Volume 6 Issue 3

The

EDITORIALLY INDEPENDENT. EST. 2010 Volume 6 Issue 3 18th January 2016

theheythroplion.co.uk

thelion@heythrop.ac.uk

fb/theheythroplion

Lion

WWIII Inevitable p.3

Dan Fair discusses the geopolitical climate concerning the middle East and events in Syria and the surrounding area.

Three-Day Rule p. 4

Ben Mercer takes Alban Halls’ ‘ThreeDay-Rule’ for guest visitation under close scrutiny.

My Reviews p. 5

Fallout 4, Spectre, Mockingjay, part 2, the reviews cover some of the hottest entertaintment of the year’s end. Plus get the lowdown on the top burger joints in London from our managing editor, Katie Milne.

Three Part Poetry p. 8

Barcol’s three part poem A Drop in the Shower commences publication in this online issue of the Lion.

Government Changes Postgraduate Funding Updates have been made regarding the postgraduate funding system to be implemented in the academic year 2016-17. The government has confirmed its commitment to postgraduate funding in its 2015 spending review. Changes have been made from the original proposal. The loan is now confirmed at a maximum of £10,000 a year for both taught and research masters programmes, however PhDs will be supported by a separate research loan. The changes mean that the loan now includes MRes programmes as of

November 2015. The loan also supports full-time, part-time and distance learning masters courses, and is available across all disciplines.

One key change is that the government have raised the age limit which stood at anyone below the age of 30 to anyone below the age of 60.

The masters programme should be eligible for the scheme if it: - ‘Is a postgraduate programme, completed after an undergraduate degree (and not part of a longer, four

year, undergraduate Masters).

- Lasts no longer than 2 years full time or 4 years part time.

- Awards a full Masters degree qualification. If you are not sure whether a course is a full Masters degree or not, look at its credit value. Masters degrees in the UK are usually worth 180 credits.’ (findamasters.com) The maximum one can receive is £10,000, which is set to be paid directly to the individual student. This will be split into three instalments

over the academic year, much like the current undergraduate student finance arrangements. Full- time, one year programmes will receive £10,000 in three instalments; two year , full or part-time programmes will receive £5,000 per year split across three instalments each year; four year, part-time students will receive £2,500 per year, split into three instalments each year. The loan is ‘a contribution to the cost of an eligible postgraduate Masters qualification’. This means that the individual continued p. 2

Heythrop in Talks with Roehampton On Tuesday 15th December 2015, students were informed that Heythrop College is in talks with the University of Roehampton about a possible strategic partnership. An email was sent to all students with a message from Principal Michael Holman SJ with an update on the developments regarding the College’s future, including the possible partnership with Roehampton. Four days earlier ‘The Tablet’ published an article on Heythrop College’s negotiations with Roehampton, reporting that ‘both Heythrop and the Society of Jesus said this week that discussions were being held with a range of organisations and

supporters including Roehampton.’

Holman’s email to students began with a reminder of the Governing bodies statement from June 2015 which stated that the Governors were committed to finding a future for Heythrop after 2018. The email went on to say that the Society of Jesus had set up a ‘forum’ which will make recommendations about the future of Heythrop along with the future of the Societies’ ‘intellectual apostolate’ in January of next year.

According to the Jesuits of Britain’s website, the forum is a ‘process to review and discern the vision that will shape their future work in the intellectual sphere’ including teaching

and research in theology, philosophy and related disciplines which are currently supplied by Heythrop College and Campion Hall. The Society of Jesus also ‘assures the continued support for the Bellarmine Institute.’

The announcement of a ‘possible strategic partnership’ with the University of Roehampton, with thanks to the University Vice Chancellor and his team, was next stated in Holman’s message along with a commitment to the students and alumni to be updated as soon as possible. Conversation on the partnership has been taking place for the past academic term.

Heythrop College Students’ Union posted a message on Facebook on

the subject of Roehampton after the email was sent, including the statistic that ‘78% of all research undertaken at the university was of an international standard, and it has been described as ‘the most research-intensive modern university in the UK.’ ‘The Complete University Guide’ ranks Roehampton as 38th for Philosophy in the UK which is an improvement from 48th the year before, with Heythrop dropping from 38th to 50th. For Theology and Religious Studies, Roehampton has risen from 27th to 25th and Heythrop stayed at the same ranking of 26th.

Stefan Barratt, Vice President of continued p. 2

Megan Skingsley megan.skingsley@yahoo.com

Editor-In-Chief

ORIA

Katherine Johnson katherine.johnson@heythropcollege.ac.uk

Managing Editor Katie Milne katie.milne@heythropcollege.ac.uk

EDIT

News Editor Jenny Moran jenny.moran@heythropcollege.ac.uk

Web Editor

Terrence SIbley terrence.sibley@heythropcollege.ac.uk

Editors-at-Large Ben Mercer Catherine Squibb Oscar Yuill thelion@heythrop.ac.uk

L TE AM

2 Editor-in-Chief

continued from front page: is able to decide whether the money is spent on academic tuition, living costs or any other way which aid the student in their studies. Furthermore the loans are not means tested and you will be able to apply for a much of the £10,000 as you wish, and it is not dependent upon your income. You should also be able to combine funding from other sources as these loans are not means tested.

