Skip to main content

Month: December 2013

Students’ Union lobbies against NHS costs for international students

Written by Inez Dawoodjee on . Posted in News.

Students’ Union Officers are campaigning against plans for the possible introduction of NHS fees for international students.

The proposal, put forward by the government, suggests that non-UK students from outside the European Union should pay a minimum of £200 in order to procure NHS treatment.

Currently all international students staying in the UK for longer than 6 months have free access to the NHS.

A petition protesting the proposal has been set up by Clifford Fleming, Campaigns and Citizenship Officer for the University of Manchester Students’ Union.

“International students should not face added financial worries regarding their healthcare,” said Flemming. “If the government proposals pass in parliament many international students may avoid healthcare registration due to the added financial pressure.”

He added, “The proposals further discriminate those from countries outside the EU, and doesn’t respect the huge net benefit our international students provide, which the department of Business, Innovation and Skills estimates at £7.9bn every year.”

The Union has also endorsed the  ‘I am not welcome’ campaign which protests the introduction of increased surveillance of international students.

Wellbeing Officer Kazi Tasweef said, “We hope to persuade the UK Border Agency to change its monitoring process and end unnecessary hostile action towards non-EU international students.”

Earlier this year the Home Office called for greater surveillance of international students. The University of Sunderland and the University of Ulster have since introduced fingerprinting systems to monitor attendance of international students.

Universities UK condones segregated debates

Written by Sean Doherty on . Posted in News.

The group representing vice-chancellors of universities in the UK has stated gender segregation at university events may be condoned, should a speaker request it.

In its recently published guideline for universities regarding external speakers in higher education institutions, Universities UK has followed a ‘separate but equal’ policy as regards the segregation of males and females in audiences at university events.

Within the report, it is stated that segregation would only be “discriminatory on the grounds of sex if it amounts to ‘less favourable treatment’ of either female or male attendees.”

In a case-study in which a representative of an ultra-orthodox religious group is invited to speak at a university event and then insists that males and females be segregated, the report advises that segregation would be acceptable provided neither group is disadvantaged, such as placing females at the back where they would face certain restrictions i.e. the increased difficulty in being able to ask questions.

The report claims that “there does not appear to be any discrimination on gender grounds merely by imposing segregated seating. Both men and women are being treated equally, as they are both being segregated in the same way.”

The report addresses the legal problems which universities face in accommodating the views of different groups.

It states that, “one cannot rule out the possibility that discrimination claims will be made on other grounds. For example, it is arguable that ‘feminism’ or some forms of belief in freedom of choice or freedom of association, could fall within the definition of ‘belief’ under the Equality Act. This would in turn mean that applying a segregated seating policy without offering alternatives (e.g. a nonsegregated seating area, again on a ‘side by side’ basis with the gender segregated areas) might be discriminatory against those (men or women) who hold such beliefs.”

Although the report proposed that a non-segregated area should be made available alongside segregated seating, it advises that, should the speaker demand unsegregated seating not be an option on the basis of their religious beliefs, the university should still go ahead with the event with only segregated seating as to do otherwise may be seen as a breach of the Equality Act, which explicitly protects religious freedoms more so than ideological (i.e. feminist) freedoms.

It said, “Ultimately if imposing an unsegregated seating area in addition to the segregated areas contravenes the genuinely held religious beliefs of the group hosting the event, or those of the speaker, the institution should be mindful to ensure that the freedom of speech of the religious group or speaker is not curtailed unlawfully.

“Those opposed to segregation are entitled to engage in lawful protest against segregation, and could be encouraged to hold a separate debate of the issues, but their views do not require an institution to stifle a religious society’s segregated debate where the segregation accords with a genuinely-held religious belief.”

Lizzie Bowen, a third year Classics and Ancient History student, said, “It’s 2013! I definitely wouldn’t go to an event if I had to sit in a separate seating area from guys. People can say ‘separate but equal isn’t discrimination’ but everyone knows that you don’t demand separation unless you favour one side”.

