Skip to main content

Year: 2017

Baroness Deech’s claims that UoM is a ‘no-go’ for Jewish Students criticised

Written by Yasmin Mannan on . Posted in News.

On the 23rd of December, Baroness Ruth Deech, Britain’s first higher education adjudicator, claimed that some Jewish students are avoiding particular top British universities due to fears of rising anti-Semitism. In her comments, the University of Manchester was singled out.

The comments were made in an interview with The Daily Telegraph. She stated: “Amongst Jewish students, there is gradually a feeling that there are certain universities that you should avoid. Definitely SOAS, Manchester, I think, is now not so popular because of things that have happened there, Southampton, Exeter and so on.

“Many universities are in receipt of or are chasing very large donations from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and so on, and maybe they are frightened of offending them. I don’t know why they aren’t doing anything about it. It really is a bad situation.”

The Union of Jewish Students (UJS) said in response to Baroness Deech’s comment, seemingly challenging her statement:

“UJS rejects the notion that there are ‘certain universities that you [Jewish students] should avoid’, along with several of the other comments made in the Daily Telegraph.”

They acknowledged that there was an “extremely worrying rise in anti-Semitism on UK university campuses”, and expressed gratitude to Baroness Deech for drawing attention to the issue. However they argue that the article did not “fully portray the experiences of Jewish students. It does a disservice to the thousands who are able to freely express their Jewish identities in whichever way they choose”.

The union cited that the Community Security Trust (CST) recorded 27 anti-Semitic incidents on UK campuses between January and June this year, and stated that “high-profile incidents in recent months have undeniably contributed to this”.

But they stressed that there were no universities they “would discourage Jewish students to apply to on the basis of anti-Semitism”.

While admitting there have been worrying incidents in recent months at these universities, they claim “the inflammatory language in this article is damaging and completely ignores the positive contributions that Jewish students make to their campuses every day”.

In singling out the University of Manchester, there has been speculation that Baroness Deech is referring to Manchester University Students’ Union’s recent decision to back the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement against the state of Israel.

In response to such speculation organisers of The University of Manchester’s BDS movement said that BDS “is a tactical method to pressure the Israeli government, and explicitly does not target individuals for being Jewish or Israeli.”

The group claim that their supporters include Jewish students, stating that “locally, the Manchester Jewish Action for Palestine group (in which Jewish students are involved) endorsed BDS.”

They acknowledge that during their campaign, BDS activists at the University of Manchester were accused of making Jewish students feel unsafe on campus, but state that they take “such accusations very seriously as an anti-racist campaign, and are dismayed that anybody should feel unsafe by our pro-human rights activism.”

The organisers stressed that they take concerns over racism very seriously and urge “any students who feel they have experienced racism at the hands of members/supporters of the BDS campaign to get in touch with us and/or the SU.”

The Manchester Jewish Society have also responded to Baroness Deech’s comments, stating firstly that they are “worried about the rise in anti-Semitism in university campuses”. However they argue that they “do not feel like the University of Manchester is a no-go for Jewish students”.

The society expressed concern about the potential impact of the BDS motion on Jewish students, claim they have voiced their concern to the university and are taking the necessary steps, but stress that Jewish students should come to the university, “regardless of whether its Union supports BDS or not, and help us make Manchester the great university for Jewish students that it once was”.

There has been an overall rejection of Baroness Deech’s comments of ‘no-go areas’ for Jewish Students from both Manchester Jewish societies, but both clearly stress this does not negate from their perception of a rise of anti-Semitic events on British university campuses, including Manchester’s.

A spokesman from the University of Manchester commented: “The University utterly rejects these comments. The University is a safe and welcoming campus for people of any background, in a global and diverse city and we have a zero-tolerance policy in place in order to ensure that this remains the case.”

Fraudulent degree selling websites targeted

Written by Tom Patterson on . Posted in News.

More than 40 websites which deal in fake degrees have been shutdown as part of an ongoing investigation into fraudulent institutions. Some were found to be selling fake documents which were very close approximations of established university certificates. Others were offering long distance courses but from companies that are not recognised as UK awarding bodies.

The Higher Education Degree Datacheck (HEDD) has been set up by Prospects to deal with the issue. Jayne Rowley, the higher education services director at Prospects told the BBC that in addition to using the names of genuine universities, some websites are “piggy-backing” by simply using very similar names instead.

