+ ITie B'savar ?s printtxi on lOi)"/'. ivn'-ycliHi pupw. r*.-i^ycle your copy. TRAVEL - London to Sydney FILM - Apocafypto VISUAL ARTS - Hockney IN 16 January 2007 Issue * , The newspaper of the LSKSU :^iTortrhent EWS3^™' U(jM clitiir t'lcctcd 'ainid conlroversv Sdcntolo The Climate, Issue MM A knock ' them oxit ' Global vvamiing; -g(K>(l<)r bad Security concerns ignored by LSE , school dismissed su concerns as "reactionary" school preferred annual risk ¦ reviewto focus" u immediate and urgent su source confirms lack of over-' all coordination by lse security Ali Moussavi News Editor The LSE Students' Union (SU) was ignored by the School when concerns were raised over security problems at LSE halls of residence, The Beaver can reveal. It is understood that the issue was raised at a Residences Committee meeting by LSE SU representatives on 10 October 2006 shortly after a burglarj' at Rosebeiy Hall. LSE SU Residences Officer Louise Robinson told The Beaver that at the time, members of the School administration on the Committee dismissed the claims as "reactionary". Also present at the meeting was LSE SU Education and Welfare Officer Alexandra Vincenti. Robinson and Vincenti issued a joint statement: "We went through the terms of reference, to decide which issues the new Residences Committee would prioritise. We highlighted the importance of reviewing security risk management in relation to students at residences, particularly in light of the incident at Rosebery Hall. In spite of this, it was decided that this would just go to annual review, rather than be an immediate and urgent focus point." This is confirmed by documents from the 10 October 2006 Committee meeting. The section outlining the Terms of Reference indicates that one of the issues was "To review risk management in relation to students at residences." A handwritten annotation on the doc- ument clarifies that this was to be an "annual requirement". Since then, Robinson has noted other security incidents and flagged up concerns. She commented; "The lack of urgent response after meetings is frustrating, particularly when security has such serious implications." However, other concerns-have also been raised related to halls' security. Following .a recent investigation into the condition of security at LSE halls of residence by The Beaver, it can now be reported that security incidents at halls are not sufficiently monitored by LSE Security. Security at residences is often handled by private sector companies. ¦While security incidents at halls are reported to LSE Security by halls' security, the incidents are merely "noted", but not collated and monitored effectively by a central body, an SU official told The Beaver. The SU official in-question revealed that in a discussion with a senior School management official, it was accepted that this situation would have to change, but a time-frame was not officially discussed. The SU official said that the School management official "agreed and implied that sufficient changes would have to be made to the job portfolios of members of staff." Robinson commented; "I think the recent investigation in The Beaver and the security incidents highlight the serious problems and failures of the cun-ent system and they need to be addressed immediately by the School." - ''|j j'f: ! I* ^ ir f- X LSE students at Guantanamo Bay protest iSports: David Beckham Features: Northern Ireland PartB: Electronic aesthetics UNITED \ ...PartB. Page 10 Live performance evaluated + Page 22 Why is he really leaving? 02 IBeaverl 16 January 2007 NEWS o o •0 Davies speaks out Davies attacks government plans to replace RAE with metric system Arts at LSE lacking union commitment Arts societies speak up about lacking provisions Feature; The Sutherland Affair The circumstances surrounding the Sutherland appointment New UGM Cliair elected; i. Robbery at Butlem Wliaif LSE SU Amnesty joins others to ^ . • .A . T» Whan adds to coneem protest against Guantanamo Bay overhaiis' security Peter Barton The LSE Students' Union (SU) Amnesty International Society participated in a protest outside the United States Embassy in London, in opposition to the controversial detention centre at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The protest was held on 11 January 2007, the fifth anniversary of the detention centre's opening. The London protest was part of a wider international effort coordinated by the global organization of Amnesty International, with protests in New York, Tokyo, Rome, Tunis, Madrid, Tel Aviv and outside the actual detention centre in Cuba. Several LSE students joined 300 protesters outside the us Embassy calling for the closure of the camp. The protestors attempted to re-enact conditions at Guantanamo Bay. Some dressed as prisoners, in orange boiler suits, face masks and goggles. They were shouted at, insulted and abused by other protestors acting as guards and officers. Former Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg was present at the protest. He noted that the main difference between his experience and that of the protesters was that the protesters were not "getting a few punches and kicks" as' they knelt and were free to go before lunch. Sean Whittington-Roy, Secretary of the LSE SU Amnesty International Society, who attended the protest, said: "All we are calling for is that the governments of the USA and the UK comply with national and international law and treat humans with respect and dignity." The detention centre at Guantanamo Bay does not come under US legal jurisdiction, and permits prisoners to be detained indefinitely with- .p|i: Lia^ K<. : • TSaof troops abroad ipecial analysis .Mark t Thomas rs PorfE 4-R SE rejects 'spying' on Muslims votKUfNTAnvmHUNTMatsmmTDcrvs |i AKIC MXtETOV KmiM. ATTOmUN menu AKi>Tii B tn: CMTV.Tn coxncjttN nraui. New report outlines plagiarism issues on university campuses Do you want to write stories lilte tliisP All you need to be a Senior Reporter is AniTUDE. thebeaver.news@lse.ac.uk v dnu II le DlNr. acoalttfon? SPORTS23fca; Hall security 01% fools dummies ¦ nmv W AW fVUKPOICr iOUNZi M UJIKOCKED BCDJUaM Vislnol Banerjee Academic plagiarism is still a consistent problem, a new report issued by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has revealed. The report's author, Professor Jean Underwood of Nottingham Trent University, claimed that "academic dishonesty is a global phenomenon." The report focused on issues of plagiarism, cheating in examinations, and student attitudes toward cheating. It included an outside survey by the Centre for Integrity in the US, which reported that 70 percent of undergraduates admitted to some form of academic dishonesty. Underwood claimed that around 2 in every 10 pupils would prefer to cheat, rather than fail major examinations. The report aimed to explain some of the issues raised by technological progress, and its potential for misuse in the form of cheating. Underwood said that "digital technologies have brought equity to cheating...Access is no longer there for the knowing few but for the majority." The report offered a number of new propositions aimed at tackling mobile phone use in exams. Measures suggested in the report include holding exams in rooms with no mobile phone reception and the installation of airport security scanners to prevent students from bringing phones into the room. This year it was reported that 4,500 candidates were penalised for malpractice in schools, and more than 1,000 of these cases were directly linked with attempts to cheat using mobile phones. Professor Underwood also suggested fingerprinting students to prevent them from using their friends to take tests for them. The report further addresses the matter plagiarism, particularly in the submission of GCSE and A level coursework. Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology from the University of Kent, commented on the report in The Guardian newspaper. Furedi suggested that students were not to blame for cheating, as many are taught to collaborate on work with parents and teachers from a yoimg age. He also suggested that when caught by superiors, students often tended to be more disheartened by the hassle, rather than the ethics of cheating. Government asks students to consider increased costs of higher education in UK and fRofiWO, UfAt V./ Simon Wong The government is encouraging potential students to check out their financial options before making a decision about whether to go to university, with the deadline for University Student Loan applications approaching. Last year saw a decline in student applications, which some attribute to the introduction of the integrated loan system in June of last year, and increasing the tuition fees. These changes, on top of rising living costs and accommodation fees, mean that cash-strapped students need to carefully consider the financial costs of university, unlike their parents who benefited from the grant system. The government stressed that although the fees may be intimidating, the new system allows peace of mind during the university course itself. The payment system covers all tuition fees and some living costs, while the students do not have to repay the money until after they start earning £15,000 or more a year. Bill Rammell, Minister of Higher Education, said: "Going to university is an investment in the future. Over their working life, the average graduate will earn more than £100,000 more, after tax, than a similar individual who completed education with two or more A-lev-els." The LSE itself has not yet had many problems finding applicants. The number of successful applicants in 2006 exceeded the LSE's yearly target. NEWS IBeaverl 16 January 2007 05 The Sutherland Affair - On 22 November 2006, LSE students took part in a sit-in, in oc. Chair of the LSE Council. to the appointment of Peter Sutherland as -The Beaver can now reveal that the morning after the protest which prevented Sutherland from delivering a public lecture, LSE Director Howard Davies expressed the possibility of disciplinary action against the protestors. - LSE Students' Union (SU) General Secretary Jimmy Tam said to LSE Director Howard Davies that he would convey the seriousness with which the School viewed the protest to the students who took part in it. The Chairman and VIce-Chairman Selection Committee: The Committee advises tiie LSE's Court of Governors on appointments of Chairman and Vice Chairman. The LSE's Constitution allows the Court of Governors to appoint the Chair by a simple majority at a meeting. The Committee consists of academics, lay governors and the General Secretary of the LSE SU. COUNCIL - The governing body of the school - Makes major decisions affecting the future development of the School COURT OF GOVERNORS - Discusses major questions affecting the development of the School - Receives reports from the Director and Council - Appoints the Director - Authorises the Articles of Association THE DIRECTOR (Howard Davies) - Delegated responsibility by Council for the organisation and supervision of all the work of the School - The wide powers of the Director are by convention exercised subject to consultation within the LSE DIRECTORSHIP SELECTION COMMITTEE CHAIRMANSHIP & VICE-CHAIRMANSHIP SELECTION COMMITTEE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE Ali Moussavi News Editor The role of the Chair of Council; -The Chairman leads the LSE Council and the LSE Court of Governors, by chairing the meetings of the two bodies. The Council is the governing body of the School. It is responsible for the determination of overall strategy and direction. -The role of the Chairman is distinct from the role of the School's Chief Executive, who Is the Director of the School. Peter Sutherland Chairman of British Petroleum (BP) Chairman of Goldman Sachs Attorney General of Ireland: Sutherland advised the government on introducting a constitutional ban on abortion. id) 5 Director General of World w Trade Organisation DWhen approeiched, Sutherland initially declined to be nominated for the position. It was decided that the search for a new Chair of Council should start again 2) Criteria for choosing a new Chair of Council: The Committee met i"n early 2005 and accepted a ten point criteria for deciding the suitability of candidates. "The Court of Governors approved Peter Sutherland's ; appointment as Chair of LSE Council from 1 January 2008 by acclamation in March 2006." , iSEspokespersorl' Z; Howard Davies However, when the search was resumed for the second attempt, two particular criteria among the ten were stressed: - A high profile public image; - A proven capability as a chairman. 3) Shortlist: A shortlist of five names were identified. Three candidates excluded themselves and one withdrew, leaving Peter Sutherland. The Beaver can reveal that in a letter which Lord Grabiner (the current Chair of Council) sent to Jimmy Tam, Grabiner insists that former General Secretary Rishi Madlani was able to attend the meeting of committee members with Sutherland on 22 February 2006. However, sources within the LSE SU confirm that Madlani was unable to attend the meeting where members of the committee were to meet Sutherland. 8) 1 Uanuary 2007: : LSE SU General Secretary Jimmy Tarn was challenged in the UGM over the contents of the Davies letter. He categorically dented giving Davies an assurance that the protest would never happen again. A) On 27 Pebruary 2006: Madtani wrote to the School expressing "concern at the potential appointment of Peter Sutherland" and communicating 'unease at this candidate's suitability for the role". Grabiner claims that Madlani's letter came as a surprise since Madlani and the former General Secretary Will MacFarlane were yet to have expressed any opposition to the apointment. However sources in the LSE SU have said that Madlani had been sworn to secrecy by the Committee, and for this reason, he could not gauge the adverse reaction the appointment would face by the student body .'i) 16 March 2005: Sutherland appointed "by acclaim"despite student representatives on the Court of Governors registering dissent after the meeting. The Grabiner Letter mm 6) 22 November 2006: Students protested the appointment by taking part in a sit-in, intending to prevent Sutherland from delivering a public lecture at the LSE. 7 December 2006: LSE SU Executive Officers censured in UGM for taking part in protest. Censures fail to gain two-thirds majority to pass. ' "My academic colleagues ^ t. and 1 are delighted that-: Peter Sutherland has , agreed to join us and, in ¦ time, to take on the ; : Chairmanship of the School. His background in public policy and his busN ness and international ; interests match the LSE's profile remariI ¦ -...... from- tttem th&t i»mg !>«»«. '"OimiKcr of. Hsj^avaow., In the UGM Tam^ argued : that it would be unreasonable for anyone to ask him to give any assurance on behalf of 8000 students. 9) Today: A UGM nnotion calling for an LSE SU referendunn on the chairnnanship of Sutherland is on the order paper and pending debate. ¦ The Beaver can now reveal that the morning after the protest, Davies held a meeting with Sabbatical Officers, The content of a letter uncovered by The Beaver, revealed that Davies asked Tam to 'convey the seriousness with which [the School] viewed [the protest) to the protestors." - Davies also asked that Tam "secure an assurance from [the protestors] that there will be no recurrence of behaviour which effectively prevents speakers being heard" - Most importantly, Davies implies the threat of disciplinary action against the protestors. He states that while action would not be embarked on 'with any great enthusiasm" "given the importance of ..freedom of speech...we must'try to ensure that there is no repetition." 061 leaver! 