848

Beaver

the

Issue 848 | 09.2.16

Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union

Students and Staff Unite to Demand the Reinstatement of the ‘LSE 3’ Joey Davison Undergraduate Student

THE RECENT REMOVAL OF 3 members of LSE cleaning and janitorial services staff from their posts in November has sparked an outraged response across the school community.

On Tuesday 2nd February 2016, a Facebook infographic from United Voices of the World (UVW) Union alerted students and staff to the dismissal of three of their members calling themselves the ‘LSE 3’. Henry, Earney and Kingsley were fired without notice pay for leaving work one hour early on a Saturday evening, after having worked through their lunch breaks and completed all of their tasks.

The dismissal has left the LSE 3 without work since November, drastically reducing their ability to pay their rent and support their families in an increasingly expensive London. All three are now facing eviction from their homes.

UVW, staff & students are arguing that the decision to instantly dismiss without even notice pay is heavily punitive and disproportionate to the offence. UVW appealed the dismissal, calling it ‘symptomatic of a contemptuous, callous and punitive culture of work which the LSE should not be condoning

or tolerating in any way.” They have highlighted an impeccable record of a collective 20+ years of employment at the school without missing a single day of employment.

Students, staff and the Student’s Union have also raised calls upon the school to reconcile the situation. UVW is calling for those concerned to contact Allan Blair, Director of Facilities Management, and demand the overturn of this decision.

However, the dismissal is complicated by the nature of their employment. LSE outsources its cleaning services to a company called NOONAN Cleaning Services, which means they are not directly responsible for their employment. The decision to sack the LSE 3 was NOONAN’s, not the LSE’s.

Campaigners are arguing that although not legally liable for their contracts, the Facilities team hold significant influence over NOONAN and a moral responsibility to its staff. This position was made clear in Allan Blair’s response to emails, which stated that “LSE is committed to ensuring fair treatment and conditions for all staff working at the School. This includes staff employed via a contractor.”

It is this commitment to fair

Credit: United Voices of the World the union facebook page

treatment of all staff and a duty of care which campaigners are hoping to emphasise in order to put pressure on the school to reverse the decision. Following the response from the staff and student body, Allan Blair met with Henry and Earney (Kingsley was unable to make the meeting due to a last minute family emergency), a UVW representative, Professional

Services Staff and students on Thursday 4th to discuss the situation with them.

This was the first opportunity that Henry and Earney had had to speak directly to the school rather than with NOONAN. They both gave their version of events of the day, and Earney explained her desire to go home after having completed all tasks due to a pain in

her knee, as well as explaining the absence of a supervisor or manager on site to ask permission from.

Henry explained the difficulties losing his position has put him in with regard to looking after his family. Both felt their treatment

by NOONAN and the LSE to be deeply unfair, and placed emphasis on their simple desire to return to their place of work.

Continued on page 3

Comment: In Response to the Free Speech Society Only through rational debate can we expose this disingenuous students’ society.

Samar Rizvi Undergraduate Student

THE LSESU SOCIETY, AS A concept, is in crisis. Where once Laski, Robbins, Hayek or Halliday might have been brought in to rouse a crowd and promote robust debate, glorified mailing lists appear to be the norm. What history student hasn’t regretted the many pounds spent on joining groups that, despite their sleek websites and long list of corporate sponsors, do little more than send out a weekly mailing list with

information otherwise obtainable online? Yet these organisations have some sense of purpose and more importantly do not moralise. While they don’t necessarily promote debate on the important issues of our times, most of them are aware of their organisation’s remit, geographic or otherwise.

As a result, the Asia Careers Society (one such society of this type) is not the most ludicrous organisation in the circus tent under which our student organisations are housed.

That distinction goes to the latest

addition to the show.

Organised free speech has always been quite a remarkable contradiction in terms. The whole concept, in its latest manifestation on campus, taken at face value, is irritatingly shallow in its desire to prescribe that which has been proscribed; a sophisticated form of resistance à la a toddler who has been told not to touch wet paint.

This organisation is ill defined and unwittingly parochial. Frustratingly, it argues only to win arguments. It doesn’t do so for moral or intellectual

edification.

Christopher Hitchens once lambasted a Fox News presenter for giving him “the awful impression... of someone who hasn’t read any of the arguments against [his] position ever.” This is one of my main problems with the Free Speech Society.

Setting up a free speech society is indicative of an unashamedly liberal, haughty presumptuousness (liberal in the 19th century Gladstone, lets go educate those uncivilised natives and price them out of their own market

News Comment

Barclays vs. RAG; Is the LSE SU placing A Vitriolic Response to the Free corporate interests above student interests? Speech Debate on Campus Page 3 Page 10

through free trade sort of way not liberal meaning plural or progressive).

Personally I am not in favour of safe spaces taken to their extreme and as a history student certainly not trigger warnings. Nonetheless, it is imperious to assume that the only reason people institute these measures is because they are neither inclined nor capable of thinking independently and therefore have a proclivity for “groupthink”.

Where does one begin, in a short column like this, to address such arrogance?

Continued on page 10

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

editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Managing Editor Vacant

Beaver

the

the

Beaver

Established in 1949 Issue No. 848 - Tuesday 9 February 2016 - issuu.com/readbeaveronline Telephone: 0207 955 6705 Email: editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk Website: www.beaveronline.co.uk Twitter: @beaveronline

managing@thebeaveronline.co.uk

News Editors Suyin Haynes Greg Sproston Joseph Briers

news@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Comment Editor Mali Williams

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 Editor Alex Hurst

features@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Nab Editor

nab@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Sport Editor Alex Dugan

sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Online Editor Vacant

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 Manners-Armstrong, G Saudelli, H Brentnall, H Prabu, H Toms, 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 Banerjee-Palmer, M Crockett, M Gallo, M Jaganmohan, M Johnson, M Neergheen, M Pasha, M Pennill, M Strauss, N Antoniou, N Bhaladhare, N Buckley-Irvine, N Stringer, O Hill, O Gleeson, P Amoroso, P Blinkhorn, P Gederi, P Grabosch, R Browne, R J Charnock, R Connelly-Webster, R Huq, R Kouros, R Serunjogi, R Siddique, R Uddin, R Way, S Ali, S Argyros, S Chandrashekhar, S CrabbeField, 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

Taryana Odayar on being a “busy Beaver” and the week’s Editorial Board antics

From the Executive Editor I’M PLEASED TO REPORT that last week’s issue of the paper – my first issue as Exec - was sent to print exactly on time and without a hitch!

Now whilst I wish I could say the same for this week, I do realise that some weeks are more trying than others for an Editorial Board in ter ms of compiling and publishing 32 pages of content that mirror the manifold viewpoints and exploits of the LSE student body with éclat.

This particular week, we have a number of controversial and engaging issues doing the rounds on campus, such as the upcoming EGM on Summer Ter m Exam Timetables, the sacking of the ‘LSE 3’ Henry, Ear ney and Kingsley (front page and page 8), Barclays and RAG’s clash during the RAG Street Festival (refer page 3), the vitriolic diatribe of responses regarding Speakeasy (pages 10-11) and Craig Calhoun’s State of the School Address which I’ll be going along to in a couple of hours.

This week we also say goodbye to our outgoing News Editor and long-time Beaverite Suyin Haynes, and thank her for the dedication with which she has contributed to the Beaver, as well as for facilitating a smooth handover to her successors. I’d also like to welcome our newest addition to the Editorial board, Joseph Briers, who will be taking over the reins as News Editor alongside current News Editor Greg Sproston. Little does Joseph know what he’s gotten himself into - I for one did not have the heart to war n him of the d windling social life, academic life and life in general to be expected - but he shall soon find out!

Now that I’m well into my second week as Executive Editor, this has resulted in the rather disturbing phenomenon of fellow students thinking that it is perfectly acceptable to throw “witty” puns and one-

liners at me, expecting me to chuckle appreciatively (truth be told, just smiling at some of these lines is a strain on my facial muscles). Some of the “top quality” banter include literary gems such as “Chief Beaver, eh? How’s the dam work going?”, “Hey busy Beaver – get it, get it?” as well as, “Has a Deputy Dictator (ie. Managing Editor) been appointed yet?”, and my personal favourite, “Is the Beaver office really and truly a thing??? Wow!” Now despite popular fiction, the Beaver Editorial board do actually have a life outside of the Media Centre Office. Whether that life is healthy and f lourishing is questionable, but life does go on outside the glass and brick stronghold that is our Media Centre. For instance, our Sports Editor is currently training hard for Fight Night against a guy he diplomatically describes as being “bigger than me”, and which Wurr more aptly describes as being “fucking massive.” But biting off more than one can chew is a quintessential feature of being a Beaverite, and we have full faith that Dugan shall come out of the ordeal with a healthy respect for the sport, albeit minus a few teeth (if he comes out of it at all that is, bless him).

Our Comment Editor has also been very industrious as of late with heroic efforts to stay on top of her deg ree work. We salute her valiant attempts and deter mination, “You have per mission to punch me if I don’t finish this essay by tomorrow!”, as by now most of us have given up hope that any of our readings will be done before class, that our for matives will be submitted on time, or that we shall write the first drafts of our summatives well in advance of looming March deadlines.

Greg, our News Editor, is keeping himself up to date with the Doctors’ Strikes going on and writing

profusely on the subject; this is no doubt an issue which he is deeply passionate about and which you, dear reader, can expect to read more about within the pages of our illustrious newspaper this week, next week, the week after that, and then the week following, ad infinitum....

Further more, since this will (hopefully) be the last week I have an entire page to fill with Editorial content until a Managing Editor is elected, I’d like to take this opportunity (and expanse of white space) to cong ratulate our lively and spritely for mer Managing Editor, who has successfully regained a thriving social life since leaving her post (and a prospective date for the Grad Ball – whom she devastatingly #shotdown in an unexpected tur n of events only 10 minutes later. Will he be able to recover from this setback? Find out in the next editorial!).

As for myself, just this weekend I helped organise the London Security Exercise Model United Nations Conference (LSE MUN) 2016 as the Deputy SecretaryGeneral for Publicity and Communications. This year’s conference happens to be the seventh annual LSE MUN conference to be hosted

by LSE, and is the largest crisis-run MUN simulation in Europe. The conference theme varies year by year, and this year we decided to go for the particularly bold theme of “Revolutions”. As such, the debates in the different cabinets were ref lective of this, with topics such as the First Intifada, the October Revolution, the American Civil War, the Yellow Uprising and even a Game of Thrones crisis. All in all, a very busy weekend for the Beaver Editorial team. Since next week is reading week, the Beaver will not be issued, but we shall be back in week 7 after this very welcome and much-needed hiatus.

TWEETS OF THE WEEK Jeffrey Quave @jeffquave @katieflynn95 what are you doing out of the kitchen ?

Katie Flynn @katieflynn95 Finally got a job offer and been given a free extra pizza by the delivery guy, today is a good day Nona Buckly-Irvine @nonajasmine Thank you Daily Mail for referring to me as a ‘spokesman’ #FullWoman #WhyPronoun dailym. ai/1K1ggez via @ MailOnline James Wurr @JamesWurr Another really great @ lsesu Exec meeting. Just a glorified game of “who’s the busiest...” #whatisthepoint SPA @SPAJournalism Also renewing their SPA membership this evening are the fantastic team @ beaveronline!

Jon Allsop @Jon_Allsop Poor Night for Rubio. He’s a deeply unconvincing candidate, and I don’t think the GOP establishment will back him until they have no choice Jon-Rhys Foster @JRhysFoster Surreal morning with @bycLIVE, just left a meeting with @Charles_HRH, @sebcoe and others talking about the fantastic @iwill_ campaign! #BYC Harry Maxwell @HarryMaxwell “Pocahontas.. A county for all you Disney fans!” - American news broadcasts are literally next level.

James Walters @LSEChaplain Honoured to be preaching the historice Crayle Sermon at civic service at St Mary’s Acton this morning LSESU ISOC @lsesuisoc “Whenever the Prophet (SAW) saw the rain, he used to say, “O Allah! Let it be a strong fruitful rain.” - Aisha RA Jade Symonds @JadeSymonds Beyoncé just #SuperBowls

slayed.

Controversy Over Dismissal of ‘LSE 3’

...continued from front page their supporters argue cannot be Blair appeared receptive to their version of events, and emphasized that he had not yet been able to discuss the incident with NOONAN and get a full explanation from their side. He repeatedly emphasised LSE’s commitment to fair treatment of its staff. UVW are challenging the dismissal on various grounds.

Appeals against the decisions have already been rejected, but the union contests that the facts at the basis of NOONAN’s rejection of the appeal are a misrepresentation. The company has alleged that this incident was one of a series of offences; something that the LSE 3 and

proven as the biometric system used to record staff attendance is unreliable, as testified by many members of staff.

Their leaving was also argued in the hearing to be a health and safety issue; yet the janitors had returned the keys to security that evening and let them know they were leaving, which UVW argues would have prevented worries about their whereabouts in the event of a fire.

NOONAN has presented their leaving early as both a breach of trust and an incident of theft from the company. UVW has contested this heavily, arguing that their long impeccable work record and the completion of all of their assigned tasks prior to leaving

must be taken into account. In this context, they argue, the instant dismissal of the 3 is vastly disproportionate and unfair.

Their position has been backed by the Student’s Union. In a comment from General Secretary Nona Buckley-Irvine the response of NOONAN was argued to be “totally disproportionate to the issue at hand. Dismissing the three cleaners without any notice pay shows a complete lack of respect for the service of the workers. I am aware that there are negotiations ongoing between United Voices of the World and Noonan – but LSE should be acting to ensure that the cleaners are reinstated, and if they are not, reconsider their contract with Noonan.”

Ultimately, the discussion

the LSE 3 and their supporters are raising is one regarding a choice of workplace culture; a toxic environment of fear and contempt, or one in which the contribution of all members of the school community is properly valued.

The campaigners and their supporters await the response of Allan Blair following his further discussion with NOONAN regarding the discussion. UVW have initiated legal proceedings, but hope that enough pressure can be put on LSE to reverse the decision and make this expensive procedure unnecessary. But one thing is for certain; we may expect serious resistance from a horrified LSE student and staff community should they not be reinstated.

News | 3

Section Editor: Suyin Haynes Greg Sproston Joseph Briers Deputy Editors: Bhadra Sreejith

Barclays vs RAG; Is The LSE SU Placing Corporate Interests Above Student Interests?

Taryana Odayar Executive Editor

accepted this as a satisfactory resolution in our meeting last week. “ But cutting the Gordian knot of complications only gets more difficult from here onwards. Allegations that the risk assessment form filled out

by Barclays contained several inaccuracies have surfaced, and this coupled with allegations that the crowd control measures taken by Barclays were unsatisfactory, points to a lax regard for the procedures that LSE SUw Societies usually have to go through. This has led to many in the RAG community, which constitute around 10% of the LSE student body, to call out the LSE SU for alleged hypocrisy and having double standards for student societies and corporates.

However when questioned on this, Buckley-Irvine stated that, “It is entirely false that there was an incorrect risk assessment and a concerning allegation to make by a member of the SU executive, as it has already been

made clear that this was not the case. Similarly it might be an opinion that there should have been crowd control, but in line with policies and procedures this was not necessary - it is testament to the brilliance of the puppy day that there were such high levels of interest and as such we did need to ensure that the crowds were managed effectively to ensure that the day ran as smoothly as possible for RAG.” But when it finally boils down to who really lost out over the mishap, Wurr says, “I have several members of my committee who are very upset about the whole issue when they should actually be celebrating an incredibly successful week.”

Buckley-Irvine was quick to point out however that, “Asides from this, the week was a roaring success and it is great to see how substantially increased SU support for RAG has supported an excellent committee to fundraise such an extraordinary amount.”

Calhoun to Step Down in Summer 2016 Suyin Haynes News Editor

LSE’S OUTGOING DIRECTOR Craig Calhoun has announced that he will be leaving the university sooner than had been declared; this academic year will be his last as he takes up “an exciting new position as President of The Berggruen Institute, based in Los Angeles”.

The Director was expected to remain at the LSE until the end of the academic year in 2017, yet his early departure will undoubtedly raise questions among the student body.

The Berggruen Institute is a think tank and founded in

2010 with a mission to “develop foundational ideas, and through them, shape the political and social institutions for the 21st century”.

Yesterday, Calhoun will presented a ‘State of the School Address’ from 1.15 - 2.15pm in the Old Theatre, Old Building; open to all students and staff, in which he discussed the recently launched School Strategy, setting a path for LSE until 2020.

There will be further coverage of this event online via The Beaver website.

An LSE Spokesperson told The Beaver: “We are enormously grateful for Professor Calhoun’s leadership during his tenure, and

his tireless work promoting and strengthening the LSE community in the UK and overseas.

Having overseen a wideranging strategic review, his legacy is to leave LSE with a clear sense of purpose and direction for the longer term. In particular, the School has renewed its focus on teaching, learning and the student experience and work now being undertaken will bring LSE’s education offer up to the world-beating standards of our social science research.”

The next Director of the LSE is yet to be appointed; whether he or she will lean in a more academic or business-like direction remains to be seen.

News

WHILST THE MAJORITY consensus is that this year’s RAG week was hugely successful, it was not without its ups and downs.

One such complication occurred during the RAG Street Festival on Thursday 28th January, when a Barclays stall giving out free waffles was set up on Sheffield Street, directly clashing with the RAG stalls that had already been set up to ask for charity donations. This resulted in the RAG stalls having to close early since they were unable to collect substantive donations given the presence of the Barclays free waffle stand.

This led several RAG members to express their discontent with the lack of communication between LSE Careers and LSESU, the former of which should have notified the SU and hence the RAG street festival team that there would be a Barclays waffle stand on the

same day as their food stalls, or at least arranged for the Barclays stand to be set up on another day. According to RAG President James Wurr, “There should be a lot more communication between the SU and the Careers department, something which is severely lacking. I had two societies, who had spent time and money on their stalls, pack up at 12pm because they had sold nothing due to the Barclays stand. This is extremely demoralising and demotivating for them and has an adverse effect on the relationship which RAG has with societies.”

When asked for comment, General-Secretary Nona BuckleyIrvine stated that, “There was an admin error and I do apologise for that, as it is certainly frustrating for fundraising to be impacted by other factors - and as a former RAG President I wholeheartedly understand this.

We have reviewed our processes substantially since to ensure this never happens again, and RAG

4

| Tuesday 9 February, 2016

TEDxLSESU Student Speakers Gear Up for High Stakes Competition Hanif Osman Undergraduate Student

STUDENT SOCIETY TEDxLSESU has been working to develop the on-stage communication and presentation skills of a group of LSE students full of interesting ideas and experiences that they are eager to share. As well as aiming to prepare the speakers as fully as possible for the student speaker and host competition this Friday (12 February) – and the eventual winner’s talk at the annual TEDxLSE conference on Sunday 13th March - it is hoped that the inclusive training programme will encourage the speakers to share their passions more widely around campus.