HEDD recently closed down a website claiming to be Stafford University which is non-existent (although as Ms Rowley pointed out “there is a genuine Staffordshire University”) and another calling itself “Wolverhamton University” as opposed to Wolverhampton University.

Closer to home, degree certificates from the University of Manchester were being sold on eBay. Graduates are now being encouraged by HEDD to not post pictures of their certificates online as they may be helping forgers to keep up to date.

The problem is not just limited to the UK. The same kind of tactics have been used by false institutions based in China, as reported by The Guardian.

The Chinese government “named and shamed” 30 institutions in an attempt to steer prospective students away from fraudsters. Unfortunately,  some students had already fallen prey to phony “bricks and mortar” colleges and,  after several years of study, had graduated to find out that their degrees were essentially useless.

A spokesperson from a Chinese website set up in 2013 to identify and track fake courses, told Xinhua, China’s official news agency, that “it is easy to see through the trick when they fake the names of well-known universities, but it is more difficult to identify if lesser-known institutions are faked”.

As the UK is considerably smaller than China, the presence of phony institutions is much more likely to be limited to online courses. However, learners should still be encouraged to always check credentials before signing up to any course.

As reported by the BBC, Ms Rowley said that “under UK law you are not allowed to call yourself a university unless you are entitled to do so and that requires an order from the Secretary of State. If you are using the name of a real university that is breaching trademark laws, you are not allowed to trade on somebody’s good name”.

Given the fact that course fees in the UK have gone up considerably from around £3000 per annum in 2006/7 to £9000 per annum in 2012/3, it is not surprising that fraudsters are hoping to cash in on people who have been priced out by the new fees.

However, it is not just people who are looking for a fake certificate to boost to their CV. There are genuine students both in the UK and around the world who need to be protected from fraudulent institutions.

Why Manchester Students’ Union supports BDS

Written by Sara Khan on . Posted in Opinion.

University of Manchester Students’ Union recently passed a policy in support of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) campaign. The average student may know that this is controversial, but they may not know why. So what is BDS? The BDS movement, modelled in part on the successful campaign against apartheid South Africa, is a call from 170 Palestinian civil society organisations to boycott, divest and sanction the Israeli government, and all Israeli companies and institutions that are complicit in the violence, oppression, and military occupation faced by the Palestinian people.

The three aims of the international BDS movement are: (a) for Palestinians across the world to be given the right to return to their homeland; (b) to end the ongoing illegal occupation of Palestine and to reinstate the pre-1967 Israeli borders; and (c) to abolish the 50 laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens in Israel.

On the 8 of December 2016, the senate of our Students’ Union, the largest in the UK, passed a motion in support of BDS. The motion won the support of 60 per cent of the SU senate. The senate is democratically elected by students, and therefore this motion demonstrates a strong student support for the BDS movement at the university.

So what does BDS look like in the context of our university? Well, the BDS campaign at the University of Manchester is demanding that the university complies with its own socially-responsible investment policy, which states that it will end any links or contracts with companies and institutions that are complicit in human rights abuses or have ties with the arms trade. Currently, their investments include a £820,133 stake in Caterpillar — who manufacture the armoured bulldozers that have been used to destroy more than 25,000 Palestinian homes in order to build illegal Israeli settlements. By investing in companies like Caterpillar, the university is investing in systematic ethnic cleansing — we should demand that they divest.

Palestinians living in Gaza have faced a decade (and counting) of blockades, they are being stripped of their civil liberties and their basic human rights. They have limited access to water, medicine and electricity, and they have little to no freedom of movement. They are placed in what has been referred to by David Cameron as the largest open air prison in the world. Newborn Palestinian babies are dying at checkpoints controlled by Israeli soldiers within the occupied territories, under the longest illegal military regime in modern history.

Importantly, BDS does not target Israeli individuals. BDS targets only the Israeli government, and any Israeli organisations that are complicit in the brutal military occupation of Palestine, by funding or conducting weapons research and production, or contributing in any other way to the violence. Under UN Resolution 242, the occupation of the Palestinian territories is illegal; BDS only wants the Israeli government to adhere to international law.

