Skip to main content

Month: March 2012

Manic Manchester Hit Top Form to Dispatch Wilting Worcester

I am a very proud chap. Proud because a large contingent of fans and I witnessed one of the finest rugby performances by our Men’s Rugby Union team that I have seen in my three years of being involved in this club. Manchester’s performance was so fine and fluent that the Armitage faithful didn’t understand why this quality of rugby had not been exhibited before because it appeared so easy and Worcester are a very accomplished side. Manchester did not just beat Worcester, they routed them- nay, they destroyed them. What was it about Manchester’s performance that made them so successful against an extremely motivated Worcester side? They met their potential. They showed flair and ambition and hit the levels they know they are capable of. Were there any Dropped balls? None. Lost lineouts? Nada. Slow ball? Rien. Lack of possession? Nichts. Lapses of concentration? Sausage. Basically, everything Manchester tried they got right, and they showed why they could have been promoted this year by completely annihilating a very good Worcester side at the Armitage on Wednesday.
Having narrowly lost their away game to Worcester 8-7, Manchester gained revenge at home with a majestic 72-5 win. Worcester were the bigger side but failed to live up to the skill and speed levels that Manchester produced and got taught a lesson in the drawback of being too big and heavy to compete with a very fit and accomplished Manchester team.
Joe Dale set the tone for the whole game by scoring an early try after an explosive start by Manchester’s forwards. With brilliant breaks being made by James Williams and Guy Ridley in midfield, Joe Heslop and Liam Nicol ran brilliant supporting lines to score two tries apiece. With Worcester still showing huge levels of commitment and aggression, the breakdown area remained furiously competitive between both sets of forwards but nobody excelled in this area as much as Man of the Match Stu Cross. With some bone crunching tackles, Cross annulled any threat from Worcester’s forwards by smashing them back and stealing the ball at every opportunity.
With half time looming, Manchester tested Worcester’s forwards further by reverting from an open game to a tight and disciplined routine, forcing the Worcester tight five to commit themselves to every ruck and breakdown. Henry Brooke battered his opposite man at the scrum and was awarded with a try just before half time.
After the break, most teams would take their foot off the pedal having completely dominated the first half but Manchester increased their energy levels and work rate to really put Worcester to the sword with arguably one of their best and most complete performances of the season. James Williams scored two more tries after a period of brilliant handling that Worcester could not compete with, and Freddie Watson’s typically dogged display was awarded with a try after showing great pace to outrun the Worcester full back. Manchester did blemish their copy book by conceding a try mid way through the second half following a series of infringements at the breakdown, but there was little chance of a comeback.
Stu Cross capped his fine performance by scoring a very well deserved try in retaliation to the Worcester score, and upon his appeal for improved discipline, the whole team responded well to ensure Worcester would not cross the Manchester line for a second time. James Booth, who had an 87% kicking success rate throughout the game and showed great reliance under the high ball to produce a textbook performance for a full back.
With time running out, Paddy Shaw kept Worcester on the back foot with some huge kicks downfield and Manchester only just failed to score more points after a brilliant display of defence by the comprehensively battered Worcester side. The game ended with rapturous applause by the Armitage crowd and a huge degree of satisfaction was evident on coach Thiu Barnard’s face as he witnessed his charges show how well they can really play.
Man of the Match Stu Cross said at the end of the game ‘That was a really tough team we just bullied, and although it doesn’t make up for previous disappointments, we are glad we finally produced the levels of rugby we know we can.’
Captain Freddie Watson also said ‘We have played like this for most of the season but not converted quality into points. If we had done this earlier I really think we could have been promoted. We are really pleased to get this result because Worcester could have easily come here and made it a very tight game.’
The University of Manchester Mens Rugby Union Club would like to thank Ernst and Young for their support throughout this season.

Player Profile – Anna Fowler

How did you first get into curling?

Well there’s only one curling rink in England and it’s in Kent, where I live. I think was about twelve when I first went on an open day and I enjoyed it so I kept going. My family started as well, in fact I just competed in a mixed competition with two of my brothers.

You mentioned competitions, what level have you competed at?

Well I’ve captained and played for England juniors for four years and this year I’ve made the senior side, I’ve also got Olympic trials soon. It’s tough because most of UK curling is in Scotland so they tend to have the best players but in January we came third in Europe which was nice because it was my last competition with the junior side and it also showed us that we could compete with the best. Obviously to compete at a European level there is a lot of travelling involved, I’ve been to Prague and Copenhagen twice but the World Curling Federation are quite good and pay for all our flights.

You also said that the only curling centre in England is in Kent? Is it difficult playing a more specialised sport?

Well in Manchester I’m halfway between Glasgow and Kent so it’s difficult to train but I
make the most of practice competitions. There’s obviously no AU club and the nearest
place to train is in Queensboro, North Wales which is a bit of a headache. In terms of equipment the rinks have their own stones so it makes it easier in terms of travelling as each one weighs 20kg! Sponsorship is hard to come by which can be a pain as the amount of moving around means it’s not the cheapest sport in the world.

With the amount of travelling you do and the level you play at curling is obviously very important to you, does it take precedence over almost everything?

Not quite but I definitely want to take full advantage of all opportunities that I’ve been given, I reckon that I would take a year out of university if I did get a place in the Olympic squad because I’d really want to give it my all.

Curling is a rare feature in the media, for the people who are unaware of its various merits, how would you describe its attraction?

It’s a very technical sport and individual despite the team aspect as your shot is almost entirely dependent on you as the sweepers can only so much. The team is critical though and the good teams are usually the ones who have the best relationships. In other countries like Canada there’s a much larger following of the sport, thousands of people go and watch and it’s second only to ice hockey in terms of popularity. It’s a long way from the handful of people at most of my games.

How do you cope with the fact that there are no curling clubs at the university? Do you get to enjoy the social side and costumes of the AU?

Well I was expecting it when I came here so it’s not a big deal, I’m quite sporty really so I just do other things. I ran the London marathon a couple of years ago which was amazing, although I was a bit annoyed because I thought I could have done it faster. As for the social aspect I’m captain of the third team for hockey and they’re a great bunch, I think my favourite costume was Henry Hoovers although I had to ask the DJ to take mine as I kept knocking everyone ever!

