842

Beaver

Issue 842 | 1.12.15

the

Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union

LSE Divests From Coal & Tar Sands, Tobacco and Arms Joseph Briers News Deputy Editor

The Beaver Pride Week Special

What Makes You

PROUD?

THE LSE COUNCIL HAS consented to amendments proposed by the LSE DivestCampaign, made up of students and staff, to its Socially Responsible Investment Policy that look to significantly limit the impact of the School’s investments on climate change, in what will be seen as a serious victory for environmental campaigners on campus.

As part of the overhaul, the university has agreed to divest its investments in companies whose business is significantly focused on thermal coal or tar sands – two notoriously polluting energy sources, and halt future investment in fossil fuels. A school spokesperson said: ‘this announcement represents a positive commitment from LSE to sup-

port the transition to the low-carbon economy. We are proud of our rigorous and innovative academic contributions on climate change and the environment, and also of our own high environmental standards on campus, and it is right that our updated investment policy better reflects this work’.

Long standing pressure on the School to divest has reached something of a crescendo in recent weeks as campaigners staged a ‘day of action’ during Green Week amidst the backdrop of the upcoming COP21 talks in Paris. The reconsideration of investment strategy marks perhaps the greatest success in the history of the pressure group ‘LSE Divest’ since its establishment three years ago. Members of the group campaigned right up to the

last minute of the Council’s decision, even greeting Councilors with banners and ‘divestment brownies’ on their way into the crucial meeting.

SU Environment and Ethics Officer Elena Bignami insists there is still much work to be done. She told The Beaver, ‘the School’s commitment to reduce its investments from coal and tar sands represents a first step in the right direction… and is an important political statement leading up to the Paris climate talks. Partial divestment, however, is not enough. Oil and gas need to be progressively integrated in the SRI report and phased-out from all LSE investments’. ‘The Fossil Free fight is not over yet!’ Bignami warns.

Continued Page 4

Comment: How Enlightened Is London To LGBT+ Issues?

Manu Anzola Postgraduate Student

BEING GAY SEEMS TO BE such a non-issue in London nowadays. In my mind, acceptance of gay marriage is a clear sign of how progressive a society is and here it has been legal for a few years now. I feel good and reassured that the world has changed when I see gay couples walking hand in hand down the streets or being affectionate at restaurants. Yet I can’t help but wonder how gays fare in rural areas, which leads me to the conclusion that this

Features The City

phenomenon is still confined to large cosmopolitan urban centres.

Save for the rugby controversy last year that I heard about, the whole of the LSE seems to have embraced that gay is good, which makes me feel welcome. I was also delighted to find out that practically all of the companies at the Consultancy Fair back in October realize just how fabulous we are and even the business world seems to be embracing equality, and being out and proud.

In London it is fairly easy to imagine having a nor-

Gay Pride is about LGBT+ Discrimination resisting disempowerment in employment Page 28 Page 25

mal life going out to nice dinners with my tall, handsome, banker boyfriend (whom I met at the LSE of course) his tailored suit and suave haircut both on point and be perfectly unbothered… but I digress. I did not expect anything less when coming to London, and I chose to study here specifically because of its reputation for embracing diversity.

But not all that glitters is gold. No matter how progressive and open life in London may be...

Continued Page 8

Room 2.02, Saw Swee Hock Student Centre, LSE Students’ Union London WC2A 2AE Executive Editor Ellen Wilkie

editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Managing Editor Megan Crockett

Beaver

the

the

Beaver

Established in 1949 Issue No. 842 - Tuesday 1 December 2015 -issuu.com/readbeaveronline Telephone: 0207 955 6705 Email: editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk Website: www.beaveronline.co.uk Twitter: @beaveronline

managing@thebeaveronline.co.uk

News Editors Shwetha Chandrashekhar Suyin Haynes Greg Sproston news@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Comment Editors Mali Williams

comment@thebeaveronline.co.uk

PartB Editors Kemi Akinboyewa Vikki Hui Flo Edwards

partb@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The City Editor Alex Gray

city@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Features Editor Alex Hurst Taryana Odayar

features@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Nab Editor

nab@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Sport Editor Alex Dugan

sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Online Editor Gee Linford-Grayson

online@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Collective Chair Perdita Blinkhorn

collective@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Collective:

A Doherty, A Fyfe, A Laird, A Leung, A Lulache, A Moro, A Qazilbash, A Santhanham, A Tanwa, A Thomson, B Phillips, C Holden, C Loughran, C Morgan, C Hu, D Hung, D Lai, D Sippel, D Tighe, E Arnold, E Wilkie, G Cafiero, G Harrison, G Kist, G Linford-Grayson, G Manners-Armstrong, G Saudelli, H Brentnall, H Prabu, H Toms, I Plunkett, J Cusack, J Evans, J Foster, J Grabiner, J Heeks, J Momodu, J Ruther, J Wurr, K Budd, K Owusu, K Parida, K Quinn, L Kang, L Kendall, L Erich, L Mai, L Montebello, L Schofield, L van der Linden, M BanerjeePalmer, M Crockett, M Gallo, M Jaganmohan, M Johnson, M Neergheen, M Pasha, M Pennill, M Strauss, N Antoniou, N Bhaladhare, N BuckleyIrvine, N Stringer, O Hill, O Gleeson, P Amoroso, P Blinkhorn, P Gederi, R Browne, R J Charnock, R Huq, R Kouros, R Serunjogi, R Siddique, R Uddin, R Way, S Ali, S Crabbe-Field, S Kunovska, S Povey, S Sebatindira, T Mushtaq, T Odayar, T Poole, V Hui, Z Chan, Z Mahmod

To join the Collective you need to have written for 3 or more editions of The Beaver. Think you’ve done that but don’t see your name on the list? Email collective@thebeaveronline.co.uk to let us know!

Any opinions expressed herein are those of their respective authors and not necessarily those of the LSE Students’ Union or Beaver Editorial Staff.

The Beaver is issued under a Creative Commons license.

Bryn Laxton-Coglon on dealing with homophobia during Pride Week

From the LGBT+ Officer PRIDE WEEK HAS ONCE again come and gone, and as always, it was a whirlwind.

Despite the catastrophe that was room bookings, the week was a huge success and we managed to pull off five great events.

At our inaugural Pride Week event on Monday, we heard seven LGBT+ students from all different backgrounds share their personal experiences growing up LGBT+, coming out, and what pride means to them today. The intimate evening gave insight into the diversity of experiences within the LGBT+ community and showcased just how inspirational the process of coming to terms with oneself can be. On Tuesday we brought in some of the UK’s premier LGBT+ psychologists to discuss mental health in the LGBT+ community and the effects on problematic trends in drug use and sexual health. Then on Wednesday we had a student led discussion on the international protection of LGBT+ rights and the fluidity of gender and sexuality. Things were toned down a bit on Thursday with

a relaxing screening of the inspiring film “Milk”, before heating up again on Friday for the intersectional panel critique of contemporary LGBT+.

The title for this event “White, Cis, Gay Men, who are we forgetting?” was originally a cause for concern. My biggest fear was that the increasing hostility towards “white, Cis, men” would make its way into the LGBT+ community, creating hostility and alienating people who fell into this group from the wider community that is supposed to represent them.

Instead, the goal of the evening was to build a more constructive relationship between all parties on the LGBT+ spectrum where each party feels it is equally represented. As the founders of the movement, white cis lesbians and gay men have also been its focus, at the expense of the BT+ who often feel marginalised.

Moving forward, raising awareness through proactive collaboration, rather than reactive criticism, will hopefully lead to equal representation for all letters of the acronym (and

the plus).

As I said, it’s been a rush, and it’s been fun, but there’s still much to do. On Wednesday while working the stall outside SSH, students were the butt of homophobic insults by a delivery man coming to drop off a parcel. Unfortunately this is almost to be expected during pride week, as last year similar homophobic abuse was heard at the stall, and the year before that, students were the victim of death threats from, fellow LSE students. I was hoping this would be the first year we manage to avoid any problems, but if anything this highlights the continual need for LGBT+ activism at LSE. We will continue to work on making LSE a safe place from discrimination for everyone, but we can’t do it without your help.

Stand up against homophobia in any form, even if just casual passing comments. Educate yourself on the lesser known part of LGBT+ like trans issues and biphobia, and join our AU ally campaign against homophobia in the AU.

From the LGBT+ Alliance President

Perdita Blinkhorn on what she hopes you take away from the Pride Week Beaver SO MANY RAINBOWS, SO many ribbons, so many riproaring and ready to go LGBT+ people who put so much hard working into bringing LSE its Pride Week. Thank you to all of them, and the queer writers who have contributed to this extra fabulous edition of the Beaver.

I wonder what the readers of this edition who are not LGBT+ are expecting. Will this be boring and irrelevant? Will you gain an inside glance into the sordid life of this subculture?

Will you be turned gay by the writings of the gay agenda?

Hopefully none of these, particularly the latter as the Pink Mafia were unavailable for

comment this week. However, I do hope reader will take this opportunity to genuinely understand why this movement is important and why there is so much more to LGBT+ than a rainbow chalked on the ground once a year.

The voices of LGBT+ individuals are so important, particularly those from BME, religious, non-binary and oppressed gender groups as these are the ones so rarely prioritised by society. I ask you to hear them and their stories so that, after having rifled through these pages, you will come away with a new and enhanced understanding of what it mean to have Pride.

The concept of LGBT+ can seem incredibly distant and other to those who are not part of the community; this may be because a person isn’t (knowingly) friends with an LGBT+ person, has little understanding of its meaning or aims, or believes that the cause is dead because we have reached equality. If that’s you, then I would like to warmly welcome you to come on a journey with the LSESU LGBT+ Alliance.

Whether you start here, reading these wonderful articles, or attend our events, we want YOU to come and discover the world of liberation, community and strength; in other words, our Pride.

Occupy LSE @LSEOCCUPATION We demand for students and staff to be consulted on LSEs response to the #HEGreenPaper #SaveEducation @craigjcalhoun Nona Buckley-Irvine @nonajasmine When unis pay lip service to social mobility already, it’s hard to see how a bill based around increasing fees will do anything to aid it.

LSE Divest @lsedivest A big thanks to everyone that helped #LSE #divest from coal and tarsands.

This is huge progress. Now it’s time to #DivestTheRest @lsesu Mahatir Pasha @mahatir_pasha Let’s do this #BSCWinter15

Layla @Layla_Sidonie Every time I think I come close to settling on a direction for my dissertation I read something that throws it off completely Joanna B @JayBrench AH London School of Economics #divests from #coal and #tarsands!

What a win, @lsedivest, CONGRATULATIONS!! <3 <3 #DivestTheRest Nona Buckley-Irvine @nonajasmine Oh and here’s the picture #LoveSUs @klebudd

Tweet us @beaveronline to see your 140 characters in print!

LSESU PRIDE Week LGBT+ Rights: The Internationalist Perspective James Clark Staff Writer

IN AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE standard Wednesday night out to Zoo Bar, the LGBT+ Alliance and the LGBT+ Officer in collaboration with the Debate Society, hosted a night with an interactive critique of LGBT+ rights across the world. Located in the Bao Yang Meeting room on the 6th Floor of the Saw Swee Hock Student Centre, the turnout of the event allowed for an intimate setting for attendees to get involved and discuss the topics of the evening in a safe space.

The event commenced with debates over which country has more progressive rights for the LGBT+ community. Boards detailing opinions of countries’ equality throughout the world, and a graph with LSE students’ identification in terms of gender and sexuality, prompted the conversation. As the debates ensued, questions were raised over the subjectivity of where people came from in their respective country, such as the famed “Bible Belt” in America, and where they located their country on the scale.

Discussions followed into complx aspects of what defines

progressive LGBT+ rights, how religion has a large part to play in specific areas of the world, and the globalisation of the western world. In a nutshell, one attendee stated that “pressure for LGBT+ rights, comes with McDonald’s” highlighting how capitalism favours liberation.

However, when the attendees started talking about culture and colonialism, the discussion delved into a more heated debate about about the erasure of culture and the creation of homophobia. Questions about the hypocrisy of the Western World were raised

as well.

With the final topic on how to progress further with LGBT+ rights, many noted that in order for change to be actualized, active sanctions need to be applied and whole countries need to come together as one, in solidarity against other countries with less progressive and nonexistent LGBT+ rights.

As one of five events held throughout Pride Week, the debate itself raised awareness on a greater need to work on equality of not just the LGBT+ community, but of individuals from any liberation group.

News | 3

Section Editor: Shwetha Chandrashekhar Suyin Haynes Greg Sproston Deputy Editors: Joseph Briers Bhadra Sreejith

Pride Week Ends With An LGB-Tea Party and Panel Discussion James Clark Staff Writer

debate also uncovered how the heteronormative society has created perpetrators of exclusion within the LGBT+ community, with clubs being selective based upon what they can see, and the need for gay men to be “sane and sorted.”

Panelists confirmed the need to reform the community around more intersectional ideals and less on sexualisation and drugs and al-

cohol. They noted that events put on by the LGBT+ Alliance and similar ones by the Intersectional Feminist Society were necessary to witness progress within the community. However, panelists touched upon the issue of individuals not having access to the events, whether due to the British class system, or as a result of not having the academic space to discuss matters.

News

A CONCLUSION TO PRIDE Week was celebrated on Friday, November 27, with two events held by the LGBT+ Alliance. The first; a tea party in collaboration with the Intersectional Feminist Society (I Fem-Soc), and the second, a panel discussion asking Gay, White, Cis Men: ‘Who Are We Forgetting?’

The event began with the Chair of the discussion, Perdita Blinkhorn, introducing the panelists, and reminding those in attendance that the event was a safe space. With roughly 35 people in attendance, the event started a conversation between panelists, with an initial question of sexism and sexual harassment in the LGBT+ Community. The conversation revealed that there is a widespread issue within the LGBT+ community of those who do not feel that they belong as they are underrepresented.

Panelists clearly noted that there is hypersexualisation of both bodies and specific sexualities, with bisexual women being labelled as sluts and bisexual men termed as greedy. The conversation on sexual

harassment emphasized that male privilege was a clear issue in the non-consensual touching of women in both LGBT+ and straight clubs

by GB men.

However as discussion continued, more matters cropped up. Racism and racial fetishism through the now infamous “dating” app for gay and bisexual men, Grindr, was elaborated upon. The

4

| Tuesday 1 December, 2015

LSESU European Society Discuss What’s Next For ‘Europe After Paris’ Alina Ryzhonkova Postgraduate Student IN THE WAKE OF THE tragic events which unfolded in Paris on the 13th of November, the European Society’s biweekly discussion, “Europe after Paris: United or Divided,” attracted a flurry of attention on social media. With more than 200 people who planned to ‘attend’ and hundreds more who were ‘interested’ on Facebook, the organizers accommodated a change of venue to house the expected crowd at the event. The evening however did not witness a grand turnout as anticipated, certainly not reflective of the online excitement. However, this did not discourage the organizers and also did not detract from the heated discussions that took

place.

At the LSE, with the plethora of speakers who host public lectures and panel discussions, it is uncommon to have students come together and independently discuss emerging and current issues. As a catalyst to this, the European Society’s discussion encouraged just that by splitting the attendees into small groups and providing provocative and controversial statements as conversation prompts. These topics covered a range of issues that have arisen in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris this month, such as immigration, the war in Syria and the future of the European Union. Conversation and debate ensued throughout the evening, highlighting a variety of student opinions and viewpoints.

Expectedly, the discussion

raised many more questions than it answered and left attendees contemplating whether there is any hope for finding a solution to the myriad of problems the attacks in Paris have brought to the forefront.

Some matters, such as the importance of a united Europe and a united European Union, sounding the European Student Society’s mission, were generally met with a consensus. However, thoughts on a military response towards Syria proved to elicit contentious responses. All attendees seemed to agree on one element, that there is no clear cut solution to the underlying problems and also that addressing the root causes of the terrorist attacks will demand much more than words of solidarity, and uncoordinated and unsustainable actions on the parts of

governments worldwide.

The European Society’s event proved to be a refreshing change from the usual public LSE lectures, as it brought together the student body into an engaging conversation, allowing participants to develop their own ideas and new, better informed, conclusions. Although much of the attention garnered by this event was due to the far-reaching effects of the attacks in Paris, these discussions held by the society are biweekly and hope to witness as much of the same level of interest in the weeks ahead. Thought provoking, and well executed, the European Society’s event proved to be worthwhile and important in raising issues in the aftermath of the Paris attacks and revealing the complexity of the underlying problems.

LSE Divests From iFemSoc Ask ‘What Does It Mean Coal & Tar Sands, To Be An Intersectional Feminist?’

Tobacco and Arms Joseph Briers Deputy News Editor

Continued from Cover ...Whilst the environmental aspects of the new investment policy that will no doubt grab the most attention, the freshly released plan also includes important commitments to collaborate with other universities to ‘develop new socially responsible investment products’, and also ‘avoid investment in companies engaged in tobacco manufacture and indiscriminate

armaments’. The latter pledge may surprise some students in its novelty. Bignami too expressed approval and exasperation in equal measure. Whilst championing the decision, she pointed out - ‘it’s about time!’

Persuading the school to begin divestment and adopt a more socially responsible investment strategy is undoubtedly a landmark achievement for all involved and will surely only swell the appetite for further progress.

Yet, the hesitation with which the university has approached the matter will likely act to temper the congratulations.

Martha Van Bakel LSESU Intersectional Feminist Society LGBT Officer

THE LSESU INTERSECTIONAL Feminist Society has continued its trend of promoting intersectional discussion on campus by hosting a number of successful events in recent weeks.

On Friday 20th November, they held a panel discussion titled ‘What It Means to be an Intersectional Feminist’ aimed at highlighting the importance of diverse narratives within feminist liberation movements. The speakers included Dr Jasmine Gani, a lecturer at the University of St Andrews; Maddy Kirkman, NUS Disabled Students’ Officer; Malia Bouattia, NUS Black Students’ Officer; Aysha Fekaiki, LSESU Community and Welfare Officer; Jane

Fae, a feminist writer and critic; and Risteárd McDhòmhnaill, a Master’s student at the Gender Institute.

Each speaker focused on a different aspect of oppression and how the feminist movement can and should address it. The event provoked a lively discussion among the audience and panel members, including advice on how to have fruitful conversations with critics of feminism as well as how to be a better ally to the cause. Dr Gani in particular commended the diversity of the audience, comparing it to a much more homogenous audience she had found at a similar panel event at St Andrews.

This was followed the next Friday by a Tea Party, jointly hosted with the LGBT+ Alliance as part of Pride Week. 11 types of hot drinks were pro-

vided along with a selection of cakes and members of both societies mingled and chatted.

Again the event was a strong success, bringing the IFemSoc and the LGBT+ Alliance closer together.

However one event will be absent from the IFemSoc agenda, namely Reclaim the Night London. This is a march against male violence against women, to be held on 28 November 2015.

However, the stated aims of the movement are explicitly anti-sex work and anti-sex worker, thus erasing the experiences of sex workers. Similarly, last year’s event proved to be extremely transphobic, with little attempt by the organisers to combat this.

