Skip to main content

Month: February 2016

Refugees & The Homeless: Real Stories

Written by Harriett Gaynor on . Posted in News.

A ‘Refugees and the Homeless – Real Life Stories’ event was organised by the student-run Manchester Global Health Society, who aim to educate students and the public on the importance of health care and public health through the use of workshops, events, and blogs.

The society believes that the solution to many global health issues must be sustainable in order to provide the most effective help, and that we should adopt a ‘think globally, but act locally’ attitude when tackling such issues. As a society they have already received a number of prestigious awards, such as Best New Society and an award for services to health and wellbeing at the International Festival for Public Health.

Both the refugee crisis and homelessness issues, such as the newly-constructed camps in Manchester city centre by homeless protesters, have received immense coverage in the media recently. The sold out event consisted of talks from two guest speakers, Gulwali Passarlay and Haider Khokhar, and a ‘People’s Panel’ discussion.

The People’s Panel consisted of Victoria Fowler, a dental student at the university who recently undertook voluntary work at the refugee camp in Calais; Ryan Khurana, a soup kitchen facilitator and president of a student-led homeless charity, Saint Vincent de Paul Society; Josh Strange, a third year medical student involved in Ancoats Urban Village Health Outreach Project; and Dr Pip Fisher, a GP with an interest in the homeless, refugees, and the marginalised.

The event began with Gulwali Passarlay, author of The Lightless Sky, TEDx speaker, and student at The University of Manchester. At the age of twelve, he embarked on a year long journey from his war-torn home in Afghanistan to Britain. It took five years for him to be granted refugee status and a further five years to be granted citizenship.

Gulwali recently returned to the refugee camp in Calais, which has now been branded by the media as the “Jungle”. He described the situation as inhumane, and spoke of his frustration that situations reflective of his own experiences are still very much apparent in the 21st century. He ended his talk with a simple but powerful question: “What will you do if your homes become war zones?”

Gulwali’s heartfelt story highlighted the true extent of the crisis. When asked what more could be done to help refugees, Gulwali explained the importance of engaging with society and showing compassion. He spoke of welcoming refugees with both respect and dignity and providing more opportunities, such as scholarships for universities to allow refugees to achieve their aspirations.

Haider Khokhar, a University of Manchester graduate and social entrepreneur, focused his talk on homelessness. In February 2013 Haider decided to use the money he won in a competition to help kick start a window cleaning company for a homeless man known as Glaswegian George. Anonymous donations and support from local businesses allowed George to develop skills and gain an income. However, the story took a dramatic turn when George was evicted from a property and was found to be using illegal substances. Haider explained how at first he believed that the solution to this problem was money, however he now believes that sustainability, patience, and persistence play a more fundamental role in tackling the issue of homelessness.

When asked what advice could be given to students that wished to get involved with helping both refugees and the homeless, the People’s Panel pointed to a variety of charities and organisations that specialise in this field. Such organisations included the St Vincent de Paul Society, Barnabus, Cornerstones, Refugee Action Manchester, Manchester Central Food Bank, and the Students’ Union Outreach project. The group also encouraged people to speak to homeless individuals, as this may often be the only conversation they have had that day.

The People’s Panel pointed out that a lot of work has been and is currently being done to help both refugees and the homeless. This includes providing the homeless with food packages and rough sleeper information packs that highlight places offering help and emergency accommodation. Voluntary work and donations at the refugee camps in Calais have helped to provide emergency health care and shelter.

If you are keen to become a part of the Manchester Global Health Society, or would like more information on global health issues, please visit their website at mcrglobalhealth.com or alternatively you can follow them on Twitter @GlobalHealthMCR.

Read The Mancunion’s interview with Gulwali Passarlay here.

It’s getting hot in here, so bring two towels

Written by Liam Kelly on . Posted in Lifestyle.

In a bid to further my quest to become a total parody of myself, and to add a semblance of productivity to my crippling, chronic procrastination, I decided to spend £30 and sign up for a 30-day trial period at Bikram Yoga in the Northern Quarter.

For the uninitiated, Bikram Yoga is a yoga class done in a studio heated up to 40°C, and with 40 per cent humidity—which, for 90 minutes, sees its practitioners do 26 postures of various difficulty, as well as two breathing exercises.

The proprietors of Bikram Yoga promise a lot, claiming that regular practice improves mindfulness, flexibility, strength, muscle tone, and general fitness. As none of those have ever applied to me, I was intrigued to see what effect regular yoga classes would have.

Now, while I was not a total novice to yoga practice (I started following an online video in my Oak House bedroom, which was not great for achieving proper form), the first session of Bikram was a real shock to the system.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the most shocking aspect was the combination of the heat and humidity, along with their inevitable partner: sweat. Before going to the studio, you are asked to bring two towels with you, as well as plenty of water. If anything, that is not enough.

By the end of the 90 minutes, after the final breathing exercise, every member of that class came out drenched in their own fluid and carried out their a totally saturated towel, as well as a sense of having accomplished something.

As I went to more and more classes, the routine became more manageable; however, as each class is choreographed in exactly the same way, there is a danger of it becoming dull.

Each class proved more than capable of totally tiring me out, making the rest of day a recuperative affair, with an average session burning roughly 400 calories. Inexplicably, there are sadists who exist in the Manchester area that take on the 30 Day Challenge—taking part in Bikram classes for 30 consecutive days, or more.

Even more inexplicably (and unacceptably), the attire of one older gentleman who was a regular at the class consisted solely of a canary yellow pair of Speedo-style swimsuit. It is an image I will try to shake, but I fear it may live with me for the rest of my days.

“Inner peace” is an inherently difficult state of mind to achieve, and I’m not sure if I have ever, or ever will, achieve it. However, all of these sessions of Bikram that I attended were so taxing mentally and physically that it was almost impossible to think about anything that was happening outside that room. Never before have I felt so “in the moment”, which was a hugely welcomed change from exam and essay stress.

Plus, I never knew that I was capable of standing on one leg whilst pulling the other towards the top of my head. Or, as Bikram instructors call it, the standing bow pose.

On balance, whilst I enjoyed my month of Bikram, it is not for the faint of heart (or body). And with its cheapest subscription being £65 per month for 12 months (10 per cent less with a student card) I do not anticipate returning to the Bikram studio any time soon.

Veganism: Just an udder first world problem?

Written by Helena Maxwell-Jackson on . Posted in News.

If you’re fan of first world problems, you’ve probably ordered an almond milk latte from one Northern Quarter coffee establishment or another. You may have sighed, with resigned indignation, as the single-origin espresso curdles unpleasantly with the tree-nut maltodextrin solution; and watched as each coagulated clot plunges into the depths of your now-black coffee.

At about this time, you might be thinking to yourself: wouldn’t a regular cup of joe with some full fat milk just have been simpler? You may have even wonder this out loud to your friends.

That would be a mistake. Let’s face it, you’re only at the organic café because it’s one of the only places in town that offer dairy-free brownies. Now, that’s important to your friend. She is a vegan. She has watched Cowspiracy. She’s made you watch it too, and that’s why you’re here, sipping your congealed almond milk latte and trying not to look at the man eating cheese on toast. The scent of molten savoury goodness is wafting over, going up your nose. Your eyes drift toward the cheese. God, that looks good. Quickly, you tear your gaze away. It’s too late. She’s seen you looking, she’s on to you. Quick, find an excuse. You mumble something about liking his flannel shirt. Will she believe you?

There are many reasons that people abstain from dairy products, but for your average non-lactose intolerant student living in the UK, is dairy really something to be worried about? Documentaries such as Cowspiracy, and organisations like PETA, certainly make it seem like it is, and they certainly offer a compelling argument too.

However, with the most anti-dairy activists based in the US, is the message really that relevant to those of us who live in the UK? Surely we can enjoy our cheese and onion pasties in peace? At least until TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership)? I decided to contact a local Lancashire farmer to find out just what was really going on on a dairy farm. I wanted to know the answers to the issues surrounding dairy farming which really concerned me.

Cows need to be impregnated annually in order to continue on lactating. Animal activists often compare the artificial insemination of the dairy cows to rape. As a feminist, I couldn’t help but find this comparison more than a little offensive. Although, in all honesty, I am not quite sure if I was outraged by such an extreme example of anthropomorphism, or because I was eating cheesy pasta when I found out.

I wondered if our local farmer could clear some things up for me. What was the reality of artificial insemination?

