My Front Page

UAF Vs. EDL

2010-08-28T23:07:00.001+01:00

Seconds out, round seven. Or something.

First of all have a look at the title of this blog post and for a second let us consider the semantics of it. The key word (or to be pedantic abbreviation) here is Vs. which as we all should be well of means versus.

versus;

–preposition
1. Against (used esp. to indicate an action brought by one party against another in a court of law, or to denote competing teams or players in a sports contest)

(www.dictionary.com)

Today was the highly anticipated, for positive or negative reasons depending your political affiliation/locality/job, marches in Bradford for both the English Defence League and counter group Unite Against Fascism. The English Defence League (or EDL) are pretty much a group of working class thugs who one would presume have shifted from voting left of centre political groups such as Labour, to the far right of the political spectrum. They drum up lies and hate against immigrants within the United Kingdom, but they hold a special place in their heart for the campaign against the Islamification of England. If such a thing exists. Whilst on the other hand the group Unite Against Fascism (UAF) are a group mainly of far left activists who oppose such hate groups as the EDL, as well as the British National Party and other such centres of violence such as Combat 18. UAF have very close links to the Socialist Workers Party.

The marches passed off relatively peaceful as there were only five arrests and by all media reports small pockets of violence and it appears that both groups were as bad as each other. But then I read this; http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2010/08/28/anti-fascists-curb-edl-bradford-despite-uaf which was penned by at least one person who was in Bradford today as part of the UAF.

I'll quote one paragraph that angered me and showcases why a group like UAF should be politically central and taken out of the hands of quite apparent militant activists.

'When a group of one or two hundred broke out from the EDL demonstration to rampage around the city, they got a nasty shock. Most of the counter-demonstration chased them through town before trapping some of them in Forster Square railway station and giving a few a good kicking.
Attempts to attack a local mosque were also beaten back, and some of the EDL coaches were stoned and had their tyres slashed.
Even as it was, with the dominant forces in the labour and anti-fascist movements working with community and religious leaders to prevent a counter-demo, we gave the racists a seriously hard time. We don’t care about the imams, police and Lib Dem councillors. But trade unionists and socialists who did not even join the counter-demonstration once it began should be deeply ashamed of themselves.'

The idea behind UAF I obviously foolishly thought was to educate people of the horror that is the EDL as well as provide a strong unified voice that would publicly and politically humiliate the far-right organisation. However it seems I was wrong and the whole premise of UAF is to kick the EDL harder than they can kick back. This simply pushes these two groups in to a constant fight and with comments like that above give the EDL political validity and undermine the work of UAF. Throughout the press the EDL claim that they are a passive group who do not embark on any kind of violence and that all the riots, fights and pettiness is started by UAF and any action by the EDL is reactionary, not pro-actively. When people read inane comments like those above produced by people at UAF marches, one cannot fail to agree with the EDL in this occasion. In turn this gives them public validity, spreading their message and pushing the EDL into the role of the sympathetic victims. A role which they are all too willing to take up. First the muslims are persecuting them, now the UAF.

To fight groups like the EDL we should not use violence. We are not stuck in the Middle-Ages when the only way was to fight, we as society have progressed from that siege and militant mentality. By exhibiting such tendencies reduces one to the same level as those you are opposing, thus removing any moral ground you percieve to have. Instead groups like these and the BNP should be given a platform to be publicly outed for the violent, racist, far-right narrow-minded thugs that they are. Look at what happened when Nick Griffin appeared on Question Time, he was showcased on national television as being a the slimeball he is. Seconadly with the apparently clear link between sections of the far-left political spectrum and UAF, there will never be a cross party action group that can successfully counter the rise in far-right politics. It will simply be the minority of the far-right fighting the minority of the far-left. In its place we need a centrist organisation combining members and persons who oppose elements of the far-right British politics. Extend the arm out to those who vote Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour, SNP and a whole spectrum more; invite religious figures; councillors and many more and then peacefully, we can successfully eradicate the thuggish EDL. If not we shall be continuously subjected the fights between the thugs of the EDL and the apparent thugs of UAF.

Sadly I think the EDL are winning this battle on points at the moment.

Have a song

2010-08-23T14:43:00.000+01:00

Top 100 of the 00's

2010-08-19T17:40:00.000+01:00

Note: Still have most of the best matches of 05, 06, 07, 08 and 09 to watch. Never fear. Yet.

Here's my top 20 (19/8/10)

1. Mitsuharu Misawa Vs Kenta Kobashi (NOAH 1/3/03)
2. AJ Styles Vs Christopher Daniels Vs Samoa Joe (TNA 11/9/05)
3. Samoa Joe Vs CM Punk (ROH: Punk Vs Joe II)
4. Cactus Jack Vs Triple H (WWE 23/1/00)
5. Jun Akiyama Vs Kenta Kobashi (NOAH 10/7/04)
6. Triple H Vs Chris Benoit Vs Shawn Michaels (WWE 14/3/04)
7. Kurt Angle Vs Shawn Michaels (WWE 4/3/05)
8. Low Ki Vs Christopher Daniels Vs Bryan Danielson (ROH 23/2/02)
9. Kurt Angle Vs Chris Benoit (WWE 19/1/03)
10. The Briscoes Vs Motor City Machine Guns (ROH: Good Times, Great Memories)
11. TLC2 (WWE 1/4/01)
12. El Hijo Del Santo Vs Nicho El Millionare (CMLL 6/4/01)
13. Kurt Angle & Chris Benoit Vs Rey Mysterio & Edge (WWE 20/10/02)
14. KENTA Vs Suwa (NOAH 18/9/05)
15. KENTA & Naomichi Marufuji Vs Jushin Liger & Takehiro Murahma (NOAH 16/7/03)
16. Italian Connection Vs. Crazy MAX Vs. M2K Vs. Do Fixer (Toryumon 30/8/03)
17. Keiji Mutoh Vs Genichiro Tenryu (AJPW 8/6/01)
18. TLC 1 (WWE 27/8/00)
19. Chris Benoit Vs Chris Jericho (WWE 21/1/01)
20. Samoa Joe Vs CM Punk (ROH: World Title Classic)

Update 1

2010-08-18T19:09:00.000+01:00

It is a not so hidden secret that I quite like Hayley Williams and have quite liked Paramore since I first heard of Paramore through Alt.Press way back when in 2005 and I (illegally, SORRY) got my hands on a copy of All We Know Is Falling. Now five years have passed and I have never missed a UK tour they've done, never failed in getting their albums and never failed in supporting a band I love. I was just 18 when I listened to All We Know Is Falling for the first time and I love it just as much now as I do then. Yet there is one problem for me with the band, and it's that typical situation where I hate how popular have become and how Paramore are now a simple band certain groups of people like to fit in.

The fan-base has just got younger and younger. I went to their first Manchester Apollo date and the crowd was now filled with children and young teens, when the first time I saw them play on these shores everybody around me was the same age as me. The same happened at their first ever Arena tour in the UK. The majority of people there were young teens with their parents. I (being 21 and male) was in the minority. With each and every passing year I get the impression that I shouldn't be at Paramore live events because I'm out of place. Couple that with the wrong impression that I only like Paramore because I like Hayley - wrong, brand.new.eyes was my second favourite album of 2009, just behind Wolfgang Amadeus Phoneix - and I generally get the impression and banter from my friends that they look down on me because of it. Here lies another problem: the sex symbol that is Hayley.

Listen to brand.new.eyes and if you take on board the well documented internal problems of Paramore throughout 2008/2009 then it is clear to see that the frustration, alienation and pressure of being famous had on the band. Josh and Hayley were in the process of splitting up and as a consequence the entire future of Paramore was in limbo. At the same time Hayley had become bigger than the band itself, which is a sad indictment of contemporary society, but one that happens all too often with bands. Retrospectively we can argue that Nirvana was all about Kurt Cobain, The Libertines all about Pete Doherty and his 'saviour' to music (please, the guy's a joke. Musically and personally) This awful dynamic drove the band to channelling the animosity, loathing, jealously all together in one pot and out of came brand.new.eyes

Beyond everything I've remained a loyal fan. I'll admit that I don't often part with my money for musicians in this day and age (but that is another blog topic for another location) but Paramore are one of them.