To see the full report, visit: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2013/ExternalSpeakersInHigherEducationInstitutions.pdf

Government sells £900 million of student loans for £160 million

Written by Sean Doherty on . Posted in News.

The government has sold off £900 million worth of student loan repayments for 16% of their face value.

The move on Monday 25th November saw Erudio Student Loans, a consortium backed by private debt collection agencies Arrow Global and CarVal Investors, purchase roughly 250,000 student loans belonging to individuals who began their courses between 1990 and 1998 for £160 million.

The NUS president Toni Pearce stated that the sale will effectively lead to “the public subsidising a private company making a profit from public debt”.

Wednesday 20th November saw protests take place across the UK as students criticised the privatisation of the student loan book. A petition opposing the sell-off has also gathered 15,000 signatures. The fear among students is that with loans being sold off to private companies, the rates of repayment will also change.

The sell-off comes in light of the recent news that the debt which UK households are facing has risen for the first time in five years due to the pressure of student loans. The report by PwC also estimated that university students who began their courses last year will graduate with debts of £40,000-£50,000.

Fiona Edwards, of the Student Assembly Against Austerity stated, “We recognise that the privatisation of our student loans will cause interest rates to rise. We are demanding that they drop this outrageous policy immediately or expect further protests in the New Year.”

Toni Pearce claimed that, “The simple fact is that having these loans on the public books would be better off for the government in the long run.

“Selling off the loan book at a discount to secure a cash lump sum now doesn’t make economic sense.”

The government has justified the selling off of student loans for a fraction of their face value on the basis that there is currently a failure to recover many of the loans. 36% of the borrowers whose debts were bought are currently earning under the repayment threshold and 40% are not paying back their loans according to the terms agreed.

Universities Minister, David Willetts, said, “The sale of the remaining mortgage style student loan book represents good value for money, helping to reduce public sector net debt by £160m.

“The private sector is well placed to maximise returns from the book which has a deteriorating value.

“The sale will allow the Student Loans Company to focus on supplying loans to current students and collecting repayments on newer loans.”

Willetts was insistent that the privatisation of loans will not lead to former students having to pay back at higher rates than those they originally agreed to.

“Borrowers will remain protected and there will be no change to their terms and conditions, including the calculation of interest rates for loans.”

However, during a parliamentary select committee in June the Minister for Universities pointed out that, “In the letter that every student gets there are some words to the effect that governments reserve the right to change the terms of the loans.”

Furthermore, in a leaked government report last year, the proposal was put forth that the cap on interest rates for repayments of loans would have to be removed in order for the student loan book to be profitable to private companies.

Clifford Fleming, Campaigns Officer for the University of Manchester, said,“The government’s accounting on the loan book has been disastrous and the loan book sell-off is a quick fix to the serious problem of funding in Higher Education. Continually government’s have over-estimated the number of students fully paying back their loans, gambling public finances on debt repayments.

“With unsustainable levels of debt the likelihood of changing terms and conditions is inevitable. Higher Education funding needs a complete overhaul and ministers need to consider the public good of education.”

New weapon scanner developed in manchester to revolutionise global security

Written by Mancunion on . Posted in News.

A team of developers from Manchester Metropolitan University have created a radar scanner which can detect concealed weapons such as guns, knives and bombs from as far as 25 metres.

It is hoped the scanner will dramatically increase security in high-risk areas, such as airports and transport hubs, and has gained considerable attention from the United States and the Middle East.

University experts spent 9 years perfecting the device, which was developed with funding from the Home Office and the Police.

MMU has signed a deal with electronics firm, Radio Physics Solutions (RPS), to start distributing the machine commercially. The first machines should be ready by next Spring and will retail at approximately £31,000.

Professor Nicholas Bowring led the Man Met research team and believes the scanner could be revolutionary, “It will make the world a safer place – there is a significant amount of gun crime that could be stopped, for example. We know that this technology works and has done very well in trials”.