“It’s just like a bull, but a man with a straw instead of a bull with a penis.”

He went on to explain that the process occurred when the cow was in heat: “Our cows have a collar with a microphone on that listens to the cow and also measures how far the cow walks everyday, when the cow walks a long way and stops eating for a day it means she’s looking for a bull. We then call the Artificial Insemination Technician 24-hours later…Hopefully one insemination and it’s all over….”

From his answer, it seemed like the cow might, at least slightly, mind being artificially inseminated. I wondered why the farmer said he hoped it would all be over in one insemination. Was that because it was a disturbing process for the technician, or an expensive one for the farmer, or was it because, although in heat, the cow didn’t enjoy being penetrated by a man brandishing a straw?

The farmer didn’t say much about the process after the pregnancy. I had read that the cow mourned for her calf when they were separated from one another. When I asked the farmer about this, he admitted he disliked that part of the job. I asked him how he felt about grass as one of the methods to feed cattle. One of the concerns that many people have about dairy is that using grain to feed cattle is environmentally unsustainable.

“As a farm that measures and tries to use as much grass as possible I’m biased toward grass fed systems! I do feel cows are generally happier when out at grass… I do use small amounts of grains to supplement when grass quality is poor and cow’s health would suffer, but dairy farms using vast amounts of grain to substitute grass seems ridiculous both at current milk prices and unless the farm actually grows all the grains it uses itself and can convert them efficiently to milk, the carbon footprint is greatly affected. Obviously growing grains to use for the cows on the farm is great as it sets up a crop rotation that kills weeds without pesticides, which to me makes sense as a holistic approach to farming”

I liked the idea of taking a holistic approach to farming, and the idea of a closed circuit method of farming, and questioned him as to how the low buying price of milk affected dairy farmers in the UK: “A low price may make some UK farmers think more about moving to a grass-based system, and it may force producers out, that simply cannot afford to reinvest—whilst this is a bad situation it’s maybe better to exit than compromise on long term welfare and environmental investment.”

I was concerned that the low buying prices might turn more farmers to mass dairy farming, and asked him what he thought about dairy farming on such a mass scale: “If it’s done well, it can have higher welfare standards over and above what anyone would expect, but it’s based on people wanting cheap food and who possibly don’t care where their food comes from – these systems try and produce as cheaply as possible. Ultimately it’s the consumers choice—I feel it’s wrong we are more bothered about new types of phones and televisions… and want to spend so little on food!”

It seemed that, for our dairy farmer, the future of the industry rested largely with the consumers.

The farmer seemed very aware of the potential environmental implications of dairy farming, and was sympathetic to animal welfare concerns. Speaking to this local farmer didn’t completely put my mind at rest, and whilst I can’t say that I will be indulging in dairy with a completely clear conscious, I do want to learn more about the industry, whilst still maintaining an open mind.

No place for morality in Cameron’s Britain

Written by Joely Thomas on . Posted in Opinion.

Under dictatorships, protests are met with sharp attempts at repression. Where the rope is kept taut, it takes only the tiniest of forces for the vibrations to be felt. Yet, in the ‘great democracies of the West’, free speech is welcomed, debate is encouraged, and civil liberties are granted unanimously; or so the saying goes. While there is certainly more space for protests, this space is carefully monitored and increasingly restricted. Like the prisoners who are allowed enough time in the yard to release their energy, so too, are citizens given only enough space to vent their grievances without posing a threat.

Yet even demonstrations have to stick to a set route, thereby systematising that, which is supposed to be subversive. Meanwhile, protest camps are viewed as eye sores and eventually cleared away, such as the global Occupy movement and The Ark outside of Manchester Metropolitan University; or institutionalised as attractions, such as the tents stationed in London’s Parliament Square that featured amongst many a tourist’s holiday pics.

But protests are not the irksome complaints of a few sore losers. People driven to protest displays a flaw in the political system. People are unable to channel their grievances democratically because the channels to do so, do not exist. It is not simply enough for Conservatives to claim that because they were voted in, they are automatically legitimised to carry out all that was in their mandate.

Still, police tactics, such as kettling, are frequently used to encourage demonstrations to turn sour, whilst those who stick to agreed routes and remain peaceful find their messages sabotaged by sensationalist headlines that focus on a few deviances and fail to scrutinise police conduct.

And, ultimately, the Tories know they can ignore such manifestations of frustration. Jeremy Hunt—the face of the government’s attack on the NHS—was all too happy to push through the new contract for junior doctors as they stood with their placards across the country. People in Lancashire are also still having to protest against the government pressure for fracking to begin, despite having been told that the ultimate decision would rest with local councils.

It makes the conscience cringe, but in a money-minded world, such government decisions are not irrational—at least not in the short-term. No consideration needs to be given to the toxic water, earthquakes and various illnesses, including nose bleeds and headaches, that have been proven by more than 500 studies to result from fracking, when it can help those two most insidious of terms—‘security’ and ‘growth’.

Pushing the capacities of doctors and nurses to the limit rather than employing more staff and paying acceptable wages, is far better for the public purse. Who cares about broken bones when power is wielded by arms made of steel?

It is an affliction to which the ‘Heathrow 13’—activists who chained themselves to railings at Heathrow terminal in protest of plans to build a new runway—fell foul. Having discovered a means to carry out essential protests in a way that actually had an impact, they were taken to court and recently found guilty. Assertions that they will be jailed leave us wondering where were political prisoners included in the Conservative party manifesto.

Banknotes are what lies, too, at the heart of the criminalisation of other forms of protest. Strikes have always held more power than demonstrations, with their ability to hit company and government pockets hard, and it is as a result of doctors’ willingness to strike that it has taken this long for the junior doctors’ contracts to be pushed through.

Public transport workers have found strikes to be their slingshot in the fight against Goliath but now the Trade Union Bill seeks to curtail the few remaining rights of workers by undermining industrial action. Plans and details, as minute as the social media to be used, will have to be published within 14 days in advance, and employers will be able to substitute agency workers for those striking. It is a move the United Nations are even warning risks breaking international labour law, further illuminating the undemocratic workings of our beloved democracy.

Perhaps the worst blow, however, is the move to ban local councils and public bodies from boycotting unethical companies—meaning that not only is ethical action criminalised, but also ethical inaction. Amnesty International have severely criticised the restriction on ethical consumer choice, which disincentivises ethical business practices and supports those willing to cut corners; in such ways like using child labour and environmentally harmful methods. The link to vested interests in Israel and the arms trade is clear, with claims that boycotts undermine national security and encourage anti-Semitism—the latter being an argument typically made by Zionists of human rights supporters.

It thus appears that under a money-hungry regime, there is no place for morality. But, with no slack in the rope, will David Cameron and his cronies soon feel the vibrations and find themselves in a tug of war with those less used to having their freedoms curtailed? Or have the majority of citizens also become so capitalist in an increasingly consumerist society that they will prove to be too passive to take an ethical stand?

Nigerian student faces deportation to death

Written by Alexandra Bickell on . Posted in News.

Luqman Onikosi, a Master’s student studying at the University of Sussex, suffers from Hepatitis B, a potentially fatal disease. He is currently facing deportation back to Nigeria, where he claims that they “do not have the medical infrastructure” to keep him alive.

Onikosi first arrived in the UK in 2007 as an undergraduate; it was then that he was diagnosed with Hepatitis B, a condition that later killed two of his brothers in Nigeria, in 2011 and 2012. The illness is a chronic condition affecting the liver; according to the World Health Organisation, 240 million people are infected with the virus worldwide, 780,000 of whom die every year due to complications such as liver cancer and cirrhosis.

The Home Office first tried to deport Luqman in 2012, but he fought the decision and was permitted to stay. A crowd funding effort then allowed him to return to the university to undertake a Master’s degree after working at the Nigerian High Commission in London.

Now, he faces the issue for a second time. The Home Office states that they sent a letter to Onikosi informing him of his visa application rejection in May 2015, but the Nigerian student maintains that he only received it a matter of weeks ago. The ‘Campaign to Stop the Deportation of Luqman Onikosi’ writes that Luqman is “now at risk of detention and deportation at any time” as a result.

The stress of the situation has taken its toll on Luqman—he says that he is “struggling with physical and mental health” and is simply trying to get through the day and “stay sane” in the midst of the upheaval.