The financial information is that the loan will be re-payed at an interest rate of RPI+3% and these payments will not begin until 2019. Like the undergraduate loans, payment only begins when you are earning over £21,000 a year and will be set as 6% of this annual income.

The scheme is set to aid many people wishing to further their studies, and elevates the pressure and necessity of having to work alongside postgraduate study.

continued from front page: Heythrop’s Student Union commented the following on the situation: ‘I would describe and understand the HSU’s view on the Roehampton negotiations as happy and optimistic on the matter, yet with a certain degree of caution, as it is a undergoing negotiation. We feel positive towards these negotiations, but we are aware that nothing definitive has come from them yet and therefore we should be mindful and see how things develop. Summarising briefly, the feeling is of cautious optimism.’

Discussions with the University of Roehampton are to be carried on next term, with the next Governing Body meeting being at the end of January 2016.

This news also comes with The Kensington and Chelsea council releasing information that the Jesuits will be selling the Heyth-

rop College site, and confirm that they College will be closing, giving a date of December 2018.

According to The Kensington and Chelsea website, the Jesuits have decided to sell the site so the funds can be used to ‘secure the long term future of the college elsewhere.’

The council will be providing a ‘Supplementary Planning Document’ in order to ‘set the parameters for a redevelopment of the existing site’.

It is not known yet what these redevelopment plans will entail, but the council has released consultation document for ‘residents, businesses and any other interested parties’ to consider before commenting. These documents outline some of the limitations, positive aspects and options for the site.

The document consultation ended on the 17th November, and the responsers are being considered before a final document is released.

For article submission, enquiries about the Lion and our publications, feel free to email us at: thelion@heythrop.ac.uk or megan.skingsley@yahoo.com

3

MONDAY 18TH JANUARY | THE LION

COMMENT?

World War Three Inevitable

Dan Fair Undergraduate

Geopolitics is currently dominated by the issues in the Middle East regarding Islamic State.

Most recently. November 13th saw a number of co-ordinated attacks in Paris from Islamic State, while further back in time, we have seen ‘Jihadi John’ killed, the downing of a Russian jet over Turkey, et cetera, et cetera.

You could be forgiven for thinking that this is the only thing happening in the world, since it appears to be all that anyone, including myself right now, is willing to talk about. There’s so much happening and so much uncertainty, not just in that region but everywhere, and that is the reason for which I fear we are headed for a disastrous war that will pull disparate regions of the globe into a central bloodbath focused on the Fertile Crescent. Let’s analyse the instability of geopolitics, shall we?

Let’s begin tre of the

in the cenconflict: Syria.

In Syria, there are four main factions: the national government headed by Assad, the nebulous Syrian Opposition (comprised of innumerable groups with disparate methods, ideologies and aims); the Kurdish forces (the Kurds being a large ethnic group within Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey); and, of course, Islamic State.

Islamic State is a Wahhabist (either a sect or a bastardised derivation of Sunni Islam depending on whom you ask) militant group who are ostensibly on their own in the war.

They control over half of the land in Syria, and are central to international interest in the conflict. Had Islamic State had never come to be, chances are that the refugee crisis would be the only issue at play currently.

Secondly, we have the Kurds, currently the victims of Islamic State’s ongoing genocidal war against them, some of whom are being supported, after a fashion, by the UK, France, the US, and both Russia and Syria; here we begin to see what will become a running theme — the UK, France, and the US supporting factions alongside their rivals, of which there are three

instances, this being the first.

The second is in supporting the Syrian Opposition, which is in fact two different groups: the Free Syrian Army and the Islamic Front; yet again, the UK, France, and the US are providing various forms of support for this side of the conflict, despite the fact that they are aided by a branch of al-Qaeda (whose leader, if you remember, was the subject of an assassination four years ago, orchestrated and carried out by the US). Furthermore, there are doubts as to whether the Free Syrian Army is even fighting anymore, and the Islamic Front rejects the notions of democracy and wish to install an Islamic theocracy in Syria, placing them closer on the political spectrum to Islamic State than anyone else.

Finally, there is the fact that Russia is bombing Islamic State, thereby aligning itself closer – in tactics if not in aims and motives - with the West and Nato.

So to sum up: we are supporting two groups (one of which might not exist anymore while the other opposes everything Britain claims to stand for in the international community) which are being aided by al-Qaeda, while they fighting against the Syrian national government, who are being aided by Russia. The Kurds are taking heavy losses from Islamic State, and so the UK are aiding them, along with Russia and Syria, because we all know that famous phrase ‘The enemy of my enemy is the enemy of the enemy of my enemy, and is also the enemy of my friend, which requires the enemy of the enemy of my friend to be my friend, despite being my enemy, because that’s how geopolitics works.’