Opponents of BDS often highlight that boycotting the Israeli government and Israeli corporations and institutions would damage the economy, thus affecting the average Israeli. While this is true, it is important to remember that, first, there are many average Israelis, from organisations such as Jewish Voice for Peace, that support BDS knowing fully that the economy will be affected but are willing to make the sacrifice; and second, that it is the Israeli government that should be held accountable for the economic repercussions of the BDS campaign, because they have given activists no other choice but to pressure the state in this way.

The Oslo Accords were signed over 20 years ago, but the violent occupation of Palestine continues. Diplomacy has failed, but BDS is still a peaceful, non-violent tactic. It is up to the Israeli government to heal any damage caused to the economy as a result of BDS by complying with international law and the universal principles of human rights, and ending the occupation of Palestine.

During our campaign, BDS activists at the University of Manchester have been accused of making Jewish students feel unsafe on campus. However, there is no evidence of any anti-Semitic harassment being committed. Importantly, the Home Affairs Select Committee, in its 2016-2017 report on anti-Semitism in the UK, states that “it is not anti-Semitic to criticise the Government of Israel”, to “hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions […] without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.”

BDS campaigners take anti-Semitism very seriously, as we stand against all forms of discrimination against all peoples. But the Community Security Trust reported in 2016 that most anti-Semitic abuse comes from the far Right; anti-Semitism is a very real issue that should be battled at every turn, but it is important that instead of accusing human rights activists such as BDS campaigners, we direct our attention to the real perpetrators.

Students at the University of Manchester have shown, through passing this policy in support of BDS, that they stand for peace, justice and equality. We are listening to the call from Palestinian Civil Society for the international community to boycott, divest and sanction Israel, and we will continue to fight until every Students’ Union and university in the country endorses BDS. Every win is another step closer to ending the illegal occupation and war crimes committed by Israel; if our government will not support Palestine, then we will make sure that the people do. Justice will win.

New Year, slightly altered me

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

I have never been the sort to make grand statements about grand changes I plan to make, I’m a rather stubborn creature really, this year a few changes are necessary though. As I enter into my final months at university (something it pains me to acknowledge), I need to get used to changes in my life  there will be a fair few this year. So, to ease myself into making changes I decided to start with something fun — my fashion and beauty choices.

Aim number one for 2017 is to make my skin as healthy as possible. As a teenager I suffered from acne, it is far better than it once was but I have remained conscious of my skin ever since. Worst of all, I have had the nasty habit of picking at my spots since I was a teenager. Initially it was a misguided attempt to make my spots go away that turned into a daily habit that I’ve struggled to shake. However, this is the year I will manage to!

After a few bits of research and article reading I have planned my skin clearing tactics.

My diet is already filled with a healthy quantity of fruit and veg, but I will be drinking more water with the hopes of hydrating my skin and giving it a tad more lustre. All the models recommend water so why not give it a try? For the spots that do rear their heads, I shall not be picking them, instead I will be using Origins Super Spot Remover (£15, available at boots.com). It calms down redness without being drying — a major problem I have with most spot treatments.

A nifty trick I picked up in The Sunday Times Style a few years ago that also helps to deal with spot induced redness is the aspirin facial. Crush some non-dilutable aspirin in a small bowl then add a small quantity of water until it forms a coarse paste. Then apply to any areas of acne on your face for 10-15 minutes before exfoliating off, your face will be left smoother and 24 hours later redness (for me at least) is visibly reduced.

Origins Super Spot Remover. Photo: origins.com

For January and February, so technically not all of 2017, I intend to spend no money on shoes, clothes or accessories. This is a bold claim. Within the coming months I shall receive my student loan and my paycheque for the extra shifts I worked in December, nonetheless, the money shall stay in the bank. The main justification for this is because I have received jumpers and boots at Christmas that will see me through the coldest months of the year. I have no need to buy any spring collection pieces while wearing thermals underneath my clothes.

Come the first of March my imaginary wardrobe will have quadrupled in size.

The start of a new year does justify a bit of spring cleaning, something I am quite willing to undertake. However, the aspects of my wardrobe that need removing are the scruffy no longer fit for wear items: pulled, bobbled jumpers, ripped jeans (not in a cool knee rip way), t-shirts that have gone to holes. For things that are of no use to the charity shop, thankfully ‘& other stories’ have a great recycling scheme. If you take unwanted clothes in a bag to any UK branch your clothes will be taken to be recycled and you will receive a 10 per cent off voucher. The perks of recycling!