Luckily for Onikosi, he has been “overwhelmed by support” in the UK—grassroots groups both in and out of the University of Sussex have joined forces to create the campaign #dontdeportluqman, as well as to pay his legal expenses, through the crowd funding website ‘Generosity’.

Luqman has highlighted the similarity of his situation to several others on his official statement on ‘Novara Wire’, an online political media platform. This includes Ama Sumani, who was deported back to Ghana whilst receiving treatment for terminal cancer in Cardiff—she died three months later. Luqman argues that migrants have made significant economic and social contributions to the UK and so should not be dealt with in such a “dehumanising and humiliating” manner.

The ideal outcome for the campaign in the eyes of Onikosi and his supporters is for him to be given leave to stay in the UK, in order to receive the medical treatment that he needs “to stay alive”.

Reclaim the Night is back

Written by Rebecca Noël on . Posted in News.

On Thursday 25th February 2016, Reclaim the Night will once again take over the streets of Manchester, protesting against street harassment and sexual violence to women.

It is calling out on injustice and predation and showing that the women and supportive men of Manchester will fight until they feel safe in their city. The sexual violence epidemic, as it is now being called, is being fought through a “neon parade” heading along Wilmslow Road and Oxford Road, to Manchester Students’ Union where a festival of female empowerment awaits.

Women’s officer Jess Lishak has been one of the biggest driving forces in both the 2015 and 2016 Reclaim the Night events here in Manchester, and is striving to ensure that each year hits even harder than before. “We’re building a movement so that Reclaim the Night is not just about reclaiming one street on one night, but a force for change and empowerment for as many people as possible.”

So, what makes Reclaim the Night so important? In 2015, The Guardian reported that 1,802 cases of rape were dealt with by Greater Manchester Police and 30 incidents involved university students in the winter semester of 2014 alone, according to Manchester Evening News.

In spite of this, only 15 per cent of rapes are thought to be reported worldwide and the conviction rate is a shocking 5.3 per cent. With facts and figures like these, it’s no wonder that 95 per cent of women don’t feel safe at night and 73 per cent have a genuine concern about being raped.

Furthermore, over a third of people in Britain in 2005 commented that women were at least partly to blame for the sexual violence inflicted upon them. Therefore, as Jess Lishak reiterates: “Reclaim the Night is important for so many reasons; it draws attention to how much an issue street harassment and sexual violence against women is both to the general public and the authorities, but it also creates an incredibly empowering and uplifting event for women and people who have experienced these issues”.

Alongside its goal of raising awareness and protesting its cause, this event is able to bring people together in support of one another in what Jess calls a “truly liberating experience” as many students report back to her with the positive impact it has had on them.

With its claims of being “bigger, brighter and louder than ever”, 2016 hopes to target more people and more problems. Similar to last year, the parade will be split into blocks, a block for LQBTQ identifiers and a block for youth and families will be joining the original women-only and mixed gender block formation.

The purpose of the youth and families block is to advocate for compulsory PSHE education teaching about consent and the idea of a healthy relationship as part of a compulsory curriculum from an early age which has been campaigned for in local schools and youth groups by the Reclaim the Night team in weeks leading up.

A pre-march event in the Pankhurst Centre by Manchester Royal Infirmary at 5:30pm will be taking place as an opportunity for them to come together beforehand.
In the same manner as previous years, an after party will be taking place in the Student’s Union to showcase women talent through live music, speakers, poets and DJs.

Previews of the afterparty have been given throughout these weeks leading up, described as “pop-up events in areas of the city that students identified as places they feel most unsafe, reclaiming them for a few hours with music, poetry and light and spreading the word about the event and the cause even further”.

Thursday 25th February calls for students and locals, men and women, adults and children to get on board, unite and Reclaim the Night!

Identity politics is making a mockery out of the left wing

Written by Elrica Degirmen on . Posted in Opinion.

Politics divides students here at the University of Manchester, but it goes beyond mere political party affiliations and has descended into the student body being divided on the basis of their personal characteristics. Quoting from the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, people’s opinions are given greater legitimacy due to the “shared experiences of injustice of members of certain social groups”. This kind of politics—identity politics—seems to be endorsed by the Manchester Students’ Union and their cult of followers. These students are the vocal authoritarians wishing to forcefully impose their beliefs by censoring all other criticisms and dissent.

Much discourse is based on the idea that there is structural oppression within the United Kingdom, and their idea of mitigating the situation is to take control of the institutional bias that apparently exists here at the University of Manchester. I am still waiting for the evidence that suggests that it is the case. Their logic is as such that minority groups will face disadvantage in the outside world. Even so, artificially molly-coddling students in an educational institution will not serve them well post-graduation. Instead of discussing the ideas to redress socio-economic inequality, they instead try to make the university experience as “safe” as possible via the implementation of the safe space policy amongst other initiatives.

For example, the Students’ Union runs a number of campaigns on “liberation” of which it is specifically defined as the “freedom from oppression that a lot of different groups of people are still fighting for”. The insinuation that we should group people based on their sexual orientation, race, gender and disability as opposed to the viewing a person holistically and treating them as an individual demonstrates how they reaffirm divisions in society. This is Britain, one of the best places in the world for human rights, yet the right to the freedom of speech is slowly being curtailed in our universities for fear that someone may say something that could “harm” a member of a specific group. How dare they imply that those from disadvantaged backgrounds are incapable of responding to intellectual ideas that challenges their perceptions.

First of all, I am unconvinced that people are disadvantaged by their personal characteristics systemically. But it is flawed reasoning to suggest that because there are instances of discrimination, that the whole system is oppressive to those groups of people. You cannot homogenise individuals because they happen to share a personal characteristic; it reduces each one of us to the sum of our oppression points, where only those who are oppressed should be taken with sincerity and those from privileged positions are meant to be dismissed.

Secondly, in their eyes it is unfathomable to think that a privileged person should have a right to comment on issues that apparently, they are unable to discuss without possessing the supposed perquisite qualities needed to discuss them. This is false, everyone is entitled to their opinion and the validity of which is dependent on their reasoning and the arguments that they put forward. It is not dependent on the background of the speaker.

There has been current discussion on institutional racism at British universities. However, a report entitled Ethnicity and Degree Attainment by the Department of Education and Skills explicitly stated that their “findings do not automatically imply that there is some form of ethnic bias within the Higher Education system”, with a specific reference on how they excluded certain variables that may impact on degree performance such as “term-time working, parental income and education, English as an additional language, and prior institution attended”.

The experiences of the alleged racism of a few ethnic minority students does not make them intrinsically right, especially in the face of evidence presented by other students—regardless of the background of those students. It has not been proven that race is the dominant variable. It is not right wing nor offensive to point out that people’s flawed perceptions of the world are incorrect in this way, nor does this imply that they are discrediting their experiences. They are not denying those experiences; they are denying the faulty conclusions that you have derived from them.

Rest assured, that there are many left wing students that do not subscribe to the pernicious ideology of the social justice warriors that seeks to put up barriers against people. Increasingly, I am hearing stories of students becoming dissatisfied with the politics of the Student Union’s officers and the representatives of the supposed left-leaning student political societies. Their politics are being misrepresented by these individuals as they use the label that they are on the “left” to artificially elevate themselves on a moral high ground in order to distinguish themselves from the right wing. Heaven forbid if you are vaguely centre-right as you will be plagued with the many attacks on your personal character.

In all honesty, this kind of rhetoric does not harm the right wing as much as it does as the left wing. As of now, a false dichotomy of politics is created between identity and non-identity politics with the left and the right being affiliated to them respectively. Believing in identity politics is not synonymous with the left wing, it is a gross distortion of their values, and even I will admit that many of those on the right use the term “left wing” as a slur against those who subscribe to that ideology.

Practically speaking, the implementation of identity politics comes about via the concept of a safe space where an echo chamber of certain ideas can only be uttered, otherwise it is deemed as “hate speech”. Freedom from hate is seen to be more important than the freedom of speech, as Ally Routledge the co-chair of Manchester Labour Students can proclaim. However, the freedom of speech includes the right to offend. I will publicly say that it is not offensive to discuss other cultures to your own, other institutions that you have not experienced, or issues that are specific to certain groups and so forth. People should have the right to assert their own opinions no matter what.

