Students Give Up Plastic For Lent

The period leading up to Easter is usually signified by many across the world by giving up something they usually cannot do without with for a forty day period. The most common items surrendered during this time are chocolate and alcohol. However, a group of Lancaster students along with some members of staff have gone a step further by giving up plastic for lent.

It is well documented that plastic takes anything from 400-1000 years to decompose, persists in the food chain and also has an adverse effect of marine life and is therefore is greatly damaging to our environment and these students want to take a step in the eco-friendly direction. Yet despite this plastic is all around us and forms a part of virtually everything thing we see.

The group’s trials and tribulations can be followed at www.notoplastic.org.uk where you can find hints and tips on how to limit the use of plastic within your own lives. They will be also hosting a series of workshops and events, including showing a film ‘Hawaii: Message in the Waves,’ how to make your own cosmetics, yoghurt-making and trips to buy plastic free food. Eleanor Lamb, one of the students attempting this task, said 'I tried this for 3 months in the summer and it was great. It made me think in novel ways about what I was consuming and I got more acquainted with the local shops. I even tried brushing my teeth using ash from the fire.'

Given the presences of plastic in our everyday lives it seems this lent challenge is not one for the faint hearted. If you feel you could manage such a challenge you can sign up on the website.

College Bars – An Alternative Way for Success?

In the previous article I suggested that there is a way for the bars to be successful and make some degree of profit. However, is this the only way? A simple lesson in business studies tells us that there are for vital ingredients to profitability; place, promotion, price and product. Get all four correct and success, in theory, is just around the corner.

Place is already provided by being on campus making it suitable for students, that much is obvious. Promotion is provided through society socials and college loyalty. Price, as seen in my previous article, could be altered to be more attractive, but what about product? It seems obvious to say that the bars will sell beverages of varying types and tastes, but one wonders whether or not the University has missed a masterstroke with what being available where.

In the current situation we have a vast number of largely generic bars. They all serve largely the same drinks and the same prices. An analogy can be seen with the demise of Woolworths. Woolworths was a very diverse chain selling anything from pick-a-mix to clothing. Almost everyone I talk to has different memories of Woolworths. Yet, it is this broadness that may be seen as one of the causes for its demise. Its desire to please a greater number of consumer groups moved it away from the quality available from competing high street stores.

At the moment the college bars are attempting to provide a variety of drinks to please all who enter. From traditional ale to vodka based fruit drinks. However, could it be said that the bars would be more successful if they were more selective in their drinks choice, possibly building a theme around their drinks menu. For example you could have one bar that focuses on its real ales, another which marketed itself as a wine bar and another being seen as more of a nightclub than a bar. There are a number of possibilities. Recreation of individuality among the bars may make them more appealing to students and help fight off the lure of town drinking. To maintain the business studies link, on economies of scale the bars would find themselves more successful as they would face less competition from each other due to the differences in personality.

This idea is by no means without flaw. Which college wants to have the non-alcoholic bar? Yet it does seem to provide a blue print for giving life back to the college bars that may see a much needed increase in unit sales. Individuality between the colleges is a key factor in a college system if they are not to be seen a glorified halls of residence. This individuality could begun with the bars.

People or Profit?

A lot has been made over the past few years regarding the campus bars. Questions have been raised regarding the price of a pint of beer, the imposition of unrealistic targets and the centralisation of bar management which we are currently seeing; one has to ask, what is the point of the bars? What is it that they set out to achieve?

It is this question that is the basis for all the bar debates over the past few years as there seems to be a clear differences between how the bars are seen by the student population when compared to how they are seen by the university management. It would seem fair to say that the average student sees the campus bars as the living room of the campus accommodation where they can hang out with their mates over a nice drink while they discuss the ups and downs of the day. The University, however, appears to see the bars as a money making institute, another way for them to reach into the pockets of students following the high rent prices already seen for on-campus accommodation.

Yet, which viewpoint is correct? Should the students be given a place where they can afford to socialise in close proximity to the campus accommodation, or should the university continue to charge high prices in attempts to reach their desired targets?