In order to enhance the student speakers’ ability to most effectively articulate and present their ideas to a large theatre audience,

TEDxLSESU has organised a range of events and channels of help over the year. Such assistance has included speaker workshops, a ’webinar’ with an internationallyrecognized TED-speaker trainer, and tailored advice and coaching from TEDxLSESU’s co-president Alex Hum and secretary Eleonore Desvaux.

A two-hour webinar with Michael Weitz, co-founder of Virtuozo, a training and consulting firm that specializes in training TED speakers for TED Global, was noted by the student speakers as being of particular value to them.

The student speakers reported that Michael effectively addressed any and all questions they had regarding their individual talks and about broader general TED concepts and presentation techniques.

Michael’s practical tips were of critical value to the speakers preparing for their talks on

Friday, and potentially, in front of an audience of 500 at March’s conference. Specific tips included seeking eye contact with individual members of the audience, the avoidance of wandering around too much, and not worrying about being nervous – because that demonstrates that you’re enthusiastic about giving your best possible performance! The speaker workshops were similarly eye-opening, enabling participants to learn and practice the sort of speaking and presentation skills required to give an effective TED talk.

The competition will be held at 5pm on Friday 15 February in the Hong Kong Theatre and will be free to attend. The audience will be able to participate in the selection of the winner by way of electronic voting, and the winner of the competition will be given a slot alongside 10 high-profile international speakers, including Bill Browder, Peggy

Bouchet and Joris Luyendijk, at the annual TEDxLSE conference next month.

TEDxLSESU’s emphasis upon the enhancement of its student speakers’ TED skills is part of one the society’s core aims in helping interested students to be able to more

confidently share their life-shaping ideas and experiences with others at LSE, and, of equal importance, to enter the speaker competition on Friday and – for the lucky winner – the annual TEDxLSE conference in March, as fully and professionally prepared as possible.

LSESU To Host Global Village Week Suyin Haynes News Editor THIS WEEK SEES THE welcome return of Global Village Week at LSE for the third year running - a week long festival celebrating the cultural diversity of the LSE community hosted by LSESU Itchy Feet and LSESU AIESEC Society.

With one of the highest international student bodies certainly in the UK, if not globally, LSESU societies will be showcasing the truly worldwide representation in our tiny Holborn campus throughout the week on different themed days.

On Tuesday 9th February, the Languages and Current Affairs Day will see language societies and stalls giving out language cards, a language speed dating competition and a debate with the International Relations society The Grimshaw Club in the evening.

Culture Day takes place on the Wednesday, with a craft station, joint mural, and film screening of Persepolis, a French-IranianAmerican production based on the graphic novel by Marjane Satrapi.

Change up your usual routine of waiting for half an hour in the Hare Krishna queue by getting involved on Thursday for the festival’s Food Day, where free delicacies from across the world will be available in the Venue from 11am - 4pm.

The week rounds off with a coffee morning from the LGBT+ Alliance on Friday, and the World Performances Festival hosted by the LSESU UN Society as a fun-

draiser in support of the Blue Dragon Children’s Foundation in the Old Theatre.

In conversation with The Beaver, Itchy Feet Society President Tim Wen said “the focus of Global Village Week has always been to celebrate our diverse student body, have students engage with cultures that aren’t their own and help break down the perceived cliques that may exist at LSE. Participating in this year’s global village aren’t just national societies, but societies like Visual Arts, UN Soc and even Wine Society (BACCHUS), allowing us to really engage a wide range of students. So far there are over 25 societies taking part. And unlike last year, it’s going beyond just society stalls; there’ll be film screenings, language speed dating, dance performances and even a World Performances Festival for charity on Friday evening.

The event is open to everyone and it’s definitely going to be loads of fun! I encourage all to come check it out in the Venue Tuesday - Thursday this week. My advice, if last year’s anything to go by, is to make sure to come early on the Food Day, to try all the international cuisines before it gets busy!”

The majority of events will be taking place in the Venue of the Saw Swee Hock Student Centre unless specified on the Facebook event page.

With the involvement of a huge range of LSESU societies, the week promises to be a great showcase of the cosmopolitan community that we may not even realise we are a part of.

The Third Level Digital Divide Internet Use and Inequality Greg Sproston News Editor

RESEARCH FUNDED BY THE University of Twente and carried out by LSE’s Director of Graduate Studies and associate professor Dr. Ellen Helsper claims to have found a link between internet usage and widening inequality.

Writing in a paper entitled ‘The Third Level Digital Divide’, Dr. Helsper, along with Dutch researcher Dr. Alexander Van Deursen, outlined the several societal and financial benefits that can be extracted from internet usage including the ability to

find good deals on products, finding romantic partners, and generally engaging more in civic and political matters. Using a large sample of 1,100 people, the research drew a definitive link, with individuals with the highest levels of education deriving the greatest benefit from internet usage; which in turn illustrates the strong link between socioeconomic status and ability to maximise effectiveness whilst using the internet.

Whilst the study did not claim any kind of deterministic outcomes it nevertheless found that, even when controlling for access, the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed, and caregivers

were four demographics who on average derived less benefit from internet use; with rural users at a significant disadvantage compared with those in urban settings.

The ability of the most educated and highly paid to benefit more from being online will, the study argues, create a self-reinforcing mechanism in which inequalities continue to grow. As with any such research, discussion will now turn to policy and the difficult question of how to narrow these gaps; particularly when access alone may not only fail to address inequalities but potentially exacerbate them.

LSE Research Shows Effect of Inequality on Longevity of Life

Joseph Briers News Editor

INEQUALITY IS KILLING US. Well, not all of us. According to new research from Professors Eric Neumayer and Thomas Plümper, disparities in income before tax lead to similarly wide discrepancies in life expectancy.

The inverse is equally true, with the citizens of nations with highly redistributive policies sharing a more something life spans.

The work, published in American Journal of Public Health, is the culmination of a collaboration between the LSE and the Vienna University of Economics and Business and adds to the burgeoning body of evidence detailing the something cost of something and something.

What is novel about these findings in particular is that they are the first to highlight the link between income inequality and life expectancy across various countries. The researchers also undertook intense re-analysis of findings in order to rule out the disproportionate contribution of the most iniquitous nations. An internationally common truth was established, one which Professor Neumayer has described as ‘profoundly disturbing’. ‘Our research gets to the heart of why income inequality

matters beyond concerns about people having more or less money to buy material goods.’

What then, are the forces behind such a link? Neumayer and Plümper suggest the reasons are two fold. Firstly, they say income inequality leads to the ‘spatial segregation’ of different income groups the consequences of which are lower levels of social cohesion and quality of public services, and an increase in crime rates and violence which all serve to drive down life expectancies in deprived areas.

The pair are also keen to emphasise the role of purchased political influence in disadvantaging poorer populations,

nudging policies in favour of wealthy stake-holders.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, of the 28 countries examined, the United States was found to be the nation whose citizens experience the widest gap in life expectancy. Presidential contender and progressive Democratic Bernie Sanders has capitalised on disquiet surrounding the American wealth gap in the race against Hillary Clinton for his party’s nomination.

Somewhat ironically, the pair, 74 and 68 respectively, could be seen as prime examples of the preservative effects of a healthy financial state. The worst European culprits were mainly East-

ern European states, with those such as Poland and the Slovak Republic seeing the greatest gap in the longevity of their peoples.

The paper does not make for pretty reading. Yet, Neumayer is far from fatalistic. The LSE Professor of Environment and Development insists there is much that can be done and offers world leaders a something, if ambitious, solution.

“Governments can ensure that longevity is more equally distributed, well beyond any specific health care policies or health and safety regulations, by putting in place policies that ensure income is more equally distributed across a society”.

Photocredit: Flickr

UGM Fails To Reach Quoracy, Again Alina Ryzhonkova Deputy Editor THE MUCH-DEBATED mainstay of LSE politics, the UGM, went largely unnoticed, as a modest turnout on the day foreshadowed the failure of the motion to reach quoracy.

Ironically, the sorry turnout and general lack of interest in the motion simply highlighted the issue being brought forward by Victoria Murphy and Rayhan Uddin – that of a lack of adequate support by the LSE for extra-curricular activities and democratic participation.

The motion brought up old, yet unresolved issues, however, even the pertinence of issues such as room bookings and the protection of the UGM hour seem to have failed to counter the fatigue of rehashing old arguments and fighting a sofar losing battle with the LSE bureaucracy.

Although the motion did not pass, the symbolism of a motion about the lack of encouragement

of democratic participation failing to reach quoracy is hard to ignore. When asked about the UGM, an incredulous student asked if they are advertised, as she did not know a UGM was taking place that week, nor had she heard what motion was being proposed. Publicity for the UGM and ensuing vote seemed limited to the proposers posting on Facebook, with a distinct lack of any official communication about the UGM going out to the wider student body. The failure of the motion to attract even a medium sized audience to the UGM and then to reach quoracy makes a stronger case for the motion than the motion itself ever could.

Putting the entire issue into perspective, another student asked: “does anyone even care about the UGMs?” Indeed, if numbers are anything to go by, it seems that the general attitude towards the UGMs can best be described as apathetic. The LSESU website lists which motions have been passed this year and which ones

have not. The incompleteness of this list lends validity to the aforementioned student’s doubts about the significance of UGMs, while simultaneously lending support to the motion’s criticism of the current state of democratic participation at the LSE. Some motions may have attracted more attention than others, but the issues surrounding the UGMs remain.

Various motions tend to overshadow another important aspect of the UGM – the chance for elected SU officers

to report on their progress and for students to question them.

In another instance of actions speaking louder than words, the absence of some officers due to scheduling conflicts and the school’s refusal to block out the UGM hour, gave yet more credence to the argument of the motion. The motion may have failed to reach quoracy, but it has brought up significant points about democratic participation at the LSE and continued an important discussion on the topic.

News | 5

London Uni Roundup

The Imperial College RAG Magazine, which is comprised largely of advertisements and satire, has been all but banned after a satirical piece about the AU President was determined to have gone too far. Classed as a form of bullying and harassment, RAG was encouraged to give up all copies of the magazine that have not yet been distributed and to issue an official apology. The historically controversial magazine is likely to be reprinted and distributed without the piece in question.

After UCL announced that it would be closing the Bloomsbury Theatre until 2018 without a clear explanation as to why the closure was happening, UCL arts societies staged a ‘Funeral for the Arts’ protest. Although the protest itself did not attract a huge number of people, the students present achieved their goal of handing high-ranking university officials an open letter condemning the unexplained closure of the theatre. An explanation for the closure is yet to be provided, however, the student protesters have been promised answers by Thursday.

Following the signature of a 50-year lease on four buildings on the Aldwych, KCL has announced that its Students’ Union will be moving to Bush House in 2017. The move is anticipated to provide better facilities for students, especially as the new SU design is based on consultations with over 600 students. More consultations with students are planned for this year, however, the LGBT+ Welfare Officer of the KCL SU has expressed concerns that the move may have more to do with KCL “flexing its financial muscles”, but hopes that the move will be beneficial for the students.

6

|Tuesday 9 February, 2016

Second Doctors’ Strike Approaches LSESU Amnesty InterGreg Sproston News Editor AS A SECOND DOCTORS’ strike approaches, Shadow Health Secretary Heidi Alexander has this week accused the Conservative Party of facilitating a “total breakdown of trust” between the government and the health sector.

As this strike was originally penned to be the third in a series of walk-outs, it was at first intended that it include emergency care.

However, given that a second strike was called off after progress in talks faltered, the BMA - the professional association and trade union of doctors - elected to have emergency care exempted from industrial action. Mirroring the first strike, the walkout will take place for 24 hours from 8am on 10 February in hospitals across England as 53,000 junior doctors

down tools for the day.

The industrial action comes amidst huge levels of support; with 98% of junior doctors balloted voting in favour of strikes, and consultants, despite having to ‘pick up the slack’ to cover striking juniors, generally supportive of their colleagues.

The public, is also in a supportive mood with 49% of respondents in a YouGov poll backing doctors whilst just 31% were opposed - figures that have remained essentially unchanged following an initial strike in January.

As the strike is only covering hospitals, LSE’s St. Phillips Medical Centre located in tower 2 will still be operating as normal; though it is likely that the surgery will be busier than normal and members of the public with any non-urgent issues are being advised to avoid hospitals as consultants work to cover those

on strike. Similarly, any nonemergency medical procedures are likely to have been cancelled.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that this strike will resolve any outstanding issues as the BMA and Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt are currently holding firm on fundamentally opposed positions relating to pay and working hours for doctors, and safety for patients. After independent arbitrators ACAS had no success in mediating talks between the government and BMA, Sir David Dalton, Chief Executive of Salford Royal NHS Trust, was involved, but to no avail. In a press release, Dr. Johann Malawana of the BMA stated that, despite months of good faith negotiations, doctors had seen “no willingness on [the Department of Health’s] part to move on core issues for junior doctors”.

Photocredit: Flickr

national Campaign

Emilia Brown Amnesty International Society GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE world, including the UK government, are collecting data about our private emails, calls, internet searches, contact lists, and phone locations, in addition to vast quantities of other data they do not need.

The LSESU Amnesty International Society is running an on-campus campaign this week against mass surveillance, calling for more transparent surveillance laws, and fighting for the right for privacy.

The week kicks off with a screening of Citizenfour, which tells the inspiring story of Edward Snowden, who in 2013 sacrificed the comfort of his life to uncover how governments are violating citizens’ privacy. On Wednesday 10th, the Society will be hosting a workshop on how to protect yourself and safeguard your personal data online. This will be

run by Ed Johnson-Williams, from the Open Rights Group, a digital campaigning organisation.

On Thursday, the campaign welcomes speakers Anthony Glees, a professor of Politics at the University of Buckingham and director of its Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies; and Harmit Kambo, Director of Campaigns & Development at Privacy International, an organisation committed to fighting for the right to privacy across the world, to debate the issue.

This discussion will examine the advantages and risks of mass surveillance, and will be chaired by Andrew Murray, Professor of Law with particular reference to New Media and Technology at the LSE. The Society will also be handing out information and fundraising outside the SU on campus from Monday to Thursday. For more information, find the campaign event on Facebook at ‘Anti-Mass Surveillance Campaign, LSESU Amnesty International Society’.

Does Microfinance Reduce Poverty?

Jungwoo Yang President, LSESU Microfinance Society MANY STUDENTS AT THE LSE will have come across (and might even specialize in) the concept of “inequality” and the theories behind its existence. Some will likely be aware of the concept of “microfinance” - the provision of financial services for entrepreneurs and small businesses lacking access to banking and similar financial services.

The concept came into the spotlight when Muhammad Yunus founded the Grameen Bank and was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Yunus is a renowned pioneer of ‘microcredit’, which uses small loans made at affordable interest rates in order to transform the lives of impoverished people. The people receiving these loans are, in particular, women, who are encouraged to set up their

own businesses. The fact that a higher participation rate of women greatly boosts productivity is no myth.

Nonetheless, ‘microfinance’, at its birth, was a highly innovative new tool to reduce poverty. There is a great demand for credit. According to Yunus, almost two-thirds of the world’s population do not have access to financial services. “If you don’t have that [money], you wait around to be hired by somebody at the mercy of others. If you have that money in your hand, you desperately try to make the best use of it and move ahead.” His theory being that “all human beings are very creative – full of potential, full of energy… So, money kind of allows them to express it… And if you’re successful, you can take more money. You can expand your capacity, reach the next level of capacity, and so on.”

There is now statistical evidence to suggest Yunus’ vision has come to life. A World Bank study recorded

that 5 percent of the Grameen borrowers escape poverty every year. Internal surveys within the Grameen Bank in 2006 have also shown that, of those who have been with the Bank for five years, at least 64 percent of borrowers found a way out of poverty.

But how about now? How do the prospects of microfinance, or ‘financial inclusion’, look in the year 2016? Can this idea, born in the mid-noughties, still be seen as an innovative tool 10 years on, especially as global poverty continues to grow? The LSESU Microfinance Society will explore this question in a debate. The motion: ‘does financial inclusion (through microfinance) reduce poverty?’ Speaking will be Dr. Phyllis Santa Maria and Dr. Milford Bateman, with the debate chaired by Dr. Kate Meagher – an assistant professor in Development Studies at the LSE. Dr. Santa Maria is a professional in the field of microfinance and

the founder and director of the Financial Inclusion Forum UK, and Learning Without Borders.

Financial Inclusion Forum UK works to bring together people to discuss how to improve access to finance across the world. Learning Without Borders is the UK’s leading provider of Management and Leadership development for Alternative Finance for professionals internationally.

Dr. Milford Bateman is a visiting professor of Economics at the Juraj Dobrila University in Croatia. He is well known as a strong opponent of microfinance, especially microcredit, having written the book: Why Doesn’t Microfinance Work?

Please join us at 5:30PM on 16th February 2016 in CLM2.02 by registering through www. lsesumicrofinance.com.

News | 7

Battle Over Diversity at Oxford as Cameron Calls Out Alma Mater Ramone Bedi Undergraduate Student

lence (LAE) in Stratford, said that the criticism of Oxford was unfair because they had done “huge amounts in terms of outreach” for students from diverse backgrounds.

He went on to say that there were not enough black applicants, thus it is to be expected that the number of black applicants getting accepted would be lower.

Further, Oxford University accused Mr Cameron’s remarks of jeopardising applications from black

students. A spokesman said: “We are deeply concerned that continued allegations of institutional racism or failure will adversely affect our efforts to encourage talented [black and minority ethnic] students to apply”.

Mr Cameron’s remarks have been seen by many as an effort to woo voters who may consider themselves traditionally left of centre ahead of a busy year of elections in Wales, Scotland and London.

Photocredit: Gilman and Soame, Daily Mail

THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD said that it “did not see the need” for the legislation proposed

by David Cameron, which aims to increase diversity among the UK’s top educational institutions.

In an article for The Sunday Times, David Cameron launched a direct attack on the UK’s top universities for their lack of diversity.

He complained about a lack of recruitment of black students, saying that the UK’s leading institutions “should shame our country”.

Mr Cameron specifically referred to Brasenose College, from which he graduated. He noted that Oxford only accepted 27 black students out of a total of 2,500 students in 2014, meaning that only 1% of Oxford’s students were black. He then proceeded to accuse Oxford of “not doing enough to attract talent from across our country”.

The answer to this problem, for Mr Cameron, does not lie in the use of “politically correct, contrived and

unfair solutions” such as quotas. Instead, the prime minister promised to create new laws to shame top universities, in the hope that this would force them to improve diversity.

Jo Johnson, the universities minister, said: “Legislation for a new transparency duty will shine a spotlight on the whole admissions process and expose where offer rates for some of the poorest students and those from black and minority backgrounds are particularly low.”