Recycling program. Photo: stories.com

Finally, this will be the year I start taking proper care of my shoes. I am a devil for not looking after my new shoes, I buy a pair, love them to death and within 12 months they are ruined. No more. I will embrace keeping my shoes clean, polished and, in the case of nubuck leathers, brushed. Hopefully, with a bit of love and care I manage to make my shoes last a bit longer.

Hopefully, healthy skin and tidy shoes will make me feel a tad more prepared to join the adult world.

Manchester City 2-1 Burnley

Written by Harry Newton on . Posted in Sport.

City needed to bounce back after Liverpool beat them 1-0 two days ago, at Anfield. Liverpool stayed up in second place and the Blues fell down to fifth due to the defeat. The game followed a pattern of City conceding early and then struggling when put up against a pressing side. However, Liverpool drew with struggling Sunderland 2-2 (yes, Jermaine Defoe got two for those who practice the art of Fantasy Football), so Burnley offered a chance for City to catch up!

Tactical Genius?

These were the kind of games that Pep Guardiola was told he wouldn’t be able to win before he came to England. Not necessarily home games against Burnley, but the games where City would have to play rough and knuckle down, instead of stroking the ball to one another and scoring delicious tap-ins. This game was feisty, and a battle that City came out on top in, showing Guardiola can hack it here.

Guardiola took a big risk by dropping Aguero, Silva, and Stones. Kolarov was moved to centre-back despite having a pretty poor game against Liverpool a couple of days ago, and Kelechi Iheanacho was given the nod upfront. Kolarov was excellent at centre-back alongside Otamendi which really seemed to pay off, and leaving Silva and Aguero on the bench meant that they were in fine form in the second half when they came on!

If this game was an overused meme that probably isn’t even funny anymore because it’s been so overused…

Photo: Channel Four

Oh, it was naughty! Everyone was leaving their foot in on challenges, and both sides were playing up to the referee. The crowd quite happily chanted at the referee making it known that they weren’t his number one fan, but to be fair to the referee, he didn’t actually have a bad game.

The tone was set on the 31st minute when Fernandinho came flying into a challenge on Guomundsson and was sent off for it. The challenge was two footed and late so worthy of a red card. City went down to ten men and it seemed to suit them better as they went on to play with a little more urgency. Obviously Fernandinho is that good at reading games that he knew he had to sacrifice himself to beat Burnley. He will miss the next four games through suspension after picking up his second red card of the season (third if you include his red in the Champions League).

STAT: Seven players have seen red cards this season for City, if we include retrospective bans: three for Fernandinho, two for Aguero, and one each for Nolito and Bravo.

STAT: Only Nolito’s sending off was funny. Who misses a headbutt?

Goal Clichy!

I’ve waited so long for Clichy to score so I can use that subheading. So. Long.

Give Gael Clichy a yard of space and the goal-scoring machine will punish you instantly by scoring a right-footed drilled shot from outside the area. Yes, you read that sentence correctly. Left back Clichy scored his first goal in approximately 3,000 years for the Blues which gave them the lead.

Play to the Whistle!

City went 2-0 up via Sergio Aguero in quite a strange fashion. Raheem Sterling had latched onto a de Bruyne through ball, and then tripped himself up as the keeper came rushing out. Many would have stopped and crowded the referee for a penalty, but not Aguero. The ball trickled away to an impossible angle. With two men on the goal-line, Sergio Aguero managed to score from the tightest angles in off the near post. Unfortunately, you don’t get double points on Fantasy Football for scoring sick goals.

(Speaking of playing to the whistle, I feel now would be a good time to point out that Burnley has the most disgusting whistling landmark in the history of the world: The Singing Ringing Tree.)

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Squeaky Bum Time

It all got a little tense six minutes after Aguero’s goal however, as ex-City youth captain Ben Mee scored for Burnley! The goal was literally the worst goal I’ve seen in my entire life, but they all count. Burnley had a corner which was whipped in and all 21 men in the box went for the ball. Bravo came out but missed the ball — mainly because he’s 4’3” — and Ben Mee headed the ball onto the crossbar, over the line, and back out. Then Bravo caught the ball but someone headed it out of his hands and over the line again. Maths would state that Burnley scored a double goal and this should have been an equaliser. Right?

In all seriousness, there was a hint of handball in there somewhere before the goal, that left the stadium incensed. I personally think the goal was perfectly legitimate, but that’s probably just because I don’t want to watch any more replays of this terrible Burnley-esque goal.