Overall I think I lost the point I was going to make, but damn. I just love Paramore and I hate being made to feel I'm not allowed to by marketing, the press and half the shitty little scene kids.

My (university) essay on the postmodernist crime fiction of Paul Auster & Jose Borges

2010-06-09T15:18:00.000+01:00

‘What interested him about the stories he wrote was not their relation to the world, but their relation to other stories.’ Discuss the role of formula and intertextuality in at least two focus texts

Crime fiction has, by numerous critics, been described as being conventionally conservative; the ultimate motive of the genre is to restore the status quo that is fractured by an event that leaves the central protagonists in need for a definitive resolution. The classical ‘British’ detective novels seemingly followed a rigid pattern formulated by the deduction of an infallible amateur sleuth, whilst the influx of the ‘hard-boiled’ sub-section deviated from the stock scenario’s made famous in the between war era and blurred the lines between hero and villain: yet still the status quo would be restored and the protagonist detective involved, solved the case. In conjunction, the work of the detective in both forms ‘mirrors and assists the work of the reader, as both try to piece together the disparate signs that might eventually solve mystery’ (Nealon 1999: 117).Yet these most basic premonitions are toyed with by the postmodernist author and the reader/detective duality is stretched to further degrees while the actions of the protagonists (and authors) use a medium of intertextuality to give credibility to their actions.
One of the basic premonitions of detective fiction is the reader/detective relationship where the reader can assimilate the same knowledge of the detective and thus, in conjunction with the main protagonist; can solve the central mystery of the narrative at a similar pace to the detective. Due to this the majority of crime fiction follows this basic and simple premise, where the reader is ‘guided by the detective’ (Sorapure 1995: 71) and consequently allows the reader to ascend into the position of a second detective. Consequently it is understandable that Madeleine Sorapure states: ‘No doubt, the satisfaction of reading traditional detective fictions – of both the classic British and the “hard-boiled” American type – derives from the implicit assurance that detective and reader will eventually ascend to the position of author’ (Sorapure 1995: 72). However with Paul Auster’s City of Glass this convention is shattered by the implementation of a multi-layered author-detective-reader relationship that leaves the reader piecing together fragments of the narrative to gain the ability to ascend to the point of both detective and author. Throughout City of Glass, Auster presents the reader with a number of authors: Daniel Quinn, “Paul Auster”, Peter Stillman, and the eventual narrator. Through this it is hard to establish who the legitimate author is and in the same respect it is problematic to decide if there is an eventual omniscient detective in the tale. As Sorapure claims the author’s ‘function in detective fiction provides the basis on which detective and reader can move with assurance through the text’ (Sorapure 1995: 85) but due to the multi-authorship mode implement by Auster, no one author can provide an clear account of events, and as such each detective cannot move freely or rely on using infallible knowledge. If Auster followed traditional formulae the reader would see a natural progression from a closed view of the case and society, to a truly omniscient one. But Auster presents ‘characters whose experiences return them to the detective’s ground-level, fragmented, and imperfect understanding’ (Sorapure 1995: 73) and consequently the reader is left asking a number of important questions: Is a crime committed? What happens to the potential victim? What happens to the suspected criminal? Finally what happens to the detective himself?’ (Sorapure 1995: 75). It is therefore up to the reader to come to their own conclusions on these questions and with these answer. As Sorapure states; ‘City of Glass dramatizes the thorough failure of the narrator-detective to answer these centrally important questions and to solve the mystery. (Sorapure 1995: 75). Through this the reader then can progress to the status of author where the protagonists have failed. Auster changes the convention. Instead of leading the reader by the hand through the text, he implements this fragmented author-detective model gives the reader the full control to shape the novel to their own personalised ending, changing away from the often seen cause and effect formula usually implemented in the bulk of detective fiction. With this, no one conclusion is the correct one and no crime, or mystery, is every solved by the detective.
The quest that Daniel Quinn embarks on, under the pretence of being “Paul Auster”, is solved by two means: the real fictional “Paul Auster” and the press of New York City. By breaking away from the traditional convention Quinn is at a loss directly after uncovering the reason of Stillman’s disappearance through “Paul Auster” and indirectly, the media: ‘Quinn could not be sure what he felt. In those moments, it was as though he felt nothing, as though the whole thing added up to nothing at all’ (CoG 124). With this all of Quinn’s work, and on the surface the entirety of City of Glass becomes intrinsically a failure of detective fiction when placed alongside the more traditionalist fiction and the unwritten formula’s associated with them. Yet while Auster deviates from the norm in his writing, this means that Quinn ‘fails, in essence, to become the author of a detective story.’ (Sorapure 1995: 75) he lives through.
With the media, specifically the unnamed New York newspapers, providing the conclusion to the Stillman case, it is one in a long line of intertextual references that are prominent in postmodernist detective fiction: specifically City of Glass. The newspaper solves the case that Quinn fails to, and from that is safe to assume that the newspaper concurrently produces a report from where “Auster” gained his information from. This is just one piece of a huge intertextual puzzle found within City of Glass. The unspecified narrator references the red notebook used by Daniel Quinn, who in turn references Edgar Allen Poe among other authors and literary sources. Auster writes in 1997 that ‘’it’s through stories that we struggle to make sense of the world’ (Auster 1997: 336) and this is evident within his writing. For Quinn to fully comprehend the actions of Stillman he has to document Stillman’s every movement and action, no matter how insignificant. From these notes Quinn formulates an opinion on what are the meanings behind Stillman’s actions. But he has to give credence to these conclusions and actions, and through this he uses intertextuality in order to do so. Quinn references Stillman’s published ideas regarding the Tower of Babel as proof that Stillman’s seemingly random excursions through New York have an underlying purpose. But through this Quinn is pretending to be “Paul Auster” whilst using his own fictional detective, Max Work, as a basis for his new found persona. By continuous self-imposed intertextuality between the novels that Quinn has authored, and the setting he finds himself in, Quinn, acting as ‘Auster can only define himself through writing... [and] talking of writing’ (Chénetier 1995: 39). In a similar vein the unnamed narrator of City of Glass becomes self obsessed with the identity of Quinn and his whole account is based upon his interpretation of Quinn’s red notebook. Thus we have two un-authoritative accounts in a genre where infallible narrators were commonplace.
Madeleine Sorapure states that; ‘the detective must, it is clear, be a fairly consistent figure with conventional and predictable values in order for him to able to focus on the mystery that exists outside of him.’ (Sorapure 1995: 76) and this is true for classical detectives such as Poirot, Marple and Holmes and to some extent the anti-heroes of the hard-boiled genre. Yet as mentioned previously at the heart of Daniel Quinn is a mass of names: his professional name (William Wilson), his heroic name (Max Work), his personal name (Daniel Quinn) and his assumed name (Paul Auster) and this causes great conflict in his personality. Auster creates four identities for one character and this quasi-schizophrenic situation absolutely fails to follow detective fiction conventions. Daniel Quinn does not know who he is and this level of uncertainly ‘in the detective’s very identity... interfere[s] with his ability to resolve the mystery at hand’ (Sorapure 1995: 76) leading to failure on a personal level for the protagonist of City of Glass.
Argentinean literary figure, Jorge Luis Borges, also toys with the perceived convention of crime fiction, but unlike Paul Auster, Borges uses these apparent formulae against the reader. With The Garden of Forking Paths Borges inverts the conventional plot line by focusing on the lead up to the murder, instead of centralising the narrative around the detection and apprehension of the criminal. Borges states this clearly in his foreword found at the beginning of Fictions: ‘[The Garden of Forking Paths] is a detective story; its readers will witness the commission and all the preliminaries of a crime whose purpose will not be kept from them but which they will not understand, I think, until the final paragraph’ (F 5). From this it is clear to ascertain Borges’ ulterior motive was to turn the general formula for detective fiction on its head. By focusing on the criminal and inverting the timeline the reader ‘seek[s] not perpetrator[s] but rationale’ (Chibka 1999: 56) Not only does Borges invert the timeline, he inverts the readers task and reinvents the readers involvement with the text. Instead of the reader being placed in the same bracket as the literary detective in the majority of detective fiction, including Paul Auster’s City of Glass; the reader of The Garden of Forking Paths is left to unravel clues as to why the murder takes place. This makes for a vacant reader-author relationship, which again is a huge premise for detective fiction.
Borges also makes use of a unique way of linking texts together in The Garden of Forking Paths. Like Auster’s City of Glass there is a text within a text. The text in question is also named “The Garden of Forking Paths” and is the produce of character Ts’ui Pen. Stephen Albert, in a summary of Pen’s text sates that it ‘is a huge riddle’ (F 85). This statement also can refer to the story that this extract is contained in, in the sense that the reader has to be continually aware of each detail in order to futilely work out the rationale behind the murder. The motive of the murder is revealed, as Borges promises in ‘the final paragraph’ (F 5) whilst the actual murder takes place in the second to last paragraph of the text, yet the progression of the text is built up towards the reasoning behind the murder, rather than detecting the culprit. Whilst Auster utilises intertextuality to bring disharmony to the reader-author-detective relationship, Borges implements it to highlight the shortcomings of the detective genre. Pen’s text concerns the infinite amount of variables located in the world and how every action brings around a unique reaction, so that no one timeline is stable; the world is constantly in flux. Yet in the majority of detective fiction events are layed out in a simple cause and effect manner, the progression is drawn out until the conclusion feels natural. However the ending of The Garden of Forking Paths comes somewhat suddenly, a reference to the text within the text. On re-reading, it is apparent that The Garden of Forking Paths could conceivably come to an end at the train station where Madden and Yu Tsun’s presence overlap by a matter of mere seconds. Thus mystery turns into mayhem, the so often rigid narrative time line becomes fluid and under threat; and it is at this point that the positive momentum towards the conclusion in initiated.
The Garden of Forking Paths also plays with the conventions of crime fiction through the implementation of the detective. Robert Chibka, about the opening paragraph, states the text ‘[has] the trappings of another genre that interprets or “solves” the past...a footnote’ (Chibka 1999: 56). Borges’ use of a footnote brings a level of infallibility to that statement, the same level of integrity displayed by the protagonists of an Agatha Christie novel. It is pointless to argue with the footnote and thus it lays to bed the apparently confusion of whether Runeberg had been ‘arrested, or murdered’ (F 75). This takes the detective work out of the hands of the reader, revoking the readers’ apparent inherent role to play amateur sleuth. On a similar level, the only real detective the reader has any literary relationship with becomes the victim. Stephen Albert ‘[deciphers] past actions and motives, solving the mystery of Yu’s great-grandfather Ts’ui Pen’s apparently unaccountable literary behaviour’ (Chibka 1999: 56), yet he perishes and in that moment the text loses its sole infallible character whom the reader can look at in awe of their ability.
It is surely not a coincidence that within Fictions there appears a story entitled The Library of Babel and within City of Glass Peter Stillman appears infatuated with the Tower of Babel, which surely must signify a level of intertextuality between the two texts: Both are unconventional, and both fracture and split the conceived relationship that the reader has with a work of detective fiction. McPheron may note that in The New York Trilogy, and consequently City of Glass, ‘plot and characterization...remain sufficiently coherent to satisfy conventional expectations (McPheron 1987: 142) yet the manner of the conclusion of City of Glass poses more questions than answers, just as the climax to Borges The Garden of Forking Paths does. Concurrently ‘Borges’ story lets our own aggressive impulses towards textual mastery throw us off balance’ (Chibka 1999: 60) and in the same vein City of Glass utilises the readers pre-obtained assumptions about crime fiction to destabilise the reading experience. Both texts manipulate conventions through their own unique and postmodern style, but both texts use a method of intertextuality either to give authority, or throw their work into chaos. What stands out the most though within Paul Auster’s City of Glass is the fact that the authors can be argued to be readers, causing intertextuality to revolve around in a never ending circle. But as Borges summarised: “Why does it disturb us that Don Quixote be a reader of the Quixote and Hamlet a spectator in Hamlet?” these inversions suggest that if the characters of a fictional work can be readers or spectators, we, its readers or spectators, can be fictitious’ (quoted in Barone 1995: 5) and that is the inherent theme running through City of Glass and The Garden of Forking Paths is that the reader, who so often ascends to the status of author, can in one swift movement be relegated alongside a fictitious character.