16 January 2007 COMMEN' COMMENT&ANALYSIS ANALYSIS SU Residences Officer Louise Robinson^ makes her case for introducing n^iniminn standards for student representation in halls Ensure we get good hall reps Louis^ t ^ Robinson Efficiency, accountability and best practice are terms used in a political diction that I wouldn't usually endorse, but I think if used effectively (there I go again) are ways to create a change that has been long awaited, and much needed. The committees in LSE halls each have their own constitutions, practices and personalities, and so have their own unique styles and feels. This is a good thing, as no one would consider a factory-made committee as a feasible option, or even a desirable one. However, and in the most crude terms, residents deserve minimum standards of the people on their committees, after all, each resident pays a standard common room fee, and so deserves to benefit from it. Minimum standards allow committees that already excel in particular areas the freedom to continue to do so, and spur them to brush up on slightly weaker areas. The obvious benefit of being on a hall committee is the ease of staying in LSE accommodation, but if a committee member hasn't pulled their weight, do they deserve the same privilege as the other committee members? Should they be held to account in some way by the residents and how can this be done? Residents require an adequate mechanism to hold their officers to account (not in the harsh way of the UGM!) and LSE wardens need to be responsive to problems and successes in their residence. For some time students have faced this dilemma, and because of the complexities of binding constitutions - their difficulty in accommodating change, and discrepancies between the rhetoric and reality - students end up accepting the way things are because they have been that way for a while. If minimum standards were incorporated into clear documents, residents would benefit from an enriched hall experience, and committees would be better able to support each other. Websites could be updated to better aid prospective students to make informed choices about the atmosphere in each hall; a diverse portfolio of events would enable more residents to engage in their hall community. The roles of each committee member could easily be better defined, and, if a common electoral cycle was introduced then adequate training could be promoted to support the elected committees, making them more effective. This would set clearer guidelines about how to get things done, and make it easier to implement best practice concerning environmental, welfare and entertainment initiatives. Committees should realise that they can take the lead in lobbying for change, and see the SU as a supportive mechanism, rather than a separate entity - students should use whatever platform they can to drive the changes they want to see in their experiences at the LSE, and for that they need committed and vocal hall committees. Significant improvements could be made in the way budgets are managed, and like Residents require a mechanism to hold their officers to account society treasurers benefited from an information session, hall treasurers may find an easier way to keep records - a standardised template. This would not only make audits easier to perform, it would promote safer practices to protect committee members' bank accounts from waiting for large paybacks. This is an area of change that over a short space of time would make keeping accounts easier. Hall Committees have been left to their own devices for too long, and now they should get the support they need to help promote positive communities for all LSE residents. In incorporating minimum standards into halls, the results can only be beneficial in the long mn, setting the course for improvements that will build up year on year. Minimum standards must be integrated into existing constitutions to inject attention and pride into already pretty impressive hall structures, and improve the experience of future residents to feel welcome into an LSE community; an experience that they will treasure for future years. Small changes can make big differences, and with a new year comes the opportunity for a new direction. With lots of different \vays of telling the LSE "svhat you think, Elle Dodd analysises whether it's really worthwhile The School listens. Or not. Eile Dodcfi This year home student fees have increased nearly three times; overseas, masters and postgraduate fees are already exceedingly high. Along with the obvious payments for teaching, resources and facilities we are also paying for a service from the School; we are the customers to whom they are selling education. As part of that service the School needs to work with students to provide a high quality of provision across the board and that means engaging students in important decision making, seeking meaningful feedback on all elements of student life, and being responsive to criticism and flexible to change where necessary. There are a lot of systems already in place for this to happen, through the Students' Union Executive, hall committees, departmental liaison groups and other formal and informal methods. However the question is whether any of this makes a real difference, does the student staff relationship really work or are the school just paying lip service? It is obvious that most of the executive officers work really hard for the benefit of students, and often this is reflected in their reports to the UGM. However, the nature of the UGM means that the participants are not in a position to judge whether they spend their time productively, and how they engage with other members of staff. The Court of Governors and School Council are one of the best ways for students to get their voices heard at a senior level, but so far this year I have not heard anything through official reports or comment in this fine publication about how the hotly contested Court of Governors representatives are faring in their role; have they lived up to their election pledges, what have the month- I wonder whether all these tutor surveys I filled in will make a difference ly Council meetings produced for the benefit of students? Obviously its only week 2, but soon enough some of these representatives will want to use their performances on these committees to stand for further elections, how will the electorate know whether they are campaigning for student rights or just smiling sweetly in the corner? Moving onto hall committees; we have already seen a scandal at Passfield where the president was accused of working against the will of the committee. Fortunately, with the help of the Executive the situation was resolved well, however similar things may well be happening in other halls. On the bright side Residences Officer, Louise Robinson highlights that "the £50 rebate awarded to all Passfield residents was reflective of good communications, clear strategy and reasonable demands, and continued pressure from a united student front," one example of where good staff-student relations have benefited the student population. I live in Sidney Webb which the LSE has sold oft to be privately run. This means that many of the decision the hall makes, such as rental costs, phone lines, and the all important bar prices are fixed by an external com-jpany. The hall committee works very lhard, puts on some great events and the staff are often helpful, but that doesn't stop the fact that our phones are excessively expensive and not even connected to the interhall network, and there's not a lot the committee can do about it. Thirdly, I wonder whether all those tutor surveys I filled in will actually make a difference. One general course student I spoke to highlighted the need for constant feedback and rapid change if tutors are not performing adequately. For those only studying at the LSE for a year it is simply not acceptable to have to wait months for tutors to improve. On the other hand, at least departments ask us about tutor performance, not once have I been asked to give feedback on a lecturer or personal tutor, or on any other member of staff for that matter. Obviously the role of tutor is important enough to deserye its own survey, however one exec officer told me he "hoped that they work but has never seen a tangible difference." If that is the case what's the point, are they just another bit of bureaucracy there to make students feel like we are hav- ing an input? It seems that there are a lot of issues of accountability, both for the school accounting for its actions through proper consultation and review and for students representing and reporting back to those they were elected by. It is not unique to LSE nor is it particularly new, but that doesn't for all these committees, reports and surveys ultimately, students are still not consulted on the biggest decisions. Recent protests against actions made without proper student consultation got a lot more staff and student attention than any survey or committee minutes ever could. Perhaps it's a sign that times excusable. are about to change. Particularly as it seems that Mneexpnsti At last, Lent Term and Hacktavist's favourite time of year is ever closer With the elections just around the comer, things are hotting up amongst the hacks; as the lies, treachery and general hack-whoring begins... Vote-counter Smug Oliver can teach us all a thing or two about hack-whoring. In his bid for GenSec he is turning up to every party in town (invited or not) to show off his counting skills and remind everyone what a great Returning Officer he made. The Eyes of Hacktavist also spotted him "making friends with freshers" at Crush last week. Hacktavist is extending an LSE-wide warning to all first years; male and female...beware of drugs...but most of all, beware of Dougs. Although it seems Smug Oliver's not the only one with a fondness for first years; Action manTam has also been getting up to Shane-ani-gans. It's a great Shane, but Hacktavist has been forced to keep the identity of the first year under wraps. . Having already battled it out ovei stage sit-ins, two infamous Super-Hacks: former Miscommunicatior Officer HeathcOck and Comrad* Caspell of the Green Army are busj training up their puppets Heathcock's got a trick or two uf his sleeve - his pi^ce de r&istance' Getting none other than our much loved ex-UGM chair Crazy nO Brain to hurl abuse at anyone whc either refuses to vote for his cronies or just happens to wear a headscarf. She's not called Crazy foi nothing... Meanwhile Flake left-wingei Slimeball Dan Sneldon continues attempting to worm his way into the hearts of the two Super-hacks by shouting out either'FYee Speech or 'Direct Action' according to whichever side is winning. And il all else fails in his campaign to secure Residences, he can always get out his cringe-worthy 'little pink dress' from the wardrobe... Email your gossip to hacktivist@tellusthegossip.com. COMMENT&ANALYSIS iBeaveri 16 January 2007 107 COMMENT & ANALYSIS Stealing Features' thunder, tliis week C&A has it's own version of the Left and Right columns... but one on top of the other. Ranil Jayawardena talks about the Slf s reflection of National politics, while Dan Sheldon asks why the Left suddenly has no-one to fight. In defence of Real Democracy Is our low opinion of SU democracy symptomatic of larger problems with our governance? Asks Ranil In all the time that I've been here at the LSE I've seen hacks vie for position in their individual bids for Sabb. I used to take an interest in Union politics, but now it turns me off. Why? Because it seems that the hacks are in it for themselves. I say 'seems' because some of what they do may be for students - but often it just seems that they have their pre-con-ceived ideas and are dead set on implementing them. So, would the Man on the Clapham Omnibus say that they are already politicians? Probably. And this is the problem. People perceive that politicians are irrelevant and don't understand the real world. They see MPs voting for pay rises and see them as self-serv-ing folk. Perhaps this sums up thoughts about sabbs too. In truth though, MPs are relevant and do understand real world problems. Parliament is still supreme and still creates the law of the land. MPs come from a huge range of backgrounds and the vast majority of them really want to do what (they think) is best for Britain. Still, people have no respect for them - but with their purported reputation you can see why This is a huge problem for democracy, especially amongst young people. Mori, the pollsters compiled statistics show- ing that only 37% of 18-24 year-olds voted in the general election on 5th May 2005, compared with an overall turnout of 61%. This was a 2% drop from 2001. What happens if the overall turnout goes below 50%? Would we still be a democracy? At this rate, in just one decade we will have to address these questions. The answer now? It isn't to lower the franchise. In an ICM unt LSE students taking politics sen Photo: Zoe Sullivan survey of 16 year-olds for The Guardian, 42% supported lowering the franchise to 16, but only 16% said they would be certain to vote in a general election. And simply because some sixteen year-olds pay tax it doesn't mean they have the fundamental right to vote. Are we saying that sixteen year-olds should be able to legally gamble, drink, use credit cards and buy a gun too?! Most of us here, at the LSE, have some sort of interest in politics. So, from this, we all have a responsibility to show young people that politics matters and that they can make a difference. Only 36% of young people believed that they could influence decisions in their local communities, and even fewer felt they could influence national decisions -16%. I believe that important in changing this is giving young people the skills to articulate their views. An excellent article by Max Davidson in the Daily Telegraph at the end of last month contrasting our leaders to those across the pond showed the value of debating in schools. Moreover, young people are intensely political, but they aren't party political. If young people are going to join pressure groups We all have a responsibility to show young people that politics matters like Amnesty, Greenpeace, People and Planet... even the Lib Dems (!)... they are being separated from the real world. In an OFSTED survey of 14-16 year-olds, nearly half did not think it is important for them to know more about what the political parties stand for. These are potential voters -how on earth can they exercise their vote without knowing what they are voting for?! We should show young people how political parties are relevant to them - then they will join them - getting involved, changing party policy, making a difference to the country. My quip about the Lib Dems was unfair, they are a political force in some areas of the country and do try and include young people. The Conservatives have always had large youth movements and though It is not quite as big as it was in the good ol' days. Conservative Future is an important part of the party and is fully represented within internal structures. However, unpopular they may be, Young Labour is a breeding ground for future Parliamentarians and is a force to be respected. We need to show young people that the way to improve the country is to "be the change" and not just talk about it. HM Government is trying to change the situation. Organisations like the Blue Sky Foundation and the Young Britons' Foundation are working hard on this. But this problem has been a long time in the making and will take a lot of effort to finally remedy. That effort must come now otherwise, I fear, it will come too late. Is the Left all that remains? Dan^ Sheidd Sutherland dominates the Union: hasn't the left got something better to worry about? Asks Dan I'm very bored of Peter Sutherland. With the possible exception of Eurovision, very rarely has one rotound Irishman been lavished with so much attention. Unfortunately, not everybody is as tired of this issue as me: many good members of our Union are spending inordinate amounts of time writing motions, defending the protest and engaging in circular debates. Is this really the best thing we could be doing? In everything we do as student activists, we have to bear in mind the likely outcomes. We should resist the temptation of defeatism, but equally we shouldn't waste time fighting losing battles. Whilst the battle over Sutherland has been lost already, we should keep pressure on the School to increase student representation next time. The Living Wage campaign, on the other hand, is a fantastic opportunity for us to make a real differ- ence to those who work for our School, supported by a wide range of students, including those involved with the Sutherland