852

Beaver

Issue 852 | 15.3.16

the

Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union

LSESU Election Results: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly Greg Sproston News Editor THE DUST HAS SETTLED on a remarkable, if not wholly edifying, Gen Sec election campaign; for now at least.

The decision of the student body to deliver the biggest majority in four years to call for re-opened nominations have mandated the SU to put the wheels in motion for a second election. However, the dramatics of the General Secretary race should not distract from what was otherwise an engaging, enjoyable and impressive campaign period. 3,410 students, almost a third of the student body, voted in the elections; a turnout that’s not only considerably higher than most other student elections but comparable to some European parliament elections!

Of the 25 positions which were filled, an astonishing ma-

jority of 16 were filled by female students and the diversity and globalism of the student body was well represented by the elected candidates. The closest race of the night saw Julia Ryland edge out second placed Alex Dugan for Activities & Development officer a race decided by the tightest of margins - 12 votes! In a race with a greater plurality of candidate, Riham Mansour was returned for the positions of Community and Welfare Officer. Jasmina Bidé completed a trio of female Sabb officers after being elected Education Officer. Despite running unopposed, she received a well earned rapturous reception when the results were announced.

Females were again well represented in the part time officer roles, as Sarah Foss Dhibla Mahamud were returned as Anti-Racism Officer and BME

Officer respectively. Angharad Hopkinson of the Animal Rights Society is the incoming Environment and Ethics Officer and will be joined by Meg Mohanka, Perdita Blinkhorn and Fathia Begum as International Students Officer, LGBT+ Officer and Womens’ Officer. The part time officer team is completed by Muhummed Cassidy as Disabled Students Officer and David Zhao as RAG President.

Livi Vaughan and Zoe Oakley will take up roles as AU President and Engagement Officer, and are joined by Jivian Navani, Lauren Godfrey, Joe Donaghey and Charlie Bullock as members of the AU executive. Three new members of the trustee board were elected, with Julia Lawson-Johns and Alexander Lye joined by Dagmar Myslinska as the PhD trustee. Lastly, the democracy committee will see significant

change next year as Valerie Kozlova, Mahatir Pasha, Peter Lyon, Sally Kershaw and Alex Clarke all take up positions.

One matter is of course still to be attended to; the as yet vacant General Secretary position. Nominations opened yesterday and prospective candidates have until 5:00pm Thursday 17 March to put themselves forward. Candidates will be announced and will be allowed to begin their campaigns from 5pm on Friday 18 March and will then have five days to campaign until voting opens at 10am Wednesday 23 March. Voting closes the next day at 7pm, with the winner to be announced an hour later at 8pm on Thursday 24 March. The SU have decided on this timetable to ensure byelaws around enabling the largest participation are satisfied, but also with an eye on ensuring exam preparations

Comment News Letter to the Editor LSE Chairman to step down Page 10 Page 5

are not disrupted in any way, as could have been the case if the election was delayed. At this point, it is important to note and remark upon the decisive, sensible action of outgoing General Secretary Nona Buckley-Irvine, Returning Officer Fraser Bell, and everyone else involved with the delivery of the elections in a stressful, unprecedented time for LSESU. The situation is made all the more bizarre by the fact that, as has been widely documented, this is a first for any students’ union anywhere in the UK, not just LSE. There a number of hypothetical questions - which may or may not end up being relevant to the race - which we as students cannot only fail to answer ourselves, but cannot look elsewhere for guidance or predictions.

Continued on page 3 LSE Students Union Facebook page

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

Beaver

the

the

Beaver

Established in 1949 Issue No. 852 - Tuesday 15 March 2016 - issuu.com/readbeaveronline Telephone: 0207 955 6705 Email: editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk Website: www.beaveronline.co.uk Twitter: @beaveronline

Executive Editor Taryana Odayar

editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Managing Editor Alex Dugan

managing@thebeaveronline.co.uk

News Editors Greg Sproston Joseph Briers

From the Executive Editor

Comment Editor Mali Williams

Taryana Odayar on the article that was not published

news@thebeaveronline.co.uk

comment@thebeaveronline.co.uk

PartB Editors Kemi Akinboyewa Vikki Hui Flo Edwards

partb@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The City Editor Alex Gray

city@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Features Editors Alex Hurst Daniel Shears Stefanos Argyros

features@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Nab Editor

nab@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Sport Editor India Steele

sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Online Editor Ellie Peake

online@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Collective Chair Perdita Blinkhorn

collective@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Collective:

A Doherty, A, Dugan, A Fyfe, A Hurst, A Laird, A Leung, A Lulache, A Moro, A Qazilbash, A Ryzhonkova, A Santhanham, A Tanwa, A Thomson, B Phillips, B Sreejith, C Cogne, C Holden, C Loughran, C Morgan, C Hu, D Hung, D Lai, D Shears, D Sippel, D Tighe, E Arnold, E Wilkie, E Smith, G Cafiero, G Ferris, G Harrison, G Kist, G Linford-Grayson, G MannersArmstrong, G Saudelli, H Brentnall, H Prabu, H Toms, H Ustabas, I Plunkett, J Briers, J Clark, J Cusack, J Evans, J Foster, J Grabiner, J Heeks, J Momodu, J Ruther, J Wilken-Smith, J Wurr, K Budd, K Owusu, K Parida, K Quinn, K Yeung Goh, L Kang, L Kendall, L Erich, L Mai, L Montebello, L Schofield, L van der Linden, M BanerjeePalmer, M Crockett, M Gallo, M Jaganmohan, M Johnson, M Neergheen, M Pasha, M Pennill, M Strauss, M Williams, N Antoniou, N Bhaladhare, N Buckley-Irvine, N Stringer, N Webb, O Hill, O Gleeson, P Amoroso, P Blinkhorn, P Gederi, P Grabosch, R Browne, R J Charnock, R ConnellyWebster, R Huq, R Kouros, R Serunjogi, R Siddique, R Uddin, R Way, S Ali, S Argyros, S Chandrashekhar, S Crabbe-Field, S Kunovska, S Povey, S Rahman, S Sebatindira, S Shehadi, S Taneja, T Mushtaq, T Odayar, T Poole, V Hui, Z Chan, Z Mahmod To join the Collective you need to have written for 3 or more editions of The Beaver. Think you’ve done that but don’t see your name on the list? Email collective@thebeaveronline.co.uk to let us know!

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

OVER THE COURSE OF this week, I have received a number of questions regarding my decision not to publish the article on Rayhan Uddin’s antisemitic messages. Therefore, I have decided to write this Editorial with the intention of answering these questions as objectively and honestly as possible, thereby putting this issue to rest.

On Monday night (7th March), I was informed by Mali Williams, our Comment Editor, that Josh Hitchens had sent her screenshots of messages that Rayhan had allegedly sent to a fellow Islamic Society member.

Mali also forwarded me an initial article that Hitchens had written regarding the messages.

I take care in mentioning this, because contrary to Hitchens’ claim on Facebook that, “disclaimer, I didn’t write this story and only played a marginal part in it”, Hitchens did in fact write this initial article, which although was very different and separate to the final article, does not constitute playing a “marginal part”. Since then, I have only continued to be disappointed by his tendency to sweep under the carpet facts that don’t suit his story.

I then received an urgently worded message from an individual who wishes to remain anonymous, claiming that the screenshots had been obtained illegally, potentially through the hacking of an account, and that a police investigation was underway.

On Tuesday, myself and less than a handful of Beaver Editors - not the entire Editorial Board as has been claimed – began writing an article on the screenshots and what they implied. However, even while writing the article I felt uneasy, as the screenshots had been taken in a way in which the sender’s name was cut off, making me instantly suspicious

about their authenticity. I also knew full well that anyone with a basic knowledge of PhotoShop would be able to copy/paste text and frame it as a “screenshot” of a message.

With this in mind, Mali and I checked over the Byelaws with SU staff, and I came to the conclusion that incriminating Rayhan using only these messages and Hitchens’ claim that Rayhan had tacitly agreed the messages were his, did not constitute substantive proof, and would be breaching the Bylaws which we as your student newspaper are mandated to abide by. As I mentioned in my statement, “it would not only be morally irresponsible, but also hypocritical, for us to break the Byelaws, in order to report about a candidate allegedly breaking the Byelaws.” The Byelaws in question being, “All coverage of Elections and Referenda must be balanced, accurate and fair”, and, “Publications must not express and preference (either positive or negative) for any candidate for election within the Union.”

Following this, we went back to writing the article. During this time, I contacted Rayhan for comment on the issue, but he did not respond. Later that evening, LSE MEMES published two of the four screenshots on their Facebook page, only to subsequently remove them after being pressured to do so on the grounds that they had allegedly broken English law. Despite my concerns that if an ad-hoc, anonymous group of students were obligated to retract their post, then the same fate would inevitably befall the Beaver, the others in the room felt that the article needed to be published in order to inform voters before they cast their votes. It was agreed in person amongst the Editors involved that the article would be published, and then later that night, a publishing

time of 9am was agreed upon.

Mulling over this afterwards, I realized that running the article based on the little evidence we had at the time was breaching Byelaws, English law, would interfere with an ongoing SU investigation and an alleged police investigation, especially if it were to come to light later on that the screenshots were in fact hacked. This was backed by legal expertise I sought on the matter from a well established lawyer and Harvard graduate.

I am acutely aware of the fact that one false claim, if grievous enough, has the potential to prejudice the entire body of work. Therefore, in full knowledge that the credibility of the paper was at stake, and with its best interests at heart, I put the integrity of the paper first in making the difficult decision of deciding to publish a statement instead of the article. The statement I wrote was intended to provide the gist of the story prior to voting commencing, but without breaching any of the above legal stipulations. This decision was communicated to the Editors involved that same night, who voiced that they would rather the article was published instead.

Sadly, hasty Hitchens decided to take matters into his own hands by leaking the Beaver story on his blog and Facebook page the same morning the statement was released. This was an action that at best can be described as irresponsible and attention-seeking, and at worst ruthlessly insensitive and damaging.

What surprised me the most however, apart from his claim that he played a “marginal part” in getting the story out, was Hitchens’ line that, “the management of the paper has folded” due to “threats” from SU staff not to run the article.

In truth, I did not receive any pressure from SU staff,

and was only given advice by them which Mali and I had specifically requested regarding the Byelaws. Therefore, if anything, this whole exercise has taught me that Churchill was right in saying that, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

Additionally, whilst the Returning Officer may have had no objection to us running the story, I was uncomfortable running it due to potential breaches of articles in the Data Protection Act 1998, and the IPSO Editor’s Code of Practice, amongst other things. Later on Wednesday evening, Rayhan published a Facebook post which confirmed that he was indeed the sender of the messages, but this was hours after the Statement was published, and the article leaked.

In hindsight, the only thing I would change is perhaps putting the decision of whether or not to run the article to a vote by the entire Editorial Board. However, the fact that the article was hammered out in one evening by a couple of editors and myself, under time constraints and considerable duress, played a large role in precluding the involvement of our 14-member Editorial Board. The statement was first published under the title, “Official Beaver Statement”, but later changed to, “Official Statement by Beaver Executive Editor”, to emphasise that I took the final decision in not publishing the article and publishing a statement instead.

At the end of the day, it was a decision of whether or not to publish a story with minimum evidence and maximum sensation, and the decision I made was to not publish it.

After all, sensational ratings don’t last, but good journalism does.

Continued from Cover LSE Students Union Facebook page

Questions such as ‘what happens if the same candidates run again?’ There is nothing in the byelaws specifically prohibiting a second campaign from a candidate who has already been rejected on the basis of a RON vote, but in any case that would be secondary to concerns over the democratic legitimacy of a race containing individuals that have been so comprehensively rejected by the student body. It may seem a trivial question, that a subsequent campaign from either candidate who missed out in the first election couldn’t possibly secure the votes needed second time around. This would be no guarantee, however, particularly in the event that multiple new candidates may split the vote and deliver a new result which would be seen as unpalatable by some and surprising by all.

In a campaign marked by almost daily plot twists one prediction can be made with relative confidence; a second election won by either of the candidates who originally lost to RON would not draw a line

News | 3

under election season. Prior to the announcement of results last Thursday, an EGM motion was already being circulated in an effort to mandate the democracy committee to annul the election on the basis of the widely acknowledged accusations and allegations that individual students made of both campaigns.

Whist the decision to re-open nominations made this an irrelevance, the motion would surely rear its ugly head in the event of a victory for either original candidate in the race.

Section Editor: Joseph Briers Greg Sproston Deputy Editors: Alina Ryzhonkova Bhadra Sreejith

Elections Highlight “Structural Racism” at LSE says Community and Welfare Officer Joseph Briers News Editor

ing angry, humour is a great way to highlight these issues of racial divides in our community that we so desperately need to oppose. Ultimately, what we saw last week is a microcosm of elitist politics in Britain and I will be unapologetically pointing out structural racism when I see it.”

This, of course, is not the only racial dynamic currently stalking student union politics. Gen Sec candidate Rayhan Uddin found himself at the centre of an antisemitism storm following the leak-

ing of private messages sent by him that used offensive terms such as “Zio” and spoke of a nationwide Jewish conspiracy to control student politics. Feiki’s comments will doubtless be subject to even greater scrutiny given her position as a full-time, paid Sabbatical Officer within the SU hierarchy which, according to SU literature, requires “creating a sense of community at LSE”. Whether her comments serve this particular purpose will surely divide opinion at the School.

News

LSESU COMMUNITY AND Welfare Officer, Aysha Fekaiki, has had a Facebook comment reported to the social media behemoth by an LSE student after she raised eyebrows with a somewhat controversial public post. Commenting on a photo of students reacting to the announcement of RON as the victor of last Friday’s elections for General Secretary, Feiki wrote “when all the brown people are in shock and all the white people are cheering lol”. Feiki appears to be suggesting that the re-opening of nominations was better news for white students than others at the School.

In a statement given to the Beaver, Feiki said: “As the Community and Welfare Officer it is crucial for me to ensure that institutionalised racism is exposed within our community to promote inclusivity. This past year I have worked to empower BME students on campus through: Black History Month, a celebration of Black people’s contributions to society; the EMPOWERED programme which focused on empowering BME students at LSE who feel neglected by the community; as well as exposing the BME attainment gap in our education. With such a huge array of events that I’ve hosted which has

focused on anti-racism both explicit and implicit, unfortunately white students and allies have been predominantly absent from such fundamental discussions over the last 8 months. It is incredibly dangerous to students of colour to be colour-blind and pretend that the racial divide doesn’t exist amongst our community as it will do nothing but reproduce it. Certain election campaigns prove that they will do nothing to acknowledge the race problem at LSE and this alienates students of colour. I’m tired of be-

4

| Tuesday 15 March, 2016

News Analysis: The Rapid Rise of RON Bhadra Sreejith Deputy News Editor THURSDAY’S ELECTION night made history. Not just LSE history, either—never in the history of the United Kingdom has a Students’ Union voted to reopen General Secretary nominations; nor has there seemed to be such a pronounced dislike of both candidates among the students who did vote.

Reopening nominations (RON in short) is always a threat that hangs over any student running for a position in an LSESU society, even when they are running unopposed. In theory, it prevents students from being completely certain about their chances of winning a society election; in practice, except in the most politicised societies (the Beaver being one), it is not often used. However, when it is used, it is the ultimate expression of disapproval and dissatisfaction in a candidate’s manifesto, policies, or campaign. In a general secretary campaign that was marked by controversy, this was an unprecedented result but not an unexpected one.

Yet, the decision to RON was not a simultaneous, independent one by more than a thousand LSE students; there was a campaign, and a very successful one at that.

The RON campaign began on 4 March, with the creation of a Facebook page with Ronald Weasley from Harry Potter as the profile picture. The persona quickly began gaining friends, with people amused by the light-heartedness of the initial campaign. Yet, from the beginning, there was a serious side to this persona. In an interview with the Beaver, RON stated that the campaign was initially set up to highlight and mock the ambitious and unachievable nature of the policies promised by both candidates. RON, who went on to

highlight the “lack of engagement with democracy at the LSE”, mentioned that the apathy was partly due to the lack of a scandal at the LSE; this proved to be particularly ironic given events that would occur in the next few days.

However amusing the RON video, memes, and wordplay were, it was assumed that one of the two candidates would win - before Tuesday night. True controversy was needed for the student body to decisively reject both candidates.

On Tuesday night, the extremely popular LSE memes page, usually known for poking fun at the careerminded nature and studiousness of LSE students, shared a screenshot of a candidate who appeared to be making anti-Semitic remarks.

The post exploded in popularity and was taken down within a few hours - but not before it had been shared, liked, commented upon, and most importantly - confirmed as genuine. The LSESU Jewish Society published a statement condemning the use of the term “Zio”, which they referred to as a derogatory slur. They also condemned the claim that there was a conspiracy theory between the Union of Jewish Students, a former General Secretary of the LSESU, and the LSE student body as a whole, which they called “reminiscent of…AntiSemitic tropes”. This was immediately published on the RON Facebook page, and shared widely.

The other candidate had not been faring much better. A fellow student who had posted a status alleging bullying, intimidation, and mocking of mental illness by that candidate, removed the status after the candidate called the status “lies, slander and libel”, and threatened to report the individual to the police. The RON Facebook page posted pictures of one candidate apologising for his actions, and the other messaging the individual

with the request to take the picture down, with the remark - “One candidate has been forced to apologise for horrendous remarks he made.

The other has bullied people and threatened them with legal action if they told the truth. The choice really is obvious”, with a link to the LSESU voting page. Throughout the day, the RON page continued to share the photos, tagging people who had accepted his friend request and posting on various groups - a typical LSE student who spent any time on Facebook on Wednesday or Thursday could not fail to realize that there was some controversy. Both candidates appeared to have slowed down or completely stopped their campaigns in the aftermath, so that the only news that was heard was negative and spread by the RON Facebook page.

That seemed to provide the impetus that was needed. On Thursday, in what was a historic moment for the LSE and for all British Student Unions, RON

Stand on the Left! Say LSE Alina Ryzhonkova Deputy News Editor WE ALL REMEMBER THAT dreadful November morning, when, running late to seminar, we were faced with the shocking, inexplicable and outrageous sight of people standing on the left of the escalators at Holborn. As the horror went on for several weeks, the wails and screams of discontent drowned out TfL’s attempts at explanation.

Eventually, after three weeks of depriving commuters of the morning escalator sprint and an ageold convention, things went back to normal, lulling us into a false sense of security. While we innocently assumed that TfL’s twisted social experiment was over for good and we could go back to standing on the right, the Underground overlords had a different idea. The train

wreck that was the last test is set to return on 18 April, and this time it won’t be restricted to an hour in the morning, but the stand on both sides of the escalator rule will be in place all day long.

According to science, standing on both sides of the escalator increases the number of people on the escalator by up to 30%, thus reducing congestion at the station. In strictly logical terms, this change is a good thing. Humans are not always logical though, as is evidenced by TfL’s initial preparations for the trial – they considered enforcing the new rule by having TfL employees stand on the left and physically block people from walking past. That plan was scrapped for fear of attacks.