I'm sorry

2010-05-18T19:00:00.000+01:00

I've been ignoring/forgetting this. For the time being I shall firmly lay waste the fact that I've been a third year and it is mega stressful and the workload is just so high.

But now I've nearly finished I can safely say I'll need something to do, something to rant to, somewhere that I can get on my pedestal and shout to the world; this place will probably be it.

I miss days of breakdowns

2010-02-22T00:35:00.001Z

I do, I need a blog where I just be the emotional wreck and fool I am. I miss those days but maybe they've gone. Maybe I've grown up, learnt to loathe and self pity rather than flare up and make it public (or internet knowledge)

Now there's a first.

It's a nervous time for HUU

2010-02-22T00:01:00.000Z

So Jak Masters has been banned from Hull University Union for broadcasting/publishing offensive video material.

That doesn't wash. I have seen the video and it is a lot of things: childish, pointless, stupid, worthless, ludicrous and bordering on a great deal of self harm, but offensive? No.

Jak's campaign, or lack of, has been garnering support because he is the token joke candidate this year. Last year Rory Stobo made a big deal of running for HUU President 'because he could' and it would be a slap in the face of the political factions picking, choosing and running the Union. This year that is Jak's task; to ruffle a lot of feathers and remind the political elite that they have to attempt to please the 18,000 or so students that make up HUU. Sadly, I fear that Jak is scaring them as he could easily get in on the popularity vote alone, let alone for the fact that he could potentially bring in large numbers of people to vote for him because he is seen as 'one of the boys', not one of the elite.

This year Rory is running for President in a more serious attempt, but browsing through his nomination form I feel the core reason why he is standing has not changed all that much.

And it is with these points that the political elite are worried. They are the minority (which they should remember by the way) so it is a fair assumption to make that they are worried by Jak, and are after his head. They can't bring him down for his nomination form, the actions of his campaign team, not appearing at designated meetings but they can bring him down on a matter of opinion. The video that Jak is using for the promotion of his campaign is viewed in an entirely subjective manner, the viewer makes up their own mind on it. And from this, somebody can hold their hand up and state that it offends them, and therefore breaking Union policy for broadcasting offensive material and thus: should be banned from HUU.

However, rumour has it that the complaint did not come from a student, so the plot thickens. Are the people employed by HUU worried about Jak and what would happen if he actually did get elected? How they would look, how HUU would look to the outside world?

Gosh, an average (ish) student running a student union? Who'd have thought it?

Either way, you cannot stifle democracy to suit your own end, it doesn't work like that and sadly, that is what it looks like at the moment.

