instigated several judiciary measures, such as the Cannabis Control Act and the Act on the control of Narcotics, which have been successful in controlling cannabis, narcotics and psychotropic substances. Furthermore, since marijuana remains the second most abused substance in South Korea next to methamphetamine, in 2003, the Korean National anti-drug program was put into effect, targeting domestically produced marijuana. Within the same year, 5,599 marijuana plants were seized in South Korea, causing a 62% decrease in locally grown marijuana. Through the tightening of specific drug laws, which now stipulate that selling drugs to minors will be treated as a capital offense, drug-related crimes committed by minors have seen a dramatic decline from 134 cases in 1994, to 79 in 2002. The state has also recognized that accessibility and availability are the prime determinants in the level of drug use, & therefore cannabis use will most certainly increase dramatically if legalized. The Republic of Korea is therefore opposed to the liberalization of the various forms of cannabis, and in 1989, the Republic of Korea founded AD-

Source: Flikr, Brett Levin

LOMICO (Anti-Drug Liaison Officials’ Meeting for International Cooperation); an international conference against drugs, aimed at heightening regional cooperation in the fight against drug-related terrorism. Furthermore, the state is also party to the 1988 UN Drug Convention, and is an active member of the UNCND (United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs), as well as frequently hosting global conferences such as UNCND Korea. As a result of the strong crackdown on drug crimes by its government and publicity activities by NGOs, South Korea has been internationally praised for its success in the fight against drugs. As one of the four Asian Tigers and a member of the G-20 major economies, the Republic of Korea is strongly committed to seeing the trade in illicit drugs restricted or ended, so as to dissolve the funds generated towards Narco-Terrorism. There is a distinct link between the Crime of Drug Trafficking, which falls under the category of Organized Crime, and the activities of a Terror Group which falls under the category of Terrorist Organizations. Over the past decade, this link has become even more pronounced, with each category seemingly feeding off the other. This is known as the Crime-Terror Continuum, and is depicted in the following chart from Makarenko’s study on the CrimeTerror Continuum: Hence, it is vital that governments and regional bodies understand this link when implementing policies, which should

be targeted at both Organized Crime (such as drug trafficking), and Terrorism, because if one is neglected or goes unchecked, we will witness their convergence resulting in ‘Black Hole’ syndrome, wherein the two distinct groups join efforts to create the necessary conditions for civil war and therefore an economic and political power takeover. In this regard, South Korea has not only made several efforts to curb the use of cannabis and the trafficking of drugs, as described above, but has also made notable leaps forward in curbing Narco-Terrorism, making it a model nation in the fact that it has undoubtedly recognized the existence of a Crime-Terror continuum. For instance, South Korea has implemented specific laws, including the Special Act against Illicit Drug Trafficking, which targets the economic base of drug related criminals, through asset forfeiture and additional collection of tax for illegal proceeds. Additionally, the Korea Prosecution Service, by setting up a Narcotics Division within the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in 1989, has focused on eliminating illicit drugs in South Korea under its policy to cut off supply and reduce demand for narcotics through specialized drug law enforcement and active public relations for drug abuse prevention. The Korea Prosecution Service, with the Police and Customs, are also planning to enhance the efficiency of investigations against drug-related crimes, through special training for expert investigation, digitalization of information, and the

development of forensic science, including drug profiling. Moreover, the Korean authorities consistently exchange information with international counternarcotics services such as UNODC and INTERPOL, and have placed National police in Thailand, Japan, China and USA. In 2002, the Republic of Korea concluded a Precursor chemical Control seminar, and in 2003, Korea’s first national narcotics task force - the Joint Narcotics Intelligence Task Force (JNITF), was formed. The nation has also supported drug control efforts in ASEAN member countries, reemphasizing the words of Joon Gyu Kin, Prosecutor General of Korea, who stated at ADLOMICO 2010, “Korea will keep supporting other nations’ efforts to win the war against drugs.” Interestingly, a team of Seoul National University scientists have taken efforts a step further, by using groundbreaking and innovative science and technology to create seven Labrador retriever clones, specifically for sniffing out drugs in airports and harbours across the state. Furthermore, in order to sever the circulation of marijuana for medicinal purposes, (medical marijuana is not a cure for any condition, but is for the management of symptoms), South Korean Synthetic cannabis has been invented, which mimics the effects of cannabis when consumed. This underlines the South Korean administration’s resolution to stamp out the use of illegal drugs and drug funded terrorism, having recognized the Crime-Terror continuum and implemented relevant policies, laws, as well as new procedures in science and technology. Indeed, as John Holmberg argues, “There is not a single policy that will eliminate the threats posed by Narco-Terrorists…it will take the implementation of several policies that seek to mitigate the influence and effect of Narco-Terrorism.” Therefore, South Korea seems to be on the right track, and in the words of former South Korean president, Park Chung-hee, the country is determined to “...pull up by the roots the problem of marijuana smoking and similar activities by applying the maximum penalties currently available under the law.” And, by doing so, the nation will continue to enhance its status as a model nation in eradicating illegal drugs and Narcoterrorism.