The task of changing a habit as ingrained as standing on the right, a habit that is a part of life in London is so difficult that TfL has recruited the best and the brightest in the

field to develop the best messages for passengers to make them stand on both sides. That’s right, the LSE is going to be responsible for everyone standing on both sides of the escalator.

Next time you find yourself standing on the left of the escalator at Holborn when running late to class, blame the behavioural science department for whatever irritating messages force you to go against everything you thought you knew about escalators on the tube. A variety of messages will be tried out at Holborn in order to find the most effective one as, in the future, TfL hopes to rely solely on signage and messages to encourage people to stand on both sides. Force of habit is quite the force to be reckoned with though, so while LSE tries to talk us into standing on both sides of the escalator, it’s going to take all the extra staff TfL has to force us into it.

received the highest number of votes for General Secretary.

The moment was marked by a large cheer from the audience at the Venue and many people posting on the RON Facebook page with memes and Harry Potter puns. The first status that was posted by the page simply stated “Mischief Managed” which, really, was all that it needed to say.

In an overwhelming show of disgust for the alleged bullying, threats, and racism of the past few days, the student body rejected both candidates and voted for the one campaign that had been clean.

The students who voted RON were spurred on by the Facebook page, and the wider campaign that encouraged them not to settle, but to vote for a candidate who they truly believed represented their interests. Unfortunately, neither candidate appeared to fulfil

the needs of the student body.

With one candidate already stating his desire to run again, and another undecided, it remains to be seen whether the next election will just be a tired mash-up of the past few days with no witty, “magical” commentary to provide some relief. However, this election has proven that candidates for any election will not be assured of support from the student body if they do not prove to be up to the mark.

The real reason why students voted to re-open nominations, and did not just refuse to vote, was because they had something to unite over a catchy, amusing campaign, with a serious message: do not allow your Student’s Union to be run by someone whom you have no confidence in. For that, the student body owes a lot to a certain wizard.

Frustated LSE Chairman Lord Myners to Stand Down Alina Ryzhonkova Deputy News Editor AFTER LITTLE MORE than a year in the role, Lord Paul Myners is resigning from his position as Chairman of LSE’s Council and Court of Governors. Brought in for his reputation as a ‘fixer’, in January Lord Myners spoke with optimism to the Financial Times of his plans to increase the LSE’s endowment fund to £1 billion in order to stop the school living ‘hand to mouth’. Myners has also recently completed a review of governance of the school, with most of his recommendations adopted by LSE. Just three months later, Lord Myners, according to colleagues who the Financial Times have not named, has cited frustrations at the slow pace of reforms and an inability to “drive a modernisation agenda” as his reasons for stepping down as chairman. Although Lord Myners will remain a governor, three months seems like an awfully short amount of time for such a sudden change in attitude. Frustrations expressed at the LSESU’s recent panel event presenting the findings of the consultation on education may shed some light on the wider context within which Lord Myners

has been working, and some of the issues which may have contributed to his decision. Dr. Suki Ali, among other panelists at the event, echoed the now former-chairman’s criticisms of slow and difficult reform processes at the school. Dissatisfaction with the reforms process at LSE seems to be universal among both students and staff. However, when senior staff choose to resign from their positions instead of fighting for change alarm bells are inevitably set off.

With a reputation for being more comfortable in a boardroom than in the more regulated and rigid public sector, Lord Myners’ resignation, while sudden, is perhaps not entirely surprising. Nonetheless, Myners’ is said to lose interest when he gets the feeling that those around him are disinterested and uncommitted, a worrying prospect for change at LSE. The possibility of a disinterested administration is further exacerbated by the general turmoil at the top levels of LSE. Only weeks ago Craig Calhoun announced that he will not be returning for the last year of his directorship, moving instead to the Berggruen Institute in California.

To add insult to injury, last week’s unprecedented SU elections saw RON elected General Secretary.

Nominations have re-opened, and we will likely vote in a new General Secretary before the end of term, but the damage has been done.

Without any strong figures that

JUST THREE DAYS BEFORE the Chancellor delivers a budget in which he is expected to visit £4bn of cuts on the most vulnerable in society, Andrew Neil and the Sunday Politics producers yesterday felt that a sensationalisation of anti-Semitism within the Labour party, a notion predicated upon two alleged instances at Universities, deserved a 10 minute slot as one of the most pressing political issues of the day.

It will not come as a surprise that one such issue refers to the private correspondence of LSESU General Secretary candidate which became public last week. Had this been a completely isolated incident, national coverage would have perhaps been minimal if not non-existent. However, following Labour’s decision to open an inquiry into allegations of anti-semitism in the Oxford University Labour Society, the BBC have opted to inter pret events at LSE as being part of a wider theme.

Whilst students voted overwhelmingly to re-open nominations in the first General Secretary race, deeming nei-

ther candidate to be suitable for the role, there has been no overt indication from any student groups at LSE that events over the past week reflect a deeply entrenched problem at the University.

In the Sunday Politics segment presenter Andrew Neil was speaking to Labour MP John Mann who is Chair of the All Parliamentary Group Against Anti-Semitism. Discussing whether a broader

London Uni Roundup

the LSE community can rally behind, the leadership situation at the school is starting to look a little too precarious for comfort.

UCLU have officially endorsed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement after the Union Council passed a motion in favour of it. According to the motion, the Union can no longer stock, advertise, or endorse any products boycotted by the BDS movement and the UCLU must work with students to publish a report on any links they have with companies or institutions that participate in or are complicit in Israeli violations of international law. The motion has cemented the UCLU’s pro-Palestine stance and sparked a lot of controversy on campus. A petition has been launched to force a General Assembly in order to give students a direct chance to vote.

Space for Labour and Daily Politics Greg Sproston News Editor

News | 5

theme of Anti-Semitism is prevalent within the Labour Party, Andrew Neil casually dropped the LSE into conversation after mentioning that an inquiry was ongoing at Oxford University. Little context was provided and whilst some media are guilty of misrepresenting events to suit an editorial narrative, viewers are reasonably entitled to expect more of the BBC. It could have been assumed from An-

drew Neil’s framing of the issue that a specific inquiry is underway at LSE. The Beaver understands this not to be the case; an LSE Labour Society committee member has confir med that though there is a party wide inquiry into antisemitism in general, there is no indication that a specific investigation is underway at LSE, as was the case with a specific inquiry at Oxford.

After hosting an event, which featured Ahmet Alfaleet, who now teaches Hebrew in Gaza but has spent 20 years in prison for killing an Israeli citizen, the Palestine Solidarity Society at Queen Mary has been banned by the SU for 8 weeks. Jewish students complained about the controversial speaker to the university’s president, who upheld that the SU did not approve of the speaker and that the event went against several SU’s rules.

This is not the first time a religious society has been banned at the university; the Islamic society, was previously banned after hosting radical preacher. Critics of the bans argue that they further exacerbate issues of divsion.

A recent leak of ISIS recruitment files has revealed that a second former University of Westminster student went on to become a suicide bomber for ISIS. Mohammed Jackir Ali began a degree in law at the university’s Regent Street campus before taking off and travelling to Syria. Ali was at the university when the controversial cleric Haitham Al-Haddad spoke at the university and is said to have expressed a desire to join the Syrian people before travelling to the country. Ali is the second ISIS fighter to have studied at the University of Westminster, the first and more infamous one being Mohammed Emwazi, who was more commonly known as Jihadi John.

6

| Tuesday 15 March, 2016

FOI Request Reveals Record Breaking Numbers for Palestinian Students Greg Sproston News Editor JUST THREE PALESTINIAN students enrolled to study at LSE from the academic years 2006-09, but this number has increased significantly as the current academic year has seen 40 applicants yield 11 offers for Palestinian students to study on Houghton Street, a freedom of information request has revealed. 8 students from Palestine are currently enrolled either as undergraduate or graduate students at the LSE, the highest ever total.

Speaking to The Beaver, founders of the Palestinian Solidarity Initiative (PSI) Ziyaad Yousef and James Caspell adopted a cautiously optimistic stance, noting that although the news is fantastic, that ‘given the relative populations of Israel and Palestine there remains work to do, but LSE’s own figures are encouraging’. Even if discounting the disparity of opportunity between Israeli and Palestinian students, any improvement in the circumstances

of students living in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza must be recognised as a significant achievement given the dire circumstances these individuals find themselves in. This is referenced by the PSI statement, which references explicitly ‘... the backdrop of of living under siege, house demolitions, illegal arrests and military terror’ as having an impact on the increasing amount of LSE students and faculty who overtly support the right of Palestinian students to access education and achieve their potential.

These figures are underpinned by the real feeling of cultural engagement, solidarity and inclusion amongst Palestinian students at LSE, most obviously present in the ongoing Boycotts, Sanctions, Divestments campaign, the perennially active Palestine Society and the fact that one of the school’s elected officers, C&W officer Aysha Fekaiki, is a prominent pro-Palestine Activist. More impressive still are the less obvious manifestations of Palestinian engagement on campus. In 2015, 2 of the 6 Palestinian students enrolled at the school ran as can-

didates for Sab officer positions; almost certainly the highest ratio of of political engagement of any demographic at the school.

In the event, both students were unfortunately unsuccessful with Haytham Mousa dropping out after the second round of voting for A&D, whilst Ahmed Salah pushed Jon-Rhys Foster all the way to the final round, eventually settling for a second place finish. Nevertheless, both individuals ran fantastic, inclusive and open campaigns.

Ahmed, who has since graduated with an MSc Accounting and Finance and moved to the outskirts of Manchester to take up a position with Markit, spoke fondly of his time at LSE and in particular his election campaign. ‘It was one of the best experiences of my life...I couldn’t do this at home [because] usually you have to be a party of a political party...but here at LSE I found the chance to run as an individual.’ With tongue firmly in cheek, he sardonically added ‘I thought after living in a conflict zone I could handle any kind of pressure...until I ran for election at LSE!’ Ahmed’s desire to get in-

volved in student politics was inspired by his peers at LSE, from the classmates he felt he learned most from to friends in every corner of the globe (but who can’t quite seem to escape LSE!), a recurring theme in his fond recollection of his time in London is diversity and community.

WIthout doubt there remains much to be done in helping students from Palestine and conflict zones around the world in fulfilling their potential, but after one of the most negative weeks in my time at LSE, figures and stories such as this are a timely reminder that things might always be as bad as they seem.

The Palestinian Solidarity Initiative is an NGO aimed at raising awareness of contemporary issues in the region and, more specifically, providing potential LSE students with practical mentoring and pastoral support to assist as much as possible with the application process. For more information or to register as a mentor, visit www. palestinesolidarity.org

Mayor Watch Khan Aide Quits After Troubling Tweets An aide to Labour’s mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan has resigned after a series of sexist and homophobic tweets emerged alongside a photo of the assistant with a gun. In 2012 Shueb Salar tweeted that he was “currently hating on all you faggots who have finished uni”, followed by the inspired electoral slogan - “fuck all you hoes”. Salar continued to impart wisdom via the medium of Twitter insisting that best way to “treat a lady” was to “buy her a nice iron and extend the kitchen for her”. A spokesperson for Khan told the Guardian, “ Sadiq acted immediately to suspend Shueb Salar as soon as he was made aware of these serious issues over the weekend”.

Women’s Equality Party Launches WeCount Campaign Sophie Walker, the Women’s Equality Party’s candidate for City Hall has launched a campaign to make London safer for women. In coordination with Pavan Amara, creator of the MyBodyBack campaign, the WEP have called upon the other candidates to make Women’s safety a ‘big issue’ of the campaign.

Writing in the Telegraph, Walker said: “Last year in London alone, 4,000 rapes were reported...I am running for Mayor of London because I am sick and tired of hearing women’s needs and experiences being trivialised. I’m tired of seeing the Mayoral contest reduced to a competition between two men who don’t think the ‘big issues’ include women’s safety”.

Register Now! Urges Commission

London Elects, which oversees City Hall’s elections, has launched a new campaign urging Londoners to register to vote before the fateful day in May. The call to arms will reverberate across the airwaves and be splashed across the city’s transport system as 5 May draws ever closer. Returning Officer for Greater London, Jeff Jacobs said, “This campaign is all about telling Londoners when, where and how to vote: we want everyone to be able to have their say on 5 May. The Mayor runs London, from policing and housing to environment and transport. Make sure you register by 18 April online at gov.uk.

News | 7

Professor Lord Mervyn King Speaks on ‘the Age of Alchemy’ Sheila Subbiah Undergraduate Student LAST TUESDAY THE OLD Theatre was packed with interested members of the public and the LSE community who were looking forward to listening to Professor Lord Mervyn King promote his new book ‘The End of Alchemy’. He served for 10 years as governor of the Bank of England, during which time he oversaw the crisis, and implemented important and influential policy. In contrast to the Stamp Memorial Lecture delivered 3 years ago by King at the LSE, this speech was spontaneous and unscripted. In the lecture King discussed the ‘alchemical’ nature of our financial system, its strengths and weaknesses, and

what has been done since the crisis to help stabilize it.

Given that King was the biggest cheese at the institution responsible for financial stability, perhaps it was inevitable that an audience member asked why the Bank of England didn’t predict the crisis. One of King’s key positions, which he develops in the book, is that the inherent ‘radical uncertainty’ in macroeconomics renders forecasts of the future worthless. He believes that you can’t fill this information gap with, for instance, insights from behavioural economics. He is also credited with popularising the term ‘moral hazard’, and mentioned the prisoner’s dilemma faced by some bank chief executives such as Citigroup head Chuck Prince.

When asked why there has

not been as much reform as some people would have expected since the financial crisis, King points to the political climate. As a young man, King was governed by politicians who had coped with the Great Depression; he points out the stark contrast between them and current politicians who he feels are trying to move past this crisis and forget it. He blames this as one reason for the limited reform since 2007.

Having been responsible for managing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, King retains a ray of optimism with regards to the future. Despite global GDP still being 15% lower than pre-crisis forecasts, King does not hold the view that the best years of technological innovation are behind us, or that growth

must now be revised to a ‘newnormal’ – a lower, sustainable level. In the book and in his speech he refers to ‘the sunshine of supply side-optimism’ – his belief that there has never been more scientific progress and technological innovation in human history. However, given the global macroeconomic picture – quantitative easing, negative rates, and little more room for monetary manoeuvre – a relevant question is: why is the world recovery still so slow nine years after the crisis and what can we do about it?

King’s view is that monetary policy alone is not enough to promote growth, and that now is the right time for substantial supply-side investment. In his own words ‘monetary policy is the bridge, not the panacea’.

News In Brief Scottish estate on sale for half the price of London flat Balblair Estate in Sutherland, Scotland, 40 miles north of Inverness, has been put on sale for £600,000—half the price of a studio apartment in Mayfair in London. The estate has a principal home, two gate lodges, and 1,645 acres of land—around four times the size of Regent’s Park.

The main house has a living room, sitting room, dining room, billiard room, four bedrooms and three bathrooms, as well as an integrated two-bedroom section for the housekeeper. The wide disparity in house prices between London and the rest of the country reflects the capital’s boom, and how the dream of owning a home has become increasingly unachievable for many young Londoners.

LSE Named Sixth Best in Europe According to the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, the LSE is the sixth best university in Europe. The UK has 46 universities represented in the list of 200. Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial take the first three spots on the list, followed by ETH Zurich, and then UCL. Germany is the second-most represented nation on the list with 36 universities, followed by Italy with 19 universities, and then Sweden and Switzerland. The statistics should provide some light relief for university heads under pressure to attain a top ranking.

Lord Stern Praises Divine Intervention on Climate Change Joseph Briers News Editor

LSE PROFESSOR AND REnowned environmental impresario, Lord Nicholas Stern, has praised the input of Pope Francis during the COP21 Paris Climate talks late last year.

Speaking with Professor Conor Gearty during a public event at the School, the former Chief Economist of the World Bank claimed that the Pope’s encyclical was timed to perfection.

“It was quite extraordinary in changing the weight of the argument”, said Lord Stern. “[it was an] extraordinarily important

and original contribution...that I had not seen anywhere near as prominent, or perhaps at all really, in this discussion”.

Stern, an agnostic, has previously written on the link between poverty and climate change in Catholic newspaper the Tablet. In a piece for the publication, Stern wrote “ It is the poor people around the world who are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as an intensification of extreme weather events. And the decisions that we make about managing the risks of climate change matter not only for us, but also for our children, grandchildren and future generations,”. Stern told Gearty and the audience

that “the more [Laudato Si’] is seen as a natural, central, wellfounded interpretation of what’s there [in the Bible] the more it has strength to survive a change of regime,”.

The head of the Grantham Institute is hopeful that last year’s comments do not mark

the end of papal pressure being applied to governments on the vital issue of global warming. “He [Pope Francis] can call people together on an anniversary of Paris and ask them, round the table: what have you done, what are you doing?”.

SOAS Student Itoje Stars as England Scoop Six Nations SOAS Student and England International rugby star, Maro Itoje, produced a man of the match winning perfromance as England stormed to victory over Wales in their final game of the Six Nations on Saturday. Itoje, who attended Harrow before studying for a degree in politics at SOAS, played what many have called ‘the game of his life’ as his nation triumphed 25-21 over a tenacious Welsh side France’s subsequent loss to Scotland on Sunday afternoon mathematically secured a first grandslam as England manager for newbee coach Eddie Jones. Itoje’s maternal grandmother studied at LSE.

|

Tuesday 15 March, 2016

Our Editorial Independence

We must reconsider The Beaver’s role in reporting on student news Mali Williams Comment Editor

Section Editor: Mali Williams Deputy Editors: Hakan Ustabas Nina Webb Dina Nagapetiants

OUR STUDENTS’ UNION is in disrepair. If last week’s Gen Sec election debacle demonstrates anything about the state of our Union, it tells a story of a toxic, divided and disunited Union.

Nevertheless, it also gave us the opportunity to seriously consider the role played by The Beaver during the election period and beyond. For me, this case has highlighted that the SU’s interpretation of the bylaws are too restrictive and, therefore, would unjustifiably limit The Beaver’s ability to report on issues of extraordinary public interest.

Firstly, to address the narrative that seems to have developed, depicting our relationship with the SU as a bitter and adversarial one. The Beaver values and heavily relies on the support and constructive criticism of the SU staff, and recognises the positive impact that they can have on The Beaver, the media group, and the student experience as a whole. We are an editorial board comprised of individuals with little professional experience and, without the crucial input of SU staff, it is unlikely that we could release any edition in a timely manner. Even in instances in which we object to the views offered and positions

Comment

8

“It is of fundamental importance that The Beaver remains editorially independent.”

adopted by SU staff, we remain genuinely grateful for the help they provide us.

Despite our appreciation of the SU’s hard work, it is of fundamental importance that The Beaver remains editorially independent, as recognised by the LSESU Bylaws. As long as The Beaver’s content is legal, no outside authority should dictate what articles or editorials will or will not appear in the paper. An editorially independent Beaver fulfils the objectives of the LSESU and serves the students of LSE better than any publication editoriallycontrolled by the SU possibly could. It allows The Beaver, perhaps most crucially, to hold the SU to account when such criticism is required.