Hullfire NUS Article

2010-02-13T21:32:00.000Z

It is from last year, and I have neglected this blog oh so, but it should be updated lots during the elections

---

Soon after the academic year 2008/2009 ended, the National Union of Students (NUS) proposed a radical alteration to the way each and every student pays their student loans which coincided with headlines that the cap on tuition fees could be abolished. Instead of tackling the issue of the increased price of Higher Education the NUS laid out plans for a graduate tax that would last ‘a fixed period of twenty years’ and would be tailored to how much you earn per month. This money would be secured in an independent trust fund and released annually to Higher Education institutions. The NUS predict that within fifteen years the trust fund would hold enough to match student debt at today’s levels and after twenty years would hold £6.4bn, which ‘would equate to a cap on tuition fees of £5,000’.
The financial figures the NUS have released call for the Government to effectively pay off student debt to the tune of up to £4.5bn until 2014 and it is not until 2028 that the amount the Government is projected to fund reaches zero. This will increase Government spending on Higher Education by £48million through until 2028. On top of this, the NUS are prepared to gamble away the secured funds by allowing the Governments to sell deposits of the fund to private investors. The past few years has been a stark reminder to all that big spending invariably causes a big bust, and it seems naive to put the money we, as graduates, pay for our education up for sale for investors to make a quick profit. It is an idea fraught with danger and numerous what ifs.
As the NUS stated in their Blueprint documents this proposal would still functions with tuition fee costs rising to £5,000 per academic year. It is interesting to take that figure into account with the imminent review on Higher Education funding where an increase in tuition fees is expected to occur with Lord Mandelson giving the biggest hint yet stating that ‘excellence is not cheap. Hypothetically if the costs do rise, the Blueprint undoubtedly will aid the majority of students on paper. Where it does fail however, is that the NUS overlook basic household expenditure adding, in essence, another tax on top of an already increasing cost to live. This would leave student’s being taxed for going into higher education and surely would not add to the appeal of carrying on studying if you are going to be penalized. Another drawback is that the boundaries formulated by the NUS relating to how much each student pays back, goes upon that student’s income after they leave university. In theory it is aimed to penalize those from higher earning families, so they pay a bigger proportion of their earnings back – but this would not affect those who come from financially secure backgrounds. Those who it would have a negative effect upon, are the students who see an increase in income when they complete studies, basically punishing those from lower income backgrounds who work hard, achieve a good degree and through that earn a high salary. They then will be taxed higher because of the effort they have put into their education throughout their course at university.
Though whilst the NUS have proposed the Blueprint to ease the financial strains of undertaking a degree, questions have arisen to why they haven’t actively campaigned to at least force a freeze on tuition fees. Whilst NUS President Wes Streeting has condemned a possible introduction of variable fees, a closer examination of this reveals he is only commenting upon the potential effect variable fees will have on Labour’s aim to get a rise in University attendees from the poorest backgrounds. HUU VP for Education Chris Marks, has spoken out against the Blueprint stating ‘it is not a fight we should be having.’ Furthermore Chris has also explained his view of why the NUS aren’t petitioning towards a freeze, or cut in fees because ‘the majority of the NUS leadership are up and coming members of the Labour Party hierarchy’ which signifies that the NUS are unwilling to attack the political party they are a part of. But surely the NUS should be a neutral entity focusing on the needs of their members, and only time will tell if the Blueprint will fully be the answer that students are asking over the potential rise in tuition fees.

Selective memory

2009-09-16T17:01:00.000+01:00

So it appears that HUU's VP Education has already garnered a selective memory over what he has said in the past. Maybe it is because he's afraid of annoying too many people before the academic year starts, or maybe because he doesn't want to step on the toes of his peers and bosses just yet, he has kindly forgotten an e-mail he sent me regards to some correspondence over the NUS Blueprint.

With quotes such as 'Labour students slow raping of NUS governance structures, 'The Tories? Fuck the Tories' and his nail in the NUS' coffin '[the] NUS is effectively a dead base for student activism'.

All of these he doesn't remember sending to me in an e-mail and doesn't like his name to be associated with my article. What takes the biscuit is the opening to the e-mail: 'I certainly do have some comments about all this crap. Please quote at will'

Hey, I'm only following your orders...

Some qualifications are better than others

2009-08-16T20:44:00.000+01:00

I remember when the big decision of what subjects I would be taking at A-Level was approaching. I wanted to do English, History and German (we were supposed to go on a trip if we did German, that never happened, so I dropped it. :] ) but what else as my fourth? I wanted to do Media Studies because I want to eventually get a job in media. Seems a natural option yes?

No. Every single careers advisor I went to, combined with every teacher I spoke to told me in no uncertain terms that Media Studies was below me and to do a 'proper' subject because it would put me in a better position for University and employers. So I took psychology.

I also didn't have to do General Studies because I was seen to be doing four hard subjects, so wouldn't need the extra credits General Studies gives.

So yes, some subjects are harder than others, some care more academic standing and some are better than others.

Desperate times calls for daft measures.

2009-08-09T15:07:00.000+01:00

It is often that Labour and the NUS shock me with their ridiculous attempts at reducing the current population of University students and replacing them with those who don't cut the mustard. I can see their point, and in certain respects I would agree with some of their aims. But then Labour, and the NUS, go about things in half measures and politic too much. I certainly do feel that those in the upper realms of the NUS are afraid of any real, headline making activism as it will harm their careers in the Labour Party and thus the NUS simply becomes a yes organisation for them and any 'radical' proposals fall timely with Labour rumblings and of course, the crumbling Labour Government.

I am fully certain that if Gordon Brown does not turn things around soon, the Conservatives will walk out 2010 as the party with a sizeable majority in Westminster and from this platform, the NUS can stand up and shout against the party that increases tuition fees and consequently the Blueprint is loved by all. But that's half the story, and where it ends with the NUS. What everybody is fully aware (well, those who keep their ears to the ground) that tuition fees for University level education has to rise. It is sadly something we can't avoid, but Labour can push under the carpet and leave it on the Tories shoulders. Only when Tories have to lumber the tuition fees rise on their shoulders will NUS start campaigning for lower tuition fees and will present the Blueprint as the saviour for those priced out of University because now 'only rich people can get a degree'.

So why don't the NUS campaign to get tuition fees down? It is afterall what their members want. I'm sure every single NUS member would not like to leave University with roughly £20,000 worth of debt and would support the NUS in any action they would take to reduce that figure now. But then again, we have to realise the NUS watched without opposition as Labour introduced tuition fees and not that nasty rich exclusive blue party.

Over the past few weeks various schemes have been proposed in the media about what exactly is going to happen. Lord Mandelson has even said in a round about way that a good Higher Education is not cheap, and we know that a review into Higher Education is imminent in the Autumn, but that could last days, to weeks or months. Frankly however long Labour want it to. And sadly, I expect fees to increase.

This leads Labour (and the NUS) into wanting to make University a more accessible place for those from poorer backgrounds, where the debt you inherit does play a factor in entering University. I'm for this, depending on accomplishments. Ideally I'd like to see Higher Education be free, and the the only criteria you need to enter a place at University is the grades you achieve through hard work, not through state hand-me-downs. But Labour continually discriminate those who are more likely to be able to live with debt, or pay it off quickly and open up places to those who won't be able to afford debt. But there is no thought of entry qualifications. Labour appear to believe that if you get into University then you must be from a reasonably well off household and in turn, you get discriminated against by muted proposal after muted proposal. To Labour, entry grades mean nothing, yet this should be the be all and end all in entry to Higher Education. Instead, the latest in a long line of baffling ideas by Labour commissioned think tanks is giving those from a poor background a 'two grade head start' on everybody else. If this goes through it will destroy the University system in this country.

Many questions are raised by it, notably 'how do you define poor?' Will it be a postcode lottery that won't help distinguish between those who can and can't afford in certain areas? Will it be dependant on what secondary school and/or sixth form and college you attend? Again, there are huge variations in wealth in the majority of public schools, and in some instances private schools. Or will it be decided on the easily manipulated EMA allowance? Many of these would produce uneven classrooms where two people sitting next to each other in a class, going to University's of similar stature, with entry qualifications the same. Yet person A needs to get the BBB asked of them, and person B needs to get BCC, or BBD to be allowed in. So person A works harder to achieve the grades and person B gets to sit back and be a little bit lazy and relaxed. And if person A gets BCC or BBD the University has to have a long hard look at the application and the threat of rejection arises.