Features

Tuesday January 27, 2015

PMQs: More Than Mere Tradition Rohan Ahlawat First Year Undergraduate

corner Katie Budd RAG President L A ST W E E K E N D R AG held its first ever Jailbreak. For those who aren’t in the know, Jailbreak is a hitch hiking extravaganza, where we challenge teams of 2/3 to travel as far away as possible in 36 hours (in any direction), without any money. No limits. It’s safe to say that we weren’t sure how it would go. Thankfully, it was an a huge success and all of the teams are now safely back in London. In the end our victors were the Motherruckers, made up of 3 tough rugby girls. They started out with a bit of luck (read: an UNBELIEVABLE amount of luck), bagging a free flight on a private jet heading to Madrid. How they managed that I will never know. The team struggled to find a lift out of the city, until they remembered that they had been kindly given 60 euros to help them out by the head of the Met Office who they (casually) bumped into at the airport. Before anyone complains, accepting money is completely within the rules! They used it to get on a coach down to Granada and from there managed to hitch their way to a small coastal town called Almuñécar, just in time for the midnight deadline. Our close runners up were Clarnage and Flonvict, who ended up in Poland, by very different means. Florian Neziri told me about the experience: “After initial rejection from National Express, we tried our luck with a Polish company called Sindbad. No problem in getting a coach at all, they just needed proof we were doing what we claimed to be doing (thank you RAG for the info sheet!). Long story short, we had a 24-hour coach journey from London to Warsaw, which can only be described as a slow form of torture, going through France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany. Several Polish-dubbed films later, we made it to Warsaw.” These 11 teams completely surpassed our expectations with their resourcefulness and perseverance. What’s more, they’ve raised over £3500, which will go such a long way for the small charity Spires.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER Nick Clegg believes that Prime Ministers questions are “utter rubbish” and that they “should be scrapped”. In spite of this, he has had some fitting Wednesday afternoon displays in the House of Commons since becoming deputy Prime Minister. It could indeed be pointed out that his only opponents of real note were Harriet Harman and Jack Straw, who aren’t the most gifted orators in Parliament, although, to his credit, Clegg duly dispatched them regardless. Essentially, Clegg’s argument against the weekly spectacle of PMQs is that the session renders him surplus to requirements and that could be doing something better and more productive meanwhile. The average session does indeed see Clegg, like the vast majority of his fellow MPs, sit and watch Cameron and Miliband battle it out, with his only routine contribution being occasional jeering and barracking. For many, it is unsurprising that he holds such views after his failure to attend George Osborne’s Autumn Statement; perhaps it was a deliberate and calculated ploy to undermine Cameron and Osborne or perhaps he did indeed have more important business to attend to. Either way Mr Clegg may have to consider the tenets of the British Constitution, which quite clearly sets out that the cabinet is the most powerful body in the nation. It describes the doctrine

of collective responsibility as the right of every Cabinet Minister to express his/her views and disagreements, keeping in mind that he/she is dutiful to agree with the final decision reached by the cabinet. The notion that, as Deputy Prime Minister, he should seemingly isolate himself from a government, and a budget, that he and fellow Liberal Democrat ministers in Government have signed off, seems questionable. It could indeed be interpreted as pretentious, political and even unconstitutional. We may be coming up to a general election, and the cracks may be appearing in this coalition, but one thing that Clegg must never be afraid of reaffirming to the British public is his message at the start of this coalition; the notion of “two parties coming together in the national interest” is something which he, as deputy Prime Minister, had

the chance to say at the despatch box filling in for the Prime Minister at PMQs. Many analysts, commentators and observers of the political world argue that Clegg had no alternative to joining a Tory led coalition in 2010. After all, we are the ones who voted them in. Whilst Clegg’s participation in our current coalition government was a noble act in the interest of Great Britain, his stance regarding Prime Ministers Questions is not so noble. I love politics, and although it may surprise many, I think and hope that I’m not the only one outside of the political establishment who holds PMQs in the highest regard. The opposition in the United Kingdom is one of the most undesirable positions for a politician in a Democratic nation or system to hold; few people would deny that. In fact, the former Conservative Chancellor of the Excheq-