“The bylaws are intentionally broad and, thus, room is left for their interpretation.”

Naturally, with such power comes responsibility; the bylaws also entrust The Beaver’s editors with a number of responsibilities.

During my year and a half at The Beaver, I have not known a single editor who has not taken these duties with the utmost consideration. Perhaps most prominently, Beaver editors always have LSE students in mind and endeavour to ‘inform students of what is happening at the LSE and the SU through balanced, factual and fair news’, particularly when The Beaver receives stories of great public interest.

Moreover, during the election

period, The Beaver is required to uphold additional principles.

These responsibilities include avoiding the display of a (positive or negative) preference for a candidate, and ensuring that our coverage of the elections is fair, accurate and balanced.

The bylaws are intentionally broad and, thus, room is left for their interpretation. For instance, it is not specified how a story will constitute a ‘fair’ one. I would not contend the argument that The Beaver ought to avoid flagrantly influencing the outcome of SU elections. For The Beaver to maintain its integrity in the future, I think that this must be the case. Moreover, the principles of ‘fair, accurate and balanced’ are not objectionable for any news publication to adhere to.

However, in the recent case of Rayhan’s private messages, which were subsequently made public, my opinion is that the SU’s interpretation of these bylaws were too restrictive. Whilst the editors involved appreciated the concerns regarding impartiality, privacy, fairness and so on, these issues are never black and white.

Furthermore, they are in conflict with the principles that The Beaver is required to uphold according to the bylaws, including informing the student body.

The SU’s contention that publishing the story would be in breach of the LSESU Bylaws was based on a strict interpretation of the rules. For the editors who believed that the article ought to be published, the story was, in our view, accurate, fair and balanced. Moreover, we did not do so from a position of preference for either candidate. I believe that it was simply the case that this was information the student body should have been made aware of, given the serious nature of the al-

“I believe that it was simply the case that this was information the student body should have been made aware of, given the serious nature of the allegations and the impending elections.” legations and the impending election.

It was an opportunity for The Beaver to exercise its editorial independence within our interpretation of the bylaws. Yet, the SU’s strict interpretation prevailed.

The argument that this should be the case because The Beaver is accountable to the SU, as it funds the newspaper, is simply not convincing. The Beaver exists to serve Union members, not the SU. Whilst the current Gen Sec has been very fair in her control over the paper in this regard, this does not prevent the possibility of abuses by any future Gen Sec. It is worrying for anyone who cares about The Beaver, the Union, or its students that this has opened the door to future infringements of The Beaver’s editorial independence. A discussion must be had regarding the correct interpretation of the broad bylaws. The Beaver should not be prevented from reporting on student news of great public interest because of the SU’s restrictive interpretation of the bylaws.

On the State of the Union

Comment | 9

The recent election shambles is a great embarrassment for our Students’ Union Hakan Ustabas Deputy Comment Editor PRIOR TO JOINING THE LSE last September, I had hoped to be able to observe and partake in numerous debates worthy of the university that is supposedly the most politicised in the country. What I have instead witnessed is blunder after blunder from our very own Students’ Union. It’s time that the intelligent students of this university speak out and rectify the mess that is the LSESU. The recent SU elections have been a total shambles, scoring another ugly mark on

Credit: LSESU Tumblr

“I will highlight some of the reasons why the collective student body has responded with outcry, and prescribe what steps can be taken to restore trust in the LSESU democracy.”

the already embarrassing record of our union. Without naming names (not because fear of libel leads me to selfcensorship, like the editor of a certain student newspaper, but because I don’t want to further massage the throbbing egos of those involved), I will highlight some of the reasons why the collective student body has responded with outcry, and prescribe what steps can be taken to restore trust in the LSESU democracy.

On one side was the allegation fluttering from one internet page to another that a candidate had used anti-Semitic remarks and made reference to a supposed Zionist conspiracy around campus and beyond.

On the other, assertions of a systematic campaign of bullying by the other candidate also surfaced on social media. In response came threats of lawsuits and police involvement, resulting in a heightened state of tension across campus. Rather than formulating sound, achievable policies, both candidates and their supporters preferred to engage in slander against their opponent. If this is how they behaved in attempts to get elected, can you imagine their behaviour once their position as head of the SU was secured?

Even before this disastrous

“In its current form it exists as an isolated and arrogant body of young people who have forgotten how small their role really is.” culmination of events, the whole election process resembled nothing more than a childish display of empty promises and pathetic slogans. Candidates tended to write short, substantively lacking manifestos, in which what little policy existed was unrealistic and regarded by many as totally unachievable.

The resulting campaign flyers, posters, and stunts focused on promoting the name and the face of the candidate — a pure and simple popularity contest.

Can we have a campaign where people try to do what’s in the interests of students, rather than force their name into an unfunny pun? (‘Yes we Hakan’, anyone?)

Of course, the elections are only the most recent LSESU humiliation of the wider student body. Pointless UGM mo-

tions and empty political declarations are often held. The low turnout of such votes ascribes a political statement to the entire university, thus stamping out the diversity of rational opinion which should exist in an institution of higher education, not least one as renowned for academic debate and rigour as ours. One prominent example came after the Union condemned the Government’s stance on Syria but failed to condemn the terror attacks on Paris. National journalists made a mockery of the LSE and its students, but in whose name? The Union need not stamp its feet. It is not party political, and should not make declarations on behalf of the student body when it has no legitimacy to do so.

And who could forget the recent free speech debacle, which was prominently displayed in the pages of several national newspapers? Once again, the reputation of the students at this university was called into question by the British media, who are inclined to see us as immature and on the political fringes. The LSESU shouldn’t use its power to forward the narrow cross-section of views of its executive body at the expense of the often silent (and very much embarrassed) majority of students at this university.

The tone of this article has naturally been negative; and frankly, angry. I am angry, and you ought to be, too. The vast majority of students at the LSE are kind, intelligent, and respectable people. Why should we allow our reputations to be besmirched by the SU and those who grace its exclusive corridors with their presence?

When fighting for a position in the Union, candidates forget to whom they owe their loyalty.

Even Boris Johnson and George Osborne would wince at the sharpness of their elbows. The Student Union isn’t party politics. It isn’t a power club. It’s a small body of students who ought to be dedicated to improving the lives of the students at LSE. In its current form it exists as an isolated and arrogant body of young people who have forgotten how small their role really is.

Are we forever confined to stagger between one public humiliation and the next? Will this article do nothing to stop the ‘big names on campus’ from drawing attention to themselves rather than to the interests of students at the LSE? I believe we deserve better. We need to reform not only the powers of the SU, but the way in which they can be used.

Firstly, we must limit — and keep within those limits — the tasks which are assigned to the SU. Their roles must promote our interests within the university, and nothing more. Political grandstanding and empty promises do nothing positive for LSE students.

Secondly, the election system and the quality of candidates needs to dramatically improve. We deserve a shift away from the politics of personality and towards the politics of policy. This could be done through ‘blind elections’ — voting based solely on the manifesto rather than the identity of the candidate; or by banning the use of posters and repetitive Facebook posts during the campaign period. Students’ Unions do have a role to play, but that role cannot be fulfilled by the egotists who currently inhabit the executive positions on campus.

“I can only hope that the next election is more than a repetition of last week’s car crash with different people at the wheel.”

The result of the election came as no surprise. Following the shambolic display which I have previously described, the outraged student body wisely chose to vote to re-open the nominations for General Secretary. The Gen Sec vote seemed to be more about keeping certain people out rather than voting anyone in, and rightly so.

Elsewhere in the elections, the apathy of students was clear.

One AU executive was ‘elected’ with only 66 votes. For other positions, there was a generous ‘choice’ of only one candidate.

Representative indeed.

I love the LSE, and I love the students that make it great.

What I think is shameful is that our good name is at stake from a small minority of selfinterested people who care more about how the positions will look on their CV than what they can do to improve the lives of students. The LSESU is in need of desperate reform, and only we can achieve that. I can only hope that the next election is more than a repetition of last week’s car crash with different people at the wheel.

10

| Tuesday 15 March, 2016

Leaking the Anti-Semitism Article

Why I published the article on the anti-Semitic and Bylaw-breaking private messages Josh Hitchens Undergraduate Student MANY PEOPLE OVER THE past week have questioned why I felt the need to publish an article that was based upon private messages, never intended to be seen by anyone but the recipient. Many people felt that this was a violation of Rayhan’s privacy and was unfair. Others have suggested, rather remarkably, that the exposure of anti-Semitism was somehow islamophobic.

So I thought I would explain what happened, why I made the decision and explain why I think the LSE community was let down, not only by the individuals in question, but elected officers and staff.

Two weeks ago, I wrote and The Beaver ran a story detailing Bylaw breaches by Harry Maxwell.

We were told not to run the story, but made a decision that as Harry was running to be General Secretary, a position ultimately responsible for the adjudication of Bylaw matters, the fact he had been found to have breached them on the very first day of campaigning gave students a right to know.

Then, over the weekend it was suggested that there may have been equally significant breaches by Rayhan. Having run a story on Harry, it was only fair and right that we investigated these. While doing so, screenshots came to light that seemed racist and anti-Semitic in nature. They alleged a Zionist conspiracy, used a racial slur and conflated Judaism and Zionism.

These messages were written by Rayhan to try to convince a female candidate not to run. In my opinion, this in itself would have been

sufficient to justify publishing as Rayhan was standing to lead a multicultural community of all faiths and races. These messages called into question whether Rayhan was suitable to fulfil that role and people had a right to know about them when they casted their vote.

Moreover, Rayhan was standing on a liberation platform. He was positioning himself as the candidate that had the best record on liberation, equality and combatting racism. Revealing the fact therefore, that he was alleged to have used racist scaremongering as a campaigning tool was again absolutely in the public interest.

Further, the messages revealed a series of serious Bylaw breaches, which essentially amounted to the LSESU Islamic Society (ISOC) selecting a candidate in November, months before any campaigning was allowed. This totally breached the rules. However, for me it was also a form of indirect discrimination.

A very large proportion of Muslims on campus are members of ISOC. I can understand why, I went to a tea party hosted in the faith centre by the society a few weeks ago and count many members as good friends, even those that are currently upset with me. It’s an amazing, supportive and thoroughly decent society. However, it was apparent from the messages that the result of this unofficial selection was enforced through social pressure. This meant that only one member of the society was permitted to run. The result was that Muslim students who were members of ISOC didn’t have the same access to LSESU democracy as students of other faiths or members of other

societies. This again, is at odds with Rayhan’s trumpeting of liberation.

Further, it undermined the credibility of an already incredible election in a way that student’s had a right to know about.

Finally, there was the broader issues of anti-Semitism at UK universities, which the recent Oxford University Labour Society scandal also served to highlight. As a student paper, The Beaver has a duty to call out creeping trends such as lurking racism so we can have honest and effectual debate to deal with the issues.

These reasons placed an overwhelming obligation on the paper to publish. This was agreed by the vast majority of the editors involved.

Further, Fraser Bell, the elected Returning Officer, who dealt with the election tirelessly and with absolute integrity, agreed it was in the public interest. It was his call whether the article would have breached the electoral rules.

However, that night, an unelected member of SU staff advised the paper to not run it. This decision was later backed up by Nona, who undoubtedly had a personal agenda that I will not enter into now. I don’t think that either had the constitutional authority to make this decision on the grounds they did. The Returning Officer is the one in charge of electoral bylaws and he is elected by us, the student body to fulfil this role.

The editors involved that night agreed that the story should go out anyway. We worked until midnight to achieve this, checking and rechecking facts, musing over ethics and writing the article. Taryana, the Executive Editor of The Beaver advised us that it would be up

at 9am the next day. Then at 2am, she decided not to run it. She released a statement on her own, without sending a draft to any other member of the editorial board or collective. This paper and by extension, Taryana, failed in her duty to the student body and all those that worked so hard on the story.

So, the next day, I published the story we were going to run, a story I didn’t even write. Up to this stage I had been dumbfounded by the failure of the Students’ Union and Taryana to take this issue seriously.

I saw the use of the word ‘zio’ as every bit as abhorrent as the use of an ethnic slur made against any other race or religion.

What shocked me most was that senior students on campus such as Ollie Hill, chair of LSESU Labour Society defended the use of the term and suggested that Rayhan had learnt from the experience.

Indeed, Rayhan’s campaign team, who would have been the first to have attacked Harry Maxwell or anyone outside their clique for any form of racism, stood steadfastly by Rayhan and presented themselves as the victims. They started to use words like islamophobic, hunt, unfair etc. Worse, they downplayed the deplorability of Rayhan’s messages and implied it was a minor sin at most.

These people are hypocrites.

They are people who base their whole presence on campus on a liberation platform. They are people that would have called out and attacked anyone who used racial slurs against black people, Muslims, Asians, Sikhs, Arabs, Maoris or any other ethnicity. Yet they accepted and defended their candidate using anti-semitism as a political tool.

A Letter to the Executive Editor

To them I say, read the Jewish Chronicle, watch BBC Sunday Politics and listen to the result of the election. You can blame the electorate, you can blame me, you can blame Harry, you can blame whomever you want but ultimately you are wrong. Rayhan was wrong and I have never been so proud to be at LSE. You playing victim won’t change that.

Finally, without meaning to be provocative, Aysha and Jasmina should both resign. Both decided to continue supporting, publicly and defiantly, a candidate who used racism as a tool. They did so as elected officers of our union. Jasmina did so as anti-racism officer. This is a disgrace upon the whole union. We must demand that all our elected officers talk for all of the liberation groups on campus and don’t pick and choose when it suits them. We must have zero tolerance on any forms of racism and discrimination.

I would do everything I have done again. I feel sorry for those that have been hurt and those who campaigned hard for Rayhan only to find out about this whole affair an hour before voting opened. But, what happened on Thursday was the LSE student body affirming that it would not accept racism in the same way it would not accept bullying and harassment. We held ourselves to higher standards. I am proud of that. However, this must not be used as a device to divide communities. We need sabbatical officers who are going to rebuild bridges and heal wounds, not inflame divisions and try and frame this event as a racial conflict or division. Trying to make this a ‘brown’ v ‘white’ issue is dangerous and wrong. Aysha should know this.

“I think that your decision not to publish the article was the right one.”

DEAR EDITOR, As I am sure you are aware, it has been a fairly controversial week for student politics at LSE. Nonetheless it is worrying to see that even your office, by way of an attempted motion of no confidence, has not been spared a bloody nose. It would appear that in the process of trading blows with one another, candidates for positions in the Students’ Union have hit the referee. I write to you as someone who has written for The Beaver and is concerned about the increasing shoddiness that characterises student journalism.

I think it important for me to confess that I am not aware of the politics of The Beaver office. As a result, I may only speculate on the factors that contributed to your decision to not publish an article alleging electoral impropriety on the part of one of candidates for the post General Secretary. On the one hand, it is possible that there was

pressure on you to censor the article. On the other, as your statement on the matter indicates, it is possible that you chose not publish the article in question due to ethical reasons. I am inclined to believe, and sincerely hope, that your motivation for doing so was the latter. If it was, and the members of The Beaver Collective do not doubt you, it would be truly distressing to see you dismissed from your post. This is for two reasons.

The first is, any allegation of censorship is entirely speculative.

In addition, it was undoubtedly the right decision not to publish the article; a demonstration of sobriety in this age of journalistic opportunism.

Accusing your newspaper of censorship is speculative. To say that there has been censorship is to suggest that there was a conspiracy to silence. It is also to suggest that the Students’ Union ‘establishment’ is monolithic and that the article was not published because it would have affected a candidate negatively. As I said earlier, I am not aware of the

factional tensions within the Students’ Union and so cannot comment on this matter. Nonetheless, there is no evidence of a concerted attempt to silence the authors of this article. This is an accusation, promoted by the self-appointed watchdog, the Free Speech Society (amongst others) that is based on little more than hearsay.

Turning to my second point. I think that your decision not to publish the article was the right one. It was dismaying to see a former editor of The Beaver, who will not be named out of respect for their right to privacy, say that this would not have happened in their day. I think your actions last week were a demonstration of sensible restraint. The messages that have been quoted in the article in question, later placed in the public domain via a blog, may have been obtained illegally. Moreover, they may have been leaked. As a journalist, it is important to ask certain questions before placing leaked information in the public domain.

You have to ask why the information has been leaked and if it has been leaked selectively. Even more importantly, it must be asked whether by placing the information in the public domain you have become a pawn in a larger game. That is, if the information has been leaked in a certain way, your story simply becomes a mouthpiece for someone else’s agenda. I believe these are the sorts of questions any journalist worth his or her salt must ask and it concerns me that some members of The Beaver Collective don’t seem to think this is the case.

But the leaked information should be probed even more. It is also necessary to question the authenticity of the leaked information, even if the candidates subsequently did not question their validity. I might be incorrect, but to my knowledge ‘screenshots’ were being presented as evidence. It is laughable that some people view ‘screenshots’ as incontrovertible proof in today’s day and age when even chil-

dren know how to use Photoshop.

Lastly, we do not know whether the consent of all parties involved in the conversations that have been leaked were given prior to their being circulated on the Internet. As a result, I think it was responsible for you not to have published the article.

Of course, it is hard to determine when the boundaries of traditional journalistic practice have to be pushed. Some of the most inspiring journalism, from the exposition of Watergate to the Mỹ Lai Massacre has pushed these very boundaries.

But I don’t believe that this article did that. From its unquestioning ways one might surmise that its authors were not just happy to be fed the information that they received.

They probably proceeded to gently lick the hand that fed it.

Yours faithfully, Samar Rizvi Secretary, LSESU History Society.

Comment | 11

EU Referendum: Coming Off the Fence Why undecided moderates should come off the fence and vote to leave the EU Hakan Ustabas Deputy Comment Editor ON THE 23RD OF JUNE, citizens of the United Kingdom will be presented with a single question, which will fundamentally alter the path of our country for decades to come. I have been toying with both remain and leave arguments for some months now, but I have finally reached a conclusion.

Both sides have presented a lot of half-arguments and inadequate responses, and so it has been necessary to carefully examine claims on each side. The importance of this vote cannot be underestimated, which is why it has taken me so long to reach a conclusion. That conclusion is that the United Kingdom should vote to leave the European Union.

The economic arguments cut both ways. On a pessimistic view, one might prefer to remain in the EU. The UK could fail to achieve a trade agreement with the EU, and suffer loss of financial services exports, as well as jobs in manufacturing, as a result of tariffs placed on our goods and services. A more reasonable view would be that the status quo would barely change — we will secure a good trade deal with the EU and continue our successful economic relationship. An

optimistic view would be in favour of Brexit, however. The UK would be able to generate a free trade agreement with the EU, but also negotiate agreements with other fast-growing economies — something which we are barred from doing whilst members of the EU. The strongest economic argument against Brexit appears to be that of uncertainty. It is impossible to say which of the three alternatives in the preceding paragraph shall come to fruition. This in itself could mean that businesses withhold from investment, and further damage our economic prospects.

