Old habits die hard here in Northern Ireland. Some of the more dangerous habits have been kicked, but deep rooted attitudes are proving a lot harder to shift.

BY COLIN WILLIAMSON
There is no doubt that we live in a far more peaceful and stable state, but it would seem that the main protagonists in our political pantomime just can’t help themselves when the opportunity arises to indulge in a bit of good old fashioned tribalism.
An examination of the actions and words of those who sit up on the hill at Stormont reveals a host of contradictions. In political terms, talk is cheap and change is expensive: Northern Ireland’s leaders seem unwilling to pay the price of true reconciliation.
The recent DUP conference was a snapshot that revealed so much. Peter Robinson took to the stage and spoke grandly of “all of us” together, a bold statement of intent for a future where the unthinkable prospect of Catholics voting for the party founded by the self-styled scourge of Rome, Ian Paisley, could become a reality. Contrast this with the performance of his right hand man, Finance Minister Sammy Wilson, who kept the party faithful happy by reverting to low brow jokes at the expense of Republican hunger strikers. Clearly money doesn’t buy taste.
Robinson himself is not averse to falling back behind party lines. The recent arguments surrounding the proposed reforms to the prison service produced his extraordinary threat to resign if royal symbols were discarded.
Sinn Fein like to play the game as well. Niall O’Donnaghaile was swept into office as the youngest ever Mayor of Belfast. The fresh faced First Citizen promised to represent all the people of the city. Clearly this didn’t extend to a young female army cadet whom he snubbed at a Duke of Edinburgh awards presentation.
Sinn Fein speak of ‘The North’ or ‘the six counties.’ Unionists have claimed the title of ‘Ulster,’ ignoring its three southern counties. The city of Derry/Londonderry looks destined to remain ever thus whilst the naming arguments continue. Debates rage about the use of the Irish Language and Ulster-Scots. The Union Flag v The Tri-colour, St Patrick’s Day v The Twelfth, Lily v Poppy: symbolism and language are the new weapons of combat and our politicians are all too keen to wield them on the front line.
All the while we are experiencing the worst economic downturn in a generation. People have taken to the streets to voice their concern about those things which really affect our lives: jobs, pensions, health and education. The paraphernalia of sectarianism may still influence the politics of those in office, but they need to realise what really matters to us.
We live in a culture of fear, perhaps no longer of guns and bombs, but of change. The retreat behind out-dated values is the safety zone for our big political parties. To talk of change is one thing, to act on it is to risk losing the loyal core.
The leap of faith needs to come from voters. We too can fear change, resorting at election time to addressing ‘the constitutional question’ rather than real world problems. It will take a leap of faith, but it’s ours to make. In one of the great paradoxes of life: where we lead, our leaders will follow.

Conducting a little experiment in the run-up to the MTV EMAs in Belfast, I asked five people if they were aware it was Belfast Music Week – not the greatest survey in the world, but the results may still be relevant nonetheless. Of the five, only one had actually heard of the event. The remaining four gave responses ranging from, “Well, that’s not very original,” to an enthusiastic, “Well, that’s good! Maybe some good bands will play.”

BY LEE BRADY

For the uninformed, the week starting 30 October marked the beginning of Belfast Music Week,  which coincided with the impending MTV award ceremony. There was a series of gigs, which showcased Northern Ireland’s home-grown talent.  Brochures and schedules were posted all over the city, banners were hung, posters were placed; and yet, apparently, only one in five had heard of the event – if we are to take a straw poll as fact.

This raises a question: were the gigs not publicised enough? Perhaps greater effort was required on behalf of radio and television? Cool FM, the official EMA radio station, only occasionally admitted to the existence of the event, preferring to draw more attention towards the already all-consuming EMAs. According to the press release, over 170 events occurred during the week, so more attention could have been raised. Perhaps there just isn’t any great appeal in the Belfast music scene these days except among a dedicated few.

Belfast Music Week did not receive the recognition it deserved. If Belfast is to re-establish itself as a significant musical landmark, attention to music will need to evolve beyond a single week and remain a consistent part of what makes Belfast a great place to see.

BY THE HOOD

Whatever anyone else thinks Ewok McShane just wanted all those pretty girls who give him all those hickies to help make his brother’s wedding cheaper. What else should he be doing on a VP Clubs and Socs Facebook? Posting results or training times? If he did then least then somebody would be doing it.