Left wing values incorporate the notion that society should mitigate the barriers that prevent social mobility through institutions that also include our very universities. For everyone to have an honest discussion on how it is best to reduce inequality, or rather how it is best to empower individuals to make the most of their potential, then everyone’s opinions should be welcomed—provided that they are able to argue for it and not assert it as truth because of who they are. This means that we cannot resort to identity politics that serves to not just shut people out with views from the other side of the political spectrum but also those who are outraged at the mischaracterisation of left wing politics.

Universities criticised for censoring freedom of speech

Written by Lucy Menage on . Posted in News.

Student censorship has for some time been gaining media attention across the UK. The past few months have seen the likes of academic feminist Germaine Greer banned from one university and gay rights activist Peter Tatchell criticised after making comments that some have considered offensive.

Feminist activist Julie Bindel has spoken out in a video on The Guardian‘s website after huge amounts of people signed petitions on Change.org to prevent Roosh V and Donald Trump from entering the country.

In the video, Bindel explains that simply banning people from speaking does nothing to change a problem, it just reduces awareness that people hold offensive opinions. Bindel points out that “political movements such as civils rights and feminism have made such progress because we were able to hold people accountable” and “banning people from publicly stating their views, does not make those views disappear. Banning Donald Trump from the UK won’t stop Americans voting for him.”

Julie Bindel herself was no-platformed from several universities due to the accusation that she was “transphobic”, the University of Manchester’s Students’ Union being one of them. In fact, in the 2016 annual survey of campus attitudes to free speech made by Spiked, the University of Manchester’s Students’ Union has been branded as red in the traffic light rankings of student censorship.

This ranking was awarded due to the Students’ Union banning Julie Bindel and Brietbart associate editor, Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at a feminist event. In addition, a copy of the Charlie Hebdo magazine was banned at the Refreshers’ Fair in 2015 and copies of The Sun were prevented from being sold in the Students’ Union in 2013. The highest number of bans goes to Aberystwyth University who have censored freedom of speech five times in 2013.

Since being posted on the 10th February 2016, Bindel’s video has gone viral with her view that opinions should be voiced as long as the words do not incite a crime: “let us hear the arguments put forward of those with which we disagree, so that we can expand our knowledge and show rational resistance”.

In UK law, article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of speech and prohibits censorship from the government and public bodies, including universities. This is true unless the speech needs to be stopped in the interest of protecting public safety, morals, the reputation of others, information given in confidence and to prevent the induction of violence or crime.

The future of fashion week

Written by Sarah Kilcourse on . Posted in Fashion & Beauty.

We are now heading into full fashion week swing—New York Fashion Week (NYFW) is just behind us, London is still tinkering on, while Milan and Paris are still to come. These four fashion capitals have instilled the running of the world’s fashion industry into a biannual catwalk show divided into seasonal collections; Spring/Summer and Autumn/Winter.

However, in recent years this format has become outdated. With the advent of online shopping and social media, the see-now-buy-now movement has grown hugely. The traditional fashion week is aimed at the press and buyers who have the opportunity to see a designer’s collection six months before its eventual sale, deciding which pieces they believe will suit their customers. But the internet has allowed potential customers to voice their reaction alongside the show, and in six months time when it is available to purchase, customers have lost interest.

Big names including Burberry and Tom Ford have completely disregarded this system; Tom Ford has recently cancelled his NYFW show in February, in favour of one A/W collection in September, so customers can buy when the clothes are relevant. Henry Holland has designed special rings with Visa, enabling customers to buy the pieces off the catwalk with their jewellery—embracing technology in fashion and modern, fast-paced consumer habits.

Fashion weeks in their current layout are clearly going to change but they are unlikely to disappear. They drum up a huge amount of interest and money for the designers, retailers, press, and cities involved. One consideration recently reported in Vogue is changing fashion week into an event for the customers, more similar to how couture week is established—aiming to elevate certain clients and encourage more ‘of the moment’ purchases.

Fashion has always managed to retain its position as an elite industry that takes pride in its artistry, and thus isn’t as business-oriented. These new steps clearly highlight the influence of business that is gradually infiltrating the fashion world, as they are moves to prioritise the customer over the press. But never fear; fashion week is the ultimate press stunt. So the press, designer, retailer, and customer will continue to enjoy it together.

Review: Deadpool

Written by Nicole Tamer on . Posted in Film.

Deadpool is a record-breaking phenomenon that will have a lasting impact on the film industry, but not necessarily in a good way. Once a concept becomes successful, studios try to replicate it in order to make a quick buck. Deadpool’s success can be explained by its self-awareness which is difficult to replicate. Throughout the film, the fourth wall is broken; references to real-life events and trends are (literally) thrown around and the ridiculousness of the whole premise is questioned. Thrillingly funny, overtly sexual, and deadpan honest, the film captured the audience. This was especially apparent by the number of audience members dressed up as the character and the unusual amount of cheering.

The film starts with a brilliant opening sequence which accurately described the writers as “the real heroes here” and the director as “an overpaid tool”. If the audience has not had the chance to see the trailer beforehand—which received a standing ovation and encore at the 2015 Comic-Con—they were drawn into Deadpool’s brash world from the first second. The film title is based on the Marvel Comics’ superhero of the same name. Ryan Reynolds seems to be born to portray the superhero; especially in the tight Deadpool costume, he managed to underline his constant puns with expressive body language.

Ironically advertised as a love story, the plot is about taking revenge on the British villain (Ed Skrein) who disfigured him and turned him into a mutant. Deadpool’s excruciating journey to his mutant powers is told in flashbacks which are integrated tightly into the narrative. After proposing to his girlfriend Vanessa (Morena Baccarin), he collapses and gets diagnosed with terminal cancer. Hunted down by a slimy recruiter, he is offered a place in a secret programme with the promise of a cure of cancer and superpowers at the same time.

The portrayal of his struggle with cancer was especially poignant. The hardest fact about cancer is that it will always affect the people closest to the sufferer. He does not want Vanessa to witness his physical deterioration. His motivations to join the secret programme did not stem from selfishness, but from wishing to lead a normal life with his fiancée. The bitter irony is that after his involvement with the programme, he will never look the same again, and his vanity does not allow him to go after her.

Unlike other superheroes, Deadpool made all the senseless decisions himself that led to his precarious situation: A disfigured body, a thirst for revenge to get his normal skin back, and no guts to confront his fiancée. Deadpool is a character with major flaws, and whilst he is aware of them, he does not try to fix them which makes him relatable. His rashness and pride make his life difficult but also define his persona. One point of critique is that the audience does not find out much about the scope of his superpowers, because the film focuses too much on his wacky personality.

I was curious to see the film’s portrayal of his pansexuality which is mentioned in the original comics. The R-rating allowed a lot of creative freedom contrasting other Marvel superhero films which played it safe in order to appeal to a younger audience. Deadpool does not care for subtlety, and sexual jokes are made throughout the film. These jokes are not condescending, but simply acknowledge that sex is a major part of our society and is nothing to be ashamed of.

The film managed to integrate Deadpool’s sexuality contextually and as a major comic relief. One danger the film might run into is the jokes on popular culture that, over time, could lose relevance and make the film less of a classic. On the other hand, there were enough jokes that were made without being time relevant, and I even spotted a few Monty Python references. The self-referential Marvel universe jokes will also delight anyone with a knowledge of the other franchises. And for a Ferris Bueller reference, do not miss out on the rolling credits!

4/5

Travelling through the accessory time machine

Written by Perisha Kudhail on . Posted in Fashion & Beauty.

Coming from an Indian household, bling is king and no one ever questions it. But it was never always this way; in my Biji’s (grandma’s) day, a good piece of gold would be considered enough and the key to beauty was to keep it simple. From necklaces to bangles, everything was made of gold, and this tradition is yet to fade. Even after marriage, the amount of jewellery worn was kept to a minimum. My Biji’s everyday jewellery was a few gold bangles and a gold ring. This might sound very blingy, but this combo never changed. It went with every outfit and was never compromised for anything.

Although gold is worn less now, it’s still a staple for an Indian accessory collection. My Mum’s wedding ring is made of gold, and gold necklaces are a great asset to any outfit. The sentiment of gold is very high within Indian families. Gold sets are often given as wedding gifts and worn to weddings and parties. The plainer your outfit, the more excuse you have to bling up. I have taken the sentiment of everyday jewellery and the blinginess of today’s style and incorporated it into my own accessory look. I wear a gold piece every day because of my love for jewellery, especially timeless pieces, and I love to bling out for a party.