In contrast to the controversial body scanner, which has been criticised by civil liberties groups, this new model does not produce an image of the subject and uses only a thousandth of the power of a mobile phone.

The scanner works using a low-powered, millimetre-wave radar signals that reflect off weapons and back to the scanner within seconds. The scanner can also detect common metallic items such as keys, belt buckles and mobile phones, however these items will not trigger an alarm.

There are different versions of the scanner currently being tested. Two hand held battery powered prototypes and a much more powerful static version that could also be built for use in busier locations such as airports and shopping centres.

Cornerhouse Pick of the Week: Blue is the Warmest Colour

Written by Mancunion on . Posted in News.

Blue Is the Warmest Colour (La vie d’Adèle: Chapitres 1 & 2 in its original french) is a coming-of-age story directed by Abdellatif Kechiche. Adèle’s (Adèle Exarchopoulos) life is changed when she meets Emma (Léa Seydoux), a young woman with blue hair, who will allow her to discover desire, to assert herself as a woman and as an adult.

It is based on the french graphic novel by Julie Maroh and follows similar themes of questioning sexuality, the want to conform and romantic loneliness. As Maroh has stated on her blog, though, the film is purely Kechiche’s interpretation of the source material. The visual style is similar when the focus is given to Emma’s blue hair. This marks her as different and shows the colour she brings to the protagonist’s life. One scene in the film shows the cold paleness and wintery blue of Emma side-by-side with Adèle’s warmer, earthy tones. The cinematographer Sofian El Fani does a tremendous job making almost every frame a beauty to behold.

Both film and source show sex scenes, just with slight differences in style. Most viewers will have the sex scenes seared in their memories, although they take up just a fraction of the running time. I commend  Kechiche for steering away from soft-focus timidness and showing the lovers in an act of passionate pleasure. It shouldn’t be misconstrued as pornography (see Don Jon for a look at how porn scenes are different to actual sex) although it does play into the mysticism of the female orgasm that the film questions at one point.

The technique Kechiche uses often and to great effect is to have close ups of the characters’ faces, allowing you to see emotions from a flicker of a smile to a brightening in the eyes. Exarchopoulos and Seydoux have some incredibly powerful scenes where the full weight of emotion is shown, earning their place with Kechiche for the Palme d’Or at this year’s Cannes Film Festival.

The downside of all those close ups is that you see Adèle’s mouth open. A lot. And the eating in the film is not refined dining.

At almost 3 hours, be prepared for a long film. The pacing is different to most current films, where the emphasis is more on getting from one scene to the next as quickly and slickly as possible. This is more similar to the pacing from early cinema and other “arty” European cinema. The film is more of an experience to be chewed over (preferably with your mouth closed).

Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Written by Mark McGrath on . Posted in News.

In Hollywood, 20 months is almost enough time for a popular series to be given a complete overhaul and a fresh lick of paint. And so with Catching Fire and its revisiting of exactly the same places and exactly the same events that were depicted in the first installment of the series, you would be forgiven for mistaking the film for a reboot. It’s a mistake that isn’t made easier by the purely business-orientated decision to place The Hunger Games at the beginning of the title, something altogether absent from the name of the novel on which it’s based.

Fortunately, and unlike many recent sequels, Catching Fire knows that “more of the same, but bigger” isn’t necessarily the key to success. Although the film may retread some of the steps taken by its predecessor, mainly, the selection of the Games’ candidates, the journey to the Capital and the pre-battle propaganda, the beginning of the film emphasises that something is certainly different as Katniss unwillingly sparks a rebellion.

In fact, it is in these early scenes that Catching Fire really excels as an exciting, political thriller. Once again, Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss is the heart and soul of the film, impressing us all as she convincingly portrays sadness, strength, hopefulness and vulnerability often all at the one time. One scene in particular, in which she goes toe-to-toe with President Snow epitomises all that is fantastic about the film: the cast is excellent, the script crackles and the emotional complexities and philosophical ideas that Catching Fire has to offer come to the forefront. This is an intelligent blockbuster.