However, Oxford responded to this criticism claiming that it was making considerable progress in improving access. It accepted 367 UKbased students from ethnic minority backgrounds in 2015, up 15% from the 319 it admitted in 2010. Oxford also insisted that the most appropriate way to solve the lack of diversity problem was to solve it before higher education.

Headteachers have supported this view, saying that the problem arises with state schools being unable to prepare their students for Oxford. John Weeks, headmaster of the London Academy of Excel-

News In Brief

Upcoming Local Economic Development Forum 2016 Ryan Monday Postgraduate Student Graduate students from the Local Economic Development (LED) program of the LSE Geography and Environment Department are set to launch the LED Forum on February 20, 2016. The LED Forum is the students’ signature activity, gathering professionals, politicians, academicians, and policy makers who will discuss, engage, and debate with students on the changing and dynamic landscape of local economic development.

Now in its ninth year of operation, the LED Forum 2016 will have the theme ‘Be Bold’ and will showcase eminent speakers, such as figures from the World Bank and OECD. Delegates who attend the forum will also get the chance to discuss, share, and even put

forward policy recommendations as a means of gaining experience and exposure in fields of development.

Elena Pici, one of the LED student volunteers, shared what delegates this year can expect from the forum. “The LED Forum is a day for dialogue and interaction among LED students, the academic community and representatives from the private and public sectors on contemporary issues related to local economic development.”

She added that, “Delegates can be sure the one day informal setting, organised through different panels and workshops, will give them networking opportunities and the chance to share ideas, concerns and potential solutions on developing issues shaping our today’s local reality.”

Benedict Nisperos, of the PR/Comms Team, commented on the importance of the Forum as a platform for generating

discourse on the topic of economic development. “This a venue of discourse on what works and what does not work in the field. The rich and insightful experience from LED practitioners will add value to the lessons of students and panelists alike.”

“We are confident that the Forum will bring about greater awareness of the importance of economic development... This is vital given the rapid changes brought about by globalisation,” he said.

When asked about the importance of LED Forum 2016, Head of Speakers, Egle Pugaciauskaite, replied, “In the age of globalisation, national development policies are gradually transforming into regional economic policies. This is not surprising since regions are not homogenous and have different endowments, social and cultural

backgrounds. Thus, in order to remain competitive, every region has to develop its own strategy.”

“This forum is going to bring speakers working at OECD, World Bank, professors and many other professionals and practitioners in LED. Thus, delegates in the conference will have a chance discuss key LED problems with professionals, share their ideas or even suggest policy recommendations,” she said.

Past speakers at the LED Forum include Rolf Alter, of the Public Governance and Territorial Development at the OECD, Christian Busch of Sandbox, Iwona Borowik of the Innovation Policy Specialist at the World Bank Group, and Professor Tony Travers of LSE. Those who are interested in the event can go to their Facebook page at ‘LED Forum 2016’ or to their website at ledforum2016.com.

Craft Society Perfume Making Event Smells of Sweet Success Even sweeter aromas than usual wafted around the department of Economics last Tuesday evening as the LSESU Craft Society held a perfume-making workshop in 32 Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Committee members had bought several bottles of essential oils and written instructions as to how to combine them in order to concoct an irresistible scent. There were also guides on the various properties of the essential oils. The workshop was attended by approximately twenty people. Their next workshop will, rather aptly, be a Valentine’s Day Special on 9 February; the event will also run other projects on the day that are set to include 3D cards, bracelets, and yarn hearts.

Pancake Day Comes to LSE Tuesday 9 February is, of course, Pancake Day and the LSESU is keen to ensure that students do not miss out on the ever popular crepe-tactular. Pancakes are usually eaten on what is traditionally known as Shrove Tuesday in order to use up rich, indulgent foods such as eggs, milk, and butter before the 40-day fasting season of Lent begins. This year, the LSESU is celebrating the holiday by selling pancakes and toppings, which will go for the price of £1.50. They will be sold from 12 noon until 2pm from the First Floor Cafe while stocks last.

David Beckham Spotted Near Passfield Hall Footballing hero David Beckham further enhanced his national treasure credentials last Monday as he came to the aid of a geriatric crash victim. An elderly cyclist fell down near Endsleigh Street on Monday 1 February and was soon met by paramedic, Catherine Maynard, who works with the Cycle Response Unit. Maynard was helping the man who had fallen down when she spotted Beckham near Endsleigh Street in central London. Golden Balls himself clambered into his car and returned with tea and coffee for the paramedic and the cyclist ten minutes later. The incident occurred just outside Passfield Hall. This is just the latest act of charity from the former Real Madrid and Man U midfielder who famously donated all his wages to a French Children’s charity whilst enjoying his final swansong at Paris St Germain.

8

|

Tuesday 9 February, 2016

Reinstate the ‘LSE 3’ Cleaners

The dismissal of the ‘LSE 3’ is a reminder that not all staff are #PartofLSE. Michael Etheridge Programme Manager, Department of Media and Communications “LSE WAS FOUNDED IN 1895 for the ‘betterment of society’. We hold true to that ideal today.” Professor Craig Calhoun, LSE Director and President.

Last November three LSE cleaners were dismissed for leaving work an hour early. This amounted to ‘gross misconduct’, according to their employer Noonan, a ‘strategic outsourcing specialist’.

Last year Noonan turned over tens of millions of pounds (up 29% from the previous year). In its annual Director’s report, it identifies as a principal economic risk: ‘unrealistic increases in wages or infrastructural costs impacting adversely on competitiveness of the company.’ However, it suggests that ‘the demand for wage increases will be limited given the trend of general labour rates.’

Noonan answers to its shareholders. But should we? Is there space for a moral economy at LSE? The current model is wellestablished: large institutions outsource their lowest paid jobs in the name of flexibility and economy.

In reality, the institution is also outsourcing liability and ultimately, any ethical responsibility it may (and should) have toward its staff.

But other institutions are forg-

Comment

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

ing better paths. In 2008 Queen Mary, University of London made a business case for the living wage, and for bringing cleaning staff inhouse. Their findings were overwhelmingly positive: ‘The research has revealed that the move to be a living wage employer and bring the cleaning service in-house has stimulated improvements in job quality, productivity and service delivery, with very little increase in costs. In addition, the decision has strong support in and beyond the wider community at QMUL.’ Elsewhere, in 2014 cleaners at SOAS successfully fought for and won parity with their in-house colleagues.

“Noonan answers to its shareholders.

But should we?

Is there space for a moral economy at LSE?” Yet for every victory there are injustices. When cleaners at Sotheby’s staged a protest last year demanding occupational sick pay, four of them were suspended.

Fourteen cleaners at the Foreign Office asked to be paid the liv-

Rocketing Halls Fees

by Marco Lam

ing wage, and were threatened with dismissal for ‘bringing the contract into disrepute’. Most recently, the cleaning staff at St George’s are demanding pay parity and terms and conditions with in-house staff.

The debate has now come to LSE. The ‘LSE 3’, with support from the United Voice of the World are demanding they be reinstated. LSE has no legal obligation to hear their accounts, but it surely has a moral one. Is it right, with a combined service of 20 years, for them to be summarily dismissed without notice pay?

The recently opened International Inequalities Institute is committed to ‘understanding why inequalities are escalating in numerous arenas across the world’.

Where better to start than any office on campus at 7am any day of the week (including weekends!), where you will find overworked, underpaid, undervalued workers who remain our institutional unequals?

As an organisation we have rightly placed equity, diversity and inclusion high on the School’s agenda, most recently it was noted as a strategic priority. Yet the uncomfortable truth is that further you go up the pay scale, the less diverse and equal we are. We justly recognise the benefits of diversity, and yet our most diverse team,

“Yet the uncomfortable truth is that further you go up the pay scale, the less diverse and equal we are.” the Cleaning Services, are not our equals, as they are not staff.

LSE offers staff ‘a competitive salary, great benefits including award-winning family friendly policies, professional development courses, and generous leave, and a stable and rewarding working life’. My colleagues and I regularly take all of these for granted. But are cleaners any less worthy of them? Is the LSE’s Ethics Code and its commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion somehow less relevant to colleagues tasked with keeping our environment clean and safe?

The contemptuous treatment of the LSE 3 reminds us that while as an institution we are committed to the betterment of society, we regularly fall short. It’s time to stop outsourcing responsibility for what is right. Are cleaners #partofLSE, or not?

Why Rhodes Must Fall At Oxford

Comment | 9

Removing Rhodes’ statue confronts the destructive impact and legacy of the British Empire.

Jasmina Bidé and Suyin Haynes Anti-Racism Officer and News Editor THE RHODES MUST FALL Oxford (RMFO) movement is directly inspired by the successful movement of the same name at the University of Cape Town (UCT) beginning in March 2014.

Aiming to combat the ‘institutional white supremacist capitalist patriarchy’ at UCT, in post-apartheid South Africa, the movement was long-overdue, progressive and revolutionary. The ‘Born Free’ generation voiced their increasing frustration at feelings of alienation on a campus in their home country, from the colonial nature of their curriculum to the ubiquitous whiteness of their professors, and it all centered on the prominent statue of Cecil Rhodes, one of the main architects of both southern African colonialism and later the apartheid. This is a man who said, “Africa is still lying

“For no other universally condemned figure in history would a public statue be seen as simply a case of being loyal to history.”

ready for us, it is our duty to take it...we are the finest race in the world and the more of the world we inhabit, the better it is for the human race.” Undeniably, Rhodes is one of the most odious yet most widely celebrated characters in the history of southern Africa and British imperialism. Despite this, a statue glorifying the man who wreaked havoc on, not only South Africa and her people, but the broader continent continued to occupy a prominent place on UCT campus until mid-2015.

And so now we turn to Oxford, where a sister campaign has started, lobbying Oriel College to take down the statue of Rhodes and accompanying plaque overlooking the High Street. Why is there so much vitriol directed at a statue when there are other concerns that can and do tangibly affect students’ education and emotional well-being? Many argue that removing the statue is tantamount to attempting to erase history.

This criticism is unfounded; it is impossible to erase Rhodes from any history, imperial or otherwise, even if we so wished it. However, this does not mean that his statue should occupy a place of prominence in public spaces, a privilege traditionally reserved for historical figures whom society wishes to venerate. Rhodes’ statue in a museum? Perfectly normal. Rhodes’ statue lording over the people he had intended to subjugate? Completely unacceptable. For no other universally condemned figure in history would a public statue be

seen as simply a case of being ‘loyal to history’.

What RMFO has also flagged up is the issue of context; critics of the movement argue that the statue’s position in the British university is entirely different and somehow more acceptable than its position at the UCT. Classicist Mary Beard has weighed in on the debate, arguing that students must be empowered “to look up at Rhodes with a cheery and self confident sense of unbatterability”. The “unbatterability” Beard alludes to here signifies a complete lack of understanding and ignorance of the experience of students who have direct familial ties to the distressing consequences of Rhodes’ colonial conquest.

It is by no means the case that ‘this isn’t South Africa so it doesn’t really matter’. Whilst the presence of the statue on the South African campus was painful, this does not then negate the pain that his presence on Oxford’s campus may cause to students, no matter how small the number may objectively seem. Equally important, this is a case of addressing the reality and ramifications of Rhodes’ actions in Britain and its former Empire, no matter how uncomfortable this may be.

As both a Rhodes Scholar and a lead campaigner of the movement, Ntokozo Qwabe has been criticised as ‘having his cake and eating it’ by the likes of Mary Beard. Yet to what extent is this accurate, given that the financial legacy of Rhodes never truly be-

“Only last week, our dear David Cameron discovered institutional racism for the first time at his alma mater...” longed to him, but to the people whose land he plundered? Becoming a recipient of the scholarship does not automatically entail a subscription to Rhodes’ colonialist ideology and should not be a form of creating prestige for Rhodes, but is a reclamation of what is owed and a way of repairing the damage that was inflicted by him on the social, economic and political environments in southern Africa.

On 31st January, Oriel College reneged on their promise made in December to launch a six-month consultation into the presence of the statue, which arose from the activism of RMFO. The Telegraph reported that it was alleged that the threat of the withdrawal of a proposed £100 million gift in a donor’s will if the statue were to be removed influenced the college’s decision. More than anything, this indicates the level of power concentrated in the hands of a small elite; in bowing to the pressure of financial sponsors,

Oxford University has fully disregarded the students and supporters of RMFO and attempted to suppress any further debate.

In 2014, Oxford’s student newspaper conducted a study which found that the success rate for BME applicants was 8.3% lower than for white applicants.

Only last week, our dear David Cameron discovered institutional racism for the first time at his alma mater, accusing Oxford of ‘not doing enough to attract talent from across our country’ and professing his shock that the university accepted just 27 black British students in 2014. It is clear to RMFO’s organisers and supporters that taking down a statue is not going to eradicate colonialism and solve the elitist problems highlighted here; but what it does symbolise is part of a wider contemporary discourse that remains oppressive and is symptomatic of whitewashing history, both in Oxford and in the wider higher education system in the UK. In an era where 43% of British people still think that the British Empire was a good thing, there is desperate need for serious engagement with the transgressions of the past as RMFO have undertaken, as opposed to celebration of it in a public space, as Oriel College continues to support. The angle of the conversation needs to be shifted away from the systematic denial of the destructive impact and legacy of imperialism, and RMFO is opening the way to that change.

Peer Support is Here to Help Students Being a student at LSE can be tough, but Peer Support is here to listen to all concerns.

Grace Webster Peer Supporter LSE IS UNDOUBTEDLY ONE of the best places globally to intellectually flourish. However, in an environment where academic excellence is the norm, there can be many misconceptions about emotional wellbeing.

Have you ever been in that situation where you don’t know who to talk to or where to turn? Or are you experiencing something which you feel cannot be discussed with family or friends? Or perhaps you have had those niggling thoughts at the back of your mind, but decided to bottle it away? In that case, Peer Support is here to help.

Peer Support provides a time and a place for you to talk in confidence with specifically selected students who have been trained to listen, question and respond to enable you to come to your own solutions. Whatever the issue is, there will always be help at hand. Peer Support facilitates somewhere for

you to voice your feelings, when it may feel like there is nowhere for you to be listened to. We try to understand how you are feeling in a time dedicated to you. By not communicating your issues for fear of burdening others, the only person you are neglecting is yourself.

Crucially what makes Peer Support different to support provided by a friend or anyone else is the connection between the peer supporter and the student. The connection is one based on confidentiality and independence. When you meet with a peer supporter anything that is discussed is kept between yourself and the peer supporter only. The peer supporter will always be completely impartial to allow you to talk through your worries in complete confidence.

In return, the experience of opening up to a peer supporter can be incredibly empowering and fosters self-confidence.

This is important because for many moving to university is an exciting experience but, coupled with the demands of your course, it can

prove rather daunting. Sometimes it may be overwhelming moving to a new city, or maybe a new country.

For others the transition to a new environment and the need to create a new social circle can make one feel isolated. Peer supporters are equipped to help provide support to any worry regardless of its type or magnitude. No matter is too small or insignificant. You may have an issue which is important to you meanwhile others may consider it unimportant: in Peer Support every concern is important and deserves to be listened to.

Similarly there can be the pressure to be seen as adapting to university life quickly and problem free. Yet in a cosmopolitan environment like LSE, where there is a spectrum of people, beliefs and culture, it can often be hard to find a sense of belonging. Nevertheless having worries or concerns at university is completely normal.

Experiencing problems is nothing to be ashamed of; nor is talking about them. Even peer supporters have their own problems some-

times: both past and current peer supporters have used the service themselves. We are all part of the same community; Peer Support’s main role is to ensure LSE is fully integrated and not assimilated.

Peer Support is not limited to students living in halls, in fact, Peer Support is available to everyone at LSE. Although there will be a proportion of peer supporters living in/attached to LSE halls, you can contact any peer supporter of your choice. Talking to a peer supporter can be a liberating experience and means you are one step closer towards solving your problems.

Remember a problem shared, is a problem halved. But it is important to remember that you alone can take the initiative to solve your problems.

Therefore, although LSE is an academic institution, it is a place for you to grow as a person. No matter what your background is, the experiences you have whilst at LSE, the good and the bad, are integral to who we are and shape who we will become. Peer Support is in-

valuable to one’s personal development and is here to support you on your journey at LSE. We are on Twitter: @LSEPEERSUPPORT. Or you can like our Facebook page to be kept up to date with our news and campus events during the year. There is more information about the peer supporters on our Facebook page as well as on the LSE Student Counselling Service website.

If you see any of us around campus, feel free to come and talk to us or alternatively you can drop us an email!

The LSE Student Counselling Service is now recruiting Peer Supporters for the next academic year; 2016/2017 so if you’re interested look at the Peer Support on the LSE Counselling Service website, fill in the application form and email it back to the counselling service.

There will also be a Peer Support Information Lunch on Thursday the 10th of March at 2.00pm in TW1 1.03. You can meet some of us, current Peer supporters there.

10

| Tuesday 9 February , 2016

A Free Speech Society For Whom?

The Speakeasy Society fails to address the real obstacles to free debate in our society today.

Ella Baggaley-Simpson Undergraduate Student IN LATE 2014, AN OXFORD Students for Life debate entitled ‘This House believes Britain’s Abortion Culture Hurts Us All’ was cancelled, following a welldocumented campaign by students. In the aftermath, one of the speakers, Brendan O’Neil received a double paged spread in the Spectator, a book deal and coverage in every national newspaper. Oxford’s no-platform had hardly silenced him. This was not unanticipated. If the real goal of banning speakers on campus was to stifle their voices the tactic would have long ago been abandoned. It persists because no-platforming is a symbolic act, rather than a genuine attempt to supress dissenting ideas.

In last week’s Comment section of The Beaver, Speakeasy’s publication’s officer George Harrison argued that the SU is robbing us of our autonomy, assuming that we are ill-equipped to think for ourselves. This notion of ‘fragility’ is a damaging one. Harrison and his colleagues must realise that opposing the introduction of harmful and offensive beliefs in a university is not a stance of the delicate and unstable. A university campus is a home; it is our right to reject vitriol that might compromise students’ welfare. Yes, the purpose of universities may be to further

“Providing a platform does not equate to endorsing an ideology, but to allow such issues to be subject to ‘free debate and public discussion’ is to lend it a legitimacy that it does not deserve.” knowledge and understanding (to serve as ‘temples of enlightenment and exposure to new ideas’ to borrow a phrase from the official Speakeasy statement), but that is the role of the institution itself, not the SU. Their responsibilities, to academia and the student body respectively, are distinct and must remain that way.

Students’ Unions exist to protect their members, and allowing these kinds of events to take place on campus is an act of neglect.