Jedi Jim finally appeared in person. Wow. Starstruck ‘R’ Us. Presenting an award at the SU is definitely better than getting to host Countdown, definitely.

I discovered by the library that a degree is worthless. If you want to meet girls be a fireman. That road safety display taught me a lot; get fit and get a uniform. That’s the way to a girl’s heart.

If you fancy a gander at our esteemed VP Campaigns and Communications looking suitably horrified in close up have a wee search for the UTV footage of the car crash.  Sixteen seconds in, there she is.  I’ve never seen someone look more concerned for the welfare of actors.

CEO’s and Ho’s was always going to get complaints. What’s surprising is how it was only the feminists that went after them, grammar Nazis are usually at the forefront with their giant red pen. But then that wouldn’t have matched the pink of the word “Ho’s”.

Some people seemed to enjoy the idea of CEO’s and Ho’s anyway.  When it was raised at council Nigel Macauley guffawed with laughter along with the rest of his cohort.  Either it was at the name, at the fact there’s a feminist society or at the political correctness brigade.  Whatever it was, it didn’t stand him in good stead, I overheard one councillor commenting: “He’s as sexist as fuck!”  At least we know the UUP is in good hands in the future, its decline is assured.

Tyler McNally, everyone’s favourite Trot, was overheard saying: “The most important thing to me, after fighting the cuts, is KFC.”  I can only hope that there’s a different KFC to the one I think of; you know the one that happens to be a massive multinational corporation, falls foul of tonnes of regulations in terms of animal welfare and pays its workers a pittance. I wonder how much they pay in tax? Keep on fighting the power Tyler.

The SU’s Weekend Takeover now takes over Thursdays too. No one ever went home on a Thursday really, they stayed up for the ride. And not on thon mechanical bull.

BY EMMA GALLENRules are there for a reason, and in council this is so everybody gets the chance to speak, regardless of whether it is viewed as redundant by most the people there. Council attendance was poor enough at the last meeting, so everything should be done to encourage people to attend and to speak. What someone says may be repetitive, but unfortunately that’s how most meetings are. And although a lot of what was said by “Troops off Campus” campaigners received mutters of “propaganda” and “republican” they spoke articulately and concisely. That is something that should be encouraged, not greeted with disdain.

Everybody that attended at least knew whether they disagreed with what “Troops off Campus” were saying because it was said well, and when it came to a vote, there weren’t multiple attempts to explain what a vote for or against meant. The changes proposed regarding School Representatives was too convoluted for most of the third level students, and the amendment about the Campaigns and Equality board was confusing even after the typo was rectified. Perhaps the Sabbaticals should get the “Troops off Campus” speech writers to look over their “amendments” so the rest can understand.

BY BEN FINCH

This is a fallacy; if the government and UK Universities try to pull their deals from the table they will only get themselves in hotter water.  Workers will be made even angrier and more likely to take more action. By doing so our elected representatives and employers will only be showing how distant they are from public opinion.

Even if the strikes do cost the economy £500 million this could quite easily be recouped by taxing the highest earners a little, teeny, tiny bit more. Barclay’s profits were more than £5 billion for the first nine months of this year, it paid £113 million in tax last year. And in terms of the economy, £500 million’s a drop in the ocean – UK GDP was £1.45 trillion in 2010; a loss like that is like dropping a penny, it won’t affect the economy.

Taking the decision to strike is not an easy one; the loss of a day’s pay is significant, especially with the current “economic climate” and with Christmas so close, there are presents to buy, a turkey to put on the table.  The millions that have the guts to take a stand for what they believe in, to tell the government and their employers that they are not acting in our interests should be supported, and at the very least respected.

The Students’ Union has called for students not to break the pickets and why should we? The University and Colleges Union supported our fight to freeze fees, we should support theirs to maintain decent pensions.  Who would want to live a retirement with no money?  But this is about more than pensions; this is about proclaiming that our values are being eroded, that an esteemed few are able to make as much money as they want while the rest of us scrimp and save.  If we are all in this together, we need to show that on Wednesday.

BY COLIN WILLIAMSON

Another feature of our sporting elite is that their tributes and obituaries rarely make mention of the indiscretions that were all too keenly covered in their sporting prime.