It’s a shame, then, that the Games themselves are slightly disappointing. This time around, Katniss’ entrance into the arena is not quite as pulse-quickening or heart-racing. We’ve seen it all before: the Hawaiian tropical setting is refreshing but instantly recognisable; the breaking of the group of competitors into different factions with allegiances and friendships tested is far from original and there’s also an eerily familiar thick and mysterious fog to contend with. It seems as if the producers were borrowing directly from LOST. At one point, a character even says, “let’s get what we need and get off this damn island.”

In a perverse way, the older, more experienced competitors don’t appear as dangerous or frightening as the child-killers from the first film and so what made the first film so disturbing in entirely absent. That’s not to say that the events of the arena are not engaging or exciting. There are some well-executed action and chase scenes, but it is clear that the political backdrop to the Games and the growing rebellion have far more dramatic potential.

Ultimately, Catching Fire is a movie of two halves: one half intelligent political thriller and the other a straight-forward blockbuster. Although both succeed in providing entertaining viewing, it’s the first that sets the film apart from generic action fare. And with one of the most unsatisfying endings in movie history, it’s fortunate that going forward into next year’s sequels, it appears as if the people’s rebellion will take centre stage. The wait for next November may be unbearable for some, but it may certainly be worth it if future installments could well deliver on this exciting promise.

Home-made masks: the products that you shouldn’t be putting on your face

Written by Anastasiia Vasiutina on . Posted in Fashion & Beauty.

There are thousands of home-made masks recipes and remedies for bad skin out there, but before you smear the contents of your fridge on your skin, it is worth remembering that “natural” doesn’t automatically mean “good for you”.

A bit of chemistry now. Your skin has a pH of roughly 4.5-5, which is very important in relation to skincare. Alkaline products (baking soda, toothpaste) have a very high pH which might upset the skin’s natural balance, damaging or disrupting the skin barrier. Acidic products (citrus fruits or vinegar) have a pH that’s too low, so you are actually putting yourself at a risk of burns.

Bearing all that in mind, it is a bit disturbing to see the sheer amount of bad advice out there. I struggled with acne myself and in my effort to beat it tried a million different home “remedies”.  To prevent the reader from going on their own journey of trials and errors, I have compiled my own list of things you definitely shouldn’t be using in the attempt to re-create a spa salon at home.

1) Put that pot of baking soda down and do not trust face mask recipes that urge you to use it. With a pH of 9, it is alkaline, which upsets your skin’s natural balance. That tight squeaky feeling you get after you’ve used it? That’s not cleanliness; it’s your skin trying to hold on to its natural barrier.

2) Lemons, oranges and limes do not belong on your face. All three are extremely acidic (lemons have a pH of 2, that’s one pH unit up from battery acid!) and could cause chemical burns. But what about the nice purifying tingling feeling? It’s your skin burning and protesting about all the acid you’ve just dumped on it.

3)  You know how you won’t eat raw eggs because of all the infections and bacteria that could be festering in them? That stuff does not belong on your face either. Animal protein in general is comedogenic – it blocks pores and creates infections, the effects of which can be severe on any skin-type, causing even the most acne-free of us to break out.

4) White vinegar is amongst the most dangerous ones in my collection of absolute don’ts. It can cause actual chemical burns on the skin. There’s a lot of confusion between white vinegar and its milder relative, apple cider vinegar. Apple cider vinegar has a pH of 4.25, nice and gentle on the skin, used by one generation after another as an all-natural toner – might be worth picking some up at your local Holland & Barrett if you have the cash. White vinegar on the other hand has a pH of 2 – again, just one pH unit away from battery acid. It is absolutely essential to be clear about this distinction; apple cider vinegar isn’t dangerous just because it’s vinegar, whereas white vinegar is dangerous precisely because it is much more malicious than its counterpart.