For these reasons the Intersectional Feminist Society has chosen not to attend Reclaim the Night.”

Occupy LSE Demand That School ‘End Marketisation, Save Education’ Luther Blissett Undergraduate Student

THURSDAY 26TH NOVEMBER kicked off in style as members of Occupy LSE took part in a national day of action called by NCAFC to highlight the changes to higher education presented in the recently announced Higher Education Green Paper.

Members of the group started the day with a table on Sheffield St, where they engaged students in discussion around the issues of the paper’s proposed reforms, which they see as furthering the marketisation of higher education.

Students took action by writing postcards voicing their concerns to Jo Johnson, Universities Minister, to tell him exactly what they think about these proposed reforms.

Amongst other things, the paper proposes a four-tiered fee system, the removal of a parliamentary vote on feeincreases, a new Teaching Excellence Framework, greater access for private institutions to higher education and the end of freedom of information (FOI) requests to universities.

Concerns have also been raised

by UCU and the NUS around the linking of teaching quality to fees and the increasing role of markets in the sector.

In light of these multiple threats, Occupy LSE took action following the morning’s information dissemination. Activists dressed up

in their business best and entered the Director’s and Pro-Directors office on Houghton St, demanding an emergency consultation with the Directorate and calling upon the school and the student body to oppose these reforms.

The group presented a letter addressed to Craig Calhoun, Director and Mark Thompson, Academic Registrar, which can be found on Tumblr. As Calhoun was in Singapore at the time of events, Occupy were initially met by David Webb, Professor of Finance, who engaged with the group in a dialogue about the Green Paper in which rising fees and certain proposals of the paper were admitted to be “of concern” to the school.

Activists continued to talk to various members of the office for an hour and highlighted the desire for student and staff collaboration in a rejection of these proposals. The

TEDxLSE Need Participants For ‘Off the Record” Competition TEDxLSE Committee EVERY YEAR TEDxLSE SU holds a student competition, which provides students with a platform to present their unique idea.

The winner of this competition is granted an opportunity to talk at TED’s annual conference, where they will be able to speak alongside distinguished speakers in an event aimed to support innovation, critical thinking and leadership for meaningful change.

For the first time, SU has organized a student workshop where they will be teaching students how to give a TED talk.

With their first workshop being a success, and attracting plenty of interest, the society has planned to hold a second workshop on Thursday, December 3.

Students who are interested in participating in the competition, or those who simply want to brush up their public speaking skills are encouraged to attend.

The second workshop will cover how to structure an effective talk, how to improve body language and will also analyze past talks with key takeaway lessons.

Besides speakers, TEDxLSE SU is also seeking a stage host, who will introduce the speakers, facilitate conversations and ask thought-provoking questions throughout the conference.

Previous events held by TEDxLSE include talks from prominent individuals on such topics as factors necessary for political change, the need to reconceptualise poverty, and the lessons that can be learnt from charity.

For more details about the competition and workshops, visit TEDxLSE SU’s Facebook page.

university implied a commitment to an internal consultation as well as discussions through groups such as Universities UK and the Russel Group about the implications of the Green Paper.

The magnitude of the action was undertaken was justified by the group as being necessary due to the urgent need for a swift response from the higher education sector to these proposals. The Green Paper, currently under consultation, will become a White Paper on January 16th and then be voted on in parliament.

After the action an agreement was reach between Occupy LSE and the School for an ongoing dialogue regarding the paper. The group was further heartened by a meeting with Gen Sec Nona, who had also been in meetings that day to discuss the implications of the Green Paper.

The group share many

concerns with Nona regarding its potential for full privatisation and marketisation of higher education, which can be found on a statement on the LSESU tumblr.

The SU will be holding consultations with the student body on Monday 30th November 4-5pm, and also Thursday 3rd and Friday 4th December 3-4pm and 11-12pm respectively on various aspects of the paper.

The day finished off with an information session on the Green Paper run by a representative from UAL anti-cuts groups Arts Attack! which involved a presentation of the paper and a Q&A session.

Occupy LSE is a campaigns group on campus which exists to fight for a free and liberated education for all. They hold open meetings on Tuesdays at 6pm OLD 3.28, and are contactable via Facebook, Twitter and email at ouruniversitylse@gmail.com.

£30,000 Total For ISoc Charity Week Megan Crockett Managing Editor

THE CHARITY WEEK HOSTED by the London School of Economics and Political Sciences (LSE) Students’ Union (SU) Islamic Society this November raised a jaw dropping grand total of £30,814.80 for orphans and needy children.

Taking place over seventeen days, from the 17th October to the 4th November, Charity Week saw a vast array of events held all in the name of charity. Events ranged from a hike up Mount Snowdon, to a Football Tournament and Baking Day; some brave

students took part in a bungee jump while others sat back and relaxed at a comedy night held in conjunction with SOAS. The fund raising was not being carried out by LSESU Islamic Society alone, rather, Islamic Societies up and down the country were coming together under the hashtag #AllOnTheSamePage co-ordinating their charity work all in the same week. The sum of funds raised by London universities or the #LondonLegends as they named themselves was £436,043.42.

In total, £754,759.17 was raised by all those who took part in #CW2015 (Charity Week 2015).

News | 5

London Uni Roundup

On November 20th, The SOAS Afghan Society hosted an official book launch for Gulwali Passarlay, who is an outspoken human rights commentator for the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. Mr Passarlay’s new book, The Lightless Sky, is a semi- autobiographical novel that chronicles a young Afghanistan refugee’s journey to reach Britain. Passarlav is a former refugee who left Afghanistan as a minor and travelled on his own to reach Britain when he was just 12 years old.

UCL neuroscientists and teenage members of Islington Community Theatre have created Brainstorm, a play that premiered in January 2015 at Park Theatre in North London. The play explains how the teenage brain works. Professor Sarah-Jayne Blackmore, who had a Ted Talk on “The Mysterious Workings of the Teenage Brain”, leads the Developmental Group at the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience. The BBC has filmed a 30-minute version of the play as part of its Live from Television Centre series, which is currently available on the iPlayer.

King’s Sierra Leone Partnership won a Times Higher Education Award in recognition of its work to support the development of sustainable health services in West Africa. The KSLP is a collaboration between King’s Health Partners Academic Health Sciences Centre and Sierra Leone’s College of Medicine and Allied Health Science. The team was in Sierra Leone to help build and strengthen the local health system. They also played a vital role in responding to the Ebola outbreak.

6

| Tuesday 1 Devember, 2015

Law Student Named London Young Person of The Year Suyin Haynes News Editor TEMI MWALE, A SECOND year LLB student here at LSE, won the prestigious London Young Person of the Year Award at a ceremony at Queen Mary’s University last weekend. Young People of the Year is a campaign to give young people a fairer image in the media – and society as a whole – by ‘revealing, recognising and rewarding’ young unsung heroes and setting them up as positive role models for other young people to copy.

Ms Mwale was recognised for her work in founding the organisation ‘Get Outta the Gang’, which aims to stem gang related crime among young people in London. The campaign group is negotiating to win charity status and is preparing to take on sala-

ried employees for the first time next year. Volunteers with Get Outta the Gang have so far delivered workshops and training to more than 1,000 young people in schools, youth clubs and pupil referral units.The group also works one on one with gang members while organising community mobilisation events involving vigils and protests in response to acts of violence.

International Development Secretary Justine Greening MP, who presented the award, praised Mwale for “taking a stand and making a difference in an extremely problematic and potentially dangerous area”. Ms Mwale was shortlisted from hundreds of entries across London and judged by a 50-strong panel that included London MPs, borough mayors and the Greater London High Sheriff who represents the Queen.

This is not the first time the Law student, who grew up in Barnet, has been awarded an accolade for her community activism. For her efforts, the north Londoner has received a Cosmopolitan Ultimate Women Award, David Cameron’s Points of Light Award and named Peacemaker of the Year.

Temi’s community activism first manifested itself with election to the UK Youth Parliament but, aware that she wanted to affect change over the long term, decided to found Get Outta the Gang in 2012.

Although initially operating in Grahame Park estate, Get Outta the Gang now works across London to raise awareness of gang violence and social exclusion, as well as providing direct, tangible support to at risk teens throught the capital.

Both UGM Motions Pass Despite Poor Level Of Attendance Bhadra Sreejith Deputy News Editor THE UNION GENERAL Meeting took place on Thursday 26th November at room 2.04 in the New Academic Building.

There were two items on the agenda. The former was a motion in favour of the earlier release of the summer examinations timetable. The latter was a motion to lobby the LSE to increase financial support for international students.

Sheng Wei Demas Koh, who proposed the first motion, was clear about the amount of stress that students went through due to the late publication of timetables. The motion detailed the sentiments of the students

and staff at the LSE who felt that the timetables were being released too late and that the Registry was not performing a satisfactory job. The motion aimed to ensure that timetables were released before Week 8 of Lent Term, preferably in Week 5, and proposed that Nona Buckley-Irvine and Jon RhysFoster arrange a meeting with the Registry Team, Director, and Pro-Director to ensure this.

The proposer of the motion emphasized the need for students at the LSE to “unite and stand strong for this”, providing an example of a talk he had with his academic advisor who was incredulous that students were dissatisfied with the release of exam timetables. A question was raised about the need for this

motion, given that the Registry had already stated that they were looking into the problem.

The reply was that a formal motion would make the extent of the dissatisfaction better known.

The second motion emphasised the lack of financial support provided to international students, with a 4% fee increase in tuition fees every year and the lack of a hardship fund. It also called upon the LSE to condemn the cancellation of the PostStudy Work Visas. Nona Buckley-Irvine, the General Secretary of the LSESU and proposer of this motion, condemned the perception that all international students are rich. She mentioned that in 2015 for the first time, the LSE

under-recruited students. This was because of the currency fluctuations and increase in fees that reduced the number of international students taking up their place. Nona Buckley-Irvine also raised the point that the LSE, being the most international university in the UK, could spearhead policy on the issue of welfare of international students.

The LSESU Officers stated what they had been working on since the past UGM. The issue of getting more microwaves on campus was discussed, as was the “Reimagining Your Education” set of discussions. Jon Rhys-Foster, Education Officer, stated that he is continuing to lobby for an earlier release to exam timetables, and is “cautiously

optimistic that we will get a positive result”.

A question about whether LSE had actually divested from fossil fuels was raised at the meeting. A tweet was brought up as evidence that LSE had, which resulted in the frantic checking of phones by all officers and attendees.

However, it was found that the tweet was misleading, and the LSE had never directly invested in fossil fuels, with investment coming from passive funds.

Despite a low turnout of twenty people, both motions were passed with an overwhelming majority, with 502 people voting in favour of earlier release of exam timetables and 241 voting in favour of increasing international student support.

PalSoc ‘R2E’ Week Reminding LSE The Value Of Education Neivean Latif Undergraduate Student ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, the Palestine Society launched its series of events to remind students at LSE and London universities about what the right to education means to Palestinians. The society launched its first event for R2E week with a number of students standing mouth folded and virtually handcuffed in front of the LSE library holding posters exposing Israel’s obstruction of Palestinian education. The mouth fold was to represent the non-freedom of speech Palestinian students have, while the virtual handcuffs represented the restriction of movement and the possibility of students being detained anytime without further notice.

The next day, LSESU Palestine Society co-hosted, with UCLU’s Friends of Palestine Society, a talk

by David Sheen, and Israeli Journalists, titled “The Bullet, The Ballot, The Boycott.” The talk examined Israel’s racism, why Africans are travelling to Israel, the racism

Africans face in Israel, why racism exists and whether there is anyway it can be prevented and eradicated.

Additionally, the society organized on November 25, an event titled “Voices from Palestine on the Struggles for Education”. The student panel was composed of four Palestinian students from Gaza, Dheshah Refugee Camp (Bethlehem), Jerusalem and Ramallah.

The students discussed the myriad of hurdles they face in pursuit of their education. Ameer Jabareen, a postgraduate student in the Urban Studies program at LSE describes the difficulties he faced as a student: “I had to change schools multiple times after the apartheid wall was built. Passing through checkpoints is inevitable just because I live behind the wall. While I was studying at Bard University, which is in part of Jerusalem but separated by the apartheid wall, I would wake up everyday wondering if I would make it to class or not, or better yet If I would make it home alive everyday. Once, while I was walking home from University an Israeli soldier started yelling for me

to stop, at first I wasn’t sure if he was yelling at me since I wasn’t doing anything, then out of nowhere I was surrounded by a large number of soldiers. One punched my head onto the apartheid wall then I was thrown into the jeep and beaten, after they finished they just threw me out and left. This isn’t just what I have to go through, this is what the majority of students face on a daily basis.”

Malaka Mohammad, a Palestinian from Gaza also a PhD student at the University of Exeter, describes her journey with pursuing education: “After the war in Gaza, we were left with no buildings to study in, our schools were bombed, the streets became blood baths filled with dead bodies, our students, teachers, and family members were killed in the last three wars.

Even though I was at Exeter during the latest massacre in Gaza in the summer of 2014, but my family was in Gaza, I couldn’t focus even though I was away. The attacks weren’t just in Gaza, they follow us everywhere we go, in our mind, our heart, and our life.”

Following the recent letter published by The Guardian, of over 300 academics signing a call for fellow academics and universities to join the academic boycott (with an additional 200 since it was published), the LSE Palestine Society, KCL Action Palestine & SOAS Palestine Society held a joint event featuring a panel of prominent academics who have joined this call. The panel composed of Dr. Humeira Iqtidar (KCL), Dr. Alex Callinicos (KCL), Dr. Moshe Machover (KCL), Dr. Lori Allen (SOAS), Dr. Mayssoun Sukarieh (KCL), Dr. Jason Hickel (LSE), presented some of their work in relation to Palestinian justice, and held a discussion about the tenets, controversies, and principles of the academic boycott.

The ‘Right to Education’ week concluded in a pleasant evening of poetry, spoken words and an openmic about Palestine, the struggle for education, and the ongoing resistance. The primary goal of R2E week is to shed light on the Palestinian struggle for education, and to call for an end to the denial of Palestinian educational rights.

LSESU Amnesty Society Begins Human Rights Act Campaign Jean Sarhadar Undergraduate Student AMNESTY’S HUMAN RIGHTS Act campaign is not typical. This is largely because Amnesty usually focuses on wide-spanning issues, most recently the refugee crisis. However, the significance of a recent talk by the government to repeal and replace the Human Rights Act is garnering widespread protest. As a result, Amnesty’s fundamental aim of the Human Rights Act campaign is to raise awareness of this legislative instrument and its uncertain future.

The Human Rights Act is an Act of Parliament that enshrines the European Convention of Human Rights. This means that when a right is breached, national courts can hear and decide on the matter instead of forcing citizens to travel to Strasbourg to have these rights

protected and asserted. The very purpose of this act was to “Bring Rights Home”.

Recently, there have been cases which the government have seen as a cause for concern, be it down to limits on our national sovereignty or because a decision by the court goes against what the government wishes to do. Some claim that the government’s distaste for it stems from its aversion to anything European. There are technical legal aspects which also raise concerns by legal scholars.

As a result, there have been calls for a replacement, for a British bill which espouses British values.

Amongst this all, public opinion may be influenced by a number of perspectives bandied about among the press and the government themselves. This sheds light to instances in the past when the police gave fried chicken to a burglar because of

his Human Rights, and when an illegal immigrant could not be deported because of his cat.

Such statements, capable of making controversial headlines and whipping the public into a frenzy, are often times warped and taken out of context, influencing the public’s opinion on the Act. More than this, it is incredibly difficult to envisage what its replacement would be. A British Bill of Rights is unlikely to be the solution especially considering that in Britain, Acts can be repealed as easily as they were passed. Plus, how is one to define a British value?

These questions are currently being asked and these assumptions challenged. Both Liberty and Amnesty, charities LSESU Amnesty International Society is fundraising for, in their respective campaigns have been attempting this.

A student member of the so-

ciety shared that, “the Queen’s Speech by this Conservative Government aimed to pass a new bill within its first 100 days.

Although this date has changed, it illustrates that haste is likely to be exercised in repealing and replacing the act. Something that enshrines convention rights should be considered very carefully and its replacement even more so. Regardless of what you think about the human rights acts technically, it is difficult to justify this haste. This is what this campaign will highlight. We aim to raise awareness and encourage engagement.”

LSESU Amnesty International Society will be launching a week long campaign on the Human Rights Act on the 30th November. A panel discussion on the importance of the Human rights Act will be on Tuesday at 6pm in 32L.LG.03.

Check the rest of the events out on the Amnesty Facebook page.

News | 7

News In Brief LSE Research says It’s Clever to Have a Lie In NIGHT OWLS REJOICE: new research by the London School of Economics has indicated that those of us who go to bed late and wake up late, as opposed to those who retire and rise equally early, are likely to be more intelligent.

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary scientist here at the LSE, found that there was a notable connection between the ability to establish new ‘unnatural’ sleep patterns, and progressive thought. Kanazawa says ‘More intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be nocturnal adults who go to bed late and wake up late on both weekdays and weekends’. This should provide some solace for those burning the midnight oil, or, indeed, validation for morning over-sleepers.

Holborn Commuters Can’t Stand New Tube Rules TFL BOSSES AT HOLBORN Underground Station, just up the road from the LSE campus, have been trialing a new scheme by which passengers are required to stand right across the elevators rather than employ the traditional method of standing to the right to facilitate the rapid ascent of those in a rush. It is thought that ‘standing only’ elevators may reduce congestion and speed up the flow of commuters. The innovation was met with a mixed reception from passengers with some simply ignoring the new rules despite the blaring megaphones of TFL staff instructing them otherwise.

Osborne Sneaks in Student Loan Sting LSE STUDENTS CAN EXPECT to have to pay back, on average, up to £3000 more as part of their student loan repayments it was revealed this week. Originally, students would only begin repaying their loans once their earnings reached a certain threshold (£21,000 p.a.); importantly this threshold was to rise alongside average earnings. However, Osborne’s Autumn Statement has frozen the repayment threshold for five years.

What’s more, the freeze is to be backdated to include the loans of students who have started courses since 2012. Martin Lewis, financial expert and LSE alumnus, told the Guardian: ‘this is a disgraceful move and a breach of trust by the government that betrays a generation of students’.

8

|

Tuesday 1 December, 2015

How Enlightened Is London To LGBT+ Issues?

Manu Anzola Postgraduate Student

Continued from Front Page ...society as a whole could do a little better in terms of getting to know LGBTQ+ people. For example, if you do not even know what that acronym stands for, which only seems to get longer and longer (hence the addition of the plus sign) and what each of those things means, then you can start there.

“Society as a whole could do a little better in terms of getting to know LGBTQ+ people.”

Comment

Section Editor: Mali Williams Deputy Editors: Hakan Ustabas Nina Webb Dina Nagapetiants

I am shocked at the ignorant comments people still make. For example, I had the most unpleasant experience with another student who happened to be hanging out with someone in my group and who said he did not want to go with us to a gay club because he was not gay. For me that is tantamount to saying I do not want to go eat Chinese in Chinatown because I am not Chinese. Really?