All of this is without factoring in Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula, which of course sparked international outrage last year, and the frosty relationship between them and Nato (French President Hollande recently put out a call for the US and Russia to unite against Islamic State; currently no word on how that’s going); and the fact that China is providing nonlethal support to Assad, and they make everything for the West.

Add to that the fact that the conflict has spilled over to five more

countries, and you begin to see how messy the situation is. And then there’s the brutality of the conflict, which has displaced 7 million people, 3 million of whom have fled to neighbouring countries or further afield.

Also of note is the cultural significance of many of the sites in the area, since the Middle East is so rich in world heritage; a rich history that Islamic State seems set on destroying.

The entire conflict is a twisted knot of mixed allegiances and local politics that the West is having a hard time understanding.

Here in the UK, David Cameron is ushering us towards war in response to the Paris attacks, pushing for a vote in the Commons to enable military action in Syria after it was shot down in late 2013. Two years on and many MPs seem to view their initial verdict as a mistake.

Reports have come out that as many as 100 Labour MPs will defy Corbyn’s position and vote in favour of war, giving him the choice of sticking to his guns and revealing that his party hates him, or else giving them a free vote and looking inconsequential; either way, he won’t be PM in 2020.

On the other side of the benches is the Conservative Party, currently being held together by the promise of an EU referendum.

Cameron’s choices are equally limited: he must put up the bravado that says ‘Britain is still a world power outside of the EU’ while not explicitly turning his back on the union. Furthermore, he is pinning his party’s unity on war, having learned the lessons from history (the Falklands War saved Margaret Thatcher’s political career from the brink of death). Finally, he’s using the uniting force of a common enemy to give Europe a sense of comradery in the event of Brexit — suring up our allies in case we do actually leave the union.

You can really get a feel for how, as well as seeing Islamic State as a near-term threat to British security, Cameron is playing the long game, using the war as a rallying point for everyone, on the left and the right, to join around him, leaving Corbyn and EU federalism on their own with

only the most ardent supporters still around them. Whether all of this will work is a different matter, but what is certain is that January will see British military action in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.

So now the question may be asked: who will be fighting whom? Well, going back to the beginning, the Syrian Civil War is a mess of a conflict in every sense of the word, but particularly in its twisted network of allegiances. I can’t say for certain how exactly the conflict will develop, but I can give a rough estimation of what I think could happen provided nothing changes between now and the beginning of the war.

Firstly, China will continue to give non-lethal support to the Syrian government its economic interests in Iraq’s petroleum industry (China currently buys two-thirds of Iraq’s annual output of oil, and a large number of Chinese companies drill and refine it) will force its hand into more proactive intervention.

Secondly, the focus will shift away from the Syrian Civil War and instead look wholly on a Western-led war against Islamic State. If this goes well, we will find ourselves either diplomatically working with the Assad government, going to war with it, or (most likely in my opinion) it will have already been weakened too greatly to continue and a new government will have to be installed. Thirdly, we will find ourselves fighting along-

side Russia, and the stronger EU countries, and alongside with the US, thereby necessitating the temporary burial of the post-Cold War hatchet. Russia will, of course, be fighting to support the Assad government, which could cause issues in the late- or post-game of the war if we seek to oust Assad or install a pro-Western government in the area instead of a neutral or pro-Russian government. Finally, the war be long, lasting at least as long as the recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and will probably necessitate a long, drawn-out recovery period for the region, requiring allied soldiers to stay in the area as they did in Afghanistan.

And what will the effects of the war be? For a start, economic recovery after the 2008 crash will speed up, since that is what wars do: they simultaneously cost a lot of money, but equally provide loads of jobs for Lockheed Martin and the likes, stimulating the economy. For the first time, we will see what it looks like when Europe is united in fighting against something that isn’t itself. The efficacy of the European Union will be tested, and if it goes badly, it will almost certainly bring about its destruction, but the union may grow ever closer if things do go well (before all that is the promised 2017 Brexit referendum, however, if it is not denied to us by the war).

I can’t imagine a Europe united against a nation at the centre of the Muslim world to be particularly welcoming to Muslims, so continued p.4

4

MONDAY 18TH JANUARY | THE LION

COMMENT? Dan Fair: continued

we may see an increase in antiMuslim sentiment, especially as more and more people are displaced by the war. Finally, the issues regarding the purity of Middle Eastern culture will be ever present in the aftermath of war, if indeed all goes well: how Westernised should the new Syria be?

If a new government is installed,

how should it be organised? Will it be a liberal democracy like the Western political ideal, or will it be a theocracy like its neighbours? Will Saudi Arabia, as perhaps the region’s strongest power, be considered in these decisions? And if so, what will this mean for Saudi Arabia’s position in the global community?