5) Cinnamon is also worth mentioning, even though I have only come across one wild suggestion to use it. The recipe is called the “burning face mask”, which rang my alarm bells straight away. First of all, the burning sensation on your skin is just that – burning and destroying your skin’s natural barrier. It’s not cleansing, toning, removing scars or anything else that the recipe claims it to be. Adding insult to injury, I later found out that the cinnamon we get in the UK shops is extremely toxic in high doses. Shall I put a tablespoon of it on my face? I think not.

6) Last but not least, those sugar (or salt) scrubs. Both sugar and salt grains are much too big and have too many sharp edges for your skin to handle. They cause micro-tears in your skin and in worse case scenarios, scarring and even broken capillaries. Apricot scrubs of any kind have the same effect; it’s a bit like rubbing broken shells or sand on your face.

Now that the nasty products have been named and shamed, it’s time to think of the positives. There’s plenty of food out there that you can use. Honey has wonderful moisturising properties, avocados contain the perfect gentle balance of Vitamin C and amino acids and yogurt is full of enzymes and zinc. All these do a great job at cleaning and softening your skin while protecting it with their anti-oxidant properties.

However, remember to test your face mask on a small area of skin first – might seem pointless, but you definitely don’t want to wake up and realise you have a food allergy that you had no idea about.  Home spa treatments are cheap and accessible to everyone: just remember to keep pH in mind and do a test patch first!

Fashion under the mistletoe

Written by Mancunion on . Posted in Fashion & Beauty.

 

CHRISTMAS PARTY:

 

Look 1

Top: ZARA Short Studio Top – 49.99 GBP

Skirt: TOPSHOP Velvet Sequin Pencil Skirt – 42.00 GBP

Necklace: ACCESSORIZE Katy Jewelled Montana Necklace – 25.00 GBP

Clutch: ZARA Furry Clutch bag – 19.99 GBP

Shoes: ZARA Leather High Heeled Court Shoe – 79.99 GBP

Look 2

Dress: TOPSHOP Satin Slip Dress – 38.00 GBP

Earrings: ACCESSORIZE Monochrome Catwalk Jewel Earrings – 12.00 GBP

Clutch: ASOS Leather and Boucle Weave Clutch – 40.00 GBP

Shoes: ASOS Photo-shoot Pointed High Heels – 45.00 GBP

 

 

CHRISTMAS DAY:

 

Look 1

 

Dress: TOPSHOP V Front Chiffon Insert Dress – 38.00GBP

Kimono: H&M Embroidered Navy Kimono – 49.99 GBP

Shoes: ASOS Handshake Heeled Sandals – 33.50 GBP

Nails: TOPSHOP ‘Solar’ Gold/ Pink – 6.00 GBP

 

Look 2

Jumpsuit: TOPSHOP Matte Satin T-Shirt Jumpsuit – 60.00 GBP

Necklace: URBAN OUTFITTERS Lovebullets Smoky Quartz in Silver – 22.00 GBP

Ring: ACCESSORIZE Sterling Silver Marcasite Vine Rine – 12.00 GBP

Ring: ACCESSORIZE Aaliyah Stone Ring – 14.00 GBP

Shoes: ASOS Paradox Pointed Heels 27.00 GBP

Lips: TOPSHOP Lip Bullet in: Wine Gum – 8.00 GBP

 

 

 

 

NEW YEAR’S EVE

Look 1

Jumpsuit: TOPSHOP Satin Animal Jumpsuit – 58.00 GBP

Necklace: Urban Outfitters Two-Way Necklace in Silver 12.00 GBP

Shoes: ASOS Switch Up lace-up Heels 40.00 GBP

Lips: TOPSHOP Lips in: Called Up – 8.00 GBP

 

 

Look 2

Dress: ZARA Strappy Dress – 39.99 GBP

Top: ZARA Sweater With Open Back – 25.99 GBP

Earrings: ACCESSORIZE Maisie Jewel Earrings – 10.00 GBP

Shoes: ASOS Hoxton Heeled Sandals – 42.00 GBP