Unfortunately he ended up tagging along and on the ride there he even said he was scared. Of what?

What is worse for me is not that his comments were particularly offensive, but that he did not even

realise how his comments were not only ill-mannered, but insulting as well. Gay guys are not going to attack you, silly goose. Several things crossed my mind at this point in time: Do I say something nicely?

Do I let it slide or should I let him have it? Of course, I let him know what’s what. This most unfortunate and distasteful incident was an eye-opener, because it made me realize the fault in one of my own assumptions, namely that just because someone goes to the LSE does not necessarily mean they are educated.

The vibrant gay scene is relatively close by and easily accessible to Londoners of all sorts. It is still regrettable that you have to go to a specific neighbourhood, but that is another story. The point is, if you have a gay friend and have never been before, then go and see what it is like. For those of you who did not know, London apparently is home to Europe’s largest gay nightclub, aptly called Heaven. I have been there once and I can say the music is bumping, the drinks are pretty cheap and there is plenty of eye candy everywhere, for both boys and girls (and everything in between). You are young and in college, you know how it goes.

Before you can make it to the gay club with your awesome gay (LGBTQ+) friend(s) there are a few things you should know to never ask your new non-heterosexual friend, mainly because you would not think it is ok to ask anyone else such questions in general, but for some reason still think it is ok to ask us. My favourite, and by far the most common question on straight

“What is worse for me is not that his comments were particularly offensive, but that he did not even realise that his comments were insulting.”

people’s mind it would seem is, “when did you know you were gay?” I want to say that I think it was back when my hormones started raging out of control in 7th grade and I kissed John and I liked it, no, loved it; while with poor Julie on the other hand not so much. Instead I usually respond by asking the same question, “when did you know you were straight?” When you are forced to think about your own sexuality, something we tend take for as a given, all you can come up with as a response is “well I have always been.” There you go, you got it, it is that simple.

It would seem like common sense to most, but what is more common to me is that we are so often unaware of our inherent assumptions about a host of things, not least important among these being our assumptions about people we are unfamiliar with, specifically LGBTQ+ people. The only way to overcome this is through direct experience and an honest effort to immerse yourself in dif-

ferent aspects of gay cultures, of which there are many, both positive and negative of course, like in any culture.

Once you have had the opportunity to personally experience just how fabulous our lives can be, maybe you will see some truth in the “It Gets Better” campaign, but you will hopefully also know not to tell your gay friends that you want to go out with them because they would make great wingmen/women or that you did not like gay people before you met them. Thanks for the compliments, I guess. You will of course want to go out with me instead because I will give you fabulous fashion tips and take you shopping to all the hottest spots.

While the latter may not be true, I can at least offer to help you throw those dreaded boot cut jeans out for some nice fitted ones.

I will always be here to answer any questions from my own personal point of view and experiences, because I believe it is necessary to keep an open dialogue going to further help understanding. I understand that it may be the first time for a lot of people ever meeting or becoming friends with someone gay, but you don’t need to wait until that magical day to learn some basic do’s and don’ts, just go on YouTube and search for annoying things straight people ask. My London experience has taught me to critically analyse some of my own assumptions, have more realistic expectations, and to be more vocal about calling people out on their unintentionally offensive and seemingly innocent, but nevertheless presumptuous, questions.

The Secret Crisis Of Bisexuality We need to address the problems faced by bisexuals, not erase them Brenna Wilson Undergraduate Student

FOR MUCH OF THE consumerist and hypersexualised world being bisexual looks largely unproblematic: you get the benefits of not being completely homosexual so don’t get the same level of discrimination from the workplace, get to enjoy both genders, and have a greater opportunity to find someone you love. This all seems great, right? However, the true realities of being a bisexual can be something much darker. In reality, bisexuals are more likely to suffer significant mental health problems than both their heterosexual and homosexual counterparts, but why is this never talked about?

There are so many conversations about the hardships of being gay, and this is a very serious issue, but why are people not having the

same conversations about bisexuals? Ultimately, in my opinion, this comes down to the age old issues of bi-erasure and biphobia. For those that might not know, bi-erasure is the tendency to remove or ignore the experiences of bisexuals, which can be as extreme as denying the sexuality exists at all. Biphobia is linked but a different phenomenon, as it involved discrimination against bisexuals.

“Ultimately, in my opinion, this comes down to the age old issues of bi-erasure and biphobia.”

Well, all of this can really take a toll: bisexual people are prone to

higher rates of depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicide, all of which are embedded in biphobia. Bisexuality is rife with stereotypes: we are often seen as promiscuous, cheating and struggling to commit. LGBT+ people already face much higher rates of mental health problems, but the experiences of bisexuals are very unique. From the outside the LGBT+ community must look like a happy rainbow-filled community of love and support, and for some groups it can be, but bisexuals often face the worst erasure and biphobia from within their own community.

You feel attacked from both sides, and like you fit in nowhere, so is it surprising at all that as a group we face so many problems?

We are erased from much of mainstream media, not specified in most legislation, and don’t have a special place in the LGBT+ community like many other groups do.

Bisexual men are 6.3 times more

“You feel attacked from both sides... so is it surprising at all that as a group we face so many problems?” likely, and bisexual women 5.9 times more likely, to report having been suicidal than heterosexual people. Moreover, bisexual women are 64% more likely to have an eating disorder and 37% more likely to self-harm than lesbians. This is a serious issue both in and out of the LGBT+ community and we must all work to address it, and unity is the best way. As always, if anyone would like to talk about any issues relating to bisexuality please feel free to contact me.

Comment | 9

Prison Is Not Working: We Need Reform

Why the Penal Reform Society at LSE is striving for a change to our prison system Phoebe Ward Undergraduate Student WITH EVERY 100 PEOPLE we release from prison, 45 will be reconvicted within a year of release. One in three people leaving prison are homeless. Almost half of women in prison have suffered a history of domestic abuse and report to have attempted suicide at some point in their lives. Prison isn’t working.

Whilst the population is drastically split in what our response to crime should be, every single citizen wants the same goal of the reduction of crime. A new society at LSE, the Penal Reform Society, is stimulating the ever increasing and controversial discussion surrounding crime and punishment. It offers the opportunity to break down the prejudices surrounding criminals and address the questions of what is fair, just and effective the society. The society has an exciting programme of events lined up for the rest of the year. A campaign starting on Monday 30 November outside the SU will advocate for improvements in the prison system, in order to address the shocking statistics of life in prison. On 2 December, 6-9pm, there will also be a screening of ‘The House I Live In’, a documentary exploring the war on drugs.

The UK still has far to go in terms of penal reform. On April Fools 1990, prisoners of Strange-

ways, Manchester ensued a 25 day riot. The prisoners’ demands included an end to the 23 hours a day lockup. The national news coverage was the only contact many would have had with the incarcerated, and it reinforced the common ideology of ‘us and them’. Despite breaking into the 21st century, people in prison were made to pour their own waste out of a bucket from their cell every day. Whilst in terms of hygiene and to an extent, overcrowding, prisons have progressed aesthetically in standard, many of the deeper issues such as mental health and reoffending from the 1990’s prevail.

Suicide rates are 15% higher in prisons, with one prisoner committing suicide once every four days for the past two years - the highest levels in over a decade. The issues don’t start in prison, with 46% of women prisoners stating they had attempted suicide before the start of their sentence. The majority of sentencing for women is nonviolent crime, and over 40% of the women in prison come from violent relationships. Shockingly, the UK jails black people more disproportionally than the USA. Penal reform does not just start in the conditions of prison, but rather, that our prisons are currently a reflection of the marginalisation of mental illness, racial minorities and poverty in the UK. With no right to vote, and with few speaking out on their behalf, it is easy, although pessimistic to

understand why prison reform (even in terms of basic hygiene) is all too often the most forgotten subordinate issue on government agendas. Following the Strangeways riot, the inquiry lead by the former Chief Lord Justice Woolf declared, ‘Prison should be kept out of politics’.

One of Woolf ’s main suggestions, ‘Better prospects for prisoners to maintain their links with families and the community’ has still been neglected. As of 2009, the average distance prisoners are kept from their families was 50 miles for men and 60 miles for women, making it logistically near impossible to attain the outlined

aim. A significant portion of the population may take the stance that they simply don’t care. However when you consider the fact that reoffending is 39% higher amongst prisoners who have no visitors, this highlights how the overall goal of reducing crime cannot be met without consideration into the lives of the people locked up.

In the whole of Europe, the UK has the highest proportion of privatised prisons and the highest reoffending rates, illustrated by the shocking statistic that youth reoffending is above 60%. The current Justice Secretary Michael Gove has explored promising ideas of further rehabilitation methods in order

to lower reoffending however we are still increasing the number of prisons. The government proposal for a ‘prison building revolution’ has been attacked by The Howard League, who claim that many of the calls received from young people finishing their sentences express fear of homelessness. Affordable housing is one of the many issues that affect those inside and outside of prison, showing individual problems unite across jail bars.

New prison buildings act as a signal to a fearful electorate that this government is ‘tough on crime’, but resources are being spent under the false illusion of keeping people safe.

The Misguided Myth of Free Education ‘Free education’ creates economic and social problems for students and taxpayers Kacper Zajac Undergraduate Student FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS NO such thing as ‘free’ education, just as there is no such thing as a ‘free’ lunch, or so Milton Friedman used to say. The fact that one does not pay for the service at the point of delivery, only means that he or she has paid for that service via taxation. By demanding ‘free’ education one inevitably also demands higher taxation.

Unfortunately, taxes do not discriminate between people who have attended higher education and those who have chosen different paths. Taxes are paid by everyone. Thus, it is not revolutionary to say that it is unfair to tax people who do not attend any university so that people who want to do so can enjoy so called ‘free’ education.

Consequently, the whole discussion about ‘free’ education is misguided.

The real issue here is not whether higher education should be free or not, but rather whether it should be paid for at the point of delivery by

people actually using the service, or via taxation by everyone.

Secondly, so called ‘free’ education results in a lower standard of higher education in general. As soon as the admission to a university is paid for in taxes by your neighbour, the number of applications is bound to surge considerably,

“It is not fair to tax people who do not attend university so that people who want to do so can enjoy ‘free’ education.” therefore the standard of education must plummet. Let me guess, you are proud to be a student at LSE aren’t you? It’s a prestigious place which pushes you, by its high intellectual requirements, to be the best that you can be. Well, if that’s the case, you should really stop ask-

ing for ‘free’ education. As soon as the government allocates money in connection with numbers of students, it is in the best interest of institutions to accept more students so that it receives more government funding. Unfortunately, in order to accept more students, the intellectual requirements must be lowered, and so the standard of education is also lower. Consequently, the overall result is not beneficial to anyone.

Thirdly, contrary to what the New Labour government promised British people, university is really not for everyone. It is not beneficial for society to have the vast majority of people with university degrees, as the more people who have them, the less they are worth. This is a trend you can observe now – you feel like completing a Master’s degree because your Bachelor’s degree means very little. After all, many people you know have one.

If we stick to this policy, the next generation will have no choice but to go for a PhD as their Master’s degrees will not stand out.

By creating the impression that people without a degree are less

valuable, one pushes them into spending three years of their lives pursuing something they may not really want to pursue. This is time they could spend building their own businesses, developing nonacademic skills, and contributing to society in various different ways.

Consequently, not only are they a burden on the taxpayer, but also end up in a situation which benefits neither them nor society as a whole.

So what should higher education look like? It should be a place for people who are gifted and who spend their time developing academic skills. A degree by no means equates to superiority, as all social roles are equally important. There is simply no need for so many people to be educated in social sciences.

As a result, an ideal form of financing higher education would

include scholarships and sponsorships, rather than the government taxing British people for very questionable purposes. By using financial requirements as a criterion for admission, a university can ensure that the candidates accepted are those who are eligible for financial help in connection with their academic (or otherwise) performance.

Finally, there is also a psychological effect to this – a student whose tuition fees are covered, or partially covered, by the university, feels more obliged to do his best. The fact that he is awarded a scholarship on an individual basis creates a sense of gratitude and involvement. On the other hand, no one tends to respect things that are given for ‘free’.

Just something everyone should think about before they support so called ‘free education’.

Do you agree?

Tweet @BeaverOnline or email comment@thebeaveronline.co.uk

10

| Tuesday 1 December, 2015

Policy Theft: The Semantics of Politics

The Tories may have stolen a Labour policy, but such is the nature of words and meanings Hugo Bromley Undergraduate Student AH, THE JOYS OF THE National Living Wage. The centrepiece of the July budget, and a political masterstroke of such remarkable proportions that the quiet man really did, for the first time in his life, in the middle of the House of Commons, turn up the volume (poor old Ian Duncan Smith; he’s never going to live that one down, is he…). But listen, what is this I hear? Why, it’s a large number of charities and foundations, all moderately furious that the Chancellor has stolen their signature idea. Or rather, furious that he has not. For the point which Nesta, the Living Wage Foundation, the Resolution Foundation etc. are all legitimately making is that what George Osborne has actually done is just raise the minimum wage. A ‘Living Wage’, which involves varying the minimum wage depending on where you are in the country, as well as having various tiers of ‘minimum’ wage, was nowhere to be seen. Yet our beloved Chancellor has borrowed the name of a widely respected policy on the left

to increase the potential political capital of the idea, and thus given many on that same left an excellent excuse to oppose an idea they were all in favour of until about six months ago (there are, to be fair, other tax credit based reasons for their skepticism as well).

“So how do I, as a Tory, justify this theft? Simply by saying this: everybody does it.”

So how do I, as a Tory, justify this theft? Simply by saying this: everybody does it. It is remarkably hard to copyright the heading of a policy document, and it is thus fair game for misappropriation. Nor is the title particularly misleading.

Put simply, a national living wage, i.e. a wage everyone in the nation has to live on, describes the minimum wage rather well. Nor is this unique; it has been going on for centuries. Case in point: in 44 BC

Julius Caesar, fresh from smashing Pompey at various battles across Greece, and indeed his senatorial allies in Spain, declared himself ‘Dictator for Life’. This may appear to us tautology, but to the Romans of the time it was in fact a contradiction in terms. The position of Dictator was an established constitutional role, which gave one individual executive powers to deal with a specific issue, normally a bunch of marauding Frenchmen after an olive oil surplus (I may have made that last bit up). And indeed, various respected, democratic dictators were revered by the Republic and beyond, to the extent that the Americans even named a town after one (Cincinnati, Ohio, I’m looking at you). So when Julius Caesar comes to power, he attempted to legitimise his illegitimate military junta by borrowing the name of a respected position. Job done.

Even the giants of today’s populist movement are not afraid of using the technique; take Jeremy Corbyn for example. One of the great triumphs of the response to the 2008 economic crash was the policy of quantitative easing. Essentially (and I am aware that I

really don’t need to explain what quantitative easing is to students of the LSE) the central bank buys government bonds, to be repaid at a later date. The current Labour leader saw this idea and thought he’d copy it. But he would not be doing quantitative easing. He would do ‘people’s quantitative easing’. Leaving aside obvious Marks & Spencer jokes for a moment, what on Earth is he talking about? Was the inventive solution to a crisis that could have plunged us into a second Great Depression not in the interests of ‘the people’?

No, he is doing precisely what George Osborne is doing: borrowing an established term which has associations with accepted economic success to add legitimacy to a policy which essentially constitutes printing money. Then again, I am aware that I am using almost exactly the same rhetorical technique to attack the policy, since what would actually happen is that someone at the Bank of England would merely add a few zeros onto a number on a computer screen.

No one is truly suggesting that the roads are going to be built with fistfuls of five pound notes, yet the phrase ‘printing money’ has asso-

ciations with Weimar Germany and hyperinflation, and so is a useful tool with which to explain our criticisms of the people’s (there we go again) investment bank.

“Fundamentally, words change their meanings.”

Fundamentally, words change their meanings. The word dictator now has associations with tyranny and oppression, while its ancient meaning has probably been replaced by the word technocrat (the comparison between Cincinnatus and Mario Monti is an amusing one). Such evolution also provides an excellent opportunity for the Resolution Foundation et al to change the name of their policy to something which helps us understand what they are driving at; ‘the regional living wage’ for example.

So there we are; the minimum wage is the living wage, dictators are technocrats, and quantitative easing is printing money (sort of).

Any questions?

Drug Laws Do More Harm Than Good

The ‘War on Drugs’ has failed; decriminalising drugs would be principled and practical Hakan Ustabas Deputy Comment Editor

A RECENT PETITION IN favour of decriminalising cannabis in the UK has reached well over 200,000 signatures. In response to this, a Parliamentary committee discussed the issue. However, the government released a statement saying that there “are no plans to legalise cannabis as it would not address the harm to individuals and communities.” Their position highlights the unfortunate - and frankly embarrassing - position that Western states have clung dogmatically onto for decades. It is time that Parliament decriminalised drugs, precisely so that “the harm to individuals and communities” can be properly addressed.

My first argument will be brief, but nevertheless principled. On what grounds can I justly imprison a man for doing something which is of no harm to me? I imagine that most people would be disgusted and rightly so - if homosexual activity was punishable through imprisonment as it was in this country in the last century. Why is it that we pass moral judgement on the activities of others when they do us no harm by them? This is a point which I think must always be borne in mind.

As for practical arguments in favour of decriminalisation, there

are many. Firstly, it is a simple fact that making drugs illegal has a negligible effect on the total consumption of narcotics. Data from The Guardian states that one in three adults in the UK have used illegal drugs. This was a four percentage point increase in use since 2008, yet punishments have become no softer. If an argument in favour of prohibition is to be made, then the bare minimum is that the policy does something to achieve its goal of reducing consumption. On this ground it has clearly failed.

Not only does the threat of imprisonment fail to deter the general population, actual imprisonment is incredibly counter-productive for drug users. In the last year, not one prison in the UK remained free of illegal drug use. Imprisonment simply ignores the problems for those who are addicted to drugs by leaving them without medical help in a scenario where they are pressured into taking even more. This leads to a revolving door situation - offenders are released, continue to take drugs, and are convicted yet again.

The fixed cost of imprisonment stands at a staggering £119,000, with an additional £40,000 per year, per prisoner in running costs.

Naturally, those behind bars do not have the opportunity to pay this sum, and so it falls on the taxpayer.

Transform, a pro-legalisation char-

ity, has provided data which shows that over the last decade, the UK government has wasted £100bn in its failed attempted to tackle drug use. By contrast, the entire state education sector has a budget of only £89bn. This begs the question: why should the taxpayer be forced to pay for a failing policy when there are more pressing alternate uses?

“No longer will people die from ingesting a pill which was misrepresented to them, because regulated corporations cannot disappear in the way which drug dealers do.”

The clear alternative to the catastrophic side-effects of current policy is the decriminalisation of drugs. Opponents will argue that this will induce more people to take drugs who may otherwise not have done. While it is true that some

people will be influenced by legalisation, it is also true that many people take drugs precisely because it is illegal. Regardless of what the net effect would be, the harmful consequences of prohibition outlined above show that the cost of a few more drug users (if any) would be negligible compared to the gains made by decriminalising.