sit-in. Unfortunately, since then it seems to have lost momentum - we are pissing away our time on the appointment of one man instead of taking a stand on progressive issues like the Living Wage, where we have a chance of changing the lives of hundreds of people. There are some serious issues at the heart of all this that we should address - particularly what many see as the "marketisation of our education", and the shift in the traditional academic focus of LSE. However, we should always remember that we are lucky to be in higher education in the first place - many aren't so fortunate, even more if our glorious overlords succeed in jacking up tuition fees even further. I would just politely suggest that perhaps our dissatisfaction with the level of student representation within LSE isn't the greatest injustice in the world. It's no wonder that so many are turned off by student politics when the same faces make the same predictable leftist points with wholly unimaginative tactics. Take, for example, the recent motion to twin LSESU with a Palestinian University on which I proposed some moderate amendments to ensure that it really does encourage dialogue on the right to education in conflict zones. Those who drafted the motion have been so far unwilling to make any concessions, making what could be a widely supported, good motion into just another example of the far left's moral imperialism. The Left are prepared to follow our words with action to fight for what we believe in Former LSE Tory Matt Sinclair has an interesting take on student politics at LSE. Those on the left are already behaving like politi- cians, he says - passing motions, empowering a series of "victim groups" and engaging in activism. In contrast, the right wingers quickly become skilled in defending their views in the face of the left-wing majority, thus their concentration in the Debate Society. Essentially, Tories see student politics as a futile sideshow and choose to engage intellectually rather than actively. This year, the right wingers have removed themselves from Union politics -some have stopped coming to UGMs, others have joined the Green Party and retreated to their societies. This should not be a cause for celebration for us lefties. Without their input in the political debate, the left becomes lazy. We should seek opposition and engage in constructive dialogue: only then will our ideas be perceived as legitimate and of high intellectual quality. Equally, we should never lose sight of the left's primary advantage over the right - we are passionate and are prepared to follow our words with action to fight for what we believe in. With the increasing irrelevance of the right wing at LSE, I see a new cleavage developing between the dog- matists and pragmatists. There is a legitimate debate to be had about the methods we employ to further our political ends. Do we continue on the path to extremist direct action, or do we want to conduct our business in a more nuanced, consultative fashion? There is no doubt that the Caspellites attempted the latter and there is also no doubt that the School simply did what it wanted to anyway. The 1960s era of riots which certain students aspire to bring about a renaissance of is not a good model to base our activism on -it really damaged our Union for a number of years and achieved very little. I think we should look back further in the history of LSE to the huge achievements of the Fabians. We would be wise to use consensual means to achieve evolutionary change, just like the Webbs. 'The way we win concessions like a place on the Director's Selection Committees is through dialogue with the School, not disruptive protests. It's not easy to keep pushing the School in the committee rooms in the face of what seems like insurmountable opposition, but it is the right way to build consensus and achieve our goals. COMMENT&ANALYSIS ANALYSIS Lebanese student Mark Dauo vents his fi'ustration at the Left's ineffectual campaigning on the Midtlle East Think about why you fight Dauo Coming back from Lebanon to LSE after the vacations I was greeted by a poster inviting me to a lecture entitled: "Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iraqi Resistance, Why the left should back them against US imperialism". I couldn't stop thinking how easy it is for 'leftists' on this side of the world to call for war against US Imperialism, that is till the last... well, till the last Lebanese, Palestinian or Iraqi alive. Can't we Arabs fight Imperialism the same way a socialist in LSE is doing it? Why don't they do the dying, torture, and wars for a few years and give us a break? Why is it acceptable to go to war on foreign soil but not on local soil? According to their (left) logic they should be plotting to kill Tony Blair to 'help' my people? Or they just expect us to kill while they colourfully chant and then have a beer afterwards? As a leftist and Lebanese I beg to differ with the ridiculousness on that poster What the left in the developed world should be doing is finally supporting the democratic forces that are toiling to form tolerant societies that can accept political diversity and can manage a democratic competition for authority without falling into civil war, sectarian strife or despotic regimes. With such regimes that take into consideration their populations opinions can we fight Israel and "Imperialism". That is only one side of the story; the other part is who to support: Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraqi Resistance (if you can find a group that deserves such a label)? Again as a leftist drawing on the lessons leamt the hard and blood saturated way by the Arab left, I would totally reject the call to support parties such as Hezbollah and Hamas. I don't think a legitimate military Iraqi Resistance exists so I will disregard that fictitious claim altogether. Looking back a few decades ago, the left in the Arab world was in alliance with similar totalitarian parties such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The names were different then; they were called the Baath and Nasserite parties. The latter allied with the left finally throwing them in jails and annihilating them from the political scene. The Baath had a similar story in Iraq, a coup against the socialist president gave the Iraqis the notorious Saddam Hussain regime. In Syria and Iran the same stories happened. Yet, some still believe that we should be supporting religious, totalitarian, anti-democratic parties that believe that democracy is electing the president with a 99.9% of the votes, and running the state with one main party/family/cartel/religious sect is a normal procedure. The most possible scenario then is call on the left to support Hezbollah and Hamas so that they can slaughter us (the Arab Left) later. It doesn't really matter if the Arab population ends up under despotic religious rule, like the Iranian Regime or the Baath Regimes, the most important thing is kicking the US in the ass. It doesn't matter if Lebanon is destroyed and economically crippled, if Palestine is heading towards civil war and starvation, if Iraq has the most active cemeteries in the world, as long as "Imperialism" is being beaten back or at least supposedly so. To those 'leftists' who might be unaware of the fact that Hezbollah and other religious political parties liquidated the Leftist resistance to the Israeli occupation during the 80s, probably they would be cautious in asking us (Lebanese Left) to support Hezbollah. Please, do the people of that region a favour and leave us alone, that is if your idea of support is pushing us to be slaughtered. If you want to help, then support us to build Please, do the people of the Middle East a favour and leave _us alone democracies and build proper states with a possible means of living peacefully and fighting against Israel and the US-UK idiotic foreign policy in the region without destroying our countries and populations. We also deserve to live in peace and wage our wars by protesting in the streets and chanting. Want to earn easy nnoney doing sonnething fun? The Beaver is looking for three invi(duals to lielp distribute the paper on campus on TuescJays and Thurs(days every week. Distributors will be paid £7/66/hr We're aiso looking for a student who is able to deliver the Beaver to LSE halls, prefarably in their own vehicle on Tuesday evenings. Pay will be good! 2nd How, fojt iluSciing tSE Sfudenfs' iinton London WC2A 2ftE amalt. thebcavefijase ac uk Pobftihed since EXECUTIVE EDITOR Sidhanth Kamath MANAGING EDITOR Chris Lam SECRETARY Lucie Goulet BUSINESS MANAGER Ismat Abidi NEWS EDITORS Laura Deck; Ali Moussavi; Timothy Root FEATURES EDITORS Fatima Manji; , ¦ Charlie Samuda PART B EDITORS Kevin Perry; Daniel B.Yates SPORTS EDITOR Laura Parfitt GRAPHICS SUB EDITOR Aditi Nangia PHOTOGRAPHY SUB-EOITOR tiam Chambers C&A SUB-EDITOR Simon Douglas Commissioning Sub-Editor Charlie Hallton Editorial Assistant Christine Whyte Business Team: Saurabh Sharma, Tim Turner, Annelies Vermeuien Marketing Team: Pierre Degrave, EHsa Eymery, Johan Raymond, Irma Raza Admin Team: Rahul Srivatsa, Anna Tveritinova, Wong Chun Han, Lily Yang THE COLLECTIVE: Ross Allan; Andhaltb Karim; Sam Ashton; Sancha Sainton; Fadhil Bakeer-Markar; Wil Barber; Alex Barros-Curtis; Rothna Begum; Ruby Bhavra; Neshy Boukharl; Clem Broumley-Young; James Bull; Sam Burke; Andy Burton; Sumit Buttoo; Ed Calow; Jess Cartwright; James Caspell; Claire Cheriyan; Chris Colvtn; Laura Coombe; Owen Coughlan; Peter Currie; Patrick Cullen; James Davies; Michael Oeas; All Dewji; Jan Daniel Dormann; Matt Dougherty; AledDilwyn Fisher; Alex George; Ben Gianforti; Rupert Guest; Steve Gummer; Andrew Hallett; Charlie Hallion; Wong Chun Han; Chris Heathcote; Josh Heller; Tahiya Islam; William Joce; Lois Jeary; Laleh Kazeml-Veisari; Joel Kenrick; James Ketteringham; Arthur Krebbers; Sanjivi Krishnan; Ben Lamy; Charles Laurence; Roger Lewis; Shu Hao Don Lim; James Longhofer; Ziyaad Lunat; Clare Mackie; Kim Mandeng; Jami Makan; Joey Mellows; Nitya Menon; Jessica McArdle; Ju McVeigh; Sophie Middlemiss; Daisy Mitchel-Forster; Chris Naylor; Doug Oliver; Erin Orozco; Aba Osunsade; Rob Parker; Matthew Partridge; Rajan Patel; Keith Postler; John Philpott; Joe Quaye; Gareth Rees; Louise Robinson; Alex Small; Rebecca Stephenson; Jimmy Tam; Alex Teytelboym; Angus Tse; Molly Tucker; Vladimir Unkovski-Korlca; Louise Venables; Alexandra Vincenti; Claudia Whitcomb; Greg White; Amy Williams; Yee To Wong PRINTED BY THE NORTHCLIFFE PRESS if you have written three or more articles for The Beaver and your name does not appear in the Collective, please email: tbebeaver.editor^lse.acMk and you will be added to the list in next week's paper. The Beaver is available in alternative formats. The views and opinions expressed In the Beaver are those of the contributors and not necessarily those of the editors or the LSE Students' Union ID January 2007 COMMENT&ANALYSIS COMMENT & ANALYSIS leaver Established 1949 - Issue 655 The Sutherland issue gets more complex... ...as a letter that requires the General Secretary to make impossible promises emerges The recent developments on the School's reaction to the Sutherland protests show how completely confused the entire issue has become. Firstly, the School continues to avoid the real issue; that is opposition from some students to the appointment of Peter Sutherland as Chair of the Court of Governors. Instead it deliberately chooses to assume that the intention of the protestors was to deny the freedom of speech to Peter Sutherland on that particular occasion alone. By ignoring the true grievances of protestors, the School is thus fundamentally unable to engage with a view to resolving the issue. Furthermore in asking the General Secretary of the Union to ensure there is no repetition of the protests, the School is failing to understand the subtle gradation of student opinion in this matter. Jimmy Tam is in no position to control the actions of individual students within the Union and in no circumstances can he claim to be able to prevent such a protest recurring. At the UGM last week, Tam denied allegations that he made any such assurance to the School. Yet the details of his meeting with Howard Davies remain essentially unclear. It is obvious that the protestors have managed to worry the School on this occasion. The Sutherland issue is one that is unlikely to disappear, as the School refuses to back down on its decision and vocal students continue to express their disappointment at the fact the powers that be continue to ignore their opinion. It is at times like this, that we require a General Secretary who will take a pro-active role in negotiating between the School and the protestors. A leader of the union who is not afraid to demand a voice for students instead of limply succumbing to orders passed down from the School. It is conflicts like these which attract and hold the attention of the School hierarchy, the wider student body as well as the outside world. Therefore it is in situations like this one for us to ensure that the famous reputation of the LSE student body as one that is always determined to ensure its voice is heard by the administration, is not allowed to crumble due to weak leadership. The General Secretary has clearly been unable to deliver on this issue so far. He needs to remedy the situation and his own reputation before it is too late. The farce surrounding union politics ...the Union's forum for debate becomes even more useless This Union has been a confused body in the past few days. Last week, the Sabbaticals held an open meeting with students to discuss the five year Strategic Plan for the Union, in attempt to plan for future provision of services. Due to poor publicity, the meeting was only attended by fifteen students. Hardly, a consideration of cross-campus opinion. Students need to turn up and give the Sabbatical Officers their opinions. And yet again we were forced to witness the UGM in complete shambles. In what seems to be a recurring situation, three quarters of the hour were wasted on electing a chair, mundane reports and the reading out of useless poetiy, leaving only fifteen minutes to discuss an important motion. The issue of Palestinian universities is not only a serious matter, but also one on which the debate was clearly polarized. Issues such as these need to be debated extensively, so that students can make an informed decision. Unfortunately, this was not allowed to happen. With regards to the issue of a member of the Constitutional & Steering Committee being the Chair of the UGM; there are not many students who can claim to fully understand the technicalities of the Union's Constitution. Given this fact, one would hope that having a member of C&S as Chair of the UGM, would be beneficial and add a degree of order and calm to the proceedings. Unfortunately this weeks UGM did not support this theory. It has always been tradition at UGMs to incorporate a certain amount of light-hearted humour and it is this unique property that makes the experience enjoyable for students who attend, when the goings on get too dreary,Yet, if we want to maintain the credibility of this age old institution, we must retain the (also age old) tradition of being able to debate motions seriously. Many people already pass of student politics in general and the UGM in particular as a farce. Playing into the hands of those who berate us, is really not very beneficial at all. We at the LSE often think of ourselves as equals to Oxbridge.Yet, there has always been a major difference in the ethos of the LSE; the realisation, rather than the creation, of ideas. This can be witnessed by the majority of our degrees, which could be classified as either Arts or Sciences, inevitably being placed under the umbrella of the sciences. LSE is first and foremost a social science institution. However this is no excuse for us to neglect the creative faculties of art, as they can play a vital role in shaping a student's education, experience and personality. Increased funding for the creative Arts would ensure that enriching extracurricular activities are provided for and the educational experience of an LSE student is well-rounded. Letters to the Editor The Beaver offers all readers the right to reply to