Could it even be that Syria will be like 1945’s Germany, divided between Nato and Russia, forming a split in the Middle East, with West Syria, Israel, etc., on one side, Turkey, Iraq and so forth on the other, with the split carrying on further into Europe along the Russian border, including Ukraine and Belarus?

These questions can only be

answered in time as the results of the conflict are made aware to us and the choices regarding the outcomes are made.

Until then, it seems certain that we are about to be drawn into a decade of war in the Middle East, for better or for worse, and it will see many geopolitical changes come about: war is

a crucible in which the global state of affairs is forged. This war has the potential to draw in disparate nations from around the world, uniting us in conflict in the same manner as the First and Second World Wars; here’s to hoping that this one will not cause so much bloodshed.

Three Day Rule: Safety for Whom?

An Open letter to the HSU

Ben Mercer Editor-at-Large

Hard cases make bad laws. It’s an old adage (and one should always be wary of adopting any argument used or favoured by Oliver Wendell-Holmes, Jr.) but it is certainly not without merit.

And there is an inversion of the maxim, sometimes used to counter it and sometimes as its corollary: bad laws make hard cases.

Heythrop College’s 3-day rule for overnight guests is an example of a case where the second stands as a corollary; an extension of the first.

The hard case in question was, unquestionably, a tragic one.

There can be few more bitter consequences of a pleasant adventure to a pub or a club, and few more criminal acts, than the abuse of both body and trust that allegedly occurred in Alban Halls, at night, two or three years ago, involving a student and her unregistered guest. It would be crude and imprudent to elaborate on the details, much of which would rely on speculation and conjecture in any case; I’m sure you, reader, can draw the outline of a sketch for yourself. Suffice it to say that the morning came, the night decayed, but the watchmen stayed at their station. It was they who were tasked with allowing entry to the police, come to investigate the incident by then reported.

I’ve been here for a while; long enough to remember a time when there was no enforced rule regarding overnight guests. Few checks were carried out on those entering the college, regardless of the time of day or night. There were no sliding doors, the guards were mostly genial (but prob-

ably didn’t merit their title), and one could come and go as one pleased. Not for us the 11pm cutoff point for unobstructed entry.

We were not entirely unregulated. We had RAs on every floor, though of the eight we had at the start of the year only three remained by the end, the rest having been removed from their positions for various transgressions. One, as if to demonstrate the potential dangers of such a liberal policy of admission to halls, invited friends back who proceeded to put fish-heads in several of the toilets. And the small booklets placed in each kitchen, intended to be used for the registering of guests, were quickly lost or turned into sketchbooks. More recent students might look on in amusement at those aspects of Heythrop College which have retained their haphazard, un- or poorly-planned, entertainingly and even endearingly incompetent nature. But, believe me, that’s as nothing to the Good Old Days. Indeed, some may even describe the current state of the college (forgetting or forgiving its terminal illness) as vastly improved, at least in terms of organisation and implementation.

Except, of course, that the most marked difference, and the most efficiently and capably enforced new law, is a bad law resulting from a hard case.

And let’s be clear; the principle justification for the 3-day rule looks to be the need to protect the college, not its students.

Would its authors prefer that students, not only of Heythrop but now also of Birkbeck, SOAS and UCL, be where? “Not on our watch,” they may say, so they make sure that bad things hap-

pen beyond the scope of their vision. That is wilful blindness.

I’ve spoken to a number of people now; people whose only connection is that they have drawn the same conclusion, and some with troubling first- and second-hand accounts of the real consequences of a college that seems content for its students to be in danger as long as it’s not on-site. Ever been turned away, or had a friend or loved one turned away, only later to discover that you – or they – are being followed back across London by shady strangers? Well, you’re not alone. Oh, but if only you had known, three days earlier, that you’d be in need of refuge. If only you’d gone through due process and registered the impending danger in advance!

What nonsense. Brevity aside, and to stress the point: How can it be right, how can it be sane and sensible that the college considers it better to force students and their friends away from campus than to adopt a proper system of registration?

This is not a sensible approach; this contributes nothing to student safety and the muchvaunted ‘student experience’; quite the contrary. It implies that the same hard case already mentioned would have mattered less to the college had the rape occurred in some other part of London. It must be changed.

And how long before this bad law, this response to a hard case, creates a very hard case indeed? There is, to borrow again from Mr. Wendell-Holmes, a clear and present danger to a procedure that so drastically misses what should be the point; the safety of students.

That this law applies not only to

those visitors unknown to the college but also to students of it, often students who have themselves only recently ceased to live on campus, is a particularly gross and inept overreaction.

Taking pot-shots at the barn door and burning down the farm. And what do they take us for? Who do they think we are?

Is it not the case that we are expected to think and behave as adults, and is it not the case that we pay a great deal of money to make this our home, and is it not the case that we are told to take responsibility for ourselves? Yet here we are, expected to behave as decent individuals and, at the same time, treated as though we are incapable of doing so.