In addition to the tax revenue saved by no longer investigating, prosecuting, and imprisoning drug users, large amounts of tax revenue would be gained through legalisation. The government would be sensible in applying an indirect tax specifically to each type of drug.

This would result in two positive outcomes. Firstly, only the people who choose to take drugs will pay the cost of drugs, rather than the taxpayer body as a whole.

Secondly, the tax levied on drugs could be calculated to reflect what economists refer to as the ‘negative externality’ of the drugs. In other words, all associated costs of drugs such as NHS costs would be prepaid for.

It is through this funding that effective rehabilitation schemes can be created. Tax on drugs can be spent on programmes to help people who are addicted to drugs, and pay for the medical attention that they need. Rather than suffering in silence for fear of legal persecution, those who cannot control their

use of drugs will be able to come forward and get their life back on track. For this reason, while recreational drug use may increase, I assert that the rate of long-term addiction would decrease.

A lesser stated fact would be that the quality of the drugs would increase if they were legalised. At present, drugs enter the economy through criminal gangs, who can use illegal tactics to increase their profitability. By contrast, if drugs were legal, entrepreneurs and corporations, who are subject to consumer protection law, will be held accountable for their products. No longer will people die from ingesting a pill which was misrepresented to them, because regulated corporations cannot disappear in the way which drug-dealers do.

I find it amazing that 45 years since the ‘War on Drugs’ was first declared, despite not winning a single battle, the state has not yet given up. The human, economic, and social costs of prohibition are astounding. The policy has been proven simply not to work. And yet, we have a real, practical, and progressive alternative. Regardless of whether someone uses drugs or not, individuals and their communities stand to gain from decriminalisation. 45 years ago, Western governments made a horrific mistake. There is no reason why they should continue to make it today.

Comment | 11

Post-Paris: Defiance Not ‘Security’

Are tightened security measures and bombs the right approaches in the face of terror?

Nina Webb Deputy Comment Editor IN THE WAKE OF THE Paris attacks, security has been tightened across Europe. A place particularly hard hit was Belgium, where the suspected gunman from the Paris attacks, Salah Abdeslam, remains at large. Brussels was essentially in lockdown last week, with the alert level being at four (the highest level possible) for much of the week. The Metro and most of public transport were closed, as were most schools.

Some 300 policemen patrolled outside school gates when they reopened, and soldiers paraded through stations and shopping centres. Many public places such as shops, bars and cinemas shut their doors – with many employers using their own initiative (and fear) and telling their employees to stay at home.

But are these measures really the right ones to take? Yes, times are difficult. Fear is commonplace amongst many, particularly those living in capital cities – living in London, I can’t say I’ve managed to put those fears to bed very easily. But is taking these measures

“What better act of defiance can there be than refusing to give in mentally to a group that very much thrives on altering the mind-set of its recruits?” sending the right message to ISIS? It was Barack Obama himself who said that the most powerful tool to fight the Islamic State was to say that “we are not afraid”.

Defiance in these times may be difficult, but it is a necessity. For many, the events following Paris with the Parisian flag being projected onto world monuments and the French national anthem being played at many public events (whilst perhaps a bit excessive) were acts of defiance, as well as solidarity. A lot of the work of ISIS is done through propaganda.

Word is spread through the me-

dia and online platforms. Specific people are targeted. ISIS attempts to recruit through conversion to the Jihad; altering their very mind-set in convincing them to believe in the necessity of the socalled Holy War for Islam. Therefore, what better act of defiance can there be than refusing to give in mentally to a group that very much lives and thrives on altering the mind-set of its recruits?

To many, the measures in Belgium have been seen as excessive.

Nadine Rosa-Rossa, a schoolteacher in the Molenbeek district where the anti-terror operation is focused, told the BBC’s Newsday programme, “It’s like we are in a war… It’s not a good thing for the teachers, for everybody.” Here she points out another valid issue in terms of security: to what extent are all of these security measures furthering the public fear, rather than quietening it as they are supposed to? The US embassy in Brussels urged citizens to “shelter in place and remain at home”.

Next, they will be encouraging the building of underground bunkers to hide out in. The media and the government make it seem as if we are under imminent threat of World War Three. Is scaring the

public, rather than serving to protect it, really the right approach for our government?

An even more worrying aspect of the current ‘security’ crisis is Cameron’s decision to bomb Syria, supposedly to make our citizens feel more safe and secure that the threat of ISIS is being dealt with.

It truly is a scary thought that, as emerged last Friday, David Cameron now has enough Tory support to pass a motion allowing him to bomb targets in Syria, without the need to rely on Labour support, as dozens of previous Tory rebels made a U-turn on their previous opinions in order to support Cameron’s policy.

“If Cameron goes ahead with this plan, is London next?”

Firstly, ISIS’s attacks on Paris came after its most prominent involvement in the air strike campaign against Syria. If Cameron goes ahead with this plan, is London next? Secondly, what will these bombings really achieve?

Since the enemy shifted from the Assad regime to ISIS, seemingly we don’t like anyone in Syria, so our government has simply decided to bomb them all. Regardless of claims that ISIS strongholds will be targeted, our government has seemingly forgotten that this does not prevent the deaths of civilians. Only last week, at least five children were killed as an air strike hit a Syrian school. So far, according to UN estimates, 220,000 Syrians have perished overall in the civil war: 73,000 of whom were civilians. The air strikes by the US, France, Russia and numerous other regimes have achieved nothing so far except incurring the deaths of innocent people. So what will Britain joining the campaign achieve – except making us more of a target?

Therefore, whilst security is a prominent issue in current times, it must not become a symptom of moral panic. No matter how many headlines in the papers proclaim the onset of the ‘war on terror’, we should not make our civilians feel as if they are in an actual one. And least of all should civilians, whether Syrian or European, have to suffer for the mistakes of their governments.

We Should Not Place Limits On Refugees After Sweden’s announcement it will end its open-door policy, what now for refugees?

Paula Grabosch Undergraduate Student “IT PAINS ME THAT SWEDEN is no longer capable of receiving asylum seekers at the high level we do today. We simply cannot do any more.” With those words Swedish Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven, ended Sweden’s opendoor policy towards refugees last Tuesday. More specifically, fewer refugees will be granted the right to stay, more residence permits will be limited, and getting family members into the country for those refugees already there will become more difficult. That this decision was not an easy one for Sweden, was clearly seen when the visibly moved Deputy Prime Minister, Åsa Romson of the Green Party, made the announcement in tears and later referred to it as a “terrible decision”.

With this announcement, it is not just another country backing out of the responsibility for the refugee crisis, it is one of Europe’s most liberal countries. Until now Sweden has taken in the greatest number of refugees in the EU, in proportion to its population size.

Looking at the estimate of 190,000 refugees arriving in Sweden by the end of this year, can the country really be blamed for setting some

boundaries? With a population size of only 10 million, Sweden has been welcoming refugees at a rate of up to 10,000 per week. It is obvious that there is a limit to the number of refugees that can be accommodated, particularly for a country of this size. But what implications does this policy change have on a larger scale?

For one, it means that the countries that still have an open-door refugee policy, Germany being the most prominent example, basically stand alone. Even though Angela Merkel still vigorously insists on her famous sentence “Wir schaffen das” (we will manage) with regards to the refugee crisis, the EU member states seem to disagree, and she is receiving more and more

“With this announcement, it is not just another country backing out of the responsibility for the refugee crisis, it is one of Europe’s most liberal countries.”

“However, right now it seems like that there will be a limit placed on this fundamental right. Does this have to be the case?” criticism from within the ranks of her own party. Admittedly, it sometimes seems as though Merkel is a bit too optimistic when announcing that there will be no limit to the number of refugees Germany takes in. Maybe there won’t be in the next year, but if refugees keep coming at the rate they are now, it is evident that eventually there will have to be one. At a certain point, the capacity of a country, even one as wealthy as Germany, to accommodate refugees in humane conditions will be exhausted. Nonetheless, Merkel makes a very valid point: there is and there should be no limits to the fundamental right of asylum.

However, right now it seems like there will be a limit placed on this fundamental right. Does this have to be the case? Only yesterday, I watched Natalie Bennett,

leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, speak on why the UK could and should be taking in more refugees. She quoted a figure that summarises the absurdity of the behaviour of many EU member states: the approximately 600,000 refugees that have come to Europe so far this year, have led to a 0.32% increase in the European population. This clearly shows that in terms of population, the refugees fleeing to Europe present a minor issue. The problem right now however, is that most of these 600,000 are concentrated in a few nation states, such as Germany and Sweden. Evidently, these countries will be overwhelmed with this challenge if they have to deal with it alone.

This is why to deal with the refugees that are on their way to Europe or stuck in camps at its borders, all EU member states must accept a proportion of them. Of course there are differences in the financial means different member states have at their disposal to deal with this crisis, but this is exactly what the EU was designed for. The member states will not be left alone to deal with the financial costs of accommodating the refugees, the EU can aid where necessary. The main problem is not the feasibility of accommodating refugees, it is the political objections of individu-

al countries that hinder a collective effort.

“The cost of human lives is too high a price to pay for Europe to remain in its comfort zone.”

Understandably, countries are concerned with how the face of their country and the face of Europe will change once all these different people of different cultures and backgrounds come together.

But this crisis is not a political or economic one, it is a humanitarian crisis. The cost of human lives is too high a price to pay for Europe to remain in its comfort zone.

Long-term solutions are of the essence and it is no doubt extremely important to bring order back into the countries the refugees are fleeing from, but right now they are fleeing and need somewhere to go. Integration will be a difficult process and there are endless factors and risks that need to be considered, but that does not justify watching people drown and starve right on our shores.

12| Tuesday 1 December, 2015

What Does LGBT+

It has been a whole year since Alex Leung wrote for The Beaver, describing the Pride Week he was putting on as LGBT+ Officer. Looking back over his article although there has been some improvement on LSE Campus, many of the problems Leung described as reasons why we need Pride still seem to resonate a whole year on.

Alex Leung LGBT+ Students Officer 14-15

The Union

PEOPLE MIGHT THINK THAT there have been vast improvements for LGBT+ rights in the recent decade, we even have the first International LGBT+ Officer ever at LSE (yup, that’s me). For those who think Pride is now just an excuse to party with lots of rainbow cake and unicorns, I am here to tell you that this is absolutely not the case, and that the message of Pride at LSE makes its continuation all the more apparent.

Last year when I was campaigning for Russian gay rights on Houghton Street, I was subjected to death threats by two undergraduate students, asking me and my fellow LGBT+ Alliance members to go to hell and that we should kill ourselves. They followed me to class and I was eventually forced to switch classes to avoid them.

This year, LGBT+ students and members of staff saw the Men’s Rugby Team handing out homophobic and discriminatory leaflets, changed direction and lowered their gaze because they felt unsafe, and still blamed themselves for not being masculine. (Michael Etheridge, 2014). These are just a few examples. We still don’t have safe spaces on campus. Pride of-

fers a safe environment for everyone at LSE. Campus should be a safe space and LSE should be for everyone.

Also, harassment guidelines remained absent from the school code of conduct prior to my term as LGBT+ Officer. Casual Homophobia happens everywhere in both campus and halls. People call their peers “faggots”, express unpleasant experiences using the phrase “that’s so gay” etc. LSE is not for all, and we need Pride to change that. Pride gives us visibility. We need to show that LGBT+ people are part of the daily life at LSE and that we are people, not only a political message. No single person should face discrimination or harassment in any form for being who they are. The school needs to convert words to action to protect the safety of LGBT+ people on campus.

It is still illegal to be homosexual in 78 countries. The culture, in general, in Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa is still very conservative. Many International students may not be able to be who they are in their home countries and do not have the support of their communities back home. Pride at LSE is a chance to celebrate who we are, to bring communities together, and to educate people.

The School came 314th out of the 369 institutions that entered the 2014 Stonewall Workplace Equality Index recently. There is still awful lot of work to be done.

Pride is the first step for people to participate in different events.

Of course we will celebrate with rainbow cakes and big parties, but Pride is more than this. ‘Pride is a statement and a march that allows us to stand up and be heard’.

Brenna Wilson LGBT+ Alliance Bisexual Officer

I’VE KNOWN THAT I LIKE other girls since I was nine, but I didn’t know that I was bisexual until the age of eighteen. Since the age of fourteen I have had a girlfriend, went on many dates with other girls, and joined an online community specifically for people attracted to the same sex; it just took me a really long time to get to the punchline.

“I could pass as straight so didn’t face the homophobic bullying that many of my friends dealt with, and didn’t feel the need to come out.”

It may seem a bit strange that you could be so solid in your sexuality from such a young age, but not really acknowledge it or come to terms with it. You can know something, but this doesn’t mean you have to accept it, usually, or at least in my case, because you didn’t like it.

For me being bisexual was a messy and awkward reality that I would rather suppress and forget about. The attraction to men was equal to the attraction to women, so it was convenient just to ignore any feelings I had for women and focus on the men. In this respect it was easier for me growing up; I could pass as straight so didn’t face the homophobic bullying that many of my friends dealt

with, and didn’t feel the need to come out (I might end up with a man and then the whole sexuality thing would be irrelevant anyway, right?).

“I am what I am, and it would be futile trying to change that. I have come to accept I don’t need anyone’s approval.”

Through years of dedication I managed to persuade myself that I wasn’t really attracted to girls, and the fact that I liked boys too made this even easier; I even succeeded in making myself feel physically repulsed by sexual interactions with girls. However, at some point I just had enough. I hid it well for quite some time but it took so much out of me.

When I came to LSE in 2014 I just didn’t want to do it anymore. I joined the alliance (and made some of my best friends there), and never hid my sexuality. I had grown up in an environment where not being heterosexual was disgusting, and as a lesbian friend once told me ‘being bisexual is just for attention seeking sluts’.

I came out despite of this. I may not be accepted by the straight or the LGBT+ community but for me this doesn’t really matter. I am what I am, and it would be futile trying to change that. I have come to accept that I don’t need anyone’s approval, and because of this I have made the decision to come out to my parents tomorrowwish me luck!

Pride Mean To You? Abi Steadman LGBT+ Alliance Member

PRIDE IS A DIRTY WORD IN Britain. The nation of the underdog, we’re quicker to admit to our shortcomings than successes. We cringe at our more self-confident friends across the pond and find positive psychology hard to swallow. As a Briton, I struggle with pride.

Pride is a dirty word for Buddhism. Closely related with conceit and arrogance, pride is considered an obstacle in the path to Enlightenment. It is the basis for ill-treatment of others. As a Buddhist, I struggle with pride.

Pride is a dirty word for women. You know the patriarchy is still going strong when it’s considered reasonable to ask that women be “confident, but not too confident”, “self-assured, but not too self-assured”. I grew up hearing my fellow girls and women criticised for acting on their belief that their voices were valuable. As a woman, I struggle with pride.

Where does that leave me when it comes to pride in my sexuality?

For a long time, it left me the exact opposite of proud. I’ve known I wasn’t straight since my early teens, but by no means did I see this as something to shout about.

If I struggled with taking pride in what I did or what I had, I struggled still more with taking pride in who I was. I’d come to the conclusion that pride was so bad that even the idea of being confident in myself, in having a strong sense of selfworth, was wrong. Unsurprisingly I was a vulnerable teenager. Any form of criticism cut to my very core; I had no sense of my own worth with which to challenge in-

coming negativity. When my peers used “gay” as an insult, when they bullied and scorned and ostracised the openly queer kids at school, I took it personally. My sexual identity was clearly not something to celebrate, but something of which I should be ashamed.

It’s only recently that I’ve started to challenge my ideas about pride. I had something of a wakeup call a few years ago, when my chronic lack of self-esteem almost landed me in hospital for anorexia. It occurred to me that maybe I’d got the wrong end of the stick somewhere along the line. After all, if it meant being able to enjoy life, a little bit of pride couldn’t be a bad thing. My healing process began when I looked honestly at my extreme ideas about pride and said, “whoa now, that’s fucked up”.

So, what does pride mean to me now, five years further down the road? I’m still British, still Buddhist, still a woman in a patriarchal society. I’m still bisexual. But no longer am I ashamed. Quite the opposite. These days I leave arrogance and conceit out of the equation, because being proud does not mean being arrogant or conceited or anything else unpalatable in and of itself. It simply means recognising you did something good, or you have something good, or you are something good. So when I told my mum about my girlfriend, and she subsequently told the whole world about my girlfriend because she was so pleased for us, I realised something important. Love is a good thing. When we find it, it should be celebrated. Being proud of my love for my girlfriend, being proud about being bisexual, being proud about who I am – this can never be wrong. Pride, then, must be, after all…a very good thing.

Farid Hamka LGBT+ Alliance Member

ONE OF THE MOST poignant platitudes about love posits that ‘the most important step to understand love is for you to love yourself ’. And I stand testament here that no matter how glaringly obvious it is, it never really is easy to embody this principle, especially when you have got the world against you.

“I remember feeling personally attacked when I had a sociology class and the teacher referred to homosexuality as being one of the most disgusting social deviations.”

I was born in Indonesia in a community whose knowledge of different sexualities is almost nil. I hated sports and liked cooking better thus people sometimes called me a sissy in class. I remember feeling personally attacked when I had a sociology class and the teacher referred to homosexuality as being one of the most disgusting social deviations. Before making this a cloying drama, I should tell you that at the time I felt content. It was not that bad. I still had a loving family and I had friends, even if no one knew my sexuality until I decided to come out at the age of eighteen. I managed to convince myself that I was okay,

that it was a necessary compromise.

I moved to England in 2011 but it wasn’t until I started my time at LSE that I started to be more involved with gay issues. I had no openly gay friends until then. But as I met new people, I began to be more enlightened about the importance of one’s identity and how it becomes the starting point in their interactions with others. It was a very new society I settled in. Teachers in England are generally very pro-LGBT and they are not reluctant to challenge students’ homophobic views. For once I did not feel persecuted.

If I have to pick one moment in my life when the word ‘pride’ makes perfect sense to me, it was this summer at the London Pride parade. I marched at the front of the parade carrying a flag of my country (it was the flag bearers project).

The streets of Piccadilly and Oxford Circus were open for us to march on. Everyone cheered in joy as we passed the streets.

Then it struck me, being tolerated is not how somebody should exist in society. That walk in the parade endowed me with the realization that it really is possible for me to be celebrated as a unique individual. Tears of happiness trickled down my face as it happened.

A few days later I found that my photo in the parade was shared in BBC Indonesia’s page. It received around three hundred and fifty comments, most of which told me that I am going to hell and I am trading my nationality with anal sex. The old me would have buckled in fear but I decided

The Union | 13

that there are persecuted people like me who wouldn’t be able to go abroad like I do, that have to face these censure each day of their life. It gave me a renewed purpose. I told them that I am proud to represent my supposedly diverse country. Thankfully among the hate comments, there are a few people who thanked me for being courageous enough to do that.

It was then that I realize how our existence can mean something to others if we are brave enough to speak out.

“If I have to pick one moment in my life when the word ‘pride’ makes perfect sense to me, it was this Summer at the London Pride Parade... That walk in the parade endowed me with the realisation that it really is possible for me to be celebrated as a unique individual” I guess in the end pride signifies to me the end of the day of being afraid that who I am would be my unraveling, it is the point when I made peace with myself, it is the first time I feel truly in love with my life.