anything that appears In the paper. Letters should be sent to thebeaver.editor@lse.ac.uk and should be no longer than 250 words. All letters must be received by 3pnn on the Sunday prior to publication. The Beaver reserves the right to edit letters prior to publication._ "specific halls" Dear Sir As Residences Officer of the LSE SU I have taken a keen interest in the security issues in halls since elected, and following the problems in halls last year iiave met with numerous LSE staff, students and even security experts. Its perfectly obvious that students should not have to worry about hall security - it should be a minimum guarantee, a stance I took following the first incidents in halls last term. Staff seemed to believe that students were unaware of the potential risks, and so I worked to raise the profile of security. Students are now, certainly, aware that they should remain vigilant, and so its up to the LSE to purchase concrete measures to improve security. The Beaver report [9th January 2007] certainly reopened opportunities for students to demand changes to improve their welfare - I thank you for this. I am currently writing papers for Residences User Group, and will then report to Residences Committee on how this is received. I would encourage all students who have had problems, or notice areas for improvement in their specific halls, to contact me and their committees, as representatives from these also attend Residences User Group this Thursday. Louise Robinson LSESU Residences Officer "new low" Dear Sir I found the cover page article of last week's issue "Hall security only fools dummies" shocking. However, it wasn't what The Beaver uncovered about LSE residences that shocked me. It was the new low of journalistic ethic that The Beaver achieved with this article. To recount some of the article, Beaver editors broke into buildings illegally, messed with students' private belongings, took pictures of these belongings, and published these pictures in the newspaper. All of this to discover that a few students are careless about locking their doors? Or that residence buildings use dummy cameras? The Beaver must be really desperate for a good story. LSE halls have a very good record of ensuring the safety of their residents. The safety measures that have been taken have proven very effective. Once there are some statistics that show that students in LSE residences are unsafe, then the article might have a point. However, the article has no statistics and is merely sensational. What scares me most is that the security secrets of these two halls have now been published on the front page of a paper that anyone can pick up. Zach Seeskin High Holborn Resident "sex is g..." Dear Sir I would like to express my support to Rosamund Urwin's comment "Selling sex: a deadly trade". Especially I appreciate her focus on the customer, as this focus is generally absent in any debate on prostitution. However, I feel like Urwin is treating the m male customer unnecessarily harsh. Men who buy sex are a very diverse group. Even though there might be violent, mentally unstable men with misogyny as motive who buy sex, they represent the minority. An average "first buyer" of sex is a normal, employed man in his mid twenties, no different from the average LSE male student. Most people only buy sex a few times, but for those who continue it can become an addiction they might need help to escape from, just like gambling. By demonising the sex buyer further stigma is placed on this group, alienating them from the public debate and any help available. The sexuality of some of these men is not from nature distorted and wicked, they are products of society. No men are uncontrollable sexual beasts. They can control desire just as well as girls. By accepting them as decent human beings, you treat the demand side of prostitution and the supply, prostitution, will no longer be profitable. Julie Lodrup MSc Politics and Government in the EU Matilda von Sydow BSc International Relations "different ways" Dear Sir When I first saw the title of Gregory White's article, 'Caring Conservatives?', I was expecting another criticism of the idea that Conservatives can be anything but radical marketizing Neo-Liberals. However, I was pleasantly surprised to read this well-rounded critique of Cameron's Conservatism. White very well examined the different ways of looking at this new 'compassionate conservatism' and weighed the pros and cons concisely and completely. White first explained how Cameron has tackl^ the important issues of our time, such as environmentalism and social responsibility. I might add that philosophically it made no sense in the past for Conservatives not to advocate conserving our natural resources. It has been the stranglehold of big business on the Conservative Party that has caused previous Conservatives, like Republicans in the U.S., to neglect environmental responsibility on the part of the government. Cameron is to be applauded for taking the party in this direction, which really gets back to the core values of Conservative philosophy; which are conserving our traditions and our way of life, as opposed to marketizing them out of existence. One of the last points made by White is that Cameron is more likely to be successful in the ballet box than with campaign contributions. That is, the big busi- ness contribuors to the Conservative Party are uncomfortable with Cameron's new direction for the Party. This is a possibility. Cameron has, so far, been able to make enough compromises to appease the Party's contributors, such as his proposal for a modest tax cut. But we can clearly see that there is growing tension here and Cameron is simply going to have to be practical when dealing with the contributors. He is going to have to explain that they can't hope to win elections with massive tax cuts, massive cuts to government spending, and neglect of the environment anymore. I suppose though, those contributors could always go Labour. Wouldn't that be ironic? Richard Wagner MSc Political Theory student "Italians pretend" Dear Sir As a native English speaker, I am constantly shamed by my lack of knowledge of other European languages. Nick Byrne is correct to confront the Philistinism which pervades the British education system. But, if progress is to be made, language teachers in schools will have to dramatically raise their game. Learning a language to GCSE level, and even A Level, is boring. I studied French for six years to GCSE standard, and came away with only the most rudimentary knowledge of how to order a croque monsieur or ask the way to the boulangerie. If English speakers are to be enthused with learning a language, they must be taught properly: with reference to French plays and other works of literature, just like learning Latin or Greek. Part of the problem is that the English language is itself taught poorly. If a native English speaker does not know which word in an English sentence is an adverb or pronoun, how can he possibly know that in a foreign language? Another difficulty is that cultural attitudes must change amongst other European nations. My own experience with French people is that they are rude and bad mannered when confronted with an English speaker attempting to communicate with them in French. Similarly, Italians pretend not to imderstand and English speaker's Italian. It must be remembered that it is very difficult for English people to leam another language, and other nations should be pleased when we at least make an effort. John Townsend LLM Candidate Open letter to Howard Davies Dear Sir I am writing to you about the welcome extended by you to Mr Jia Qinglin, Chairman of the 10th National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, on the occasion of his unveiling of a statue of Confucius, as reported in the LSE student's newspaper the Beaver, in issue 650, in an article written by Sidhanth Kamanth, I am most concerned by the reaction to a seminar given by Leeshai Lemish on the state of Human Rights in mainland China as contrasted with the same issues in Taiwan. An article was published in the Beaver at the same time as the seminar, in which Mr Lemish addresses the issue, long ignored by world media and governments, of the seven /eight year persecution of Falun Gong in China. I was pleasantly surprised that this issue was aired in the Beaver, and that your welcome to a Chinese official who has been Indicted in Spain for crimes against humanity should be given a front page article, along with an editorial comment and substantial article commenting on the significance of this occasion. I should add that I am indeed saddened and devastated that, as the head of a respected educational establishment, you appeared, in your warm welcome, to be unconcerned that Jia Qinglin is said to have the blood of many innocent men, women and children on his hands. I was deeply impressed by Mr Lemish's demonstration of moral fortitude in not backing down, and at the same time showing tolerance, one of the virtues cultivated by Mun Gong practitioners. In the face of the mass denial of what many international bodies acknowledge as indisputable fact, (widespread human rights abuse in China), Mr Lemish demonstrated compassion tor those Chinese who have been hoodwinked by their government's denial of the truth. I have witnessed many times the rage and impatience, the storming off in a huff of young Chinese who, when faced with pictures of the Tien An Men massacre victims, shout "lies" and "it's not true." It is a matter of very grave concern that a growing number of ' Chinese are visiting these shores, apparently carrying poison in their minds; spreading untruths uttered on a massive scale by the ruling regime in China. I am asking you if you will be present at a seminar, a conference at which Chinese practitioners of Falun Gong who have been perse^ cuted in concentration camps will be able to tell their stories to an audience, where western practitioners will be able to speak about their experiences in cultivating I^lun Gong. The purpose will be to dispel fantasy and falsehood, to halt the incitement to hatred which, in China has led to the torturing to death of many thousands of innocent people, (the true fig- ¦ ures will without doubt emerge at some future date). On a finishing note, we have been dramatically warned on the dangers to the world posed by an Eastern bloc whose methods of governance have not changed since the days of Stalinism and Maoism, the deaths of Ms Politkovskaya and Mr Litvinenko are a tiny fraction, as examples of the dangers posed by dictators on this planet. The poison ingested by Litvinenko left traces everywhere, the poison in people's minds is no less capable of spreading insidiously far and wide, please think about the issue in this letter. Lastly, IMun Gong is responsible for improving people and making society safer, as anyone taking the trouble to investigate will find, it is an unthinkable and colossal tragedy that this is not imderstood by some Chinese people, it is something of which China should be proud.. I hope you will take my suggestion seriously. Anthony Archer London BYilun Gong Practitioner + lO^eaveri 16 January 2007 FEATURESiPo/itics FEATURES In this section: Politics/Society/SU Specials thebeaver.features@lse.ac.uk Environment Saving'the planet from destruction ay Fightni^ religious lobby Elnieric World Domination The Vladical Left Vladimir Unkovski -Korica The powerful of the world often devise ludicrous justifications for scenarios they are implicated in. R'equently, these lies are not even designed to deceive. One such occasion was when Israeli apologists asked the incredulous world to believe that Hamas, with a harebrained departure from its operational traditions, was to blame for the massacre of Huda Ghalia's family on a Gaza beach last June. Not many believed Israel's explanation, just as few believed in the practically contemporaneous 'Lebanon War' that Israel's response to the seizure of two of its soldiers could not have been based on a simple prisoner-exchange involving hundreds of Israeli-held Lebanese prisoners, instead of the systematic military crippling of Lebanese society with the excuse that little Israel was defending itself from Goliath Iran. By diverting attention to questions like "did or did not Israel kill Huda Ghalia's family?' or 'can we condemn Israeli war ciinies in the Lebanon War when its existence is under thi-eat?', Commentators attempt not to provide credible explanation or excuse for Israel but to cast the whole Middle East conflict without its most basic characteristic: the fundamentally disproportionate balance of forces involved in the struggle. The sheer ludicrousness of some of their arguments, moreover, serves to I'einforce this inequality. Decades of won arguments have not changed the status quo in the Middle East. Like any other settler state established by European colonists at the expense of local populations, as in French-ruled Algeria or settler-ruled Rhodesia or apartheid South Africa, Israel remains trapped in a logic based on the sti-uggle between oppressor and oppressed. Since it was founded in a context where the majority across the Middle East would never accept the ethnic clean,sing of 75,0000 Palestinians by the Zionist colonists and the horrific injustices perpetrated against fellow Arabs, the settler state had to seek a P^ustian pact with an outside power in order to maintain its existence. Even today, little David can always count on Uncle Sam. The US, which gives Israel a thii'd of its overseas aid and the biggest share of its military aid in the world, vetoed calls for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire when Israel assaulted Lebanon in 2006. In 2003, Israel had been promised aid amounting to $720 million in economic and $2.04 billion in military terms. Is it surprising, then, that ten Lebanese were killed, most of them civilians, for eveiy Israeli in the Lebanon war? Does US aid to Israel clearly not trump the Katyusha rocket (first seeing service in 1942) and other aid from what the ever-com-pliant Blair has termed the "arc of extremism", linking Iran, SjTia, Hamas and Hizbollah? If Israel has the unequivocal backing of the world's major powers, surely ordinary people around the world should stop being ambivalent in their support of Palestine? Six decades after the creation of the Zionist state, millions of Palestinian refugees are still being denied their right of return, while millions more ordinary Palestinians are being denied such basic rights as their right to life, to running water, to electricity, to education, and even their right to recognition - to statehood - itself. The siege of the Zionist fortress begins with an assault on its fortifications in the West. The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, initiated in Ramallah in April 2004 by Palestinian academics and intellectuals, endorsed a strategy of comprehensive economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel as a first step towards redressing the balance of power in the Middle East. Taking up this call internationally would be our only route to breaking the hold of Zionism on the great majority of the Isi'aeli population, and thus opening the way for the possibility of a peaceful solution to what has been a bloody and explosive conflict affecting the whole world. H lEditors^ BIoi; From the moment he announced his departure, and for many long before then, Tony Blair has been labeled a 'lame duck' in British politics. The Prime-minister elect has been chosen and the country is looking for a new toy. It is therefore ironic that last week, in this supposed period of political limbo, one of the most vital political issues has been raised kicking off a debate on the future of this country. The first came from Mr. Blair himself. On JYiday the Prime Minister was addressing a gathering of the armed forces an event which should have generated little interest. Leaders usually like to be seen speaking to men and women in uniform for a variety of reasons; firstly they are usually too disciplined to voice dissenting opinions, secondly it makes the leader in question appear statesman-like and thirdly it reminds political opponents that the man in charge still carries a big stick and