Skip to main content

Day: 4 October 2015

Is Corbyn right about nuclear disarmament?

During last week’s labour party conference, the opportunity for debate on a contentious topic close to Jeremy Corbyn’s heart was conspicuously missed: Nuclear Disarmament. In a party already divided due to his election as party leader, maybe this was a wise move. But all that is being done now is kicking the can down the road.

Shadow Defence Secretary Maria Eagle has been asked by the new leader to head a debate on the topic in the future, giving Corbyn time now to make the assurances which will bind the party together further. He is adamant to persuade his shadow cabinet that his way is the right one—but is it? Should we be reducing our nuclear stockpiles, or is it necessary for us to renew and even expand them?

In 1970 the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear arms (NPT) was ratified and put into effect by three world nuclear powers—USA, the UK and Russia—in collaboration with other nation-states. The treaty was joined by 191 states in total—including France and China, the remaining two of the five early nuclear powers—making it the world’s largest and thus most significant treaty on nuclear weaponry ever finalised.

But what does it entail? Principally, that any state possessing nuclear weapons must, firstly, refuse to spread or increase their use and, secondly, systematically reduce their stockpile. Any non-nuclear state is also under obligation to use nuclear technology for strictly peaceful means.

The problem is that there is no international authority governing states’ adherence to the principles underlined in the treaty: We saw how this could go wrong with the case of Iran over the past several years; indeed, it is only international condemnation and embargos which offer disincentives to not follow the NPT.

The treaty was created in pursuance of global safety from nuclear weaponry—something we were starkly reminded of with the 67th anniversary of Hiroshima last month. What we are all afraid of is nuclear obliteration; opposers of Corbyn simply argue that the existence of nuclear weapons as a deterrent is far more important in preventing this than their reduction.

There is some truth to such remarks; danger is lurking out there. Four states are non-signatories to the NPT and North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003. On top of this there is the threat of nuclear weapons arriving in the other Middle Eastern countries, as well as what is already in Israel.

Although Israel has a principle of ‘ambiguity’ regarding its nuclear capabilities, one which increases tensions in the Middle East, evidence exists that it does have several warheads—the state remains under pressure by world powers to allow a formal review by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). India and Pakistan specifically are non-signatories on belief in the discriminatory grounds of the NPT creating groups of ‘Nuclear-haves’ and ‘Nuclear-have-nots’ and largely use nuclear technology for peaceful means, while both maintaining stockpiles of nuclear weapons. What North Korea intends is anyone’s guess.

However the danger that is out there is nowadays debatably more a product of the fact that some states do have nuclear weaponry and others do not. In the period after the war, historians like John Lewis Gaddis argued that nuclear weaponry transformed the narrative of military conflict. The threat of weapons of mass destructions changed the world from one in which war was an easy option to one in which it was a very serious last resort, arguably allowing for the avoidance of a ‘hot war’ during the 20th century.

Yet since the horror of nuclear weaponry has been demonstrated, and tensions between world superpowers are no longer as high, the need for such weaponry has evaporated. Working towards a world where they no longer exist, having learned from the devastating effects of WMDs, is the next step.

The current Conservative government is intending to spend a huge £100 billion (one quarter of the entire defence budget) on renewing Trident, the UK’s series of nuclear missiles and submarines, in a world where it is perhaps merely lugubrious paranoia to believe they are still necessary. This is money which, in the revival of a recent economic recession, could be put to far more effective use.

Weapons of mass destruction merely give nation-states a platform of power onto which they may step, upon which there is the illusion of safety. Yet everyone standing on the ground below—the ‘nuclear-have-nots’—look up with a mixture of fear and envy.

Despite the fact that India and China have adopted ‘No First Use’ policies, and NATO members, in the same capacity, agree to use warheads only in defensive means, this kind of rhetoric is only meaningful during periods of relative peace. Yuval Harari, Professor of History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has made a succinct point that states that having nuclear weapons is more dangerous when afraid than when secure.

The danger is not that people will deliberately use warheads, but that they will do so accidentally—most likely out of fear. It is now, where we are experiencing a period of general safety, which is surely the best time to start eradicating nuclear threats. The irony is that what we are all afraid of—war and nuclear apocalyptic destruction—can be prevented through the disarmament of nuclear technology entirely. But, everyone is too scared to take the first step: That’s a Catch-22 if ever there was one.

At the last review of the NPT in 2010, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon reminded the global community to “remember that you are here not simply to avoid a nuclear nightmare, but to build a safer world for all.” That safer world doesn’t only lie in the reduction of threat from nuclear war but also from the reduction of damage to our health and the environment. Greenpeace even state that “every human alive now and over the next tens of thousands of years will carry radioactive elements created by nuclear tests, research and deployment, causing an increase—however small—in their lifetime cancer risk.”

Global Zero is a united campaign of global leaders that advocates nuclear disarmament, what they believe to be the single route towards global safety from WMDs. The US and Russia, who own 90 per cent of the world’s nuclear weapons, have already agreed under this campaign to reduce their stockpiles by 500 warheads by 2018. So where is the UK in such a movement?

By moving to reduce our own stockpile—and becoming the first NPT signatory to commit to entire nuclear disarmament—we will be making a loud political point. One that says, quite simply, “it can be done.” Jeremy Corbyn believes he received such a large mandate because of his commitments to do exactly that and it is one which he is determined to live up to. His true test though is, perhaps, not attempting to persuade people that it is the right path, but inspiring in them the courage to walk down it.