It is clear to see that the current pricing plan is not keeping people in the campus bars, with the lower prices offered by bars in the town centre representing a better deal. Though, is high prices’ the best way to meet profit margins? Would it not be fair to say that a reduction in prices may result to a greater amount of unit sales, thus resulting in an increase in the profit made by the bars as well? Such a move would appear to fit both the desires of the students and demands of the University management and may make the currently empty bars once again the focus of college social life.

NUS Crackdown on Initiation Ceremonies

The National Union of Students has announced a crackdown on sports team initiation ceremonies. The move has come after footage of a ceremony at the University of Gloucestershire was leaked to the BBC.

The footage showed students with plastic bags over their heads, drinking and vomiting, egged on by a student dressed in Nazi-style uniform. The students are seen vomiting onto the ground before being paraded through the streets. Such shocking footage, viewable on the BBC website, has triggered a knee jerk reaction from the NUS in which it calls for all ceremonies to be banned.

NUS president, Wes Streeting released a statement on behalf of the NUS stating: "We are totally opposed to student initiations. They put students at serious risk and exclude students who don't want to take part in that binge-drinking culture.”

It is fair to say that most initiation ceremonies may take on the form depicted in the video and that they usually result in humiliation and a hangover; it is believe that one in five involve some form physical abuse and there have been three deaths as a result of such ceremonies in recent years.

Whilst we have no official word on how these ceremonies take form within Lancaster University, though we believe they involve a vast amount of alcohol, it is clear to say there is a fine line between having a bit of fun and bullying the vulnerable. It is not clear how long initiation ceremonies have left, or if the NUS crackdown is going to have any effect. But the card is marked and it may be wise for any sports team considering performing any form of initiation ceremony to seek a different way to greet the newcomers to the club.

Grassroots Movement Takes Action over Bars

Over the past few months there has been a lot of talk about the current situation with the campus bars and it appears that a groundswell of students have decided it was time to stop the talking and to start taking action.

The collection, (for that is what they like to be known as) who go by the name of Peak-A-Boo, have called for all students to make their stand and let the University know what they think about the ‘Company Bars.’ These are the bars that were placed under the management of David Peeks at the beginning of the academic year (Cartmel, Pendle and County) and only visit the few remaining College controlled bars, which they have aptly named as ‘sanctuary bars’.

Within their manifesto peak-a-boo ask that students boycott all the ‘Company Bars’ as well as all the vending machines on campus due to the large amount of profit made by the Catering department through them. They also call for the University to return the power of the bars to the Colleges and for a lowering in the prices so that they are more in line with those charged by other University bars across the country.

They also view the attitude and ineptitude of Mr Peeks, head of hospitality, and now ‘controller of the company bars as part of the problem and hope that this situation is remedied with a review of his position. Peek-A-Boo firmly believe that this whole issue is an attack on the integrity and autonomy of the colleges and should be fought with by tooth and imaginative nail. Peak-A-Boo emphasise for this coming term that students should be fought against with every tooth and nail:

1) Frequent sanctuary bars, not company bars
2) Find alternatives to the coke machines; go to the shops etc instead.
3) Circulate and photocopy posters and fly-post

Whilst the identity of those involved remains unknown, with the person I spoke to announcing herself only as Jenny, their message is clear and that it is now ‘time for action’ and they urge all students to ‘support them in the cause through the boycotts and displaying the anti-Peeks posters pictured.’ They also emphasise the tactic of spreading ideas for action amongst their friends and colleagues. Peak-A-Boo believe that everyone has the opportunity to influence this campaign through their participation as consumers, and that this action will continue until the bars are returned to a state of normality.

‘Stop the War!’ Cries Demonstrators

Saturday 10th January saw Lancaster city centre give its opinions on the current ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip.

The recent conflict began on the 27th December 2008, and since more than 800 Palestinians have been killed, many of them civilians along with 13 Israelis as the hostilities enter into their third week. Of those who have died it is believed that more than 250 were children with more than 3250 individuals suffering injuries of various degrees. An Israeli attack has killed at least 43 people taking refuge in a UN school. In the Zeitoun district, at least 30 people were killed after Israeli troops repeatedly shelled a house to which more than 100 Palestinians had been evacuated by the Israeli military. One medic treating the wounded from the attacks has commented that out of around 800 individuals he had seen, only 2 were Hamas fighters.