University entry should be solely dependant on the grades you achieve, not the grades you are given by the Government.

If this does go through, I can see Oxford and Cambridge leaving the state system and going private. For it is institutions like these that Labour are systematically targeting and riling. And come to think of it, I'd welcome them to go private, then they could actually wrestle with Harvard, Yale and the Ivy League for top academic institutions which would surely enhance the reputation of our education system....

Leeds Shakespeare Festival

2009-08-09T13:16:00.000+01:00

(Oberon & Puck - David Davies & Steven Blakeley)

I saw the British Shakespeare Company's performance of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' at Kirkstall Abbey in the past week. The picturesque setting of one of Britain's best preserved Cistercian abbey's produced a stunning and captivating backdrop to one of Shakespeare's funniest plays with the Abbey cloisters providing the perfect indoor, yet out door, auditorium.

The night started off with myself gently passing by the half hour until the doors (and bar) were opened, and as it had been years since I had been to Kirkstall Abbey (one of Leeds' best kept secrets) I took a stroll around the Abbey grounds, which was a wonderful time wasting exercise, as I'm sure this picture will provide testament to.
As the time for the performance grew ever closer I took my seat with the evening sun gradually making its decent behind the walls of the Abbey. The spread of the crowd was pleasing, which was admittedly the first thing I noted. From the elder statesmen of our country enjoying a night out, to families (I, myself went along with my Mum and Dad, they paid of course!), to students and couples, it was clear that the picturesque setting, clear evenings and the lure of the Bard had pulled in yet another full house.
The introduction we were given by the BSC staff was very tongue in cheek - instructing us of health and safety in enclosed areas - providing the first eruption of laughter of the night and a warm round of applause as the cast took their positions for the first scene. The next two and a half hours were a delight. The comedic timings present a modern slapstick interpretation of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' but it did not seem clichéd or out of place, with the contorted facial expressions of the cast, the quips were quick and seemingly off the cuff and the choreography provided many hilarious moments. Yet through the intentional comedy which was rife in Shakespeare's play, the play tackles the more serious issues in the same vein as the bard; the issue of unrequited and forced love. The directorial influence and emphasis on certain lines made the audience feel sorrow of Lysander and Hermia, as well as Helena and the 'love square' plays on the most hardened heartstrings, which are then relived with the comedic and wonderful interplay within the forest.
As typical with Shakespearian theatre there is the play within the play, and it is this that steals the show. Wonderfully acted, with a variety of village idiots you cannot help but sympathise created many memorable moments, and the most use of visual effects which only added to the sense of amateur dramatics attempting to impress the powerful Athenian Lord.

The cast sprung shocks. Gabriel Thomson (Michael Harper, My Family) and Louisa Lytton (Ruby , Eastenders; Beth Green, The Bill) were captivating in their roles, flexing their acting muscles tackling Shakespeare with aplumb and providing some familiar faces to the younger generations. For the older crowd, renowned Shakespearian actor, and star of many of our favourite comedies (Blackadder, The Young Ones) Mark Arden was also amongst the cast. But it was the performance of Steven Blakeley (Geoff Younger, Heartbeat) who stood out in his role as the mischievous Puck, in perhaps a comedic Shakespearian role he was born to play.

A truly majestic night out, and I implore you to go see the BSC in their open air locations over the summer. It provides a unique ability to interpret the Bard and adds to the sense of enjoyment and grandeur worthy of our most famous playwright.

This is our year, this is our season (v.3)

2009-08-08T10:40:00.000+01:00

We are one, we are united though there may be thousands of hearts all beating out of unison. It is that time of the year when every dream seems like it will come reality this time. Voices will be hushed and then gradually build up, culminating in one mighty crescendo proclaiming 'We are Leeds!'. We are Leeds, I am Leeds. The blood that runs through my veins is white.
I remember getting my first football kit at the age of 4, the 1991/1992 Leeds home kit by a family friend. I still have that shirt, it is my favourite football shirt in the entire world because it reminds me of the times when I would wear playing in the back garden pretending I was on the field for Leeds United and it all seemed real. The walls represented the stands, each brick a hundred fans. Since the age of four football has never once left my life and it will never leave me, just like I will never leave it. We are tied by an unbreakable bond that relegations and heartache cannot break. I have cried over this game and my team. But still, year after year I have optimism and joy and that will never perish, no matter where we are in the league, no matter what my club is like.
I believe, I will always believe. My heart will always tell me we will win, we will get promotion no matter what and who says otherwise, for I am Leeds. The hairs on the back of my neck will be on tenterhooks due to anticipation come 14:50. That's my drug. When (not if) Leeds score in front of the North Stand that is my high. I'll take every low on the chin and rise above it.

For we are Leeds, this is our year.

THIS IS OUR SEASON.

Labour Lapdogs

2009-08-06T11:47:00.001+01:00

The obvious is the workings of the economy and finance in general. Currently I am writing an article on the proposed NUS Blueprint and how it will effect students, negatively (and positively, I am trying to be unbiased after all). So I went onto the NUS website to pull up all the relevent releases and documents concerning the Blueprint to be met with this headline

Student satisfaction falls despite the trebling of fees

We pay money for education thanks to the NUS's favourite politcal party, Labour. Fees increase because Labour implement them to, the NUS sit and watch grinning without opposing because they are in essence Labour lap dogs when it comes to education and fees. They ignore their members pleas to reduce fees, or abolish them. Then they wonder why we aren't happy with University life when we leave it with around £20,000 of debt.

It's because of your government implementing these fees. Plain and simple.

ADDITION: 7th August

The article I mentioned above is taking shape nicely, and surprising coming off as unbiased as I can physically make it. Yet there is something that is screaming out at me. Constantly throughout the .pdf for the Blueprint there are remarks that projected income will match those if tuition fees were £5000 a year. I get the impression the NUS know that tuition fees will rise and they're ahead of the game. Coupled with Lord Mandelson's recent comments that Higher Education spending will be looked at after the next election it appears to me at least, that an increase in fees is inevitable.

By proposing the Blueprint the NUS can allow Labour (if they win the election) to hike tuition fees up (again) and use the Blueprint as a mutually beneficial way of repaying student debt.

Are the NUS actually ever going to stand up against Labour for the near inevitable increase in our education?

Isn't This Supposed to Be Fun?

2009-08-05T21:31:00.000+01:00

First of all, correctly name where I got my title from and I'll give you a prize. Strictly no cheating

Why doesn't music inspire me any more? I remember a time when a 'despair', 'heartache' and ativian were the things most commonly found on Pete Wentz' tongue. I'm still part of that misunderstood, maladjusted, car wreck of collective youth movement known as 'the teenager' at heart. I'm insecure, I'm a hopeless romantic. And you know what? I love it. I revel in it at times, that's not something to shout off rooftops, but it's me: it's in my DNA to have the highs high, and the lows never ending. It's not some scene, it's an inbuilt mechanism that so many of us follow, but decide to ignore.

I'm embracing it. Hurrah for me. I just wish I lived in America.

Nationalised Health Service?

2009-08-05T19:20:00.000+01:00

I put the question mark at the end of the post to ask a question, shockingly. Is the National Health Service actually nationalised? The idea of the a free health service is that it is free to all the population. So why is it then that the NHS Dentists can't offer a free service to me?

Basically, for the past ten days I've been in crippling pain, I have a wisdom tooth trying to come through that at one point was deciding it was going to attack my gums whilst being a little too cosy to my last molar. Due to this, I got an infection which really didn't help matters. I had nowhere to turn to. I am not registered to a dentist any more as when I left for university I had to up leave and sticks from one practise to another and I didn't fully sign on with a dentist near my university. I'd like to point out that the exact same thing happened with my doctors clinic. I was at home for Christmas in the middle of my first year and came down with a virus, so off I hop to my GP surgery where I've been going for fifteen years, to be told I didn't exist on their records because I've been transferred, so I'd need to rejoin.