A changing beat

While Postmodernism is a heavily debated topic, we can, for the purposes of understanding culture here, call it a critique of present structures. It is a way of thinking, some may say, that tells us what was an absolute truth yesterday is valid debate today. It is a lens that rejects binary systems altogether and adopts a more water-coloured view of society, where people make conscious decisions as to which identities and what aspects about them to embrace or reject.

It is in my interest to explore this notion with the Indian Dance Society, as they seem to be a brilliant example of transitioning cultures. Indeed, they have won Best Arts and Media Society last year and have even been celebrated in Bahrain for spreading Indian Culture in the West. So who are they and why are they important to seeing culture through post-modern spectacles? They are simply a society that offer Indian dance classes with the opportunity to perform.

Most recently, members of the Indian Dance Society have performed in front of University Place, exhibiting moves for a trendy Bollywood mashup. It might seem all fun and games, but they had essentially introduced a cultural art form originating in historical India to the cloudy streets of modern Manchester in a way they designed. Usually, they perform on stage in elaborate dress, but this time it was in jeans and T-shirts.

Displayed for all to see, people could embrace, reject, ponder, Google later or simply snap a few photos to show friends or family. It was an event that demonstrated the multiple ways in which one culture, or a representation of it, can be spread and interwoven with other interests. Take, for instance, the variety of Indian dance available.

There are classes for elegant Bharathanatyam and Khatak, as well as popular cinematic Bollywood dance, and they all mean different things to different people. For some, it is a deep-rooted passion linked with history and heritage, for others, it is a charismatic workout. Nonetheless, the processing and adoption of the culture or cultural aspects is still there.

However, it is important to stress that this is starkly different from cultural appropriation, which is the ignorant adoption of religio-cultural symbols or materials, in a culturally void and hedonistic manner, usually fostered in a consumerist fashion. Rather, in this case, adopting cultural aspects, such as reinterpreted Indian dance, is merely an illustration of mediating identity and influence.

For young post-modern thinkers, cultural identity and everything attached to it is decentralised away from the prescribed image provided by family and wider society. So the situation is such that a person is authentically embracing an entire or an aspect of another authentically cultural thing, while the same thing is happening everywhere else.

Whatever a person may relate these dances to, there is no denying the coupling of the old, new and newer bring a completely new face to Indian dance, through such interpretation. And it is the fact of interpretation that makes the cultural scene so unique and progressive. Newcomers or weekly attendees can reinterpret and reconstruct whatever they wish for whatever ends.

The event showed us that any culture could transition from A to B, in the way anyone wants. This is such a fundamental part of culture in a post-modern setting, because it breaks what we traditionally think of as culture, and allows us to explore what we feel our own individual cultures should be about. Culture is no longer limited to location, customary regulations, or creed; it can be dynamic and available. Culture, here, becomes fluid and settles only when a person is not engaging with it.

Don’t let ‘anti-radicalisation’ measures stifle intellectual liberty

I’ve often been attracted to studying human aberration in history, finding out why and what went wrong and how we can prevent it going wrong in the future. Therefore, as a British citizen with Pakistani Muslim heritage and a student of both history and politics at university, I’ve been disturbed and intrigued by the radicalisation of young British Muslims, both in itself and by the British government’s attempts to understand and quell it.

However, due to recent cases of young Muslims in the US and the UK being wrongly accused of terroristic activity and involvement with IS, I can’t help feeling on edge about my interests, as if someone is going to denounce me for being interested in an important phenomenon which needs to be discussed openly by those who have the means of understanding it best.

Most recently, Ahmed Mohamed, 14, was detained by police after teachers became suspicious of a clock he’d made in order to impress them. Obama tweeted him in solidarity, but a tweet doesn’t remedy the sinister paranoia which underpinned the accusation. Similarly, another 14-year-old in London was taken out of class and held in a room for interrogation after he used the word ‘ecoterrorist’ to communicate how some people describe economic activists who put nails and spikes in trees in order to stop them being chopped down.

This is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The fact that a British child can’t use the word ‘terrorist’ while making a valid point in a French lesson about environmental activists without being carted off to a room for questioning is testimony to a dark paranoia which we cannot let bleed into education and academia.

We should be able to question the world around us in safety and it is cases like these, which build up resentment towards authority, which is obviously counterproductive to the anti-radicalisation cause. Moreover, Mohammed Umar Farooq, a postgraduate university student at Staffordshire university, was questioned about homosexuality and ISIS, among other things, despite his only ‘suspicious behaviour’ being his enrolment in a terrorism, global security, and crime masters programme and being seen reading a textbook for the course. He is, essentially, studying counter-terrorism. Farooq said that he felt compelled to make a statement about the accusation and has been “looking over his shoulder” ever since. Furthermore, he said that this could happen to “any young Muslim lad.”

Rather than opening a can of worms with general stereotyping in this article, I’d like to point out that all these examples point to a threat to intellectual liberty, as everyone questioned in these cases were students and the paranoia is somehow infringing on their education. If this paranoia seeps into academia we are in very big trouble.