The demonstration was organised by the Lancaster Friends of Palestine, with support from the Quakers, and the ‘Stop the War Society’ from campus, with attendance at over 60 people, all voicing concern over the conflict and the loss of civilian life. Representatives of Amnesty International (Lancaster Branch) commented that they were disgusted with the ‘horrendous use of force by Israel in one of the most densely populated areas in the world,’ and that a continuation of the conflict would only succeed in creating ‘greater levels of anti-Israel feeling’ making any notion of peace in the Middle East ever harder to attain. With regards the demonstration they commented that they were glad to see that it had brought a lot of different groups together which shows a great desire within the community for the conflict to end.
Whilst one does not ignore the complicated issues within the Middle East, it would seem clear that a continuation of the ‘eye for an eye’ mentality that we can currently see will only succeed in making everyone blind.

Liberties, Principles and Politics

In what has been a week of up and downs in the world of politics the head lining issue has been without a doubt the controversial 42 days detention without charge rule, which was passed by the House of Commons with a majority of nine. This move has now seen the resignation of Shadow Home Secretary David Davis.

The new 42 day rule, contained in the Counter-Terrorism Bill that will now been sent to the House of Lords, is an extension of the 28 day rule that was passed in the Terrorism Act 2006 and is the latest step in the wave of anti-terrorism laws causing widespread debate all across the country.

This overhaul of counter-terrorism laws started in 2000 where a basic 48-hour detention, expandable to seven days with the permission of the courts, was introduced. This was then doubled to 14 days in 2003 and then increased once again to 28 days by the Terrorism Act 2006. That four-week limit came after former Prime Minister Tony Blair was defeated in a bid to introduce 90 days with and the revised limit was seen as a fair compromise between the protection of one’s liberty, and the protection of others. The current Prime Minister Gordon Brown initially mentioned extending the limit to 56 days near the beginning of his Premiership but later settled on the 42 day limit which we now see taking steps to becoming legislation.

This raises an obvious question as to why the ever extending detention limit needs yet another increase.

The Prime Minister and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith both claimed there may be occasions when the police needed a lot longer to hold a terrorism suspect before they could bring a charge for a specific crime because of the "scale and complexity" of a threat. A yet there have only been a few situations where the 28 day limit has come near to running out with there being only five cases which have some down to the wire. This would seem to suggest that such an increase as we have seen is be no means necessary regardless of what the powers that be would have us believe.

One does not mean to suggest that I am against the punishment of terrorists or the protection of the ‘innocent’ people that feel their wrath, but this 42 day rule is not about punishing terrorists, it is merely about punishing possible terrorists. The difference may, on first glance, seem small as many would argue that prevention is cheaper than the cure. However, one has to ask who or what is a terrorist? Are they people who threaten lives? Or liberties? If it is the latter and it is the idea of attacking the liberties that make them public enemy number one, would this not bring the government itself into the bracket of terrorist and therefore open to 42 days detention without charge? How would Gordon Brown like his new law then? Maybe it or time this government stopped looking at the law affecting the guilty, but how it affects the innocent. In the idea of detention without charge the possibility of miscarriages of justice increases greatly. Whilst a successful conviction enabled by the detention of the suspect for a large amount of time may be seen as a victory for the government, if not for everyone in this country, what do we do if the detained suspect is in fact innocent? Do we then turn around pat the individual on the back and say ‘Awfully sorry old chap, got the wrong end of the stick. No hard feelings?’ and hope they laugh a little and move on, joking to his friends and family about his little run in with the law down his local pub? Some how I doubt such an error will be greeted with such humour. Here we can see the major injustice of such a law, an injustice which was meant to be avoided with the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