Here are some key pieces that have made an appearance throughout the generations of my family.

The Gold Ring

This seems to be a running accessory, from my Grandma, to my Mum, and now me. A gold ring is an accessory that can be worn by any generation.

A Jewellery Set

You will be adorned with gold jewellery sets if you get married but, before then, a good quality jewellery set is a must to complete your saree look. These sets can range in heaviness and detail and have been seen as part of my Mum’s accessory collection, and now have become part of mine.

A Saree Belt

This accessory is making a comeback. After fading out in my Mum’s early years, the saree belt is a great way to give you a classic look with a unique piece of jewellery. If your Grandma or Mum has one, I’m sure they won’t mind if you borrow it.

After looking at my family’s accessories, I can say that I love the Eastern influence that my heritage gives me. Not only does it add flair to my outfits, but it shows the wonderful ways in which the women in my family have influenced my style.

Hard left Labour students accused of anti-Semitism

Written by Jennifer Sterne on . Posted in News.

After the resignation of Alex Chalmers—the co-chair of the Oxford University Labour Club (OULC)—over the decision to endorse Israeli Apartheid Week, Ed Miliband has decided to pull out of a talk with the club. Miliband said he was “deeply disturbed” by the allegations of anti-Semitism within the OULC.

Miliband was a former member of OULC and was due to talk on 4th March 2016, but has decided to postpone the event until investigations into the allegations have been carried out.

Mr Miliband’s office in a statement said: “It is right that the executive of the club has roundly condemned the comments and fully co-operates with the Labour Students’ investigation.

“Ed and the Labour Club have agreed that his talk should be postponed until the investigation is resolved.”

Universities minister, Jo Johnson tweeted that he was “concerned by reports of vile antisemitism on campus” and declared that Oxford University “needs to undertake urgent investigation.”

According to The Telegraph a senior source at OULC has alleged that the hard left group, Momentum, are partly to blame for the rise in anti-semitism at the university.

David Cesar Haymann, former co-chair of the Labour club, in a Facebook status said: “I arrived at OULC in 2013, when there was a welcoming atmosphere, with execs focused on hosting good speakers and campaigning to bring about a Labour government. Since 2015, and particularly after the election, there has been a concerted effort from the Oxford hard left to take over the club.

“Many of these people have little connection to the Labour Party or its values, and have brought with them the worst of Marxist tactics, approaching OULC with a ‘you’re either with us or against us’ attitude. The hard left has brought about a culture where vicious personal attacks are routine, and that has included revolting anti-Semitic incidents, such as the ones reported on by Jsoc.”

A source quoted by The Telegraph referenced hard left groups such as Momentum and said that “These people are associated with the hard left groups, they are Marxists and have taken over the club and promoted a vicious culture […] They advance a Marxist tradition, which is quite authoritarian and intolerant of any dissent.”

A spokesman for Momentum has responded to these allegations and said: “Momentum opposes racism, anti-Semitism, and all forms of oppression. Allegations that Momentum is involved in anti-Semitism at Oxford University or anywhere else are baseless and we have received no claims about any individuals or groups associated with Momentum.”

John Mann, Labour MP for Bassetlaw in Nottinghamshire, called for the party to sever ties with the club, stating that he has “written to the Labour party asking for an investigation as a matter of urgency. It is hugely embarrassing for the Labour party. This is something Jeremy Corbyn should personally look into.”

Oxford University are yet to comment on whether they have decided to investigate the claims themselves, but have said that all students are encouraged to report any harassment they suffer to university authorities.

Labour students have launched their own investigation with which OULC have said that they will fully co-operate with.

Over 30 former and current chairs and executive members of OULC and other supporters have signed a letter which condemns the decision by the club to endorse Israeli Apartheid Week. The letter says the week propagates a “one-sided narrative, seeking to dismantle the only majority-Jewish member state of the United Nations”.

The letter also states that, “we are troubled by OULC’s decision and feel compelled to speak out. In a climate of rising antisemitism, we have a duty to oppose initiatives that foster an intolerant political culture which intimidates Jewish students.”

No platforming is obscuring the free speech debate

Written by Rose Mills on . Posted in Opinion.

Last week, the NUS’s LGBT officer, Fran Cowling, refused to attend a debate on the future of gay rights activism at Canterbury Christ Church University. She claimed that she would not share a platform with another invited speaker, Peter Tatchell, due to the “racism” and “transphobia” of his decision to sign a letter in The Observer, calling for an end to censorship of individuals at universities. Peter Tatchell, one of the most celebrated LGBT rights activists in the history of the movement—who has been beaten and arrested for his activism, and quite literally risking his life for his belief in equality—was considered a bigot unworthy of sharing a stage with. Cries of “this generation’s gone mad” don’t seem unwarranted.

Of course, Cowling received a strong backlash against her decision, with historian Tom Holland calling the move “a quite transcendent display of ingratitude”, and journalist David Aaronovitch asserted that Cowling should feel “honoured” for the opportunity to speak with Tatchell, “who she clearly knows nothing about”. It certainly does seem like an odd judgement to make of someone who is often looked on as something of a national treasure for his role in progressing gay rights, by someone who supposedly represents the LGBT community amongst students—especially with little evidence for Tatchell’s alleged transphobia and racism; other than his signature on a letter that advocates neither of these two things directly. But Cowling’s choice, while perhaps misjudged, is not necessarily as surprising as it may have been a few years ago; before the NUS implemented their ‘no platform’ policy, by which no individual with certain disagreeable viewpoints should be given a platform to speak. While it was not the NUS’s decision to ‘no-platform’ Tatchell, the choice of Cowling to do so undoubtedly stems from a current culture—amongst students in particular—of censoring those with whom one disagrees. This is a trend perpetuated by the NUS and it’s ‘no platform’ policy.

It is fairly ironic that the letter Cowling opposes so vehemently is the one that argues against censorship and for “democratic political exchange” amongst those who disagree with one another. The letter in question was written last year as a response to the ‘no-platforming’ of various speakers, and signed by over 100 public figures and academics. One of the individuals mentioned in the letter was Germaine Greer, who was brought to public attention again in late 2015 when a petition circulated around Cardiff University seeking to prevent her from lecturing there due to ‘transphobic’ comments she had made. In this case, it is clear that remarks Greer had made could be considered offensive to transgender people. To put it simply, she does not think it is possible for a man to transition into a woman. This position, although controversial, does not incite violence or hatred towards transgender people. Greer does not believe that men should not be allowed or able to transition, and she refers to people by whichever pronoun they prefer. Her reasoning is, as The Independent’s Abigail Tarttelin puts it: “trans women’s and cis women’s issues intersect, but they are not identical”. Whether or not the signatories of the petition at Cardiff agree with this view or not, it is irrational to disregard Greer as a credible speaker because of it. Greer was and is one of the most important feminist thinkers in the world, as well as being an esteemed academic. This cannot be discredited due to one of her unpopular opinions. In any case, the lecture Greer was due to give—and, in the end, did end up giving—was entitled ‘Women & Power: The Lessons of the 20th Century’. She was not going to speak about her views on transgender people. How confused has the debate surrounding free speech become that 3,000 people petitioned to censor a highly respected feminist and academic on the subject of her expertise?

While the ‘no-platforming’ of Tatchell and Greer is made decidedly more outrageous due to their reputation as pioneers of equality, the problem with censoring any individual—that is, one who isn’t actively inciting hatred or violence—really boils down to the silencing of free speech. That Greer is a hugely significant figure in the campaign for women’s rights, and that Tatchell is a person far removed from the transphobic racist Cowling believes him to be is, to a certain extent, irrelevant. Ultimately, their opponents have every right to disagree with their views. The point is that if someone’s opinions on certain issues are questionable, the fine, question them. It should be too obvious to point out that not everyone is going to agree with each other all the time. And yet, the ‘no-platform’ policy discourages debate by suppressing contentious or provocative viewpoints, rather than allowing them to be argued with.

Wanting to provide a ‘safe space’ for students where they are free from feeling threatened by anyone sounds like a wonderful idea. But if a speaker does not advocate violence or hatred, is it really a threat to simply be offended by their opinions? It is condescending to assume that all students need to be mollycoddled out of hearing any opinion that might offend them, or that they are impressionable enough to agree with the latest opinion they’ve come across. Instead, the NUS, other Students’ Unions around the country and anyone else wanting to refuse a platform to somewhat controversial speakers, should consider that lively debate and conversation is far more beneficial to the expansion of students’ minds—surely a crucial reason most are attending university in the first place—than censorship.