might one day use it so watch out. Blair's speech should have followed a fairly generic pattern. Something along the lines of "I know Iraq and Afghanistan aren't exactly going without a hitch but there's a war on terror and I have to do something about it so stop complaining. P.S. your all very brave and I have the utmost respect for you even though my government has an appalling record on looking after you.". However, Blair being Blair, the speech ended up being about much more than contrition and a reminder to keep on fighting. The Prime Minister asked his audience, and by extension the country, the broader question; how important do you want the United Kingdom to be in the world. The question was obviously not phrased so crudely. What Blair actually asked was whether Britain should continue to pursue an interventionist, assertive foreign and defence policy or limit its role to a peacekeeper as so many other nations have done. Either the UK can be an agenda setting world power -fighting for liberal values in the war on terror- or it can follow the way of other former great powers such as Japan or Italy and work solely on the behest of agencies such as UN peacekeeping forces and take a back-sea role in world affairs. Its not hard to take Blair's side on this one (a sentence I appreciate you're not used to hearing). If we are in the middle of a global conflict for global values then being on the losing side doesn't bear thinking about and the UK should bring to bear its power to see its values enacted in the world. Furthennore see this from a domestic security point of view; Britain's future is less certain in a world plagued by the reign of terror than it is in a world governed by liberal values thus acting to entrench those values is also acting in the national interest. However such an argument presupposes that everj' UK citizen is as concerned with the ideological debate on geo-politics as Blair. A member of the govern-iment, even the Prime iviinister, acts on behalf of his citizens and nobody'else. This argument was jexpressed, albeit jindirectly in a post on the BBC's 'comments page (Blair's speech having generated a debate on the status of the UK) - "The UK is not a world power and the taxpayer cannot afford to pay for expensive make belief any more". Well Patrick form Yorkshire, you raise a good point. The decision to be an agenda setter rather than a back-seat driver is not without cost. Such a cost is born not only by the sen'ice men and women which Blair addressed last week (although their work must not be forgotten) but by evei-y citizen of this country. The issue of the vast expense to the tax-payer of fighting wars in far off places is significant but not nearly as significant as the dangers faced by every Britain who is now considered a potential target by those on the other side of the war on terror. In fact most of the discussion in the aftermath of 7/7 was whether the invasion of Iraq had placed ordinary Britons under greater danger. At the time Blair and others in the government were insi.stent that every nation was under thr'eat from global terror regardless of its foreign policy - few were convinced. Britain's declining importance in the world is frequently bemoaned by just about everj'one in government and the media. Obviously nobody likes to feel that there sliding into irrelevance but despite how much it is talked up this country matters far less to world opinion than it did fifty years ago. Clinging to memories of Churchill won't change that. The real issue is whether the general public share this desire for importance. Is keeping up the pretence really worth it when the price of making the news is also making so many enemies. One might well ask the populations of Micronesia, Switzerland Belgium and New Zealand whether they would rather trade their stability for a seat at the top table of international affairs. Politicians will always seek to increase their influence on the world's stage because at the end of the day this fulfills their function. However arguably they would be doing their populations a greater service by accepting that being a spectator rather than a player in world affairs is not necessarily a bad thing. M Caipell-clof^s ^ lomiAS CrUisUS /fitUMAr/ Thtttrt Homo fe-WSirrw s: Evoiutioa thfj Si;ipnti->logy wsv . The Right Approach What did you think about Ruth Kelly's decision to send her son to a specialist private school? I have a word for it: responsible. In a country so short of responsible parenting, it astounds me that so many commentators and politicians were quick to judge her actions made in the interest of her son. I'm saddened, in fact, that column inches here, have to leap to the defence of the Cabinet Minister in what should have remained a private matter. If your mother was a Cabinet Minister, how would you like your details splashed around the papers in irreverent point scoring? As a mother (or father) how upset would you be to have your children's education discussed across the country? If you cannot be Education Secretary' without the intioisive discussion of your children, as per our case in point, then before long we'll have a new breed of politician eager to step up to the despatch box: childless machines. And how much poorer our politics would be for it! The bottom line is that as a mother, first and foremost, Ruth Kelly has not only a right, but a duty to act in the best interests of her child. Had Ms. Kelly been a member of another party, she would merely have been able to state this and leave it there. But as a member of the Labour Party, she tried to give some answers to her blood-thirsty critics from within her own party, setting out a justification as to why she had taken the decision she did. Labour backbencher Ian Gibson claims "It's wrong. You should set an example as a minister and support your local school" and called the decision "a slap in the face for the teachers and pupils in the school the child has been taken out of," What a low estimation of the teachers and pupils involved! Of course this is not the first time the Labour party have attacked their own for this 'political crime'. Before 1997; cuiTent Lord Chancellor, Charles Falconer tried to be selected as the Labour parliamentary candidate for Dudley East. He was advised by the local selection board to withdraw his four children from fee-paying schools. He refused - and rightly so. Can you believe the audacity of these provincial socialists in telling a father to disrupt his children's education for political expediency? Parallels can also be found in Diane Abbott's faux-pas. If Ms. Kelly had been shouting from the rooftops that people are wrong to send their children to private school, like Diane Abbott, then she would be open to the charge of hypocrisy. But she wasn't - so those criticisms are as unfounded as they are treacherous. Sanctimonious Labour MPs crying "hypocrite" would do well to remember Harold Wilson sent his children to private schools. One esteemed daily publication known for its insight and wit; The Sun (!), did not disappoint: "In our view, Ruth Kelly is a fully fledged, oceangoing, two-faced hypocrite who is unfit for this or any other Cabinet." Nobody should pay any attention to the two-faced tosh it chums out, mainly written tongue-in-cheek by left-wing journalists who are only too happy to take Murdoch's money. Far from criticising Ms. Kelly's acts, her spiteful commentators ought to appreciate the fact she is alleviating pressure on state education. In many cases the Local Education Authority would foot this bill if it was shown that there was a gap in provision. This option is therefore not the preserve of the rich as has been suggested. Ms Kelly has rightly elected to finance the fees herself rather than burden the state - she should be applauded for that. There is a need for a general debate about the provision of state education, especially for children with disabilities. But why does it take the 'news' that Ms. Kelly intends to send her son to a private, specialist school to start the talking? Next time something like this happens, there needs to be restraint. The media, politicians and hacks need to bite their tongues - because, in the end, children matter more. + FEATURES rSoczefy lBeaverli6 January 2007 .tiim 11 Sdentology Exposed investigates the weird and wonderful world of the infamous Church We've seen the smiling suits and the unnaturally happy Tom Cruise, heard the scandals about bribes and threats and unscrupulous goings-on. What is the truth about Scientology, the religion that one of the U.K.'s own High Court Judges, Justice Latey, dismissed as "corrupt, sinister, immoral and dangerous"? Scientology is a massive estate, built on a rotting base whose cracks come in the form of lawsuits, suicides and scandal. It is also something much more banal: a "religion" based on the glorified self-help teachings of a science-fiction writer. Without their aura of mystery. Scientologists are just weak-minded fanatics. My meeting with a top official at their London Scientology 'Celebrity Centre"'was almost entirely unintentional. After showing up for a free lecture about "living in a toxic world" I soon found myself alone in a room with only a Scientology video and my cynicism for company. My time with Mr. Scientology himself was entirely predictable. He gazed at the computer screen that held the results of my "personality test" and enumerated my mental and spiritual deficiencies, then folded his hands, looked into my eyes and said; "My diagnosis? Dianetics." Quelle surprise. The big question: what is dianetics? It is the core of Scientology, and also the dull bit. The term literally means "what the soul is doing to the body through the mind." The church claims that dianetics can be used to uncover and treat "the source of I ll ires teadi'&at 75 miUtoii years ago, a galactic oamcsd 3fei!u frosBE the people m Ms and sent the iMsdies to eartii unwanted sensations and emotions," including depression and illness. The unpleasant feelings are caused by "engrams," which are triggers lodged in a person's "reactive mind" during a traumatic incident, usually while unconscious. Thus the emphasis on "silent birth," lest the unborn child receive any engrams from its labouring mother. The example in the video was that of a man who broke up with his girlfriend because of a conversation he heard - while unconscious -between two paramedics. The man in the video learned that his mind could only be "cleared" through auditing sessions. What are auditing sessions? They are self-help sessions of a sort: a mixture of mind games, regression hypnosis and personality overhaul, they cost upwards of £20,000 a year, and that is just the beginning. Getting "cleared" is a lengthy process and church members struggle to pass the "levels" but often must repeat them - and pay again. Scientology's aggressive sales tactics and pricey services create good profit margins but a lot of bad press. The Church of Scientology in England is not recognized as a religion or as a charity in the U.K. but has overcome its tax position by funnelling activities through a company registered in Australia. In 2004, it paid just £3114 of corporation tax on a £9.8 million income, with net assets of £18.9 million. The government of Britain is not the only victim. The dark side of Scientology can be seen in cases like those of Patrice Vic of France, Noah Lottick of New York, and Richard Collins of Bristol. All were being pursued by the church when they committed suicide. When Collins jumped from a bridge in 1996, his family told police how Scientologists were trying to stop him from leaving by inundating him with phone calls and letters. Patrice Vic of France was also hunted to his death. The leader of his local Scientology church pressured Vic to take out loans to cover treatment, convincing him that he could not survive without it. He came to Vic's house and tried to force his wife into signing loan papers. In this case the courts recognized the role of Scientologists in his death, and the leader was convicted of manslaughter and fraud. This is not the only legal defeat Scientology has suffered. A crushing blow to the empire was the successful £4.43 million lawsuit by Lawrence Wollersheim, a Califomian member of the church whose auditing process turned him manic-depressive and near-suicidal. Bonnie Woods of the Scientologjf is dangerous because it ftmctfons in tbis undefined area betiveeo creed, commerce and cult U.K. won a similar £55,000 suit against the Church of Scientology in England, in which she accused the church of brainwashing. The treatments are indeed questionable. I was given a free self-analysis session, in which we had a jolly good game and word association and false memories, though I spent half the time making things up because I honestly don't remember what it smelled like the first time I drove in a car. I felt strange and vulnerable afterwards, hypnotized by images. When I commented that the session seemed like therapy, I was faced with vehement denial. It was not surprising; Scientology is on a crusade against psychiatrists. David Cohen of the Evening Standard discovered this at a Scientology weekend retreat, where he was treated to digital images of psychiatrists being machine-gunned while Scientology top dog David Miscavige roared with laughter in front of the screen. The experience helped him understand why some countries are taking such a hard line on Scientology. Germany is afraid of the scientologists. A huge new centre that just cropped up in Berlin has drawn criticism from parents and other locals who fear and resent their efforts at brainwashing. In Germany, the church is under surveillance by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which also monitors neo-Nazis and terrorist- groups. The office has warned that "there is substantial evidence that the Scientology Organization is involved in activities directed against the free democratic order." In France, parliament has officially defined Scientology as a cult. What about the aliens? Scientologists will never comment on the intergalactic connection, but it is found in L. Ron Hubbard's "secret scriptures," which have of course been leaked onto the internet. Here it is, by my interpretation: the scriptures teach that 75 million years ago, a galactic overlord named Xenu froze the excess people in his galaxy and sent the bodies to Teegeeack, or as we call it, "earth." The disembodied spirits of these defrosted aliens continue to haunt mankind today. So what is Scientology? In practice, it is a pile of esoteric jargon and beliefs built upon L. Ron Hubbard's writings. That's all. When I asked Mr. Scientology what made Scientology a "church," he told me it was because Scientology recognizes man "as a spiritual being." Fair enough, but I have never been to a church where they pressure-sell books, classes, and vitamins to new converts as they did to me. Scientology is dangerous because it functions in this undefined area between creed, conunerce and cult. We need to be more cautious in Britain. Instead of accepting gifts from an organization other members of the EU have deemed a cult, the police and the Labour party should be taking steps to inform the public about the group that Labour MP Tom Watson has dubbed "an organisation we should warn our children about Jj 12 leaver | 16 January 2007 __FEATURES: £ Eco-friendly food is milei Micheal Deas tells us why accumulating 'Food Miles' kills the earth Whether its exotic fruit or an eight pence pack of Sainsbury's Basic Noodles, nearly all of us enjoy the range and value on offer at supermarkets. However, more and more people are now starting to argue that the true cost of the food we eat is rarely reflected in the price. Increasing demand for cheap and out of season produce mean food is now shipped in from all over the world even when it's not available in the UK, burning huge amounts of fossil fuels along the way. What's more the rise of intensive farming is turning great lakes into ponds and leaving those downstream of big irrigation systems without water where it is at its most scarce. The UK is now a major importer of 'carbon-greedy' food and a major exporter of drought. Put simply, the cheap and never ending supply of food we are used to is causing massive environmental and human damage on a global scale. That handy bag of mixed salad you picked up the other day may have looked healthy but it would have taken 300 litres of water to produce. Huge, usually western owned, factory farms suck huge amounts of water into their irrigation systems that cannot be replaced and the money they bring in means the resulting loss of fertile land for other farmers is ignored. Then the salad has to be processed, packaged and transported to the UK from places as far away as Kenya, Egypt or South Africa. The amount of food flown around the world has more than doubled in the last decade and campaigners argue that carbon emission targets will never be met whilst lorries drive 30 billion km per year transporting food and planes fly posh salads around the planet. The damage done by 'food miles' is one of the most obvious problems caused by the globalisation of food markets and is receiving increasing the most attention. Food travels further today partly because of the centralised system of food distribution. Crops, can be transported many miles to be packaged at a central depot and then sent many miles back to be sold near where they were produced in the first place. The rise of the out-of-town supermarket means consumers create more food miles themselves. An average UK adult travels about 135 miles by car to shop for food per Tiii.