The Battle of the North

The final days of April are usually ones of particular stress for many university students. The inevitable dissertation deadline creeps up upon 3rd years as they struggle to grapple with the concept of joining ‘the real world’. Students in the younger years meanwhile realize with a mixture of fear and dread that their year of drunken debaunchery or too many hours on the Playstation have come back to bite them as the exam period looms. However for the sports teams of the university it is much more, as the Christie Cup arrives and they have one last chance to get one over on their rivals.

Now in its 126th year, the Christie Cup is an annual triangular tournament between the Universities of Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds. Originally the competition was purely Athletics but has since been widened to include over 40 sports. Everything from rugby to table tennis will be on the agenda in this high-octane one-day event.

Manchester has dominated the event in recent years with 8 straight victories up to last year when Leeds triumphed on home turf by a tiny margin of just 8 points. It is key that Manchester reassert their dominance this year and they will be confident after a strong season for the Athletic Union which has seen teams excel across the board whether it is the swimming team in the Aquatic’s centre or the Men’s football 1st XI at the Armitage. Speaking ahead of the competition AU chair Agi Duhig was in confident mood stating ‘ It’s a fantastic event and is a real opportunity to put Manchester sport on the map, especially considering the success we have had this season. It’s really important we get the trophy back this year, I’m confident we can do that’. Measures are already in place to make sure Manchester do not let complacency set in with heavy fines in place for any team that consume alcohol prior to their matches. Their will be plenty of opportunity to celebrate in the evening should Manchester fulfil their potential and reclaim the trophy.

This year’s event will take place on 25th April with Liverpool being the host city.

Unsung heroes of the Football League

The recent Football League awards were an interesting spectacle. Held in early March, presumably to spare the blushes of this year’s play-off chokers, over 600 guests gathered in a reasonably-priced London venue to witness the lower leagues at their best. On the stage BBC’s Mark “Clem” Clemmit was joined by Soccer AM’s ‘Tubes’, a sort of post-ironic Jim Davidson for the jägerbomb generation, in a wonderful display of live comedy.

The winners, meanwhile, were something of a mixed bunch. The goalscoring exploits of Southampton’s Rickie Lambert and Huddersfield’s Jordan Rhodes made them safe bets for Player of the Year in the Championship and League One respectively. However, Crystal Palace forward Wilfried Zaha, with five goals in 75 league appearances, seemed an odd choice for Young Player of the year. Indeed, promising defenders such as Middlesbrough’s Joe Bennett and Zaha’s team-mate Nathaniel Clyne may feel that the panel of judges rather neglected their position. Gustavo Poyet’s success at Brighton and Hove Albion, acknowledged with the Outstanding Managerial Achievement Award, must be considered in the context of the massive investment that has allowed the Seagulls to recruit international players such as Vicente Rodriguez and Craig Mackail-Smith.

But what of the players who really deserve recognition? The players grafting selflessly at humble clubs, their sterling work going largely unnoticed. Take the self-effacing Jimmy Bullard, who joined Paul Jewell’s Ipswich Town last summer after a successful spell on loan from Hull. The midfielder, who reportedly turned down numerous moves to Premier League clubs unwilling to meet his £45,000-a-week wage demands, has scored just once in twenty games since moving to Suffolk. Perhaps more worryingly for fans of the Tractor Boys, Bullard was recently suspended from the squad after embarking on mid-week drinking session with Michael Chopra. Fans will await his comeback goal celebration with baited breath.

Question Time panelist and occasional footballer, Clarke Carlisle has also enjoyed a year to remember. A Premier League player as recently as 2010, Carlisle can now be seen at Northampton Town’s Sixfields Stadium. Out of favor with Burnley manager Eddie Howe, the side’s former captain has linked back up with Aidy Boothroyd in an attempt to stave off relegation to the conference. The Cobblers certainly need the Preston-born brainbox: chairman David Cardoza vented his frustration in a recent press conference after the club spent big on experienced campaigners such as Adebayo Akinfenwa, only to see the side slip to the bottom of the table.

Fans of Leicester City, meanwhile, may want to nominate £4m summer signing Matt Mills. The former Manchester City trainee was signed by Sven Goran Eriksson off the back of an impressive season at Championship rivals Reading. Moreover, the former England manager handed Mills the captain’s armband, only to see him struggle alongside the marauding Sol Bamba at the heart of the Foxes’ defence. Mills has subsequently been loaned out to Leeds United, with big-spending Leicester City languishing in mid-table. Reading, meanwhile, having sold their prime asset, are in contention for automatic promotion after a nine match winning streak.

After another fine season, this industrious triumvirate has shown that they deserve our recognition. Indeed, with Carlos Tevez rumoured to be close to a return to action for Manchester City, perhaps the gulf in quality between the Football League and the Premiership is not as great as previously thought.

Where are they now? – Bosko Balaban

Bosko Balaban, for those unacquainted with the Central European sportsman, is a Croatian footballer who endured a torturous two year spell with West Midlands outfit Aston Villa, from 2001-2003. Villa Chairman Doug Ellis, who was notorious for his tight wallet, sanctioned a £5.8 million swoop for the former Croatia front man from Dinamo Zagreb at the beginning of the 2001/02 campaign. Balaban arrived at Villa Park with an impressive goal scoring pedigree; having netted 38 times in only 55 appearances at previous employers Zagreb. Opportunities at Villa were sparse though for the Croatian, and Balaban failed to make any impact; with a paltry nine appearances, seven as substitute, in two-and-a-half years and was unsuccessful in front of goal during his ill-fated spell.

Balaban graduated from his hometown youth academy HNK Rijeka and made 97 first team appearances, scoring 31 times over a five year period, before moving 100 miles inland to the Croatian capital, Zagreb. It was here at Croatia’s most successful team where Balaban made a name for himself and became the league’s top scorer with 14 goals in 25 matches. Balaban’s natural goalscoring ability attracted the attention of Villa boss, John Gregory, who was keen to snare the forward and build a sizeable squad capable of competing for honours in all competitions. Gregory, however, used the striker very sparingly and appeared to have little faith in the forward, despite the significant outlay, and considered Juan Pablo Angel, Darius Vassell, Dion Dublin, Peter Crouch and Stefan Moore to be ahead in the pecking order.