An ivory tower flying a red flag

Written by Colm Lock on . Posted in Opinion.

Even before this student came to university, I knew there was something amiss with our representatives. They are aloof and disconnected from the reality on the ground to an extent that would make Tsar Nicholas II look like a proletarian hero. Who could I possibly be referring to? Who could be so obviously ambivalent to the plight of the average student in Manchester? I am of course talking about the Manchester Students Union.

Now, you might well question why I am about to go after this body of self-congratulating money wasters. Well, if you are patient with me and read through to the end of this article, you will understand.

The problems are many and varied. I will not make it through all of them in this article. But if you wish you can add some of your own grievances in the comments section online. Please do not swear.

I will start with the most glaring failure of the University of Manchester Students’ Union: their failure to stand up for the rights of students. Obviously, their campaigns against sexual violence are warranted and just. Nobody should have any issue with them for that. But the Union do not seem to have bothered to take the university to account for the colossal waste of money that is the big screen now squatting on the front of the Ali G. It only advertises our own university and serves about as much purpose as some of the Students’ Union’s own officers; by which I mean bugger all.

That monstrosity cost a small fortune, and yet the Students’ Union did not think to start a campaign to try and get the money diverted into improving our main Students’ Union building — which currently resembles some kind of Orwellian Ministry of Truth. That money could have gotten us more urgently-needed computers for the library,  or made your pint at the Students’ Union bar just that little bit cheaper.

Instead, they see fit to waste their time by engaging in petty politics by restricting free speech in the guise of banning certain speakers and protesting with the junior doctors. They are paid £16,600 a year for this “work”. That’s £132,800 of the Students’ Union’s annual budget being wasted. That money could fund 40 £3,320 bursaries for students from poor backgrounds.

Their actions have resulted in our great university being given one of the lowest ratings for free speech in the country, while also alienating any student who might have wanted to hear the speakers or anyone who believes that despite someone’s views, it is better that we challenged them as opposed to sucking our thumb in the corner and crying about how we feel “threatened”.

I know many fellow students who feel alienated in this way. One such student was first year Zach, who, at the end of an introductory lecture in his first week, had a Students’ Union officer invite the students to take part in a protest at the upcoming Conservative Party conference, an event which Zach was actually attending. This protest in the end turned a bit violent.

While it is important to exercise your right to free speech and protest, the Students’ Union is supposed to represent the entire student body. Their actions have left many students, who do not adhere to their communist dogma, feeling like they are unwelcome. Zach told me afterwards that “she [the officer] incited students to protest the Tory conference which alienated part of the student body, despite having earlier claimed to not want to leave any student unrepresented”.

Those of us, like Zach, do not feel like the Students’ Union represents us. Especially if their opening salvo to new students includes speeches such as this, or has posters adorning its walls reading “overthrow the government”.

Their little pet project, the Student Senate, is just as much of a waste. On Tuesday, many of us will have received this email from one of the Students’ Union’s officers. Part of it reads as follows: “On Thursday at 6pm we’re holding our third Senate of the year in the Council Chambers, discussing the Safe Space Policy, Amazon Lockers, Donald Trump and more! Head down from 5:30pm and grab a bowl of vegetarian three bean chilli before we start”. This seems to be in direct contradiction to the officer’s statement that “We all have our gripes about university. Fortunately, this week you have a couple of opportunities to influence the change you’d like to see.”

What is on the agenda is not what students want to gripe about. What they want to complain about is the Students’ Union and how poorly the whole thing is run. How is the banning of Donald Trump going to affect us as students? Considering the reputation the Union have given us, I am surprised any speaker is willing to come here let alone Trump. And who is paying for this complimentary chilli? We students are footing the bill!

But do not fret; there is an alternative. We must look to Winchester University to show us the light. A friend of mine is an Students’ Union officer there. They have nine part-time officers who are unpaid and carry out their duties in their spare time and only three full-time paid officers. Our university has eight full-time officers and the cost is eye-watering.

So, while I am usually the first person to argue against any sort of revolutionary action, I do feel a symbolic defenestration might be in order. It would be just the ticket to improve the students’ way of life and it would remind these people that they are in these positions to represent us, with the aim of bettering our quality of life and the standard of our education.

They are not there to needlessly censor people of go on a crusade for vegetarianism.

It is time for cost effectiveness. It is high time we asked for more.

Europe’s urban policy is failing refugees

Written by Tristan Parsons on . Posted in Opinion.

At the time of writing, France is preparing to bulldoze half of the Calais migrant camp, also nicknamed “the jungle”. Between 800 to 1,000 people will be evicted and ‘re-housed’ in adapted shipping containers. At risk of being bulldozed by the authorities are important communal spaces: churches, a mosque, shops, and schools—as well as other people’s homes. The current situation in Calais appears to be a remarkable one. But the few thousand living in the jungle are amongst a billion that live in informal, ‘slum’ conditions across the world. The situation is a throwback to our urban history, and might also be precedent for our future urban policy.

Slum clearances are a regular feature and important process of the urban history of the developed world. As the ‘first industrial city’, Manchester experienced very high levels of clearance itself. Even in the present day, authorities still come into conflict with informal settlements— the evictions at the Ark shelter near Manchester Metropolitan University, for example. From Rio to Istanbul, Cairo to Nairobi, slum clearance is the go-to policy in the present day of most developing nations. The policy has been, and is, painfully continued in urban policy, despite swathes of literature, campaigns, and protest that argue against it.

Some writers, such as Mike Davis (Planet of Slums), claim that the slum clearance projects of the developing world are inseparable from colonial power legacies, and that they have benefitted only the wealthy landlords. In this sense, it is assumed that those traditions are in the past for the developed world. But the Calais jungle is clear evidence that policy makers still do not understand slums.

The claim made by the prefect of Calais, Fabienne Buccio, is that by halving the number of people living in the camp would be “acceptable to the local population”. What she fails to note in this particular comment is that ‘the jungle’ inhabitants were originally evicted from the town itself and then directed to an area of wasteland outside of the town. The camp is already fairly severed from the local economy and also has divisions within itself—with claims of ‘Muslim-only’ areas being no-go areas for the police. Tearing down parts of the camp, and the intricate socio-economic relations in those communities, will only be to the detriment of the camp dwellers.

The greatest assumption in slum policy, as demonstrated by the French authorities, is that people prefer ‘nicer’ housing. One powerful example is the failure of re-housing of those in the ‘slum-like’ areas of Paris into tower block suburbs. The result was the loss of informal but important communal relations, and therefore poverty and violence continued. Thus, when it is claimed that the re-housing into shipping containers or the distribution of some of the camp dwellers across France will be beneficial, we must be very skeptical.

The terms ‘refugee’ and ‘migrant’ have been contorted and abused by the media and both ends of the political spectrum. Let me clear something up. A refugee is a type of migrant—a forced migrant. It is the left that frustrate me the most with the use of these two terms. ‘Refugee’ has become a term with connotations of sympathy and those cringe-worthy ‘we’re all humans’ kinds of slogans. This generalisation is disrespectful to the vast quantities of research into the processes of migrant integration. These connotations are used to support the narrative for European governments to accept more migrants, regardless of the fact that very little  EU refugee protocol has been followed properly, and that we know that the factors of war and persecution are not the only factors that result in migration—not all are ‘refugees’.

Encouraging migration is not the best long-term policy. Instead, those within Europe should be encouraged to stay in the country that they presently find themselves in, with the flexibility to migrate to urban areas. Aid should be given to those countries that will have higher numbers of migrants, such as Greece. By allowing roots to set down, communities will be created, markets will form, and with good government intervention—provision of water, transport, electricity, for example—stable communities will hopefully flourish. ‘Distribution’ of migrants is both disrespectful to their humanity and ineffective as integration policy. Therefore, the Calais camp should be invested into and it should be allowed to develop as a new French community. This would hopefully reduce crime, and control numbers of attempts to cross the channel in the long-term.