Harrison claims that ‘toxic views are recognised throughout the UK as backwards’; I can’t help but wonder why then, Speakeasy feels the need to debate these ideas at all. Germaine Greer’s opinions on the topic of

trans people, for instance, are widely documented, out-dated and abhorrent. She is questioning the very existence of a group that comprises a significant part of our own student body. What is the need to publicise her views any further? Providing a platform does not equate to endorsing an ideology, but to allow such issues to be subject to ‘free debate and public discussion’ is to lend the question a legitimacy that it does not deserve. This discussion is not an academic one; we are not enriching our knowledge by inviting such speakers into our university. Yet it is the no-platforming of Greer and those like her that dominates the Free Speech rhetoric. Indeed one of Speakeasy’s campaigns is to invite people who have been no-platformed to speak.

It is easy for Harrison, as a white cis man, to claim these issues warrant debate. He has the possibility of distancing himself emotionally from issues like Germaine Greer’s transphobia, George Galloway’s rape apologism, Donald Trump’s Islamophobia; the same applies to me, as a white cis woman. We can never experience first hand the realities of systematic oppression. I do not doubt for a second that he is well informed on the examples he cites, but he is not the one being affected by these discussions.

While for him, the topics are an abstract academic exercise, for others they are painful lived ex-

perience. When Charlie Hebdo publishes a cartoon depicting a dead child as a sex pest, for instance, it doesn’t affect him in any meaningful way. To label it ‘satire’ does not negate the damage these kinds of journalism do. But he is not one of the French Muslims who have seen hate crimes triple since terrorists attacked that same magazine, in January of last year.

“Run by the privileged for the privileged, it fails to recognise and address the real infringements on free speech that we have in the UK.” It is interesting, too, that while Harrison may state that ‘free speech is a right which can only exist either for all or for none’, there is no mention of Prevent in either his article or any of the Speakeasy literature. It is a scheme designed around silencing Muslim voices and making legitimate activities unlawful – or is this not the sort of ‘free speech’ Harrison envisions as part of his libertarian cacophony of voices? For me, this is exemplary of the wider Free Speech movement. Run by

the privileged for the privileged, it fails to recognise and address the real infringements on free speech that we have in the UK. While people of colour are being silenced by a near-Orwellian government, it’s the fact that the SU shop no longer sells the Sun that Speakeasy see as the real oppression. The lack of perspective is emblematic of the movement at large.

Speakeasy’s entire argument is based on the assumption of a uniform capacity to speak and be heard. This is simply not the case. Marginalised groups are not given the voice granted to the privileged. In 2014, all minority groups accounted for 22.4% of television journalists and 13.3% of those in print, while women make up less than 38% of newsroom staff. This is a phenomenon also found in the classroom; where male students speak more frequently, and both louder and for longer in class discussions than their female counterparts.

If anyone is at risk of silenced, it’s not the speakers being noplatformed. If Speakeasy are genuinely committed to encouraging free speech, they should be campaigning for the most marginalised voices to be heard.

Banning pernicious views from being voiced on campus enables this. The concept of free speech only holds when it is granted to everyone; we need to give a voice to the voiceless, not the belligerently loud.

In Response to the Free Speech Society Only through rational debate can we expose this disingenuous students’ society.

Samar Rizvi Secretary, History Society

Continued from Front Page I’ll keep it brief and address this directly to the committee.

Just because certain individuals disagree with you seem to think that they are doing so because they know no better. What makes you qualified to discern that the source of this disagreement is an inability to use their own higher faculties to determine why they are choosing a particular course of action? What sort of disdain do you have for your colleagues that you think of them essentially as cattle unable to break from the herd?

But I think a deeper question about the nature of learning and knowledge has to be asked. The Free Speech Society, like John Stuart Mill’s ‘On Liberty’ 157 years before them, should be criticised for idealising the process of

“What sort of disdain do you have for your colleagues that you think of them essentially as cattle unable to break from the herd?” learning. Not everyone can learn in the same way and structural factors in polities are such that the media and by extension student politics naturally promote certain narratives over others.

These are issues to which I have no concrete solution. Unlike the Free Speech Society, I don’t assume that in a particular doctrine I have the answers to these questions. I want to discuss with my fellow students how we can better address these problems

through the democratic system that we already have. Not some self-appointed politburo. If we want to hear the voices of people that are not represented well, both on society committees and in student politics more broadly, surely the best way to do so is to not alienate them further. I’m not saying that people don’t need to be extended intellectually. Bringing in George Galloway to speak on Israel or Katie Hopkins to speak on immigration doesn’t do that. It mocks students’ opinions (not to mention intelligence) needlessly.

This is what makes this student organisation self-indulgent.

The leaders of this society believe that they are promoting free speech but in reality they are promoting it in a way that is palatable to those already in their camp.

I will summarise my grievances in two points.

Firstly, this society cannot promote all voices in an equitable manner. This is not because of its members’ respective back-

grounds, as another author suggested libellously. It is because it has an agenda and it is disingenuous to say otherwise. This means the society cannot be a forum like Intelligence Squared or the Oxford Union.

Secondly, the Free Speech Society argues to win. It is an organisation like any issue based lobbyist group that seeks to convince that its position is correct. There is no element of introspection regarding the validity of its own position. If this were the case they wouldn’t need official accreditation, they’d meet independently and probe the philosophical foundations of their own position be-

“I don’t agree with banning this organisation and I urge you not to.”

fore proselytising. Irrespective of how they market it you, dear reader, they want to convince you to believe what they believe.

But I do not blame this organisation’s founders entirely for its lack of purpose. Think of the Free Speech Society as a manifestation of a more deadly illness in the Students’ Union as a whole: the conceptual crisis of the LSE student society. People are frustrated about the nature of our democracy, frustrated by its bureaucracy and not sure how best to express this frustration. Setting up a free speech society is a feeble attempt at correcting this broader issue, because it concedes defeat.

Supporting this society actively acknowledges that student politics is not curable.

I don’t agree with banning this organisation and I urge you not to. Doing so would give them an underserved victory. Let us expose them for the charlatans that they are. Let us expose this shallow and disingenuous form of resistance through rational debate.

Comment | 11

We Should Not Ban the Anti-Ban Society

An argument in response to the motion to ban the new LSESU Free Speech Society.

Emilia Brown Undergraduate Student I F I ’ M H O N E S T, I A M slightly confused by the motion to ban the new LSESU Free Speech Society, otherwise known as Speakeasy.

The author of last week’s Beaver article, Maurice Banerjee Palmer, acknowledges that ‘I don’t really want to ban the Speakeasy/ Free Speech society. But I want to make a point; that, and it would be hilarious if the anti-ban society was actually banned’. I’m not too sure what he has to gain by banning a society that he doesn’t actually want banned, but nevertheless I’ll try to deconstruct the argument.

There are two main criticisms of the society in his article. Firstly, that the society is ‘ill-informed’, secondly, that it is ‘self-important’.

By ill-informed he proposes that the society ‘endorse hate speech’.

This could not be further from the truth. The purpose of free speech is to allow all opinions to be debated and to argue for or against them publicly, rather than letting unfashionable ideas foster underground.

Free speech is the means by which one can change their views, and ac-

knowledge human fallibility.

As a society, it is necessary that Speakeasy draws as few lines as possible regarding when certain ideas can or cannot be expressed. This is because lines drawn are always arbitrary, and could easily be contested. However, it is still accepted and welcomed that proponents of free speech have their own thoughts on when a line is crossed. This is something that can be debated.

“Free speech is the means by which one can change their views, and acknowledge human fallibility.”

To go back to Banerjee Palmer’s point, allowing all speech is not the same as endorsing unwelcome opinions. It is giving it a platform to be challenged and discussed. As rational beings, we should be willing to justify our claims, and dissect those claims we disagree with. By listening to one another, we will either be further convinced of our

own view or persuaded of the other.

Free speech exposes hate speech for the nonsense that it is by opening it up to criticism. Simply banning certain forms of speech ignores the heart of the issue, and deprives us of our autonomy, whereas critically deconstructing it allows us to assess and defend our morals.

As for the second criticism, of being self-important, the author describes how members of the society seem to ‘fall into a group of people who don’t like a perceived focus on women and minorities’. Free speech is the tool which enables minorities to campaign for their rights and gain support. Giving minorities a voice and a platform to express themselves is one way in which society progresses and social change takes place. Surely it would be contradictory to not allow this right to all others?

For those who argue that this society was set up specifically to bash feminism, I am a feminist, and if anyone says something I disagree with, I don’t want it to be censored.

I want to take their argument to pieces and prove that I have the rational capability to do this. I would rather a cultural shift than intervention which creates further hostility and animosity. This provides a

“Giving minorities a voice and a platform to express themselves is one way in which society progresses and social change takes place.” long term and sustainable solution, whereas a blanket ban is reactive and unstable. I want to engage with differing opinions, and not have censorship deny us this opportunity by sheltering us from beliefs.

For those without privilege, free speech can, and has, be used as a tool for social empowerment.

For those fortunate enough to have privilege, it is important to use this to discredit flawed arguments and stand up for universal rights. Rather than restricting the rights of those fortunate enough to be heard in society, we should be uplifting and giving a higher voice to those less privileged. We should carry

on introducing and discussing new perspectives, so that different groups can learn from one another, like with LGBT and women’s rights in the 20th century, so that society advances.

There shouldn’t be a double standard regarding who is or is not allowed to speak their mind. To those who say that Speakeasy is an ego trip for a few advantaged students, I would argue that freedom of speech is a right that should be cherished and protected. It should be promoted on campus. It should be given a platform. Speakeasy’s new ‘Humans of Free Speech’ project explores students’ views on free speech. It shows the genuine appetite for free speech on campus, from students of all walks of life.

Millions of people across the world are denied the opportunity to voice their opinion, and stripping free speech away from them is a form of oppression and marginalisation. Voting against free speech at university is a dangerous path to go down, and sets a troubling example for others to follow.

At a university where we hope to discover ‘the causes of things’, where diversity is celebrated and valued, free speech allows us to make the most of that.

The True Beauty of Free Speech

How Katie Flynn and Maurice Banerjee Palmer recruited me to the Speakeasy society.

Bobby Gard-Storry Undergraduate Student

CONGRATULATIONS TO Katie Flynn and Maurice Banerjee Palmer: you successfully recruited me to the LSE Free Speech Society.

When I bumped into a couple of the society’s founders in the George IV the other week, I was thoroughly sceptical. “Well yeah,” I told them, “Free speech is important, but… do we really need a society?” Later, to friends, I repeated my succinct conclusion, “You don’t need a society for everything you approve of !”

I was pleased with the line. But I’ve been proven quite wrong.

Facing the rapidly expanding quagmire of the debate, I first considered penning a piece that rose above the hand-to-hand combat and eloquently expressed the principle itself; concise and academic; inspiring and persuasive. But if I were to pile up the pre-existing free speech literature, the heap would tower above SSH. So instead, I’m going to get stuck into the specifics.

Let me break down Palmer’s article properly, to give it it’s due.

Firstly, to address the argument that banning things isn’t the best way of improving behaviour; that it leads to caricatures of the banners being pro groupthink. Some concepts have been argued about

since the dawn of civilisation, and quite possibly won’t ever be ‘resolved’. Everybody believes they have the answer to what is Good, Right and Just, but nobody can offer a universally agreeable solution.

Without laboriously spelling out the history of ethics, it’s easy to see that the notion of what constitutes ‘behavioural improvement’ is so subjective as to be generally useless in creating rules for communities who respect the different conceptions of morality their members have. To suppose otherwise, is to presuppose ‘groupthink’; that’s no caricature.

Secondly, that the UGM isn’t meant to succeed; it’s meant to make a point, and- if in fact successful - be ‘hilarious’. The irony of this situation is glaringly apparent. Students organise a group to express a view. They spread their opinions through all avenues open to them. Others, who disagree, object through whatever avenues they have - writing, discussing, debating. Points are made, and swiftly countered. The process is fluid and responsive. If the powers-that-be were then to weigh in, announcing ‘this is what’s right, and all people in the wrong must disband’, it would be glaringly apparent that those exact liberties that we’d all just previously been making very robust use of had been trampled on. Hilarious? I think not.

Thirdly, ‘the founders are selfimportant’. Even if true, I couldn’t care less. If somebody I despise makes a point I absolutely agree with, do I agree any less? No. The ad hominem does no favours for Palmer’s argument, and nor does the unfair characterisation that ‘at worst they pretty much endorse hate speech’. I’d wager that even the most ‘extreme’ in the society would at most tolerate hate speech.

I tolerated the presence LSE100 in my life for many months, and I’d be aghast to discover that this amounted to ‘endorsing’ it.

Forthly, that the founders are ‘ill-informed’. Then inform them!

Using, of course, your freedom to speak.

Fifthly, ‘Speakeasy’ has a silly name. Even as a joke, this mudslinging addendum trivialises the main thrust of Palmer’s argument. The indictment is akin to saying, “Max is rude, obnoxious and disruptive… and fat”. Weight is irrelevant, and including it in a list of Max’s faults is quite literally uncalled for. When further discussing whether or not a view ‘Max’ espouses is correct, even an exhaustive list of defects would still be entirely by-the-by. What matters here is the substance.

Now, onwards to Katie Flynn’s tweet: ‘Usual free speech brigade @ LSE making waves again. Speakeasy ~ speakracist ~ speaksexist ~

plsdontspeakjustfuckoff’.

Let me bite this particular bullet, knowing it’ll probably blow my head clean off as a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, British man (yeah, I really got the full privilege box set). Speak racist, speak sexist, speak homophobic and speak whatever else you have, if that’s what you believe. Let your inner honest thoughts out, and let me see you for who you are. Let me listen, then let me try and explain to you why your views are absurd, and show you the damage they do. I’ll argue, and I’ll call on others to do likewise. I’ll denounce your opinions, I’ll rant and rave at you about it and, maybe, I’ll never associate with you again… but I will not tell you not to say it.

Like most people, I try my best to be polite. I don’t like causing offence. But, to quote an LSE student from a recent London Globalist video: “[Although] It’s just a good thing not to be mean to each other… there’s a lot of intellectual and emotional benefit to be had from facing conflict head-on and having an open and honest debate about things.”

As somebody often accused of being a ‘lefty’ by my friends, I doubt I’m part of Flynn’s ‘usual crowd’.

I abhor all forms of bigotry. I’m a feminist. I’m an environmentalist. It’s often the case that in these principled debates, you share space with distasteful bedfellows, and in

the arguments over free speech this is certainly the case. But that fact says nothing about the principle itself, when the reasons for it are sound. What I am defending is not a charter for oppression, but recognition of something some of us seem to have forgotten: that people ought to have a right not to be polite.

The beauty of free speech is that it takes no sides. It can be put to work by anybody, and while it might seem like a hindrance in one instant, you can be sure that it’ll help in another. We need to make a very clear distinction between the sets of behaviours we don’t like, and the subset of aggressions that the majority of us agree do so much damage that they ought to limited. I firmly believe that in this regard, Speakeasy should not have a ‘party line on the line’, because everybody draws it differently. Exactly where the legal threshold is to be set is a vital discussion for a democratic community to have. To have it - once again - free speech comes to our aid. But does the ‘anti-ban society’ cross the line? I believe, emphatically, that it does not. The crude attempts by some to smother it at birth only serve to prove that it is, in fact, necessary.

Plsdontspeakjustfuckoff? No. Please speak, and allow me the pleasure of telling you to fuck off, with my freedom of speech.

12| Tuesday 9 February, 2016

Democracy Committee: Who are they? What do they do?

With Lent Term elections only round the corner, those of us at Beaver HQ thought it might be good for our readers to become better acquainted with the lovely members of Democracy Committee and what they do for LSESU; they are not just the pretty faces that host Union General Meetings (UGMs) on a Thursday lunchtime. So here it is, before the picketing begins, your introduction to Democracy Committee,

The Union

Frankie from team engagement and answering emails on the Democracy Committee account about motions people want to submit, as well as helping them make changes in accordance with the bye laws.

What is your name?

Katie Flynn What is your year and degree?

I’m a third year International History student What is your position on Democracy Committee?

I am Union General Meeting (UGM) Chair.

What does this position involve?

Being UGM chair involves chairing the Union General Meeting every week, making sure that they are conducted in good faith that people get the chance to ask questions.

I also spend time liasing with

What has been your favourite moment/experience since becoming a part of Democracy Committee?

My favourite moment was seeing my best friend propose an emergency motion she was really passionate about regarding Syria. Not only did we hold the Emergency Union Meeting but there was a massive turnout and the motion was passed.

What are you most excited about with regards to Lent Term elections?

I am most excited for election night drinking games and the atmosphere in the room. Oh, and the funny videos of course.

If you could be any voting system, which would you be and why?

If I was a voting system I would be Proportional Representation (PR), because I am ridiculously indecisive too.

What is your position on Democracy Committee?

I am the Returning Officer What does this position involve?

My position makes me responsoble for overseeing elections including ensuring their fairness and that candidates abide by the rules. I also resolve any candidate complaints.

If you could be any voting system, which would you be and why?

I’m a fan of First Past The Post (FPTP). Decisive majority governmnet - with a clear opposition - is the best way to make efficient decisions.

What is your year and degree?

I am a third year Government and Economics student

What has been your favourite moment/experience since becoming a part of Democracy Committee?

It was great to see the enthusiasm and fervour around the Syria debate and to have my faith restored in the enduring power of student union democracy.

What is your name?

Hari Prabu What is your year and degree?

I am a third year Anthropology and Law Student What is your position on Democracy Committee?

I am vice-chair of UGM What does this position involve?

My position involves smiling and nodding with the chair, reading Mahmoud’s absence statements, inviting questions from the audience, figuring out new ways to try and boost the

What are you most excited about with regards to Lent Term elections?

I am looking forward to a more open and less predictable Lent Term race where, like the BBC keeps teling us about the FA Cup, anything could happen.

If you could be any voting system, which would you be and why?

List system forever - it may not be as clever as some of the other systems, it may not be as accurate in reflecting intentions as STV or AMS, but it is simple, it is proportional and it’s damn sight better then First Past The Post. ite moment/experience since becoming a part of Democracy Committee? #yeezy2020

What has been your favourite moment/experience since becoming a part of Democracy Committee?

My favourire moment so far was going up on stage in the Venue to announce the results of the Michaelmas Term elections. It was great to see the reactions of the winning candidates who had put in so much time and energy into campaigning.

What are you most excited about with regards to Lent Term elections?

I would say I’m most looking forward to seeing which issues this year’s candidates choose to focus on. The elections always produce such high quality debate about how to improve the SU and the university as a whole. It’s great seeing so many good ideas put forward.

What is your name?

Fraser Bell

numbers of that audience, and avoiding impeachment.

What are you most excited about with regards to Lent Term elections? #yeezy2020

What is your name?

Jake Fryer

If you could be any voting system, which would you be and why? #yeezy2020

What is your year and degree?

I am a second year Social Policy student

This year’s Lent Term Election Results will take place on Thursday 10th March, 8-11pm.

What is your position on Democracy Committee?

Democracy Committee Chair

To join the Facebook event and recieve updates log on to: https:// www.facebook.com/ events/789790837794044/

What does this position involve?