Well, a five days ago I got bored of taking enough painkillers to sedate a horse to make the simplest things manageable. Due to the pain, inflammation of my gums and the infection eating and drinking had become nigh on impossible. So I phone up the NHS Dental Hospital in Leeds who tell me they 'aren't taking on unregistered patients in the summer due to the students being away.' Fair enough, I understand this, staff will be depleted because after all it is in essence a dental school, well dental university and I get passed onto the telephone help line. I get the advice to 'buy anti bacterial mouthwash, use that and go to a dentist asap. The wisdom tooth will probably need removing'.

So I bought the mouthwash, I'm using it, following the instructions of the bottle. And now comes the killer blow. No NHS dentist in Leeds that I have tried will take me on as a free patient. I tried one in Hull where I'm at University; same answer. How am I supposed to get the free treatment I am entitled to if nowhere will touch me as a free patient, yet if I turn up as a private patient, they'll welcome me with open arms.

I'm a student from a not so well off background, I can't afford to go private for anything.

So I'm left now with the option of having no dental treatment or going into my overdraft to pay for a check-up and some dental work. I know I'm not the only one. There have been tons of cases of people going private abroad because it is cheaper, and they too have been refused free NHS treatment. It's a disgrace, a downright disgrace and something should be done by the Government, whoever it may be: Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative, a nationalised health service should be free for all! Not free for the first hundred or so who come through the door and then you can only gain access if you're wielding a cheque book.

Since when did healthcare require a patient to go into debt anyway?

Fire in Gotham.

2009-07-29T15:19:00.000+01:00

It's summer, I have nothing to do. That's a lie, I do have things to do such as move house on Friday but there are more important things in life such as: Football Manager and reading comics. Yet there's something fishy which is getting my journalistic nose twitching, something that I'm going to write because it needs to be out there for you all to see.

There's been a fire in Blackgate prison and all the prisoners are being moved to Arkham Asylum. It's like adding fire to the cocktail surely. The most deranged minds that walked our streets mixing with the common criminals, murderers and rapists. I'm uneasy about this, and I'm not the only one. Whilst Arkham administrator Quincey Sharp has said:

"This transfer is a temporary solution until Blackgate Prison is rebuilt. The increased prisoner count will be a strain on Arkham resources, but I’m confident that we can contain these prisoners in a safe and secure manner. We are in regular communication with officials at Blackgate and I assure you that everything possible is being done to expedite repairs at the prison and remedy the imperfect arrangement we currently find ourselves in.”

in a recent press release, there are safety fears. how many times have people escaped from Arkham? They might not be in the papers or in official statistics but how many times have we heard of that vigilante apprehending that madman known as The Joker and dumping him back into the authorities arms? Rumour has it that Joker is out on the streets still. The crime levels in Gotham are atrocious, though they have levelled out since the masked vigilante came on the scene. The fire at Blackgate appears to have been accidental, or that is what the press are reporting. Comments put on the Gotham City website by apparent Blackgate staff seem to oppose this, and oppose the measures put in lace by Gotham officials. Strange? I think so.

The worrying thing is that earlier on in the week Arkham Asylum itself was under scrutiny for a possible security breach when the alarm sounded at 2:30am. Quincey Jones, again in a released statement to the press passed this issue off as part of their stringent security tests, this time for those on the 'graveyard shift'. Security guards have gone on record stating this was the case too, but I can reveal that a friend of mine living near Arkham heard gunshots

There's something else to this, surely these two incidents cannot be labelled as sheer coincidences occurring so close to each other.

---

Yeah I'm bored, but damn does the new Batman game look amazing, and the viral stuff they've just started to put on the web looks fantastic too. It really caught my eye and attention so I'm going along with it. Gives me something to do besides managing in the Portuguese Second Division.

P.S Is it just me who finds Harley Quinn just so...crazily attractive both in the comics and in this?

Too Safety Concious?

2009-07-26T21:45:00.000+01:00

The title for this blog has been on my mind since Felipe Massa's accident yesterday, and since then I've began to wonder if I'm in a different era of motorsport to the blogosphere, the twitterers and the users of BBC 606.

Let me start off by saying that my thoughts and condolences have been with the Surtees family after the tragic death of Henry Surtees last Sunday at Brands Hatch in a freak accident where a renegade tire collided with him whilst he was travelling at around 150mph. The wheel and tire was ripped off a competitors car during an accident, bounced once, travelling towards the racetrack and landed on Surtees, probably killing him instantly. It was a freak accident, a case of wrong place, wrong time. A hundredth of a second might have been the difference between life and death. If Surtees was quicker, or slower by that minuscule time period the wheel would have hit the cockpit or the engine cover. The impact would most likely have caused Surtees to crash at high speeds, but he would have had time to apply brakes, and brace for the impact. Even though Surtees did crash it is understood that he suffered no life threatening, or what would have been life ending injuries as result of careering off the track and into the barriers. Surtees' would have probably lived, if he was slightly faster, slower, to the left, to the right.

Sadly he wasn't and ultimately he lost his life. This weekend and again another freak accident occurred when a piece of Rubens Barrichello's suspension (I believe) gave way, thrusting a damper out of the back, bouncing on the race track. Massa, a few seconds behind, collected the spring in the helmet, severely inuring him. Again the impact with the barriers has been thought to have done very little injury to Massa. Massa's life was saved by the fantastic sturdiness and protection his helmet offered him. But once more we can speculate that if Massa was slightly off-line, or slightly slower or quicker, another terrible accident would have been avoided. Imagine if this 2lb spring had connected with Massa's visor, instead of the actual helmet. I presume we would be looking at a fatality. And we are talking centimetres here, in the distance between where the spring hit, and where Massa's visor begins.

In motorsport the last thing I want to see is a competitor losing their life. It is the ultimate sacrifice to make. But over the past fifteen years we have seen the safety of these competitors increase so much, and rightly so. After that fateful weekend at Imola where both Aryton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger died cars were made safer, tracks were made safer and we have not seen a death in Formula One since then. Deaths have occurred in other disciplines in the motoring world, but from these safety improvements have been implemented. The HANS (head and neck support) device being one. Designed to eradicate Basilar neck fractures which claimed the lives of Ratzenberger and noticeably NASCAR legend Dale Earnhardt, it has been unanimously successful and supported, playing apart in the reduction of serious injuries in motorsport since 2002.

The consistent attacks on Formula One, and motorsport's safety over the past week, and indeed weekend, has made me sick. Like I've stated, hundredths of a second are the margins between life and death in these types of accidents. They cannot be scripted, predicted or tested for. No matter how safe the sport is, a rear wheel containing: tire, wheel rim and probably brake discs, landing on a competitors head will result in said competitor walking away. Go pick up your spare wheel from your car, feel how heavy it is. That's a fraction of a high end formula rear wheel. Same with the spring. Throw one at yourself and it'll hurt alot. Imagine travelling at 150mph and hitting one. It'll kill you. It's a testament to the progression in safety we have had that Massa is not dead right now. As far as I believe regulations regard helmets were improved a couple of years back. Massa's helmet saved his life, we should be thankful, not demonstrating about how unsafe it is.

Martin Brundle, in his column for The Times listed the drivers whom were killed during his Formula One career, people who he had raced alongside, it made stark reading. He doesn't mention the other deaths in other formulas, just those he raced alongside. The Wikipedia list is here In the 1970's F1 averaged a death a year, in the 1980's one every two years, in 1990 a death every five years. In 2000's, no deaths. Those are the cold hard facts. They're promising too. Fifteen years ago Robert Kubica would have died as a result of his huge accident at Montreal

But he didn't due to the increased safety measures.