Do not, children, invite anyone back who is likely to steal more from you than the chocolate in your cupboard. Surely we are all capable of that?!

There is something inherently undignified, something very irksome, about watching someone have their cake and eat it the whole damned thing.

There are, naturally, ways to circumvent the law. I’ve done so; perhaps you have, too. It’s especially satisfying to defeat the more officious of the college security guards (and I’m sure we all know which particular gentleman is most fond of abusing his power); the micro-megalomaniacs who assert their authority and seem to take pleasure in being rude and unhelpful and bad-mannered. Bad laws are bad enough; bad laws enforced by people who enjoy power and authority are especially irritating.

One might also extend this appeal for reform to the issue of day-visitors. Only one may be signed in by any individual stu-

dent, and already we’ve had the absurd situation where a student has been prevented from signing-in members of their own family! How inconsiderate of the family members who do not have the decency to visit one-at-a-time. Or, rather, how inconsiderate of them to visit when the wrong guard is on duty. It would be foolish to assume that each guard enforces every law to the same degree; we all know that to be untrue.

However, the principal objection must be to the 3-day rule.

It was a bad idea, it endures as a bad idea, and it is long overdue a change. By no means are we the only college with bizarre and unhelpful rules regarding the admission of guests, but we need not number among them. The model used by KCL would be a vast and sensible improvement (three day-guests at a time, one night-guest to be signed in before 23:00 on the night of their visit, campus services to be informed if said guest is to stay for more than three consecutive nights).

One is reluctant to settle for half-measures and compromise agreements, but must it necessarily be the case that the same laws applied to strangers be applied to students, too? Would not a sensible first step – a decent trial of any new system – be to apply it to registered students?

So, for the sake of convenience, for the sake of common-sense, and most importantly for the sake of safety, I hereby request that the HSU looks closely at the details of the issue, that it canvasses opinion from those living on-site – perhaps it may call a referendum – in the hopes that we may achieve a system better to what we need and deserve.

5

MONDAY 18TH JANUARY | THE LION

CULTURE Movie: Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 2

stacles they face, but the film really put on a show; you will not be disappointed if the hunger games is your favorite element! Where possible they also add in little Run time: 2hr 17min details from the previCertificate: 12a ous two games like the cannons (yeah, shock Director: Francis Lawrence horror, someone dies Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh in this film!) and the effects are awesome!

Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth They really have put Release date: November 20 2015 a lot of effort into the game itself in this film, and it’s worth watching just for that.

Megan Skingsley Editor-in-Chief

The final instalment of the Hunger Games trilogy has landed in the cinemas. From the offset I will state that I am a huge Hunger Games fan – and yes I have read the books. I didn’t have that high expectations for this latest film, partly because I had forgotten the rest of the storyline, but mainly it was the fact that there was no actual ‘hunger games’ in this one.

Okay, I’m not some sadistic person

who enjoys watching children kill other children, but I thought this was the most interesting aspect of the storyline: this dystopian alternative world where death is made into a sport made for an interesting plot.

However, this film actually managed to turn what I considered to be a minor aspect of the story into a compelling third ‘hunger games’. Many of you may now be thinking what is she on about, she just said there wasn’t another ‘hunger games’ – and you’re right but here’s what I mean:

This film begins in district 13 where we go through lots of scenes of Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) getting annoyed, and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) still struggling to undo what the Capitol subjected him to. Push past all this and we eventually arrive at the Capitol itself where most of this film is set. What I thought was impressive was that they managed to turn the trek through the Capitol to Snow’s mansion into the 76th Hunger Games. In the book it doesn’t go into the graphic detail as to what ob-

Aannnd of course you may wish to watch it for the love triangle between Katniss, Peeta and Gale (Liam Hemsworth). Now, you may be interested in this aspect of the film, but personally I think it’s a bit cheap and badly presented. The acting in this film is vastly better than the previous ones. Josh Hutcherson in particular is really good in this one, Jennifer Lawrence is above average and, unfortunately, Liam Hemsworth just doesn’t really get that much to do to make his acting stand out (but he’s still great). It was always going to be interesting how they would continue the character of Plutarch Heavensbee after the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman and actually think they did this very well with just enough references to know that his character will still around.

The director of this film was Francis Lawrence, who directed all the other films bar the first one. He did a good job with the film but I prefer Gary Ross who directed the first film.

Lawrence’s direction puts a weird, futuristic feel on the films which I don’t like. I much prefer the first film which felt more realistic. As I said, the effects are very cool and the plot is pretty decent. The twist at the end was conveyed brilliantly – it even had me guessing and I have read the books! The only thing I didn’t like about the ending was that it just kept going on. There were three clear places in which it could have ended but they chose to keep going with it, which was just frustrating and a bit tacky. They did the whole ‘we will show you the characters in 10 years time’ thing, which was a bit unnecessary and kind of ruined the ending.