On the other hand, if a trade deal is secured quickly, this effect will be minimised. In the long term, there is no reason why economic agents would act any differently. The economic cost, if any, is likely to be very short lived, and only during the initial period of negotiation.

An argument which weighs so clearly in favour of Brexit is that of immigration. As a socially liberal thinker, I have never given much credence to immigration rhetoric, but there is a case for hearing out the reasoning. Firstly, there is the scale of immigration that is currently occurring, which will naturally put pressure on infrastructure and public services. The population of London is already a staggering 8.6 million, with figures

projected to increase to over 11 million in years to come. Services like the NHS, the London Underground, and even water and sewage systems will be placed under tremendous strain. Whether or not we can currently cope is one argument, but whether we should be able to control numbers if we need to is another.

“Undoubtedly, the argument that most persuasively guides me towards Brexit is political.”

Another immigration based argument appeals to me as a liberal.

It is unfair that would-be migrants from outside of the EU are discriminated against to the advantage of those in the EU. Hardworking people who want to make a positive impact on the UK economy should be free to enter, regardless of their place of birth. As an immigrant from Turkey, I count myself lucky that my mother is British, else I would be unlikely to have had the opportunities which come from

being a UK citizen.

Undoubtedly, the argument that most persuasively guides me towards Brexit is political. Since the European Communities Act 1972, the sovereignty of the UK Parliament has been radically diminished. The EU can pass laws that affect our everyday lives, and there is nothing we can do on a day-to-day basis to stop it. While we elect MEPs to vote in the European Parliament, they are regularly outvoted, meaning that even though the UK has rejected a piece of legislation, we are forced to implement it. These regulations are a huge detriment to our businesses, and dictate social policy which should be for our democratically elected Government to decide.

What’s worse is that proposals for EU law comes from the entirely unelected Commission. We simply have no control.

The stated aim of the EU is to further integrate its Member States, thus creating a more and more united superstate. For British people, this idea has never resonated strongly. Traditionally, our citizens have wanted an economic relationship but nothing else. Our wishes can never be respected whilst we remain member of this body which will only ever add to the number of regulations in an attempt to bind together the

distinct nations of Europe. By voting to leave the EU, British voters will have the final say on all aspects of national policy, business regulation, and foreign affairs. A vote to remain means placing a cap on our ability to self-determine the future of our country.

How should the above arguments be weighed? That is something only you, the reader, can decide. It is the most difficult question I have faced regarding the EU referendum. I would submit the following conclusion: the economic consequences could either be good or bad, but if they are bad, the negative effects are likely to be in the short-term, while trade agreements are being finalised. By contrast, the immigration, and more importantly, the political arguments, only point towards leaving the EU. Furthermore, the benefits of these will be immediate, and will last well into the future. In my view, potential uncertainty for a few years after Brexit is an acceptable price to pay for years of political freedom. Trade agreements can be negotiated. Reform of the EU cannot. A vote to remain means being stuck to the pursuit of a dying political union which we shall have no say on until the next referendum in decades to come. A vote to leave means we can take back control.

Personal Experiences of an Oligarchic State

thing broader. It is the sidestepping of democracy through soft or brute force. It is decisions made by people who do not form the median of the population, decisions made by leaders or managers that affect the lives of many. It isn’t only ownership of land or capital, it is also the ownership of information and the media to distribute it.

Oligarchy should not be confused with effective lobbying. Oligarchy means the lobbyists themselves run the country, and thus persuasion is unnecessary. Oligarchy is indebting the state through the operation of your business, while preserving habits even in times of crisis. Most notably, oli-

a school with very young students, is mainly constructed and maintained by teachers. Teachers run the school to put it plainly, as well as defining the environment (and subsequently the lives of many young pupils).

Let me be more specific, by going into a case in mind. My 6th grade teacher was the embodiment of a post-dictatorship leftist unionist, who had a postgraduate degree in going on strike, together with a state-subsidised postgraduate degree from an Italian university.

Maybe the latter degree was the inspiration for the former degree, but judging from his overall character, the aforementioned order is

chronological, disproving the theory of imported communism. My teacher did not only go on strikes, he organised them as well. He was also a member of the once irrelevant SYRIZA, a party that now is in power claiming ‘no responsibility for the crisis’.

How would I know my teacher’s party of preference? The answer is both easily-said and complicated.

Everything in Greece is political.

From teachers and curriculum to jobs and privileges, politics sticks out and matters greatly. It is precisely the implicitness of all of the above, which makes it difficult for an inexperienced to grasp the con-

Credit: Flickr: Joanna

Why Bernie Sanders is wrong in his definition of an oligarchy from a Greek perspective garchy does not limit itself to the The concept of the dictator- sponsibility, influence and force.

Aris Grivokostopoulos “How would I cept. rich. Unions and syndicates of any ship of politics is exemplified with Their force was brute: stopping the Undergraduate Student occupation are the most dominant know my a typical day under the tuition of implementation of any reforms by oligarchy in the country that demy teacher. Or rather should I call striking in masses and frequently. teacher’s party it a day without my teacher, since Calling them a misrepresentation WHEN I HEARD THAT fined democracy.

Bernie Sanders mentioned the As with many LSE undergradwas on strike or attending some of public opinion is an understateof preference? he word ‘oligarchy’ in one of his re- uates (or maybe not), I attended an union conference, fighting against ment, so oligarchy is then the right cent speeches, my first reaction was ordinary comprehensive state pricountercyclical pay freezes in word to describe these people, The answer is the to laugh sarcastically. It reminded mary school. My primary school, the public sector or the liberalisa- whether they are called teachers, me of my home country. For some- located in an upper middle class both easily-said tion of the public sector tertiary farmers or pharmacists. one who has seen an oligarchy at suburb, must have been above aveducation monopoly?

So when you hear ‘oligarchy’ and complicated. all levels and forms back home, erage standards, both in staff and He was the combination of a next time coming out of an Amertalk of an oligarchy anywhere else facilities. Nevertheless, the school political narrowmindedness ican politician’s mouth, follow the Everything in deep seems funny, to say the least. was negligibly unordinary from and a faux social progressiveness. rest of the speech and appreciate Oligarchy is a Greek word. It the perspective of school culture.

Greece is People like him, his party and his the naivety of his or her definition means ‘the rule of the few’, yet What do I mean by ‘school culunion, always had power and re- of the word. political.” the word actually represents some- ture’? School culture, especially for

12| Tuesday 15 March, 2016

A Letter From a Worried American Reflecting on the distant optimism of 2008 and America’s contradictions Alexander Hurst Features Editor HEY WORLD, I’M WRITING on behalf of your friend, America. You know, the one with the unnecessarily big and often redundant cars, who drinks a bit too fast and talks a little too loud when we all get together. You guys don’t check in as often as you should, and that’s partly our fault—we Americans aren’t great with maps; add in telephone country codes and a whole bunch of different suffixes on the ends of web URLs… Sometimes it’s all a bit much to remember. And we can also have a penchant towards self-absorption anyway.

In fact, America is once again a bit consumed with itself right now. I’m sorry about that, but

“As I huddled around a television with a half dozen friends in our freshman dorm that night, we were wide-eyed and amped up on cheap vodka, adrenaline, and hope.” this time there’s a good reason for it, and that’s what I want to talk about, that’s why I’m writing.

Americans and the World have been through a lot together. This particular century started out rough; there were disagreements

star-studded, bloodstained contradiction. It is gloriously, irredeemably tacky. Optimistic, but insecure. Welcoming but

“America, you see, is a nation born in star-studded, bloodstained contradiction.

It is gloriously, irredeemably tacky. Optimistic, but insecure {...} Confident, bold, and often pristinely hesitant to turn its gaze towards introspection.

Perennially preoccupied with the hypothesis of its decline. ” unrelenting.

Self-important but generous and authentic.

Confident, bold, and often pristinely hesitant to turn its gaze towards introspection.

Perennially preoccupied with the hypothesis of its decline. Inspiring both anger and awe. Bursting with frenetic energy, but also, rage. We added a new chapter to the narrative of contradiction; our naiveté was in believing that the story had a definitive end.

The last new wave of Millennial voters won’t have that feeling of audacious hope in this, their first election. They want to, and in many ways that desire is

at the heart of Bernie Sanders’s unprecedented, near universal dominance with young voters.

Unfortunately, there is a different narrative likely to be relevant to this election, and it is increasingly one of worry, and even violence.

There is a plaque in a library on Borough High Street in London, commemorating 20,000 protestors who in 1937 met headon a march by fascist blackshirts.

“They shall not pass,” the plaque remembers. When I glanced at it over the weekend, I thought about what had just happened the previous night in Chicago. Is that a hyperbolic comparison? I hope so, but liberal democracy is a fragile creature, only as strong as our commitment to defend it against our own worst impulses. This, far more than hope, might be the mission that will welcome the last Millenials.

“There are no uncontaminated angels,” Philip Roth wrote in a different book. You know this, but you are old, and America is young. Your memory is long, while America’s is short and distracted by multitasking among Snapchat, Netflix, and the Next Big Thing. But Americans, for good or ill, have believed deeply in their nation’s exceptionalism, and without a vibrant, liberal democracy at its heart, that exceptionalism is a faded whisper, not a dream.

The dark absurdity of this election is drawing more and more Americans to realize that really striving to be exceptional means dealing first with its exceptional imperfections.

So, World, thanks for being patient. And just in case things go south, you still have a spare room that I can crash in for a few years, right?

Photo credit: Alexander Hurstr

Features

Section Editor: Alexander Hurst Daniel Shears Stefanos Argyros Deputy Editors: Sebastian Shehadi

and shouting matches; you tried to reason with us, but we were hurt and angry and afraid, and wanted to break shit. So we broke shit. Since then, eight years of the steady hand and respectful, soft tone of Barack Obama have done a lot to patch things up, but now you’re looking at us—incredulous, and tinged with fear—worried about what might follow him.

In 2008, I turned 18, which meant that the enormous privilege of the debut of my adult life was that the first time I voted, the ballot I cast was meaningful and historic. Philip Roth, one of the great twentieth century chroniclers of who and what America is, once wrote that “everyone becomes a part of history whether they like it or not, whether they know it or not.” Well on that night in early November, we both knew and relished it. As I huddled around a television with a half dozen friends in our freshman dorm that night, we were wideeyed and amped up on cheap vodka, adrenaline, and hope.

When they called Ohio—my state—for Obama, it was as if the entire world erupted at once.

We streamed down the hall’s grand staircase, past its big bay windows, into the warm night and the arms of hundreds of other still-teenagers who had just changed the world. Crowdsurfed on an intangible feeling of power and empathy, dancing not just at the foothills of the Berkshire Mountains, but on the long arc of history itself as it bent ever so slightly more towards justice.

That election was supposed to heal a lot of things. America’s relationship with you, the World, but also with itself. America, you see, is a nation born in

The ICC and the Fight Against Impunity On the conflicting purposes of the International Criminal Court Stefanos Argyros Features Editor THE GREAT CALAMITIES Of the 20th century induced radical changes in the purposes and structure of International Law. The leaders who committed the most heinous of crimes could no longer simply cloak themselves under the veil of state immunity and enjoy impunity for their actions. The process of establishing a system of international criminal law culminated in the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998. Yet there are still many uncertainties as to the precise purpose of the International Criminal Law and its appropriate remit.

We instinctively welcome the development of international criminal law but we are

“The leaders who committed the most heinous of crimes could no longer simply cloak themselves under the veil of state immunity and enjoy impunity for their actions.”

“Yet while ending impunity is important, it is worth noting that international criminal law occurs only sporadically amidst a sea of impunity. “ criminal law beyond the ICC indicates that while ending impunity is the most important concern, it is also intertwined with a plethora of other considerations.

International criminal law’s purpose might be broader than simply end impunity: Professor David Luban argues that it aspires to “project a radically different set

of norms, one that reclassifies political violence from the domain of the sacred to the domain of ordinary thuggery”.

Ending impunity by ensuring

“International criminal law, and even the ICC in particular cannot avoid inherent tensions between the willingness to be deferential to national courts and an ever-increasing commitment to human rights and due process.” that alleged perpetrators are tried for their crimes is an important but not all-encompassing part of this wider aim. The fight against impunity is subsumed within a broader ideal whose purpose it is to use the legal tools of international criminal law to further certain moral norms.

Drawing on this conception we might argue that institutions like the ICC should not only contribute to ending impunity but also ensure this is done in a way that promotes due process and human rights norms as well. International criminal law, and even the ICC in particular cannot avoid inherent tensions between the willingness to be deferential to national courts and an ever-increasing commitment to human rights and due process. How legitimate can ending impunity be if the trial that is held (whether at the national or international level) is not respectful of international human rights standards? Even the staunchest supporters of the principle of complementarity are responsive to this concern and argue that the most egregious violations of human rights by national courts ought to factor in an admissibility decision if they are such that there is no ‘trial’ properly so called.

This issue was prominently raised in the case of Mr Abdullah Al-Senussi. The ICC decided that despite the fact that he was prosecuted in a Libyan court his case would be admissible in front of the ICC (despite the complementarity principle)

because of severe due process violations by the Libyan state.

The court stated “it must be shown that the proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially and that the proceedings were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice”.

While international criminal law more broadly should be sensitive to these standards of due process, it is arguably not desirable for the ICC to do expressly promote them.

Hybrid national/international courts and human rights institutions might be more effective and legitimate in doing so. Further, non-adjudicative methods including informal reconciliation tribunals might be just as important as international criminal law. In fact, only when the two work closely together can international criminal law fulfil its potential fully.

Placing too much weight on the shoulders of international criminal proceedings and the ICC in particular is neither effective nor desirable. Ending impunity is what does and should lie at the heart of the ICC’s aspirations. The ICC

“The ICC should not act as a Human Rights court and it cannot be the panacea that we often want it to be. should not act as a Human Rights court and it cannot be the panacea that we often want it to be. In delineating its remit it is important to remind ourselves that ensuring jsutice and effecutve peacebuilding is a multi faceted endeavour that cannot be solved by a single institution.

Despite its many flaws, it is worth noting that the current system of international law and the ICC in particular are still very much in the early stages of their development. The months and years ahead will be crucial in determining whether international criminal law can find the appropriate balance between its ending impunity and promoting dues process, and whether it will assign these tasks to the appropriate institutions.

The Pocket Philosopher Musings on the concept of “ taking it seriously” Edmund Smith Undergraduate Student I WANT TO INTRODUCE A helpful conceptual tool: that of ‘taking it seriously’. Sadly, I have only been able to define it by example. This is deeply unsatisfactory, but perhaps the tool is useful enough that it will be permitted. To take a sound argument in philosophy seriously is to account for the fact that its conclusion is true in one’s actual and potential behaviour.

To take a sound argument which has the conclusion ‘Veganism is morally obligatory’ is to change in response to it. Obviously, becoming vegan satisfies this; worrying about one’s habits, or planning to reduce one’s meat consumption would also satisfy the requirement. To take a reading of a poem seriously is to refrain from mechanically creating responses or analyses and to be open to staking a claim about it that you believe. If you were asked to write a poem in response to a sequence of other poems, you’d be taking it seriously if you thought that the previous texts left something missing, and that your work strove to fill that gap. On some account, science is a practice that requires a feeling of ‘taking it seriously’. Richard Feynman once gave a speech entitled ‘Cargo Cult Science’ which conveys this impression.

‘Taking it seriously’ is an important (albeit intuitive) concept.

It helps characterise some aesthetic experiences, it helps demarcate some practices, it helps motive some kinds of training, and it can help decide between right and wrong practice (given appropriate context and conceptual apparatus). It is a good remedy for debates where one is expected to be a quietist about subjective experiences and the ‘unsayable’. I recommend it for your general use.

Photo Credit: www.businessinsider.com

also unsure of how wide and vigorous it should be.

Despite the widespread ebullience that followed its establishment, the ICC has been subjected to vociferous criticism.

Some accuse it of selectively prosecuting cases originating in Africa and argue that he spectres of imperialism continue to haunt international law and the ICC in particular. On the other hand, others deprecate the ICC for not being bold enough. They argue that the ICC’s purpose isn’t solely to end impunity, but also to promote due process and human rights norms. Under this paradigm the ICC ought not to be deferential but actively seek to prosecute cases even where the concerned state is willing and able to prosecute, albeit refuses to grant the defendant a fair trial. These criticisms indicate that we are still unsure about what the precise purposes of international criminal law and the ICC are.

It is worth noting that ending impunity is indubitably at the core of the ICC. The developments in international

criminal law have been tied together by a common thread: the willingness to transition away from an era of impunity where leaders could hide under the veil of sovereign immunity towards an era where individuals are held accountable when they commit crimes whose nature and impact transcend national boundaries.

An examination of the Rome Statute (the Treaty establishing the ICC) indicates that the ICC in anchored in the fight against impunity. Article 1 sets out the principle of complementarity and article 17 of the Rome Statute provides that the ICC will only admit a case if the state in question is ‘unwilling or unable’ to do so. The devolved and deferential nature of the provision strongly indicates that the ICC’s main concern is to ensure that perpetrators of the set of particularly egregious crimes under its jurisdiction do not enjoy impunity. The former Chief Prosecutor of the ICC Luis Oreno Oscampo has defended this vision of the ICC when he said that “we are a system to end impunity”.

Yet while ending impunity is important, it is worth noting that international criminal law occurs only sporadically amidst a sea of impunity.

Some thus argue that its purposes might be somewhat broader than that. As the international community’s aspirations to ensure an international protection of human rights grow, so does the urge to conceptualize international criminal law as a panacea for abuse by state and group leaders. A closer look at the institutions of international

Features | 13

Interested in writing for Features?

Email us at: features@ thebeaveronline.co.uk

14

| Tuesday 15 March, 2016

The Islamic State and the “Intimate Kill” How do the Islamic State’s face-to-face public executions contribute to its overall strategy?

Sebastian Shehadi Deputy Features Editor

“The intimate kill is a key tactic in IS’s interweaving strategy of psychological warfare (PW), media manipulation and state-building.” pre-execution interviews or drawn-out shots of the victim’s face. In sum, the intimate kill portrays IS as frighteningly ruthless and committed.

The horror and indignation of the intimate kill also helps IS provoke its audiences in different ways. For example, IS wants to manipulate the West into a drawn-out, faceto-face war of attrition that will ultimately destroy the West and its “aura of invincibility” – as theorised by Naji. IS believes that the “Crusaders’ invasion” videos also allow IS to articulate identity and narratives. For example, beheading videos simultaneously demonise, disempower and dehumanise the ‘guilty’ victim – which represents the ‘othered’ enemy – whilst empowering and ‘vindicating’ IS. Like others of its kind, the intimate kill video of the Jordanian pilot spends sixteen minutes, prior to the execution, “methodically presenting the jurisprudential, moral, ideological and political reasoning” for the act. Thus,

the intimate kill is a fantastic opportunity for IS to advertise its Caliphate and unique blend of ruthless violence, antimodernity, and Islam. Indeed, because the intimate kill is so foreign to the twenty-first century, it serves to distinguish IS’s identity and to add to its anti-western image, its allegedly Islamic roots, and to the sentiment “we love death as you love life”. Lastly, thanks to the internet, the intimate kill draws disproportionate amounts of international publicity. This has made IS look stronger and more intimidating than it really is, and it may explain why the intimate kill is becoming more creatively depraved as IS looks for new ways to grab headlines.