The sad death of Gary Speed will buck the trend on both counts. Scandal was not a feature of his life and there are no unsavoury episodes to brush under the carpet of fond remembrance.

Speed epitomised the industrious stereotype of the modern English game: powerful, passionate and committed. Although perhaps he would object to the term ‘English’: this proud Welshman represented his country 85 times as a player, before taking the reigns as manager last year in a period in which he has overseen a mini revival of fortunes, aided by the exciting young talents of Gareth Bale and Aaron Ramsey.

The list of clubs Speed represented is a reflection of the man himself. Leeds Utd, Everton, Bolton, Newcastle and Sheffield Utd: no nonsense northern clubs who have generally resisted the celebrity circus that has engulfed the country’s elite football establishments, clubs at the heart of their communities, and Speed was at the heart of them. The fans appreciated his work ethic and rejection of the flash celebrity lifestyle. Perhaps they saw in Speed a reflection of themselves, a working man made good and staying true to his roots.

His death comes as such a shock in both its timing and manner. Speed, just 42, was reportedly found hanged in his Chester home early on Sunday 27 November morning.
What can possess a successful man, financially secure and revered in his profession, to take his own life?

Perhaps his death will highlight that depression is an illness which can strike us all. Whatever the public persona that Speed presented, it is clear he had problems within that drew him to such a tragic end.   Football has lost something that it can ill afford to: an honourable man.

BY ROMANO MULLIN

What the appeal behind Frankie may be, I don’t know. Perhaps girls like a man who looks like he smells vaguely of urine and unwashed bed sheets. Perhaps being immortalised on his bottom is enough to make any woman swoon, but it certainly doesn’t make up for Frankie’s serious lack of talent. His bottom wasn’t enough to save him from the wrath of the X Factor producers either, even if his bum notes went past an apparently tone-deaf public without too much concern.

However, talk about Frankie’s train wreck vocals, his faintly sinister grin and his Titanic-esque lifestyle is well-worn and has been banged out on typewriters and keyboards in every newspaper office in the country. Gossip columns have relished in his boozy antics, the morally upright brigade have roared that he’s a sign of the anti-Christ, and he’s even been declared a walking STI. Men, lock up your daughters, wives and grandmothers.

What our eminent media industry seems to have missed is one important fact: Frankie Cocozza, loath as I am to admit it, is a victim. A victim of a celebrity obsessed culture gone too far, sure, but who isn’t? A victim of excruciatingly tight jeans, of course, but he’s also a victim of bullying, and perhaps worse, a victim of fascination.

You would think we’ve learnt something from the appalling waste of talent that was Amy Winehouse, but a few moments perusal over the tabloids and even the inner pages of broadsheets, shows that we’re no wiser now than when poor beleaguered Amy was spilling onto the street in blood stained ballet pumps. We’re still in love with watching a life go down the chute. No doubt someone will tell us there’s a deep seated, evolutionary explanation to this kind of compulsion, but we’re also compelled deep down to smash the brains in of the nearest predator, but most of us have outgrown that.

You can argue that Frankie put himself forward knowingly into the spotlight, and there’s no denying that. No-one forced him to sing, and certainly no-one forced him to tell us about the sixty four women he’s (allegedly) slept with. But what do you expect from a teenager? Frankie Cocozza is a mouthy, swaggering, and slightly creepy eighteen year old, but even he doesn’t deserve to be publicly crucified on the front pages. What eighteen year old boy doesn’t exaggerate his sexual experience, or crow about his apparently “edgy” lifestyle?

It’s easy for the public to jeer at the expense of the participants in shows like the X Factor or the seemingly indestructible Big Brother. They live in the most glittery of goldfish bowls, surrounded by a swarm of ravenous paparazzi and screeching fans. But once the curtain of publicity falls away, what’s left for people like Frankie Cocozza? Newspaper headlines are harder to erase than fifteen minutes of fame, and the scars they leave may outweigh those few moments in the sunshine. It’s clearly time for Frankie to grow up and take some classes in etiquette, but it’s also time for the tabloid press to grow up and stop taking cheap shots at easy targets. Isn’t spending a few weeks with Louis Walsh enough punishment for Frankie’s vocal sins?