I’m not saying that we should not have any state-sponsored anti-radicalisation measures but I think that the state should channel energy into more effective programs, such as recruiting reformed extremists to speak at schools, instead of perpetuating a harsh denouncing policy which eventually leads to huge resentment.

Ultimately, I agree with Farooq’s lawyer who stated that he has had over 100 cases like Farooq’s since October the 14th and described it as “…something we have seen frequently: Most notably the over-reporting of normative behaviour, and a fear-based approach that alienates and antagonises communities.”

In the same vein, I remember watching a documentary called ‘9/11 in Academia’, outlining how the event could not be discussed in universities in the US without a sense of discomfort and uneasiness at the prospect of being seen as unpatriotic and receiving complaints.

If we understand that 9/11 was a transformative event in the way it sparked the so-called ‘War on Terror’, led to the increase of the US military budget, reformulated foreign policy, and led to restrictions on civil rights, it surely warrants historical study and evaluation like any other historical event?

However, academics who tried to examine the event would receive hate mail for identifying anomalies in reports or pointing out that most of the evidence used to identify the terrorists was obtained under torture, and therefore does not technically stand up in the European Court of Human Rights, as tortured testimony is invalid.

The fact that 9/11 is so ingrained into the American conscious that it cannot even be discussed in academic institutions there is worrying to say the least. That is exactly the kind of mentality we want to avoid in the UK, as a pioneering country for free speech and open intellectual debate.

I was honestly worried about writing this article just because I thought I’d be accused of ‘defending terrorists’ and that the colour of my skin and the country my parents were born in would all count against me. Staffordshire University commented that making a distinction between “intellectual pursuit of radicalisation and radicalisation itself” was a massive challenge. That may be a fair point at the moment, but I would argue that we should train people to understand the difference because it is definitely worth it.

We are alienating people who would be extremely useful in understanding the nature of radicalisation through academic scholarship and this cannot continue if we hope to convince young British Muslims that their country is not against them.

First date with a housemate

A number of us are currently juggling our first lectures with an equally daunting process—the search for a bed, just one bed, in a city full of rooms that turns out to be so much harder in practice than it theoretically should be. And many of us will suffer from constant rejections as we begin to wonder if it would not just be easier to join the Ark tent community on Oxford Road or else find a boyfriend or girlfriend with a big heart and an even bigger bed.

After deliberating endlessly on SpareRoom over how to make myself sound likeable but unique, fun without being crazy, sociable yet sufficiently quiet, and tidy but not obsessive (in other words, perfect) I decided to keep it simple and just put the basics—24-year-old female, mostly GSOH, sometimes BSOH, student, likes sport, laidback. Perfect, I could be anyone, I thought. If they need to know anything else, they’ll ask.

No-one asked, and so I started looking at rooms—the cosy ones comprised of a door partly opening onto a bed, the student-tailored rooms that looked like halfway houses, the families with a spare room who claimed to be quiet but had two teenage sons, the professionals who wanted someone who would also be into wine evenings and film nights, the artists who wanted someone who was happy to live amidst mess.

Once I contacted them, the questions came. “What kind of a house are you looking for?” was commonly asked. I didn’t care! I just wanted a roof, four walls, water, heating was a bonus, but I didn’t want them to think I was desperate. Somewhere homely where people get along and keep the place tidy, I replied, and then, worried that they’d think I was obsessively tidy, added, but I’m also happy living in a pigsty… and then—Not that I’m suggesting your house is a pigsty! …and shortly followed by: “Or that I leave things like a pigsty!” I didn’t hear back.

Eventually, I got invited for a viewing. “We love you already!” they enthused. I began panicking—now I could only disappoint them. I spent far too long thinking about what to wear. They were environmentalist socialists and so wearing Converse might shout consumerist, my Banksy hoody, though promoting social revolution, might shout mainstream, my ‘Fuck What They Think’ jumper was at least less mainstream but perhaps too antisocial for a first date.

In the end, I wore plain jeans, a black t-shirt and my scruffiest shoes. I was, of course, late, but burst into the house declaring “Well I’m earlier than my late estimation!” and then, realising they may not see the funny side and deem me rude, quickly added, “though I’m sorry I’m still late.”

The other housemates introduced themselves and I introduced myself back each time even though they clearly knew who I was and, even if they didn’t, were standing next to each other and so probably didn’t need me to repeat my name five times. I was asked if I wanted a drink and said tea would be great. “What kind of tea?” I was asked. “Just with milk,” I replied. “No,” they said, “what kind of tea?” and I was introduced to their collection of 100 feel-good teas from around the world. They looked surprised when I said I’d have black tea. I was already disappointing them.

They told me about themselves and I found myself agreeing with everything they said and laughing at all their jokes. “We haven’t bought new clothes in years!” they proudly declared and I glanced guiltily at my jeans, hoping it wasn’t obvious that I’d bought them only that month. “We want to start sharing meals,” they told me, “and we use the shower water for the toilet and minimise the amount of plastic packaging we buy.” I nodded and agreed, as if it all made perfect sense, silently wondering if the hairs stayed in the shower-turned-toilet water, if I would have to start cultivating my own yoghurt instead of buying it ready-made in a pot, and already freaking out about my role in the communal cooking plans.

An hour later and, nothing having gone too disastrously wrong, I was told about the other person coming to view the room the next day. I felt like I was being cheated on. “Oh, of course,” I quivered, wondering at what point we’d agreed that we would carry on seeing other people. They said they would get back to me in a week.