In December 2003 Villa opted to cut their losses and terminated Balaban’s contract and he agreed a deal to join Belgian side Club Brugges on a free transfer. Balaban-reminiscent of his stint at Zagreb- excelled, and amassed an incredible 25 goals in just 24 appearances in his first season in Belgium. The Croatian continued his remarkable goal scoring exploits into the following campaign with a further 27 goals in a mere 30 games. Whilst at Brugges, Balaban was idolised among supporters and earned the nickname ‘Super Bosko’ due to his exceptional record of a goal every other game and the praiseworthy feat of scoring four goals in one game.

Balaban now plies his trade at Malaysian Super League team Selangor FA and made his debut last month, scoring the winning goal against league leaders Kelantan FA. The Croatian, however, will always be remembered by English football fans as one of the most expensive flops in the history of the Premier League, despite his achievements on foreign shores.

Lancashire determined to retain County crown

After another memorable final-day finish in 2011, the County Championship makes a welcome return next month with Lancashire aiming to retain the title for only the third time in their history.

Glen Chapple’s men will look to draw on the experience of a successful 2011 campaign, with the retiring Mark Chilton the only significant absentee from their title-winning squad. The return of former South Africa captain Ashwell Prince, meanwhile, should further strengthen a batting line-up that is already brimming with home-grown talent; Karl Brown and Steven Croft managed a combined total of 1,839 runs last term, and will no doubt be fancied to pass the 1,000 run mark individually this season.

Whether the holders have enough depth to their squad to do it again this time around is questionable, but they have an astute captain-coach pairing in Chapple and Peter Moores, and it is unlikely that teams will fancy a trip to Aigburth (necessitated by the continuing redevelopment of Old Trafford), where Lancashire won three times in five fixtures last year. The ability to force results on a lively Liverpool track will be crucial once more, particularly as victories at Old Trafford prove increasingly difficult to come by.

After having the championship snatched from their grasp on the final day of the season, Warwickshire will be hungry to make amends this time, and will no doubt be among the title contenders again come September. The form of Varun Chopra and Lee Westwood should atone for the loss of Shivnarine Chanderpaul, but with the notable exception of Chris Woakes, it is hard to see where the wickets are going to come from.

Bookies’ favourites Durham, meanwhile, appear well balanced in all three departments. The batting line-up is a fine blend of youth and experience, with Paul Collingwood and Michael Di Venuto featuring alongside the likes of Ben Stokes and Mark Stoneman, while their variety of bowling options should prove a handful irrespective of the conditions. Much may depend on the form and fitness of Graham Onions, who should be surplus to England’s requirements this summer when considering their current embarrassment of riches in the seam-bowling department.

Aside from the usual suspects, the greatest threat to Lancashire’s throne may come from newly promoted Surrey. Rory Hamilton-Brown’s team were impressive in the second division last year and have a made a number of astute acquisitions during the close season, not least Jacques Rudolph, a prolific run-getter during his time at Yorkshire, nor Murali Karthik, the unorthodox right-arm spinner from Somerset. With a talented young batting line-up including the likes of Steven Davies and Tom Maynard, along with the mercurial Zander de Bruyn, this Surrey team has real championship-winning potential.

In Division Two, it is difficult to see beyond the relegated sides when considering the likely title contenders. Yorkshire have maintained the nucleus of a strong squad, and in Jonathan Bairstow and Joe Root, they boast two of the finest young batsmen in the country. Hampshire, meanwhile, have lost Dominic Cork, Michael Lumb and Neil McKenzie but the experience of captain Jimmy Adams and ex-England batsman Michael Carberry should prove enough to guide them back to the top flight. Expect both sides, along with perennial nearly-men Northamptonshire, to dominate the division this year.

The Ror of the British contingent

It’s June 19th 2007. A blustery day’s play has come to an end out in the wilderness of the Scottish east coast, on a course that eight years previous had crucified many players’ games, never mind the career of a certain shoeless Frenchman. A glance at the leader board shows the name of an eighteen-year-old mop-haired amateur tied for third place on three under, having not dropped a shot all day.
Fast forward less than five years and Rory McIlroy, that same fresh-faced boy from County Down sits atop the world rankings, widely tipped to conquer all in his path. All except the eternal match play genius Hunter Mahan, that is. Victory at the Honda Classic earlier this month propelled him to the number one spot, but some jiggery-pokery is sure to happen in the coming weeks, with the top three all within striking distance of one another.
Last week’s World Golf Championship at Doral, Florida saw a closely contested leader-board, as Bubba Watson’s missed putt on the eighteenth handed the title to Justin Rose, further increasing the raft of Brits occupying the world’s top ten. With McIlroy finishing in third and Luke Donald two shots further back, tied for sixth, it was yet another strong performance from the British contingent, boding well for this years transatlantic showdown at the Medinah Country Club.
But what of the man who held the mantle of the world’s best player for so long? For quite some time Tiger Woods has been on a slow descent down the world rankings, reaching a low of 58. Having ended a two-year winless streak at the Chevron World Challenge in December, the Honda Classic saw a resurgence, with Woods going toe-to-toe with the new poster boy of the sport, thus leading many to believe we could be witnessing the return of the Tiger of old.
Last week, however, disaster struck once more, as Woods was forced to retire after eleven holes of his final round at the WGC, thanks to an Achilles injury, although he had already played himself out of contention with a flurry of bogeys towards the end of the front nine. The doctor’s report suggests it’s nothing too serious, so we can hope to see the great man in action soon, but the question now is whether even the Tiger of old would be good enough to displace the new breed of ball-strikers that sit at golf’s top table.
All eyes now turn to Augusta, home of the Masters, where McIlroy will be desperate to exorcise those demons that decimated last year’s calamitous final round. Asides from Rory and the ever-growing body of Brits looking to crash the American party, a number of other young twenty-somethings will be hoping to compete for the title. Young prospects such as Webb Simpson, 2011 USPGA winner Keegan Bradley and Jason Day are all threatening to stake a claim for the green jacket, whilst the mercurial Martin Kaymer can always pose a threat to both ends of the scoreboard. Lest we forget the defending champion Charl Schwartzel, whose four closing birdies last year were worthy of winning any tournament.
No matter what, the only thing it is safe to say is that The Masters is set to be one of the closest in years, regardless of whether or not Tiger manages a return to full fitness.