It is when I finally smashed the door of that closet to breathe the fresh air of the day. Pride is the truest form of love. I am glad to have fathomed it.

Photo Credit: Flickr: Guillaume Paumier

14 | Tuesday 1 December, 2015

Clockwise from Right:

Photo

LSEAU Dance Club after coming third at RHUL Dance Competition, Fancy Dress at AU Tour Launch party, Wingchi Yip of Northumberland House campaigning to make LSE more affordable, Last minute campaigning from the LSE Divest group (including Brownies), Brenna Wilson tells us ‘What makes you Proud?’, the final result of the LGBT+ Alliance’s Sexuality and Gender poll, Nona Buckley-Irvine and Damien Kempf-Akvist speak at UGM on their successful motion to increase International Student Support, LSESU Sabbatical Officers Nona Buckley-Irvine and Katie Budd support the NUS #cutthecosts Campaign.

Photo |15

16 | Tuesday 1 December, 2015 14

REVIEW

FILM

RUBY SPARKS

Sarah Ku C R E AT E D B Y T H E directors of “Little Miss Sunshine”, Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, “Ruby Sparks” is a creative and humorous film that revolves around Calvin’s experience of witnessing his novel character, Ruby (Zoe Kazan), come to life. Calvin (Paul Dano) is a young novelist who had his first novel published at the age of nineteen. However, ever since the book’s commercial success, he has struggled with penning his next book, partly due to the burden of his past success, and partly due to his insistence on perfection. Now twenty-nine, Calvin is lonely and visits a therapist regularly. After a dream about a girl called Ruby, he becomes obsessed with writing about her. One day, he suddenly finds that Ruby is in his house, living and breathing as a real human being.

While Zoe Kazan wrote the screenplay of the film, she also starred as Ruby alongside her real life partner, Paul Dano, who portrayed the protagonist Calvin. Kazan certainly did not disappoint. Throughout the film, especially in the latter part, Ruby switches between different moods and characteristics very rapidly. Kazan could clearly grasp and handle the differences between various emotions to give a convincing and nuanced performance. Dano also gave his character a very consistent persona. Calvin is an introverted and soft-spoken writer who uses old-fashioned typewriters and dresses like a stereotypical hipster, which creates a sharp contrast between him and the bubbly Ruby. Besides, Kazan is a very promising writer as the

part

B

PartB

Flo Edwards Kemi Akinboyewa Vikki Hui

screenplay is brimming with originality and humour.

In a certain way, Ruby and Calvin are similar to Summer and Tom from “500 Days of Summer”. Ruby and Summer are both doe-eyed, quirky and child-like with an air of innocence. You could argue that they can both be characterised as Manic Pixie Dream Girls (MPDGs), a popular term coined by Nathan Rabin that describes girls who “exist solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures”. In the film, it is Ruby’s coming-to-life that motivates Calvin to rebuild his life in multiple ways, such as moving away from his isolated lifestyle after his previous breakup and learning to maintain his connections with his family. However, interestingly, Kazan has said in interviews that she rejects this term, as she finds it reductive, diminutive and misogynist. As the film goes on, Ruby moves away from the archetype of Manic Pixie Dream Girls when she becomes less of Calvin’s perfect dream girl but more like a real human being with selfawareness, an independent mind, and a myriad of emotions. Therefore, in this perspective, Ruby rebels against the archetype and illustrates the ridiculousness of subjecting a real person to one’s control and manipulation, especially in intimate relationships.

Although the film comes with a slightly predictable ending, it is overall a very enjoyable and original film that brings a breath of fresh air to the usually cheesy genre of rom-coms.

editorial team fashion

film

Jamie Lloyd Maria Maleeva

Sarah Ku Tom Sayner

music Rob Funnell Will Locke

food & lifestyle

literature

Alexander Lye Camila Arias Caroline SchurmanBuritica Grenier technology theatre visual arts

Edward Tan

Noah D’Aeth

Hanna Lee Yo-en Chin

MUSIC

MUSIC

FIGHTSTAR IS BACK...

p a r t 17

B

BEHIND THE DEVIL’S BACK Rob Funnell

IT DIDN’T MATTER that Fightstar had released three fantastic albums that had illustrated the four piece’s incredible talent and cemented them as one of Britain’s leading post-hardcore bands. It also didn’t matter that through a disappointingly short first stint of 7 years they had been prominent of the main stage of many festivals and sold out many tours with future breakout bands such as You Me At Six. Throughout Fightstar’s career, the shadow of lead singer and guitarist Charlie Simpson’s past as one of the three members of the massively popular boy band Busted has always hung over the band, with incessant rumours of potential reunions and popular cynicism of the band either from those who have never listened to them or people who believed they were selling purely on the past endeavours of Simpson and not on their own merits or sound. Suddenly in 2010, Fightstar went on hiatus and it seemed that a potentially influential career was snuffed short.

However Behind The Devil’s Back, which is the first new piece of music the band have released since their grand reunification in 2014, may be the definition album in the band’s career and finally shake off

this stigma. While only 10 songs long, this collection of songs is by far the best Fightstar have released and for the first time in their career it seems they have found their own sound and excel in developing it to its creative limit. The title track is a particular highlight - while there is a hint of a Deftones influence, the transition from a heavy and dark verse with chugging guitar riffs to a soaring chorus is effortless and is the best example of the unique sound Fightstar have developed over the years and taken from their individual solo efforts during their 4 year hiatus. ‘Titan’ follows in a similar vein, with exceptional performances from all band members and while being the heaviest song on the album is still extremely accessible to the casual listener because of the fantastic use of dynamics and hauntingly beautiful vocals from Simpson that completely dispel any associations with his boyband past. The drumming in particular is excellent on ‘Titan’, and is consistently great throughout the entirety of the album. Furthermore, the co-lead vocals by Alex Westaway add a great contrast in timbre throughout and coming to the forefront of ‘More Human Than Human’ saves what could have been a relatively average track by making it a noticeable break halfway through the album.

While songs such as ‘Overdrive’

and ‘Murder All Over’ may be more focused towards radio play than the brutally heavy ‘Sink With The Snakes’, it’s a testament to the versatility of Fightstar that such songs are extremely creative and only enhance the album - they show how modern mainstream rock music should be done. Furthermore, ‘Sharp Tongue’ and ‘Animal’, being the two main songs released in the weeks leading up to the album’s release, excellently nail the shift between heavy and rising verses to extremely catchy and memorable choruses. If one criticism could be levelled at the band, however, it’s the length of the album and some songs in particular. The ending track ‘Sink’, while extremely powerful and being an excellent culmination of the many positive elements of Behind The Devil’s Back, the outro could have gone on for longer to make it a truly epic closer similar to that of Fightstar’s other album.

The combined length of only 36 minutes for the album is disappointing, however such a complaint only reinforces how brilliant Fightstar’s comeback record truly is. This is certainly one of the best albums of 2015 from a band that have always promised so much and have finally lived up to their immense potential. Fightstar are back with a bang, and hopefully this time here to stay.

LABEL OF THE WEEK

L.I.E.S RECORDS Will Locke

good dream.

L.I.E.S. STANDS FOR LONG ISLAND ELECTRICAL Systems, which sounds like a familyrun local handyman business, but is actually a truly forward-thinking dance music label that releases fucked up, scuzzy, and, at times, abrasive music. Founded by Long Island-resident and die-hard punk enthusiast Ron Morelli in 2010, the label represents the coming together of two seemingly disparate musical spheres: the experimental DIY post-punk scene of the 1980s, and modern day dance music. In other words, it’s like the synthesis of Thrasher and Resident Advisor, condensed into a single label. Needless to say, this has yielded some powerfully unique results, and has helped popularise noisier dance music in recent years. It also represents a new hope for American underground electronic music, which has notably lagged behind its European counterparts in recent decades (see Ultra Music Festival), despite being the birthplace of dance music’s most popular and influential genres: house and techno. All in all, it’s a fantastic and unique imprint, and below I share my five favourite tracks from its relatively short five-year history.

‘In Argo Teurano’ – Gunnar Haslam (from Mirrors & Copulation [2014]) Mirrors & Copulation is Gunnar Haslam’s third LP on L.I.E.S., and although much of explores a more ambient theme, its closer ‘In Argo Teurano’ rounds things off with incessant drum rolls, acid refrains, and foreboding drones, for one of the most moving and most clubready tracks off the album.

‘Supersonic Transport’ – Daywalker & C.F. (from Supersonic Transport [2014]) For a label that prides itself on gritty analogue textures, this unusually clean-cut house banger seems an odd fit for L.I.E.S., but I couldn’t care less. I’ve yet to hear this on a decent club system, but the day I do, I might lose my mind.

‘Time of the Assassins (Steve Moore Remix)’ – Professor Genius (from Hassan [2012]) Steve Moore is an integral part of the L.I.E.S. roster, and his specialty is luscious and celestial synth workouts. This remix makes me feel like I’m lying alone in a snowy wilderness, gazing at the Northern Lights – a pleasant reprieve from the hydraulic drills of the building site outside my front door.

‘African Rhythms’ – Bookworms (from Love Triangles [2012]) As it says on the tin, this track opens with rolling yet driven African percussion, which is gradually accompanied by ghostly chords and then a distant echoing chant. Put simply, to call this a psych jam is an understatement, and its nine-minute length is over as quickly as a

‘Sark Island Acid’ – Legowelt (from Sark Island Acid [2011]) What is there to say about Legowelt that hasn’t already been said? The Dutchman is a wizard, as proved by his awe-inspiring FACT Magazine feature covering his production processes, and also by his striking resemblance to a 30-something year old Gandalf. He creates possibly the most mellow acid techno track of all time in ‘Sark Island Acid’, and any label that puts out a tune as accomplished as this as their fifth release is always destined for great things.

1814| Tuesday 1 December, 2015

FOOD

FOOD

FOOD MARKETS NEAR LSE

FOOD

YOU NEED TO VISIT! Caroline Schurman-Grenier

ONE OF THE THINGS I TELL EVERYONE TO enjoy when they live in London are the food markets.

Seriously, they’re the greatest thing. They cost roughly the same price as Pret or Wasabi, but the food is definitely a million times better. London is a city that is filled with things to do for every budget. The problem is that you need to do a little research to discover these fantastic places; this is where I come into your life - my goal is to make this task a little easier for you.

There are 3 food markets walking distance from LSE. Less than 20-minute walk, and worth every penny. They all have varied stands, allowing you to avoid a fight with a group of friends who can’t agree on what to eat.

Southbank Centre Food Market Southbank? THAT’S SO FAR. Wrong. So wrong.

Citymapper told me it only takes 16 minutes to walk to this market. Trust me on this one, it’s not that far.

Also, you study in London, in CENTRAL London.

How many times have you walked along the Thames between classes? That’s what I thought. Not enough times. This market is really fun because you get a nice view, a wide range of options to choose from (forcing you to buy a main and a dessert at different stands, you’ve been warned), and it makes you sound cool to say you know about this market that not too many people have heard of. You can go simple with sautéed mushrooms on sourdough toasts, you can have brownies, you can have falafels. You can have it all.

Royal Festival Hall,Belvedere Road,Southbank Centre Square,Southwark

St Giles Food Market Located in Covent Garden, right in the hustle and bustle of tourists, shops and overworked employees, it’s a great little place to relax and enjoy a sandwich outside. The market is quite small and is on the grounds of St Giles Cathedral. Falafel, Indian beef sandwiches, REAL Greek souvlakis, coffee, or pies and mash: these are your options. Just because there are few, it doesn’t mean they’re less good than the ones with 56 choices. It may actually be easier for you to choose in these circumstances.

60 St Giles High St Leather Lane Market This one is right near Farringdon or Holborn station.

Leather Lane is closed off Monday to Friday from 10 am to 3 pm for you to enjoy walking on a street without fearing being run over by a cab driver. They don’t only have food, they also sell a wide range of useful clothes and accessories. In any case, it’s where many Citi workers go for lunch when the idea of enjoying a meal deal on their desk is anything but enjoyable.

They have falafels, ßburritos, venison burgers, different Oriental cuisines, fish and chips - they have it all!

Do check it out.

Leather Lane, Holborn Your lunch just became a lot tastier. You’re welcome.

A ROAST CHICKEN

TO REMEMBER...

Caroline Schurman-Grenier

TO ALL YOU YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN who think that cooking meat is the hardest thing to do and that you will never succeed, ergo you will never try, I am about to prove you wrong. With this recipe, you will knock the socks off any guest that will come over to your house, unless he or she is vegetarian (have them over another night and I promise to keep you posted with an equally delicious vegetarian dish). Seriously, your parents will think you’ve become a cooking god (or goddess) overnight, your special someone will ask for more and your friends will come over far more often.

This roast chicken can be served at any time of the year, with any side dish of your liking, and guess what?

It makes a terrific leftover chicken sandwich for lunch the next day. It’s one of those recipes you remember by heart because it’s just so darn easy to make! Believe you me; it’s the best thing that ever happened to chicken.

To prepare your miracle poultry dish, you will need: - One Chicken (Organic or grain-fed gives it a better taste, but it’s not necessary) - One Lemon - Two Cloves of Garlic - 1 tbsp of Honey - Drizzle of olive oil - A sprinkle of sea salt Preheat your oven to 375 F. Rinse your chicken, pat the water off with a cloth and put your chicken in a roasting pan (or the closest thing you have to one).

Put your hand up the chicken’s backside and remove the liver and kidney (sounds gross but it’s really easy to do). Cut your lemon in four and stick 2 pieces, once again, up the chicken’s backside.

Your next step is to peel the garlic and crush each clove slightly with the side of a knife and stick them up there also.

Now add the honey and the remainders of the lemon in the chicken.

Drizzle the oil on the outside of the chicken. Make sure that the entire chicken is covered, but don’t drown the poor guy in it.

Now, sprinkle the sea salt all over the bird and rub it in with your hands. It may seem strange to be massaging a raw chicken, but you’ll be thankful you did it once it comes out of the oven.

Now for the best part: put the chicken in the oven and leave it there! Your chicken will probably take about 2 hours to cook, but it really depends on the size of your bird.

You need 20 minutes of cooking time for one pound so you may have to do some math, I apologize. About 10 minutes before your poultry feast is ready, take the chicken out and spoon some of the sauce at the bottom of the tray over it, then put it back in the oven for the last 10 minutes to let it bronze.

Your chicken is now ready to be gobbled up by your guests.

----Make sure they leave some for you!

THEATRE

19

STAYING ALIVE

THE PLEASANCE THEATRE Noah D’Aeth

THE PLEASANCE THEATRE is a cosy gem of a venue. It sits, like all theatres should, above a bar and grill, and specialises in giving space to small production companies. Tickets are often cheap enough to leave room for a double cheeseburger and pale ale downstairs. ‘Staying Alive’, written by Kat Roberts and performed by the Blackshaw Theatre Company is the latest work on at the Pleasance.

Developed in co-operation with the bereavement charity, SLOW, the play is a gritty exploration of grief. Though the production can lose its way at times, it benefits from a script which is tender and sometimes darkly funny.

It follows the story of Mary, who has recently lost her young son in an accident.

After this tragic event, she tries to piece her life back together, and meet up with some

old friends, Jack and Jen. A cloud of grief still hangs over her though, and she finds it difficult to engage the ‘Surrey set’ that Jen and Jack frequent.

Rachel Nott plays Mary with a good deal of pathos, and searches bravely for the tone such a difficult circumstance demands. Her performance can come across a little too earnest, however. When reaching for the spot between grief and anger, she often ends up looking more flummoxed, with a thick top lip protruding and a blank look on her face. Opposite her, Jack and Jen, played

by Alexander Pankhurst and Eleanor Burke, can also feel a bit wooden. This is a shame, given that their Islington dinner parties - full of chrome wine coolers and organic soy milk - are a rich comic source.

Indeed, when Jack tries to pull off a sympathetic gawp, Alexander Pankhurst makes him appear less like a man confronted with tragedy, and

more like someone confused by the olive selection at his local Waitrose delicatessen.

As the play progresses, we are introduced to more of Jen and Jack’s yuppie friends, who come on in a vain attempt to cheer Mary up. Will, a marketing manager played by Stephen Ashmore-Blakely, brings a bit of gusto and a touch of political incorrectness to the piece. Although his character is thoroughly unlikable, Ashmore-Blakely nevertheless provides some comic relief, and Will is at his best with a glass of Pinot in his hand and his foot in his mouth.

Moving through several dinner parties, the play could fill a wheelie bin with the wine bottles its cast consumes. It never fails to keep sight of its core dynamic though, and it soon becomes clear that Mary’s grief is driving a wedge between her and her friends.

Jen and Jack now move on tip-toes awkwardly around

Mary. The script thus does a good job of throwing grief into a harsher focus. It reveals not just the heavy clouds surrounding Mary, but also the uncertain squalls hovering above her friends. Along the way it fosters a mood of tension and claustrophobia.

The set, designed by Michelle Bristow, helps develop this atmosphere. A simple child’s drawing is taped to the back curtain. At the front of the stage stands a crib, which is empty except for a lone teddy bear. It is a sparse design, yet it thoughtfully captures the essence of the play. You can often catch Mary looking over at the bare crib; she can never quite lose sight of the trauma which defines her, and as we head to the drama’s conclusion, this only seems to grow in importance.

To get to this conclusion though, we have to take a couple of surreal detours, as the play loses its focus a touch. In-

terspersing flashbacks into the narrative sounds like it might be a good idea to help the audience. Here though, it only serves to confuse. At one point Will’s character is stood shouting ‘You didn’t replace the blinds’ at Mary, in an effort to conjure up the experience of a Police interview. The result is just baffling. Will comes out sounding like a demented screw-fix salesperson and the story doesn’t really advance anywhere because of it. Instead it feels slightly at odds with the play’s direction.

Nevertheless, the script is good enough to hold this production together, and to let you ignore the times it loses focus. It portrays grief quite perceptively and adds a good deal of humour to what would otherwise be a terribly depressing subject. In the end it is a reasonably polished production, and is well worth sitting down to dissect over a burger and a beer.

20

14

| Tuesday 1 December, 2015

PRIDE WEEK FICTION

LITERATURE

Camila Arias-Buritica Representation in all facets of life and society is important for the sake of inclusivity, freedom and equality. Literature is no exception, whether we are talking about gender, race, or sexuality. Last week on the LSE campus was Pride Week, I thought that this reading list would be fitting. These novels are just a few examples of LGBT+ stories in literature.

Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit – Jeanette Winterson

The young protagonist of this autobiographical novel Jeanette fancies girls, and this makes growing up in a close-knit, religious community that sees this as unnatural a challenge to say the least. Throughout her life, Jeanette’s parents have been preparing her for life as a missionary, but a relationship with another woman leads to her being condemned by her community and Jeanette must decide how to carve out a life of her own. I love the way that Jeanette’s religious upbringing is reflected in the book itself, with chapters being named after books of the Bible and religious stories being blended in with her own story. Although metaphors are very heavily used in this book, it doesn’t get in the way of Jeanette’s story and the message, which Winterson said was that “what makes life difficult for homosexuals is not their perversity but other people’s.”