I’m sat here now, wondering how they are getting on with the other person. What is she like? I bet she bakes fresh bread every day and hasn’t bought any new clothes for a decade. She probably didn’t introduce herself five times.

And so, the point of all this? That you’re not alone in your demoralising search for a room and that you shouldn’t give up hope because there are plenty of people and sites out there for you. I, for instance, have now placed an ad on OkCupid—clean, tidy and laid back, I began. Life’s too short to take things slow. I’ll move in tomorrow if you have enough room in your heart (or anywhere in your current house) for me. I also have a thing for property developers.

A life on the ocean wave?

On the 22nd of September 2015, a proud era of the Royal Navy came to an end. HMS Gloucester, the last of the UK’s iconic Type 42 destroyers, was tugged out of Portsmouth harbour to begin its journey to a scrapyard in Turkey. It was one of 16 built for the Royal Navy and was decommissioned in 2011 to make way for the new Type 45 destroyers, of which there are only six.

However, the difference in numbers reinforces the grave problem facing our navy at this time. It is not about the reduction in the size of the surface fleet or the increased cost of building new ships since the commissioning of HMS Gloucester in 1985, but in the lack of people needed to keep her sea worthy.

It hasn’t received much attention in the press but the Royal Navy is, at this point in time, chronically short of engineers. This reality was brought home when a Royal Navy frigate had to return to port during a NATO exercise after the ship’s sole engineer fell ill. This should be seen as nothing less than a national embarrassment.

It’s not like the Navy isn’t an attractive recruitment opportunity for young engineering graduates when an officer’s starting salary is £25,000 a year and with engineering graduates also receiving a bonus £27,000 in three instalments throughout your training. Now for those of you can put two and two together, you will have noticed that this bonus will allow you to pay off your tuition debt from university completely. Where else, I ask, could a graduate hope to have such a sizeable portion of their debt wiped off at such an early age?

The Royal Navy will within the next few years commission its two newest and largest ever ships, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. These will be, upon completion, the most advanced aircraft carrier platforms in the world and will incorporate some groundbreaking technology that has never been utilised or thought of by any other Navy on the globe. Now, one can only expect that the experience to be gained from working on either of these two ships or any ship in the fleet for that matter will set the young engineer in good stead to apply for jobs in industry once his or her term of service in the Navy is terminated.

Now, at this point you are probably thinking that the article sounds less like an opinion piece and more like a recruiting tactic. You will find that both are true. The dire lack of engineers within the Royal Navy is something that concerns us all and presents a great opportunity for those graduates with the right qualifications.

But let’s be honest with ourselves for a minute, few readers of this article are going to have ever considered a life in the Royal Navy as a way to start a career and may even be completely ambivalent to the idea verging on open contempt for the need to have such a large navy to defend Britain. But, the modern Royal Navy is no longer the tool of a Victorian Parliament who wishes to utilise its global command of the seas to initiate some kind of gunboat diplomacy to force the Chinese to sign a trade agreement or to bombard Zanzibar into submission.

Today, the Royal Navy carries out copious humanitarian operations such as delivering much needed aid to the Philippines using HMS Illustrious or more recently in Dominica with RFA Lyme Bay following hurricanes in their respective countries. HMS Bulwark and HMS Enterprise have been working tirelessly in the Mediterranean and have saved thousands of African migrants and helped to end illegal people smuggling operations.

RFA Argus was deployed to Sierra Leone to help with the containment and treatment of Ebola and there are also a small squadron of ships based in the Persian Gulf to help keep shipping lanes open which, through the trade conducted there, are helping to rebuild the economy and lives of the people of Iraq.

Those combat missions that you could be expected to be involved in are usually relatively low key such as the maintenance of a naval presence in the Falkland Islands, the Caribbean, and Gibraltar, or are international operations such as the very successful counter-piracy initiative which we have seen off the coast of Somalia, effectively bringing an end to the problem and making the lives of people up and down the east African coast safer.

It must also be noted that the Royal Navy is at this time going through a period of unprecedented modernisation which will see it become the most technologically advanced in the world. The new Type 45 destroyers have been built, the Type 26 frigates are about to go into production, the Astute class submarines are already rolling off the production line and the two new aircraft carriers are due to be ready in just a few years. One can only imagine the immense leg-up having such experience would give an individual if applying for a job in a company in another country.

Of course, you could satisfy yourself with a job in a medium-sized engineering firm with the large chunk of your student debt still intact, very little time to travel, and your prospect of international employment greatly reduced. Or, you could heed the call, join the world’s finest navy, have the opportunity to travel to countries all over the world with your tuition fees paid off and the global brand of Britain’s navy opening many doors for you at home and especially overseas.

Admiral Lord Nelson said, “England expects that every man will do his duty,” and so I encourage students of engineering or on similar degrees, to take the amazing opportunities open to you and be part of this exciting new era which our nation’s maritime forces are entering.

Manchester and Oxford top world leaders chart in UK

According to a recent report published by the Times Higher Education, the University of Manchester and the University of Oxford export the highest number of world leaders out of British universities.

While Oxford’s place on the ranking list is fairly predictable, Manchester’s position may raise some eyebrows. However, unlike many UK universities, the University of Manchester boasts a highly international student body, with over a third of its current students hailing from overseas.