Column: I love your shit

When looking for inspiration for these monthly columns I sometimes have a butcher’s at NME’s official site. Despite looking like the internet-equivalent of spaghetti, I eventually found the ‘most-read’ section; a portion of any site that I’m sure most of you will agree is a useful feature. Many of us don’t have the time nor the energy to choose which story to read for ourselves, but the ‘most-read’ tool cuts out that irritating 30 or even 40 seconds spent browsing the home page for the most entertaining sounding stories.

A quick scan informs me that the most-read article on the site is a tale of a blossoming electronic romance between Skrillex and Ellie Goulding – he sent her an e-mail apparently claiming to ‘love her shit’ – interpret that whichever way you want. Upon seeing this I realised I had an opportunity to make a difference. A voice in my head was urging me to write a compelling study, one that would engage debate. This is Guardian shit, I thought. Drawing astute parallels between electronic music and popular culture with ease, I pressed further, yearning for more information, for sharper conclusions, for better sources. I was feeling for a few seconds how Lizo from Newsround must feel every day, and I was loving it. The story was coming together seamlessly, quotes from experts, surveys, statistics – it was, dare I say it, becoming a proper piece of investigatory journalism. Jon Snow would be in tears, I thought, yeah, fuck you Jon.

I was on a roll, typing furiously. Harking back to the site that had originally given me the idea, looking no doubt for more hard evidence to complement my complicated point, I noticed something. Whilst the ‘most-read’ section had been the catalyst for this throwing of caution to the wind, it stopped dead in my tracks. The ‘most-read’ section was, as I have mentioned, dominated by the gibberish about Skrillex masturbating over Ellie Goulding then deciding to send her an e-mail, on the off-chance a casually suggested game of 20 questions would take a sexual turn and he’d score a snap of her in a tame La Senza bra, or something. What surprisingly didn’t feature on the list of stories with the most views was a piece as rich in current affairs and opinion as my own. A commentary on Russian punk outfit Pussy Riot, who were arrested after a protest against the re-election of Vladimir Putin to office, and are currently on hunger strike in a prison in Moscow. I sighed, defeated. I looked at my article, in all its pretentious, controversial glory and abruptly came to the realisation that nobody would give a shit. I could just imagine Jon Snow, high-fiving Krishnan Guru-Murthy, mocking me. I’m so sorry Lizo, I failed you.

The art in the industry

Upon informing new acquaintances that I write a beauty column, reactions are usually some delightful combination of disappointment, pity and horror. The assumption is that you have nothing to offer the journalistic world save for top tips on how to apply gargantuan false eyelashes to wear to the likes of Pout, complete with a cheap neon orange glow.

In reality, the beauty industry need not be reduced simply to narcissism, consumerism, and doing horrible, horrible things to vaginas. When pursued appropriately, the result is nothing less than a form of art, which is how I approach the whole business in my perception. Art is abundant in the industry and should be admired as such, and certain SS12 beauty looks reflected this much perhaps more so than ever. Take it as a visual representation of an artist’s imagination with all its inherent fantasy rather than a fascist dictation of the universal ideals of beauty and you’re good to go; you appreciate the image subjectively; you don’t want to be it; you understand that nobody sane is expecting you to be it.

Of course, there is no escaping the fact that a lot of hilarious bullshit (Katie Price’s entire existence, for example) composes a significant portion of the industry, but that’s what vitriolic satire with all its exposing properties is for. Otherwise, feast your eyes on a selection of beautiful SS12 creations, which look as though they were taken straight out of art school:

Featured image: Manish Arora; Thakoon.
Left to right: Fendi; Chanel; Meadham Kirchhoff; Narciso Rodriguez

Religion is not rubbish, politics is

In issue 13 of The Mancunion Joshua Carroll condemned religion as rubbish, I’m going to let you know why his argument is the real rubbish.

If you recall, he started off by blaming religion for the lack of bins in public, and as the reason unattended luggage is considered a threat today. His grave mistake was to confuse religion with politics and despite what some people think they are not the same.  There are no bins in public areas because of the IRA, a political organisation in search of independence from Britain and regardless of their Catholic allegiances the terrorist act was for political, not religious reasons.

Luggage cannot be left unattended because of a series of terrorist attacks including but not limited to 9/11. In the case of 9/11 it was again not a religious attack, but an attack by a group that was against American intervention in the Middle East; religion was only the excuse. Unfortunately, nations often try to legitimise wars by telling the public it is to protect their religion but it is always about political power struggles; anyone who actually thinks religion is the only factor in any war needs to sit in a few politics classes and learn something.

Secondly, I thought I should bring it to everyone’s attention that the Trafford Centre, the Arndale, ASDA and Sainsbury’s, among others, are all open on a Sunday. So next time you’re going to throw wild accusations around, I suggest double-checking that the problem actually exists. And as for having to endure Songs of Praise on a Sunday, who told you to turn on the T.V. and watch it? Honestly, it’s one programme on one day of the week.  Are six other days and hundreds of other programmes not enough for you? No one said you have to watch the show and there’s this nifty appliance called a DVD player which you can use to watch something else rather than what national T.V. is broadcasting.

The one criticism of religion I’ll take as legitimate is the nuisance of door-to-door evangelists, because I can’t help but agree they get on my nerves too, especially when they don’t take no for an answer. But really, a picture of two fornicating men in a church is a real solution? Not only is that immature, but if I were an evangelist I would in fact take it as an invitation to knock on your door, because having sex in a public place, no less a church, does make you seem in need of some form of guidance. Might I suggest that you simply ignore them? In my experience they have never knocked more than twice before giving up and walking away – and, if you accidentally do answer the door, just say they’ve caught you at a bad time. Because let’s be honest, that is usually the case; more often than not they’ll just give you a pamphlet and march on their merry way.

Finally, apparently religion has ruined Sundays? Before reading Carroll’s article I had always thought people enjoyed Sundays, but I guess was wrong. I had thought it was the perfect day to nurse your hangover before starting another long week at university, visit your mum and eat a roast dinner, catch up with friends or just laze about and de-stress. But if religion has destroyed Sundays here’s what I think: let’s rebel against religion by petitioning for lectures and seminars on a Sunday, that way we can effectively eradicate God’s day of rest and claim it back for ourselves. And when we’re successful we’ll only have Joshua Carroll to thank for reminding us that the only reason we have Sundays off is because of religion and we don’t want religion to ruin our lives.