Source: Flikr, UK Parliament

Rag shiz

uer Lord Hailsham described the UK system as an “elective dictatorship”, this will certainly resonate truthful connotations for those in opposition. But PMQs is a form of theatre, it is lively, it is heated, it is an examination of the executive, it is a chance to see the potential Prime Ministerial capabilities of those in opposition, and of those elected in. Conversely, the Deputy Prime Minister in opposition to Gordon Brown, as the leader of the third largest party in Westminster, was allowed 2 questions per session of PMQs. To further this, forget the PM and the leader of the opposition going at it, fighting for their ideology, the topic of the week and political point scoring, one must remember the fact that PMQs is not just the thrashing out of political point scoring between two individuals, but it allows for the executive to hear from constituency MPs, getting local matters heard in Parliament, rather than just national issues. So in conclusion, I don’t mean for this to be a direct attack on the Deputy Prime Minister. However, I do join the 59% of those who voted to disagree with Clegg and keep PMQs, in a poll held by the Guardian on Monday 19th January. I would perceive the scrapping of PMQs as an attack not only on our constitutional right to have PMQs as a medium of checks and balances upon the executive, but as an attack on a political tradition that holds so much identity in British politics. It is a tradition worth keeping and it is a mightily entertaining one at that.

Vacations

A Great Alternative to London Hotels

SHIZ GOES HERE

020 7955 7676

LSE residences offer good quality, centrally located bed and breakfast accommodation to all during the winter, spring and summer vacations!

Call: or visit our website to make your booking

Ideal for an affordable stay in London, whatever your reason for visiting. In addition there is a ten per cent discount available for bookings made by LSE staff, students and alumni.

www.lsevacations.co.uk

for alumni, staff and current students (Staff, student or alumni ID required)

15_0095 Vacations_Advert_Resize4Beaver.indd 1

23/01/2015 15:57

Features

Tuesday January 27, 2015

Human Interest

Unsung Heroes: An Interview With Sister Ruth Lewis of Darul Sakun Nursing Home Anaam Afridi Former LSE student A BIT OF CONTEXT: DARUL Sukun is a home for the physically and intellectually disabled in Karachi, Pakistan. It originated in 1969 as a sanctuary for children but now caters for adults and senior citizens as well. I met up with Sister Ruth Lewis, who has been part of the journey from the very beginning. How did it all start? This home was started in 1969, founded by Sister Gertrude Lemmens. She was a teacher by day, but also a social worker. She used to visit the kachi abadis [slum areas] – areas where nobody really likes to go, and that is where she came across these kind of children who were not accepted by their families. They were not allowed to move around with the other children or be inside the house, they were left outside the house or were chained to beds. The other children – the “nor mal” children – would poke them and throw stones at them. In every slum she visited, she came across these children and her heart used to break when she saw them. She used to say that they are so innocent, they know nothing, and yet they are being ill-treated – even their parents don’t want them in the house. It was always her desire to open a home for them and give them a homely atmosphere, something they didn’t have. And so that is how it started; we got a very small building of about six rooms, which was offered to her when she approached the church. She took it and, slowly, the children started coming. She couldn’t start alone; she wanted somebody to help her so I volunteered even though I knew nothing about these children. In the beginning we used