As Democracy Committee Chair, my job involves chairing What has been your favour-

The Union got in touch with the whole of Democracy Committee in preparation for this article, sadly no response was received from Joshua Ip.

The Union | 13

2015 SU Election Highlights In Pictures

Who’s Being Elected In March?

What positions will we be electing this March?

Sabbatical Officers: General Secretary Primary representative of LSE students to the School, the media, and the outside world. Sits on the most important committees of the School, working across the Executive to make sure every officer is able to campaign on the issues they are passionate about – and that the School is listening to students Activities and Development Officer Overall responsibility for developing societies, Athletics’ Union, Media Group, RAG and volunteering, and working with students to achieve a fun LSE! As the chair of the Activities Assembly, also has responsibility for developing a student network of volunteers and campaigning activists.

Community and Welfare Officer The Community and Welfare Officer is responsible for working

with fellow students to improve the quality of life amongst the student body. They take a lead role in coordinating accommodation issues, creating a more ethically responsible School and prompting healthy living. They also assist with improving the provision of student support and widening participation.

AU President The AU President takes the lead role in representing the interests and members of the Athletics Union to the Students’ Union and the School. Along with the Activities and Development Officer, the AU President develops and strengthens sports at LSE.

Education Officer The leading student voice on academic issues. Chair of the Education Assembly, and responsible for leading the student voice on academic affairs, such as teaching quality, feedback, the lack of resits, broader teaching and learning developments and putting LSE students at the heart of national education issues.

BME Officer Represents LSE’s BME students in all aspects of their university career, working towards equal representation in the community and within the School.

Part-time Officers: Anti-Racism Officer Runs campaigns and events aimed at eliminating and countering all forms of discrimination based on race, religion or nationality.

Supports students who have been victimised by racism.

Disabled Students’ Officer Represents the interests of students with disabilities, wellbeing issues, or illness to the Union and the School.

Works with the LSE Disability & Wellbeing Office and the staffstudent disabilities network. Plans awareness campaigns and events.

Environment and Ethics Officer Develops sustainability initiatives at the LSE, and runs campaigns on issues of ecology, social justice, peace and solidarity. Leads the

running of Green Week campaign.

International Students’ Officer Represents the views of International Students to the Student’ Union Executive and the School. Coordinates cultural diversity on campus. Works with students and societies to promote events and campaigns with an international flavour.

LGBT+ Officer Coordinates the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender+ (LGBT+) campaign to tackle homophobia and defend, extend and deepen the rights of LGBT+ students. Works closely with the LGBT+ Alliance.

RAG President Responsible for coordinating the Raising and Giving Society which is the fundraising body of the SU. Organises events aimed at raising money for a variety of charities.

Women’s Officer Represents female students within the Union to ensure equality.

Runs campaigns on issues that are important to female students and challenges the under-representation of women.

Other Positions: There are eleven more positions that are elected during Lent Term elections. These positions are: Democracy Committee (5 members) The five individuals who make up Democracy Committee including UGM chair, Deputy UGM chair and Returning Officer.

AU Executive (5 members) The five individuals who support the AU President. Positions include AU Engagment Officer, Treasurer, Events and Communications Officers, PhD Member of the Trustee Board A PhD Student is elected to join the other students who sit on the Trustee Board, all of whom would have been elected in the Michaelmas Term Elections.

| Tuesday 9 February, 2016

Photo

14

Photos clockwise from bottom right: LSE MUN 2016, LSE Womens’ Rugby complete Tough Guy, LSE SU’s ‘Do Black Students at LSE Achieve Less?’, Burns Night Ceilidh 2016.

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

16 | Tuesday 9 February, 2016

ORIGINAL

ADVICE 14

FOR THE UNREQUITED LOVER Eden Howard The time is once again upon us to indulge in the enigma of Valentine’s Day, a periodic occurrence that obliges lovers to reaffirm their affections and remind singles of the fairytale romantic ideal that so eludes them. In addition to this polarity there exists another category of person, the unrequited lover, whose regrettable love endures but is uncelebrated and for whom February 14th will only bring sorrow, feelings of anguish, inadequacy, resentment. “Will you be my Valentine?” “No” – here transpires a simple interaction that encapsulates the destroyed hopes of the rejected heart, feelings that some will encounter upon expressing their love to another where in one unfortunate day he who musters the courage now loses his confidence and joins the ‘unrequited lovers’ club, a club where nobody wants to be a member. “Am I not good enough?” and other unanswered question will preoccupy the mind, only for the rejectee to slink away dejected, now painfully self-aware. There are of course many types of love, four forms if we adopt C. S. Lewis’ analysis (The Four Loves), but it is Eros, the conditional, romantic sort, that we are urged to value on this day, much to the aversion of the bitter rejectee. Instead of celebrating bilateral love however, this article approaches romance from that frequently overlooked unilateral perspective, providing advice on how to deal with its tender reality, when Cupid himself appears to have been mistaken, the swine.

Firstly for the unrequited lover, Catullus can be a source of empathy, particularly on Valentine’s Day where roses and cards torment with images of bilateral affection, forgetting those afflicted unilateral lovers whose dreams of a relationship with X are just that and will most probably never come into fruition: “Odi et amo. quare id faciam, fortasse requiris? nescio, sed fieri sentio et excrucior.”

“I hate and I love, why do I do this, perhaps you ask?

I do not know, but I feel it happening and I am tormented” - Catullus 85

Despite its appeal, my besotted friend, avoid poetry as a consolation in your anguish.

Instead of ostracising yourself in a sea of stems (having beheaded a dozen roses), seek inspiration in role models so as to survive this intolerable day. Johannes Brahms is a figure to consider whose unreciprocated love for Clara Schumann compelled his creativity as a composer, thus demonstrating that a desire to be loved by and to love another, which may at first seem an unbearable reality of human nature, can in fact be transformed into something positive.

Secondly, having taken inspiration from Brahms and now in recovery from this episode, you should approach love again (if you desire to do so) with a stoic realism, for despite the superficial image we are fed in romantic novels, love involves the taking of a risk and substantial emotional investment. The unrequited lover knows all too well that he must not romanticise love – a paradox in itself – so as to protect himself from the sting of lover’s naivety, a syndrome that often reappears. May Cesare Pavese’s haunting words serve as a preliminary caution: “No one ever kills himself for the love of a woman, but because love - any love - reveals us in our nakedness, our misery, our vulnerability, our nothingness.” Love’s promise of fulfilment can, as the rejectee will be aware, prove empty and therefore it is important to love oneself, not to Narcissus’ extent, but to care for one’s’ being prior to seeking another.

Take heed, unrequited lover, for it is true that happiness can be found in love, but one should not forget that it can also damage hearts beyond repair, revealing the bleakness of their insecurities, their feelings of inadequacy, their regrets: “‘Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all” (Alfred, Lord Tennyson, In Memoriam A.H.H.), but for the rejectee one cannot always be too sure. Thus, instead of wallowing in self-pity, engross yourself in exploring interests, developing passions and above all loving yourself because the acquisition of a lover is notoriously uncertain whereas in life you can take comfort from the fact that you will always be a companion to yourself.

If you would like to send us an original short story or poem please email partb@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Image: Separation by Edvard Munch (1896)

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

Hanna Lee Yo-en Chin

FASHION Photos: Ryo Helmenkalastaja

A NIGHT TO REMEMBER

17

THE LSESU FASHION SHOW

Maria Maleeva LAST MONDAY WAS INDEED A DAY OF FASHION AT THE LSE. In a busy club in the middle of Soho, the LSESU Fashion Society presented its annual charity fashion show and it was definitely a show to remember. Seeing DSTRKT full of people proved that our students have passion not only for studying but for art as well. Although the event started more than an hour late, it was worth the wait.

In my opinion, some of the clothes can easily make it to high fashion. I was especially pleased with the men’s collections. Agraj presented us the sporty and a bit edgy collection of mostly black and white pieces; imagine when Dsquared2 meets Maison Martin

Margiela and you’ve got it. Matoro Sari and Masato Jones wowed me with their great street style looks, which I can easily imagine on Kanye West. However, one designer stood out of this fashion crowd and it was Laura Dark. Her creations had certain vibes of old school fashion with its classy prints and sleeveless jackets - I genuinely loved the romantic, nerdy style.

The women collections were not bad either. I quite liked Sunny D’s collection influenced by Balenciaga and Self-Portrait. It nicely played on the edge of femininity and seductiveness making the whole collection look balanced and complete. Hannah Felter, on the contrary, staked on the pure colour and simple silhouette and definitely won; her silk top and wide trousers

look was my favourite. Following Hannah Felter, Dume Dume stood out by mixing traditional African dress with the Studio 54 Bianca Jagger look. As it is written on her web page, Dumebi Jacqueline (designer of Dume Dume) is “creating classically elegant culturally orientated pieces with the overriding objective of body adornment” and no doubt one can easily see that she succeeds in it. Almost at the end of the show Carolina Bruce made a clear statement with her fantastic long red dress. I think it was the most photographed dress in the area where I was sitting. So, if you don’t believe me, believe the dozens of people around me. I think it’s a bit influenced by Armani Privé, but it still makes for an amazing wow effect. The last designer I’d like to

mention is Menestho - I personally like 60s and this collection had all the swing. Bright colours, straight cut playful dresses or Jackie Kennedy-like elegant clothes – it had it all.

Scallop cut has never been so appealing to me before.

Apart from fashion itself I would like to mention how diverse the models were. It is the standard which the whole fashion should strive to reach. All these prove that true fashion looks great on every person, not just the ideal-looking models. As for the drawbacks of the event I have already mentioned the late start, that irritated the audience a bit. Especially, as they had to stand for most of the time outside the venue. The organization itself could be better and I am sure the team will make it a point for next

year. It would also be nice to clarify about the charity background of the show, as a person who has never been on any of the Annual Charity Fashion Shows at the LSE I left a bit confused about on where exactly the tickets money went. I hope the Fashion Society will take into account all of these comments.

All in all, the general impression of the show itself is good. If you still are not convinced how truly diverse and fashionable the show was, here is a little hint for you.

Imagine bright colours, all types of cuts, bit of glitter and prints, some see-through clothes aligned with conservative ones, loads of textures from silk to mohair, edgy sweatshirts and military chic and you will probably get the sense of what you have missed.

18 | Tuesday 9 February, 2016

REVIEW 14

BEGIN AGAIN

FILM Sarah Ku “BEGIN AGAIN” (2014) IS A COMEDY-DRAMA film directed by John Carney that revolves around Gretta’s (Keira Knightley) journey of launching her music career in New York. Initially accompanying her long-time boyfriend and music partner Dave (Adam Levine) to NYC as he signs to a major music label, she becomes disillusioned after his infidelity and plans to go back to England. She later gets discovered by a jaded former record label executive, Dan (Mark Ruffalo), who attempts to sign her to his former record label. Yet, her acoustic music does not impress the current boss of the label because he prefers a more mainstream and pop sound that dominates the music scene. Gretta and Dan then decide to record their own album on the streets of New York by recording live and incorporating natural sounds.

I did not see the film until a year after its initial release. While the film has a star-studded cast, I have to admit that the film poster makes it look a bit like a tacky rom-com, and haven’t we got enough music-related films in recent years? I was not ready for another cliché film about an unknown musician chasing after his or her dream and becoming a famous rock star. It wasn’t until a hot summer day in Shanghai, where I was interning, that I went to see the film with my friend to escape the heat wave. It was China’s so-called “domestic film protection month” when they would literally promote and protect their Chinese-produced films by delaying the screening of new foreign movies, so there was an extremely limited choice of screenings.

I went in expecting to watch an OK comedy with a few laughs, but the film offered more than I expected.

Although the girl next to me was texting on her phone throughout the film with a blindingly bright screen, the film grasped my attention and I enjoyed 104 minutes of lovely entertainment. Everything is nicely tied together with an appropriate pace, though the beginning is a bit drawn out and repetitive. The film starts at the middle of the story, as Gretta has left her cheating (ex) boyfriend and plans to leave New York on the next day. It flashes back to the time when she first arrives in NYC, and goes on to depict her journey of creating her first album with the help of Dan. It is refreshing to see a film with two leads who are not each other’s romantic interest. Dan and Gretta have some sort of mentor-mentee relationship, as Dan helps to produce and launch Gretta’s album. At the same time, she motivates him to sort out his family troubles and repair his relationship with his estranged wife and daughter. I am not saying that they have no chemistry or zero attraction to each other, but this is a breath of fresh air in comparison to the usual films in which the male lead would always end up falling for the female lead and then have a happily-ever-after ending.

Although the plot is somehow predictable and Gretta, as expected, reaches success by the end of the film, there are creative elements such as recording in different places around NYC, like in the subway and on a random rooftop. There is also a pleasant little twist at the end that alludes to Gretta’s ambition of staying true to music, in comparison to the sell-out pop star that is Adam Levine’s film character. While it is quite clear that the tracks were pre-recorded in a studio, it is impressive that Knightley underwent vocal and guitar training for the film. The amazing soundtrack is definitely one that I would save on Spotify.

Throughout the film, there is a good use of lighting and colour. The cinematography is beautifully done, and it does justice to the attraction of the Big Apple.

The film’s colour and contrast is also finely tuned to give it a nostalgic tone. If you enjoy music and a few good laughs, this film is definitely not to miss.

FILM

19

REVIEW

INNOCENCE OF MEMORIES

Chloe Mow GRANT GEE, A WELL-KNOWN MUSIC VIDEO PRODUCER HAS diverted his talent to create a ghostly recount of Turkey in the 1970s within the book written by the Turkish Nobel prize winner Orhan Pamuk: The Museum of Innocence, published in 2008.

The movie begins with a narrator that appears to be central to the story, but is later revealed as simply an observer with a small tie to the main characters of the Shakespearean-esque romance tragedy. The Museum of Innocence retells the love story between Kemal who was 31 at the time and Fusun at 18, whom met by chance, a few months before Kemal’s engagement to another person. It is a film directed as a travelogue that showed no proper indications of the appearance of characters or any snippets of actual footage of the events that conspired in the retelling of the love story, rather it was told through the items and historical archives from the museum which was established in April 2012 as a tribute to the book and the intense infatuation between Kemal and Fusun. In fact, footage of famous movies and events during the time of the romance was shown as a way of establishing the context, leaving much to imagination for the audience. This was enhanced by the POV (point of view) filming technique that allowed the audience to walk through the streets of Istanbul in the same assumed manner as Kemal did during the peak of the romance, where he saw Fusun in everyone and everywhere.

All the alienation from the story’s actual characters, allowed the audience to roam around the narrative in a ghostlike manner, filling in gaps in our own minds of who and what had occurred during the 8 years of separation. It was a travelogue that allowed us to observe the beauty of love and infidelity in the midst of Turkey’s westernisation in the 70s and the impacts it had on real people that had connections to the central characters of the story, but most importantly, it allowed the audience to question the memories within themselves.

WHAT IS TRUTH AND WHAT IS FICTION? It allowed each audience member to realise at the end, that we too were the narrator, observing and connecting the story to a personal level, with the ties that are innate within everyone; the ideas of infatuation, love and infidelity. It is then that one can see the reasoning behind the physical Museum of Innocence, as it not only stands as a building of memories for the central characters, but also a reminder to all, that memories are ever-changing, as our association with events or feelings are volatile and often unreliable, unless associated with objects, because objects can be timeless. Timeless like Kemal and Fusan’s romance which will continue to live on through the very words of the novel and the objects that stand to fulfil them.

14

20

| Tuesday 9 February, 2016

LIVE REVIEW

MUSIC

COHEED, CAMBRIA & GLASSJAW AT THE FORUM Rob Funnell COHEED AND CAMBRIA DECIDING TO TOUR EUROPE and the UK with Glassjaw may seem like an extremely strong lineup on the surface, but in reality was a risky and potentially divisive move. While both bands have received significant critical acclaim over the years, the prog-rock eccentricities of the headliners coupled with Glassjaw’s schizophrenic sound and lack of any new material in the form of a full length album in just under 14 years meant each band has a small but fervent cult following and potentially lead to some alienation for anyone not familiar with either band’s releases. However, two electric sets from both bands meant regardless of one’s prior exposure to either band, the O2 Forum in Kentish Town was truly lit up with a fantastic example of some of the best live music in the current music scene.

Unfortunately, owing to some draconian timetabling at LSE with a one off 6pm compulsory lecture, the support band Crooks were not witnessed - however Glassjaw did a good job of kicking off the show. Their eclectic discography - although only two albums long - kept the performance interesting, and while the swap from extremely heavy post-hardcore growling to almost jazz-like laid-back improvisation threatened to be jarring, it distinguished them from many similar bands and served as a testament to why their sophomore (and most recent, even though it harks back to 2002) album Worship and Tribute is viewed as a monumental, genre-defining release.

The Glassjaw fans were certainly evident in the crowd, with an extremely lively reaction to hits such as ‘Ape Dos Mil’ and the closure ‘Siberian Kiss’ with a passion that is rarely seen for a supporting band.

While a mass exodus to the bar threatened a tepid reaction to Coheed and Cambria’s headline set, this was soon put to rest as the floor became flooded with fervent fans who had travelled far and wide for one of the three UK dates to see the prog rock legends. This was further exemplified by the reaction as the band came on and blew the audience away with opener ‘Island’; only a matter of months old, the crowd still sung every word and was jumping and moshing as if this song was a cult classic. This taste of things to come was truly representative of the entire set - every song had a bombastic reaction from the listeners, and through what was a fantastically balanced setlist with both new and old tunes from almost every album appearing at some point, the atmosphere really carried the band and gave them momentum to bring their live show up to the next level.

The technical expertise of Coheed and Cambria was evident as ever, with every band member hitting every note with pinpoint accuracy. Even though for the majority of the performance one could not see the frontman’s face owing to his incredibly impressive (and incredibly expansive) mane, lead singer Claudio Sanchez used his freakishly diverse vocal range to go from the almost child-like highs of ‘A Favor House Atlantic’ to the brooding and haunting lows of ‘Eraser’ with ease, all while shredding virtuosic guitar solos. Taking some time out between songs to interact with the audience and even doing a monologue on how the recent support of the band has helped him through what is a transitionary period in terms of material truly brought through a human side to the performance and was reacted to with raucous support from the crowd.

The highlight had to be ‘In Keeping Secrets of Silent Earth: 3’ before the encore - when the band excellently built up to a bombastic climax where they suddenly dropped everything and let the crowd scream the chorus in unison, the gig transcended from merely watching an admittedly brilliant live band. Regardless of whether this was one’s first or fifteenth time watching the band, the audience unified under a collective sense of euphoria and exhilaration which persisted throughout until the entirely epic ‘Welcome Home’ ended the night on a heroic high. Coheed and Cambria continue to push the boundaries with what is a purely perfect live show, and would have certainly made many new fans for their hopefully prompt return to London in the future.