Overall, it was decent film and it did justice to the whole series. They did a very good job with the plot and effects. It was a decent Hunger Games, had all the same elements which made the other three films good, and tried to minimise what made them bad. I liked the character progression, although it did feel weird that the majority of it was left until the last film. If you are a fan of the Hunger Games then it is well worth a watch, and if you have seen the others then it’s a good end to the trilogy..

6

MONDAY 18TH JANUARY | THE LION

Video Game: Fallout Flawed

Robert Leftwich Alumni Fallout Four is, in case you’ve been living under some kind of rock, one of the most hyped video games of the past few years, at least amongst the Fallout Fanbase. It is the sequel to multi-award winning Fallout Three, and is the second Fallout game to be developed by Bethesda Softworks who also develop the multi-award winning Elder Scrolls series, the most recent of which was the incredibly well received The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. Perhaps it’s little surprise that the new game doesn’t quite live up to it’s pedigree.

I should explain first that I’m a big fan of all of these games because of one or two key elements, exploration and role-playing ability. In Fallout Three, Skyrim and Fallout New Vegas (a spin-off game made in Fallout Three’s engine by Obsidian Entertainment) I have multiple save games and many different characters because they give you so many ways to play. You can give your character whatever role you like. They can be a Paragon of Virtue who talks their way out of problems and sneaks out of fire fights, or they can be the most evil, vicious bastard who ever lived, or they can not give a shit about any of this morality busi-

ness and just be a cold pragmatist out for themselves. I’ve played in all of these ways in all of these games because it’s fun and interesting to me to be able to approach these settings and problems in different ways and see how much this can affect the end game (usually a lot).

Now this is where Fallout Four falls flat. In most important senses, it’s not a role playing game in the same way it’s predecessors were. It’s not your character to mould into what you want, it’s Bethesda’s character who has a “choice” between being a basically good guy/concerned parent and a basically good guy/concerned parent who is a little bit of a smart-arse. This is due to two new “features” in the game. The first of these is that the protagonist is now fully voiced which limits the character to the range of emotion and character bestowed upon them by the actor (which in the male’s case is hardly anything, he either sounds like he doesn’t care, or he sounds really pissed off with no real middle ground). The second is that the (amazing and sometimes hilarious) dialouge choices from previous games have been replaced with a Mass Effect Style dialouge wheel (If I wanted to play Mass Effect, I’d buy Mass Effect!) . So whereas before

you would have had the choice to respond to the slave owner’s offer of a cheap slave with either “I don’t want any slaves”, “[Charisma 8] Maybe that slave would be more use to you as a paid mercenary? He looks like he can handle himself.” or “I’m going to take that slave, kill you, and then make him eat your corpse”, you now have a “choice” usually between “I’m going to agree with you”, “I’m going to agree with you in a sarcastic way”, “I need you to explain yourself before I agree with you” or “I don’t want to agree with you yet, but I may want to at some point in the future”, with an occasional choice of “Where’s muh son?” thrown in here and there . This would have been fine if the protagonist had a proper character that we could explore but he really doesn’t, he’s a concerned parent with a miliary background and that’s about it. He isn’t blank enough to be mouldable and he isn’t developed enough to be interesting.

It really drew me out of the experience, and I’ll probably now only play the game through twice, once as male and once as female, as that is now the only significant choice I can make that affects the character that is conveyed on screen.

The exploration is still here and is still really good, post-nuclear Boston

is full of cool stuff and cool places although I found the Vaults (usually my favourite parts of these games) quite lacking, and the map is smaller than I was expecting for a game with a seven year development time.

Briefly on to some positive changes, the gun play is much better than in previous games, it feels much slicker and more natural, which is good because you’ll be shooting things a lot (there are hardly any options to talk your way out of trouble because incorporating role-playing is too much work, seriously, Bethesda were working on this thing for seven freaking years! What were they doing?). The customisation of weapons and armour is really cool, there are lots of possibiliites and I’m still finding exciting combinations and new weapons to play around with. And that’s it really in terms of positives.

The graphics are barely better than Fallout New Vegas, probably because Bethesda haven’t bothered to update the engine they used to build this game. The levelling system is much simpler and therefore allows for even less character variety. The character appearance customisation is good but ultimately pointless as if your character strays too far in appearance from the default their voice sounds very unnatural (what’s the point in making my character look

like Jean-Luc Picard if he still sounds like Nathan Drake from Uncharted?).