An exchange programme for the last 4 years has been running at Queen’s university called the PMI-2: Strategic Alliances and Partnerships scheme. Its aim is to take a group of students to either India or China for academic and cultural exchange, and in the process take part in university life and complete some research. I’m a 24 year old student from Wales just waiting to graduate from a full-time Masters in Social and Community Development, and over the summer I spent a month, along with four other students and a member of Queen’s academic staff, in the Indian southern state of Andhra Pradesh and the city of Hyderabad.

BY JONATHAN EVANS  

India is a country of over 1.2 billion people and a whole world of contradictions. Greeting us on arrival from the plane in Mumbai in early August was the sight of corrugated iron roofs on a hillside next to the runway of Mumbai. It was in fact the slum of Dharavi, famous for being one of Asia’s largest slums. The size of the slum is over half the population of Northern Ireland.

However, I was off to the comfort of a university campus another flight away in Hyderabad along with my colleagues. My research involved going out into local poor communities, some at a slum level, and speaking to everyday people.

On meeting young slum children growing up in an environment devoid of opportunity, the big smile adorning their faces really makes you take stock. Having the privilege of being an honoured guest on visiting a group of village women who, through saving what little money they had, pool this together and create opportunities for themselves makes you appreciate what you have in your own life. Invitations to family homes for dinner, and being asked about your life, is an entirely humbling experience.

More than anything else, I thought I knew a bit about poverty living as a student, and the confidence shedding effect it potentially has. Relatively I am struggling, but there is always that safety net there for me: my family home and my parents. If I was really in trouble I would be just fine. For the communities I spent time observing and interacting with in India, they do not have the same options and fall-backs as we do.

There are times in life when you have to take a step back and try to take it all in. For the last month and a half I have battled with the fact that I am not still in India, and will not be for a while. The sights, smells, differences and kindness of the people I have missed more than almost anything else I can recall. My defining image of the trip is this picture of slum-kids in the city. What I won’t forget is the smiles on those faces and the spirit of India: it is something that has changed me forever. My advice to all students is: you only live once, get out and take these opportunities.

If you thought witches weren’t real, think again. They are very real, and capable of the most evil crimes. At least that is what the Italian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini would like us to think. His description of Amanda Knox, the American student charged with the brutal sexual assault and murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher, was more Spanish inquisition than 21st century legal court.

By Romano Mullin

Mignini used Knox’s lifestyle as evidence: her marijuana use, her sex life and her relationship with her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, who was also charged with Kercher’s 2007 murder. Sollecito and Knox are claimed to have read graphic comic books high in sado-masochistic content, and murdered Kercher after a drug-fuelled haze.

Mignini had help from the British tabloids. For four years, from Kercher’s murder until Knox and Sollecito’s 2011 appeal and acquittals, they branded Knox a femme-fatale. She was a manipulative, seductive temptress who lived too fast and had a heart of darkness. Amanda Knox was as far from apple pie America as she could be, and the tabloids damned her for it, even as evidence grew that she and Sollecito may in fact have been victims of a miscarriage of justice.

The truth may never be known, but what is known is that innocent or not, Knox was the victim of a witch hunt and convicted by press before any trial had begun. The strangle hold of the media on public opinion meant that no other depiction of Knox was accepted. As four years in prison passed, she changed her clothes, her hairstyle and her demeanour in the hopes of appeasing the press.

The real losers in this mess are the Kercher family. Once, they had a daughter. She was murdered, and three people went to jail for that crime. Now only one man rots, probably rightfully, in an Italian jail. But he didn’t do it alone, and the Kercher family wait for answers. Meanwhile, Amanda Knox can begin her life again. She may be free, but she will never be free from the glare of the tabloid press.

Darren Clarke’s magnificent win at the weekend at the Royal St. George course in England has cemented Northern Ireland’s place as the current golfing capital of the world. Three major winners in thirteen months are from the north. Moreover six winners of the last seventeen majors have come from the island of Ireland. Surely the time is right for the Open championship to return to these shores for the first time in over half a century.

BY SEAN ASHFORD

The Open is one of golf’s four majors and is the oldest and most prestigious of them all. Each year the course rotates around nine courses in England and Scotland. St Andrews, the ancestral home of golf, plays host every fifth year. The last time Northern Ireland hosted the tournament was in 1951, when Englishman Max Faulkner conquered the championship course at Royal Portrush.