THEATRE

REVIEW

‘‘FOOLS CALL IT FATE’ AND ‘GUYS AND DOLLS’ Noah D’Aeth THE OLD THEATRE AT LSE IS OFTEN THE SCENE OF SCRIBBLED notes, tired eyes and Econ A lectures. Last week, however, thanks to the Drama Society, it was home to Fools call it Fate, a play written by Jess McHugh and directed here by Will Carne and Claude Paret. It is a story of lives intertwined by a chance encounter, and the curious passage of fate. The Drama Society does a good job bringing this serendipitous tale to life.

A husband and wife, a brother and sister, a baker and a divorcee make up the cast. Following a meeting in a bar, Tara, the baker, and Ash, the divorcee, start getting to know each other and as they do so we are introduced to the various additional characters.

They are split 50-50 between those with good intentions and those with bad ones. Tara and Ash alongside Sophie, the sister, are on the good side. While Ricky, the husband, Gabby his wife and Danny the brother and bartender make up the bad side. This division is at the heart of the play. Its plot revolves around how the two groups interact, and what being good or bad compels you to do. Tara, Ash and Sophie are not without their troubles, but they pale in comparison with the womanising Ricky, the scheming Gabby and the sinister Danny. These characters wear their bad deeds like a prison tattoo, full of foreboding and in the end, quite painful to un-do.

The set design is both practical and versatile. It serves variously as an office, a bar and a park, and gives the performers ample space to work with. The cast are the real strength though. Each performance is well considered and helps shed a little bit of light on this tangle of interconnected stories. Fools call it Fate, is a polished production, and hopefully the Drama Society will have more like this throughout the term.

Guys and Dolls at the Savoy theatre is a charming piece that will leave you with a smile as wide as the Brooklyn Bridge. It is a musical comedy set in 1940s New York and follows a couple of small time gamblers, the guys, and their love interests, a Salvation Army sergeant and a showgirl, the dolls.

The piece is choreographed by the ballet legend Carlos Acosta, and features a suitable number of pointed toes and flying leaps. While the musical numbers are each delivered with relish. Luck be a Lady tonight is a particular highlight.

The set design matches the mood of the performance too, bright and flashy.

There is a glittering array of Mad Men era adverts at the back of the stage, it resembles a pub fruit machine with its the kaleidoscope of colours. The costumes too, very much keep to this theme. Suits are made from a patchwork quilt of fabrics, most of which you’d expect to find on the back of a second-hand car salesman.

The story itself revolves around Nathan Detroit, a New York hustler, and his fourteen year fiancée, Miss Adelaide. In order to keep his gambling activities going, Nathan has to win a bet with Skye Masterson, who he challenges to go to Havana with Sarah Brown, the pious Salvation Army sergeant. These four then become ever more involved as the plot follows them on a story of chance.

Sophie Thompson as Miss Adelaide is the comic star of the show. Her thick New York accent varies between the hoarse pleas of a jilted lover, and the high squeal of a spoilt child, while David Haig is the perfect comic foil as the increasingly hapless Nathan.

This production by the Chichester Festival Theatre company is on in London until March before it starts a nationwide tour. It successful marriage of music and comedy means it should have both guys and dolls rushing to see it.

Guys and Dolls is on at the Savoy Theatre until 12th March

Photo credits: MusicalTheatreReview.com

21

LSESU Grad Ball 2016 Monday 11th July The Brewery, EC1Y 4SD Tickets and tables available soon Like our Facebook page for updates: bit.ly/GradBall2016

The Nab Online Maurice BANerjee Palmer proposes a motion to ban LSESU’s Anti-Ban, Pro Platform, Free Speech Society Human Rights fall by the wayside as LSESU contemplate banning the newly founded Free Speech Society, otherwise known as Speakeasy. What began as a grassroots movement to protect what is seen as a fundamental right, has stormed to national attention (perhaps that was the aim of its founders all along).

The Speakeasy society was set up in response to a growing culture of campus censorship at universities across the country. Some students speculate that LSESU would ban a certain colour if it caused offense to students, however crazy that group of students may be.

Such a debate should not be just for us here at the Nab Online to discuss, therefore we decided to keep this article short and sweet so that you, the readers, can have your say.

Don’t miss Gen Sec After New Flatmate: Must be a white middle class Tory loving male, with a strict understanding of limitations Craig Calhoun jumping ship: After coming to the realisation that he doesn’t give two shits about students, Calhoun moves to a studentless institute on the Western Pacific Coast of the US

The views expressed above do not reflect the views of Nab Online but do reflect the views of some MailOnline readers Website design acknowledgement: MailOnline & Associated Press

24| Tuesday 9 February, 2016

Russian to Rid the Sanctions?

A closer look at the effect that the ongoing sanctions have had on Russia.

AFTER THE RECENT success of the economic sanctions on Iran, there seems to be a new found confidence in effectiveness of economic sanctions.

Although articles have stressed that this depends on whether the country targeted is an ally and have suggested they are a potential cause for “de-globalisation”, most have supported this new way of countries imposing their will on others.

However, after a year and a half of sanctions against Russia, the country is still occupying Crimea and Sevastopol, and continues, particularly in matters concerning the Syrian war, going against the US and the EU. So, have economic sanctions really affected Russia? Is the slow down simply caused by decreasing oil prices? And what consequences has the economic slump had on domestic politics?

To put it simply, yes: the sanctions have and are currently significantly affecting the Russian economy. This has led to the Russian government potentially privatising leading Russian companies in a desperate attempt to attract capital inflow.

The catastrophic flight of capital and investment from Russia has been the most severe consequence of the EU-US sanctions.

Indeed, most of the pre-2008 boom was driven by the return of Russian money to the country, as businesses were expanded

The City

Section Editor: Alex Gray Deputy Editors: Henry Mitchell

Capucine Cogné LSE Undergraduate

and opportunities within the domestic economy increased at a rapid rate. But, the economic sanctions have led unsettled domestic businessmen to find new offshore havens where they are able to stash their cash. This suggests that, despite Moscow wishing to sell these company shares that it has long vowed never to in a depressed market, the government is unlikely to get a good deal out of it.

Another impact of the EUUS sanctions is the crisis in the Russian banking system. The government is bailing out the big banks, such as Vnesheconombank (VEB), however the Rus-

“The number of banks in the country has thus fallen from more than 850 in early 2014 to barely 700 in December 2015” sian Central Bank has conducted a serious crackdown on smaller, undercapitalised and mismanaged banks. The number of banks in the country has thus fallen from more than 850 in early 2014 to barely 700 in December 2015. In addition, as Russia was the only completely open capital account of all emerging markets (liberal capital flow in and out), most of the

nation’s trade was denominated in US dollar. This made Russia particularly vulnerable to US sanctions, as has been shown by the present struggle to repay loans that were made in dollars.

On top of this, due to the sharp fall in average income, Russians are finding loans difficult to repay. For instance, protesters outside a Moscow bank on 2nd of February said that the monthly amount they would have to repay on the ‘cheap loan [they] had borrowed in US dollars’ was more than their income, even if they were to sell their home. This has pushed up rates of non-performing loans, even as demand for new lending for business investment and consumer purchases has fallen sharply. The average earnings in Russia have declined by over 9% in 2015, which translates to a 50% plunge in dollar terms.

This painful recession is additionally accentuated by the strengthening of the US dollar.

So, how has the government dealt with the problems at hand? Firstly, the government has been forced to slash spending. Official statistics show that around 14% of the population is now living in poverty, which is 4 million more than in 2014. Furthermore, the Ministry of the Economy has altered its 2016 forecast in January to predict economic contraction rather than slight growth and lowering the average oil price assumption to $40 per barrel (previously predicted at 50$, currently at

30$). The Russian government also appear to be preparing a new anti-crisis plan to bolster certain national industries. At first sight, this seems promising.

However, there is no reason that it would work any better than its 2015 equivalent, of which only 17 out of the 60 programs were fully implemented.

“Putin’s approval ratings reached a high in 2015, with nine out of ten Russians “approving””

It must nonetheless be noted that the Russian government is in a very challenging situation, especially with the oil prices’ fall. At the beginning of 2015, oil and gas accounted for 70% of Russia’s exports, which have fallen by 0.7% this January alone. According to the BBC, Russia loses about $2 billion in revenues for every dollar fall in the oil price, demonstrating the greatly significant influence the industry has on the Russian economy.

Yet, despite the shrinking by 3.7% of the economy in 2015 which all of these factors led to, the Russian public have responded mildly. Apart from a few, small-scale individuals protests, Russians still trust and support the Kremlin. Putin’s approval ratings reached a high in 2015, with nine out of ten Russians “approving” of their president. It appears that the sanctions and the annexation of Crimea have actually increased these. They have caused a surge in patriotism and national pride, with many feeling that Russia is once again a “world player” after going toe to toe with Washington over Crimea. We are therefore now left with the question as to whether this popularity will survive the economic slump or have repercussions on the domestic politics of Russia. Moreover, will the impact of the economic sanctions on Russia ever cause a reverse of policy? Or does the political satisfaction Putin’s actions in Crimea have caused make up for the economic sanctions’ adverse effects?

Flickr, Greek PM account

The City would like to correct some errors in last week’s paper: Hannah Pittaway was incorrectly referred to as Hannah Portray, and her title should have been criminal justice campaigner, rather than life coach.

Also, the article on Anne-Marie Slaughter’s lecture incorrectly referred to the lecture as an LSE IDEAS event. It was in fact hosted by the US Centre at LSE. Apologies in both cases.

Exporting Arms, At What Price?

The City |25

The UK’s exporting of arms to despotic regimes is wrong, and must be looked at.

Ella Baggaley-Simpson LSE Undergraduate WHILE EYES ACROSS THE world focus on Syria and the refugee crisis, another less noticed but equally vicious war continues to lay waste to the Middle East. The humanitarian crisis in Yemen shows no sign of abating, yet it attracts little of the media attention granted to Syria. Since March of last year, a Saudi-Arabian led coalition of Sunni Arab states has carried out an air campaign against the Iranian-backed Houthi armed groups. The aim of this operation: to remove the Shia Houthis and restore the Yemeni president Abdu Mansour Hadi, who fled the country last year.

The British government is intrinsically tied up in this conflict;

while on the one hand offering aid to the region, they are also fuelling the civil war by supplying arms and giving technical support to the coalition bombing campaign in Yemen. Since the conflict escalated in March the UK has issued over 100 arms export licences for arms transfers

“UK licences for exports to Saudi Arabia were worth more than £1.75bn” to Saudi Arabia. In the same period, more than 5,800 civilians have been killed, tens of thousands wounded and 2.5 million have been forced to flee their homes. According to the United

Nations, 80% of Yemen’s 25 million population is on the brink of famine.

Speaking at a UN conference in Westminster last week, UN General Secretary Ban Kimoon commented for the first time on the situation in Yemen.

He said that Yemen was ‘awash with weapons’ adding, ‘We need states that are party to the Arms Trade Treaty to set an example in fulfilling one of the treaty’s main purposes – controlling arms flows to actors that may use them in ways that breach international humanitarian law”. He claimed that permanent members of the UN Security Council, the UK included, had a special responsibility to secure peace in intractable conflicts.

So to what ends is the British government proffering these

Flickr, Tomasz Dunn

deals? Saudi Arabia is Britain’s biggest weapons exports customer. For the period from January 2015 to June of the same year, UK licences for exports to Saudi Arabia were worth more than £1.75bn. The vast majority of these licenses are for combat aircraft and air-delivered bombs for the use by the Saudi air force.

Under blanket austerity policies, defence budgets are under pressure across the west. Domestic firms are increasingly looking elsewhere for potential buyers.

Cameron’s recent arms-related trips to the Middle East (along with Asia and South America) are symptomatic of this. These markets are already saturated with defence companies from other traditionally strong military exporters, trying to find alternatives to a shrinking domestic market. With Britain holding just a 15% market share compared to the US’s 35, and France close behind, it is not difficult to see reason for David Cameron’s enthusiasm to maintain a ‘special relationship’ with Saudi Arabia.

So what of the British benefits? Highly politicised, the value of military exports, with their complicated and secretive payment and delivery schedules, are notoriously difficult to measure. The arms companies and British government repeatedly claim that arms sales are good for the economy and UK employment. However, no study has been carried out on the potential economic benefits of a Saudi deal. An official tally of employment figures is no longer kept, but the defence workforce has been shrinking for decades.

From a peak of 750,000 in 1980, as heightened Cold War tensions began to peter out, to 475,000 in 1989 as the Berlin Wall came down, and 350,000 in 1997 as New Labour came to power. In spite of government efforts, Roger Johnston, a defence analyst at Edison Investment Research says the workforce will “probably continue to trend down”.

However, the Arms Trade still hold a great deal of influence over the British government.

As Andrew Smith from CAAT explains, “politically, the arms industry and pro military lobby has always enjoyed a loud voice in the corridors of power. This is not least because of the revolving door between parliament and the arms trade.”

Even the MOD has recognised the true benefit of arms exports is not as great as has been historically portrayed; in 2005 it recognised that economic arguments cannot be used to justify arms exports. While there is no doubt that the arms trade brings significant benefits to UK based arms firms, this unfortunately does not equate to a benefit to the British economy as a whole.

A recent report concluded that British arms sales to Saudi Arabia, in the context of its military intervention and bombing campaign in Yemen, were breaking national, EU and international law. With such a murky economic picture and so much human suffering at stake, perhaps it is time for the Conservatives to rethink their military policy, and with it the special relationship that the UK Arms Trade has with Saudi Arabia.

Big Changes for Big Pharma

The notion of the big, bad pharmaceutical company is dangerously oversimplistic.

Yasmin Teymourian LSE Postgraduate Student THE GUARDIAN RECENTLY published an article describing ‘Big Pharma’s Worst Nightmare’. In the boldly titled piece, the author attributes this notion to the career crusade of Jamie Love and provides an in-depth account of Mr. Love’s battle with ‘Big Pharma’. Clearly stated in bold letters, readers learn that ‘Jamie Love has never worked in healthcare’. However, his background in patent law and intellectual property set the stage for a long career in exposing how ‘big corporations harm the poor’. In 2000, Love applied his strategy to the pharmaceutical market. He believed that patent restrictions on HIV drug compounds disproportionately

benefited ‘Big Pharma’ and his partnership with Mumbai pharmaceutical company, Cipla, provided further support of his claim.

This article sets a preface by explaining Love’s career achievements through his work with Cipla. Prior to patent restrictions Cipla manufactured a generic form of the HIV drug, and thus, provided Love with a valuable resource in his campaign to expose the pharmaceutical industry. Cipla agreed to remanufacture the drug at a rate significantly less than the current price and handed Love ammunition to convince a reversal of patent restriction. A relentless and contested campaign finally led to a pivotal accomplishment where Cipla was able to remanufacture the generic form and of-

fer it at a price of $1 a day. At a time where the global burden of HIV fell heavily on developing nations, this was major accomplishment in social justice.

Jamie Love’s work has had a profound impact and his achievement is not to be undermined. Yet, this piece invokes public opinion at a rather sensitive time. Some may recall a very recent controversy over a drastic price increase of the HIV drug, Daraprim. The decision of Turing Pharmaceuticals’ CEO to raise prices by 5000% has prompted a reasonable and justifiable outrage. Despite this, consequences of a media frenzy cast a shadow on more important issues in the drug policy debate.

‘Big Pharma’s Worst Nightmare’ is not lost on the pharma-

ceutical industry. The trend in hyperbolized rhetoric seems to follow big corporations in a time of tempered political dialogue.

However, is it fair to impose a similar diction in reference to ‘Big Pharma’? I encourage caution in doing so. There is a serious problem with adopting the big bad, big pharma narrative.

First it overly simplifies the intricate process of drug pricing and second it creates mistrust between the pharmaceutical industry and consumers.

The pharmaceutical industry is responsible for creating a variety of life saving drugs.

The years spent on clinical trials and investment in research and development provide a little window to recuperate costs.

This article suggests that ‘Big Pharma’ over estimates the cost

of research and development and generates a disproportionate profit. However, profit promotes incentive for innovation.

The real debate in drug policy reform tethers the fine line between promoting incentive and reasonably turning profits.

Jamie Love seems to have a solution. His latest campaign involves promoting compulsory licensing for NHS cancer drugs.

By proposing negotiations between Roche and the NHS, he encourages the NHS to help with recuperating investment in research and development while negotiating reduction in the cost of cancer drugs. His proposal may provide the balance needed to keep incentive and reduce costs. Either way, the relentless efforts of Jamie Love mean big changes for ‘big pharma’.

26| Tuesday February 9, 2016

What The Hell Happened In Iowa?

The “Lefty” and the “Centrist” debate the results of the first primary.

Section Editor: Alexander Hurst

The Lefty: I think they’re likely both true. Iowa is a good state for Sanders. It’s much whiter than the Democratic electorate writ large. It’s poorer. He had time to set up an operation. But he’s also a compelling politician who captures a real frustration with the system as it stands and that plays better than the “I’m a pragmatic progressive who can get legislation past”—particularly amongst the young.

The Centrist: True. Do you think that Democrats are less entranced by this message, though, after it became clear that Obama wouldn’t be able to move beyond partisan gridlock like he promised? Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed “socialist” candidate offering a similar postpartisan, progressive vision – likely to inherit a Republican congress.

Why not support a pragmatic politician?

The Lefty: This gets at the age divide issue. There’s some data to suggest that nationally she’s supported by 25 to 29 year olds, while he captures the 18 through 24 demographic. Basically, he’s most strongly supported by voters who didn’t vote for Obama. She’s also not exciting and certainly not novel in the way Bernie has become.

How

many

of

his

current

The Centrist: She’s polling well in South Carolina and Nevada, as well as many Super Tuesday states.

So, it’s possible that Iowa simply played to Sanders’s strengths, and New Hampshire being next door provides an obvious advantage to the Vermont Senator. Both states have few delegates in play, and Sanders’s tie and likely win will

“A destructive loss with a conservative candidate would force the Republican Party to do some soulsearching” only protract the campaign. It’s still Clinton’s to lose.

The Lefty: Completely agree.

Is it too soon to call Rubio the presumptive front-runner on the Republican side?

The Centrist: I don’t think it’s too soon. Rubio’s been making his case as the establishment candidate for some time. His argument proceeds: “I’m more palatable than Trump and Cruz; I have money and support from traditional GOP donors and activists; but I also subscribe to

more conservative principles than Bush, Kasich, and Christie.” I think we’ll know a lot more after New Hampshire. If Rubio can build on his momentum from Iowa and steal votes from the other three establishment candidates, it may force one or some of them to drop out – with their money now flowing into his coffers.

The Lefty: I agree with you on New Hampshire.

It will certainly tell us whether Trump’s support (and organization) is really as fleeting as we all hoped six months ago. Cruz will be interesting as well. If he can finish top three with 15% or so I see that as victory. Then you’ll have the inevitable culling of the establishment candidates. In a way that Iowa culls the far-right religious candidates. Bye Mike Huckabee. Bye Rick Santorum.