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected] 

What’s all the fuss about?

There’s been a great deal of fuss lately over the government’s latest work experience programme backed, most notably, by Tesco. In fact, so loud has opposition to the scheme become that a number of organisations currently involved have threatened to back out on the basis that it is harming their business; some, like Sainsbury’s, have already left. What’s the evil plan at work here that has riled so many feathers? It is, according to certain people, ‘slave labour’. That’s right, our government is forcing people into petty labour under threat of death with no reward save some bread, water and a swift kick to the backside in return. Actually hang on, that’s not even slightly what’s happening.

In an attempt to address the record youth unemployment in the country, employment minister Chris Grayling has spearheaded this ‘workfare’ scheme, which sees companies like Tesco and Sainsbury’s offer short term unpaid work experience to young people currently out of work and receiving unemployment benefits. The companies pay expenses like travel, but offer no salary for the duration of the six to eight week placements. So, they expect people to work for them for free just because they have no previous work experience and often few or no qualifications? Outrageous!

Or, alternatively, just like almost every other employment sector there is. Newspapers offer unpaid internships, as do accountants, law firms, banks and various organisations in almost every field there is. These we are OK with; somebody doing an unpaid internship at the Financial Times is perfectly acceptable, but somehow doing the same for Tesco is not it seems. The reason for this is obvious I suppose: working at the Financial Times is a ‘good’ job, and therefore one worth undertaking unpaid work experience to get to, whereas stacking shelves is a ‘how-on-earth-could-anybody-ever-want-to-do-something-so-frightful’ job, and so unpaid work experience is slave labour.

David Cameron has denounced the most vocal opposition to the workfare scheme as ‘Trotskyites’; whilst this may be going a bit too far, I wholeheartedly agree with his assessment of the schemes’ critics as ‘job snobs’. Everyone reading this knows how difficult it is to get a job, stuck in the unbreakable cycle of needing experience to get a position and needing a position to get experience.

There is disagreement over the precise figures, but at least 50 percent and by some estimates up to 70 percent of people enter full-time, paid employment after completing a work experience placement under the scheme. Six weeks unpaid (and, by the way, these people are still receiving benefits so it’s not even really unpaid) for some experience and a job at the end? I’d take that deal.

Also, let’s not forget that these placements are not compulsory. People choose to go on them. If nothing else, that ought to stop the counter-argument dead in the water – if you don’t like the workfare scheme, then do not sign up for it. In all the debate over this issue, nobody seems to have taken into account the people actually using this scheme – do they want to continue it? Of course they do, or they wouldn’t be on the scheme in the first place. Would they rather be paid than work for free? Obviously, but if Tesco had to pay all of its work experience people then it would not be offering the placements.

There was originally an idea to cut the benefits of people who left their work experience placement half-way through. Whether rightly or wrongly, this has now been dropped and with it has gone the only reasonable argument that could possibly be made against workfare. I would give my left ear for an unpaid work experience placement at Clifford Chance LLP, it’s time everyone stops being so damned hypocritical and realises that the same is true for everyone else without experience, no matter what their line of work may be.

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected]

Workfare: not fair

As more big businesses continue to criticise and to drop out of government unpaid work experience schemes, it is surely the case that the system is flawed. There are several different schemes currently being employed, some of which are voluntary and others of which have some degree of compulsion, but the former schemes still carry risk since those who do not complete their placements can still be sanctioned. The situation has resulted in accusations of “slave labour” from detractors, whilst supporters have argued that people should be forced to work for their benefits and that they will also gain something from the experience.

The big issue is not that people are being forced to do menial jobs, but that they are doing them for nothing. Under the compulsory “Mandatory Work Activity” scheme, anyone may be forced to work for six to eight weeks unpaid for up to 30 hours a week. It may be argued that they are essentially earning their Jobseeker’s Allowance through this, but it is hardly a comparable sum to what they would earn from paid work. For example, a 21-year-old may be paid a maximum of £53.45 in a week, yet if their 30 hours of work were paid for at the minimum wage rate they would in fact earn £182.40. Despite the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) noting that less than 10,000 people should be referred to this programme in a year, between May and November 2011, 24,010 people were referred to it. It thus seems as though the scheme is being used to take advantage of as much cheap labour as possible.

It is also doubtful just how useful the experience is to those seeking work. If big businesses use these people purely for menial jobs, then they will not in fact learn any real skills. The “Mandatory Work Activity” scheme is also supposedly aimed at those “who have little or no understanding of what behaviours are required to obtain and keep work”, yet there are accounts of people with years of experience of paid work being forced to take placements. Clearly the guidelines set in place for this scheme are being either stretched or ignored completely.

There is also concern that these schemes are being provided at the expense of more paid jobs. Although DWP minister Maria Miller recently claimed that there “isn’t a shortage of jobs” in the UK, analysis of the data has contradicted her claim and suggested that there could be as many as ten people chasing every job. If businesses have the choice of hiring a worker for a wage or providing a work experience placement for free, they will have little incentive to do the former.

It has recently been suggested by an advisory body to the DWP that evidence had emerged by December that “work experience placements were being taken on to cover Christmas vacancies”. Even those already in employment can suffer, since there has also been evidence that less overtime is being offered in instances where the work can be covered for free.

Whilst being profitable for big businesses who are being handed an opportunity to slash costs, these schemes clearly aren’t going to get Britain back to work, and they should be given serious reconsideration before the situation gets worse.

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected] 

Give me back my twelve quid: the great tutorial swindle

There seems to be a growing trend amongst humanities lecturers to teach their tutorials through the medium of student-led presentations. It’s not exactly surprising, seeing as there is a particular benefit to these lecturers which no other teaching method can offer: they don’t actually have to do anything. The premise of a tutorial taken in this way is simple; each week one or more students prepares a presentation on a given topic, then delivers it haltingly to the class and poorly fields questions on the subject afterwards. Meanwhile, the lecturer looks on with mild disappointment, making the occasional scribble on his notepad.

The ability to present is of course a vital life skill, especially for the 99% of history students who dream of working in the City rather than being history teachers. As such, an activity which promotes presentation skills would be an excellent addition to any humanities, or indeed science, course. What’s happened here though, is that this activity has replaced half of the actual course. The main purpose, one might think, of a history course is to learn history. For a standard humanities module though, you will receive a mighty two contact hours a week: a one-hour lecture and a one-hour tutorial; a quick bit of maths on the back of a napkin tells me that, based on a standard six module course for a UK/EU student, each one of those contact hours costs just a shade over £12 currently (although this will rise to £34/hour for students starting this September).