According to the Higher Education Policy Institute, eight current prime ministers and presidents once attended the University of Manchester; while Oxford produced a total of nine current global leaders and five monarchs.

Those who studied at Manchester include the president of Ireland, Michael D. Higgins; Iraq’s Prime Minister, Haider Al-Abadi; and Iceland’s president Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson. The Times High Education reports that Manchester also boasts alumni serving as elected leaders in Mozambique, Somaliland, two Caribbean countries and Palestine.

Cambridge only scores a total of three current world leaders, with the University of Bristol and the London School of Economics also only scoring three world leaders each.

In total, some 55 world leaders from 51 countries are reported to have studied in the UK.

The news comes as the University of Manchester undergoes a £1 billion redevelopment project over the next ten years to break its way into the world’s top 25 universities.

Conservatives told to hide conference passes in Manchester

Conservative members and activists have been told to hide their identification passes while attending the party’s conference in Manchester.

Planned protests have led party bosses to believe there is a hostile threat to members. They have warned attendees to take precautions if they leave the secure “ring of steel” which is to be constructed around the event.

Within the secure zone at the Conference passes must be worn at all times. However in an email to those attending the conference, Party Chairman Lord Feldman warned it was “particularly important” that they take off the Tory-branded identification badges when around Manchester due to safety concerns.

A cocktail party for the Conservative Party, planned to be held at the Chancellor’s Hotel, has already been cancelled due to planned protests by students from Free Education MCR.

Various protests are planned during the conference period across Manchester.

Jeremy Corbyn is expected to make an appearance at a public meeting hosted by the Communications Workers Union, as part of The People’s Assembly’s National Week of Action against austerity cuts.

The TUC is also holding a march in response to the planned government policy to reduce the rights of Trade Unions to strike.

In the e-mail to members, Lord Feldman said: “You may be aware that a protest march planned by the TUC will take place on Sunday the 4th of October to coincide with the start of our Conference.

“The march will pass close to the Conference venues and I wanted to let you know that there may be road closures and potentially some local travel disruption on the day.

“It will be particularly important not to wear your Conference security passes outside the secure zone. I am, as ever, grateful to Greater Manchester Police for all their efforts to put in place measures to secure the smooth running of Conference.”

The conference, held at Manchester Central Convention Centre and the Midland Hotel starts on Sunday the 4th of October and runs until Wednesday the 7th of October.

Gender equality award for Faculty of Life Sciences

The University of Manchester’s Faculty of Life Sciences has been awarded the prestigious Athena SWAN Silver Award in recognition of its efforts to tackle gender inequality in higher education.

The acknowledgement, which was bestowed on just 87 departments across the entire country, is awarded by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) to institutions that make a noticeable commitment to addressing gender inequality issues on both individual and structural levels.

The Faculty is one of just six departments across the UK to retain their silver awards from three years ago, meaning that it has made obvious progress in promoting gender equality since its last award in 2012.

The award will last for the next three years and will enable the Faculty to display the Athena Silver SWAN badge, endorsing them as a nationwide leader in gender equality.

The news comes shortly after the university was awarded a charter mark by the same company for its work in recognising and tackling racial inequality.

Awards from the ECU are widely regarded as some of the most valuable recognitions that an institution can receive with regards to challenging various social injustices.

Sarah Dickinson, Head of Equality at the ECU, said: “In an ever-changing higher education landscape, we realise that participating in the charter is a significant undertaking, and we would like to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate all those who participated for their demonstrable commitment to tackling gender inequality.”

Understandably, the award was well-received within the Faculty of Life Sciences.

Amanda Bamford, Associate Dean for Social Responsibility within the Faculty, and Chair of the Athena SWAN Self-Assessment Team, said: “I am really thrilled with this award, which recognises the efforts made across the Faculty to ensure a supportive working environment for all of our staff.

“The award reflects an enormous amount of work and commitment to provide the most progressive and supportive environment possible for career development and work-life balance in the Faculty. We strive to develop a culture of fairness, opportunity, flexibility, and respect.

“We want to be a beacon in gender equality so there is no pausing in our efforts especially since we are now working towards our Athena SWAN Gold award!”

These thoughts were echoed by Hema Radhakrishnan, Deputy Associate Dean for Social Responsibility in the Faculty.

“We are delighted to receive the Athena SWAN Silver award that recognises the tremendous effort from the Faculty of Life Sciences towards advancing gender equality amongst staff and students.

“Even though we are a long way forward from the Suffragette movement, women are still more likely to be discouraged from pursuing careers in Science, Engineering and Technology than men. Women who do take interest in these subjects often progress in their careers at a rate that is slower than their male counterparts.

“Athena SWAN Charter was established in 2005 to encourage and recognise commitment to advancing the careers of women in science. This Silver award shows that we as a faculty are working hard to reduce the gender gap and the efforts taken by the faculty are benefiting women and individuals with caring responsibilities.”

The award will be presented at a special ceremony in the coming months.

Service exploitation costing students £335m a year

Recent research by Ombudsman Services has shown that students in the UK are losing around £335 million a year to utility companies and landlords.

Out of the 1,500 students questioned, eight out of ten of them had lost money to utility companies and their landlord. Further questioning has discovered that this is mainly because students feel too intimidated to question the charges enforced upon them, but other reasons include embarrassment and not being proactive enough to check.