-i is not jusi this is crivirwtimeniaily un-"-icndiy fofid year. But the main cause of excessive food miles is international transport. The price of labour in, you guessed it, China, means that some British fish is now sent there for processing, only to be sent back for sale in the UK. That's a 16,000 mile round trip to save a supplier a bit on staff costs. Imports of food are at amazing record highs. 95% of the fruit and half of the vegetables in the UK are now imported. The high demand for strawberries from South America in January and potatoes from Egypt in August make carbon intensive food inevitable for as long as public will eat out of season produce. But it's not just Jamie Oliver who disapproves of the loss of seasonality, scientists and environmentalists agree that this extent of dependence on foreign imports hastens climate change and is simply unsustainable. It is infuriating therefore that supermarkets, in attempt to keep prices down and profits up, will sell imported produce even when UK grown food is available. In early September, home-grown seasonal fruit and vegetables like pears, beans and carrots were available throughout the country. But on the shelves in three central London supermarkets were Pears grown 7,000 miles away in Argentina, beans from Kenya 3,600 miles away and carrots imported from South Africa 6,000 miles away. The amounts of energy involved are staggering - it will have taken 68 calories of energy in the form of fuel for each calorie of carrot energy. What do the countries who feed us get in return? The droughts mentioned earlier are not contained to developing countries. Intensive farming has caused a massive water shortage in the south of Spain and whilst food generation may have doubled in 50 years the amount of water used to grow it is has increased threefold. Then there is the human Saying NO to nuclear po^ Everyone's favourite environmentalist James Caspell outlines the case against nuclear power At the last Labour Party conference of his reign. Prime Minister Tony Blair informed his Party that harnessing nuclear power should be considered as an appropriate way of tackling climate change. He has since argued that nuclear is a viable, safe and effective source of power that will both fill the gaps in energy supply that will increasingly occur as fossils fuels are depleted and, more acutely, is an environmentally sustainable form of power which can stunt the advance of global warming. It isn't - and never will be. Upon close scrutiny, it becomes increasingly evident that to describe nuclear power as 'environmentally sustainable' is a complete misnomer. This is combined with the known quantities that people associate with harnessing nuclear energy: it is unsafe, hugely expensive and especially as a consequence of the UK's current warmongering foreign policy, serves as a patent terrorist threat to millions of British civilians. Such negative externalities are merely the tip of the iceberg. Firstly, nuclear power does not offer substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, nuclear power provides just 3.6 per cent of our current energy needs in the UK and even by doubling its maximum energy generation; this would cut carbon dioxide emissions by no more than eight per cent. Despite the propaganda peddled by British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) and the Government, nuclear power is far from emissions-free. The mining, processing and transportation of uranium, the construction of nuclear power stations, the transport and storage of nuclear waste, all consume fossil fuels, and result in the carbon dioxide emissions that are to blame for increasing climactic instability across the globe. In fact, analysing the whole life-cycle of nuclear power stations, it can be seen that per kilowatt hour of electricity generated nuclear power plants still generate around 40 per cent of the carbon dioxide of a gas-fired power station. It is therefore not an 'environmentally friendly' source of power - far from it. Meanwhile, nuclear power leaves a legacy of radioactive, teratogenic and toxic waste which poses a threat to public safety for generations as no safe solution has been found for its disposal. Management of the waste is also expensive: the clean up alone of the UK's current reactors is costing in excess of 60 billion pounds, and will take hundreds of years to deal with current waste, let alone waste potentially produced in the future. These financial resources alone could instead immediately buy and install enough wind turbines to meet 20 percent of the UK's electricity needs - two thirds of our current nuclear consumption. Instead, on New Labour's current trajectory, the monstrous effects of radioactive waste from nuclear sites will be present for hundreds of thousands of years. Uranium, the To rely on nuclear power alone is the same as doing nothing about climate change for the next 15 years fuel used to provide nuclear power, is itself an increasingly scarce resource: if 30 per cent of the world's current electricity needs were fuelled by uranium alone, then reserves of high-grade ore would be depleted within a decade. Furthermore, carbon emissions from lower grade ore are in fact significantly higher than burning fossil fuels directly - meaning nuclear energy can never be ever environmentally sustainable and has the potential to be as dirty as some existing modes of fossil power in the medium term. Finally, to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by the amount necessary under the Kyoto protocol, we would need 1,500 new nuclear power stations, which would be undeliv-erable for up to 25 years and would also result in uranium becoming scarce within just three years. Even at current rates of use, it is estimated that the world's reserves of viable uranium ore will be exhausted within 50 years. It is therefore far from 'sustainable.' Meanwhile, nuclear energy will not even meet our short-term energy needs. If given the go-ahead, new nuclear power stations would not come on-line for an estimated 15-20 years, by ¦which time thousands of tonnes of carbon will have been produced in both building them but also as a by-product of the continuation of the fossil fuelled status quo. This would not be the case with a decentralised national program of renewable energy, which is the real, effective and environmentally sustainable alternative to existing fossil fuel production. To rely on nuclear alone is therefore effectively the same as doing nothing about climate change for the next 15 years; it remains a scientific fact that the UK and the rest of the Earth does not have that time if we want to prevent run-away climate change. Comparative financial cost highlights another drawback. Nuclear power is vastly more expensive per kilowatt hour than any other form of energy and has consistently proved more expensive than BNFL have claimed, which is why it always needs to be heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. It is no surprise that over 70 per cent of the UK's population opposes the renewal of a nuclear power program. At this juncture it is perhaps poignant to cite the fact that one of the main externalities that makes nuclear power financially and politically viable, is that the processed uranium has a dual purpose, and therefore one other use aside from civilian energy - it provides the propensity to develop of a nuclear arsenal. Using nuclear power increases nuclear weapons proliferation around the world due to the overlap between enrichment and processing of uranium and plutonium with regards to both civilian power and arms proliferation. In fact, it is often only the production of nuclear weapons that makes civilian nuclear power programs financially viable. The British nuclear power industry has created the third largest stockpile of uranium on the planet; it remains a historical fact that throughout the 1970's, for example, plutonium from the UK's civil power stations was transported to the United States for its weapons program. The adoption of so called Even moiv harmful than ihe stra 'civilian' nuclear power programs cannot therefore be separated from the military-industrial complex that sees New Labour consider renewing the Trident nuclear submarine contract at a cost of over £25 billion even at conservative estimates. Such financial resources could instead be used to pay for student tuition fees for the next ten years instead, along with a variety of other more tangible and beneficial public goods. Political debates SU Environment and Ethics Officer, Aled Fisher, gives his tips regarding what you can do on the environment: At home g —Don't use a dishwasher or a tumble dryer. i "W -Wash-up with your hands and let your clothes dry naturally. —Don't leave anything on standby, including TVs, digiboxes (everyone forgets!) and laptops. —Reduce waste, reuse and recycle. —TUm down the thermostat, monitor radiator use and close windows. At university —Use double-sided printing and try not to print imless it is necessary. —T\im-oft computer monitors after use. -Turn-off lights, particularly later in the day. —If you're involved in a society, don't plaster Houghton Street in hundreds of unnecessary posters that no one will read. —Use the new and constantly-improving recycling facilities.- ¦ £ 5- s- + " * I. < - L m ^ n 1^ tr •» f * WMMM" '*¦ t*'.* I ; '-V \ '•¦1«. ¦r,*.-,' a- ' -ci- V-Jj® _ ¦> *' f 4'?¦- " " -" ' ' , " ' ' * * ^CfS* !.A m "-W '+ -1. tuesday the sixteenth of January, two thousand and seven Mudchute Interview Debden A locality on the Isle of Dogs m Docklands, London, England. The name of the area is in testament to the engi neering overspill when Millwall Dock was being created in the 1840s. Spoil from the excavation of the Dock, and silt from its channels and waterways were dumped on nearby land, using a conveyor system Most of the streets were named after local dignitaries, and the longest was named after local hero Thomas Willingale. The commercial centre of Debden is The Broadway, with shops, a bank, a supermarket, a BP garage, and a library. Laurie David is an activist, producer and wife of Larry David. Where: Mudchute! Where: Debden heydon Sois Theydon Bois is a large London commuter belt village in the Epping Forest district of Essex located 14.7 miles (23.7 km) northeast of Charing Cross London. Theydon Bois is within the bounds of the M25 motorway and is situated near to its junction with the Mil motorway The name has been recorded as far back as 1524, and is thought to be either the name of a family, or that of a house which stood on Enfield Chase. One suggestion is that it was "the residence of the cock forester". Yikes. Where: Cockfosters From; 1524 Where: Theydon Bois Goodbye Planet , Multiple choice flowchart affair, can you prolong ¦ human life? S' " Fashion Dress like a tree, a fashionable oak or beech. f Food & Drinking Organic vegetables are weird and expensive. rant comptrolier joshheller music comptrolier samashton visual arts comptroiler daisymitchefl-forster film comptroiler angustse literature comptroller erinorozco ediroriai ossistant beatong theatre comptroller moilytucker style comptrolier abaosunsade travel comptroiler jessicamcardle food & drinking comptroller kimmandeng comedy comptroller christinewhyte editcriai assistant aiansplode thebeaver.partbelse.ac.uk mm «!•>'. # fpHf '<«» j If III! if i"t ft III Music Perform. Perform, making electronica look good. "All Things must Pass. Decay is inherent in all things" said the Lord Buddha. It seems that as a society we may have damaged the planet so irreparably that we will be responsible for the end of human life as we know it. This is a heavy burden for anyone to bear, but I am confident that death will pardon us. On a more positive note, necessity may well drive evolution. Perhaps we will be inspired to colonise new worlds and leave this crumbling open sewer of a planet to the stories of legend, or perhaps PartB vnll have to grow a tail and fins. If neither of these visions of the future appeal, now is probably the time to act. In related news, we mourn this week the passing of two of the greatest assets this section of the paper has enjoyed. During his tenure, Sam Ashton defined what Music is, and for this we will be eternally grateful. Laleh Kazemi-Veisari both scared, shocked and provoked us with the images in her head set down on paper. Both will be missed.^^^ preparing for life on the high seas, ¦ri ^ Visual Arts Portraiture, from the academy, proper stuff, and that. tuesday the sixteenth of January, two thousand and seven three global warming: good or bad? aieddilwyrtflsher is warning of the end joshheller is warming to this trend i- K i ^¦1 <1 At first I thought it would be really hard being funny on an issue like climate change. But now, I think "fuck it". Being a Green is really fucking hard. Today for example, I've been working on the advertising of Environment, which meant killing a lot of trees. Every photocopy I fuck up is another tree dead; even the ones I get right loosely constitute murder. Imagine Treebeard dying in Lord of the Rings. That story would've been seriously shit. No-one would've bothered reading loads of dead trees in book form just to read about more dead trees. "Think about it. Anyway, enough about the damn trees. They're dead now, and they're not coming back, so don't come up to me when I'm posturing to ask me in the snotty sarcastic tone "isn't it better to use less paper for Environment Week?" etc. Shut up. Don't talk to me in that 'outdoor voice' of yours. I know things about the environment, alright? Haven't you seen my awesome Exec tag that gets me free in Crush, even though I never go because the SU has swallowed up and shat out my 'social life'? And it's climate change, not global At the end of the day, the reason climate change is so frightening is that it will affect the economy, society, politics, health, education, asylum and immigration, war, foreign policy, energy, crime, transport, science and technology, food, animal welfare and many other human issues - it is an issue of social justice and human rights. And, worst of all, it will affect the poorest and most vulnerable in the world the most. In essence, climate change is a threat to the survival of the human race; a challenge to all the assumptions of the capitalist economic system and our current way of life. Yes, I said "capitalistic economic system". People think that capitalism is some sort of eternal and 'normal' condition for humanity, like the existence of a God or the continuation of the career of Cliff Richard. But its obsession with growth, expansion (somewhat erotic concepts admittedly) and the intensive exploitation of people and resources mean that we have a choice between our planet and blind accumulation. As the highwayman said, you're money or your life. Well, almost. I won't argue that global warming isn't happening. It looks like it might