The town creation mechanic gets real old real fast unless you love that sort of thing, and it’s also stretched into an excuse for lack of major settlements in the game. To top it all off, I found only one character (Nick Valentine, robot detective) to be interesting enough to bother talking to for more than five minutes (he is very interesting though, like the most interesting companion in any Fallout game post the originals so the devs do earn some points back for that at least). The new Power Armour mechanics are interesting but you find it way too early and too easily which makes it much less cool as you don’t feel like you’ve in any way earned it, and gameplay wise it’s basically a way to reduce the difficulty for half an hour. Oh and spoiler alert, the main story is really really boring and the ending (for there is only one with four minor alterations depending on player “choice”) sucks. The story is the worst of any Fallout game so far. Lazily written, uninteresting and it took them seven years to write it. This is what the role playing was sacrificed for guys, the story of a guy finding his son and discovering that he’s a bit of a dick and there’s nothing he can do about it. Buy it in a few months when it isn’t so expensive and when there’s a few decent mods for it, but as is it’s a mediocre game and an awful Fallout game. This is the end of all the hype people, it’s basically Fallout Three again but it looks slightly better and it’s even shallower. I dreamed of Fallout on the new console generation for so long.

Here it is... and I’m so disappointed.

7

MONDAY 18TH JANUARY | THE LION

CULTURE Restaurant: Best Burgers in Town Katie Milne Managing Editor

Meat Liquor 74 Welbeck Street, London, W1G 0BA This cool restaurant just off of Bond Street has the aura of a sex clubturned-dive bar, in the best possible way. It’s very dark and noisy, and in the evenings can get quite crowded but come at lunch time and you get most of the atmosphere with less people. You are served your food on a tray with a roll of kitchen towel to mop up the inevitable grease, and there are plenty cocktails and hard shakes to sip alongside your meal.

Now, the burgers. The Dead Hippie burger is probably the best burger I have ever eaten. They are all cooked medium rare unless you specify otherwise and this only adds to the juicy, drippingness of it all. The burger itself is composed of two american mustard fried beef patties, Meat Liquor’s patented ‘Dead Hippie’ sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, and minced onions. If you want the best burger of your life then come here, but also be prepared for some future heart disease, because all of the delicious sides come deep-fried, and you will want them all.

Shake Shack 24 Piazza, London, WC2E 8RD On weekends, this marketplace restaurant in Covent Garden has queues for miles, but go on a weekday and you will be served instantly. This is a lovely meal to eat amid a day of shopping and perusing Central London.

Not only do they have quite a few varieties of milkshakes, made with their own fresh ice-cream, they also have a couple of beers or soft drinks if you fancy something more refreshing. Their burgers are pretty basic (topping-wise) but all come with Shake Shack’s delicious ‘Shack Sauce’ and are cooked nicely. The fries are crinkle-cut and I had mine with a cheese sauce, and pretty quickly I felt like I’d been transported to a diner in 1960s USA. If you want an easy and delicious meal and don’t want to stop for long then this is the burger place you need to hit.

Meat and Shake 47 Upper Tooting Road, London, SW17 7TR Since I last visited, this restaurant in Tooting has changed its image a bit and added to it’s menu, now calling itself a ‘Southern Barbecue’. However the burgers have not changed so I feel I still have the right to call myself an expert. If you want to be absolutely spoilt for choice then this is the place to be, and is well worth the trek into Zone 3. With over 10 different burger choices, comprised of completely different meats and toppings, you will spend at least as long deliberating over the menu as you do scoffing down your delicious food. Not only were the creations quite inspired, the burgers themselves were of a good quality, and everything including the sides was cooked excellently. Even if you aren’t a burger fan (why are you reading this article?), it is also worth a visit for it’s out-of-this-world milkshake concoctions, from classics such as Oreo and Strawberry to inventions such as Rhubarb and Custard and Apple Pie, you are sure to find a new favourite.

Movie: Spectre Jenny Moran News Editor

Run time: 2hr 30min Certificate: 12a

Director: Sam Mendes

Starring: Daniel Craig, Lea Seydoux, Christopher Waltz, Ralph Fiennes

Release date: November 5th 2015

SPOILER ALERT

I saw my first Bond film a week before I saw Spectre. The franchise has never held much appeal for me.

I don’t really like much violence in films; I find it gets a bit boring and tedious.. Also, having been watching Doctor Who since I can remember, I am not used to seeing the main character being so willing to kill, and also so frequently; and it is something that truly shocked me when I watched Casino Royale.

I disliked the aimless, willy-nilly shooting and unnecessary killing. It takes the licence to kill a tad too far.

One could be kind and describe the storyline of Spectre as odd, or one could be blunt and, as my dad did, call it what it is: ‘absolute nonsense’. Even as a James Bond newbie, I thought it was pretty rubbish. I’m loathed to try and summarise the plot, but to understand what I find most awful about it, you need to know that [SPOILER ALERT:] he finds the guy that has been killing all his loved ones, and that guy is his adopted brother.

So, basically, the guy that has been killing all of Bond’s pals and so on – the evil mastermind lurking behind the scenes of every film in this story arc - is his adopted brother who he thought was dead. Bond’s adopted brother was supposed to have been killed in an avalanche with his dad, but he actually just killed his dad, went into hiding, and set about killing loads of people Bond likes. All because their dad favoured Bond.