With three shots on target each, and eleven fouls each, this game wasn’t a beautiful masterpiece, but it was a vital scruffy win that is important to any top team. These are the games you have to win if you want to win the league. Going into the new year, are City still in with a chance of winning the title? Anything can happen in the Premier League.

Homophobic Richard Hammond takes ignorance to a new level

Written by Len Cotton on . Posted in Opinion.

“I don’t eat ice cream […] It’s something to do with being straight.” You would be forgiven for thinking that this was another of Jeremy Clarkson’s untimely quips. Unfortunately, this time it was none other than his petite partner-in-crime Richard Hammond who hit the headlines. The casual anti-gay slur on a recent episode of the duo’s new Amazon Prime show, The Grand Tour, set the Twittersphere ablaze. Hammond argued that he refrains from the dessert to avoid being mistaken for a homosexual.

Good God, imagine that. Someone thinking that you’re… gay. Forget murder, slander, robbery, or assault. I think we can all agree that we would take any of those over the dreaded accusation of same-sex attraction. Imagine it: a world full of men loving men, basking in the glory of a 99 (perhaps even with flakes — scandalous!) An army of homosexuals stampeding through Solero-ridden streets, showering any who dare confront them with storms of technicoloured sprinkles. Unthinkable. Thank Christ for Richard Hammond pointing this out before it was too late!

Upon Clarkson insisting on a further explanation, Hammond said that men eating ice cream is “a bit, you know”. Yes Richard, thanks to your revolutionary epiphany now I do know. What would the world be without the wisdom of Richard Hammond?

In all seriousness, what was he thinking? He might as well have stood up and announced: “My name is Richard Hammond and I’m a homophobe.” In what universe did Hammond think that it was acceptable to say that men eating ice cream is a sure-fire sign that they’re gay? More to the point, in what stratosphere did he think it was okay to insinuate that being gay was a bad thing? As soon as the troublesome trio got kicked off the BBC, after that punch-up with Clarkson and an unfortunate producer, they should have realised that maybe it was time to reevaluate their ways; that maybe, just maybe, you don’t have to be a bigoted buffoon to get your face on the telly.

Adrift from any consideration for moral obligations, the trio may be renowned for talking so much out of their backsides that one cannot distinguish their lips from their anus. This is a sad fact. For all they know — heaven forbid — there could be a gay person watching the show. They might even be eating an ice cream! Was it really worth the potential alienation of homosexual viewers and definite alienation of the entire gay community for a few cheap laughs for presenters that are (let’s face it) past their peak? What this demonstrates is that not only Hammond, but also those who laughed along with him, still think it’s okay to make homophobic comments as an ordinary component of everyday conversation.

A spokesman for LGBT equality charity Stonewall swiftly conjured a statement after the Hammond’s ignorance went viral. They stated, “To hear this sort of language on television is extremely disappointing and sends the wrong message to young people.”

Furthermore, human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said: “It is a perverse world when an everyday pleasure like ice cream becomes the butt of homophobic innuendo. That Richard Hammond thinks he needs to boast his heterosexuality is weird […] His pandering to prejudice is bad enough but the audience applause makes it worse. It shows that we still have some way to go to end bigoted banter.”  The phrase “bigoted banter” seems to ring true even more of late, in light of the now infamous “locker room talk” that none other than the President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, used to excuse his previous boasts about sexually assaulting women.

So why are some people still living under the illusion that underhand comments such as these are normal? Dare I say, even, acceptable? It’s interesting to consider that in the cases of both Hammond and Trump the comments were made by men who have not associated with any of the recognised liberation groups. It’s all fun and games to hurl insults at minorities when you have never experienced that kind of discrimination yourself. It seems a smither of empathy wouldn’t have gone amiss from either of the men in question.

Such a clear example of ignorant juvenility draws the question: what is to be done? Whilst the aforementioned statements from the LGBT community and human rights campaigners did make valid points, it would seem that one way to solve the issue is to fight fire with fire. In fact, that’s just what several Hammond-haters did. Olly Alexander, lead singer of Years & Years, tweeted, “Excuse me whilst I gag on my cornetto”.