Not to continue to prognosticate but it’s tough to imagine all four of the establishment guys in the race after New Hampshire.

The Centrist: Ted Cruz still seems like a dark horse candidate to me. In the same way that Iowa played to Sanders’s strengths, it also played to Cruz’s – white, conservative, religious. Personally, I’d be shocked to see Cruz finish close to Trump and Rubio in New Hampshire. He may win a few southern states, but from this point forward, demographics are not on his side. And no one in the Republican establishment wants Cruz to win; it’s no secret how universally hated he is. If his or Trump’s campaigns falter, there’s very little institutional support behind their organizations for the other to build from. Thus, both gadfly candidates seem to have

ceilings to their poll numbers. But crazier things have happened…

The Lefty: I want to believe you’re right.

Or, rather, the American side of me and not the schadenfreude-seeking Democrat in me wants to believe you’re right. It seems nearly impossible for Cruz to win the White House, but would certainly resolve the internal debate within the party and would put to rest this idea that Republicans lose the White House because they nominate relatively moderate candidates.

The Centrist: I think that’s right. A Cruz nomination would certainly end the Republicanslose-because-they-elect-moderates myth. A destructive loss with a conservative candidate would force the party to do some soulsearching.

The more realistic reasoning for Republican losses seems to be too much movement to the right to win primaries, forcing them to retract or alter those positions in the general election.

Anyway, we can save the “soul of the Republican party debate” for another time. Give me your predictions for New Hampshire.

The Lefty: Sanders and Rubio.

The crack in the Trump armor I think will continue to expand.

You? The Centrist: Sanders and Trump, with Rubio a close second.

The Lefty: I’d also like to say goodbye to Martin O’Malley. It was nice.

The Centrist: Perhaps we’ll be saying the same to some Republicans shortly.

Photo Credit: Kenny Louie, Flickr

Features

Deputy Editors: Stefanos Argyros Daniel Shears Sebastian Shehadi

THE CENTRIST: IS BERNIE Sanders stronger than we expected? Or, is Hillary Clinton a weaker politician than we thought?

supporters knew his name before last year? And, of course, insert some hackneyed expression about youth and optimism. What does she need to do to make sure she wins the nomination?

Greg Skidmore, 2016, Flickr

Nick Foratek (The lefty) Matt Razzano (The Centrist) Postgraduate Students

An American Tale Of Two Ideologies

Features | 27

A view from France on the rise and fall, and rise again, of American socialism.

Guillaume De Langre Postgraduate Student IN 1944, FRIEDRICH VON HAYEK, professor of economics at the LSE, published The Road to Serfdom, a book that became the centerpiece of American conservatism and left American social democracy in limbo. 70 years later, his ideas are making a comeback--and with Bernie Sanders, so too is social democracy. The question is, who will win Round 2?

Hayek’s Road to Serfdom quickly became a best-seller, and its core ideas have permeated and structured American political discourse ever since. His argument was that “few are ready to recognize that the rise of fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the Socialist trends of the preceding period, but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.” Thus virtually any form of state intervention in the economy should be considered as not only counterproductive--a common theme among all conservative movements--but also an attack on individual freedom.

Against his own wishes, Hayek’s theory has been the backbone of a certain American conservatism. It runs through GOP candidate Barry Goldwater’s 1964 acceptance speech, which declared, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,” through Gov. George Wallace’s opposition to desegregation in the early 1960s, and through Ronald Reagan’s infamous declaration that the most terrifying words in the English language were, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” Government was no longer a solution, but the problem itself.

The 2007 printing of Road to Serfdom sold 11,000 copies, and starting in November 2008, monthly sales quadrupled, to become the number one bestseller on Amazon in June 2010. His association of socialist policies with dictatorship echoed through the rise of the Tea Party and the House Freedom Caucus who became fond of comparing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to Soviet-style totalitarian socialism. The 2016 GOP candidates have developed a habit of linking Obama to socialism and Nazism. Dr Ben Carson, the frontrunner in late 2015, wrote in 2014 about Obama’s presidency, “Are you willing to surrender your precious liberties to a socialist state which promises ‘security’ for everyone and government-enforced equality? Isn’t this what Hitler and other socialists promised the German people in his Nazi platform?”

The belief among conservative voters in a direct link between socialist policies and totalitarianism is strong enough to make some vote against their own financial

“Sanders is opening a new space in American politics for those no longer satisfied to be “liberals,” one that has existed in Europe for decades: social democracy.”

interests. 19 Republican governors still refuse federal funds destined to expand Medicaid—a public health program for low-income households--in their states, often on the dual grounds that it is a socialist measure as well as evidence of government overreach. To date, only one has lost his reelection campaign. Even more surprisingly, Matt Bevin went from underdog to victory in the 2015 Kentucky gubernatorial election by running against healthcare expansion.

When it was published, The Road to Serfdom fit well in American political discourse. Roosevelt had presided over 11 years of left-leaning New Deal liberalism, and conservatism was in an electoral and intellectual dead-end.

Furthermore, in light of the looming Cold War, it provided a clear counter-narrative for America that neatly and unequivocally connected the atrocities of World War II and the rise of socialism. It was ideologically symmetrical to Soviet communists’ claim that social democracy was but a pale, deceitful form of capitalism. It inaugurated an aggiornamento of conservative thought that included, among others, the creation of the National Review in 1955, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged in 1957, and Milton Friedman’s early works on deregulation.

In that context, and as the West gradually came to realize the atrocities committed within the Soviet Union, America came to equate socialism in its broadest definition with a Leviathan made in equal parts of authoritarian repression and economic destruction. The Road to Serfdom is an important factor in explaining why the American political exchequer

has been as a whole further to the right than its European counterparts.

Which brings us to the 2016 presidential campaign. On the Republican side, candidates are united in their condemnation of a “socialist” and “imperial” president who, they claim has destroyed the middle class. Their political platforms are very similar and in line with past campaigns, hence the competition has revolved less

“Hayek inaugurated an aggiornamento of conservative thought.” on the what than on the how or who: What is the right way to bring about the conservative agenda, deal-making (Trump) or a zerocompromise attitude (Cruz)?

On the left, however, Bernie Sanders is provoking a substantive, ideological earthquake of tremendous proportions. The senator from Vermont, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, is breaking the Hayek consensus. He has found large and pro-active support among Millennials, a generation that was not brought up with the oversimplifications of Cold War dichotomies, which has travelled in greater numbers than its predecessors, and for which the choice of economic and political system is not limited to USA vs. North Korea. When they hear “socialism,” they see Scandinavia, paid maternity leave and free education, while their forefathers would likely see tanks crashing down the streets of Prague as old women in grey overcoats lined up outside empty food stores.

By challenging the taboos born out of Hayek’s ideas, Sanders is not only forcing the Democratic Party to move left, he is opening a new area in American political space for those who are no longer satisfied by the “liberal” name-tag.

That area has existed in Europe for decades: It is called social democracy, and it is far from being considered extreme. A key function of social democrats is to offer a counter-narrative to the status quo, and to question conservatism’s inherent affection for naturalist assertions. Bernie Sanders is doing just that--questioning the conservative claims that money is speech and that the present level of income inequality is a natural and positive outcome of the modern capitalist system.

Yet while Sanders has successfully debunked the myth that surrounds socialism, he is falling

short of building a strong and coherent intellectual foundation for his movement, going beyond his raucous denunciation of “the millionaires and billionaires.” There is a reason for this. Asked by The New Yorker whether Sanders had read Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, his close friend Huck Gutman said “I don’t think Bernie would read a page of it.” Sanders was interested less in academic arguments, Gutman said, than in hard numbers that “exemplify the disparities he sees and feels and hears about from people.”

European socialists should warn him about two pitfalls into which they tend to fall quite regularly. First, over-dependence on popular emotion. In an era of information saturation and instant communication, voters have become accustomed to very short emotional cycles. Every day, social media offer a new reason to be enraged, frustrated, angry, or enthralled. Second, the pursuit of ideological purity at the expense of electability.

Bernie Sanders needs his Hayek. Like European social democrats, he must surround himself with intellectuals and academics and create his own “establishment.” Like the American right, he has to create an ideological universe that, through its own internal logic and value system, connects politics to economics, philosophy, sociology, literature, the arts and daily life. He has grown fond of digging up statistics about European countries that shed an ugly light on poverty and inequality in the United States, but sometimes the issues aren’t as readily comparable as he might like them to be. He would be well advised to start digging in the vast intellectual corpus of work done in Europe by thinkers and leaders who have spent the past seventy years building that social democratic universe.

Sanders must become to Obama what Tolkien is to Harper Lee. The latter wrote one brilliant novel that spoke to the big social issues shaking American society at the time. The former created a gargantuan timeless universe that could be home and inspiration to any reader in any age.

Sanders’s rise in the Democratic primary is a testament to the vitality of American democracy. However, a healthy debate on how capitalism has evolved is long overdue in America, and Hayek’s Road to Serfdom has played a substantial role in that delay. The Austrian economist’s ideas are making a comeback, and merely pointing an angry finger at the “millionaires and billionaires” will not suffice if the American left is to rise to the occasion.

28

| Tuesday February 9, 2016

Many Candidates, Few Disagreements

The candidates seem to agree on what should be done--that’s not a bad thing.

Daniel Cayford Undergraduate Student

“The candidates didn’t differ so much in their key policies as in the ‘how’ of their policies.

Perhaps this is reassuring?” supply required to curb the crisis actually viable.

The next stand out point was on transport. The majority focused on making commutes through and to London affordable. Sian Berry, of the Greens even went so far as to suggest the abolishment of zones and differing zone fees altogether. Whilst Zac Goldsmith of the Conservative Party didn’t overtly mention lowering fares, he did make it clear that his plan is to greatly improve the connectivity and frequency of public transport, giving us far more bang for our already large buck. A key benefit of this includes making it viable to work in, but live outside of Central London, thus allowing for huge housing projects in more

affordable areas. He claims this will all be paid for without increasing Mayoral council tax, but unlike the other candidates, it could however lead to noticeably higher fares - perhaps manageable with the lower costs of living outside of the Central zones?

Pollution in London, which kills over 10,000 people annually, and harms the respiratory systems and quality of life of many countless more was the third unified concern. For me this is one of those situations where the Greens were very justifiably able to say, I told you so. It’s just worrying that its being addressed as curbing a potential crisis, instead of when we were faced with the more manageable opportunity, even only a few years back, of preventing a potential problem.

The rise of Uber and other minicab services, leading to a sharp increase in London traffic, and slight moves away from public transport was a key debate/ agreement too. It seems the black cabbies haven’t lost their supporters just yet. Prompted by UKIP no less, all candidates where adamant that the Green Belt would remain untouched. However, whilst the other parties had a string of other green initiatives, UKIP seemed to want to increase city centre manufacturing and lifting parking restrictions to get more people driving, which seemed somewhat counter intuitive.

Other very similar policies revolved around safer streets, and improving and increasing cycling opportunities. However, there were a few clearer differences that emerged as the evening went on.

It seems as if Caroline Pidgeon of the Liberal Democrats was the only candidate to put forward pro-woman policies. There are a significant number of women unable to rejoin the labour force after having a child, through unaffordable child care costs or lack of retraining opportunities. Such a policy makes good economic, as well as social sense. Both Sadiq Khan of Labour, and Sian Berry of the Green Party fought for the living wage, certainly something that makes sense if you wish to employ a happy, reliable and diverse workforce within pricey London.

I would say it is reassuring to have such policies being prioritised by all candidates, even if one would normally prefer seeing clear cut differences, rather than more subtle, party-coloured hues of difference - be it a soft blue, red, yellow, green or purple. Given this, it would be wrong to say that these upcoming elections are anything but wide open. I implore you to look deeper into each party’s policies, and more importantly, to see who likely has the best chance of actually implementing any changes.

Will it be the Tories and their mates in high places or Labour and their cluster of London MPs and unions? Or could it be the Lib Dems with their long-term, first hand experience in City Hall, Ukip with a growing silent majority and rising economic fears or even Greens with their track record of pushing through some of the most innovative initiatives and a growing desire for something different? Only you decide.

Musings on the debate over freedom of speech on campus.

Edmund Smith Undergraduate Student WITH ALL THE DISCUSSION around the Free Speech society continuing unabated, it might be worth revisiting the notion of ‘motte and bailey’ tactics that I explored last term. If you don’t remember that article, then read the SlateStarCodex article ‘social justice and words words words’, available online.

It may be that at least some of the people setting themselves up against the free speech society are using this tactic, perhaps as follows: The motte is that there do exist real people who are harmed by the discussion of certain topics, and whose lives would be improved by the widespread use of trigger warnings.

Most people believe this, and if someone claims that they do not, then there are real people who serve as evidence!

The bailey is the use of free speech limitations as rhetorical strategies to help argue for a particular agenda. Unless the agenda in question is yours, I’m sure this seems deeply troubling.

Now, if the continued existence of the free speech society does indeed become a matter of official debate, then I predict that those arguing against its existence will retreat to the motte. If the society is indeed banned, they will return to the bailey.

This shouldn’t be taken as a portent of doom- I jump between a lot of different philosophical groups, and I’ve only seen free speech limitations used as rhetorical strategies once or twice. But perhaps this will be a helpful lens to looks at the problem if it does become a larger issue.

Photo Credit: LSE Ideas

AS THE EVENING DREW ON in the tightly-packed Sheikh Zayed Theatre, it became ever more evident that the key policies shared by all the candidates present really didn’t differ that much at all. But for a few variances in ‘how’ to go about implementing these policies, it was surprising to see these famously opposing parties with increasingly aligned views. Perhaps this is a reassuring thing? Could it be that politicians are overcoming their need to be different for the greater benefit of the public as a whole, or is it that the problems Londoners now face are so apparent, serious and all-encompassing that they’re now impossible to ignore, even if at the risk of sounding the same as your opponent.

As someone who was born, raised, studies and works in London, I took it as rather reassuring that all candidates had strong considerations for the key issues I, and others in my situation actively worry about on a regular basis. The top issue was around housing - being priced out of the city, scandalously high rents, giving first dibs to Londoners, new builds, and land regeneration projects.

Variances arose on the Green’s agenda, placing energy efficiency and insulation as a top priority for new and old builds alike.

This should have more than one long term benefit, in lower emissions as well as cheaper long run operating costs. Furthermore, despite the UKIP candidate, Peter Whittle, having a way of bringing

everything back to immigration, he did make an interesting point about being the only candidate to look at the demand-side of the housing problem - ‘less immigration, less people, less demand, lower prices’.

However, amongst other issues, it does somewhat ignore the benefits that certain migration brings, such as making the rate of housing

The Pocket Philosopher

Photo Credit: Business Insider

Features | 29

Five Years On, Wither The Egyptian Revolution Egypt’s government has betrayed the revolutionary spirit, and the democracy it should have brought.

Ibrahim Chaudhary Undergraduate student ON THE 25TH OF JANUARY, Egypt commemorated the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the Egyptian Revolution, an uprising that cost the lives of 846 people and injured over 6,000. A peculiar aura of irony surrounded President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as he delivered a televised address on the 24th January in which he paid tribute to the ‘noble principles’ of the revolution which ‘sought to found a new Egypt’ despite the fact that in 2013 it was General el-Sisi that led the coup d’état that removed Egypt’s first democratically elected president. Regrettably under President el-Sisi Egypt has inexorably regressed toward its pre-revolutionary state due to a number of increasingly repressive measures taken by the government that have been used to stifle political dissent.

Egypt has adopted an increasingly dictatorial stance toward the press in the face of growing instability in the Sinai Peninsula. In 2015 President elSisi adopted a new ‘anti-terror’ law which set up special courts which are closed to the public to deal with terrorism related offences in Egypt and granted immunity to the police and the military from prosecution if they used ‘proportionate force’ in the performance of their duties under the legislation. The legislation itself, amongst other things, forbids journalists from contradicting official versions of any terrorist incident and those who do so are automatically guilty of spreading ‘false news’ and are liable to pay a fine and to be jailed.

According to a Committee to

Protect Journalists report Egypt held no fewer than 23 journalists in jail in 2015 and conditions appear to be regressing still further. Although President el-Sisi granted clemency to Al-Jazeera’s Baher Mohamed and Mohamed Fahmy, who had been jailed for spreading ‘false news’, in September last year prosecutions under the anti terror legislation appear to be gathering pace. As of the 30th January 2016 Egyptian courts have already sentenced a further three journalists to be incarcerated for spreading ‘false news’; Mohamed Adly, Hamdy Mokhtar and Sherif Ashraf and are pursuing actions against at least 6 others.

A concurrent clampdown on political protests has also occurred as a result of the passage of the so called protest laws in 2013. Though officially passed by the then acting President Adly Mansour most commentators agree that elSisi has in fact been in de facto control of Egypt since leading the coup d’état that removed President Morsi on the 3rd July 2013. The act places severe restrictions on political protest in Egypt as it requires the organisers of protests to notify the Interior Ministry of the details of the planned protest no less than three days before it’s due to take place.

The Interior Ministry reserves the absolute right to ban any protest or ‘meeting of a public nature’ and though it must communicate its decision to the organisers of the protest in question it is under no legal obligation to justify its decision.

Article 7 of the act provides that the Interior Ministry may refuse permission for a protest to be held for a number of vague reasons such as if the

protest would ‘affect the course of justice’ (there is no definition of what this means in practice) or if the protest ‘obstructs road traffic’. Moreover article 5 of the act places a complete ban on any public meeting ‘for political purposes’ in places of worship or in the areas immediately adjacent to them. This is particularly restrictive since Mosques have traditionally played a prominent role as centres of political activity and dissent in Egypt.

One of the central aims of the 2011 revolution was the creation of a truly democratic Egypt wherein elections could be freely contested by a plethora of candidates from various political parties. Sadly this aim was derailed in 2013 when the interim government declared the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organisation with the clear objective of using this as an excuse to subsequently dissolve the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP). The FJP was nominally independent from the Muslim Brotherhood but to all intents and purposes acted as the Brotherhood’s political wing.

The party was formed in the aftermath of the revolution and won 47% of seats in the 2011 parliamentary elections and the FJP’s candidate, Mr. Morsi, won the 2012 presidential elections to become Egypt’s first democratically elected president garnering 52% of the vote.

Regardless of where one stands with regard to the ideology of the Brotherhood or the FJP the incontestable fact is that the FJP emerged as the victor of successive parliamentary and presidential elections. It is precisely this popularity that motivated the Court for Urgent Matters to issue rulings that have formally outlawed and dissolved the FJP and barred former

members from running in any future parliamentary elections.

The passage of these laws and the concomitant creation of a system of ‘special courts’, which are immune from public scrutiny, has had a devastating impact on civil society in Egypt.