This means that the Bond films are based on nothing more than a messed up guy’s daddy issues.

SERIOUSLY?! You can’t have such a pivotal moment being so bloody simple and cliché. Actually, a more cliché

plot point might have been much better. Give us someone wanting to take over the world, for crying out loud, not someone’s flipping daddy issues.

Another issue I have with Spectre is Bond himself. He is dull and boring and lacking depth. If it wasn’t for all the things that happen around him, he’d be a sad lonely guy who got attached to women way too easily. I do wonder what would have happened if his lady friends didn’t get killed; would he stay with one woman or would he be one of those guys who never settles?

However, I do think there should be more interesting things to question about someone’s personality, which shows how bland he is; though Daniel Craig does make a boring character a lot more interesting, partly because he has those beautiful eyes and partly because he is clearly just a pretty good actor.

There are good parts to the film.

The effects are amazing and the dialogue is also really captivating in places. Also, as much as I hate violence, the fight scenes are incredibly well-directed, especially the helicopter scene towards the beginning of the film. Q is simply amazing, as is Bond’s newest love interest; they are very convincing actors and they bring something quite special to the film. The film is clearly well-made, technically. And the cinematography is impressive, especially at the beginning when Bond is in Mexico.

I can’t say it is an awful film, but I can’t say it’s one of the best. If they had just tweaked the pivotal part of the plot line I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more. Still, it’s somewhat redeemed by the quality of the action, and if you’re not inclined to look too closely at the plot and the story then you could do worse than Spectre.

Also, Andrew Scott is amazing.

8

MONDAY 18TH JANUARY | THE LION

CREATIVE COMMONS A Drop in The Shower: part 1 This is the story of a drop of water: It travelled far, as it was born one day, somehow, from the sky it was unaware of, it awoke in its fall to earth, confused, definitely, not yet had it bourne and it already hadn’t comfort of the world.

And as it felt itself in the air, it knew of freedom from life and chains to its feelings of the lonely hour out there of the empty buildings and of the dented glasses

As its thoughts arose, like a bittersweet dusk, it knew, oh, it knew, of the fall of love’s titans, this graceful new life, for is it not true that hardship is not less the being.

Slave to gravity it hit the ground, where others like it had fallen too in a small river of regretful dirt where someone had thrown there, for frustration or evil desire, those discarded shines.

It cried a little cry, it looked a little fear, it saw the civilisation getting closer on it, and faster was the angst, until its collapse was broken, finally, by a soft material of motherly care, black like night, as the drop fell on an umbrella.

The drop could sense no more, pushed by the despair of others in this stream of violent explosions, it could not glow, it could not breathe, it could just follow, force to this by arrogance of angry mediocrity and its lies

the smell of rain was a stranger, the feel of rumpled skin, fabric, was all it could taste, bitter, and lonely other drops, its and not they, slammed their little helpless bodies in a fleeting explosion of transparent life,

Sweetblack stream of damaging water, heading to the gutter of garbage, where it would hide like degraded immigrants only wanting a better place to stay but not seeing the light of days

the drop thought perhaps of God, His will and plans, for it felt bless’d in that black field and not in smaller pieces shattered, like the other its it could perceive, though being emotionless motionless body.

had it sight it would have forgotten what it means to wake up hadn’t it sight, it would have lost the knowledge of being lost in gardens of dark stones and plastic infernos.

The umbrella betrayed its comfort, for it lived for the senses’ contact and then the rancour of wet regrets, so it pushed the drop away, as if the tempest was its fault, for if you’re born in a storm you’ll be thunder.

Time was a concept of divine acquisition, if anything, if nothing, it suffered in the place where one thing is valued as another and the currents of action turn awry in pointlessness.

The treachery let life slip like the drop from the sides of the umbrella in the cold sharp as shattered mirrors and again the fall, shorter yet just as painful, gave it the only feeling it knew, throbbing fear of being

In the melting pot deprived of exit none are the friends, only drops dreamless, soulless, helpless, yet so incredibly human, if not more, if not empty trains awaiting still at the platform.

Barcol

Yet somewhat force intervened, and the drop saw light through windows in a city of machines of grey metal, stainless yet stained with dust, majestic, ancient, purifying gods and the dark empty canvas the drop was, was no more. ----it got drained, it got eaten and left, dirtied and cleaned, like an old rag, abandoned yet finally not aimless, it had seen the sewage, it had been the sewage, now it saw light.

The days in the tanks were peace, the silence booming in every corner, dust alight dancing to it in the vastness like mirages of life, the drop movedn’t at all, yet slept in cold beds of water Lost, lost feelings of feeling loss didn’t defeat its spirit yet made it transparent, not yet emotionally motionful but a potential of life, a cocoon of fleeting essence Silence; silence; silence like guilt of war, shame of mistakes made, pity for forgiving grace, anxiety of still fear to reassure the drop of it

...