It is could be said that rebel Labour bank bencher Dianne Abbot, one of the thirty six Labour MP’s to vote against the bill, had it right when she suggested that the move taken by the Cabinet was not so much about improving a faulty law, but a matter of political point scoring with the cabinet eager to show themselves as ‘tough on terror’ with the Conservative party being shown to take a far more softer line when it came to terrorism. This can, in part be backed up by the view taken by Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg who took the view that this Bill will never become law. He took the view that the proposed Bill will not pass through the House of Lords, where Labour do not hold a majority, and even if it did there would be an inevitable conflict in the European Court of Human Rights where is could be argued that such a detention without charge was against Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which suggests that as a bare minimum the accused individual should be informed of the charges against them ‘promptly’. Although, this phase is by no means specific, one could quite easily argue that 42 days is anything but prompt. Is it that we see with this Bill Gordon Brown fighting against the ghost of his predecessor, keen to succeed where Blair failed regardless of the cost or long term damage to his reputation? With the economy sinking away from the apparent golden age that was Tony Blair’s Premiership, if only in an economic sense, this Bill could be said to illustrate that Brown is an improvement on Tony Blair by being able to succeed where his precursor had failed.

However, the resignation of David Davis may have given Gordon Brown the smoke cover he needs to survive and recover from this very weak political position. With thirty six rebel MPs the Bill’s success came down to the votes of nine DUP members proving crucial. Amid claims of political bribery in what appears to be a ‘win at all costs’ situation the principled stance taken Mr Davis, MP for Haltemprice and Howden, appears to have taken focus of the desperate Prime Minister and onto himself. Despite DUP ministers saying that they voted on ‘national security grounds’ the general consensus, aired in the House of commons after the vote was heard, was that their votes came at a price to our leader.

And yet, one must look at the move taken by Mr Davis and all but admire it. Although it is fair to say that the move has put the former Tory front bencher’s career at risk in forcing a by-election in his East Yorkshire constituency, given the lack of competition that appears to be putting their hat in the ring the risk seems more calculated. Whilst it is possible that he will lose his position in the shadow cabinet Mr Davis appears to have offered a slap in the face of Gordon Brown whilst also standing a large chance of retaining his seat in the House of Commons. With the Liberal Democrats declining the chance to stand in the election, hosted in a constituency that was a main target for the party during 2005, it looks like the challenge for the seat will come down to Davis and the Labour Party with the main issue, of course, being the 42 day rule. In a move which has been described as a purely ‘personal decision’ by Conservative Party Leader David Cameron, Davis has taken an unprecedented move by putting his principles about the need for the protection of individual liberties before letting a law, which and uncertain future, pass by without notice. Is this a sign of the personal rather than party politics beginning to grasp the political world? With one man attempting to show that anything Tony Blair can do he can do better, and another risking his political future in an attempt to make a ‘stand’ against the erosion of civil liberties. Such a stand will turn what is a by-election in to an opinion poll over the detention extension, with Davis sitting in the Blue corner firmly against such a law, and Labour sitting in the red corner crying yes, where it looks like they will be joined by Sun newspaper editor Cameron McKenzie, a supporter of the 42 day rule. The inclusion of Mr McKenzie as a candidate will only add fuel to what Labour have called a stunt, whilst also splitting any yes votes between them, giving Davis two weak opponents, rather than one strong one, where two right wing candidates will argue for votes whilst agreeing in theory and Mr Davis will appear the only candidate thinking logically over the matter. Surely for the government to win the one topic election they need to fight from a position of strength, a position which that do not possess in national government, never mind in the locality. The inclusion of Mr McKenzie as a candidate will only succeed in making a weak position weaker and merely help Mr Davis and the Conservative party to a huge victory over the government. Such a victory that means more than one seat in parliament, but can be seen as gauging true public opinion away from the opinion polls that Gordon Brown relied on so much in the reasoning for the introduction of the Bill.

With the topic to form the focus of debate though out the run up to the by-election and beyond it seems to say that such a victory for Gordon Brown and the Labour Party is all but concrete, with a defeat in the by-election likely and support for his policies thinning by the day, Gordon Brown may want to enjoy his time in Number 10, whilst painting the walls nice shade of blue..