Through such brutality, IS also seeks to recruit the bloodyminded and those who, as Naji argues, can stomach the grisly reality of jihad.

The intimate kill is also a part of IS’s state-building strategy. IS claims to have established a Caliphate based on Sharia law, as they interpret it.

Therefore, the implementation of hudud, and subsequently the aforementioned ‘hudud intimate kill’, so to speak, is a key component and ‘proof ’ of their ‘Islamic’ legitimacy and iinevitable and necessary part of the impending apocalypse.

IS’s intimate kill of Westerners hostages is, in great part, an attempt to provoke the West and fulfil apocalyptic prophesy.

Indeed, the beheading of Peter Kassig was filmed in Dabiq, the alleged site of the coming apocalyptic battle between the West and IS. Moreover, the executioner frequently goaded the audience, for example, by saying “we eagerly await your army”.

The intimate kill also helps IS provoke sectarianism – especially between Sunnis and Shi’ites – because it believes this is a pious, purifying act and also a prerequisite to the imminent Apocalypse.

Moreover, by fanning the flames of sectarianism IS hopes Shiites will, like the West, overreact and therefore draw ever more Sunnis into IS’s camp. For these reasons IS has intimately killed, so to speak, thousands of Shiites. Provoking sectarianism ties into the third aim of IS’s psychological warfare: “polarising the population”, as Naji conceived it. This means “dragging the masses” into a global, Manichean battle by “inflaming them” through

“Contrary to popular belief, the majority of IS’s media output is targeting Arab speakers, and projecting the image of a utopian Caliphate. ” violent actions, such as the intimate kill, thereby splitting people into two groups, those with and those against IS, those of truth versus those of falsehood – a cartoonish battle of Good versus Evil.

Unlike psychological warfare that only targets opposition groups, IS’s media strategy’s primary target is supporters and potential supporters. Thus, its emphasis is on recruitment, advertising, shaping peoples’ perceptions and spreading IS’s messages as far as possible.

Most scholars agree that the cornerstone of IS’s media message is to present an image of “strength alongside utopian domestic tranquillity”.

Contrary to popular belief, the majority of IS’s media output is targeting Arab speakers, and projecting the image of a utopian Caliphate. Indeed, most propaganda pieces are documenting literally all

aspects of IS’s allegedly perfect Caliphate. The other, and smaller, portion of propaganda is projecting an image of ultraviolence and strength. The intimate kill contributes to both these propaganda projections.

It is essential to IS’s image of strength, but also to that of a functioning and Islamic State that maintains Sharia law and order. Indeed, the intimate kill is an important component of IS’s implementation of hudud – Sharia law punishments, as IS interprets them –– which involves the intimate kill in the form of public beheadings, live burnings, live burials, death by multiple amputations, and death by falling from rooftops.

Similarly, as McCants argues, the intimate kill begs a justification and therefore gives IS another opportunity to evangelise, justify its actions, and ‘prove’ how Islamic their Caliphate is. Another statebuilding purpose for IS’s intimate kill is to maintain coercive-control over their nascent state. . Supposedly, the first thing IS does after capturing a town like Tikrit, is to publicly behead enemy soldiers, or hated minorities, in the street – often displaying their severed heads on pikes. Next, they implement hudud and create ‘hudud public squares’.

IS is clearly using spectacles of violence, in particular the hudud intimate kill, to control their population through fear, and to deter dissention. Some argue that IS are deliberately blunting their citizens’, fighters’, and supporters’ empathy, in an effort to desensitise them and create a “fighting society”, as Naji put it, one that can stomach the bloody reality of war.

This also helps explain, firstly, why IS is encouraging many people – children included – to perpetrate intimate kills, and secondly, why the intimate kill is becoming increasingly depraved as IS becomes, and seeks others to become, ever more callous.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Credit: ytimg.com

ONE OF THE MOST horrific and distinctive features of the Islamic State (IS) is it’s ‘intimate kill’: the face-to-face and public execution of unarmed people by, for example, beheading, burning, crucifixion or shooting.

It is ‘public’ because it is a performance, an open act with an intended audience, such as Caliphate ‘citizens’ gathered in a square, or foreigners watching online-videos. The intimate kill is a key tactic in IS’s interweaving strategy of psychological warfare (PW), media manipulation and state-building.

Jihadists’ use of beheadings and the like long predates IS. However, it was not until 2004, with Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) online beheading of Nicolas Berg, that the use of the intimate kill began in earnest.

Musab Al-Zarqawi, the first leader of AQI, spearheaded this policy. His strategy was greatly influenced by Abu-Bakr Haji’s, The Management of Savagery – the ‘Mein Kampf of Salafi Jihadism’. Zarqawi significantly influenced Abu Bakr AlBaghdadi and, therefore, IS from 2010 onwards. For one, IS would come to perfect Zarqawi’s fusion of ultraviolence and media.

To clarify, psychological warfare involves “the planned use of propaganda and other psychological operations to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behaviour of opposition groups”. Broadly speaking, IS’s psychological warfare targets two enemy audiences, the local and the foreign, the ‘local’ being those – mainly Arabs and Kurds – that IS is physically fighting in Iraq and Syria. Similar to Zarqawi, IS’s psychological warfare aims to intimidate, provoke and polarise these two audiences. The intimate kill – a form of ‘propaganda by deed’ – is particularly effective

vis-a-vis intimidation. Killing a helpless victim, face-to-face, is both disturbing and difficult to undertake, especially when it involves a drawn-out process such as beheading – with a small knife – or being buried or burnt alive. IS’s intimate kill videos exacerbate the horror by filming in high definition, and by making the viewer get to know the victim, so to speak, through

Less Veto and More Action

Features | 15

Aegis students call for the P5 to restrain their use of veto in mass atrocity situations Philip Hamvose Undergraduate student FOR DECADES, STUDENTS have been a driving force of change in political campaigns.

Sparking events such as the 1956 Hungarian Revolution as well as amendments to the Malaysian constitution in 2011, student campaigns have time and time again shown their ability to influence the political agenda.

Even in our own backyard, the LSE Students’ Union has a long standing reputation for being able to mobilize a large body of students, with the aim to influence either the local or global political agenda.

Once again, students across the U.K. and the US are actively trying to exert their influence.

This time to call for the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) to sign an agreement to restrain their use of veto in mass atrocity situations. The student led campaign is supported by the Aegis Trust, a British IGO which works to prevent genocide and mass atrocity situations around the world, and their

American counterpart STAND. China, Russia, France, U.K. and the United States form the permanent five members of the UN Security Council,

“The Aegis Students campaign centres around a proposal made by France, arguing that the P5 should refrain from using their veto in mass atrocity situations.” also known as the P5. Their responsibility is to maintain international peace and security through establishing peace keeping operations, authorizing military action and establishing international sanctions. Along with their permanent position on the UNSC, the P5 are able to veto draft resolutions, and thus block any action the UNSC might

take in a mass atrocity situation, despite their responsibility to maintain international peace.

This responsibility is specifically concerned with genocide and mass atrocity situations through the “Responsibility to Protect” principle, put forth by the UN to define a number of guidelines for the responsibilities and different means of action in situations were mass atrocities might occur.

A direct veto is not always necessary to block a resolution, however. The P5 can also make use of a threat to veto resolutions, what is known as the “pocket veto”, which can be equally damaging, if not more, as the resolutions might not even be presented to the world for fear of an official veto. An example as of late, where vetoes in the UNSC has impacted a mass atrocity situation, is the crisis in Syria, where Russia and China have used their veto four times on resolutions relating to the conflict, resulting in immobilizing the UNSC and causing subsequent increases in violence in target areas.

The Aegis Students campaign centres around a proposal made

by France, arguing that the P5

should refrain from using their veto in mass atrocity situations.

So far, the reactions among the permanent members have been mixed. No member has

“ No member has

given its official support, but by adding pressure on the British government, Aegis Students work to get the U.K. to publicly support the initiative, thus increasing political pressure on the US, Russia and China to follow their lead.” given its official support, but by adding pressure on the British government, Aegis Students work to get the U.K. to publicly support the initiative,

thus increasing political pressure on the US, Russia and China to follow their lead.

A growing support in the UN for commitment to hinder mass atrocity situations is emerging though. In 2013, the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) Group, consisting of 27 UN member states, was launched to improve the UNSC’s working methods.

As part of this work, they have initiated a “Code of Conduct” calling for all current and potential member states to sign a commitment not to stand in the way of credible draft resolutions aimed at ending genocide as well as crimes of war and against humanity.

Students at LSE are working alongside students form universities all over the U.K. to put pressure on the British government to uphold their international responsibilities and actively collaborate with the French and show explicit support for their proposal. So far, 50+ students from 9 universities are actively campaigning to get the P5 to publicly support the French Proposal to restrain their use of veto.

The USA In Decline?

The world order is changing but the USA will still be the most important actor on the global stage

Stefanos Argyros Features Editor IS THE WORLD ORDER changing? What will be the USA’s role in it? These questions are at the heart of what many perceive to be a growing anger and disillusionment borne by many American voters in this election season. The USA seems to be constantly worried about its professed decline. Yet perhaps America’s influence might not be declining as fast as we often think.

The world order is becoming increasingly multipolar, and the USA’s influence will change but will not loose its potency.

The current world order could be tentatively defined as a global system of governance, characterised by the hegemony of the USA within the broader dominance of ‘the West ’. But the emerging narrative outlines a shift of global power from the US to China and the Asia pacific region. There is a strong prima facie argument that the empirical evidence gives credence to this rhetoric: China’s economic growth is spectacular, in particular as it pertains to GDP growth and foreign investment.

Chinese economic relationships with Africa suggests that China can use its economic strength to

exercise influence while proposing a model that purposefully stands in contradistinction with that of the West.

But while this hard power analysis indicates that changes in the world order are occurring, their pace and extent should not be overstated. The USA is still the dominant economic player when it comes to its share in

“Once legitimacy is associated with the concept of power, a hegemon could no longer be able to claim it simply by virtue of its strength. ” global GDP and trade, as well as the most dominant military force.

Moreover, China itself might be taking a long-term perspective on its rise. It still faces considerable structural issues both economically and politically: it must go through an economic transition as its competitiveness might slow down, and prove that its authoritarian rule is compatible with long-term stability. Further, despite China’s initiative in promoting the AIIB,

the major institutions in the world were created by the USA whose ideology and influence are still embedded within them. In addition, despite its distinctive internal politics it is useful to note that China’s economic rise is largely attributable to the adoption of western liberal economics.

Thus, while China’s rise is challenging the USA, it still operates within the existing world order, within its institutions and influenced by its ideologies. In that world order, the USA can exert influence to protect its structural advantages, in particular by using its best asset, which is arguably its soft power through inter alia culture, universities and R&D. This narrative focuses exclusively on horizontal analysis of power between states, and with some merit: states are still the principle actors in international relations.

But a long-term perspective shows that subtle yet significant trends might change the world order. Globalisation has led to more inter-connectedness between actors on different scales, and has contributed to the sense that the world has become multipolar. This has arguably increased the demand for the effective provision of global public goods in a way that is responsive to the international community as a whole. This

community includes a variety of actors, defined by Professor Joseph Nye as “networks”, who do not necessarily express themselves through the medium of the state.

Perhaps more importantly, states do not exist in a vacuum, and the norms promoted by actors `(even individuals and marginalised groups) within and across them might be crucial in predicting their actions and global power shifts.

What might be relevant in such a framework is not just power, but a country’s ‘discount rate’ i.e. its capacity to transform power into desired outcomes. From that perspective the US’s power has declined, notably because of the demise of liberal internationalism but perhaps also as a result of more permanent problems. Even when international liberalism was at its peak, the USA’s foreign policy did not shy away from promoting its own interests often at the expense of others.

The IMF economic austerity plans imposed on Africa in the 90’s is one of many examples.

In a multipolar world, this kind of foreign policy by a hegemon leads to a perception of illegitimacy. Once legitimacy is associated with the concept of power, a hegemon could no longer be able to claim it simply by virtue of its strength. Professor Danny Quah’s intuition that

the legitimacy of the USA has declined righty places legitimacy and normative considerations at the forefront. But China might not be able to fulfil its duties as a world leader any more than the USA can. As an aspiring hegemon, it demonstrates similar tendencies, in particular as it pertains to forms of economic imperialism, which might be detrimental to collective sustainable development goals. The USA’s openness and the EU’s norm setting power might empower them to adapt to this rise of networks and counter-balance China in a multipolar, not hegemonic world.

Conclusively, the world order seems to be changing, albeit to a limited extent: While horizontally global power is shifting from the USA towards China, the former still remains dominant and China’s rise is within the existing world order framework. Yet a more nuanced conception of power based on legitimacy and norm setting is emerging. Imbued within it is the acknowledgement of the importance of collective interests that serve a plethora of institutions and actors. These features compel us to make only cautious predictions about the future, but nonetheless indicate that we are moving towards a more balanced and multipolar world order where the USA is still dominant.

16 | Tuesday 15 March, 2016

Winner of the Young African Achiever Taryana Odayar Executive Editor

(Q) What was it like winning the award and how do you think it will impact or influence your work going forward?

The Young African Achiever Award, number one its an honour to be nominated for it.

So many individuals nominate you for it and so its something that you cannot take for granted.

But to also be the winner; to come out of it as a winner, I think is beyond a lot of people’s dreams. So the award itself; I was nominated in the category for Change Makers - people driving towards socio-economic development on the African continent. Apparently in my category they received over1,500 nominees, so to make it to the final five and even to walk out as a winner, it was something I didn’t dream of.

The other winners included former President Jakaya Kikwete, who was at the time the President of Tanzania. He won an award for his leadership style, and so did Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, Chair Person of African Union, another winner was the musician Diamond Platinumz from Tanzania; a very, very good musician. So to share a platform or to win an award with them, I think just puts everything into perspective. You look at where you’re going and you realise that people are taking note of what you’re achieving. You’re not only achieving that for yourself but you’re achieving that for the communities you’re serving.

(Q) Speaking of empowering others, did growing up in Malawi influence your career aspirations in any way?

Well, growing up in Malawi - its a beautiful country! So I recommend people to visit Malawi - I’ll do a little tourism stint over here - it has the third clearest water in the world! Come over here for swimming, scuba diving, its absolutely beautiful, amazing people, its the warm heart of Africa.

Now, growing up in Malawi, I

(Q) You mentioned that growing up you faced certain difficulties, could you expand on that?

Well, very sadly, I lost both my parents when I was 8 years old.

And it was 3 months apart,

“Well, very sadly, I lost both parents when I was 8 years old. And it was 3 months apart, so that was the challenge” so that was the challenge. Its something that happens in life and you get over it - well, you never really get over it - but you look at the positives, you look at your parents as role models, so you look at them and try to find out a bit more about them and you move on from there. What you do is you try to create a life whereby you make them proud, whilst at the same time trying to inspire many other people. I’m not the first person to lose their parents, I won’t be the last. This is a constant situation that will take place around the world.

But these were the difficulties I experienced at a young age. But I think it also helped me in being a bit more independent, also a bit more focused. You know that nothing will last forever, so you make the most of the opportunities you have, you grab them with both hands and you

appreciate them.

(Q) And has the role played by the youth in Malawian governance increased since the time of the Dictatorship in the 1960s?

So Malawi was under a one-party regime from the early ‘60s until about 1994, when the multiparty system came into play.

During that period, the Hastings Kamuzu Banda era, a lot more younger people were involved in the governance structures. At the same time there were also a lot more political persecutions and all the different things that come with a Dictatorship. But the leadership of Kamuzu Banda, I think a lot of Malawians look back and say, actually that was quite a good leadership despite these numerous challenges of what they were providing to the people. The population was also probably a lot smaller, a lot easier to handle at that time. But what I see today is that we are getting a few young people in, but not the sort of numbers we’d like to see. What we need to remember right now is that Africa is a young continent, especially given that we are the youngest continent, and estimates as a whole show that about 60% of the population is considered as youth. So we are looking at vast amounts of the population, and leadership in Africa is mostly over the age of 60.

twitter.com

Interviews

JAMES WOODS NKHUTABASA is the Malawian winner of the 2015 Young African Achiever Award in the Change Maker Category, for the outstanding development initiatives he has taken both in and around Africa. He is an alumnus of the LSE, having graduated with a Masters in Social Policy and Development. Our discussion took place a few days after President of Malawi Peter Mutharika’s visit to Chatham House on November 30th last year.

was born into quite a well-to-do family. My father was an English expat based in Malawi and my mother was a Malawian lady.

But due to unfortunate turns, I experienced a few difficulties.

But I think those difficulties really make you appreciate what you had. So I think that is what moulded me into looking at how I can actually better serve people.

So it wasn’t about ‘let me go there and be the best for myself ’, but ‘let me go out there and be the best for others’. And Malawi is a very poor country, so on a daily basis you are constantly reminded of the poverty around you. So I think its very hard for you not to be motivated by that around you and to say that you want to actually turn observations into obligations.

So these observations about poverty turned into obligations to empower these people to come out of their poverty, to be better human beings, to be more empowered, to have a political voice, more economic independence, a better education. So I think that has highly influenced me.

Interviews | 17

Award 2015, James Woods Nkhutabasa (Q) Regarding the leadership in Malawi, what do your fellow Malawians think of President Mutharika so far?

Its been over a year since he was elected, so whats the consensus regarding the President?

President Peter Mutharika won the election in 2014, taking over from the previous administration of HE Joyce Banda. He’s come into the country at quite a difficult time, that’s probably the first thing to address. The country was facing the Cashgate scandal, where there was a lot of money ciphered out of the system. Number two, donors had actually pulled out a lot of budgetary support from the country, so you’re coming into a country which is heavily reliant on donor support; 40% of the GDPwas provided by the donor community. So to have that withdrawn, as you can imagine, brings a lot of problems with it.

If you fast forward a bit to January 2015, President Mutharika also had the misfortune of his country experiencing major flooding.

Malawi is heavily reliant on agriculture, so you’ve got major flooding where most of the agriproduce is destroyed, people losing their livelihoods, people’s houses washed away. In terms of the leadership itself, as an individual I would like to see a bit more from President Peter Mutharika. I think so far he is doing a good job. He was recently in London trying to attract more donors to Malawi, and I think what is being done right now is actually being approved of a lot more and I think he knows that himself. I think he actually addressed that in one of the talks he did in London, saying that there is a lot more that needs to be done and that he needs a lot more international cooperation to support him in initiatives that are taking place.