Middlesex – Jeffrey Eugenides

Middlesex deal with the transition from child to adult, from native to immigrant, and from female to male. The narrator is Cal, who is initially Callie, an intersex man with a genetic condition causing him to have feminine traits. Cal was raised a girl, until his intersex identity is discovered in his teens. Over the course of the novel, which is written in the form of a memoir, the protagonist switches genders several times. This is a coming of age family saga unlike one you have probably come across before. The only problem you may have is that this is a very multi-faceted story, telling not only the story of intersex Cal, but also of Greek immigrants in the US all against a background of the 1960s Detroit riots.

Maurice – EM Forster

Forster’s novel about a young gay man was only published in 1971, as Forster believed that its subject matter made it unpublishable. We meet the main character Maurice when he is a young boy of 14, and follow him through university and his adult life. He is quite an unremarkable man, except for the fact that he is gay, which he hides from those around him. He battles with his homosexuality, both having relationships with men and trying to ‘cure’ himself, and must ultimately decide whether to accept his sexuality. This book was written a year ago, and times have changed, but with the practice of ‘curing’ homosexuality still around and it being a taboo in many circles, the novel doesn’t feel all that dated.

UPCOMING OPPORTUNITIES • Florian Roithmayr- ‘with, and, or, without’ Exhibition preview at Camden Arts Centre: Friday 11 December, 6.30-8.30.

• 2015 British Street Food Awards UK Final - Invitation to attend and possible interview with founder, Richard Johnson.

December 5th & 6th.

• ‘Un Certain Regard’ - Screening invitation: Friday 20th December at 18:00 for 18:30 & Monday 30th December at 18:00 for 18:30.

LSE Arts Festival - Save the date!

Week 2 of Lent term.

WE’RE LOOKING FOR DEPUTIES TECHNOLOGY AND THEATRE ENTHUSIASTS ---------IF YOU’RE INTERESTED IN WRITING UNDER THESE TWO CATEGORIES FOR PARTB

PLEASE EMAIL US AT PARTB@THEBEAVERONLINE.CO.UK

21

NUS EXTRA: THE ESSENTIAL STUDENT DISCOUNT CARD Available to buy from the LSESU Shop and online: www.nus.org.uk/en/nus-extra Collect yours from the LSESU Reception, 3rd Floor Saw Swee Hock Student Centre

AND MUCH MORE

Unfortunate Typo By Council Orders LSE to ‘De-Vest’, that sets free Senior Management’s Moobs

Dispatches From The Field: A Bisexual Infiltrates the Pride

By The LGBT+ Committee The NAB sent Brenna Wilson, LGBT+ Alliance Bisexual officer and Bisexual woman, to investigate LSESU Pride Week for instances of biphobia. Brenna went undercover in the Proud pride as a Lesbian, adopting a number of disguises, so that she wouldn’t bi found out as Bi. Did they bilieve it? We can’t bi sure. Communication was lost on Friday night, a day known as ‘FriGay’. All that we have of the investigation can be found in Brenna’s Biary, as show bilow:

Day 1

I have managed to infiltrate the LGBT+ Alli ance, securing accommodation in the Lesbileader, Pride-ta, sorr y, Perdita’s own home. I made some comments about how much I loved Blue Is The War mest Colour. This received a positive rece ption. Outlook so far is good.

Day 2

One of the B-LGBT-NOCS referred to me as a Lipstick Lesbian. That’s only one step away from recognising my true Bi-dentity. I will be working on a more convincing disguise tomorrow.

Today is TuesGay in the Pride World . I personally prefer it spelled as ‘Tuesday’ but ma ybe that’s just because I like the D. Can’t let this slip . Letting them know my yearning for the D would com promise the whole bi-nvestigation

Day 3

Yesterday I came too close to being found out so I have undertaken a make-under, binning all dreaded lipstick and hauling baggy jeans and oversized plaid shirts. I am complimented for my dishevelled appearance and lack of discernible body shape under all of the layers.

Day 4

My grunge look was too accurate and I was accused of fitting too closely to the lesbian trope in detriment to our breaking of gay stereotypes. To demonstrate my total commitment to the Pride Cause I have camouflaged myself completely in glitter and rainbows. I’m finally accepted as one of the Pride.

Day 5

On red alert! I think I have been found out! I have overheard some talk of them taking me to ‘Heaven ’.

Can’t be certain, but sounds like I’m going to be sacrificed to the Gay Holy Trinity; Elton John, Judy Garland and Liberace. I’ll just have to rain-go-w with it to remain incognito.

24 | Tuesday 1 December, 2015

I sat down with LSE alumnus and member of PwC’s Economics and Policy team to get an insight into working for, and applying to, PwC Alex Gray City Editor PWC IS ONE OF THE biggest consultancy practices, and offers a range of different consulting services, one of these being Economics and Policy (E&P).

PwC’s E&P team work with clients to help them solve their most difficult problems – anything from developing a new strategy to facing a regulator or engaging in high-stakes litigation. The team work with clients across senior levels of the private and public sector in the UK and overseas.

Recent examples of their work include working with the airports commission to assess the wider economic impact of the different candidates for airport expansion; working with OFWAT to help them set price controls for the water and wastewater industry in England and Wales and the FCA worked with several PwC firms globally to produce an international study on the cash savings markets.

I sat down with Laura, an LSE alumnus who joined the Economics and Policy team two years ago to talk about the application process, and what it’s like to work at PwC. This week we will focus on what the application process is like, and what it’s like to work at PwC, next week we will publish the second part of the interview, which will focus a bit more on why PwC, and some comment on bigger economics issues.

The City

Section Editor: Alex Gray Deputy Editors: Henry Mitchell

Inside The Biggest Of The Four: Economics & Policy at PwC

First of all thank you for your time, and agreeing to talk to me. Let’s start at the beginning; can you talk a bit about your time at LSE, the course, what you liked (or didn’t)?

I studied Econometrics and Mathematical Economics because I wanted to study something that had a lot of maths in it, but also had an application to the real world. I really liked the look of the econometrics course, so I decided to go for that and obviously studying at LSE has many other benefits. I really enjoyed the course at the LSE, and was heavily involved in the Netball club, making some really great friends during my studies. The most difficult time was probably the exam period, which is probably what most people say, but it was very stressful. In a sense, though, they do prepare you for some elements of working life. In retrospect, also I probably shouldn’t have got quite as stressed out about my dissertation as I did, but overall I did really enjoy the LSE.

Can you speak about your application to PwC? How did you find it?

I actually found the application to PwC relatively straightforward, they aren’t trying to catch you out, so there’s no hidden steps or parts of the process. In terms of the online application, they ask a couple of questions about the rationale for wanting to apply, so it’s important to use this opportunity to differentiate yourself, and why you want to apply to PwC. In fact, I think that this is probably the hardest part of the application process; writing about joining the company when you are not yet part of it can be quite difficult, especially when you possibly haven’t had that much experience of a working environment that is similar but there is lots of information out there to help. And then in terms of the interviews and assessment centres, I actually found the interview almost enjoyable. It was quite relaxed, and I was made to feel comfortable by the interviewers. For an application process, it’s probably as good as it can be.

my second year of university, so I already had a very good idea of what it would be like to work at PwC when it came to joining as a graduate. When I started the internship I spent a few days getting some training in consulting skills, so you feel prepared for the type of work you will be asked to do. The internship itself was very good at giving an overall flavour of what it’s like to work at PwC, I worked mostly on some proposal work, and being exposed to the kind of client facing things that I knew I would be doing if I joined as a graduate.

So, out of interest, were the reasons that you put on the application form, in fact the reasons that you enjoy working at PwC? Oh that’s a good question, I’m not sure I’ve really looked back in length and compared. I guess the reason that I put down was that I wanted to use my degree to help solve clients problems, and that has been the reality. I’m using the kind of techniques that I learnt in

my degree, and really enjoying it so that’s been really positive.

Economics and Policy (E&P) is part of Strategy&, but to what extent do you work together? Is it like Britain in Europe - most British people don’t think of themselves as Europeans?

E&P is very much part of Strategy&, so I suppose it’s not that analogous to the Britain/Europe situation. We are all part of the same competency group and Economics & Policy is a sub-competency within it. It is really great to have expanded our offering with Strategy&, so much of our work compliments each other’s allowing us to access more clients and provide a greater spectrum of services.

To find out more about Economics Consulting at PwC, visit: w w w. p w c . c o m / u k / w o r k - i n economics This interview will be continued in next week’s edition of the paper.

“I think the main thing is to be yourself, it’s something that PwC puts a real emphasis on, so I think trying to be relaxed as possible” And do you have any advice for applicants?

I think the main thing is to be yourself, it’s something that PwC puts a real emphasis on, so I think trying to be as relaxed as possible. Obviously having the Economics knowledge for E&P is essential, although nobody is going to ask you to write down any complicated economic theory, but they will ask how you could apply some economics to a problem. So having a good general knowledge is also really important. I would also say that for answering the initial question, then it is just a case of learning as much as possible about the business, going to career fairs etc, to make your application really stand out.

Was working at PwC like you expected it would be?

I had completed a summer internship in PwC Economics after

PwC’s London Bridge office, the home of E&P. Credit: Flickr, Chas B

Paul Mason: Postcapitalism

The City |25

An examination of Paul Mason’s recent LSE public lecture on ‘Postcapitalism’ Hakan Ustabas Deputy Comment Editor FILLED WITH CAUTION, I rose the crowded staircase towards the Old Theatre. A natural sceptic towards claims about the impending collapse of capitalism, I took my seat without as much excitement as the anthropologists and leftward-leaning social scientists who surrounded me. By the time Paul Mason began his lecture, not a single space remained unfilled.

To begin, the revered Channel 4 News editor began by displaying a diagram of coloured shapes and lines, representing the traditional view of transactions between corporations in an economy. He developed this to reflect what he felt was the more modern position of the economy - a growth of ‘information’.

Throughout the lecture, he described in detail the way in which information poses a threat to capitalism as we know it today. Activities in a capitalist system are traditionally measured through the value of transactions, which, Mason said, do not include ‘valueless’ activities.

Take Wikipedia, which is nonprofit. Undoubtedly, it has had a positive impact on millions of lives by spreading reliable information, but it has sourced no advertising revenue in return, and so is undervalued in the traditional capitalist sense.

The problem with information is that it is hard to put a price on. The time and energy spent on developing information through innovation is instantly undermined by the ability to copy and share that information.

The effect of this is that the price of such products is far lower than they perhaps merit. He gave the example of music as a type of information file; an artist on Spotify would need well over one million streams before they earned even the minimum wage. In response to this, there is a trend away from hourly work, and towards activity-completion, which is resulting in the gradual erosion of leisure time for workers.

“the role of information in the economy needs to be examined in greater detail by the greatest economic minds” Mason argued that the main reason the information sector is surviving at all is the existence of patents and intellectual property.

However, these artificial monopolies cannot continue to exist. As these eventually lose their legal protection, and the working conditions of the masses contin-

ue to worsen, it is inevitable that the system will need to change to accommodate the increasing role of information in the economy.

He argued that we need to gradually replace the economic pillars which uphold the system of capitalism. I must admit that such a cogent and empirical argument is refreshing in the midst of populist and normative shouts. The basis of Mason’s argument is not if we should reform capitalism, but when the inevitable transition will happen.

At the end of the lecture, I was pleasantly surprised with the amount of food for thought that I had been given. Undoubtedly, the role of information in the economy needs to be examined in greater detail by the greatest economic minds of the world, because our use of information is expanding at an incredible pace.

In light of this, I support thinkers like Mason who are willing to express their views on how we should accommodate the changes which are coming our way.

I was, however, slightly disappointed that Mason didn’t spend as much time discussing the solutions as the problems. If the death of capitalism is inevitable, then what is the route to postcapitalism? This is something which I feel should have been explained in greater detail.

Another criticism of the lecture was that Mason’s reasoning (flawless as it was) was based upon a number of rather large

assertions. When asked a question about this, he responded that his views were only a theory, which seems to concede that if one assertion falls, the entire prediction falls with it.

He stated proudly that the means of production, through this information which cannot be easily reconciled with the capitalist system, is expanding out of the social construct. During the lecture, he referred to the views of Marx, and it seemed that his ideas sought to built upon the analysis of the 19th Century philosopher.

In his conclusion, he stated that a labour theory of value would likely be the fairer and more appropriate alternative to the current state of hourly wages

which are being eroded by the expanse of information. “Neoliberalism is broken,” he declared. “Postcapitalism will set [us] free.”

Mason is right that we need to find a way of accommodating information within the economic system. Nevertheless, his sweeping assertions are far from convincing. While I welcome the flag for academic attention, I cannot bring myself to mark capitalism’s funeral on the calendar.

Admittedly, I was impressed with the lecture, but my scepticism towards claims of the demise of capitalism continues. Like Marx’s, it may be Mason’s predictions which die, rather than the system of capitalism. Like Marx’s, only time will tell.

Credit: Wikipedia Commons

LGBT+ Discrimination In Employment We have made so much progress, but there is still much more to be done Alex Gray City Editor THE EQUALITY ACT OF 2010 is a consolidation of previous laws, and makes it clear that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of someone’s sexuality. It recognises the rights of all members of the LGBT+ community to not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality, or gender identity.

However, as with female wages, a statutory equality is far from equality in practice. Still, in 2014, 34% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the UK choose not to disclose their sexuality at work. Given that the past week was Pride week, it is important to consider some the progress that has been made, and is still to be made in LGBT+ employment equality.

The reasons for this inequality are numerous, and some might say that they reflect the heteronor-

“In the drive towards LGBT+ equality in workplaces, it seems that many companies are willing to stop at the easiest options” mativity (the basic assumption of heterosexuality, and of identifying with the gender that one is born with) of the society that we live in.

It is still the case, for example, that LGBT representation in the media is woefully inadequate; when LGBT+ characters are portrayed in films, they are done so in a way that seems insincere, or gimmicky.

In spite of this context, it is surely the case that workplaces are able

to become leaders, and not followers in LGBT+ rights. This is what I would argue for.

One area of LGBT+ rights that has come to the fore recently, in particular with the public transition of Caitlyn Jenner and the tragic death of trans women Vicky Thompson in a male prison, is the issue of trans rights. This is an area in which workplaces seem to be well behind becoming transinclusive spaces. There are surely things that, particularly in larger companies, could be done to help trans people. For instance, a matter that instantly springs to mind would be the inclusion of gender neutral toilets, where possible.

Something that can seem so trivial to cisgendered (those that identify with the gender they were assigned at birth) people, can very quickly become dangerous and unsafe spaces for trans people. The single most important thing, well beyond a suggestion like this, is opening

Correction: Last week Xiaoyuan Li was incorrectly referred to as the President of BFG. He is in fact the Vice-President. The City apologises for this error

up safe spaces where LGBT+ can report back their issues with the workspace for improvement.

In the drive towards LGBT+ equality in workplaces, it seems that many companies are willing to stop at the easiest options. Many LGBT+ engagement opportunities seem to start, and stop, with the white gay, middle class, male.

This is not to dismiss the issues that section of the LGBT+ com-

Credit: Wikipedia Commons

munity, as a someone who does not identify as LGBT+, I cannot talk with much authority on the issue. Yet, looking at analysis from those like Dark Matter, the trans activists and poets, it is clear that it is all too easy for the large companies to not make the transition into true intersectionality in their consideration of LGBT+ issues.

Middle class white gay cisgendered men are still able to enjoy some of the privileges not open to other members of the LGBT+ community. To some, this could seem petty, and unhelpful. However, as is only too clear from lessons learnt in the struggle for female emancipation, calls for solidarity can quickly be seen as eliminating the voices of those who are in most need of the movements, and whose struggles must be recognised. Again, this is not decrying the progress made, but a call for a genuinely inclusive movement towards the equality that we all want.

26 | Tuesday 1 December, 2015

LSE-UCL Conference: Where Is

The Annual LSE-UCL Economics Conference was held last weekend

THE LSE-UCL ECONOMICS Conference was held on the 21st of November this year at the LSE, and was organised by both the LSESU Economics Society and the UCL Economist’s Society, with the endorsement and support of the LSE and UCL Economics Departments.

This annual conference which has been held since 2009 has attracted leading academics, experts and policy makers who come together to debate, discuss and exchange ideas and solutions pertaining to a wide spectrum of contemporary economic dilemmas. This year, the discussions were centered around the theme of, “Where is Economics Going? A Future of Uncertainty”, and attracted over 200 attendees, who flocked to LSE’s Old Theatre for the unique opportunity to witness some of the sharpest Economists from the fields of Developmental economics,Transitional economics and Industrial economics engage in intellectually stimulating debate.

The conference kicked off with a debate on, “Should we worry about Future Inequality?” between Chris Snowdon, freelance journalist and author of “The Spirit Level Delusion”; Stewart Lansley, an economist and financial journalist known for his work on poverty; and Margot Salomon, Associate Professor in the Law Department and the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at LSE. So should we worry about future inequality?

Chris Snowdon thinks not. Although observing that there exists a general acceptance that income inequality is an issue we should be worried about, he countered this by claiming that inequality is merely an economic indicator, and is not something to be concerned about in and of itself. He also admitted there would be a problem if the poor were poor because the rich were rich, another phenomenon he adamantly refutes. Instead, he pointed to evidence that inequality can rise as the economy grows because median earners start to earn more. The opposite can be true when the economy slows down, as median earnings fall while those on benefits are “cushioned”; thus inequality decreases simply because the rich are getting poorer. His position could thus be boiled down to the following: inequality rising is not always

Features

Section Editors: Taryana Odayar Alexander Hurst Deputy Editors: Stefanos Argyros Daniel Shears Sebastian Shehadi

Taryana Odayar, Stefanos Argyros, Sebastian Shehadi & Daniel Shears

bad, and inequality falling is not always good.

Conclusively, “inequality is a side issue, if not irrelevant.”

Stewart Lansley on the other hand took the opposite side of the debate. He began by questioning whether the mechanisms which enable the top 1% to accumulate masses of wealth have been to the benefit of the wider economy or at the expense of the remaining 99%.

Ultimately his argument aligned with the latter, which he claimed was supported by the evidence; an increasing proportion of those at the top becoming extremely wealthy are doing so not based on innovation or job creation, but on the manipulation of the finances of existing companies at the expense of “employers, customers and the taxpayer.”

Some of the mechanisms used by the top few to become rich at the expense of the others, included privatisation by the government, mergers and acquisitions, private equity activity and share-buying by private companies. Lansley assured the audience that these activities don’t boost the overall performance or productiveness of the economy.

Indeed, inequality in this is clearly something we should be worrying about because it is symptomatic of a wider array of economic problems.

The next speaker to take the stage was Dr Linda Yueh, a prominent Economist and former BBC Chief Business Correspondent, whose talk was on “The Future of China.” In her speech, Dr Yueh reflected on the past as well as the future of the Chinese economy, drawing on the insights she gathered in her most recent book, ‘China’s Growth: The Making of an Economic Superpower’.