So every week I pay more than the cost of 12 magic bus rides for the privilege of listening to some dolt who doesn’t even have a degree lecturing me on the article we both read at twelve ‘o’ clock last night on our phones in the 5th Ave toilets. Even worse is when that dolt is me, and I have to stand up and deliver a presentation to a room full of people who know precisely as little as I do about the topic, on account of the fact that we thought there was the off-chance somebody who does know about it would have taught us at some point during our university course.

There’s a qualified lecturer sitting right there, who knows everything there is to know about post-colonial cheese consumption levels in the Congo (or whatever), often he or she will even have a PhD in that very topic. Yet we are given this one hour each week to have face-to-face time with them and instead I have to listen to a hung-over, unwashed student stutter their way through a word-for-word recapitulation of the same book everybody there has read. That is, until they get nervous half way through, forget everything and abruptly end the presentation mid-sentence.

How in the world does anybody think this is acceptable? Imagine if you paid £13 to go to a guest presentation and the speaker just sat there whilst a member of the audience delivered a pisspoor speech instead. You would be livid. Yet because we are told that it is developing important life skills, it’s supposed to be OK that we accept the same thing from our lecturers. Of course, there are those occasions where you look forward to the student presentations solely because the lecturer’s English is so poor that nobody can understand a damn thing they’re saying, but that’s another matter entirely.

Enough with the student presentations already. We spend 90 percent of every course teaching ourselves anyway, it’s not unreasonable to expect that for a single hour a week you might bloody teach US something.

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected] 

Occupy London – there are valuable lessons

“Minds are not changed by singular actions, however singular. They are changed when society comes to regard these singular actions as the rule rather than the exception, when common sense shifts on to the side of the erstwhile heretic.” Conor Gearty, LSE.

I wonder what picture formulates in your head when someone talks about the Occupy London movement. I know that in spite of my better instincts, I can’t help but conjure up an image of stoned hippies, dreadlocks, a few bohemian older people and ‘alternative’ parents insisting on camping out with their children who are too young to know what on earth is going on. And then I take a step back and realise the ludicrousness of that image, mainly because it is actually probably quite accurate. Has our apathy become so acute that the task of democratic exercise has been left to a few clichéd activists?

As I’m sure most people are probably aware, on Monday night the Occupy London camp was finally evicted from St Paul’s cathedral. Now we are left with two questions: have they actually achieved anything? And, what next?

To critics and skeptics, Occupy is an aimless movement, too indulged in the act of resisting and protesting to formulate a coherent and realistic set of goals. The rhetoric is populist and anti-government, and it is arguably all too easy to find support and validation amidst our current ‘crisis of capitalism.’ The recession is bad. Everyone hates the banks and discontent with the government has not been so rife since the ‘80s. The Occupy movement is a response to the discontent, but it is ultimately fruitless and inconsequential, isn’t it?

Well, no. It really doesn’t have to be. In this movement there is a chance for us to reclaim the democracy we so fervently champion as we fly its flag all over the world. This was the real aim of Occupy London; for us, the people, the ’99 percent’, to take matters back into our own hands. The only way this aim is going to be realised is if we get up off our butts and do something about it.

Democracy entails more than just turning out to vote once every five years (or even not, if the queue at the polling station is too long.) It’s a fight, it’s a struggle, and this is what the occupy movement recognized and represented.

The extent of its misrepresentation and the warped perception of its aims was highlighted in the ridiculous comment made by the Conservative MP Louise Mensch on Have I got News for You a few weeks ago. In reference to the protesters shocking tendency to buy coffee every day, she said, ‘if they prop up a corporate titan like Starbucks they’ve got to ask themselves how much of capitalism they really don’t like.’ I found the remark quite staggering. But she is obviously not alone in identifying the protesters as a bunch of crazy communists who are breaching their lofty ideals by entering a chain coffee shop.

The reality is that the protesters (a few exceptions permitted) aren’t suggesting utopian Marxist alternatives of a world without profit or business. They are simply highlighting the staggering inequalities that exist in out society today and are resolving to try to do something about it. The aim is one of democracy, justice and greater equality – not the entire overthrow of the capitalist system.

We all need to be more vigorous in our assertion of what we think is right and wrong, we have a duty to be. Occupy London won’t see tangible results in terms of economic justice for a long, long time, and if you’re skeptical, you’ll deem it a failure now. And if everyone deems it a failure now, then there may not ever be tangible results, because it requires more than a handful of extremely dedicated (and sometimes annoying) activists camped outside a church for a few weeks.

It takes absolutely everyone who thinks there is something wrong with the world we live in to try to do something about, to express unhappiness and discontent through more than just a cross in a box at a general election. The Occupy movement in London has come to end, there is nothing surprising in that – it was always going to. But the reasons for its existence and the values it has attempted to promote are more rife and more alive than ever. The future of it is in our hands, if only we believe it to be.

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s not just women who get raped

Eve Fensome tells us why the refusal to recognise male-on-male rape is harmful to women as well as men

 

Despite vast historical documentation, it was not until 2008 that the UN recognised rape and sexual violence as a ‘weapon of war’ used by armies as a tactic against civilians. The ruling means that now the perpetrators of sexual violence during wars may be prosecuted in world courts alongside other war criminals. Since the 2008 ruling, the UN and other international governance organisations have been engaged in discussions relating to many aspects of sexual violence during conflict, with one significant omission. Male victims.

If you were inclined to wade through UN Security Resolutions pertaining to sexual violence during conflict, you will find the term: ‘gender-based violence’ more times than you could (or indeed would want to) shake a stick at. ‘Gender-based violence’ is one of those slippery, insidious and politically loaded terms, which for what it lacks in clarity, makes up for by being blessed with numerous definitions. It could mean: any violence enacted upon a person on account of their gender, but it has come to mean violence enacted upon women (and girls), which in turn has come to encompass all sexual violence.