Another angered tweeter directly mocked the man himself, stating: “@RichardHammond HELLO I HAVE BEEN EATING ICE CREAM FOR YEARS AND I’M STILL HETEROSEXUAL WHAT I AM DOING WRONG PLEASE HELP”. The appalled reaction of thousands across social media suggests there is hope still in combatting the heinous hatred that Hammond demonstrated.

Richard Hammond is yet to comment on the uproar he created, but hopefully the swathe of opposition to his ridiculous remarks will make him see the error of his ways. Until then, the world shall wait with bated breath to see if Richard Hammond will confess that he’s a homophobe. It’s alright, Richard, sweetie. The first step is admitting that you have a problem.

Elrow uses ‘disrespectful’ picture of Hindu god in promotional poster

Written by Araddhna Patel on . Posted in News.

Elrow, an event run by The Warehouse Project to be held at the Albert Hall in Manchester, has caused controversy after using an offensive image of a Hindu god, Shiva, to promote their Bollywood-themed night.

Creators of the poster have been accused of cultural appropriation. The Warehouse Project have since issued an apology to “anyone who has taken offence at the artwork,” and changed the image.

Hiten Mistry, a previous National Hindu Students’ Forum (NHSF) President at King’s College London, spoke to The Mancunion and stated: “Elrow, The Warehouse Project and The Albert Hall publicised an event ‘Elrow Bollywood’ with a picture of Shiva, a primary deity, with a party mask and a cigarette. This depiction desecrates Shiva and is disrespectful to many, both Hindu and non-Hindu. People feel insulted by the lack of cultural sensitivity shown by the stakeholders of this event. It was good to see both Hindus and non-Hindus uniting against this depiction. Business within all industries need to demonstrate greater cultural awareness and sensitivity. This event has damaged the brand of WHP, Elrow, and The Albert Hall.”

Henry Murray commented on the Facebook post: “You should be f****** ashamed of yourselves with that poster. Abhorrent appropriation.”

Shree Thakker, NHSF Manchester’s President last year, claims she was “absolutely appalled and disgusted” by the image. She explained: “For one, I would have believed the people who work for a company such as Elrow to have been smart enough to realise Bollywood and Hinduism are two entirely separate things. I am completely shocked that such a poster was successfully approved of and how no one within the company thought this would be offensive to Hindus everywhere [sic]. To see a cherished, respected God such as Lord Shiva with a ‘party hat’ on, smoking a cigarette and holding alcohol is simply unacceptable — our religion does not promote such use of intoxicants, and it is HIGHLY disrespectful and disgusting to see this being shown. This is simply encouraging people who are attending to dress up as one of our deities! It is NOT acceptable!”

Shree added: “As previous President, I can guarantee that as a society we do all we can to encourage inter-faith and respect for other religions, and all we ask for is the same treatment back — regardless of whether you are religious or not. It is simply respecting another person’s beliefs — human to human. As young Hindus influencing the next generation, if we see disrespectful comments being made against our religion, we must stand up for it, for ‘if not us, then who?’”

Rupa Ghelani, a student at the University of Manchester, apparently had her comments on the Facebook page deleted. She said: “They [WHP] took the poster down and apologised, respect to that, but the way they are trying to bury it, deleting my comments — this is so wrong. Where is the freedom of speech, people have a right to say what they want about this, they were careless enough to create that artwork and post it and must deal with the consequence.”

Loren Hirst, who often attends Warehouse Project events, said: “I don’t follow any religion in particular but the way I see it, it shows a lack of understanding of different religions and cultures that they even associated an entire religion with Bollywood. People just need to be a bit more inclusive and understanding.”

However, the same view was not shared by everyone, such as Bec Rowntree: “I feel everyone gets offended by everything nowadays and not offended by important world issues, such as crime, global warming, [and] war.”

An anonymous student told The Mancunion that he thinks “all Hindus are overreacting too much and taking it to heart when it was just a joking promo pic,” suggesting offended students should “calm down and move on”.

Review: Sweet Charity

Written by Brogen Campbell on . Posted in Theatre.

This musical follows the unlucky in love Charity a dancer-for-hire at Times Square Dance Hall. The musical begins dramatically with Charity being pushed in the lake and robbed by her boyfriend Charlie (whose name she has tattooed in a heart on her left arm). The rest of the show revolves around Charity as she continues to try and find the one, as all she wants is to be loved. Charity’s luck seems to change after she gets stuck in a lift with nervous and shy tax accountant Oscar. Although through embarrassment Charity hides her true profession from Oscar, which leads to trouble.