We may view the example of the Calais migrant camp as a stage and precedent for the future of integration policies. Within the next few decades, there will be a dramatic increase in the volume of migration resulting from environmental change (there is much academic dispute as to how many ‘climate migrants’ there will be). Many of these people will require the refuge and assistance of environmentally stable regions; of which, much of Europe can provide. We do not know how to deal with these questions, and I concede that I have avoided them. But what I do know is that, at what might be considered just the beginnings of mass-migration into Europe, poor urban policies are already in use.
The jungle says a lot about our societies. Quite simply, we are overly wary of poorer and more informal communities. In Manchester we clear out the homeless from the streets, in Calais, tents are cleared from wasteland, and the ill-founded consensus around slum policy rumbles on. We fail to respect the homes that don’t look like houses, and the communities that aren’t paved with concrete.

Review: Concussion

Written by Sarah Jane Thoms on . Posted in Film.

Written and directed by Peter Landesman, Concussion tells the true story of Dr Bennet Omalu (Will Smith), Nigerian forensic pathologist and neuropathologist whose medical discovery of the condition Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) was due to the deaths of several American football players which led to an unintended fight against the National Football League. Landesman’s depiction of Omalu’s journey is able to be of an informative nature for the audience. But it is this nature that possibly hindered the prospect of an exciting and entertaining plot.

Will Smith’s gripping performances within this film abled us to form an emotional connection between the character of Dr Bennet Omalu and the audience. His portrayal of Omalu delivered an admirable character driven by determination that leds the audience to travel Omalu’s journey with him. Smith’s upkeep of a plausible Nigerian accent throughout the film added an authenticity to the story being told, and it accentuated his acting abilities. It is James Newton Howard’s music score alongside Smith’s riveting performance that created scenes of immense power and morality.

Landesman’s direction of surgical scenes deserve commending. His choice to capture emotion without showing gore by using shots of medical instruments and Dr Bennet Omalu’s dedication to his craft enabled the audience to engage with the message at heart—especially surrounding a subject as alarming as death. Although the portrayal of these kinds of scenes within this film were essential in order to make the audience understand the importance of Dr Bennet Omalu’s discovery, the film was also able to treat the subject matter in regards to human suffering delicately.

It is certain that Omalu’s story had to be shared with the world, and in what better way than the popular and universal medium of film. It is a story that impacted American football—a significant component of American culture—but most importantly, it is a story that impacted medical science. Yet, despite Omalu’s story possessing the potential to form an enticing and exciting film, Landesman’s screenplay deprived the other characters of the chance of being placed in the spotlight. Gugu Mbatha-Raw’s portrayal of Omalu’s wife, Prema Mutiso, could have been a role of greater importance when taking into account of the importance of Prema’s role in Omalu’s life. But instead, her role appeared rather minor.

The script also seemed to miss opportunities of enthrallment and suspense within the narrative. If one was to create a film in order to tell a true story, one must also take into consideration that the film must also be able to capture the spectator. But it seemed that Concussion would only be of huge interest to those interested in Omlau’s story, rather than a wider audience group. With the Oscar’s fast approaching and lack of nominations for Concussion, some felt that this film was ‘snubbed’. The film’s emphasis on moral message—yet poignant—does not provide the framework for a strong narrative unlike the other films nominated. There is no denying that Smith gives a respectable performance. Likewise, there is no denying that this is a good film.

Everything considered, this film succeeded heavily at informing its viewers about Omalu’s remarkable and life changing medical revelation. Smith’s portrayal of Omalu onscreen is a successful one, creating a captivating and remarkable performance. Landesman’s direction works well in visually capturing the story but it is his screenplay is what lets the film down, it did not utilise certain elements of Omalu’s journey to create dramatic impact. Concussion is a film that should be encouraged to be viewed by as many as possible as the story is a one that should be known by all, but it cannot be regarded as a film that can be watched over and over again—thus, no “classic” status can be knighted.

3/5

Feature: Should this really be DiCaprio’s year?

Written by Mancunion on . Posted in Film.

Does DiCaprio deserve his near-inevitable Oscar win?

Leonardo DiCaprio should already be an Oscar winner—a notion universally accepted amongst casual moviegoers and rabid fans on the internet. Some would passionately go on to argue that not endowing him with the coveted statuette would be committing a heinous crime. When it comes to this discussion, I believe I take a different stance. Examining DiCaprio’s relationship with the Oscars in detail, it’s clear that on every occasion he has received a nomination, a superior performance by another nominee has simply beaten the actor out of winning an award.

His most recent nomination for The Wolf of Wall Street saw DiCaprio rightly lose to Matthew McConaughey’s transformative role in Dallas Buyers Club, and back in 2007, Forest Whitaker’s powerful depiction of dictator Idi Amin was a much more deserving winner. The strongest argument for DiCaprio being robbed was for The Aviator in 2005, where he lost out to Jamie Foxx as Ray—but DiCaprio not winning then was a blessing in disguise. The decade of acting work that followed showcased a man dedicating everything to his craft—culminating to the unprecedented level of commitment demonstrated in The Revenant. He suffered and endured sub-zero temperatures, ate raw bison liver and kept himself warm inside a horse’s carcass. Yet, it is DiCaprio’s humanisation of Hugh Glass that allowed the viewer to emotionally invest in such a bleak and sorrowful tale of vengeance.

The Academy Awards have infamously waited too long to reward iconic actors in the past. Paul Newman, a cinematic behemoth, eventually won in his seventh nomination. Newman was 62 years old and the award was seen mainly as a recognition for his career as a whole. And at the age of 41, DiCaprio, on the other hand, would triumph with his fourth nomination for Best Actor. Furthermore DiCaprio does not face the same degree of fierce competition as before. Bryan Cranston’s nomination is an acknowledgment of his work in Breaking Bad, Eddie Redmayne’s performance is textbook Oscar bait and Matt Damon plays Matt Damon as an astronaut. All of these factors collude and collide to the same verdict: that The Revenant is the right film, and more importantly, it is the right time for DiCaprio to finally make that acceptance speech.

– Imran Bukhari

 

Or is his competition more deserving?

Leonardo DiCaprio is fantastic in The Revenant. I have no intention of denying that. His performance is a masterclass in physically demanding roles and that will be remembered as one of his finest moments onscreen. Does he deserve an Oscar for it? Yes. But is he really the most deserving of the nominees?

Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of Steve Jobs is an infinitely more fascinating performance than what DiCaprio delivered. In The Revenant, the key character was the dark and merciless abyss of the wilderness in which DiCaprio found himself struggling to stay alive. Hugh Glass’s clear-cut motivations of survival and revenge have nothing on the complex and intense character of Steve Jobs. Fassbender’s eyes could range from playful to furious in the space of seconds, and the volatile nature of his character kept us guessing about his true intentions throughout the film’s duration. Many have been citing the film’s poor box office returns as the reason why Fassbender might not be a contender for the win—but the history of the Academy Awards would suggest that there’s more to it than that.

To see this, we only need to look at DiCaprio’s performance in The Wolf of Wall Street—his last nomination. This is the film in which DiCaprio crafted Jordan Belfort—a sickeningly depraved yet charismatic character—and employed his prowess as a physical actor. Yet, much like Fassbender’s performance in Steve Jobs, it is a far less overt ‘performance’ than the eventual Best Actor winner. Matthew McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club represented an incredible transformation for the actor, but the character himself was little more than a self-caricature. His weight-loss was the main talking point—it kept everyone interested in the role and saw him with an Oscar win. Similarly, when people talk about DiCaprio’s performance, they do not talk about the emotional depth in it, but rather about the physical limits to which he had pushed himself. What we witnessed, and what we will most likely witness again this year, is a victory for showmanship over skill.

Everyone wants to see DiCaprio win an Oscar. He’s one of the finest actors today who has delivered a consistently strong body of work. But to say that he absolutely should win this award for either the showy nature of his performance or for the fact that he is ‘due’ for a win is to buy into the devaluing of the Academy Awards—what every cinephile detests.

– James Moules

The Witness in motion

Written by Stephen Lewis on . Posted in Games.

After waiting years for The Witness to be released on PlayStation 4, I downloaded it within a week of its release. A puzzle game not too different the classic PC game Myst, but it has more intuitive direction alongside near-total freedom. There are practically no other titles like this; apart from perhaps The Talos Principle. It was a horrible moment though when I had finally started playing, and about 20-30 minutes in, I started to feel queasy and unbalanced. This has never happened to me before whilst playing any kind of game. At first I thought I just wasn’t feeling so great, that perhaps the pressure of deadlines that had just passed was finally catching up to me. So I took a break and laid in bed. Once I was feeling better I thought I would start playing again. But after 10 minutes of gaming, the same thing started to happen again. After a quick Google search, I found that I was not the only person to have experienced this.