The justification for this is that sexual violence is overwhelmingly experienced by females and therefore a sex-neutral definition is unnecessary.  In actual fact, male-on-male sexual violence is perhaps far more prevalent in war than the international community has ever imagined. For instance, a study of 6,000 concentration camp inmates in Sarajevo found that 80 percent of males reported that they had been raped during their detention. Another study shows that of all the Sri-Lankan males seen at a torture treatment centre in London, 21 percent reported sexual abuse. A 2010 survey found that in Eastern Congo 30 percent of women and 22 percent of men reported conflict-related sexual violence. We might also remember that the most conspicuous aspect of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq was the use of sexual abuse as part of the ritualised humiliation of inmates by American forces.

Mostly, data on the incidence of male sexual abuse is extremely hard to come by since few organisations are interested or well-equipped enough to collect it. This in turn continues to compound the belief that the only victims of sexual violence are female; the upshot is that the UN and other international NGOs only run programmes aimed at vulnerable women and will turn away male victims.

For most of the tenure of these global institutions, women’s experiences during conflict have been wholly ignored, yet now analysis of civilian violence is focused almost entirely on women. This is harmful not only to men, but also women. For as well as the pain experienced by many male victims of sexual violence who are denied help on account of their sex, we see the continuation of a rigid gender stereotype: that of the perennially weak female victim and the monolithic invulnerable male aggressor.

The international feminist community set out to remove these prejudices, and yet a policy which focuses purely on women results in their continued existence, to the detriment of both sexes. The international community must grasp that feminism will not be realised by women becoming the powerful oppressors, but by removing the oppression of rigid gender roles. The UN must realise that the global gender issue is not a zero-sum game. If we put one sex before another the result will always be a loss, if, on the other hand our strategy is equality, everybody wins.

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected] 

STAY – It’s still the United Kingdom

David Cameron has led the charge, saying he will fight to keep the nations of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland united.  This ‘safety in numbers’ approach put forward by the Prime Minister promises to maintain the strength of the UK, whilst continuing Scotland’s position as part of a global authority. Indeed, the matter is a case of basic maths: more countries equals more power; the break-up of the UK after over 300 years will only serve to leave Scotland as a weak and isolated country with a limited lifespan.

Scottish independence threatens to challenge our position in the UN, NATO and Europe, as well as important global alliances.  The running of the UK is set up around it being a united nation, with defence mechanisms and the armed forces representing all contributing states.  The UK’s entire nuclear arsenal is to be found at two locations in Scotland: Coulport and Faslane.  Going it alone could prove risky for the Scots as their armed forces will be almost wiped out overnight, leading to the question of whether they will even be able to defend themselves. More worryingly for Britain, will we be expected to continue to defend the Scots despite their decision to part from a stable alliance?

The UK is one of the world’s economic powerhouses, a position which would be jeopardized by a break-up; seriously for Britain and fatally for Scotland. In 2010 the UK’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was ranked 3rd out of all European countries, closely following France and Germany.  GDP recognises the market value of all goods and services produced by a country in a given period of time, and so this reflects the success of our combined economies.

If the Scots were to go their own way, not only would the remainder of the UK suffer from a severely weakened economy, but the new Scottish country would find itself in a dramatically different economic state.  Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, claims that over the next 20 years an independent country could raise £30bn from North Sea oil reserves, but this figure has been ridiculed by geologists who say the reserves have already reached their peak of production – suggesting that oil offers a short term solution to the long term problem of Scotland supporting its own economy. Salmond’s calculation error exposes the independence question for what it truely is – a rushed and ridiculous scheme.

The questioning of Scotland’s commitment to union comes at a time of widespread financial turmoil, and with the eurozone crisis worsening daily there appears to be no logical reason why Scotland should become independent and risk the pound following the doomed trajectory of the euro.  Here perhaps Scotland should look to its neighbour, Ireland, and take a lesson from the daily worsening of their European-funded economy.  During the present period of instability, the union must be seen both for its past success and future potential; we don’t want the troubles of a divided UK becoming another factor on the growing list of worldwide problems.

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected]

GO – Let them subsidise their own Universities

“They may take our lives, but they’ll never take our FREEDOM!” screamed Hollywood’s William Wallace. But as it turns out, we did. English rule over our rebellious northern cousins had been well established for centuries, and 300 years ago Great Britain was created with the 1707 Act of Union. Has the time finally come for Scotland to get their long harboured desire for independence? An upcoming referendum will decide just that.

Despite a long colonialist history, it would seem the greatest support for an independent Scotland would be found south of the border. A recent poll by YouGov for Prospect Magazine has found that English voters favoured either maximum devolution for Scotland or independence by 52% to 32% — a bigger margin of support than in Scotland itself. The logic certainly must be based on the general irritation that Scotland enjoys a generous financial deal which allocates more public spending per head there than in England and enough is enough grumble the English.

As a student, I wholeheartedly agree that it is unfair that I have to pay tuition fees while Scottish students enjoy a free education, subsidised by British taxes. Another example of English taxpayers being hard done by would be with the removal of NHS prescription charges for sick Scots in 2007, whilst those in England choke on the £7.20 charge.

For years, Scottish MPs (of which there are currently 59) have been able to vote on matters which affect English politics, but political decisions which affect Scotland are decided in Holyrood, devoid of English representation. Why should these MPs affect legislation which does not impact on their constituents? The West Lothian question would finally be resolved by the removal of West Lothian.

The alternative to complete independence would be “Devo Max”. A tricky phrase currently bandied around by politicians, it is largely understood to mean the full devolution of all powers with the exception of defence and foreign affairs. Independent in all but force. As long as this would look to balance the books of the ever-generous Scottish welfare state, it seems a reasonable alternative to the risk of going out on a limb with full independence in an unstable eurozone.

Currently, the plans for the referendum are to only open voting to Scottish constituents; however it is surely an issue that will have a massive impact on the rest of the Union. Perhaps it is feared that the oppressive English, with its “occupation”, will quash the Scottish desire for freedom, but I do hope that the government will look to promote a national debate. There are many benefits, especially to a stalled British economy, that can be found in the realisation of Braveheartian dreams.

They already have their own money, a flag, and even a prospective national language. Why not let them go and try it on their own? It shouldn’t be a battle of ugly nationalism, instead we should encourage and foster a feeling of good will with our neighbours.

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected] 

Iphoneography?

It is now possible to take a course in iPhone photography; Ben Green tells us about it.

As reported in the Mancunion last week, the London College of Kensington (a university apparently) is now offering a course in iPhone photography.