The Broadway musical of the 1960s seems dated with its reliance on Charity looking for a man to complete herself, yet always being left broken hearted. Yet the vision of director Derek Bond, acknowledges these draw backs and produces a production that pulls on your heart strings, whilst also delivering on the comedy side it is so well known for.

The comedy musical is a roaring success not least because of the strength of the cast.  Kaisa Hammarlund as Charity is superb, with outstanding characterisation and comic timing. Hammarlund really created a connection with the audience, so you experienced the high and lows with the character. The rest of the cast all delivered stellar performances, particularly disgruntled dancers Cat Simmons and Holly Dale Spencer, and the endearing Daniel Crossley as Oscar. A special mention to Josie Benson who took on the traditionally male role of Daddy Brubeck and made it her own, providing further proof in the success of blind casting in regards to ethnicity and gender.

As with any Royal Exchange production the staging was excellent, with seamless set transitions. The production is really grounded and brought to life by its musical numbers and the band does a terrific job of delivering Broadway pizzazz to Manchester. Stand out numbers being ‘Big Spender’, ‘If My Friends Could See Me Now’ and ‘The Rhythm of Life’.

One of the best visual elements of the show, and there were many, was the depiction of Charity and Oscar becoming stuck on a Parachute Jump ride. The use of tiny props to indicate how high up the couple were was genius. The show was scattered with visually brilliant moments.

I have never seen a musical performed in the round before and it certainly adds a new dynamic to the production. Sweet charity performed at the Royal Exchange is more intimate than most musicals, this just means the audience feel more connected to the characters and really invest in the musical.

If you aren’t familiar with the musical the end certainly comes as a shock, but is also the moment where I most identified with the character of Charity. I won’t divulge any further as I don’t want to spoil the surprise. Let’s just say Charity finally learns a valuable lesson about love and self-worth.

This toe tapping musical will have you laughing and gasping. Sweet Charity is being performed at the Royal Exchange Theatre till the 28th January. Get your tickets here.

Review: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

Written by Harry Newton on . Posted in Theatre.

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang has been reeling in the positive reviews this year, as critics generally agree that this show is one of the best the year has seen. With this in mind my expectations were high, and it did not disappoint.

Despite a little hiccup during the performance, it was mostly excellent. The slight hiccup came early on and was never really explained — the performance stopped and the safety curtain came down for around 15-20 minutes. It was later forgotten though, and really it was testament as to how good the performance was that they could recover seamlessly from it.

Local Mancunian Jason Manford was the lead role of inventor Caractacus Potts, and although he was pretty funny in the show, the comedian did not rely on his comedy for the role. His acting was superb, and his voice was surprisingly quite good. He’s not going to go on and bag himself a recording contract with Sony Records any time soon, but there wasn’t a rotten tomato in sight (this is a compliment, I think).

The comedy surprisingly came from elsewhere. Phil Jupitus and Claire Sweeney were hilarious as Baron and Baroness Bomburst. Their accents were not in the least bit convincing but I doubt that either of them cared, and nobody in the audience did either, as it simply added to their great comedic performances. The musical number of “Chu-Chi Face” was a personal highlight in the whole production, as the Baroness attempted to get the Baron’s attention away from toys and onto her. Innuendo rife.

The set was used well and was attractive throughout, but the main visual delight of this production was Chitty Chitty Bang Bang herself. She only went and bloody flew! Although the Lowry may not have a stage as big as the Palace or the Opera House, it is still a fairly big stage, that was filled by the car as it lifted into the air!

Filled with your favourite songs (which the two ladies next to me knew all the words to… loudly), the film has been adapted into a theatrical performance perfectly. “Truly Scrumptious”, “Toot Sweet”, and of course “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” all make an appearance in the play, to make sure that nobody is disappointed — and these songs are joined by quite a few new songs also.

Although all this sounds beautiful, don’t be under the impression that this play will not terrify the living day lights out of you. We may have to wait until after the intermission to really meet the Childcatcher, but Jos Vantyler’s portrayal of the character is utterly terrifying. Never mind the children, I was close to tears myself. The only negative of the whole production would be that perhaps it was too similar to the film — perhaps there could have been more brand new editions to the script. But perhaps that’s just me nit-picking so that I don’t seem too nice.