So my personal perception is that with these challenges it is a little bit difficult for him, but as long as it can go the right way, I think he is implementing the right sort of strategies in terms of revamping the public sector, so there are public sector reforms, and trying to get the rest of the people in positions so that they can influence the right decisions. But at the same time, politics is politics. You may have the right ideas, but its also a matter of who surrounds you and who’s implementing those changes. So you may find these changes are taking a lot longer than they should. Overall, if I had to give him a score out of 10, I would give him a 6 out of 10, and I would say that I believe he can do a lot better than that.

(Q) As you said, politicians

“... we are still very much a small country that is reliant on the outside world... we are one of the least developed countries, one of the poorest countries.” are only as effective as the people around them, so do you think that President Mutharika is surrounded by the right people?

I think that the President has some interesting individuals in his core team. They can support him, but I think the aspect here is actually streamlining on what it is they really want to focus on. Where they see the developmental challenges, where they see the gains, and narrowing it and really focusing on those. And the key thing is very much about getting the country around you; you have to amass the support of the people who voted you into power. So you need to get them to have a shared vision with you; they should understand your vision, they should believe in that vision. And the moment you get the whole country behind you - of course you won’t get the whole country but at least the majority - and seeing that vision, then I think you’re on the right path. And I think thats where the biggest challenge is; getting the entire country to see that vision. I do believe that once they include some structure into their communications and how they relate to the general population this will be achieved. That is my hope for Malawi, and also beyond that, it is my hope for President Mutharika to succeed as Head of State for Malawi.

(Q) As part of his vision, President Mutharika wants Malawi to be self-sufficient within the next five years.

Do you think that this is a realistic or attainable goal? *Chuckles* The short answer is No! I personally don’t think it will be achieved in 5 years; 5 years is a very short time.

Right now we’re still trying to regain our donor confidence, our international community confidence. As I said before, we are still very much a small country that is reliant on the outside world to support us.

And there’s also the aspect of the Malawian economy which

is heavily reliant on agriculture, and we’re prone to extreme weather conditions so our economy is not as stable as it should be. We have high inflation rates, high interest rates. We are heavily reliant on Tobacco; as you do know Tobacco prices globally are going down. So there are numerous issues to look at.

Then there is the aspect of infrastructure development, because for us to diversify our economy to the point that we become self-sufficient, this means we need to start improving infrastructure, particularly in the energy sector. Our energy systems are absolutely appalling with constant electricity blackouts. So for a country to grow, you need a constant supply of energy to actually go to these key areas of GDP growth of a country. Beyond that, also, there

“A politically difficult example would be the case of homosexuality.

The West would say we will give aid to you as long as you respect these gay laws.

As a leader you would say that you want to promote gay laws in the country, but you know that your population is not going to react well to it.” is the general infrastructure of building more roads and making everything more accessible.

The advantage we do have is that we are a part of Southern African Development Community (SADC), COMESA, so we have trading partners that we trade with, but even within Africa its quite extensive to transfer goods between our own borders and sometimes its cheaper to get goods from China to Africa. So it would probably be cheaper for me to buy produce from China and ship it to Malawi rather than from Cameroon which is on the same continent.

So in Cairo, they signed

the tripartite trade agreement, which is looking at more regional integration, opening up the borders to make everything more accessible. So this could help in the long term, but 5 years is too short a timeframe. Malawi is also trying to improve access to its neighbours, so they did the Nacala corridor linking Malawi to Mozambique, making it easier for the transportation of goods to Mozambique. But just going back to it, I’d say 5 years is a bit optimistic in my opinion.

(Q) China and the West have very different strategies when investing and giving aid to African countries.

With the West its more to do with conditionalities, and with China its more of a business relationship. Are either of these strategies preferable to the other?

Well first of all I think we should start thinking away from aid. But if you look at certain countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Germany and Japan, after the second World War they received aid for reparation, but they paid that aid back within 20 years.

If you look at Africa, 60 years later we are negotiating our next aid package and the conditions around it, which I think is quite wrong. We should look at moving away from aid and being more self-sufficient, which as you said Peter Mutharika was talking about it happening within the next 5 years.

But going back to your question of China and the West, China’s aid to Africa, and Malawi in particular in my opinion has been quite beneficial in terms of infrastructure in Malawi. They built a parliament building, there’s a Malawian University of Science and Technology, so trying to expand the Technology space which was a sector of expertise that Malawi was missing. So in terms of infrastructure they’ve been more lenient, but the criticism is that the Chinese would turn away

“And the key thing is very much about getting the country around you; you have to amass the support of the people who voted you into power.” from human rights abuses, they would look away from conflict, from bad governance, as long as they put money in and they get what they need, and you get

what you need, they’re happy.

And there’s also the argument that the Chinese use their own workforce to build the infrastructure rather than utilising the domestic workforce.

But in my opinion, I would say China as of late, has been a wonderful partner to Malawi.

I think Malawi needs more infrastructure - we are one of the least developed countries, one of the poorest countries. I do think we need as much support as necessary. The West as you said has too many conditions tied to it, which at some points is quite difficult because some countries cannot meet these conditions or are not ready to meet these conditions yet.

A politically difficult example would be the case of homosexuality. The West would say we will give aid to you as long as you respect these gay laws.

As a leader you would say that you want to promote gay laws in the country, but you know that your population is not going to react well to it. So some of these conditions are a little bit difficult.

And the way it is as well, is that Africa is governed by Africans.

I think we cannot always live in a way whereby conditions are handed down to you, where ‘this is what you have to do to gain this.’ The West has alway been a great partner, minus the colonial period! They used to be our colonial powers, our official language is Chichewa, based on English law, the private schools in Malawi are based on the english schooling system.

If relations could be improved that would be great because we already have this close tie with them already.

Where the West has missed out, is since 2009, China has really been pumping a lot of money to Africa, and they’ve seen that, so I think they’ve gone far ahead of the West.

I think it was in 2009 where they beat America in being the biggest investors in the African continent. Just two days ago, the President of China was in South Africa, pledging $6.5 billion for infrastructure and development.

He also promised that by 2025 he will have pumped in over $ 1 trillion worth of investment in the African continent. The other good thing about China is that they’re not only looking at agriculture, or mining or healthcare, but they’re also looking at improving education.

The West was very much about looking at democracy structures, primary school education and living standards. The Chinese looked at higher education, how more Africans can be empowered in terms of higher education. But as I said, this is open for debate and everyone has their own opinion on this.

18 | Tuesday 15 March, 2016

TEDxLSE 2016 ; Off the Record : Stories Untold, Taryana Odayar Executive Editor THE ANNUAL TEDXLSE conference was held on Sunday 13th March, at the LSE’s Old Theatre. As a conference designed to “support innovation, critical thinking and leadership for meaningful change”, TEDxLSE drew a range of impressive speakers from across the UK, Europe, and even the United States.

What made the conference even more engaging however, was the fact that two of the speakers included LSE postgraduates Joelle Eid and My Lan Nguyen, who presented their own original and thought-provoking stories.

These perfectly fitted the theme of this year’s conference, which was, “Off the Record: Stories Untold.” The Beaver caught up with them to discuss their work and journeys thus far.

Joelle Eid is an MSc Media and Communications student at LSE. Prior to this, she acted as spokesperson for the UN World Food Programme and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Lebanon and Jordan, covering the Syrian crisis. She was recently in Lebanon making a documentary for Polis about the coverage of the refugee crisis. Her Tedx talk was on her experience with refugees from Syria in South Lebanon, emphatically stating that, “Growing up, the stories of other people mattered.”

(Q) What inspired you to start your initiative, and what sort of impact has your work had so far?

For four years and just before I came to LSE, I worked with the UN World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations High Commissioner

for Refugees (UNHCR) on the Syria crisis. I was a spokesperson, which means my job was to communicate the stories of that war to everyone who would listen.

My TEDx talk, “Why Stories Matter”, highlights the individual stories of the people who have been forcibly displaced from their homes in war-torn Syria and are now refugees in the neighbouring countries, some even found their way to Europe, the US and Canada.

“Refugees turn into just numbers and no matter how much content you put out there, through the media or through online social platforms, nothing works.”

(Q) Why did you want to speak at TEDxLSE and how important a role does the conference play in getting your message across?

I have spoken about this topic, the plight of refugees, through different mediums with different audiences. TEDx is a platform for young people who are in the process of shaping

the views they will take as they enter the next stage in life.

Providing a personal take on that war and the people I met from it, is in the very least, a way for me to pay tribute to hundreds of families I have met over the years. If I’m lucky, then the people hearing those human stories would become

as passionate and as curious as I am about them.

(Q) What has been the biggest challenge in your work and how did you overcome it?

You get to a point during a humanitarian crisis where people stop listening. Refugees turn into just numbers and no matter how much content you put out there, through the media or through online social platforms, nothing works. This is when you start thinking you have failed these people who have nothing left by their honest words and experiences.

How do you overcome it? You don’t stop.

You spend more time in the field, in refugee camps and running after journalists. You dig deeper and you ask more questions. Someone eventually will start listening again.

blogs.lse.ac.uk

Interviews | 19

with LSE’s Joelle Eid and My Lan Nguyen MY LAN NGUYEN IS one of the founders of Tape That; a successful and highly original artistic venture that has taken her across the globe, showcasing the business’s artwork. My Lan describes Tape That as an opportunity to create something new out of an everyday object: tape.

With roots in the urban art movement, Tape That uses colorful tape, light installations, and even minimalist black and white murals to create interesting and eye-catching art. Their tape artworks can be found in a variety of places, such as underground nightclubs, abandoned buildings, showrooms and galleries. Whilst focused mainly on Berlin, Tape That is active in many other cities, nationally and internationally, with recent and ongoing projects in Egypt (Cairo, Minya), Spain (Palma de Mallorca), Qatar (Doha), Bulgaria (Sofia), Cambodia (Phnom Penh, Battam Bang), and the UK (London).

My Lan’s TEDx talk was centred around the idea that you do not always have to believe in yourself in order to succeed.

(Q) What inspired you to start your initiative, and what sort of impact has your work had so far?

What inspired me to do the TED talk were basically past personal experiences. I always try to learn lessons out of positive as well as negative experiences. Some of these lessons I have tried to put into simple ideas which could improve your everyday life.

One of these lessons I learned is the idea I am trying to deliver in my TED Talk, and that is about “Why you dont have to believe in yourself.”

The initiative that I started with friends of mine gave me valuable experiences in the past. It brought us together with so many interesting and inspiring people. At the same time, we are very grateful that we have met people who are interested in what we are doing and we are hoping to inspire other people with our work as well.

(Q) Why did you want to speak at TEDxLSE and how important a role does the conference play in getting your message across?

TEDx is one of the most

“TEDx is one of the most successful and popular platforms for spreading innovative, inspiring and empowering ideas.” successful and popular platforms for spreading innovative, inspiring and empowering ideas. I myself enjoy watching TED Talks a lot. I also have watched many TED talks that have inspired me in my everyday life.

Getting my message across by TEDxLSE was a way to give something back to the TEDx community. I was hoping to give other people the same positive feeling that I had when watching TED talks, by delivering empowering and motivating ideas - at least I hope that’s how people feel when listening to my talk.

(Q) What has been the biggest challenge in your work and how did you overcome it?

The biggest challenge during the TEDxLSE process was to apply for the students competition at all. I was not sure if my idea is significant enough. So, at first I hesitated when applying for the competition. But then again I thought I had nothing to lose and now I am grateful that I participated and hope I can inspire people with what I am trying to say in my TED talk.

Interested in interviewing someone for the Beaver?

Email us at: editor@ thebeaveronline. co.uk tapethatcollective.com

20 | Tuesday 15 March, 2016

FOOD

14

REVIEW

DIRTY BONES BRUNCH Caroline Schurman-Grenier BRUNCH IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL CONCEPT EVER INVENTED by mankind. No exaggeration. There is nothing better than being able to roll out of bed on the weekend and eat as much as you can because it counts as breakfast and lunch. Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

The question is, where can you go in London? I get it; the amount of choice is overwhelming. That is why I am here to help you out. If you’re in Central London, I recommend giving Dirty Bones a try. They just opened a new venue near Carnaby Street, so you can brunch and then go shopping.

Perfect Saturday? I think so.

Dirty Bones wishes it were in America, you can see it from the choices on the menu. Fried chicken and waffles, steak and eggs, mac & cheese…are we complaining? Absolutely not. London needs a little taste of America once in a while; please, no more full English breakfast for me. The restaurant is opened for weekend brunch and dinner, so obviously it looks more like an evening restaurant than a brunch place. It still looks very cool, I must admit. An open kitchen, a gorgeous bar (I tend to like places that take attention to a nice layout of alcohol) and nice benches to sit and enjoy your meal… I loved the décor.

This is absolutely the perfect place to go to if you’re in the mood for a boozy brunch. They have an extensive list of cocktails to please every taste bud AND they offer bottomless Prosecco for only 19 pounds. That’s right, you can drink as much bubbly as you want for only 19 pounds. If bubbly is not your thing, I recommend their drink made up of vodka, bubbly, and lemon juice, or even their take on a Bloody Mary: spicy and refreshin If you haven’t already closed this paper and headed to Dirty Bones, let me lure even more by the food. I’ve mentioned a few dishes but they also have peanut butter waffles, milkshakes, breakfast fries with eggs and hot sauce, and so much more. If you’re more of a sweet brunch person, you don’t have that much choice, but that’s fine. You’ll enjoy the food, the vibe and the drinks and it will make up for it. As per usual, I am not recommending a super expensive brunch venue you cannot afford. We’re taking less than 15 pounds for food, but obviously you’ll want to order a drink so it may cost you a little more. It’s all worth it. Everyone deserves a weekend treat, am I right?

Find them here: Dirty Bones, Top Floor, Carnaby St, Soho W1B 5PW

part

B

PartB

Flo Edwards Kemi Akinboyewa Vikki Hui

editorial team fashion Jamie Lloyd Maria Maleeva music Rob Funnell Will Locke

film

food & lifestyle

literature

Sarah Ku Alexander Lye Camila Arias Tom Sayner Caroline Schurman-Grenier Buritica Sean Tan technology theatre visual arts Edward Tan

Noah D’Aeth

Yo-en Chin

MUSIC

21

LOSING HIS EDGE? WHY THE RETURN OF LCD SOUNDSYSTEM MATTERS

Thomas H. Sheriff LOOKING BACK ON LCD Soundsystem’s ‘Losing My Edge’, it now seems an incredibly risky first single for James Murphy’s then-new project. A lengthy, mostly spoken word track that is essentially an extended piss-take of its potential listeners (insufferable, cooler-than-thou music snobs) — it had every chance of being a spectacular failure, but it turned out to be one of 2002’s best songs, and had all the ‘cool’ people dancing to its tune. Murphy quips about “the art-school Brooklynites in little jackets and borrowed nostalgia for the unremembered eighties” — in another’s hands, this lyric could be snidely unpleasant, but it’s placed within a track that is an eighties throwback itself and delivered with an eyebrow more arched than the Brooklyn Bridge. Its incisiveness stops just short of malice and any cynicism it might have is lost in the compulsively danceable instrumentation.

Contradictions like these form the basis of much of LCD Soundsystem’s work. Murphy

is on both sides of the joke: he laughs at foolish drunk people before downing his drink and jumping onto the dance floor. If he didn’t make the jokes, he would be just another dancing idiot; if he wasn’t victim to the jokes himself, he would be that idiot who thinks he’s too cool to dance. This approach makes LCD Soundsystem a delicate balancing act: Murphy must be smart but not aloof; fun but not dumb; nostalgic but not merely revivalist.

What is remarkable, then, is the consistent quality of his output.

After a string of excellent singles, the band released an eponymous debut full-length in 2005 (the term ‘band’ is used loosely — James Murphy is credited with ‘most sounds’ on the album). The LP proved that LCD Soundsystem were a real entity that made real music, not just the side-project of a record producer. Two more albums (three, if you count the Nike fitness collaboration 45:33) in the following five years showed Murphy’s commitment to the band, and to making impeccable music. Using a mishmash

of sounds (punk, house, acid, new wave, prog), with easily recognisable influences from other music (New Order, Talking Heads), he crafted a startlingly good discography without a weak link. LCD Soundsystem curated the sounds of past eras into songs that were fresh, relevant, whip-smart, and downright good fun to dance to.

It is, however, easy to see where criticisms can come from. Some say Murphy’s music is fundamentally insincere: the constant irony combined with the sonic nostalgia could make LCD Soundsystem seem like simply a gimmicky exercise in homage. However, this notion is dispelled for two reasons. The first lies in Murphy’s irony-free, unapologetically human songs: ‘Someone Great’ is a starkly painful song about the death of his therapist; ‘All I Want’ is surprisingly self-deprecating in amongst its twinkling electronics.

The second reason is that, regardless of irony or nostalgia, LCD Soundsystem’s songs work outside of their own terms. It is possible to listen to the albums and just dance to the killer beats, being

part

guided by the pulsing synth lines and kept on your toes by the live instrumentation and punkish energy — the songs don’t need to be clever. LCD Soundsystem make great dance tracks, simple as that.

So, what happened after 2010? Murphy announced that their 2011 show at Madison Square Garden (documented by a live album and a film) would be their last, and that LCD Soundsystem were no more.

Strangely, fans were mostly okay with that: we had three amazing albums to treasure, whose legacy was secure. But at the end of last year, Murphy released an LCD Soundsystem Christmas song.

Then it was revealed that they would headline Coachella. Then we found out that another album will be released this year. Hopefully, Murphy can keep up the balancing act he’s always performed as LCD Soundsystem, but the chances of releasing three consecutive great albums were slim, and now he’s set himself the task of making another. Good luck.

But why would he choose to reunite the band after be-

B

ing seemingly so intent on never doing so? The answer seems to link all the way back to ‘Losing My Edge’: then, he was criticising those who glorify the eighties whilst paying homage to his favourite eighties bands; now, he has criticised bands who overstay their welcome whilst risking going on too long himself. Because of this, we have every reason to be optimistic about the new music — these contradictions have always been the appeal of LCD Soundsystem. He just can’t resist making music, as much as he’d like to. Is James Murphy losing his edge? We’ll have to wait and see, but the answer will decide how he is remembered forever — king of the in-crowd or uncool has-been.

“He just can’t resist making music, as much as he’d like to.”

22 | Tuesday 8 March, 2016 14

STEVE MCCURRY AT BEEDLES & HUXLEY

ART

Yo-en Chin The works of Steve McCurry, a renowned photojournalist, are on display and sale in Beetles & Huxley. The rather small gallery is currently displaying the best and most famous of his photographs, and for all you non-National Geographic fans, you should at least recognise the ‘Afghan Girl’ that was shot in 1984. Interestingly, McCurry went back to Afghanistan in 2002 in search of the subject of arguably one of the most famous photographs, and he supposedly found her - Sharbat Gula. Likened to ‘the First World’s Third World Mona Lisa’, her eyes held a haunting quality that I was mesmerised by.