be. Even though 1998 was the hottest year on record, which means we've had 9 subsequent years where it's been colder, which suggests a trend to m.e. Ok though, so people smarter than me tell me that it's definitely happening. I guess I can believe them. Even though the most powerful person on the planet, who in any rational society must be the smartest, says it isn't... That's fine, I'm not going to argue. You say the sea's ris-: ing by some meters and that's going to I increase and stuff. I can accept that. But ' how can any sane person think that is a bad I thing? There are so many great things about I global warming. I bloody can't wait. First thing. Who got really excited about 1 the Kensal Rise Tornado? Everybody did, of ! course they did. That thing was so fucking jcool. A tornado! A tornado in London! ; Awesome. Just you wait my friends. If Hollywood blockbusters are any good at i predicting the future, and Planet of the Apes ! tells us they are, then we are in for some i kick-ass weather. There's going to be loads I of weird weather popping up everywhere! ! Also, more importantly, the prophets over at 120th Century Fox tell us that global warm-' ing will produce one super big maxi-mega Not that wall that was knocked down. No, I talk of course of the whale in the Thames. Fantastic. How bloody wonderful? Everyone in the country was enthralled by the Sky News split-screen 24-hour live whale coverage! Even their fishing correspondent (who knew?) was on hand to provide expert whale analysis. One of the most important events in our nation's histoiy and Sky News knew it. Yet there were some people who tried to link the thing to global warming. Fine. Push your agenda if you wish to. Maybe global warming caused a whale to swim in to the Thames. Don't you dare though, don't you,dare suggest that makes global warming a bad thing. The coolest thing to happen in the Thames ever, probably the coolest thing to happen in any river anywhere ever, and you tiy and portray it as negative. That's outrageous. Let's think more about this, if the global warming made a whale swim up the Thames, imagine what wondrous creatures we'll get turning up in the river in the next few decades. There'll be giant squid, big sharks probably, sail-fish, giant turtles and probably even some of those funky looking vampire octopuses. I can't wait. Speaking of animals, if we again defer to a Hollywood blockbuster, think of the F4 % warming. Not everywhere is going to get warm. Some models suggest that, of the numerous but equally disastrous scenarios of a carbon intensive future, Britain will get colder because of interference with the Gulf Stream. While some dispute it, none now dispute the overall terrible future we face unless we act. Temperature rises across the globe will indeed increase massively on average - the UN's figures put it at as much as an 8 degrees Celsius rise by 2100, and new research seemingly always paints a grimmer picture. This will cause the melting of the ice caps, leading to predicted sea rises that will inundate the Thames Barrage, flood East Anglia, lay waste to the low-lying countries of Europe and Bangladesh, and pretty much cover many of the major areas of global population centred on the coast. Furthermore, crop failures, desertification, species extinction, increase in airborne disease, more extreme weather events, deforestation, forest fires, an increase in respiratory disease, environmental refugees numbering an estimated 80 million, wars over resources, water shortages, poor quality of water, increase in living on marginal land, spiralling insurance costs and many more problems will be intensified or caused by climate change. As you can see, the Day After Tomorrow wasn't that far-fetched. It was, however, piss poor. In all seriousness, we have to act now to tackle climate change. Carbon taxes are not enough; carbon rationing isn't even enough; even the brilliant Contraction and Convergence model of carbon trading and reduction is not enough on its own. We need to radically rethink our economic system and our individual way of life, before it is too late. True sustainability is about leaving not just something behind for our children and their children and so on, but about cultivating a world that they can live in and enjoy as well as we did. The human race isn't that special -indeed Celebrity Big Brother teaches us quite the opposite. Our means of production and living cannot be separated from the laws of ecology and the interconnections of the Earth's living systems. Not for long, anyway. Ecology will eventually come calling to redress the balance. Getting involved in environmental activism can be invigorating and even fun. It propels you up the social ladder like no other activism can. But at the fundamental level, green politics is the politics of survival. If good people lie supine in the face of the greatest challenge in human existence, then we'll fail. And, whatever happens, I'll never get to say "I told you so". storm! That will be wonderful. I really really want to see the big mega storm. What a magical sight to see it will be. Tornados in LA, a lot of rain in New York and some kind of freezing storm that can be stopped by closing doors. After this storm may well be an ice age. Don't tell me you don't want to see that. You won't just be able to walk from Liberty Island to Manhattan, I reckon you'll probably be able to walk lots more places. If the Hudson Bay can freeze solid in a day then probably the English Channel will as well. Cross country skiing from Dover to St Malo. Teams of huskies taking you from Liverpool to Dublin. That will be a real treat. Next point. "Necessity is the mother of invention." Now wait a second, I am not talking about bloody windmills on the top of my fucking house. I don't mean 10% more efficient combustion engines. I'm talking about cool things. I'm talking about big things. Big things in their proper place. Namely, big things in space. There has been talk about putting a huge pair of sunglasses in space to ward off some the sun's rays. That is fucking brilliant. That is marvellous, it is a flawless plan and I love it. If this planet is so doomed and we need to leave, we'll build big spaceships and fly to exciting places. Ever wanted to see Alpha Centauri? Global warming could get us there faster by giving those scientists the kick in the arse they need. Another great thing about global warming, animals going weird. It was the greatest news event of the past 50 years and I am so proud that it happened in my lifetime. U>A((fin'61- evolution. If Kevin Costner can grow gills (don't get me started on how fantastic that would be), think of all the creatures that would become aquatic hybrids. Dogs diving depths down 500m, felines with flippers, swimming sheep... The list goes on. That will be fun to see. Another thing, apparently all this global warming is increasing the volume of the sea and will eventually start to melt the ice caps. That's great right? These campaigners are always complaining how there isn't enough water for the poors. So what have they got against global warming, there'll be loads more water. Campaigners also don't seem to want to let China and Brazil and other developing countries have cars and fly and stuff. That seems a bit mean. A car is a way to a better life. True happiness can really only be achieved with a two car garage. Or at the very least the money to afford cabs wherever and whenever. People tell us to stop using oil. That's just silly, if we run out of the crude stuff lets just use whale oil. They're literally swimming into our cities and dying. There is a possibility; it might even be probable, that there will be some negative consequences of global warming. I think two things about that. Firstly, stop bloody whingeing, that is so like you, to just dwell on the negative. Things will be rubbish, everything is bad, and the world will end. Bloody professional moaners, get a real job. Secondly, I have described all the wonderful outcomes of global warming. It will be fantastic. ;¦¦¦» B. four tuesday the sixteenth of January, two thousand and seven curb your emissions portfo talks to environmental activist and televisbn producer lauie david, about stopping global warming, producing an inconvenient truth and marrying larry david Laurie David is a force of nature, which is ironic seeing as she spends her life battling against them. A committed environmental campaigner, she was one of the founders of the Stop Global Warming Virtual March (www.stopglobalwarming.org) along with Robert F. Kennedy Jnr, and John McCain. Last December, she was named by Glamour magazine as their Woman of the Year, and was also the first ever guest editor of Elle Magazine and one of the producers of An Inconvenient Truth. David traces her 'Eureka' moment back to 2004, when George W. Bush won his second term. David had been a vociferous supporter of John Kerry, and his failure to defeat the incumbent for her Presidency crushed her -she had pinned her hopes on a new leader of the free world, one who would take America's responsibilities to the environment seriously. When Bush won a triumphant second election, it seemed at first that all was lost. However, Laurie David decided at that moment that she would dedicate herself to bringing climate change to the forefront of global debate. She found herself in a unique position to use her voice, and with an enviable contact list. She had begun her working life in New York, where she had started out as a talent coordinator for the David Letterman show. It was here that she first met her husband-to-be, the co-creator of Seinfeld and the creator of Curb Your Enthusiasm, Larry David. After working on Letterman for four years, she started a management company to cater for many of the comics she had worked with. At this point she also began to produce sitcoms for a number of American studios, and had her first experience of working in movies with Sour Grapes, written and directed by Larry. She continued to produce television shows until a chance meeting with Robert E Kennedy turned her on to environmental activism. "Larry and I had breakfast with Bobby Kennedy and John Adams, the president of NRDC, and the way Bobby talks about the environment really inspired me. He talks about it like a civil-rights issue. Everyone should have the right to clean air and the right to clean water It's no different to affordable health care or racial equality. One in four kids growing up in Harlem has asthma because of pollution. That's a civil-rights issue. So basically after that I said, OK, no more TV producing. I wanted to work on behalf of the NRDC and to help them do the work that needs to be done." The NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council, welcomed her with open arms. Founded in 1970, it is an environmental advocacy group which has 1.2 million members and online activists across the United States. Counting the likes of Robert Redford and Green Day amongst their supporters, they were no strangers to celebrity endorsement. However, in Laurie David they were getting something more than a few sound bites and an appearance at the occasional fundraiser, Laurie dedicated her life to environmental work, and brought her skills as a producer to aid one of the most influential pieces of environmental campaigning of the last few years, A1 Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. David is understandably proud of the achievement th^ is An Inconvenient Truth, and is passionate that people, especially young people, get to see it. It was with this aim in mind that she and the other producers decided get together with the documentary's backers and make 50,000 copies of the DVD available to America's National Science Teachers Association. However, the NSTA rejected the offer, citing their concern that other "special interest" may decided to distribute materials in a similar way, and that they didn't want to offer "political" endorsement to the film. David, outspoken and combative as ever, caused a stir by penning a Washington Post article in which she accused the NSTA of bowing to pressure from one of its key sponsors and supporters, Exxon Mobil Corp. She wrote that Exxon has "for more than a decade done everything possible to muddle public understanding of global warming and stifle any serious effort to solve it. It has run ads in leading newspapers questioning the role of manmade emissions in global warming, and financed the work of a small band of scientific skeptics who have tried to challenge the consensus that heat-trapping pollution is drastically altering our atmosphere. The company spends millions to support groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute that aggressively pressure lawmakers to oppose emission limits." Alongside articles such as this in the mainstream American press, David has also been making a massive impact on the blogosphere with here regular column on environmental issues for The Huffington Post. However, she says her biggest work to date is her first book, 'Stop Global Warming; The Solution is You -An Activist's Guide". The book addresses actions that everyone can do on an individual basis, such as unplugging phone chargers when not in use and purchasing post consumer recycled waste paper products. "It's not about doing everything," she says, "it's about everyone doing something". "So many people ask "what can I do?" and it is my hope that this book will help answer that question, and inspire a whole new set of activists to help stop global warming." The book's foreword is written by her husband Larry, a man that she describes as a "reluctant environmentalist". However, she says that the similarities between herself and Cheryl, Larry's "wife" on Curb Your Enthusiasm, are limited - Cheryl is far too patient with him for a start. But there are a few everyone should have the right to dean air and the right to clean water environrnenta! work is one of the most selfish things I've ever done - next to falling asleep at 9pm on my wedding nigh ' of Laurie's attributes that have been reflected in Cheryl. "Larry made the wife on the show work for the NRDC, which was like a little gift to me. I also got him to put a Prius in the show after I'd nagged him into driving one. Every time the NRDC is mentioned on the show I'm super nice to him for that whole day. That's all he has to do - no jewellery or an^hing, just mention the NRDC." Laurie has also been producing new material for television. Another environmental documentary, "Too Hot Not To Handle", was shown in the United States last year Laurie David is determined not just to preach to the converted, but to reach everyone she possibly can. "My goal is to make it personal for everybody, because this issue of global warming is going to impact every single person. It's not a political issue, it's a moral issue; what kind of world are we all going to choose to live in?" When asked how serious and imminent she thinks the threat is, her answer is alarming. "The scientists who are the most cautious people on the planet have now said that we have less than ten years to slow global warming down or else. And if the scientists are saying that, it's my belief that it's probably five years. So we better get going." Now living in LA with Larry and their two daughters, family is her focus - and she admits that a big part of her inspiration for her environmental work is the desire to protect the future for her family. "In fact, environmental work is one of the most selfish things I've ever done - next to falling asleep at 9pm on my wedding night". Less selfishly, in 2004 a donation from Laurie and Larry allowed the NRDC to set up the David Family Environmental Action Center, which features museum-style exhibits on issues like pollution, construction solutions and global warming. Of course, in a country as polarised as America she is not without her critics. She has been attacked as one of the Top 100 Liberals Wrecking America and criticised for her past use of private jets. She accepts this criticism, and admits to feeling extremely "gxiilty" about it. She defends herself simply by accepting that she is not perfect, and restating her point that it is better for everyone to do their bit than for individuals to be held up to an impossible ideal. Looking to the future, you can be certain she will be vocal in the run up to the 2008 election. What isn't so certain, however, is whether the world will still be the same place by then. "Something is going to shift while Bush is in office. He is not going to be able to hold out. Some huge weather event - the next Katrina, or something this winter - is going to push this over the top." tuesday the sixteenth of January, two thousand and seven five i; ¦-,'¦¦'¦¦ -vX - - < / » i '4-:\ tuesday the sixteenth of January, y Perhaps you're environmentally correct, perhaps you're just poor, it doesn't really matter. What does matter is the fact that on your walk you pass a bottle bank. Do you? 1. Have some bottles with you to dep_osit. You know the exact locations of all London's bottle banks and are ever-prepared. 