to take in any child who was left with us – when the children were sick or dying we used to approach their parents or phone the [relevant] people but they never came. We even went to their doorsteps and they would say that the child is yours, you do what you like. I can’t have it in the house, I have guests, I have this and that going on. The parents would lose a sense of responsibility for their children and we slowly started to realise that it would be better to keep the home open for those who have no one; only for the really needy, poor, destitute, orphaned and abandoned children and, so, this is what we have now. Sometimes the hospital calls [to tell] us that a mother came in with a sick child and that she left without taking the child. They don’t know how to trace the parents and so the child comes to us. Then there is a hostel, a boarding house for infants where babies are left, but when a baby is abnor mal, they send it here. Some social workers, if anyone approaches them, also bring children here. Mostly, we take in abandoned children. It happens that children are left in the lawn, children are left at the gate, the child cannot talk, cannot make us understand who he or she is or who brought them. Two weeks ago we found a boy at the gate at 5 o’ clock in the morning. We ask him questions but he cannot answer – he just smiles and looks around. He doesn’t know who brought him here, who left him. This is how children keep coming here. We have already had almost a thousand children, some have passed away, some have gone. At the moment we have 250 people here; they are all abandoned, poor and in need of help. You said you started off as a volunteer to help out Sister Gertrude. What made you decide to stay

Sister Ruth Davis on? When I volunteered, I didn’t know what I was in for. When the children started coming, I was very scared and also very embarrassed because I used to see Sister Gertrude hugging the children, kissing them and carrying them but I would be afraid of them. She was my inspiration, she taught me how to deal with them, how to look after them. Every now and then she [Sister Gertrude] used to say “you are my right hand”. People used to ask her, “Sister Gertrude, suppose you go back home to Holland, or suppose anything should happen to you, what will become of this place?” She always used to say that Sister Ruth will be there and that used to hit me all the time. I couldn’t let her down. When she was dying these were also her last words to me, “don’t leave the home”, she said, “I hope you will not leave, I hope you will not go.” She was my inspiration and I started off just to help her but now I wouldn’t want to exchange it for any other profession. The children still talk about her. There’s Cookie who was left here when she was just one

day old. Sister Gertrude was very fond of her, she looked after her and brought her up. Anyone who sees Cookie now remembers her as a baby in Sister Gertrude’s ar ms. She is now 25 years old. Sometimes when I go to the cemetery with Cookie she starts crying and when I ask her why, she says that her mama is there. All the children are still very fond of her. They feel very happy looking at pictures

of her with them, with all the memories coming back to them. We try to give them a family life. We have no restrictions telling them where or where not to go, and that’s how Sister Gertrude wanted it, and if ever I said to them, “you may not come here”, she said “no, don’t stop them, this house is for them. This house is for them and they can go around wherever they like.”

Darul Sukun

Sport

Tuesday January 27, 2015

Active LifeStylE 5-a-side: Clash of the Beavers Robin Park Sport Editor

Classified Results

ON WEDNESDAY THE BEAVER’S 5-a-side football team, Hackrington Stanley, faced off against the lower ranked but still infamous ABACUS team. Making the fixture more interesting was my inclusion in the latter team, motivated by the sole reason that it might be fun to “accidentally hurt” Liam, the Features Editor of this paper. He was indeed very hurt by the encounter and left the match with a heavily bruised wrist after being clattered into the wall by a shoulder charge, something which would have got me sent off under less casual circumstances. I’m sorry it happened Liam. I

didn’t expect you to bruise so easily. The match began with comical keeping from Seb Ash, as he let in a goal one second after kickoff, as the ball ricocheted off the net ceiling and gracefully glided itself past Ash’s bewildered eyes. I suppose he couldn’t catch them all. Despite much confusion from both sides as to what had happened, the officials allowed the goal to stand, which put Hackrington Stanley down 1 – 0. Quick goals from Gleb Mikhailovic put them ahead briefly, but the ABACUS team showed some backbone as they refused to capitulate as they so often have done this season, and slammed in 2 goals in succession. However, a near post

Rob Green impersonation by their keeper meant it was back to even at half time. The score level at 6 – 6. Despite his keeping blunder, ABACUS team captain Mak rallied the troops, calling upon a more defensive formation to stifle the Beaver hacks. I was personally given the rather thankless job of “getting in their faces”, which I interpreted to mean hacking down the hacks, so to speak. Hackrington Stanley seemingly had the opposite strategy of bombing forward, with Jon Allsop being seen on the front lines for the first time in the match. Liam Hill was also becoming more brazen in his runs, which was increasingly becoming a nuisance that had to be stopped. After not much