 Ah, an afternoon spent showing technically-challenged people how to use their phones, no doubt sponsored by Apple? No, a full-blown five-week course dreamt up by photography teacher Richard Gray (without so much as a contribution from Apple) for actual students to learn how to take better pictures with their iPhones. Although the University do say that they may increase the course in future to cover Android and other smart phones. This is a relief for all those aspiring professional android-photographers out there, rightly worried that without sterling education like this they won’t be able to eke out a living selling snaps of celebrities to the Sun that they’ve taken on their fucking phone.

Real photography is, after all, overrated and far too much effort to be bothering with anyway, and besides how many megapixels do you really need? An iPhone’s got 8; sure you can’t hold it steady and there’s no lens or mirror and it keeps vibrating because it’s a phone not a camera and that’s what happens when someone calls you on your phone.

Here’s a fun little test, take a picture of another phone with your phone and compare it with the picture next to this article. This one was taken with a camera and is good. Yours was taken with a phone and is crap. The reason your picture is crap is not that you need to attend a course in how to correctly handle the camera that was slapped onto the back of your phone to save the designer having to do any actual designing, it’s because no matter what apps you download your phone is not a camera. It is not for photography, it is for taking seedy pictures of your partner or blurry shots of your mate after he’s passed out on top of a killer whale at London Zoo because he necked a bottle of Lambrini twenty minutes beforehand. And even if you had the latest SLR and a real photography degree, it would probably be shit anyway because you’ve had three bottles of Lambrini and a pint of vodka.

Who the hell is this course for? It’s not even long enough to act as an entry-point for those who can’t get a place on a real degree but still want to go spend three years spreading venereal diseases and ill-will. Like Football Technology and Land Economy (these really exist). The course costs around £200, so strikes just the right balance of being an effective way for the student to piss money away and not actually bringing anything worthwhile in for the university.

This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard, and I don’t say that lightly.

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected]

Apparently there’s another election coming up…

A personal plea for you to vote from the Electionjacker

So last year I made a little video (Google “Electionjacker”) to raise election awareness in Manchester, somebody had to.

And now the elections are here again. Before I even begin to try to show why you are more powerful than you think, I have to make a few concessions. As we move inexorably closer to the candidacy submissions deadline, the Windy-Left area is for once seemingly without a clear General Secretary candidate. The Soft Left, fresh from its not quite so strong showing last year, is apparently in the same boat. Meanwhile, Inaction Palastine is calling on us to continue to twin with half a million other universities on Mars and M-Soc continue their policy of interviewing candidates before backing them; whereas the Balour-HIJK-Soc bloc continue to provide us with their own unique breed of candidate.

Woe betide you if you live in halls, in fact, you might want to temporarily move out if you are in a compact, popular one like Owens Park. The candidates and their campaign teams will come for you, knocking on your doors at 12am and shouting promises at you in your lectures. Primark’s white bed sheets sales will skyrocket and Gavin’s photocopier will probably earn him a small fortune. Crap puns, lame slogans and innumerable shitty “flash mobs” will inconvenience you into indifference.

The Union will spend hundreds of pounds covering ambitious candidates’ expenses, whilst yet again an appallingly low turnout will only reiterate your cynicism and belief in the age old, “yeah, but no one really cares about the Union anyway”. And then, suddenly, results will be announced and it will all be over and disappear as quickly as it came, this whirlwind of anti-cuts pledges, tacky videos and acrylic-and-bed-sheet-posters. Until next March, no one will knock on Halls’ doors, or seem to give a damn about these mythical “needs of the normal students”.

Cynicism, poor attempts at satire and crappy jibes at blocs aside, why should anyone give a shit about the Students Union elections anyway? Most importantly of all, why should you? After all, all these thinly-veiled blocs really do want to be better than each other; but are they really doing that for your benefit?

If you don’t like a candidate, don’t vote for them. It really is as simple as that. But for God’s sake, get your displeasure and disgust with them known by voting for someone else. On the other hand, if you do vaguely like whatever Joe Bloggs running for Derpin Officer says, look into it! And do feel free to support him. Not knowing candidates personally is not just a poor excuse for not voting; it’s dishonest. Under the current voting system, even if you don’t like the look of each and every single candidate, it’s still possible to say so by voting in the last option to Re-Open Nominations. Who knows, maybe someone with ideas you finally like will run next time.

As university students, we are privileged to study at a remarkable institution in a vibrant city. It is a small, almost symbolic act, free of charge and the right of every individual, with potentially far-reaching consequences. Before you finish reading this and go back to playing Mario Kart or swearing at the cleaner for bringing in the world’s loudest vacuum cleaner at four in the morning, please take a moment to think about the opportunity you have this March. You have the chance to matter as an individual, the chance to make the difference between telling your friends and children twenty, thirty years down the line, “oh yeah, we had a Union, but no one cared about it anyway” or  “I was there the year we took back the Union”. So make sure you vote on 9 March; it ony takes 10 seconds. Take care of yourselves Manchester.

Disagree? Tweet us @mancuniondebate or email [email protected] 

Live at Owens Park

On Wednesday 21st March be ready to wet your comedy whistles with the witty delights of Chris Ramsey and Tom Deacon. Recognise the names?

Chris is a young Geordie comic who is currently on a spring tour, making huge waves in the comedy scene.  He has appeared on 8 out of 10 cats, Celebrity Juice, Never Mind The Buzzcocks and yet more exciting televisual programmes. Tom Deacon has his own show on Radio 1 after the chart show and has also appeared on Dave’s One Night Stand, BBC Switch (Presenter) and The Rob Brydon Show.

Following in the footsteps of Jack Whitehall who took to the stage in Owens Park in November 2010 and Sean Walsh in October 2011, Tom Deacon will be enthralling the crowds in the first half of the evening along with host Steve Bugeja, before headliner Chris Ramsey does an extended set.

The previous Live at Owens Park nights have each sold out and been huge successes. This year’s gig will take place in the 500-seater hall above OP bar, and the official after-party at Birdcage. BUT, it’s not just for first years just because it’s at OP, it’s for all students so share the love and get your tickets, 500 ain’t that many.

The night is linked with Student Action who will be putting money raised from tickets towards their charity. Tickets are £5 and available from Gaffs, and Halls bars.