She argued that in order to understand China’s efforts to avoid the middle income trap and modernize its economy, it is useful to consider what fostered China’s residual growth. She posited that approximately onethird of its residual growth was attributable to human capital, one-third to re-allocative efficiency and one-third to innovation.

Yet she noted that in all three of these paradigms there were significant issues that China needs to address if it wishes to carve out a far sighted economic strategy. In relation to human capital, she emphasised that there is a pressing need for China to invest in and promote its nascent universities, particularly those in the provinces.

Pertaining to innovation, she stated that about two-thirds of it was due to imitation rather

than the emergence of Chinese innovations in high tech sectors.

As such, she argues that in order to continue its rise as an economic superpower, the Chinese government must ensure that its companies are developing innovative and breakthrough technologies, it must shift its focus from investment to raising consumption, firms should be encouraged to go global, and that it does not adversely interfere with the private sector.

Overall, Dr Yueh was notably very optimistic about China’s capacity to become a sui generis case in implementing the necessary reforms and overcoming the middle income trap.

China’s increased willingness to take the lead in the upcoming climate change negotiations might be a good indication that moving towards a high value economy is at the top of its agenda. But what Dr Linda Yueh did not address, were the latent concerns over China’s autocratic system of governance and how these might in turn influence its economic transformation.

“the economics of innovation must draw on other disciplines, in particular from engineering but also from the sociology of consumption.”

Next on the agenda was a talk by Professor Peter Swann, an Emeritus Professor at Nottingham University, specialising in Industrial economics, who shared his insights on the future of innovation in his talk on “Where is Innovation Going?”.

Professor Swann began his speech by arguing that in the field of the economics of innovation, classical economics are incomplete and it is difficult to obtain neat econometric models. He posited that instead, we should conceptualise and use hybrid models drawing on multi-disciplinary approaches.

A cardinal feature of this hybrid model is to focus first on gathering and analysing as much empirical data as possible and then trying to develop theoretical economic models that make sense of it. He argued that this view is now widely accepted in Europe and the UK in particular. Further, he posited that the economics of innovation must draw on other disciplines,

in particular from engineering but also from the sociology of consumption. More broadly, he noted that insufficient attention has been paid to the destructive dimension of innovation inherent in Schumpeter’s analysis. He argued that what is needed is a democratic concept of innovation, where consumers are actively involved in guiding the innovation process. He noted that this might work particularly well when it comes to small businesses on the local scale.

Professor Swann’s talk was followed by a panel discussion on “Can we model Human behaviour?”, featuring Susannah Hume, Senior Advisor at the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT); Dr Judith Shapiro, Professor of Economics at the LSE with a special interest in economics of post-transition and transition, particularly Russian; and Professor David Tuckett, the Director of UCL’s Centre of the Study of Decisionmaking Uncertainty.

Dr Shapiro launched the discussion by declaring herself a “contrarian” who reserved some criticisms for Behavioural Economics (BE), but who had great faith in its future role. Shapiro contended that like many emerging trends before it, BE was suffering from a hype cycle and inflated expectations. For Shapiro, too many behavioural economists lack humility and patience, and consequently posit halfbaked, grandiose theories of everything. Using the positive example of Russian research on suicide, Shapiro advocated a more subtle, sensitive attitude to BE. This approach is shaped by a heightened focus on examining large quantities of data, and the employment of elegant, simplistic models that factor in the homogeneity of human culture.

Professor David Tuckett gave an exhilarating talk on Conviction Narrative Theory (CNT), which explores the way in which uncertain decision-makers use stories and other related procedural mechanisms, to form an internal representation which makes them feel convinced enough to act on a decision - even though future implications of their decision cannot be validly estimated probabilistically. In an attempt to weave humour into his talk, whilst explaining the emotional vs. cognitive approach to CNT, Professor Tuckett cracked a one-liner to the effect that ‘Women are more emotional’, followed by the rather awkward reprieve, “I’m slightly joking of course.”

Features | 27

Economics Going? A Future Of Uncertainty at the LSE, featuring contemporary Economic intellectual heavyweights.

Susannah Hume from the the BIT elucidated on the role of the BIT as a social purpose company which aims to make public services more costeffective and easier to use. In other words, the BIT helps people make better choices for themselves by introducing more realistic models of human behaviour to government policy.

The BIT achieves this through innovative investigations. For example, with regards to text messages and recruiting, BIT discovered that personalised messages with an element of reciprocity – namely, informing a job-seeker that an appointment has been preemptively booked for them – significantly increased the rate of attendance. An investigation into ‘Why people donate to charity’ also concluded that personal emails and reciprocity – such as giving the potential donors free sweets – dramatically increased charity giving.

Similarly, BIT also found that people are more likely to sign organ donation forms if the forms included ‘reciprocity sentences’ such as ‘If you needed an organ transplant, would you want one? If so, please help others.’ Lastly, other BIT tests discerned that the cleaner an environment is, the less people will litter in that environment, and also that iPhone carrying women between sixteen and twenty five are at the greatest risk of falling victim to theft. In a brief interview with the Beaver, Susannah Hume stated that what she found most exciting about BIT is that many of their findings have international

applicability.

LSE and UCL alumnus Professor Jagjit Chadha was next in the lineup of distinguished academics speaking at the conference. Professor Chadha is currently Professor and Chair in Money and Banking in the Department of Economics at the University of Kent, Professor of Commerce at Gresham College, Chair of the Money, Macro and Finance Research Group and a specialist adviser to the Treasury Select Committee. Professor Chadha’s talk on the new art of Central banking, in particular ‘Monetary Policy and the new norm’, revealed insights into how we can attenuate inefficient fluctuations in the economy, as “what we thought was a great model to think about attenuating fluctuations in output turned out be insufficient.”

“too many behavioural economists lack humility and patience, and consequently posit half-baked, grandiose theories of everything” A reflection on financial crises such as the United States’ Great Depression in the 1930s, and the 1992 financial crisis in the UK which stemmed from the the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), revealed that in both

cases, “the primitive initial shock was amplified by poor economic stabilization policies.”

Looking at these case studies in depth, Professor Chadha said that it is vital to develop mechanisms through which these fluctuations can be offset.

In order to do so, it becomes necessary to prognosticate a cocktail of different policy actions, namely monetary, fiscal and financial policies, as “these three parts of the triumvirate need to be combined in order to help stabilise the economy.”

Whilst searching for solutions that would stabilise the economy and maximise output, Professor Chadha also noted that it is important to be aware of the dangers associated with placing too much confidence in the ability of Economists to iron out inefficiencies completely, saying that “If anyone comes in and tells you that they can get rid of boom and bust, run for the hills!” Indeed, the main takeaway from Professor Chadha’s talk was that the main challenge facing central banking and policy implementation, is the fact that Economists can only control the economy to an extent and even then with a great deal of uncertainty. As Professor Chadha said, “one of the most pervasive things about Economics is how little we know, and how we have to make decisions based on this.”

Closing the conference was expert applied economist Dr Mattia Romani, the Managing Director for Country and Sector Economics at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).

Previously, Dr Romani was Chief Economist of the Global Green Growth Institute and worked at the World Bank.

He began his talk by exploring the nuances of the EBRD, which was formed with the primary aim of “transitioning command economies into marketing economies.” With a capital of 30 billion euros and a AAA rating, the EBRD has dedicated applied Economists working in their countries of operation to implement reforms in institutions and countries plagued by corruption, judicial issues, environmental sustainability issues, and inequality of outcomes and opportunities which had created “profound social tension.”

Interesting insights into the way the EBRD is run included details of a special investment meeting held once a week, on a Friday, where regional projects are assessed and evaluated to assuage whether or not investing in that project would aid transition and development. He further stated that as Economists at the EBRD, they have veto veto power over investing in projects or not, and hence shoulder a huge responsibility to make best use of the taxpayers’ money in investing in projects that would yield the highest transition rates. Although conceding that transition economics is a “fairly old and dated concept”, the notability of applied economists engaging in this field became evident towards the end of his talk. Some of the hardhitting questions that applied economists grapple with on a daily basis, include identifying

the best ways correct market failures, when it is justifiable to use public money to intervene in the economy, and whether democratic reforms are necessary for growth given the number of countries that have not had these reforms and yet “are growing handsomely.”

Whilst none of these questions have a single right answer, there is much weighing on the outcomes of the decisions made by applied economists and hence should not be taken lightly.

“...it becomes necessary to prognosticate a cocktail of different policy actions, namely monetary, fiscal and financial policies, as ‘these three parts of the triumvirate need to be combined in order to help stabilise the economy’ ” With a multitude of expert speakers and intriguing topics on the future of Economics, the conference was an overall success, drawing on socioeconomic issues that drew audience members not only from within the Economics stream, but from other Social Science streams as well.

28

| Tuesday 1 December, 2015

I Am “Faggot” - Hear Me Roar!

Gay Pride Is About Resisting Disempowerment and Owning One’s Identity Alexander Spalding Undergraduate Student THE EVENING OF THE 22nd November was marked by an extaordinary event an emotional and intimate moment of sexual celebration during which various members of the LGBT+ community at LSE convened on the top floor of the Saw Swee Hock Centre to provide heartfelt expositions of what being ‘proud’ really meant to them. Discussions at the event included (but were of course not limited to) combatting discrimination against bisexual individuals both within and outside the community, engaging with the tumultuous nature of gender dysphoria, navigating the vicious practices of bullying that continue to jeopardise the integrity of the LGBT+ community, and the various strategies by which individuals are able to reconcile the task of not only coming out to themselves, but also to their loved ones as well as members of the wider public.

Although the various accounts attested to the sheer diversity of reasons for why

LGBT+ individuals should feel proud of themselves and their achievements, one fundamental commonality underlay each and every account. In each experiential narrative, pride was described as a realisation of empowerment; an epiphany through which individuals transcend - no matter how momentarily - the malicious social forces that seek to constrain their very being, and subsequently reach a state of euphoric liminality where each individual’s humanistic potential is allowed to flourish untethered and unmarred.

For most LGBT+ individuals, the aforementioned malicious social forces of disempowerment, inhibition, and sheerly vicious bigotry intersect in the notorious social construct of the parasitic ‘faggot’. Who is the ‘faggot’? In the world of the bigoted antiLGBTist, the ‘faggot’ is the young boy who gets pushed in the hallway and has his lunch thrown on him when he opens his mouth to emit a high, preadolescent, ‘effeminate’ voice, or the young professional woman who hides the existence of her long-standing female partner

behind a heteronormativelyconstructed workplace facade.

The ‘faggot’ is the young male university student who sartorially positions himself outside of normative fashionchoices, and the elderly woman who has always divided her sexual attention between men and women.

In short, the ‘faggot’ is the paroxysmal discursive weapon that has the potential to viciously subordinate any member of society - regardless of age, gender, religion, sex, race, or ethnicity. It is so much more than a mere sound or linguistic term; , it is an aggressive weapon that epitomises the institutionalisation of antiLGBTism as a project of disempowerment and social policing in contemporary Western society.

In light of this, we as a society need to begin viewing this kind of unfortunate anti-LGBTist discourse that circulates in our society not necessarily as a mere attempt to simply mark LGBT+ individuals with an incredibly unsavoury and inhumane label, but as something far more dehabilitating. We as a society need to become more cognisant of

the fact that by calling someone a ‘faggot’ we are attempting to dehumanise and disempower them. In the most extreme of cases, we attempt to subordinate them into a position wherein they are made to feel worthless and pathologically deviant.

“In each narrative, pride was described as a realisation of empowerment; an epiphany through which individuals transcend the malicious social forces that seek to constrain their very being.”

No individual in this world is born in the closet - the closet is a the very embodiment of this position of shame, guilt, and disgust to which we become confined when another human being attempts to deprive us of the very power that gives

us our sense of individuality and beauty. In entering this closeted state-of-mind, the disempowered, lowly, and ridiculed individual becomes the canvas upon which others project their own sense of inadequacy and inhumanity.

What is it then that ultimately gives me my sense of pride when others around me constantly seek to subordinate me, and who actively seek to throw me back into the closet and to lock away the key?

I take pride in recognising that the various epithets that constitute anti-LGBTist discourse can be deconstructed to their fundamental core of disempowerment. In recognising this, I am able to transcend the malice and inhumanity of my oppressors by not giving giving them the satisfaction of seeing me capitulate to their will of ignorance. I have taken the script of the ‘faggot’ that was imposed upon me by my social peers, I have torn it apart, and I have rewritten my own.

It is one of neither weakness, disempowerment, or frailty, but of pure emancipation, uncompromising strength, and - above all else - infinite pride.

Closing Empty Closets, Once And For All

In the 1970’s Harvey Milk Proposed ‘Coming Out’ As A Way Of Confronting And Changing Social Norms

I HAVE REALISED SOMETHING this year. That realisation, is that one of the most important challenges now facing the LGBT+ community, at least in more accepting environments like LSE, is coming out. It sounds like a very simple notion, but I’m not just talking about the lesbians and the gays springing forth from their various containers for wearable fabrics, but the whole collective of “the queers.”

Before getting into the practicalities, let’s start with a little bit of the best theory of them all, Queer Theory. The emperor of this theory for me

has to be Judith Butler, who explained that the notions of “male/ female” and thus “masculine/ feminine” labels are socially constructed identities that can only exist in what we call the heterosexual matrix. This correlates to de Bourvior’s famous ideas that one’s is not born a members of a gender in terms of their biology, but is born with certain anatomical features that lends a person to collect such masculine- feminine identities until they become a man or a woman.

The key distinction here is between sex as defined by a biological set of traits (which even then excludes the intersex community, who more often than not are put through surgery at a young age to “correct” their

sex into a binary category), and gender which is the socially constructed idea. As Butler notes, gender is performative i.e. people present themselves in a way that is conducive to the gender roles society ascribes for them. Men should have short hair, not wear dresses or makeup, and act in a macho way, while women should try to make themselves physically appealing and sexually attractive, and not be able to open jars of mayo.

Any deviation of this is seen as abnormal, and there are those who believe they can “tell” when a person is part of the LGBT+ community, often because they don’t fully align with this idea of the gender norm.

It is true that those in my community people are more likely to break the boundaries

of gender binaries, as there is a greater understanding of constructed binaries as a whole.

The word “heteronormative” can be thrown about a lot with little understanding of what it means, so to clarify, it is the socially perpetuated idea of compulsory heterosexuality and the gender traits associated with it, and all else is inferior and deviant. Nightclubs are an excellent example of how this works today; guys getting with girls and vice versa everywhere you look. But if two selfdefining males made-out one night in XOYO they would in all likelihood, get a lot of abuse of some form or another. Two women in a similar situation would face discomfort and become mere sexual objects for the pleasure of the heterosexual

males. I say this, because there are many of us in the community who know this to be true nine times out of ten.

While it may seem counter intuitive then, I propose as did Harvey Milk in the 1970s and 80s, that all the queers must come out so we can destroy this idea of the norm. Those who are erased and especially those who have straight passing privilege, be they bisexual, genderqueer, asexual, agender and so on, must reach for their screwdrivers and deconstruct those closets we are still hiding in today. On campus and everywhere else in society, it is so important to have LGBT+ role models and for us to know that we are not wrong and we do not have to live on the outskirts of society.

Photo Credit: Carlos ZGZ, Flickr

Perdita Blinkhorn LGBT+ Alliance President

Features | 29

Mother India Is Weeping For Modi

A wave of Intolerance is sweeping India and leading it in exactly the wrong direction Ibrahim Chaudhary Undergraduate Student THE INCUMBENT BJP LED government has been in power since 2014. Narendra Modi, the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate, spoke prolifically during the election campaign addressing more than 150 rallies repeatedly assuring the electorate that under a BJP led government ‘Good days are coming’. However since his election Modi has categorically failed to deliver on a number of his key pledges and has passively presided over an increasingly intolerant form of politics that has polarised India. Far from being the harbinger of prosperity that he was lauded as Mr. Modi’s first year and a half in power has been at best decidedly underwhelming and at worst positively destructive.

The conduct of Modi’s administration in relation to victims of sexual violence is sadly indicative of the regime’s myriad broken promises and callous attitude. In 2014 following a succession of horrific instances of rape the BJP’s Minister for Women and Child Development Maneka Ghandi publicly pledged that the government would fund the construction of 660 ‘Nirbhaya Centres’ that would provide legal and medical assistance to victims of sexual violence. To date only a handful of these centres have actually been built. Moreover the BJP led government in 2015, despite its previous assurances that the centres were a ‘priority project’, cut the budget allotted to these centres by more than 90%.

In a scarcely believable announcement in late 2014 the BJP led government announced that it had allocated more than ₹2 billion for the construction of a 182 meter tall statue of India’s first Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in Gujarat. To put this into perspective the government allocated ₹500 million more to the construction of this statute than it did to the protection of women across the entirety of India.

Upon sweeping to power in 2014 Mr. Modi promised to initiate a bold new legislative programme that would revitalise the economy.

Faced with stiff opposition in the Rajya Sabha, wherein the BJP

Photo Credit: Nevil Zaveri, Flickr

led government hold a minority of seats, increasingly Modi’s administration has supplemented its own legislative programme with a number of rebranded UPA bills. Indeed the first year and a half of Modi’s tenure has been so singularly uninspiring that veteran BJP leader and former Minister for Telecommunications Arun Shourie sardonically remarked that Modi’s government amounts to little more than the ‘Congress with Cow’. Perhaps the best example of a rebranded bill is the ‘new’ Goods and Services Tax bill.

Between 2008 and 2014 the BJP doggedly blocked the imposition of a national value added tax by the UPA. Notwithstanding this the BJP led government have now initiated the GST bill aimed at reforming indirect taxation in India through the imposition of a uniform value added tax. The GST bill in substance therefore amounts to nothing more than a rebranding of the UPA’s policy on the reform of indirect taxation in India.

It is acknowledged that all of the above could be said of any regime. After all doesn’t every government break promises? This is conceded but the point is that Modi promised the Indian people a ‘new era’ of governance in which ‘50 years of work would be achieved in 5’. If anything pointing out that it is inevitable that regimes break promises doesn’t serve to vindicate Modi. Rather it shows that the BJP led government is, despite its pretensions otherwise, little different to those that have ruled India previously. To compound matters further the BJP led government have also actively subverted India’s lawmaking processes.

Article 123 of the Indian

“The conduct of Modi’s administration in relation to victims of sexual violence is sadly indicative of the regime’s myriad broken promises and callous attitude.”

Constitution accords the President, upon the advice of ministers, the power to promulgate ordinances if ‘circumstances exist which render it necessary to take immediate action.’ Ordinances are specifically designed to be used when Parliament is not in session to provide an emergency lawmaking tool to the government. An ordinance has the same effect as an act of parliament and is valid for 6 weeks. In a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent the Rajya Sabha Modi’s regime has resorted to passing a large number of ordinances. More than a dozen have been promulgated in just over a year. Of course the BJP led regime is not the first Indian regime to use ordinances prolifically but the fact that Modi so readily resorts to using what ought to be an emergency measure when Parliament is actually in session is alarming.