However, though most widely recognised, the ‘Afghan Girl’ was not McCurry’s only success. He has an eye for portraits that somehow got messages across and these usually unsmiling faces all have stories behind them. The smoking coal miner, the people of Tibet, the boy mid-flight in Jodphur, a snapshot of a moment that seems to have so much history behind it, so much colour and so much culture. This would be due to the fact that he goes where many do not, he was there during the Soviet-Afghan War, the Cambodian Civil War, the Gulf War, right in the middle of conflict and often capturing the struggles and the suffering. He travelled India by rail and said that things revealed themselves to him as time went on, seeing things that he would not have seen before.

The gallery will be showcasing his work until the 19th of March and isn’t too far from LSE so be sure to just drop by. And if somehow you have 5000 quid to spare, definitely buy a print of one of his photographs and immediately, you will seem so much more cultured. Alternatively, go for the insta feed.

LITERATURE THOUGHTS VENTURING INTO YOUNG ADULT FICTION 23

Camila Arias Buritica MUCH OF MY TIME AS A YOUNG ADULT HAS BEEN SPENT pretending that I am not a young adult, especially in my reading habits. I didn’t want to read anything in the ‘YA fiction’ section, because I was not a young adult, but simply an adult, thank you very much. Perhaps it was the shock of oncoming actual adulthood that did it for me, or the influx of gripping adaptations of YA fiction, or a mixture of the two, but I became increasingly intrigued in what was actually lurking in the YA section, and decided to read a selection of the most popular recent YA books.

THE 100 – KASS MORGAN This book is everything that I thought was terrible about YA fiction. Looking back, I don’t even know how I managed to get through this book. The story centres on 100 teenagers, sent to Earth from the spaceship where humans have been living since a devastating nuclear war, to see if the planet is inhabitable.

This could potentially be a great storyline, and you only need to look at the TV show to see that, but the novel takes this and dumbs it down to a love triangle, and the world building was bordering on tragic. This is not, as I was hoping, about a group of teenagers struggling to survive in a post-apocalyptic universe, it’s a romance between three teenagers who do incredibly stupid things for ‘love’.

I’LL GIVE YOU THE SUN – JANDY NELSON Thankfully, the next book flipped my perceptions of the YA genre upside down.

The story centres around twins Noah and Jude. They are inseparable at 13, until they begin competing for a place at a local art school. A family trauma is the final straw that causes their relationship to collapse. It is narrated from alternating perspectives, with Noah telling the story of their relationship breakdown, and Jude picking up the story 3 years later as she tries to pick up the pieces.

What takes this book to the next level is that author Jandy Nelson touches on so many huge issues, from loss and grief, to sexuality, rape, alcoholism and drug addictions. It’s both heart-breaking and uplifting, and the characters’ voices pull you into the story so that you can’t put the book down.

THE QUEEN OF THE TEARLING – ERIKA JOHANSEN Kelsea is a princess who has been raised in hiding since her mother’s assassination. On her 18th birthday, she is fetched to rule her kingdom; only she doesn’t actually know anything about it. Once you look past the unrealistic premise, that anyone would think a child with no knowledge of a country could rule it, the book is pretty enjoyable. I liked that she is determined, principled and independent character, and that there was no love story; the focus was simply on her getting to grips with being Queen. However, the main flaw was just how slow it is. The big moments all happen in the first half, and although there is a constant threat of an invasion, this never happens. Instead, it has been left for the sequel, aptly named ‘The Invasion of the Tearling’. Now, I appreciate that series are fun, but you can’t justify nothing happening in your book by saying that something will happen in the second.

A COURT OF THORNS AND ROSES – SARAH J MAAS Although this was described online as a retelling of Beauty and the Beast, it’s actually not got much in common with the Disney story after the first half.

When Feyre kills a magical creature while hunting, justice demands that she repay a life with a life. She is forced to spend the remainder of her days living with the monster that owned the creature. She, of course, falls in love with the monstrous villain who isn’t actually a villain or monstrous but actually very good looking (this is YA romance, after all), but this all happens by the halfway point. The rest of the book is Feyre saving the day again and again, doing everything from battling actual monsters to solving riddles. I liked that there was a lot more to this book than a simple reformulation of the story that we all know, and I liked that the central character felt like she had stepped out of an action movie.

IN CONCLUSION… My incredibly small-scale research project into young adult fiction showed me that YA fiction, like all fiction, ranges from the truly terrible to the truly great. I’ve learned that it’s not nearly as bad as I thought it would be, and that YA is a genre that is taking risks, like tackling traditional fairy-tales, time travel, dystopias, in a way that fiction in the adult section can be quite anxious to tackle. I tended to like YA protagonists, and I wish I had had some of the female leads when I was a teenager, rather than the angst-ridden characters I was often stuck with. On the other hand, it seems that YA hasn’t completely gotten over love triangles yet. The biggest frustration that I had by far was that, as so much of YA fiction is in the form of trilogies or even longer series, there seems to be a trend of not much happening in one book with the promise of it picking up in the next, which can feel like a bit of a rip-off.

Overall, I’m glad I decided to give YA fiction a go. Even though YA fiction isn’t perfect, no genre of fiction can boast a complete repertoire of flawless books. YA is no different.

14

24

FILM

| Tuesday 15 March, 2016

REVIEW

HAPPY TOGETHER (1997)

Sarah Ku RELEASED IN 1997 ON THE CUSP of the Hong Kong handover, “Happy Together” follows Lai Yiu-fai’s journey in Argentina as a traveller from Hong Kong.

On the way to the Iguazu Falls, Lai Yiu-fai (Tony Leung) argues and breaks up with his boyfriend, Ho Po-wing (Leslie Cheung).

Yiu-fai finds a job as a receptionist at a tango bar in Buenos Aires and spends his time greeting Chinese tourists. He hopes to save up and return to Hong Kong while he struggles to get out of the dysfunctional relationship with Po-wing.

In comparison to the director’s previous productions, “Happy Together” is a much more raw and gritty film. Yiu-fai and Po-wing are the yin and yang in the film. Yiu-fai is reserved and caring, whereas Po-wing is playful and prone to violent outbursts. Even though Yiu-fai takes care of the injured Po-wing by cooking for him and washing him, Po-wing is unable to settle for stability. He constantly turns to promiscuous rendezvous and relationships with other men, which is heartbreaking to Yiu-fai. Yet, while the pair has a turbulent relationship that is both physically and mentally abusive, their presence continuously haunts each other as they fail to leave their violent relationship. The story studies their tug-of-war relationship and revolves around their co-dependency, and follows Yiu-fai’s gradual recovery and letting go.

It dives into the characters’ loneliness and enables the overflowing emotions to spread throughout the film.

Working with his usual cinematographer Christopher Doyle, Wong Kar-wai instils the melancholic film with breathtaking cinematography and a myriad of

cinematic techniques. Instead of filming in Hong Kong, which is the usual location for his films, Wong Kar-wai brings us to Buenos Aires. While the location adds a foreign feel to the film, it places the lead characters into the status of lonely outsiders. The film also shifts from the use of black and white to oversaturated colours from time to time. Although the change of colour does not have much literary or symbolic significance, it helps to enrich the visual experience. A yellow tint is often present across the screen, which further injects a touch of nostalgia that echoes the underlying themes of memory and reminiscence. The frequent use of a handheld camera also puts viewers as observers who can have intimate glimpses into the lead characters’ everyday life.

Some have criticised the film for lacking a rich plotline. “Happy Together” has an intensive focus on the development of the pair’s relationship, but it mostly focuses on the predictable on-and-off changes until the arrival of Chang, an upbeat Taiwanese man who prompts Yiu-fai’s to leave the turbulent relationship and lightens up the mood of the film. Perhaps Wong Kar-wai hopes to showcase film’s fundamental ability to express universal emotions that transcend across boundaries without the recourse to detailed plotlines. Viewers are more than equipped to fill in the gaps and utilise their own interpretation. It has also been suggested that the film is an allegory to the relationship between Hong Kong and Mainland China before the 1997 handover.

All in all, perhaps “Happy Together” is a mood piece and an in-depth character study rather than a full-fledged drama. But who is to say it is a bad thing when the film is a must-see masterpiece for cinema lovers?

25

PARTB

SADL UP FOR A PARTY! The Student Ambassador for Digital Literacy Programme (SADL) is ready to celebrate its achievements.

In its third year, the programme run by LTI and the Library offers students and staff an opportunity to learn, share and collaborate in workshops and surgeries to produce resources fit for the 21st century.

Staff will present the ambassadors with certificates and there will be a prize draw for the best SADL blog post.

Students will present the projects they have been working on for the past few weeks, and tell us about their ideas for improving learning at LSE, learning spaces and peer support.

JOIN US On Wednesday 16th March from 5-9pm in the LSESU Activities Studio, 6th Floor Saw Swee Hock Student Centre.

Please book now using Eventbrite at http://bit.ly/24FmJCQ or email Sonia Gomes at s.gomes@lse.ac.uk.

NabBook Messenger

Conversations

General Secretary Race 8 people (only two actually running)

N R M W H T N R M W A N

Paul Myners Inactive

Nona: Guys, seriously. WTF?!

Rayhan: I didn’t say anything, just that the Jews want to take over the LSE Maxwell: Yes Rayhan, because that’s not a big thing at all Wurr: Maxwell, fuck off, why is your campaign not fucked yet?!

Hitchens: Taryana, you promised to publish our article Taryana: Stop over-sensationalising absolutely everything in life.

Nona: Rayhan, get your shit together, you’ve got to apologise

Craig Calhoun On his way out

Rayhan: How about a non-apology apology?

Maxwell: No, that will not do. I am not the leader of some Zionist conspiracy Wurr: Maxwell, you’re not a leader full stop.

Anonymous former GenSec: I’ve sent a letter of complaint to the Labour party Nona: Well you certainly aren’t Stolling on that one

Anonymous SU Staff Member Unavailable

***Anonymous former GenSec left the conversation***

RW RON: I think I’ve got a shot now

M

Maxwell: This’d be the face I’d pull if you win Paul Kelly Always there

N J H

Nona: LOL

Harry Maxwell Inactive

Jasmina: Is anti-Semitism Racism?

Hitchens: That’s awful Jasmina, you and Aysha should resign. ***Liam Hill joined the conversation***

Victory statement from RON May the farce be with you Rayhan.

The people have spoken, and they have said “Fuck off”. Maxwell, you know who sends a message: “You’re fucking fired.”

The NAB would like to thank RON for their contribution to the General Secretary Election race. It provided a certain wit and humour that kept us all going through the darkness of the mud-slinging. Mischief managed. Always.

NUS EXTRA: THE ESSENTIAL STUDENT DISCOUNT CARD Available to buy from the LSESU Shop and online: www.nus.org.uk/en/nus-extra

AND MUCH MORE

28 | Tuesday 15 March 2016

Adblock: The War on Adverts Adblocking improves the individual’s experience - at what cost?

The City

Section Editor: Alex Gray Deputy Editors: Henry Mitchell

Gil Caldwell-Dunn LSE Undergraduate THE JOURNALISM INDUSTRY is on course for a digital future.

Evident from The Independent’s recent movement to end print production, having an online presence is arguably more important than ever, and the advertising that provides such a significant amount of revenue to the industry has to move with the times and adapt to existing predominantly online. However, there is a recent phenomenon that is threatening both the entire online advertising industry and the life of digital journalism itself: the “ad-blocking war”.

Global web Index says that 40 per cent of the world’s internet users have installed some sort of ad blocker, and its use is on track to continue its meteoric rise.

From the perspective of the media industry, this software spells real trouble. After all, who would want to pay blogs, newspapers and apps in exchange for posting

“Is the spike in ad-blocking usage actually a message from fed up consumers that enough is enough?” their ads when 40% of internet users simply won’t see them? On one side of the coin, users should accept that when browsing as much free content as they do they have entered a ‘contract’ agreeing that various firms can advertise to them, however they choose. By installing software that simply removes all adverts on their screens, consumers are essentially breaching this contract and taking the entire online journalism industry for a ride - you can’t get something for nothing.

On the flip side, one might

Youtube

empathise with today’s online audience, who have to sit through ads flying across the screen, blocking text, creating irritating noises and often tricking you into clicking on them against your will. Can we really blame them for sidestepping the media industry through the use of a free easy-

“The adblocking war has appeared to shift power from media moguls, into the open hands of adblocker software creators” to-download piece of software?

Moreover, there is the major problem of advertisers siphoning every bit of personal data they can, following all our online movements and tearing down the wall of privacy that any internet user should be entitled to. Is the spike in ad-blocking usage actually a message from fed up consumers that enough is enough?

Perhaps this signals the need for a small revolution in the way online advertisers will now have to play their game if they, and the online publications they support, want to survive.

The ad-blocking war is being waged in an increasingly tactical manner, with each side enforcing more cunning strategies, and the conflict gradually turning ugly.

The ad-blocking software providers themselves have begun accepting payments from publishers to ensure adverts still display on their website, even with the software installed, according to Simon Fox at an Enders Analysis conference. Adblock Plus has begun an ‘Acceptable Ads’ program, in which the publisher’s ads also have to meet certain criteria to allow them through the software’s filters. It seems as though

the ad-blockers now hold power over where the line is drawn with invasive advertising, and are in such a position to represent consumer browsing interests in terms of bargaining with, and even dictating to, advertisers.

This also suggests the need for revolutionising advertising, in that there is now increasing pressure on advertisers to become more innovative online and engage with consumers in a more considerate, and less bothersome manner. Also something of a technology war, publishers are now seeking new software packages that can detect ad-blockers, and then simply block those using them from it’s site, or reduce visible content. Ad-blocker creators, on the other hand, seek even more complex software and technology that can help them stay undetectable and allow users to browse without being blocked from publishing sites.

Tension between publishers and digital companies has arisen from the war on ads. The customer-focused firm Apple announced for iOS 9 that that it would include content-blocking extensions for Safari, which to most consumers seemed like the fulfilment of their expectations, but to publishers it meant very bad news indeed. Given that Safari has a 25% share of all mobile web browsing according to StatCounter, this meant very real losses for publisher revenues, as the incentives for advertisers to move to tangible, outdoor content became much more apparent.

There may be some slightly more ethical solutions to this conflict of interests, however. Google is on course to launch it’s ‘Contributor’ project, which blocks out adverts but also gives users an opportunity to donate money to publishers whose adverts they have evaded. Tapping into the uprise of the socially responsible generation of consumers, this has the possibility to be successful in the future, given that those

browsing are altruistic enough to hold up their end of the freecontent bargain. However, at the moment, with nearly half of internet users avoiding ads carefree, it may be unsuccessful within the current generation of consumers.

The ad-blocking war has appeared to shift power from media moguls, into the open hands of ad-blocker software creators, where they can now set the standards of advertising online, and put pressure on the digital ad industry to innovate. There is a clear conflict of interest between consumers wanting easy, no-stress browsing and the publishers that need a revenue stream in order to keep their service free of charge.

“there is now increasing pressure on advertisers to become more innovative online and engage with consumers in a more considerate, and less bothersome manner” The question is whether adblocker software creators actually care about protecting consumer’s interests, or if they just want their cut of the profit. Either way, adblocking is unlikely to disappear in the near future, even with the introduction of new laws, gaining access to the software is likely to remain particularly easy. It will be interesting to see in which direction the dilemma unravels in the future, and whether consumers will become more conscious of the need for ads to exist unless they are more willing to pay subscription charges for reading publications.

The City |29

Back to the Fiscal?

What John McDonnell’s decision to recentring of the debate on fiscal prudence means Henry Mitchell City Deputy Editor THIS WEEK THE LABOUR Party announced their new ‘fiscal credibility rule’ in what many see as a response to the Conservative Party’s ‘Fiscal Charter’ which passed through Commons last October. In keeping with the current rhetoric on both sides of the house, the rule seeks to regain economic credibility and achieve fiscal consolidation. In

John McDonnell’s words it is “a new iron discipline for a Labour government” demonstrating the shift away from previous Labour governments the current leadership is trying to achieve. The rule intends to guarantee to the public that the Labour government is ‘fiscally responsible’ – accusing Ed Miliband and Labour of being anything but this was a Tory favourite at the last election.

Announced by the Shadow

Chancellor on Thursday, the rule obliges any future Labour government at each budget to be able to show they can ‘balance the books’ in five years’ time.

This will be overseen by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). Interestingly though this rule only applies to ‘current spending’. Under this definition anything that is argued to be investment spending is not included in the calculation, which frees

“The rule intends to guarantee to the public that the Labour government is ‘fiscally responsible’” up the Labour government to borrow to finance infrastructure and other investment projects.

Fundamentally this means that Labour can continue to run a budget deficit over the parliament on the condition that the investment spending grows the economy over the term of office so that at the end of the 5 years government debt as a percentage of GDP has fallen. The measur-

ing of debt as a percentage of GDP is an important distinction from the Conservatives who instead prefer to look at the nominal value of the debt – interestingly debt as a percentage of GDP has actually risen under the Conservatives since the financial crisis. Moreover measuring debt in this way is a useful political tool for the Labour party to stave off criticisms of ‘crowding out’ from the future opposition.

The idea behind the credibility rule is – in essence - to give more fiscal control to the government than what is stated in the Fiscal Charter, to allow the future Labour chancellor to borrow to finance counter cyclical fiscal expenditure. In addition to this there is a clause similar to the - “only in normal times” - caveat of the Fiscal Charter, which states that the ‘fiscal credibility rule’ can be suspended in times of acute crisis. For example in the current period of extraordinarily low interest rates the government would be granted to borrow to finance fiscal stimulus.

The political discussion since last summer’s General Election has been one of budget deficits and government debt, but McDonnell’s new rule moves away from this somewhat, shifting the focus to growth. Limiting fiscal

policy could have dangerous implications for the future growth potential of the UK economy and in recognizing this McDonnell can reject the Tory plan of achieving a budget surplus but instead reduce debt as a percentage of GDP. This clever altera-

“The political discussion since last summer’s General Election has been one of budget deficits and government debt” tion still allows Labour to stave off criticism of fiscal irresponsibility but in doing so it does not limit fiscal autonomy – unlike the Fiscal Charter. Instead it frees up the ability of future Labour governments to borrow and invest back into the economy, in keeping with the traditional values of the left. Ultimately the ‘fiscal credibility rule’ can be seen as a successful response to the Fiscal Charter, both economically and politically, and lays the platform perfectly for Wednesday’s budget.

Wikimedia Commons

Discussing Homelessnesss Homelessness is on the rise, but our framing of the problem betrays our prejudices Phoebe Ward LSE Undergraduate A RECENT SPATE OF DEATHS by crushing has thrown the problem of homelessness into sharp relief, with waste company Biffa recently giving out health and safety advice and training to its binmen. There are few images more evocative than that of a human life being destroyed as a result of sleeping in a rubbish bin.

Society’s leftovers are crushed together into a single mass to be

Flickr, Pedro Ribeiro Simões

buried. Out of sight, out of mind.

Homelessness is by no means a new problem, and nor is society’s disregard for its victims. Since the victorian times, before street lighting, the underclass were ritually abused and criminalised simply for being homeless. Laws against nightwalking (noctambulation) were regularly used to imprison the homeless.