In some respects I'm part of the 'old era' of motorsport. I have been involved with it since I was born. I've witnessed too many deaths on track, on television. I was moved to tears watching Senna's crash. I knew he was dead. Even at the age of six, I comprehended the risks involved and big crashes scared me. They still do. But with motorsport you will never get rid of death lurking over its shoulder. Driving a car, no matter how many safety precautions there are, is still dangerous.

Maybe because there hasn't been a highly publicised death from motorsport in Britain since Senna has caused this overreaction, calls for stricter safety measures, even calls for it to be banned. You can never eradicate death, and the threat of death from motorsport. On the road there are speed limits, cars go through stringent safety tests before they make the mass production lines to make our lives safer. Formula One drivers travel at speeds of 200mph at times, and they crash and now they walk away. It's brilliant! But we cannot predict and plan for the freak accidents. We can imagine that a driver may crash at 200mph and design the car to withstand the impact and protect the driver. But we will never be able to plan for the unexplainable and the pure unlucky.

Re-reading through this I'm not sure it has a coherent point, or a well put together arguement. but I don't care really. I vividly remember seeing the 'Motorsport is dangerous' signs when I was in the pit lanes at paddocks aged six, I fully expect to still see them when I'm sixty six. Motorsport and danger goes hand in hand. It's a risk every driver knows and understands, one that will never go away.

My Loving Family

2009-07-25T19:26:00.000+01:00

I overheard this telephone call between my Mum and Great Aunt (I presume she's my Great Aunt being the Aunt of my Mum)

GA: Your Uncle Harry is 90 soon, and we're having a dinner to celebrate it at a hotel in Tynemouth.
Mum: Oh right, yes we'll come, when is it going to be?
GA: Middle of September, just checking if everybody is free, will you and Paul be going?
Mum: Yes we can do, we're all free. I think Christopher won't be at University then so he should be free too.
GA: Oh, Christopher? The invitation is just for you and Paul.
Mum: Oh........ He can look after the cats then.

Thanks
HOW I LOVE MY FAMILY.

Feminism disagrees with democracy

2009-07-18T11:48:00.000+01:00

There seems to be personal feminist vendetta's waging war for on the shallow grounds of 'equality' all around us, even in HUU where the Eden appears that females should be more equal than males. I'm taking exception to HUU's outgoing president, Helen Gibson, made during a Union Council meeting on the 23rd June when demanding that the postion of Men's Officer in the welfare zone, to be removed. I quote: 'The President added that women in society are stereotyped against as generally speaking it is men that rise to the top of organisations. An example of this is the HUU structure this year - the Board of Trustees and UEC this year has only 1 woman represented on it'

Now point a) Next academic year Helen. This (2008/2009) year had 3 members of the female sex on UEC. President, Sport, Welfare. That's hardly one is it? Secondly next year does have one, Alice Marshall who will be VP Welfare. But lets look at why this is. In my recollection only two females ran for UEC positions in the HUU elections for 2009/2010. Alice for Welfare and Amy Hopkinson for HUU President. Alice won democratically and Amy lost democratically. So is this the fault of democracy for not voting in Amy, and voting in who they felt best to take HUU forward, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, whether they were from the north or south, were left handed or right handed, like peanuts or not. They chose the best candidate. If the best candidate is not a women, should we feel guilty for discriminating against females? Apparent in HUU we should.

Shameful.

The higher power of the NUS

2009-06-27T22:42:00.000+01:00

It appears that the National Union of Students (NUS) really does not care about its general members. After the academic year 2008/2009 had finished they proposed their new plan to tackle the cost of student debt, in essence a progressive tax for graduates only. While I have gripes about the system I shall save that for another entry. The timing of their announcement means that student unions across the country will not be able to democratically debate this issue until October at the earliest. This means that the NUS can run this through unopposed and drumming it into NUS representatives and the media for three months, without legitimate opposition for months. I am an NUS member and I had not been informed about their new proposed scheme. I only stumbled across it through a friend, who in turn only heard about it as his is facebook friends with an NUS delegate.
I find this ludicrous that my own union will push important proposals to one side when announcing them, blatantly ignoring their own members. The only contact I have had off the NUS is how to get ten percent discount on the high street, which is all well and good. But when they propose a new funding for how I pay back my student loan, I expect to be informed. It’s shameful that the NUS fail to recognise view their members as the backbone and financial crux of the NUS. It appears to me that its a little left club who keep themselves to themselves and view themselves above the ordinary member on the street.

NUS you are a political disgrace.

Schumacher: The Stig?

2009-06-21T22:28:00.000+01:00

No.

Lets of all, look at the facts. If Michael Schumacher, multiple time Formula One champion and one of the biggest and most recognisable faces in motorsport was the 2nd incarnation of The Stig, we'd have know by now. For the past years somebody, somewhere would have gone: 'Oh, Schumachers off to England again for a day. That's the seventh time in the past two months. Hmmm. I wonder why, there's no official reason for it.' Believe me, somebody would know or it would have slipped out. Face the facts presented with the Top Gear Team for their show this Sunday evening (21st June 2009). It is the British Grand Prix. Who works for Ferrari as an advisor to the Ferrari Formula One team? Michael Schumacher. Therefore, who'll be in England. Secondly, Top Gear have a Ferrari FXX. Ferrari never let just anybody drive their most valued cars, not even respected motoring journalists in Jeremy Clarkson, nor any Touring Car Driver, Stunt Car driver, ex-F1 driver. Nope, you get a Ferrari man, somebody who the bosses trust to do all the commercial driving. That man, is again Michael Schumacher. The people at Top Gear were presented with an ideal gift, one I'm sure they were clambering at to get. The mere presence of Schumacher on Top Gear would spike ratings, just what the BBC want for the new series, more viewers. And tons more people will tune in next week to watch Clarkson and company, being cleverly duped by circumstance and clever ideas that Schumacher is, or probably is, our favourite tame racing driver.

The Stig's identity is a well kept secret. Former GT driver Perry McCarthy announced to the world he was the first Stig in his autobiography. Consequently the black overalled Stig soon found himself plummeting off an aircraft carrier. Rumours about who Stig II is are rife, with names ranging from ex F1 drivers Julian Bailey and Damon Hill, to ex-Touring Car driver Chris Goodwin, along to stunt driver Russ Swift and even JK from Jamiroqui touted at one point as the man behind the white helmet. The Daily Telegraph 'ousted' Swift as The Stig, but this could just have a been a one time gig, doing some particularly dangerous driver. After all, would Michael Schumacher have driven a car down a ski slope?

The most likely probability is that there is not one Stig, but a variety of a select few, some named above, some not. Who each fill in as and when they can. But do we really care who The Stig is, more importantly should we? Would Top Gear be as fun as it is if we all knew who was driving around the supercars and aided the presenters in racing events? No we wouldn't, Top Gear would lose a bit of its sense of fun, and after all Top Gear is fun. In no way is it serious. So lets just revel in some great television and just forget about who The Stig is, we all should, for the enjoyment of a much loved show

HUU Financial speculation

2009-06-19T19:37:00.000+01:00

During the controversy surrounding the election of Jamie Scudamore as Hull University Union (HUU) President for academic year 2009/2010, then Union Secretary-Treasurer Alex Hamilton faced a vote of no confidence from members of HUU's Union Council.

All very procedural, by and by, point after counter point. However a member within the meeting raised the issue of HUU's Financial Committee and the apparent state of HUU's overall balance. It was conceded that the Finance Committee had not met for a number of weeks. A statement was then put to the room that HUU was running at a massive loss and this solely should fall on the shoulders of Alex Hamilton. Hamilton shook this off and questioned where such a figure could come from if not himself, and he denied the figure, asking to provide definitive evidence on the spot. With the person probably protecting his source's anonymity and Hamilton's manoeuvring, the issue was put to rest and not mentioned at any other point in the meeting. Yet on the 17th June 2009 on HUU's website (www.hullstudent.com) the following was posted

After eight months of negotiations with the University Senior Management Team HUU President Helen Gibson and General Manager Paul Tatton have reached an agreement with the University to increase our Subvention Grant by a further £200,000 from autumn 2009. This increase will clear the HUU deficit and put us back on an even keel financially

(1)

This surely raises the question again about the state of HUU's finances during the last year, and indeed the years previously. Why were we running in a deficit and was Alex Hamilton's handling of the questions posed to him a way of sweeping a serious economic loss under the proverbial carpet?