The service companies most responsible for this are energy companies, telecom companies and property companies. Students are overcharged by gas and electricity companies and often do not have the heart to complain. Others are charged for property damage that was not caused by them or they are charged for bills from previous tenants.

Now, Ombudsman Services has released a guide to assist students in keeping track of their bills and making sure they are not overcharged for anything. The guide includes case studies that instruct students on their course of action when replacing broken locks, dealing with misleading inclusive rent, and complaining when they are charged for overdue energy bills.

The guide also explains that all consumers of all kinds have a right to complain if they are not receiving the product they have paid for, therefore students should not be embarrassed or intimidated as they are entitled to good accommodation by landlords and utility companies alike.

Chief Ombudsman Lewis Shand Smith said about the news: “We want to ensure that all students are able to stand up for their rights and speak out when things go wrong—whether that is being asked to pay for a bill from a previous tenant, or paying for damage they did not do.

“Students should not be losing money simply because they don’t know their rights or are not making a fuss.”

Labour rescind on Corbyn’s tuition fees election promise

Labour’s 2015 conference, heralded as ‘make or break’ by many, drew to a close on Wednesday the 30th of September. With this conference being Jeremy Corbyn’s first as party leader, many of the policies set out were reiterations of ones that he had given during the leadership election, such as the abolition of the Trident nuclear deterrent.

However, on the topic of student loans, it appears that the party has had a change of heart.

Before becoming leader, Corbyn went as far as apologising to students for the current system of tuition fees and maintenance loans. He pledged that he would abolish tuition fees and reinstate maintenance grants at a cost of £10 billion, winning considerable support both from students and the wider community.

However, at the conference, Shadow Minister for Further Education, Skills and Regional Growth, Gordon Marsden, suggested that this policy is not set in stone.

When asked if he could clarify the current party position on tuition fees, Mr Marsden said that “nothing is ruled in, nothing is ruled out.”

Speaking to the Times Higher Education during a fringe meeting on Monday 28th September, Mr Marsden said that the country was at “a stage of critical decisions about funding.” He suggested that Labour would be in “deep thought” on their fees and funding policy, and that a conclusion could only be reached upon following consultation both within the party and with outside organisations.

Mr. Marsden also touched upon “the really big issues around the black hole that’s developing over non-repayment of loans,” and said that increasing tuition fees further beyond the current £9000 cap would “potentially [create] even more problems” in this area.

At the same meeting, Paul Blomfield, MP for Sheffield Central, warned that Labour must have a “much wider” funding debate. He stressed the importance of considering postgraduate and part-time students alongside undergraduates, while also concentrating on what taxpayers can handle financially.

Universities shocked as government allege they welcome “hate speakers”

Many in higher education have expressed their shock at the recent public naming and shaming of universities that host extremist speakers by the government.

The much-criticised new Prevent regulations, which are intended to stop extremism at educational institutions, have just come into force for the new academic year.

While the NUS has publicly expressed their staunch opposition to the new policy, the higher education institutions themselves have been compliant with the new checks on their external speakers.

In the face of hostility from students and some academics to the policy, the universities were expecting to be congratulated on their compliance.

Instead, a Downing Street press release which coincided with the new rules, named and shamed universities who had featured “hate speakers.”

The press release cites “at least 70 events featuring hate speakers” at universities last year. It specifically accused four universities allowing the most speakers known to express “views contrary to British values”: Queen Mary University of London, SOAS, King’s College London, and Kingston University.

All universities responded to the press release in shock and queried the Downing Street data.

SOAS said that only one of the six speakers named as attending their university had actually visited the campus—controversial cleric Haitham Al-Haddad, to discuss Islamic finance.

Kingston responded saying that the clerics named as speaking to their Islamic Society were about the Central African Republic and “how one needs to strike a balance between the worldly life and the hereafter.”

Queen Mary’s principal, Simon Gaskell, said that his university never hosted extremist speakers against the advice of police and that they have rigorous vetting policies. He added that the university did not have contact with the extremism analysis unit—which had apparently completed the list.

However, Gaskell said, “we would be happy to co-operate with them to ensure the information they have based their report on is accurate and would welcome sight of their definitions for ‘hate or extremist speakers’.”

Times Higher Education asked the Home Office for a list of the 70 events cited in the release and was told that no more detail could be provided.

Hilary Aked, a researcher at the transparency campaign Spinwatch, has highlighted “striking similarities” between the Downing Street press release and a report published by Student Rights, part of the Henry Jackson Society, a think-tank which has previously been condemned by Students’ Unions for “targeting Muslim students.”

The Student Rights report, entitled Preventing Prevent, names all four universities as having hosted the most extremist speakers.

Aked said, “the almost identical wording used to describe people convicted of terrorist offences suggests the material has simply been recycled.”

Aked also added that apparent use of the Student Rights’ material in the press release was “extremely worrying,” because she felt that the Henry Jackson Society’s political bias was very clear—despite claims that it is “non-partisan.”

Many have commented that the ‘naming and shaming’ policy indicates that the government’s Prevent strategy has changed. Jodie Ginsberg, Chief Executive of free speech campaign group Index on Censorship said: “It’s extremely worrying that they [the government] should go out and name these universities but provide almost no detail on the instances in question.”