Since its release, The Witness has been in the gaming media for two main reasons: the apparent level of piracy and how it could be seen to discriminate against colour-blind players as some puzzles required the ability to see the colour differentiations, and there is no option in it settings to adjust this. There has been far less comment about how the colours, field-of-view, movement speed or a combination of these can cause motion sickness to gamers such as myself.

Jonathan Blow, the creator of the game, has responded to direct comments about motion sickness by saying that he is trying to “hack” something in, and that there should already be a patch in beta on Steam for the PC players. However, it will be weeks before such a patch is seen on the PS4, and I do feel slightly cheated out of my £30. I didn’t buy the game on day one because the price was higher than I was expecting. But after seeing the reviews, I was convinced that, after waiting so long, that the game was worth it. Somehow these issues didn’t come up in any reviews or any play-testing, otherwise they would have, hopefully, been fixed before the release.

Hopefully Blow’s hack will be available soon and will fix these problems. Otherwise players will be stuck with a game that not everyone can enjoy, and it cannot be returned or traded in as it is only available through digital download. We shall see how this issue develops.

Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 Review

Written by Robert Parris on . Posted in Games.

Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 is easily the weirdest Call of Duty ever made, and that’s definitely not a bad thing. Whether it be electrocuting imaginary wolves with the palm of your hand, or travelling back through time as a multiplayer specialist, or transforming into a strange squid beast in a Zombie infested 1940’s Chicago, there’s a significant element of crazy in Treyarch’s newest Call of Duty. Is it the best Call of Duty ever made? No. But Black Ops 3 is easily the most distinctive, biggest and ultimately one of the most fun out there.

The main campaign, is set amidst a dark and paranoia inducing future, where man and machine have become one, and explores some surprisingly dark moral implications of this technology. However, the campaign fails to completely tie these themes together by the end, and relies too heavily on gory shock moments to move the story along than significant character development. Fortunately the gameplay itself is great; the fast and fluid gunplay remains top of the console fps class, and the new plasmid-like character abilities add some much-needed spice to the level designs. You can now boost jump on top of buildings and run along walls, shoot nano bees from your hand, and turn invisible, to name just a few. What’s impressive is that most are actually worth using in Call of Duty’s frenetic firefights, successfully diversifying each of the larger and more complex levels than we’ve seen before.

Photo: Activision Publishing Inc.

These give way to some surprising emergent gameplay moments. For example around half way through the game you are tasked with destroying a massive 25 foot robot tank and its goons. One option is to blow away the infantry with regular weapons and then focus on destroying the tank. Or if you have the hacking ability equipped you can risk a lengthy hacking process and then take direct control of this final boss like behemoth and annihilate the ground targets with missiles. I even got an achievement for it too. It’s moments like these and the integrated XP ranking in each game mode that gives Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 far more replay value than any previous entry.

Every aspect of Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 is playable with up to four people online and two people locally, even the campaign. Whilst it does get a little grindy towards the end, the story mode is still entirely playable solo. The real meat of Black Ops 3, the multiplayer, has undergone some significant changes compared to previous entries. The enhanced mobility present in the campaign has translated rather well over to the multiplayer. In one move you could be running across a wall, fire an explosive crossbow round into an enemy causing her to explode into a million bloody chunks, and then from the wall, boost jump onto the top of a building and snipe another enemy camping on the opposite building. It’s exciting stuff, partly due to the implementation of the new ‘specialists’. Functioning like heroes in MOBA’s you choose one of around nine characters, each with two distinct abilities. Reaper can transform his robot arm into a mini-gun temporarily, and Prophet can ‘glitch’ back to a previous location to avoid a gunfight to name a few. These single-use abilities run on a cool-down timer which is reduced by either earning kills or by completing objectives, and no matter how bad you are, you will get to use your ability around twice a match. Just make sure to use them before you die as they do not carry over into your next life.

The specialists help diversify the experience as they help shake up the leveling process, and present a compelling reason to keep playing to find out what the next blurred out character can do. The maps themselves are mostly great, they are colourful, and have a good sense of flow to them. However, the enhanced mobility means that it is easy to get flanked and you have to stay constantly moving in order to survive. Despite these advances, the multiplayer is by no means flawless. The touted underwater combat is woefully underplayed, with only a few maps supporting this design.

Photo: Activision Publishing Inc.

The only new game mode Safeguard, in which your team must escort a robot to a location on the map while the other team attempts to destroy it, is functional but forgettable and I doubt anyone will be playing it in a few months. Gunfights still generally boil down to the person who is aiming down sight first gets the kill, although the jump pack does give you an opportunity to escape if your timing’s right. The Killstreaks also seem to be a bit weak in my opinion, and difficult to earn (five kills for a UAV in Team Deathmatch—are you kidding me?!) However, everything considered, Call of Duty: Black Ops 3’s multiplayer is a significant improvement on the previous two entries. It is faster and deeper, and so far has remained well populated on the Xbox One version, which I used for the review.

The new Zombies map, Shadows of Evil, has also been a hit with the community, where either you alone or 4 people take on never ending waves of the undead, this time in a misty 1940’s Chicago. The star-studded cast includes Jeff Goldblum as a twisted magician and Ron Perlman as a murderous boxer as playable characters. The banter between these personalities is great and the map is filled with secrets and easter eggs. You can ‘become the beast’ which allows you to slash zombies with your squid like tentacles and unlock other areas of the map to escape to. In my opinion this is one of the best zombies maps ever made; it’ll take months to discover everything this mode has to offer. The top down zombie mode, Dead Ops Arcade, returns, which you can now also play in first person, and remains as much fun as it did back in 2010. If that wasn’t enough zombies for you, after you complete the campaign you get access to additional nightmares campaign mode which is essentially a sequence of zombified campaign levels, with an eerie unseen narrator tying the sequences together.

Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 is an enormous game, but when competing with titles like Fallout 4, it had to be. Despite its breadth, the modes are all of good quality and the new movement and character abilities help spice things up (even if there’s a distinct whiff of ‘TitanShock’ about the new additions). If you got burned out on the series long ago, the gameplay tweaks and the 15 hours of single-player content alone may be enough to warrant a purchase. Even though Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 doesn’t significantly innovate the FPS genre, it does push the series forward in a meaningful direction.

Record Reappraisal: Botch – We Are The Romans

Written by Adam Rogers on . Posted in Music.

Released November 1999 via Hydra Head

All genres of music have an album of pure brilliance that goes largely unnoticed when released. Whether it’s The Velvet Underground & Nico sitting and waiting impatiently for the rest of the world to catch up, or The Pixies selling out world tours only 10 years after breaking up. It’d be fair to say that various subgenres of metal and punk wouldn’t be where they are today without Botch’s We Are the Romans.

Botch were a four-piece balls-to-the-wall mathcore band hailing from Tacoma, Washington, renowned for their malicious blend of metal-inflected hardcore that sought to oppose the drawn-out, simplistic clichés of the scene at the time. The result was a sound that is an unequivocal punch to the throat—swapping out the standard three punk chords for erratic, noisy guitar stabs and shifting time signatures.

Following the release of their debut album American Nervoso, Botch took only a year to put out We Are the Romans—an LP that brought a more dynamic and complex approach to their already noise-laden sound. The album opens with ‘To Our Friends in the Great White North’ and distils this attitude into a single track; Starting with a riff in 5/8 at 180 beat per minute and ending with the mantra: “It’s your fault—fucking up the kids”. This album gives you a swift kick to the nuts and then berates you for it.

We Are the Romans is one of the first albums that managed to meld punk attitudes with progressive musicality and still came across with a raw head-banging clarity. It’s something very few of their contemporaries were able to reconcile; with other bands such as Coalesce or The Dillinger Escape Plan tending to sway towards one or the other. This signature style of riffing can be seen in bands as large and mainstream as Architects or Bring Me The Horizon, right down to local level bands such as Ithaca or Irk.

A true tragedy is that We Are the Romans was the final album Botch created before the demise of the band three years later, when tensions within the band led to communications breaking down and fizzling out. The group died a lonely death after being shunned from the crews of the underground scene for eschewing and even mocking their clichés. It was only several years later, that the band started to gain critical acclaim. But in the words of drummer Latona, “I don’t mean to sound like a dick, but it’s like, where were you in 2001?”