consideration I launched a shoulder charge into Hill, hoping that he and I would both crash into the sidewall and give off the impression that we were merely rucking for the ball, or whatever the football equivalent is. Unfortunately the rather slightly built frame of Hill completely capitulated as he flew across the pitch a good metre or two, and landed very painfully on his wrist. Hackrington Stanley was in shock and Sam Barnett’s jaw physically dropped and stayed on the pitch. Thankfully, Hill was in a good mood, or was suffering from concussion, as he laughed off the encounter. What a good egg. With the scores still locked at 6 – 6, the floodgates opened

up for both sides. Fullbacks disintegrated, as wingers from both teams capitalized on mistakes to bring the scores higher to 10 – 10. In the final few minutes, however, the ABACUS team completely dominated and took the match away from their opponents. Jon Allsop, a man on edge at the best of times, despaired to see his side crumble against a lower ranked team, and began to lose the plot as he started screaming blame at his teammates in short monologues after each conceded goal. The final whistle brought a much deserved victory to the ABACUS side, who had toiled relentlessly to record a strong win against a highly organised opposition. ABACUS 13 – 11 Hackrington Stanley.

Mixed Badminton

Women’s Squash

Women’s Football

Men’s Football

LSE 1s 3 - 6 QM 1s

LSE 1s 0 - 4 Reading 1s

LSE 1s 0 - 6 UCL 1s

LSE 1s 1 - 2 St Bart’s & Royal 1s (Cup)

Netball

Women’s Hockey

Men’s Basketball

LSE 2s 4 - 0 Imperial 4s

LSE 1s 28 - 18 Royal Free 1s

LSE 1s 5 - 0 Kingston 1s

LSE 1s 54 - 121 Essex 1s

LSE 6s 2 - 1 SSEES 2s LSE 7s 2 - 1 Heythrop 1s

LSE 2s 30 - 27 Royal Holloway 3s LSE 3s 29 - 22 Imperial Medics 4s

Send results to sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk !!! (Win, lose or draw)

‘CAN THE A U ER BREAK their Zoo habits after a period of absence?’. Conclusion, negative. This week saw the ghosts of AU past rekindle their loves - beer, ‘banter’ and baffling behaviour. Any ‘dange’

of a romance? Unlikely. Social-sec-my-dad-is-famous-but-not-as-famous-as-meDowie had one ‘El of a time but found it Hard to convert. The LSE Staff Mill’ed her way around the FC, Procrastinating in Middle Green-land before settling for new Cald-er territories. Had they been Rees-ently discovered by another? And one baller got Umbillieably drunk, terminating in the kitchen. A fresh 3rds lady A(i)med for

a fellow newbie. Subo swapped his Moltiple habits for a TESt of new waters. A second year Meade his way back to his 6th team RICHes. And a female Exec was left hunting for the Wright one. A WRFC Lingered with a wait-who-are-you man, whilst her Captain Ryled up a nonrugby fella. Elsewhere in the not-rugby club, an old CC panicked at his dwindling membership and seized a Monopoly

over the dancefloor once again. We would like to applaud those who Zoo’ed and acknowledge a few true animals - Four CC’s, one ex Pres, and a 7 year Go-hard, we salute you! Until next time AU-ers, stay classy Despite being omnipotent and benevolent, the Bev Report lacks omniscience. Send in the escapades you witnessed to sports@ thebeaveronline.co.uk

Sport

Tuesday January 27, 2015

Get Involved: Active LifeStylE And MRWG Touch Rugby Candace Gawler Active LifeStylE ‘EXERCISE’ - GETTING FROM class A to B to the library While we all have incredible timetables and feel there is never anytime for anything! Other than walking to bed or the pub after a long day of reading, maybe it’s in your best interest to make time. According to the BBC’s report of a Cambridge Study, a lack of exercise is killing twice as many people as obesity. Young people today also bur n between 600 and 700 calories less than they did in the 1950s. While as a social scientist you are probably rolling your eyes at these statistics, it doesn’t take a neurosurgeon to work out that both a lack of exercise and obesity are likely to kill you. Regardless, I thought I’d

throw it in there. I wouldn’t want to scare you into exercising but if it’s the only way, I guess I will lower myself to these tactics. Active LifeStylE is making it as easy as possible for you to keep active. Not only will exercise help you focus more and get those endor phins going, it will also be lots of fun. I speak as someone who does not choose to sweat or do too much strenuous activity. So, what to do when your timetable is too full to fit in g ym and soccer and that run as well as the 7km hike you promised yourself but will never do, DO NOT WORRY. It’s simple. You have loads of options that will help you de-stress, have a bit of fun and get away from the books for an hour. And (here is my favourite thing) you don’t need to compete to get some exercise, I get it, some of us just weren’t tailor made for