Ginsberg added that using the “extraordinar[ily] vague definition of an extremist as someone who does not hold British values,” is problematic. She continued saying that “going public with these examples on very sketchy evidence is simply scaremongering.”

Jo Johnson wrote to the NUS last month, calling for them to drop their policy against Prevent—which passed at its conference in April.

Some have further questioned whether the new attention on the NUS opposition to the policy is anything to do with the Henry Jackson Society—which has been an open critic of the NUS.

Megan Dunn has said: “As Students’ Unions are not public bodies, and therefore not subject to the act, it’s confusing that the government is so focused on our work.”

She added, “the NUS is a campaigning organisation, so our opposition to this agenda—based on both principled and practical concerns is both valid and appropriate.”

Increasing number of stressed students

This week, it has been reported that an increasing number of students are in need of university-based counselling due to rising stress and anxiety levels.

The chair of Universities UK’s mental wellbeing working group, Ruth Caleb, says the number of students using counselling services is usually between 5 per cent and 10 per cent—an estimated 115,000 students—but that now counselling services are facing an annual 10 per cent rise in demand.

Alicia Pena Bizama, head of wellbeing at the University of Reading, attributes this rise to the increasing pressure on students, in terms of job prospects, the cost of university, and subsequent debt.

Moreover, a greater number of students are seeking services for more serious problems. A report from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) stated that instead of students reporting friendship and relationship or family issues, more students are reporting problems such as depression and anxiety. Strikingly, the report also stated that more students than ever are at a high risk of harming themselves.

However, this is not solely a university issue; there has been an increase generally in mental health issues nationwide. However this means that the NHS’s Mental Health service is struggling to keep up with demand, subsequently causing an increase in students seeking university counselling support.

A third year English Literature student who seeks help from the University of Manchester’s counsellors praised the service overall, but said: “They’re definitely very busy. You can easily get appointments a few weeks in advance, but the demand means that it is hard to get a quick appointment, and sometimes you do need to speak to someone on the day.”

A University of Manchester spokesperson said: “We take the welfare of our students and staff very seriously and have invested greatly in our services to support wellbeing.

“The university’s Counselling Service has seen an increase in the number of students and staff using its services over the past five years, although, in general, the severity and complexity of the cases they see has not changed.

“The reason for the increased number of users is likely to be due to many factors, including the higher profile of our Counselling Service and, happily, the reduced stigma associated with people using such services, which at Manchester accounts for just over 6 per cent of our staff and student population.

“University can be an exciting but also challenging time. The university recognises this and offers flexible and innovative responses. Alongside one-to-one counselling sessions, we provide a wide range of online resources and workshops focused on managing stress and anxiety; helping students handle academic pressures; improving their resilience, and regulating their mood.

“We have just opened a number of purpose-built Wellbeing Rooms in the Simon Building that will provide a fantastic new space for a range of activities that support the physical and psychological wellbeing of both our students and staff, starting with ‘Wellbeing Week’ this Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.” [October 6th – 8th]

Visit the University Counselling Service’s website at manchester.ac.uk/counselling for more information on self-help and guidance, or to book an appointment.

What should we do in the Middle East?

IS are best known for the release of incredibly violent videos in which their enemies—journalists, combatants, non-believing civilians—are maimed, tortured, or executed.

They are a group dedicated to violent offensive jihad (struggle) against non-believers, and they are strict literalists in their beliefs. They are becoming a potent force not just in the ideological discourse, but in the world of international relations too. As the group has moved and expanded, its influence has sunk deeper, transforming from an external threat to a state-like institution: Running schools, providing insurance, and enforcing laws.

Far from being a hidden group of bandits in the desert or the mountains, IS and their leaders find themselves in control of cities, the most influential being Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq. Crossing this threshold from outlaws to lawgivers has solidified them as a threat impossible to ignore.

This is no longer a fringe group. IS is a major threat in the Arab region, and unlike other groups, we don’t have to guess what it would do if it had power. IS kidnaps and trains children to be fighters in its war and will continue to do so. Millions of lives are already ruined and will continue to be. What are we doing about it, and is it enough?

Many of the squeamish left, either out of fear of repercussions or genuine care for the implications of extreme violence, show resistance to military intervention being part of the solution. This response, while shared by myself, might not be entirely helpful or the best practice.

Would we say now that we did the wrong thing by going to war with Germany and the Axis forces? If they had kept attacking and attacking does it at some point become self-defence? When does signing mutual defence agreements with allies not supersede moral aversion to violence? These are incredibly difficult questions with tough answers.

Our government has been part of a coalition which has undertaken air strikes in Iraq against IS targets. These air strikes have, according to experts, not been enough to have any real effect. Far fewer strikes have taken place in Iraq than occurred in the NATO strikes in Yugoslavia, an intervention regarded as somewhat successful in relation to others.

Ostensibly to stop genocide, this quick bombing campaign killed about 500 civilians, and if a proportional number were attached to the conflicts in the Middle East I’m quite sure they would face considerably less criticism. One may quite fairly take the view that one civilian death is too many, but some find it hard to justify a hands off, non-interventionist approach to genocide.

The situation in the Middle East may well escalate to this. We must think hard about long-term solutions to these problems including the focus on the education of women, of children, and of the implementation of legitimate and widely recognised democracy.