The nature of the statement by HUU suggests that the deficit was a large one with the sentence "This increase will clear the HUU deficit and put us back on an even keel financially.". £200,000 is a lot of money, especially when to clear a shortfall, which the term 'even keel' suggests it is doing.

Will we see cuts coming in areas of HUU spending or some more reckless abandon?

----
Footnote
1: http://hullstudent.com/news/index.php?page=article&news_id=78115

F1 in 2010, update one.

2009-06-19T11:21:00.000+01:00

Late Thursday evening (around 23:30 GMT) the Formula One Teams Association (FOTA) announced that they would be breaking away from the FIA Formula One series from next year and they would create their own rival series. For weeks and weeks FOTA and the FIA have been at loggerheads over proposed regulation changes for next year’s championship, with the greatest sticking point being the probability of the budget cap creating a two tier championship. In short turning F1 into a structure more akin to sports-car racing such as ALMS, the FIA GT Championship and of course, the pinnacle of sports-car events: Le Mans. In essence the teams who spent above the proposed £40 million would be strictly regulated on technical developments whilst those who worked under the cap would be given unprecedented technical freedom.

My main gripe with this regulation was the lack of uniformity between teams. There has to be set rules within any sport and F1 is no different, and if a budget cap was put in place the figure must be mutually agreed on by all parties and every team should follow the same technical regulations. It doesn't matter if the limit was £100 million; £60 million or the proposed £40 million; the rules have to be standard for every entrant. Simple: in theory. The figures that basically control F1 and the principle members of FOTA have huge egos, vast budgets and the wants of huge car companies to manage. There can never be an overall satisfactory outcome for anything as seen in Bernie Ecclestone's backhand deal with Ferrari to keep them part of the sport, which came to light recently.

The ongoing dispute was supposedly settled and reignited over the course of the race weekend in Monaco. With the application deadline for the 2010 season looming, Williams and Force India were first to budge from FOTA's official standpoint and apply. Both teams have subsequently been thrown out of FOTA. The provisional entry list was announced on June 12th, containing all ten current teams and three new entries: Manor Motorsport, Campos Grand Prix and USF1. However five teams were given a further week to forward fully conditional entries, agreeing to proposed FIA rules. Those teams were: Brawn GP, McLaren, Renault, Toyota and BMW Sauber. And Ferrari were still issuing calls of withdrawing. All was not settled. In the week that has passed there has been no resolution and FOTA stuck together in announcing that they would be breaking away from Formula One saying 'The teams have declined to alter their original conditional entries to the 2010 F1 Championship.' (1).

In response Max Mosley and the FIA issued the following: "We are disappointed but not surprised by FOTA's inability to reach a compromise in the best interests of the sport. It is clear that elements within FOTA have sought this outcome throughout the prolonged period of negotiation and have not engaged in the discussions in good faith. The FIA cannot permit a financial arms race in the championship nor can the FIA allow FOTA to dictate the rules of Formula One. The deadline for unconditional entries to the 2010 FIA Formula World Championship will expire this evening. The 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship entry list will be announced tomorrow." (2)

The entry list the FIA will have (if there is no resolve to this) will contain Williams, Force India, Manor Motorsport, Campos Grand Prix and USF1 and the remaining places on the grid filled with the unsuccessful applicants. But there is an air of uncertainty surrounding these procedures. Ferrari, Red Bull and Toro Rosso are seemingly contractually obliged, according to the FIA, to take part next year and this has been supported by a member of the Force India team on BBC 5 Live. Yet Ferrari are the team spearheading the removal of FOTA from F1 and in the formation of a breakaway series, with Luca Di Montezemolo (Chairman of Ferrari and Fiat) reported to have been meeting with the hierarchy of Moto GP in terms of setting up a new championship. Hypothetically speaking, if Ferrari, Red Bull and Toro Rosso stand firm with the rest of FOTA who will produce the engines for these new privateer and non-works teams next year? Over the years Toyota, Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari have produced engines for other teams in the championship and the absence of their presence will cast doubts about the engine supply for next year. Will Toyota continue to make engines for Williams in a rival formula? The same question can be applied to Mercedes and Force India. Will Cosworth step in and make engines for all the teams on the grid? If so does this then become a single make formula akin to Champ Cars in America but with teams designing their own chassis and gearboxes? It would also seem unlikely that a giant car manufacturer would enter F1 without the likes of Mercedes and Ferrari to compete with. If anything a breakaway series is more likely to attract the likes of Porsche, Honda back into top tier single seater motorsport.

The controversy does not end there. Prospective candidates in Lola withdrew their application as a reserve entry after being overlooked. Lola themselves have a history within F1 and would be seen as a 'safe bet' in re-entry to the formula. And only today fellow reserve applicant N.Technology withdrew with a warning shot to the FIA with Autosport proclaiming that N.Technology has 'withdrawn its application because the circumstances have changed since it applied and it no longer wants to be involved in a sport without the major manufacturers.' (3) Max Mosely has been warned; even FOTA in their original statement of intent highlighted their pledge to aid privateer entries. PlanetF1.com goes as far to report that Lola ‘are to join FOTA's new series, along with former BAR team principal David Richards' Prodrive organisation, who...were surprisingly overlooked by the FIA a week ago.' (4) If the other serious privateer entries follow suit, that leaves the FIA with a very sparse grid and potentially the Aston Martin name being see in the FOTA series as Dave Richards is Chairman of Aston Martin.

So without FOTA backing F1 is seemingly doomed. That being said, contracts will have to be broken presumably and this could drag the formation of a breakaway series on for a number of years. However, even bigger than FOTA teams breaking their contract, which Mosley says is valid, the FIA face even bigger consequences. The FIA's contracts in place with circuits, countries, sponsors and television companies are worth hundreds of millions, if not billions and all this will be thrown up in the air if the FOTA teams breakaway. The re-construction of Donnington will be put to an end financially is a 'B' competition is going to be racing there instead of the marquee names of Ferrari and McLaren. The FIA will lose far more than pride or the battle; they stand to watch millions fall out of their bank accounts, crippling them.

The man stuck in the middle of the financial war is Commercial Rights Holder; Bernie Ecclestone. Eccleston is the middle man between FOTA, FIA and their contractors on and off circuit. He has made his fortune in Formula One and stands either to lose or gain further millions on this dispute. If he backs friend Mosley then he'll incur the wrath of FOTA and have to fight to keep the money flowing into the FIA, if he backs FOTA he'll signify the death of F1 as we know it.

At 12:30 GMT today the team principles are attending an emergency meeting at the Silverstone circuit. It is unclear if Mosley and Ecclestone will be in attendance, but they are also declining to comment for the press and are supposedly in meetings too. Who with is unconfirmed but it appears desperate crunch talks are set to take place. Mosley released a statement to the BBC earlier saying that he'll 'release a statement later today' (5) final or otherwise, today is shaping up to be a landmark day in the history of F1.

I'll leave this with the comments of Sir Jackie Stewart, talking to the BBC: Max's way of ruling is bully-boy tactics - that's why the teams have got fed up. Someone will stand up to a bully eventually and stop it. That's the way it works." (6).

---
Footnotes
1: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8108488.stm
2: http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_5388269,00.html
3: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76298
4: http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_5388223,00.html
5: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8108629.stm
6: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8108629.stm">ibid