“One of the central democratic aims of the 2011 revolution was derailed in 2013, when the government clamped down on the Muslim Brotherhood and the FJP.” When the secular April 6th Youth Movement mobilised its supporters against the protest laws, despite previously supporting General el-Sisi’s removal of President Morsi, it found itself the subject of several court rulings which formally dissolved the group and imprisoned many of its founders.

Taken in tandem with the government’s decision to outlaw the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood an increasingly bleak picture begins to emerge.

Human Rights Watch estimates that since its passage the so called ‘protest law’ alone has been used to justify the arrest of around 22,000 people.

Though ostensibly introduced by the government to combat terrorism and seditious reporting the anti terror and protest laws

have clearly been primarily used to legitimise the mass arrest and subsequent incarceration of tens of thousands of supporters of the FJP and other political dissidents.

Cumulatively according to the Egyptian National Council for Human Rights since President el-Sisi’s accession to power in 2014 at least 41,000 people have been arrested. Numerous Egyptian human rights organisations such as the El-Nadim Centre have noted with increasing alarm that the number of prisoners dying in custody has also soared to previously unthinkable levels; in 2014 according to Justice Ministry’s own forensic medical reports 90 people died whilst in police custody in the Cairo and Giza Governorates alone. The true scale of these arrests is illustrated by the fact that on average in the latter half of 2015 Egyptian prisons were holding 160% of their maximum prisoner capacity.

All of the above explains precisely why this year on the fifth anniversary of the revolution Tahrir Square was almost entirely deserted. The hopes and aspirations of the millions of protestors that took to the square in 2011 to oust Hosni Mubarak appear to have evaporated in the face of one of the fiercest crackdowns on political dissent ever witnessed in Egypt. Suitably the government recently chose to install a solitary 20-metre flagpole in Tahrir Square to represent ‘Egyptian unity’. In reality as the Egyptian flag flew limply atop the recently installed flagpole on the morning of the 25th January it symbolised not unity but the ongoing triumph of the Army and State over the spirit and aims of the 2011 revolution.

Rami Raoof, 2011, Flickr

30 |

Tuesday 9 February, 2016

LSE CC’s Steep Learning Curve Up Hog Hill Maurice Banerjee Palmer LSE Cycling Club Captain SATURDAY 30 JANURARY: I got lost and was late for the 4th Category race. I entered the 2/3/4 Category race. Dropped within three quarters of a lap.

Saturday 6 January 2016: The only way is up. Turning up to the right race is progress. Completing the first lap is even better. Last Saturday Alex McCutcheon and I managed both so Champagne all round.

Although I was last finisher and Alex was dropped. Allow me to explain.

To give some context, the LSE Cycling Club was set up last year.

It has been holding Casual Rides (for everyone), Deutsche Bank Club Runs (for those a bit too fond of Lycra), Wednesday training (for those far too fond of Lycra and pain), and off-bike events ranging from pub crawls to bicycle maintenance sessions.

With Deutsche Bank as our Racing Sponsor, the Cycling Club has been able to try all sorts of racing and we’ve just begun the staple of amateur racing: the ‘criterium’.

Riders complete laps around a short, tight circuit for up to an

hour. There are a few on offer around London but I picked Hog Hill because there’s a great big hill at the end – and that’s an advantage if you’re under 60kg.

Anyone who read my piece last term about the BUCS Hill Climb will have endured a lot of complaining. Well I’m going to do it again. Criterium racing is &%@#ing hard and like nothing I’d done before.

Now, the first rule of bike racing is slipstreaming – or being ‘on a wheel’ as it’s often called. Doing this effectively can see you save up to forty percent of your energy. It’s also easier said than done. Positioning is everything: as a general the principle you want to be a few wheels from the front of the pack – oh, and so does everyone else.

Pretty much all of my experience and training to date has been about being steady and conservative on my own. Crit racing is about going absolutely bananas from the start in a sprint-freewheel-sprintfreewheel-sprint pattern. If you don’t do this you’re not going to be in the right position and you’ll be dropped.

So, what happened last Saturday? We arrived with Peter from UCL and found the wind stronger than in London. Having stayed

Tennis Women’s 1s vs Imperial 1s won 4-2 Netball Women’s 1s vs King’s College London won 24-22 Women’s 2s vs Barts won 50-38

well up the field for the first lap, Alex was caught out the second time up The Hoggenberg and found himself off the back. That’s right: with one lapse of concentration his race was over in under eight minutes.

For the rest of the race the bunch continued to take it easy on the flat and smash it up the climb.

Almost every lap a breakaway attempt was snuffed out by the high winds. Repeatedly going too hard up The Hoggenberg caught up with me on the penultimate ascent when I cracked and was dropped.

Over the top I chased the next wheel, sat on, and then put in a turn to catch the bunch around the hairpin. Things were sedate for the next twenty seconds and then it exploded. My positioning meant I caught the split but I didn’t have the legs for the final ascent, so I sat up and watched the sprint. Peter had been badly positioned and the effort it took to get back meant he was outside the top ten. The three of us then sat in the café, eating and swearing as we watched the 2/3/4 race go twice as fast and drop three-quarters of the peloton.

So, some progress. But the only practice for criterium racing is… criterium racing. The learning curve continues.

Football Women’s 1s vs UCFB won 3-1 Men’s 1s vs Queen Mary won 3-2 Men’s 2s vs Kingston 2s won 2-0 Men’s 3s vs Buckinghamshire won 3-0 Men’s 4s vs Middlesex 3s won 5-0

Ultimate Frisbee Men’s 1s vs King’s College London won 15-3 Basketball Women’s 1s vs UCL 1s won 69-30 Men’s 1s vs Kent won 55-54

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

UNTIL IT BECAME CLEAR TO devotees and sponsors alike that Eldrick Tont ‘Tiger’ Woods had been sticking his enormous nine-iron into every hole on the fairway, golf was revered planet-wide as a sport representing class, dignity and sobriety. But with an alacrity that was in actuality beyond comprehension, golf ’s image, and, indeed, that of its central demi-god, or, if I may, demagogue, cascaded down to nothingness; a sport devoid of morals, perhaps more base than the LSEAU (unlikely).

And so it came to pass that an

offshoot was created, a quasi-sport, one which seemed to combine all the most important elements of golf, one which opted not to shroud itself in a cape of respectability, but rather allow the world to see it for what it truly is – holes, shagging, and drunken, drunken errors. And it shall be called, they deemed, the Pub Golf.

Thus, while one team celebrated their recent pageant victory eating spicy food in Little India, a significant portion of the Chancery Lane Sportsfolk embarked on a 9-stop train journey to total incapability.

To dissect the expedition into ninths, you will be disappointed to read, would be an exercise in futility, for the correlation between memory loss and pub golf participation is more positive than the general outlook on life adopted by the karaokeing step-brothers whom we missed sorely this week. What is

known, just, is that Towells were needed for runny noses; that excess alcohol led to an inability to Tink clearly and an especial vulnerability to the Cald; and that prices at the Princess Louise are quite frankly a steal.

Zoo crept up on the marauding cohort of future hedge fund executives like the proverbial lynx on a blind red deer, i.e. really fucking quickly. Before pitchers had even been acquired, one captain had the Gravatty of his intoxication explained to him, as he received a bin for his sins. Spotting his chance, an envious man, a jealous type who had been waiting for his moment for weeks, a quintessential Greeneyed monster, Jimi’d his way past the wounded Face of his oncebrother-in-arms as the pair decided that reading of great romance was better than creating an original one.

A collision bound to happen

regrettably occurred as one Car terned way too quick on a hair-pin bend due to Aishy conditions. A Great idea Generated by two Geniuses resulted in one of the most Murrish conversations in world history. Elsewhere, a Lawful but Godless pair Hardly got a chance to experience the ambience before the desire to elope overtook them.

The normally insular hockey corner was finally dissipated this week as members sought pastures new. One flower took her new found freedom to higher levels, finding herself with the help of the second oldest gent in the Jungle, behind the legend of Concheemiality.

A sport-themed night for a sporty bunch. Fitting. In comparison, next week sounds more like normalcy, that which we are used to. But forget not that normalcy for the LSEAU is a far cry from normalcy for others. It might still get really, really weird. Hasta entonces.

LSE Fight Night Diary:

Sport | 31

The story of a not so fit hockey player’s attempt at boxing.

Alex Dugan Sports Editor WEEK 7 SEES, ARGUABLY, the best night of the AU calendar, LSE AU Fight Night. For those of you who don’t know what that is (I mean, come on, it’s pretty self explanatory), I’ll enlighten you. A boxing ring is set up in the middle of the venue and various people both from the Boxing Club and the wider AU fight 3, 3 minute rounds of varying levels of boxing. Add to this, that it’s on a wednesday night so you have the standard AU crowd out to get their blood alochol levels at unhealthy levels before they head to zoo, and you have a recipe for absolute decadence.

My story with fight night goes all the way back to last year. Hockey legend, Conor Rohan, competed against Josh Berman, a matchup that was totally unfair (Berman was HUGE) but led to a spectacular fight. At the time I may have drunkely said to a friend “yeah, I’ll do that next year.” Those six words came back to haunt me this year. As soon as the email asking if anyone was interested in fighting arrived in my inbox, I got an email from this same friend saying “so, fight night yeah?” I could have said no, I could have found some sort of excuse

such as “I need my hands in one piece for my saxophone playing,” or “I can’t risk getting an injury when we’re in the quarter finals of the cup,” but nothing was going to get this monkey off my back, I was going to have to fight.

In a way I’m glad that I uttered those six words last year. I’m in my final year as an undergrad and this is my last opportunity to take part in any of wide range of things going on here at LSE. So fuck it, why not.

When am I ever going to get the opportunity to box in front of 500 people that I (mostly) know? Likely never again, unless I somehow take to boxing and decide to escalate things further (very unlikely).

I went to my first ever boxing session in week two of this term. I’d heard great things about the boxing club, but it didn’t stop me having that nervous feeling of “oh shit, I’m going to get my face knocked in.”

To be honest, that feeling hasn’t really disappeared at any point so far, as of writing there are 17 days to go until I step into the ring, and the feeling still hasn’t gone. You’d feel the same if you were up against the guy I’ll be fighting. Dilan Wijesinghe is my opponent, and he’s pretty big. I mean, I’m heavier than him (somehow), and we’re the same height, but he’s the kind of guy you

walk past and think “yeah, he’s on that protein shake and gym wave.”

By contrast you’d look at me and think “what a shit lid,” big difference there.

Then there’s another issue, my fitness. I’m a goalkeeper in hockey, I don’t ever have to run for more than 20m at any one time. Therefore, my fitness does not always need to be at it’s peak for me to perform well. Now that’s a real issue when it comes to boxing. You can punch as hard as you’d like, but if you can’t keep your hands protecting your face for those latter rounds, there’s no other way of saying it, you’re fucked. This has been the biggest obstacle for me so far.

I’ve picked up the technique and have the hand eye coordination to be abe to dodge a decent amount of punches, but my fitness is really letting me down, and there’s no quick fix.

I could end this article here with some spiel about how this is such a challenge etc. etc. but, really I should just note one thing. Quite a lot of you wouldn’t mind seeing me punched very hard in the face. So please, buy your ticket, support the #LSESUREDLIPS & Good Night Out campaigns, and get yourself to the best night in the AU calendar on 24 February.

Next Up To Bat: Women’s Cricket Launches Anisha Puri LSE Women’s Cricket THE WOMEN’S CRICKET Give it a Go session was the first time I ever picked up a cricket bat.

The Give it a Go session organised by the LSE Cricket Club was aimed at opening the sport to women in the university and providing the opportunity to try out something new.

Attendance for the session was encouraging, with a good mix of beginners and experienced players. As a beginner, I found the session useful as the coach covered the basics of the sport from batting to bowling. Having played tennis, badminton and rounders before, I thought cricket would be like any other bat

or racket sport. I soon realised, however, that having experience in other sports does not give you an advantage when playing cricket.

With the sports I mentioned above, they were more natural to play as we would be using our dominant hand to give us the power to hit the incoming projectile. In cricket, however, the dominant hand would be used to support the bat while power is provided by the least dominant hand. I have got to admit, it felt weird using the bat at first as it was not just as simple as picking up a bat and whacking a ball. I have now been captivated by the uniqueness of cricket. Besides, the cricket training sessions also provide a fun way to socialise with other students.

In my opinion, the LSE Cricket Club has taken a progressive step in the right direction as it is making the sport more inclusive. The ladies at the LSE now have an extra sport to choose from! I would like to thank the LSE Cricket Club, especially Ed Harvey and Dillon Ravikumar, President and Vice President of the LSE Cricket Club respectively, for their efforts in establishing LSE’s Women Cricket. I highly encourage both guys and girls to attend the cricket training sessions and experience the uniqueness of cricket. To the people who play various sports, come challenge yourself, and to those who do not play sports, come pick up this beautiful game. Cricket is for everyone!

Tuesday 9 February, 2016

WRFC 1s Dominate Marys Eloise Rennie Women’s Rugby 1st Team

Section Editor: Alex Dugan Deputy Editor: India Steele

THE TIME HAD FINALLY COME and the ladies of LSE Women’s Rugby knew that Wednesday’s meeting with our new self-proclaimed ‘arch nemesis’ was not going to be an easy ride. They were evidently un-phased as our sea of black, purple and yellow underwent the warm up and quite fairly so; as we watched Queen Mary jog onto our home turf, we were hit by flashbacks to our previous encounter, where we lost by one try to a team we were used to thrashing. But showing signs of a strong squad, we’d gone away; we’d ran hard, we’d rucked hard and we were BACK WITH A VENGENCE. As we positioned ourselves behind Merritt ready for the first kick, tensions soared. A WIN was essential in order to hold on to our second place position in the league. The LSE side were ready… ‘’READY, READY, READY, UP!’’ A strong drop-kick followed by an intense run from LSE resulted in a knock on from the team in blue and yellow. Scrum down, black ball.

Myrto, a newly recruited hooker (not the kind you’re all thinking) pounded the ground and the ball was ours, WE WERE ON. It was hard to ignore the anguish from the opposition as they pushed up like hounds to a skulk of foxes. Anyone who doubts the intensity of women’s rugby need only spectate for a few minutes to argue otherwise. Queen Mary wanted that ball – and we weren’t going to give it to them.

Following an explosive scrum, scrappy scrum half Alice picked up the ball and ran through gaps in their defence with the energy of a possessed Jack Russell terrier. Gee, with new-found anger at having been described as a ‘small’ player, showed no mercy and gained some vital ground.

What followed was a series of attacks that brought us painstakingly close to the try line, but to no avail. Our hopes of a try in the first half of the game were draining away. HARD WORK, TEAMWORK and PERSEVERANCE were eventually rewarded when Club Captain, Jess Davies, se-

Sport

32 |

cured the mother of all turnovers, ripping the ball and enabling skipper, Eloise, to slam baby Gilbert over the try line. After a relentless 40 minutes of onslaught we finally had numbers on the board; LSE 5 - QM 0.

Knowing that any complacency at this stage could lead to mistakes, we picked up the pace in the second half of the game whilst Jess Davies chanted her usual mantra of ‘It’s still fucking nil-nil!!!’

Talented fresher, Tiana(conda), secured possession of the ball, throttling through layers of their defence like a knife through butter. After persistent assault, Merritt looped our number nine to channel the ball onto hooker Anna, who drove it forward.

A perfectly timed pass led to a second try from the Team Captain; LSE 10 – Queen Mary 0.

The opposition came back into position with ENERGY, STRENGTH and DETERMINISM. The ball was soon sent down the line to Bigrig, a recent addition to LSE 1st XV and a valuable one at that, securing us yet

another try, the LSE ladies were getting into the swing of things; LSE 15 – QM 0.

After a tense few minutes where the ball was finally taken into our half of the pitch, fullback Caitlin, kicked it away from the danger zone and enabled our committed attackers to make the chase. Before long, Bigrig had her hands on it again and gave us a textbook display of flawless footwork, dodging three rounds of defence before gaining us a further 5 points; LSE 20 – QM 0.

110% effort had been given throughout the game, and with victory in sight and LSE Men’s Rugby 1st XV now offering support from the sidelines, we were in no position to concede any points. It was at this moment that Tiana(conda) exhibited the extent of her strength and agility (which no doubt shall be demonstrated at Fight Night in a few weeks), tearing up their defensive line by jumping out of tackles, she made it singlehandedly all the way to the try line, only moments before the final

whistle. End score: LSE 25 – QM 0.

Exhausted, ecstatic, enthralled.

As a team, as a family, we know that when you’re at the bottom, the only way is up. We know that getting there involves BLOOD, SWEAT and RESPECT – the first two you give, the last you earn.

HOWEVER, the battle is not over yet… Wednesday 17 February see’s the two teams meet again to fight it out for a place in the cup semi-finals. Being on equal platforms, we each want the win more than ever.

Any support would be hugely welcomed - details of the time/location will be to follow via Facebook and Twitter. The final score on Wednesday was not a result of any one individual, but a result of the team working together as a whole - a true reflection of our attitude as a club; and for that, I am immensely proud.

Watch this space, LSEWRFC are on their way up and won’t be coming down without a fight!!!

Women In Sport Week Hits Campus Jenny Johanson LSE AU Outreach Officer Women in Sports Week is finally here, I am hoping that you all are excited for what’s looking to be a very fun week. I hope you will take the opportunity to take part in the different activities, and remember that there are customised sports bras to be won at all our sessions and events (remember to sign the “register” with your name and email address).

Women in Sports Week is an Annual Fund supported project, and organised by the Athletics Union Executive. The aim is celebrate,

inspire and empower LSE’s wonderful sportswomen, with a great variety of fitness sessions, workshops and events.

Joey, Athletics captain, has already kicked off the week with a circuit class that suited all abilities yesterday (Monday). We also had an exciting Launch-event in the evening! Danielle Sellwood, co-founder of the female sports magazine Sport Sister, came to open show with an inspirational talk. We also celebrated some of LSE’s coolest, most athletic and toughest sportswomen from hockey, dance, basketball, MMA, football, taekwondo, athletics, netball, rugby, cycling,

and lacrosse. Lastly, we showed our very own this LSE girl can video, that I hope you will get the chance to see on social media as well.

For the rest of the week, there will be several sports sessions, workshops and events to participant in.

What about trying a new sport, like Rugby or Boxing, learn how to incorporate weights in your training programme, or find a new and effective way to burn calories in only 30 mins? Jae’s nutrition seminar will teach you some tips and tricks on how to stay healthy in a stressful student life, and if you’re thinking of running for an AU Exec position, we

are holding a casual session on the election process and how to run. There will also be a chance to engage in the topic “Women in sports” in our panel debate with an academic, professional and gold medal winning athlete, and a coach of a paralympic gold medal winner.

In other words, there are loads of exciting events coming up, and we are looking forward to empower, inspire and celebrate our wonderful sportswomen throughout the week! Look out for the full programme around campus, or on LSESU’s What’s On website.