all that business. There are golf lessons, weekly belly dancing lessons (ever y Friday at 12 in the Old Gym), there is a weekly 5-aside soccer league. Active LifeStylE is giving away free passes to yoga every week. You are not short on options here! Bootcamp at 7:30 am on a Tuesday is an activity for the brave. Running (fun and relaxed) every Monday at 6pm (meet at Holbor n). Hula hoop classes every Thursday! You name it, it’s on of fer. Recreational tennis! It’s there. So please. When you sitting in the library, unable to go on! Don’t despair! Go onto the LSE Student Union website and book yourself a spot. It’s either free usually or £1 or £2. Now you can’t even go with the ‘I cant’ af ford g ym’ option. JUST DO IT!

London’s International Student

Welcome Meet-up.

28th January 2015. 3pm - 7.30pm.

Join us for FREE and experience a tour of London’s East End followed by an afternoon of drinks, meeting other international students and prize giveaways. Tour starts at 3pm at Liverpool Street station and ﬁnishes with drinks and prizes at London School of Economics 6th Floor Cafe in the Saw Swee Hock Student Centre

Find out more and signup at: Facebook.com/StudentUniverse

Sport

SUBMIT A MATCH REPORT AND GET YOUR TEAM’S ACHIEVEMENTS IN PRINT

the

Beaver

Editor: Robin Park Email: sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk

FC Displays Lack Of Ball Control In Charity RAG Netball Match Saran Richards Sixths Captain LAST TUESDAY AFTERNOON, representatives of both LSESU Men’s Football and LSESU Netball battled through the cold to meet on Lincoln’s Inn courts to raise money for RAG by participating in the most heated netball match in history. Could the girls embarrass the boys? Or would the boys beat the girls at their own game? Captain of netball 8ths,

Elin Harding, rallied her team to host a bake sale to keep the players and spectators going. With the bake sale and kind donations by players, the event raised more than £180 for RAG. The first match was played by first and second years of each club with the boys victorious at 4-3. Fourth team veteran Billie Selby was announced as woman of the match with her vast experience evident as she directed the rest of her team from her position as centre.

The man of the match was unsur prisingly awarded to Jack Greenwood who literally leapt to new, unseen heights as Goal Keeper and made it almost impossible for superb shooters Polly Stewart and Roisin Bennett-Odlum to get near the goal. Wing defence Sam Murray also took full advantage of his height to make it difficult for the girls whilst centre Sam Gravatt certainly made up for his lack of height with his speed. The second match saw the third years take on each

other with a glorious win for the girls at 4-2 with special thanks to spectacular shooters Nino Enukidze and Alexandra Walsh. Club Captain Alice Thompson proved herself worthy of her title as she dominated the court and displayed an impressive amount of patience as most of the rules were simply disregarded by the boys. Centre court proved to be a fierce area of competition between centres Charlie Lord and Sam Cox with both displaying sheer deter mination

and enthusiasm. It would be fair to say that the girls’ defence had a relatively easy time with AU President Taylor Rampton and AU Exec member Josh Passe proving to be, quite frankly, awful. Meanwhile, some of the other boys struggled with the complex rules of netball with Goal Shooter Hugo Glass declaring, in his frustration, that ‘these rules are stupid’. Perhaps the boys shouldn’t swap that football for a netball just yet.

This Week In The AU: MR. LSE Robin Park Sport Editor THIS W E D N E S DAY evening the finest men of the LSE

Atheletics Union will volunteer to compete in a competition that will defy all belief. The Facebook event calls it a “spectacle of talent, charm and good looks, and to help decide who

truly encompasses everything our university stands for.” Sounds about right. Expect everything and especially controversy, complete disregard for decorum, reputation, and goodwill,

as the AU’s bachelors engage in a fight-to-the-death competition to impress the judges and audience. There can only be one Mr. LSE, and the Athletics Union invites everyone to witness what will undoubt-

edly be an entertaining spectacle. Last year’s winner Dan Brooks will hand over his (controversially) won crown. It is time to pick 2015’s most eligible bachelor. Come to the Tuns, Wednesday 19:30, 28 January.