Far from the turbulence of the Middle East, we and our government have a responsibility to protect our citizens from terrorism. From the UK, 1,500 people are suspected to have joined IS in order to fight or to support the fight. The question is: How do we stop them?

The government’s effort for counter-terrorism is called CONTEST, which features four strands: Prevent, Pursue, Protect, and Prepare. The first of these intends to prevent terrorism. This is by far the most difficult strand to get right and is the one which has faced the most criticism.

Someone who is determined to go and join the fight in Syria or Iraq after seeing IS’s videos is someone who may not be within the purview of Prevent. Indeed, a far more achievable and worthwhile task might be to start younger. As Deborah Asamoah’s piece will say elsewhere, racism does not seem to be naturally prevalent in small children, nor I would wager is violent hatred and fear of ‘the other’.

Schools are a great place to teach children about fundamental human values like respect and dignity, which come irrespective of religion or ideology. A problem may arise where they hear this message at school, alongside a very different one at home or from friends. This problem is shared by Muslims, Christians and all other religious or spiritual groups.

No matter which values are taught to you in school, your home environment is irreproducible. For any subject matter; economics, religion, cultural norms, or technological advancement, generational gaps are prevalent, and it can be very difficult to challenge an unspoken status quo.

For example, my mother always finds it baffling that the parents of these young people who go to Syria just didn’t seem to know what was going on, had no inkling that their kid was about to join the most overtly brutal terrorist group in the world.

If we start talking to Year 7s and 8s about these issues in the hope that they will be our first generation to have zero extremists, we will not know until they are of age. The Prevent strategy started in 2011; these 12-year-olds will turn twenty in 2019, so how can we pass any meaningful judgement until then? The only hope is a long-term change to hearts and minds so these problems of extremism are no longer ignored—a colossal task perhaps too difficult for Theresa May, or any Home Secretary.

As is evident, we have to talk about and consider these matters carefully, walking the tightropes of Islamophobia, fact and opinion, such as quelling the myths of assuming the majority of Muslims are terrorists, and the majority of terrorists are Muslims. Sometimes people talk to each other with very different assumptions about the nature of problems, and conflicts bubble up therein which are difficult to resolve. We must avoid this.

If the IS problem is to be ‘solved’, there will be multiple prongs in the solution, and they will be held by many people. A solution must be found, but this is difficult to fit into one press release, one newspaper article, or one government programme: Complex problems require complex solutions.

Research grants awarded to Salford students

Five current University of Salford students have been awarded research grants to study childhood cancer treatments.

Undergraduates Louise Chan, Parham Manouchehri, Zakia Zia, Liam Dey and David Scannali all study at the university’s Department of Environment and Life Sciences. The five students will carry out childhood cancer research projects in the upcoming academic year as part of the university’s industrial placement scheme.

Each student has been given £2,000 by Kidscan, a Salford-based children’s cancer research charity, to cover any laboratory costs including chemicals and equipment.

They will be supervised senior members of the Biomedical Science Research Centre for the duration of the year-long projects.

The number of placements that have been funded is a record for the charity.

Kidscan, which was founded in 2002, works to develop new and improved cancer treatments specifically aimed at children. The organisation funds research into drug treatments and support schemes for children battling cancer.

The treatments are developed to be just as effective as those undergone by adults, but without as many side effects that could be particularly harmful for children, both physically and mentally.

Dr David Pye, Scientific Director at Kidscan, said: “We have been extremely impressed by the innovative areas of research that this year’s placement students are now able to pursue.

“It’s exciting to be able to provide these talented students with a way to grow and develop their skills, whilst also exploring important new areas of research into childhood cancer treatments.

“We are only able to provide opportunities for the cancer researchers of the future because of the support we receive from fundraisers. We thank them wholeheartedly for making this possible.”

The University of Manchester prepares for Black History Month

In early October, the University of Manchester, along with the rest of the country, will host a series of events to celebrate Black History Month in recognition of the achievements of ethnic minorities throughout history and the barriers that they must still overcome.

Events will begin with a Black & Minority Ethnic (BME) Staff and Students’ Network, and will include talks from Dr. Sivamohan Valluvan on ‘The Politics of Race’, as well as Visiting Professor at the University of Oxford and poet Mark Samuels on ‘The Civilisations of Sub-Saharan Africa and beyond’.

Founded in the UK in 1987, Black History Month not only recognises historical figures from ethnic minorities, but also shapes the contemporary debate on the situation of ethnic minorities within Britain today.

At the University of Manchester, in light of increasing Islamophobia within the UK and new government legislation such as Prevent, which allows the use of anti-terrorism surveillance in higher education, many of the events will focus on the experience of ethnic minorities living and studying in the country.

According to the NUS Hate Crime Interim Report, 16 per cent of all students who responded to the survey had experienced a hate-related incident at their current place of study, and when added to the deteriorating political situation in Africa and the Middle East and the inhumane treatment of refugees who are trying to enter the EU, recognition of the importance of ethnic minorities within society has taken on new significance.

Other events include a talk from local historian Dominique Tressier on the University of Manchester’s involvement with minority individuals and groups throughout history, a Know Your Rights workshop led by Simon Pook and Green and Black Cross, and a talk by Dr Natalie Zacek on the ‘Relationship between Manchester and slavery’.