It is often said that you can measure a society by how it treats its worse off, and by this principle looking at the way that the home-

less are treated is surely a good and troubling measure to use. Although we may have come some way from the Victorian era of treating homelessness as criminal, we still have a long way to come.

Still, frequently, we are reminded that being homeless is that person’s fault.

By situating the agency and problematising homelessness in this way, we are creating a narrative around homelessness that is doubly problematic. The first and most obvious sense in which this is problematic is that, in reality, the structural and systemic issues behind homelessness often mean the individual is, literally, helpless. The second sense in which this is problematic is that it seems as though the main problem of homelessness is not for the homeless but for society. As though it is a selfish decision, and bad because it affects society not because of its detrimental effects on the person who has become homeless.

This cannot be the right way to conduct this discussion. Homelessness must be recognised as a serious problem, not just because it is inconvenient and ugly, but because it represents social and

not individual problems. It is a hallmark of a society that is failing its members. Even meeting the “social burden” argument on its own terms, we can see quite clearly that the loss in capacity due to homelessness will be a serious economic problem for the economy. This is not only in terms of foregone tax revenues, but also in terms of the extra costs for councils putting up temporary housing, and for charities that have to divert funds and talent to simple amelioration of a crisis.

Whilst considering the costs of homelessness it is worth noting the changing nature of the problem. We have seen a phenomenal expansion in homelessness since the Great Recession, but this has been not only on the streets (although we have seen a considerable rise there, too). The rise, and rise, of sofa surfing constitutes a real and growing problem. This poses many of the difficulties of homelessness for those who are homeless, but serves also to hide the problem away from plain site.

This feeds into a wider narrative of homelessness as the pinnacle of precariousness. The idea of precarity has come to the fore

in recent years. With zero hours contracts exploding, and the bedroom tax pushing more and more council tenants over the brink.

When situated as part of this wider current of feeling being pushed to the edge, the problem of homelessness is personalised, made real. The individuals can be seen as human, and we can come to understand our proximity to homelessness goes well beyond simply walking past them in the street.

The solution is surely simple, we need to build more homes.

Increasing the supply of housing would push down the price, and mean that we could have more people being able to affording to live in decent conditions. Even in an fiscally austere climate, the economic case for reducing homelessness is clear and simple, we know that when people are homeless they are not able to achieve anything like their true potential. Ensuring that they can, and the reduction in the social care budgets of councils makes building homes, and increasing support for the homeless not only the right thing to do, but also the prudent thing to do.

30

|Tuesday 15 March, 2016

Mixed Football Proves a Success!

Joe Donaghey LSE Men’s Football Last Friday, Women’s Football arranged for the most gifted and talented footballers to convene and test themselves against each other in a battle of skill and finesse. With mixed teams of all abilities pitted against each other, this was a battle to last the ages.

From the start it was clear that some teams were stronger than others. Ahmed Alyjaryan’s careful selection was clearly going to pay off with the team slotting multiple goals soon into their very first match. There was no doubt that the team, fielding players from both the Men’s and Women’s first Football teams, was a strong candidate to take the trophy.

The next match was not quite the same level. While the majority of the players on the pitch were passing the ball around with ease, building from the back, there was really only one player who stood out. Patrick VB’s ability to simultaneously appear to move his feet at random, akin to a newborn giraffe while actually retaining the ball was crucial to the early wins his team managed to gain. The only thing brighter

than that man’s footballing future is his fake tan.

It was soon time for our first game.

Victory. A flexible approach to positioning proved key with all players both ranging forward and dropping back to defend. The only hiccup lay when Gabriel Hamlyn badly mistimed a pass back and slotted a beauty into the bottom right hand corner of his own goal, completely taking the incumbent goalie and indeed most of the admirers by surprise. Despite the male components of our team dragging down the overall ability by a considerable margin, it was clear that we had the potential to progress to the finals the following week.

The tournament continued to progress with some outstanding goals being scored though the smell of frying burgers did appear to have some effect on the concentration of some of the participants. By the time each team had played all of their games, it was all anyone could do to slump down with a burger.

Huge thanks go to Zoe Oakley and the rest of women’s football for organising the tournament and to Active Lifestyle for funding it.

Basketball Men’s 1s vs. Queen Mary 1s won 74-58 Netball Women’s 1s vs. Queen Mary 1s won 38-34

Badminton Men’s 1s vs. Portsmouth 1s won 5-3 Women’s 1s vs. King’s College 1s drew 4-4

Hockey Women’s 2s vs. Portsmouth 3s won 3-2 Rugby Women’s 2s vs. Middlesex 1s drew 10-10

Win, Lose or Draw, send your results to sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk

AS THE END OF FUN/LIFE of at least a third of the Economists’ AU draws closer and closer, a life in which Wednesdays are characterised by tedious office memoranda and flirting by the water cooler, not by embarking on a journey to the most embarrassing position one can put oneself in, the propensity to act rashly, uncharacteristically, like literal maniacs, has seemingly increased.

Somewhere along the way, the line Between Boyish Behaviour and Beastly Brutishness Be-

came Blurred. Taking the Piss was elevated to previously unattained levels. Men, or, more precisely, a Banned of Wee little boys, committed crimes. But actions have consequences. And bad actions have bad consequences. They break the bounds of friendship and they take little chips at the good nature of patient men. So let it be known, let it never be forgotten, that Urine reeeeal trouble now.

Accompanying shards of toilet that Peppered the floor of our home away from home was water fresh from the galled eyes of many a final-year Athlete. While Men’s Football consequently Slioed around the wept-upon floor practicing the art of sitting, members of Men’s Rugby with records whiter than White

stood for election, in a celebration of democracy. It is with nostalgia that this report remembers a friend of old, who also ran for a position of power, who knows more than most that with great power comes great responsibility, the epitome of good health himself, Clarke Kent, the Bupaman. Maybe autocracy is needed sometimes.

After a short spell of routine traffic disruption, convention on Bear Street arrived before a proper farewell could be said to the Tuns. Tequilas flew around the Zoo as though they were remotely advisable, and silliness ensued.

Pastures Green were wandered by animal-lovers, as per usual. One man had the inGnious Foresyt not to tie himself down to old ties, Rustic relationships,

while another Hankered after Luke Skywalker’s father (think about it). Christomas came early for one operatic social secretary, after tensions soared to Boyling hot temperatures. Elsewhere, a Maximum level dange was attained when a married footballer renounced his vows, and, Frey from God’s watchful eye, eloped with an Executive-elect.

As we round the final bend of the enjoyable portion of the 2015-6 academic year (save for a few sophomoric outings posttorture), we approach two nights of unforgettable, or the opposite, if I dare, ecstasy. Tuxedos will be donned and ball-gowns employed, and we will take a walk in the shoes of the sophisticated.

Chaos too, inevitably, will attend.

Stay tuned for the details.

Sport | 31

Dreams Crushed as LSE fall at the (Semi)-Final Hurdle Sai Johal and Tim Flanagan LSE Men’s Hockey LAST WEEK SAW WHAT was the most successful cup run in recent LSE Men’s hockey history come to end. Trying to replicate the triumphs of the women in the cup last year, we made it to the semi finals only to lose in the most agonising fashion.

Despite being in the top league of the 9 that play in the cup, we were unseeded which led to some unfavourable draws throughout the competition as well as an extra first round match that many did not have to play.

Up against UCL 5ths (RUMS), we ran out 20-0 winners in a game that was used to work on more tactical aspects and gain match experience at the start of the season. Our next match against Imperial 4ths (Medics) was less convincing, winning only 5-1 against a team 2 leagues below. Knowing we would be playing Imperial 2nds (Medics) and the best team in our league

for two consecutive weeks, first in the league then the cup, we knew making it past the 3rd round for the first time was suddenly looking far less likely.

Playing away at Imperial in the league, we were humbled 7-4 by a team that was much better drilled and complemented by a few talented individuals. The difference would have been more had it not been for Harry Macmillan attempting an audacious half-volley pull to square leg that resulted in one of the best goals many of us had seen…that was until their centre half beat three players and lobbed Dugan from the top of the ‘D’ who was left stranded in no man’s land. Our cup run was looking increasingly at risk.

A team meeting on Friday highlighted a few problems that resulted in some of the goals we conceded. Correcting these would hopefully give us a better chance the following week. Back at Imperial, (away due to our lack of seeding) saw a much improved

performance. Our defence was solid and built a platform to attack from that saw us win 4-1 after some impressive build up play and counter attacking presence.

Our quarter final game was away against Surrey 1’s, an unknown entity to us as they were in the league parallel to ours with a good run of results. Upon arrival at their sports complex, it appeared the majority of the tuition fees went on sporting amenities, (well I suppose every university needs their area of speciality).

After scoring early on, the match went through a tense period either side of half time with the score at 2-0 after we had a couple of players carded for some questionable offences. However, after some slick and surprisingly efficient play saw us score 3 goals in 5 minutes, the match turned into a one sided affair where we ran out 7-1 winners thanks to a late consolation goal on their behalf.

Turns out we beat them at their own game.

Our semi-final match against

Kent turned out to be our undoing. Having played them twice in the league already, we had won one apiece. Playing away once more where we had lost to them a few weeks prior, the game was one sided early on which wasn’t helped by the umpire informing us of his short-sight and their considerable home support. We went 2-0 then 3-1 down and with 20 minutes left the result was looking inevitable. However, two extremely quick goals to level at 3-3 put them on the back foot and the game came to life. However, as we pushed looking for a fourth, turning to ‘Allout-attack’, they countered and with only one defender back they scored with four minutes left on the clock. Taking our goalkeeper off, the game turned frantic and a last gasp Hail Mary aerial beat their defence and saw us score an extremely scrappy goal to level with 4 seconds left on the clock.

The game went straight to flicks and credit to Kent, they didn’t miss to win 5-3 and progress.

The better team probably won but that didn’t make it any easier for us as we missed out on our first cup final.

Credit has to go to Alex Dugan for Captaining the team on our most successful season in years and also to the senior players Joe Cunningham, Lee Wake and Fred Jayarajah on the effort they have put into the team for 3 years and left us in with a chance of still winning the league. If we are to share similar successes next year it will be down to the foundation they have built.

Men’s 1st XI, top row (left to right): Matt Malby (Coach), Miles Preston, Eamon Devaney-Dykes (Vice Captain), Yusuf Sohoye (Social Sec.), Lee Wake, Louis Sangan, Freddie Jayarajah (Treasurer). Bottom row (left to right): Maxi Guennewig, Sai Johal, Alex Dugan (Captain), Krishna Aswani (Club Captain), Joe Cunningham (Mixed Team Captain) and Tim Flanagan.

Are We Seeing the End of Sharapova?

India Steele Sports Editor THIS WEEK MARIA SHARAPOVA announced she failed her drugs test at the Australian Open.

This came as a massive shock to the international sporting community as the No.7 ranked player has been championed as the ultimate female athlete. Many have attacked the five-times Grand Slam champion for enhancing her performance illegally, the haunt of Lance Armstrong’s antics creeping into people’s minds, and this could prove to be an irreparable blip on her impressive career.

John Haggerty, Maria Sharapova’s lawyer, claimed Maria had been taking the substance for 10 years after tests determining medical conditions causing her to

be frequently sick involving some diabetes indicators and low magnesium and immune deficiencies.

Taggerty claimed Sharapova only took this substance to bring her “back to baseline” and helped her be healthy, rather than enhancing her performance in the same way that other WADA offenders have used illegal substances. Sharapova crossed into the illegal realm after a long, successful career when this substance was added to the ban list on January 1st, 25 days before Sharapova was tested at the Australian open. Maria admitted she failed to look over the list after its amendment this year and took responsibility for that.

This enquiry into Maria Sharapova, including Nike withdrawing its sponsorship pending investigation, brings up questions

about how strict anti-doping authorities are when incomes to professional athletes. Whilst some athletes have taken this substance to enhance their performance, can we begrudge an athlete for using it to be healthy? This could prove to be the end of her career, a career where she has proven her talent as one of the world’s best female tennis players and indeed athletes, and wouldn’t it be a shame for such a star to be brought down over a substance she was not even aware was illegal and was prescribed merely to return her to a state of normalcy rather than enhancing her performance.

This poses questions of what is fair in the realm of sport. If we take any substance that alters an athlete’s performance as illegal then Sharapova can be con-

demned as this substance did alter her performance as it allowed her to train and play when illness and health problems would have otherwise prevented her. It is true that the drug, mainly available in Eastern Europe, is said to have become a drug of choice for Russian athletes implicated in cheating in other sports and thus why should Sharapova be given special treatment for using it if it has enhanced the performance of others?

However if this stance is adopted then international sport may be deemed as rather elitist in terms of health as only those with health problems are competing from a disadvantaged position which no amount of training or playing may be able to overcome.

So wouldn’t it seem ethical and fair to allow those with long term

health issues to take substances, prescribed by doctors, to allow them to commute from the same health platform as others not inflicted with such problems.

This issue of equality in sport is very important as illustrated by the massive rise and success of Paralympic sport in the international sporting environment, with the Paralympics attracting more and more interest and support over previous decades. If we allow athletes mechanical aids such as wheelchairs or prosthetic limbs to overcome physical disabilities, why can’t disabilities such as illnesses and long term internal health issues be overcome with substances without being accused of enhancing performance.

VISIT US AT BEAVERONLINE.CO.UK OR TWEET @BEAVERONLINE

Cycling Races To Success On Hog Hill Maurice Banerjee Palmer LSE Cycling Club Captain

Sport

Section Editor: India Steele Deputy Editor: Vacant

LSE CYCLING HAVE TAKEN part in three consecutive race weekends. This article fills you in on how we got on!

Saturday 27 February: ELV Winter Series Race 8 That was a day for getting my excuses in early. You see we had team photos the day before and with fifteen minutes until the Cycling Club’s turn, I opened the door to my hallway to realise, to my horror, that my bike wasn’t there.

I’d left it at LSE. After a panicked phone call I legged it to King’s Cross, up and down the escalators and from Holborn to The Venue. The reason I go into this at so much length is that doing a different type of exercise for the first time in a while hits one’s muscles pretty hard and it’s over a year since I left the Athletics team.

And it really did do my legs in. So I spent most of the ride to Redbridge the next morning telling Alex and everyone else at the race that I ‘felt awful’. Once we started racing they seemed to come together a bit better at first. But as the pace ramped up with a few attacks each ascent of the Hoggenberg became harder.

Then, about a third of the way in to the race, it looked like a break was about to get away on the flat section. The group included the Regent’s Park Rouleurs rider who had soloed away the previous week and three others who looked strong.

I threw caution to the wind and chased like fury. I heard voice in my head say ‘What are you doing?!’ but I decided it was better to get dropped having tried something rather than not. And after the attack failed that’s what happened.

One of Imperial’s riders took an impressive third after a split in the bunch, one from King’s finished in the top ten and the same RPR won from the sprint.

But of course the highlight of the day was a bit of Facebook tomfoolery while the UCL captain was racing in the 2/3/4.

Saturday 3 March: CC London Hog without the Hill I owe a lot to CC London. I moved in to my flat in Camden one Monday evening in September and the next morning at 7am I joined them at the Zoo gates for the first of the many sporadic Tuesday and Thursday morning Regent’s Park laps rides. Its members taught me a huge amount about how to ride a bike properly and how to run a friendly, education-focused club: it was a great model when setting up the LSE club.

Anyway, the race. This was a funny one. For a start it had half the hill, which point the route cut across and did half the descent. No one really got used to how to take that corner, with its inverse camber, which made things a bit nervous.

After frequent attacks early on, a CCL and a Dulwich Paragon rider got away. I made two attempts at bridging on the tailwind straight but ended up towing the peloton with me both times. A lap or two after another CCL successfully bridged. The host club, with two riders in the break and a lot in the group, sat on the front and had no desire to chase. The hailstones and increasing wind had no effect either. After the failed attempts at heroics I played it safe and for the half hour before things got busy again, sat a few wheels back in the bunch, my heart rate comfortably in zone three.

When the five laps to go board went up the pace was upped and then on the bell lap it exploded.

Two CCLs charged ahead after the corner at the top of the hill. I got on one of their wheels and we passed the third category race that had just passed us. It had felt as if we’d got a way from the bunch, perhaps been separated from it by the thirds. Unfortunately not, but I was lucky enough to hold the right wheels to stay second or third through the next couple of corners. Rounding the penultimate corner the rider in front of me faded and the group surged around us. I squeezed between him and the rest on the straight. Turning into the hill finish I opened up my sprint and finished eighth – I scored the two first points that (as far as I’m aware) have ever been scored in an LSE jersey and was bloody delighted.

Saturday 10 March: Redbridge Cycling Club Hog without the Hill Alex was back for this week, the weather was good and both of us felt good. The course was bizarre though. It didn’t take in even half the hill, which made it less harder to gap people than the previous week. Having sat back as usual for the first couple of laps things got heated quickly.

But I’ll cut to the chase: once or twice every lap, someone attacked and every time it failed. I was in the first few places throughout and tried group or two-man breakaways more times than I can count.

The elastic never snapped.

Some thought it was never going to work as there were too many strong guys willing to chase and it was too flat for gaps to open. In my (inexperienced) opinion it was actually because of the willingness of the attacker(s) to work together.

For example, when I joined an (ironically young) rider from Old Portlians on an attack after the bizarre corner I shouted across ‘We’ve got a gap. Let’s f****ing nail it!’ he seemed to concur by shouting back something similar. But after I’d put in a turn around the hairpin onto the back straight, I signalled for him to come through he never did. I heard others approach from behind and sat up but one shouted to keep going and a group of about ten was formed. And yet again when another took the front he sat up and the bunch caught us. The rest of the race was variations on a theme: there was never the cooperation which characterises a successful breakaway.

When the lap board was shown I started thinking about positioning – I didn’t want to make the same mistake as the week before. As the bell rang

for the final lap I was around twenty places down. (I can’t remember why, but I think it was a lapse in concentration during an attack as the pace ramped up.) On the leeward side of the bunch on crosswind I decided to head down the outside – and luckily jumped on to the wheel of someone who had the same idea. Having hopped around him I still had quite a few around and in front of me on the final turn. But the leaders kicked, stretching the front of the group out and opening a gap. I put in a burst on the false-flat straight to stay in the mix and managed (against my expectation) to kick again to sprint up the half-a-hill, miraculously pulling ahead to take fourth. I thought about punching the air but realised that was overkill. Alex finished mid-pack, having felt good but not quite had the positioning on the final lap to make it into the sprint.

At this point I should mention the SU Gym, Deutsche Bank and the LSE Annual Fund. Deutsche Bank as the club’s Racing Sponsor has paid for me to race week after week and make mistakes without thinking of how much it costed. I’ve been doing 20-40’s on the stationary bikes at the SU Gym which is simply not possible outdoors, which has allowed me to deal better with the repeated accelerations of criteriums racing. And using one of the Annual Fund racing bikes for the last two races, which is thirty four years newer than my own, has delivered top ten finishes. Without any one of them, the Club’s first foray into racing would not have been the same. If you (yes, you reading this) are interested in getting involved – especially for women’s racing – then email us or message the Club on Facebook.