Furthermore in late 2014 Modi attempted to increase the government’s influence over the judiciary by altering the appointment process of senior judges through the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act. Cloaked in a concern about the ‘lack of transparency’ of the judicial appointments process Modi’s government proposed that a new commission comprising three judges, the Minister of Justice and ‘two eminent’ individuals be made responsible for judicial appointments. Crucially these two ‘eminent’ individuals would be nominated by a committee that, amongst others, included the Prime Minister. As such half of the members of the proposed NJAC would owe their positions either to the government or by virtue of being part of it. Predictably the act was peremptorily struck down by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary. Taken cumulatively Modi’s willingness to promulgate ordinances and his attempt to alter the judicial appointment process are indicative of a wider drift toward a more authoritarian form of governance.

However Modi’s most profoundly negative impact has manifested itself in the wave of extreme intolerance that is sweeping across India. On the eve of Indian Independence Jawaharlal Nehru delivered one of the most important

speeches of the 20th century.

Rather than engaging in pompous triumphalism Nehru reminded the Indian people that having finally ‘awoken’ from years of debilitating oppression that they could not afford to ‘encourage communalism or narrow mindedness’ and that ‘all of us, whatever religion we belong to, are children of India’.

“Nehru saw tolerance as a cornerstone of the new India; Modi’s most profound negative impact has manifested in the extreme intolerance that is sweeping the nation.”

These were not mere words for Nehru who, whatever his other failings may have been, saw tolerance as a cornerstone of the new India. In the aftermath of independence Nehru toured the country and in numerous recorded instances of great bravery intervened to save individuals from certain death. For instance in late 1947 Nehru personally prevented marauding mobs from burning down the Jamia Millia Islamia in Delhi.

In sharp contrast Modi has actively championed communal issues throughout his life. During the election campaign in 2014 he warned that there would be a ‘pink revolution’ (the mass slaughter of cows) if the BJP were not elected.

Since his election there has been a notable rise in communal violence and whilst it is admitted that correlation doesn’t in and of itself prove causation Modi has undoubtedly remained largely passive in the face of growing violence. In response to the mob lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq in Dadri, who was accused of eating beef, Modi turned a blind eye to the comments of Culture Minister Mahesh Sharma who suggested that the lynching was an ‘accident’. According to the Home Ministry’s own statistics in the first half of 2015 instances of

communal violence in India rose by 24% when compared to the same period in 2014. Shockingly the Ministry recorded the deaths of 43 individuals as a result of ‘communal clashes’ compared to 26 deaths in the first half of 2014 which amounts to a sobering rise of over 65% in fatalities resulting from communal violence.

Moreover numerous organisations have reported a sharp spike in violence against Dalits exemplified by the horrific immolation of two Dalit children in October in Haryana. Once more Modi remained passive in the face of remarks by VK Singh, the Minister for External Affairs, who declared that ‘the incident has nothing to do with the central government. It is a failure of the state government.

If someone throws stones at a dog the government isn’t responsible.’

According to the National Crime Records Bureau of India there were 33,655 instances of crimes against Dalits in 2012 which rose to a staggering 47,064 in 2014 and in Haryana alone the NCRB recorded the murders of 21 Dalits in 2014. Violence against Dalits and religious minorities has been accompanied by the brutal murders of a number of India’s most progressive intellectuals including Govind Pansare, Narendra Dabholkar and MM Kalburgi.

Through championing communal issues and turning a blind eye to the chilling remarks of a number of his ministers it is evident that Modi is at the very least emboldening Hindu fanatics with his silence and at worst condoning their violence.

In light of one and a half years of truly retrograde rule by the BJP led government in which the Indian people have been ruled by a man who elects to remain largely silent in the face of appalling violence, actively seeks to undermine the independence of the judiciary and to champion communal issues, I would urge all readers to consider a stanza from Allama Iqbal’s Tarānah-e-Hind and reflect on the future direction of India: Better than the entire world, is our Hindustan, We are its nightingales, and it is our garden abode There is something about our existence for it doesn’t get wiped Even though, for centuries, the timecycle of the world has been our enemy.

30

|Tuesday 1 December, 2015

LSE Cross Country Win Gold

LSE battle the elements at the University of London Championship George Bettsworth Running Team Captain IN BRUISING, BATTERING conditions, thirteen brave LSE students fought their way to Championship silverware at the University of London Championships. The conditions were truly terrible. LSE Running’s vicecaptain, Lauri Ojala, claimed that this was “hands-down” the worst conditions for a cross country race he had ever experienced. Indeed, the race begun in howling winds, and torrential rain poured down halfway through.

Star athlete, Typhaine Christiaen set off things well for LSE, striding to an individual gold in the women’s Championships in a time of 18:29, beating her nearest rival by 14 seconds. Typhaine, a first year undergraduate, has already become a prominent force in London regional competitions; in addition to her recent gold medal, she currently leads the London Colleges League series with 297 points after three races. In the men’s, the battle with the London Universities was fierce. The LSE men’s first team managed to narrowly fight off Royal Holloway and others to win the bronze medal. King’s College and University College London (UCL) picked up the gold and silver medals respectively. General course student and American athlete, Jeff

Molgano put in a superb run, finishing first for LSE and 7th in the Championships in a time of 37:02, narrowly missing out on an individual medal.

Three Geography with Economics students (the finest of students) were the next three men in to complete the men’s first team (the first four men for each team score, the team score is the sum of the finishing positions, the lowest score wins), with Antonin Boissin, only 9 seconds behind Jeff, finishing in 8th place, then Pierre-Louis Lostis in 9th and George Bettsworth in 13th.

Lauri Ojala continued LSE’s successful day by finishing 16th despite a nasty fall in the final stages of the race, meaning LSE had 5 athletes in the top 20. Seven other athletes completed the race, two other women; Fionn Elliot, who snuck into the top 20 in 20th place, and Pearl Wee (27th), as well as five other men: Theodore Laurent (26th), Andy Cowan (27th), Nigel Poh (31st), Arthur Wadsworth (35th) and Jason Chen (36th). The whole team were astounded by the success. It was great achievement for the team, the University and sport at LSE. Now, the team looks onwards to London Colleges Indoor Championships at the end of November, where we hope to pick up more medals, as well as a hard winter’s training for the BUCs Indoor and Cross Country Championships in February.

Lacrosse Mixed 1s vs SOAS won 10-4 Volleyball Men’s 1s vs Canterbury Christ Church 1s won 3-1 Mixed 1s vs SOAS won 3-0 Squash Men’s 1s vs Portsmouth 1s won 3-2

Hockey Men’s 1s vs Imperial Medics 1s won 4-1 Football Men’s 1s vs St Barts 1s won 3-0 Men’s 6s vs UCL 7s won 3-2 Men’s 7s vs St George’s 3s won 5-1 Rugby Men’s 1s vs GKT 1s won 38-17

Rugby Women’s 1s vs GKT 1s won 44-12 Basketball Men’s 1s vs UEL 3s won 66-64 Women’s 1s vs Portsmouth won 44-37 Table Tennis Men’s 1s vs King’s College London 1s won 10-7

Win, Lose or Draw, send your results to sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk

IN WHAT CAN ONLY BE described as an action of the utmost sacrilege, one deserving not only of allegations of heresy and widespread condemnation, but furthermore total excommunication, the Students’ Union in their infinite wisdom did so callously decide to consign their finest representation, those whom they ought to revere for the on- and offfield diligence, dexterity and downright determination, to the mercy of the self-proclaimed home of Wild Nights Out, Big Events and Parties©.

Though the theorists among us did theorise as to the reason behind this decision, exactly WH-y this happened remained a mystery novel to us all.

Aside from the unmistakeable sound of club classic ‘Now! That’s What I Call Music! 84’ blaring out from the Institute at Piccadilly’s every orifice, if one listened close enough, one could just about, faintly, mind you, make out the words of the person sitting next to you, as they perforated your eardrum. The rumour mill began spinning early on, and reports of executive deceit were firmly quashed upon a simple, furtive glance and a couple of short-lived verbal exchanges with the nightclub’s management, who, it became clear, were guilty not only of said deceit but of possessing fewer functioning brain cells than a lobotomised turtle. Thus, the President and her team were juli absolved.

As bottled beverages of a brand

usually, but perhaps unfairly, associated with violent husbands were quite literally handed out by executives Strongly committed to fun, the festivities associated with TOUR launch were put underway, with a company running it who, it seemed, are to ILOVETOUR! what Lidl is to Waitrose.

Men and women were paired with one each coming from Football and Rugby, respectively. Sparks flew in one pairing as the Boy said Elo to his partner, as their obvious chemistry Renndered a win a virtual certainty.

Other challenges included the limbo, and one competitor, the Silva medallist (could have been gold but I am beholden to the pun) showed her athleticism most gracefully, continuing the night in this vein until the early hours, Oweng to a love of all things gym.

One Silva (again!) lining to our eviction from our usual pre-home was

the shortened walking distance from the temporary drinking hole to our actual home, the Zoo. As we arrived there it became clear to anyone with the gift of consciousness (some had sacrificed this along the way) that this was where the real challenge was to begin; that to which many of us implicitly subscribe weekly, some even explicitly; the challenge of, to put it more simply than anything I have written before, shagging.

After Pauming off a Phabulous Women’s Footballer, one man Soen thereafter changed his path, avoiding a (n) war elsewhere. An increasingly environmentally friendly giant put his Green hands to good use, Listing out the reasons why Engeland should just Jack in the consumption of meat. And elsewhere, finally, a real Katch was Harried by a man third-hockey, thirdfootball, third-politician who ended conscription.

Sport | 31

Being Out Is Better Than Being In Football still has some way to go for LGBT+ Equality Dickson Wong LGBT+ Alliance Undergraduate Officer IT’S ALWAYS EASIER TO COME out when you are in a safe environment that has a supportive network built around it, surrounded by people who love you for who you are and by fellow LGBT+ friends who share similar struggles and are there for one another no doubt make that journey less daunting.

You would have thought that sports in the UK have come a long way in tolerating people from different ethnicities, skin colour, gender and sexual orientation. It seems more so that way when high profile athletes such as Tom Daley in diving, Tom Bostworth in athletics, Keegan Hirst & Sam Stanley in rugby and even Casey Stoney in Women’s football have all taken the public route in revealing that they are gay.

But as a male football coach working in a professional club, the fear of being caught out still looms every time I walk onto the training pitch or when I share a pint with colleagues. The fear comes from multiple sources. You are constantly thinking what parents of the younger players might feel whenever you’re in close proximity with their sons and daughters, how fellow coaches would remember if not mentally label you as the gay one rather than a fellow colleague, how players would not trust you because they think being gay means

you are weak, how coming out may negatively affect your reputation and potential future career when the word spreads to the ears of the employers, media and fans etc.

Up till this very day, there are still no open LGBT+ male players or coaches in the game. Few have decided to come out until after they retired, knowing the intense scrutiny they would otherwise be under.

Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger said nobody would come out due to the huge media interest whilst former Leeds United player Robbie Rogers said it is impossible to come out and still be playing given the hostile reception by supporters in the UK. Speaking as a football fan, I can relate to those comments and certainly echo them. A Saturday afternoon in a packed stadium is a place where fans traditionally can almost freely expressed their emotions without really thinking about what they are doing. With those emotions running high, the animal spirit that gathers within a large group of people can create a very hostile atmosphere. If they are ever displeased about anything, be that a controversial decision by the referee, an unpopular substitution or a poor pass made by a player, they will let you know in no uncertain terms. So imagine what they would do to a gay footballer or manager on the opposite team? For that person, the nightmare probably goes beyond the 90 minutes, there is still the post match interview to do and you bet the reporter will be asking

questions more than just about his or his team’s performance!

The simple fact is, attitudes to homosexuality have barely changed in the last two decades, according to former Burnley manager, who was team mate to Justin Fashanu, a former professional player who took his life after receiving continuous abuse and allegation of sexual assault. It’s a sad reminder to us that there is still a long way to go for men’s professional football to reach that stage of full open-mindedness

Editorial: The SU Are Ignoring Student Interests By Booking Out The Venue On Wednesday Alex Dugan Sports Editor THE ENTIRE SITUATION regarding the hiring of The Venue has highlighted issues with the way that the Union handles the AU and students more generally. Student satisfaction is well below the Russell Group average and currently the emphasis is on the School itself to implement changes.

However, the hiring out of the Venue on a Wednesday night highlights the fact that the SU need to also look inward to solve the problem. I completely understand the need for the Union to hire out the venue, this revenue feeds back into Clubs & Societies and provides invaluable funds for them to continue doing the amazing work that they do. How-

ever, this strive to raise funds should not come at the expense of the student experience. The Wednesday sports night is a big part of the LSE Student experience, and this isn’t me as a Sportsman trumpeting its importance, there is only one other time of the week that such a large amount of LSE Students come together and socialise and that’s Saucy (and that’s a tenuous link). You would therefore think that Wednesday nights would be “protected time” and reserved just for LSE Students. Well think again! Regardless of whether it’s a special AU event night or not, the Union should have the AU as their first priority on Wednesday nights in the Venue. Would they rather a sustained stream of revenue from the AU coming every week (bar team dinners) to the Venue, or a patchy revenue stream from the AU

only coming to the Venue for these event nights?

The second point I’d like to raise is the nature of the relationship between the Union and our elected Part Time Officers. With the nature of our PTOs being ‘volunteers’ (despite them now being paid for four hours of work a week), the burden is on the SU to assist them and help fix problems that arise as a result of the work of the PTO. However, in this situation, what we have seen is a PTO having to fix a problem that has originated with the SU. This is not the way the relationship between an organisation and their ‘volunteer’ is supposed to work. If reports are to be believed, it seems as if the SU have actively hindered a PTO led objective (to get a more inclusive AU tour), and this needs to be taken and looked into very seriously.

that all of us deserve to be a part of.

But that may not be such a distance dream. Discussions about installing education to combat homophobia are taking place, so that football stakeholders can understand the power of actions and words to a homosexual football player or staff. Or better still, living in a much more accepting world today, where for example gay marriage is now legal, may imply that the British football world can and will progress accordingly too.

After all, nobody has followed in Fashanu’s footsteps all these 17 years later, so who is there to say for sure what kind of reception somebody will receive if he comes out of the closet today? The reaction will certainly be interesting. At the end, we really just need that one hero who is brave enough to lead from the front again and the floodgates will no doubt open. I very much am looking forward to the arrival of that day. And who knows? That person may well be me.

VISIT US AT BEAVERONLINE.CO.UK OR TWEET @BEAVERONLINE

Alex Dugan Sports Editor WEDNESDAY NIGHT SAW the launch of the AU tour. Sportsvest, the chosen tour operator for this year, reps were out in force with freebies, party discounts and even free tour places. However this event did not take place in the standard setting for AU Wednesday nights, the Venue, it took place a mile away at Piccadilly Institute.

The LSESU booked out the Venue for a corporate client, a decision that brought widespread criticism from students. The process by which this booking was made has been called into question. An approach for the booking out of The Venue was “finalised in the week commencing November 9th” according to Activities & Development Officer Katie Budd, however The Beaver can reveal that the first the AU Exec heard of this booking was a week in advance of the event. AU President, Julia Ryland, heard by word of mouth over Facebook about the booking before any contact from the SU was made.

The situation could have been much worse for the AU Exec had this information not have come to light to over Facebook as it would have left them with less time to find a venue, and possibly left them without the ability to hold the Tour Launch Party.

After finding out, the AU Exec entered into a series of conversations and meetings with the SU to try and resolve the situation. Sources familiar with the communication process have not been particularly kind about the way the Union handled the situation, one going so far as to describe their manner as “manipulative”. Whilst the SU did concede that mistakes were made, other than the provision of £2000 to help cover the cost of hiring an alternative venue, very little help was given to the AU Exec.

The SU themselves earned between £6000 and £6500 from the corporate event. The AU Exec were left with less than a week to find a suitable location for what is arguably the most important Wednesday night of Michaelmas Term for the AU Exec.

The work required to find an alternative venue arguably goes far beyond the recommended four hours a week proposed by the Part Time Officer (PTO) pay guidelines. Promoting a more inclusive AU Tour was a key campaigning point of Julia Ryland’s manifesto, and the SU actively hampered this by denying access to The Venue.

The SU did offer the use of the Three Tuns (at first this was the only place offered), combined with the 1st Floor of Saw Swee Hock and even the 6th floor as alternatives within LSE premises. However, it was clear from the outset that these would not be a suitable replacement. The AU

Sport

Section Editor: Alex Dugan Deputy Editor: India Steele

Where’s Our Venue?

SU Hire Out The Venue On Wednesday Night To The Detriment Of AU Tour Launch Event

Exec worked extremely hard to secure Piccadilly Institute as the venue and, in spite of the Men’s Rugby Club walking out approximately twenty minutes after arriving, the event ended up being a success.

LSESU Activities & Development Officer, Katie Budd, commented that “We were approached for a late external booking for the Venue on November 25th. This booking included venue hire, as well as the sale of food and drink, both of which have accompanying costs. This was finalised in the week commencing November 9th, and unfortunately we did not have a sufficient process in place to ensure that the AU President and Exec were adequately consulted and communicated with. We would like to assure the AU that going forward we will be improving our processes so that we avoid this in the future.

The AU have consistently had the ability to use The Three Tuns/Venue in the new building on Wednesday nights, though they do not always use it at all. There have been several times since moving into the SSH that the Tuns only has been used. The AU rarely used the Old Quad in the East Building, doing so a maximum of once or twice per term.

In regards to an alternative venue, The Three Tuns was offered, coupled with the ability to use the 1st floor for activities. The 6th floor was also offered as a possible venue.

Further support was offered throughout and, once an external venue was chosen by the AU Exec, we made a significant financial contribution towards the event in light of the situation.

In answer to the question ‘Was the motive of profit put above student interest?’ – No. We are a charity and money spent in the Union, as well as income generated by charging external organisations to use our facilities, is reinvested into everything that we do. It is crucial to sports club budgets and society support, as well as advice and hardship funds. While we do apologise and acknowledge that more could have been done to prevent this situation from arising, this booking was taken before there was full knowledge that the AU were intending to host an event. It is clear that there are some easy remedies to make sure that this doesn’t happen again.”

Julia Ryland, AU President, told The Beaver: “The AU turns up at the Venue every single Wednesday without exception. Even when there is not

an event happening, there are still AU Clubs that have their socials there every week. Therefore Tuns management would have been fully aware that booking this function would impact the AU. The Tour Launch Party had been planned and booked since the summer, yet no effort was made to find this out. Not only were we not consulted before the external booking was finalised, we were told nothing at all. When word finally reached the AU Exec that an external booking had been made, we were met with blame and excuses rather than an apology and an offer of help. The Students Union should value the AU enough to give us priority at our own Students Union bar, rather than sell us out with no notice to an external company.

However, the event was not a disaster thanks to the hard work of the AU Exec. To find a venue that met the AU’s requirements in less than a week is almost a miracle and without the commitment and determination of Oli, San, Tessa, Jenny and Elin it would not have happened. I couldn’t be more grateful to be a part of such a hard working and competent AU Exec.”