2. Tend to smash bottles on your own head wl^^^anding in landfills. 3. Have all the bottles with you that you can carry. In fj^ you've become an alcoholic / and buy more things in bottles than you can possibly drtl centage of bottles recycled as a whole. k simply to increase the per- I START HERE You are a contemporary human being living in London. You are, in fact, you. It is May 15th and PM Gordon Brown has extended suffrage to foreign nationals and called an early general election. It is your chance to elect a government who will accept the pressing global responsibility of immediate action on climate change and other things eschatologically environmental. Do you? 1. Vote Labour. Their fonward-thinking neo-progres-sive ways are most likely to avert global disaster. 2. Vote Conservative. Cameron's tree-logoed out-lefting environmental line is real and magic. 3. Don't vote. Instead, take up your pitchfork and | overthrow government in a green revolution. Your vote is an illu^^r Business interests and the special relationshii^Rll hold sway. Meanwhile, you have to go to Hackney, it's really quite important, it's also some way away. Do you? 1. Walk^ ,2. Drive 3. Fly. In an aeroplane. Might be time to invest in a totally unaffordable and difficult topfueBnd m You have arrived home in Hackney. In your living room you feel measo Do you? 1. Turn up the heating. A little extra carbon in heat-form can't hi 2. Put some more clothes on. It's weird and uncomfortable sure, but so ster truck and that happens. 3. Burn some crude oil whilst tearing out your insulation and co^g yoi ielni I me I- B, bu '^9 You are an evil and callous cunt. Fortunately for the world your plane crashes into Tower 2 of the LSE. You don't die, but wracked with survivor's guilt you decide to top yourself. Do you use? 1. Exhaust fumes piped into your car. Suck on it. You deserve it. 2. A carrier bag from your local supermarket. Ironically it's a 'bag for lif^ 3. Walk Into the garden, lie down, and wait for yourself to compost f f l^s. TREAD THE SPECIAL STORYLINES. RUT TAKE HEED. THE FATE OF THE WORLD HANGS ON YOUR DECISIONS. WILL YOU SAVE THE WORLD FROtt CLIMATE CHAN6E, OR WILL YOU CONDEMN HUMANITY TO AN EARLY GRAVE, NOTHING MORE THAN A SLIGHTLY DAMP ROWEL-MOVEMENT IN THE PANTYHOSE OF HISTORY. The Greens have seized power in a bloody ' yet tofu-powered revo-f lution. A green dictatorship f is established with the aim of ' aggressively pursuing a global green agenda, curbing industry and consumer eco-spoling activity. I J M I Do you? You have no choice. You are dead. Your inner world has ceased before the external one. You die in a haze of unknowingness, thinking that maybe, just maybe, if you'd bought that organic hummer instead of the centurion tank, your life may have been environmentally and thus globally relevant. Britain is geopolitically marginalised. China and India plough on with expanding their industrial base. America is unrepentant. Do You? You tried to emmigrate but they stopped you at the border. You still have no choice.* reeng h of January, two thousand and seven seven .fl y matter. ¦ondon's coholic ie per- * Humanity's will-to-industrialise in-a-dirty-manner is unstoppable. Forest fires and droughts become more common, and the planet ends up drier than a dust-mite's vagina. This causes problems for fish and all sports are cancelled. English cricketers celebrate wildly, before crumbling into ashes. Australians keep them. • Forever. You're environmentally confused. To try and orient you go inside of a shop to buy things. I Do you buy? 1. The radioactive gift-wrapped papaya. » 2. Organic brown-rice-flavoured chickpeas 3. Three packets of fags, iffiCUlt tGF.fUi im you feel 3rm can't hi tnd maintain, electric car. easonably cold. elm me e, bu 'Ag ortable sure, but so is sex In the back of a mon^ c car. ^ i I You are somethiing or other. Whatever you are you'll need a job. Do you apply for the position of? 1. PartB Comptroller. Paid in love and fear. 2. Shaping Al Gore's quiff into a functioning windturbine. 3. Environmental Disaster Coordinator at BP. You spend your time crashing oil' tankers into coral reefs and laughing. The dominance of capital goes unchallenged and its short-termist destructive impulse leads to the end of the world. London sinks into the mire of sewage. Coastal areas all over the world are destroyed by enormous tidal waves. Millions of impoverished Africans starve. Billions of penguins die. You name it, it happens. You tried to be different. You really tried, but frankly, it was all a fucking waste of time. The human race perishes. But hey, sometimes you just have to look yourself in the mirror and ask: was I really that great anyway? As a pretty average example of the pretty average human race, was there really any reason for my eternal propagation? In all honesty, I'd probably struggle to convince myself. Just like in Jurrassic Park, Life will find a way. It might not though, and it'll be all our fault. /I ^ I ion and covg your body in graphite.. f f 1 I I If ff 3d before the vingness, think-it that organic ir life may have levant. f / You are bored and lonely. It's time to take up a hobby. Do you take up? 1. A small allottment in which you grow patchouli oil and hemp for your garters and children's lunch boxes. 2. Set up a carbon emmissions tournament with a first prize of an acre of burning rainforest. ¦¦ 3. Masturbating vigorously and frequently over pictures of George Monbiot. In a misguided attempt to balance the climate you decide to encourage an animal to fart. Do you choose? I 1. A cow i 2. A sheep 3. A marmot Nope, no choice. With flagrant disregard for existential fact the commisariat has banned the concept of choice. The money God laughs his cruel laugh and the world reaches its doomsday scenario anyway. The Gulf stream shuts down, plunging Europe into another ice age. What happens in the rest of the world I don't know, but for current purposes this will have to do. Like our neanderthal ancestors, we retreat into caves and keep ourselves warm for thousands of years by huddling together like sheep. Unfortunately, unlike our hard-bitten Ray Mears ancestors, us pampered dependent Westerners no longer know how to survive in the wild, and only a handful of fitness freaks and outdoor activities mentalists survive to hand down European civilisation to our twisted, stunted progeny. Someone becomes their leader and has sex with all the children. Again, one asks oneself, was it really worth all the effort? eight tuesday the sixteenth of January, two thousand and seven dress like a tree huaaer abaosunsade says: get greener clothes or get them oft There are many ways in which we can "help" the environment. Reduce, reuse, recycle. Switch oft the lights when we leave a room to save electricity. Hitchhike to Fiji instead of taking a long-haul flight. Bathe in our toilet bowls to save water. But how can we integrate our post-"An Inconvenient Truth" heightened eco-consciousness into our personal style agendas? Surely „ fashion and "sus- ' tainable living" are two phrases that don't exactly go hand in hand. Right? Wrong! Well, wrong at least, to the lovely hippies. This unique group of fun-loving frol-ickers whose movement took root in 1960s USA not only gave us free love, free speech and free drugs - they also gave fashion a new "Mother Nature" inspired lease on life. Characterised by Webster's dictionary as young people who (to narrow the list) advocated spontaneity, used psychedelic drugs and often wore long hair and unconventional clothes, hippies taught us that you don't have to wear designer duds to be, like, totally cool, dude. I'm not talking about patching old jeans up and tie-dying all your tees - the 21 st century hippies have created a world of clothing that truly fits the bill of what it is to make the world a better place. And you don't have to look like disciple of Jesus to fit into it, either. Forget what you know about hippy fashion - horrible hemp sandals? lU-fit-ting jumpers made of banana leaves and bat droppings? It's all fictitious or totally passe. Hippy fashion of today is, well, hip. Take organic Kuyichi jeans for example. As they say on their website ( www.kuyichi.com), they are a "style conscious jeans brand" who are also conscious of what is "fair". They aim to be "sexy and provocative". Set up in 2000 as an extension of the Fair Trade campaign, Kiyuchi collaborate with Peruvian cotton farmers (who double up as shareholders in the company) to ensure the management of the soils is sustainable, as well as the struggle against pests and plant diseases. Their only raw material? Organic cotton which is 100% biodegradable. Now when I said hemp sandals were passe, I may have lied. But only a bit. What I should have said was that the hemp sandals you associate with pipe-smoking granddads who recount LSD-induced dreams in their spare time, have evolved into an array of crafty kicks. For starters, there are IPath's range of hemp sneakers. They look like your typical trainer - some are kinda like Vans, some are kinda like Converse, but ALL shoes in thfe range are made totally of natural hemp. Then there are "Vegetarian Shoes" - the "original animal friendly footwear" which are claimed to be better than leather. It's come a long way from its humble beginnings in 1990 when founder Robin Webb, who needed shoes that lasted but didn't want to wear dead animal skin, made all collections by hand. Take note that although it's "animal friendly", the wonderful alternative to leather Robin discovered is a synthetic microfibre, i.e. won't decompose but remain intact in landfills for years to come. I guess nobody's perfect. But we've got your bottom half sorted - does this mean you'll have to wear coconut shells to shield your torso in your quest to be "green"? No fear, my friends, for "Sansegar"s Green Brand have got you covered. A range of t-shirts, shirts and tops have been launched by this innovative brand - all made from t-shirts rescued at trips to local tips. Don't let that put you off, though, Sansegal's patented blending system shreds the t-shirts and matches their shades into colour groups. According to the company, this unique system " helps in saving the 1/3 of pound (150 gm) of agricultural chemicals that are used to make a single virgin cotton t-shirt." If you thought that was clever, then check lout "Voltaic System's" solar/electronic backpack. Their innovation? A backpack with solar panels embedded to its exterior -designed to charge portable electronics. It is still in prototype stage, but using this ingenious technology, the Li Ion battery built in (which is itself rechargeable and recyclable) can charge your mobile and iPod while you head to class. If you're still not convinced that style can be good to the Earth, don't stop reading yet. If you don't think these eco-friendly companies are ecofriendly enough, that's totally fine - don't wear the suggested hippie clothes. In fact - don't wear clothes at all! Why bother? That's right, don't just disregard hippie fashion -take it to the extreme. Take on nudist fashion instead. Not only will the thought of "biodegradability" never have to cross your mind again when you're worrying about what to wear - you'll also never have to worry about what to wear. By choosing this option, you'll only own one outfit. And it's completely harmless to Mother Nature. And, most importantly, its NEVER out of fashion. I'm not sure when the transformation from upstanding member of society to cocky human snail, who considers themselves to be just that bit better (at travelling) than most people, takes place. The metamorphosis from human to backpacker is a tough one to pin-point but can be found loitering somewhere between "Do you have a single room" and "Can I camp in your garden?" Looking at me now you would never believe the scummy depths into which I plunged (I carefully hide it behind a dazzling pink exterior), but scratch the surface and there it is. Why do I mention this? WeU as the story goes, a recent catch up session with friends I travelled inevitably brought nostalgia for the road and a taste of the aforementioned smug attitude ensued. Following a series of grandiose statements such as "Tasmania was our finest achievement", I raised the matter of the next big trip- there's always one. When I turned to my friend and asked "what do you think of all that carbon emissions malarkey? BS or enough to curb your flight grabbing ways?" We both agreed that our next expedition needed to take into account - the effects of fuel emissions etc; as people who fly between Dublin and London reg-Iularly the hypocrisy of this eco-conscious ' ^ is not lost on me. iS And so grew "the overlander", no the idea was not to travel the world in a 4x4, the plan was to get where I wanted to go without the use of airplanes; the only problem is that on my last short trip (for lyr) to Australia I kind of left a bit of my heart there- so with that to collect on my way to or from my next destination, this overlanding was going to be hard-core... Thankfully backpacker Jess decided on the trip because her pink alter ego would never have agreed to it. Then came the planning part, I figure that I'm essentially free from next September until a couple of days before my own funeral, so time was on my side; next the logistics- a far more troublesome quandary. A few pieces of the backpacker I once was live on, these include; an over powering superstition, a bad knee and sensitivity to the soul of the world (one too many Paulo Coelho books). Coupling the first and the last (while still bitter about the one in the middle) I came across a link on the LSE travel facebook wall and knew that my overlander was destined to be. The link is to a site called OzBus (check it out its probably still on the wall) and as the name suggests it's a bus that goes from London to Sydney... Now before you get all sceptical on me hear the facts, the bus runs over 12 weeks and takes in destinations such as Transylvania (have ALWAYS wanted to go there, mainly to discover if it exists), Kathmandu (need to return some camping equipment) and of course Darwin's famous Kakado National park (the idea of being snapped at by a croc thrills me). What a wild time I'm going to have; 20 countries, approximately 36 days and 36 strangers (one for each day of the week?). Before I cross my "t"s and dot my "i"s what else do I need to know? Ok we're camping, I'm cooking and we may not get to everywhere we want to- ideal; now for the clincher, how much does this super-duper, one-way, over-land extravaganza set me back? Not taking the piss (for the first time in this article) the price isn't that bad considering your travel, accommodation and food are covered (mostly); £3750... Ask yourself this question, as quoted from their website; "What could honestly be more fun or rewarding than participating in the world's greatest overland journey and sharing the adventure with a truck load of young likeminded souls?" Backpacker Jess says "surely nothing could be more fun or rewarding", Irish Barbie says "honestly the only thing in the world that could possibly be better would be flying and saving just under 3 months on your journey." The next trip leaves London 18 May, will I see you onboard? overlanders __________ditching Tpe tii! le hassle or just a lof of lioi tuesday the sixteenth of January, two thousand and seven nine book to the future erinorozco is saving paper, and the environment, by listening to stories on a tall