Sixty years on and Northern Ireland is punching well above its weight in the golfing world. The result of all the attention has been to renew calls for Northern Ireland to host the Open in recognition of the achievements of Graeme McDowell, Rory McIlroy and Darren Clarke.

Aside for the inherent nationalistic feelings, there are numerous legitimate reasons why Northern Ireland would be a suitable host for a major golfing tournament. Firstly, we have two of the world’s most renowned courses in Royal Portrush and Royal County Down. On the outskirts of Newcastle, Royal County Down has been consistently named as one of the best golf courses in the world.  It was named the best course outside America by Golf Digest in 2007, and the course record happens to be held by a certain Tiger Woods who carded a 65 there. However, the course is not spectator friendly and does not have the ability to cater for the large influx of people the Open Championship would bring.

A more realistic proposition would be a return to Royal Portrush. Regarded by many as one of the most difficult courses in the world, it consistently makes top 10 lists of courses around the world. Its par three 14^th hole, nicknamed ‘Calamity’, is one of the most dangerous holes in championship golf. It’s a classic links course, and the weather on the north coast would certainly guarantee action. All three of Northern Ireland’s top golfers have called for the Open to be held in Portrush, and the club now boasts the gold medal won by Darren Clarke in the Open last week in its vast trophy cabinet.

However, Portrush also suffers in that its fairways are wedged between the sea and the hills, making it difficult to attract the large crowds places like Troon in Scotland can attract. This argument is perhaps not as persuasive as naysayers would have us believe, as the Royal Lytham & St Annes Golf Club covers less acreage than Portrush but will host the competition next year. The other major problem is transport. Despite its proximity to Coleraine, not to mention Portstewart and (obviously) Portrush, spectators must be able to travel to and from the golf course, but also to nearby towns and cities so as the local economy takes the greatest possible benefit from the hosting of such an event. With many tickets for the Open only for certain days of the four-day event, there exists an opportunity for Northern Ireland to showcase itself during their breaks from watching the golf, but also to capitalise on the opportunity by enticing them to the towns in the area thus providing a much needed shot in the arm for the local economy. The most obvious way to do this would be via the adjacent rail network which would take them through Coleraine, Limavady and on to Derry. However, this stretch of railway is the only section not to have undergone any redevelopment in recent decades and with plans to cut the number of trains on the line daily from nine to five, then the much needed investment is unlikely to be forthcoming.

On the issue of local transport, a Translink spokesperson has said ”There are a number of high-profile events which occur on the north coast each year, the North West 200 and the Portrush Airshow. The current road network manages to cope with these large visitor numbers. For any event, the organisers will prepare an event plan to cover all appropriate areas, including traffic management and transportation.”

Despite all this there remains a strong possibility that Northern Ireland will be rewarded for the achievements of its golfing heroes. Undoubtedly there are the courses to host the events. It is simply a matter of whether Stormont politicians are willing to invest money into turning Northern Ireland into a viable alternative to the traditional courses and capitalising on the events of the last 13 months to boost the economy here. With the trade and tourism boost that hosting the Open would bring, any investment would more than prove its value, and it would certainly help pay for the expensive receptions our golfers keep getting at Stormont these days.

It’s always been this way, hasn’t it Stephen?  You’ve always tried to do a good job, making sure everything was done right so it came out just perfect.  Unfortunately being a minister is just like playing sports at school, and this time you were the last one picked for the team.

BY BEN FINCH

So finally your chance came.  You worked towards this for years.  You became a councillor at 22, a doctor in international relations at 29, MLA and Mayor (double-jobbing, naughty naughty) at 26 and then your chance to shine arrived.  You became Minister for Employment and Learning.  You had been giving your opinion on university funding for such a long time.  You had the expertise.  You were going to do this right.

But you were the last one picked, no-one else wanted because it’s like the wrong grail in Indiana Jones that turns everyone into skeletons.  They’d all committed themselves to a freeze in tuition fees.  You hadn’t, you were open to suggestions, reasonable, and pragmatic politics.  Just as we’d expect.

But now it’s like those first few weeks at school when you’re forced out onto the pitch on a freezing cold, wet Saturday morning.  You’ve trained with the rest of them, you’re feeling fairly confident.  But now they’re kicking the ball around you and you can’t respond.  Suddenly papers you’ve tabled on fees, but decided not to discuss are leaked with a different spin; £3,290’s the favourite, not your recommended £4,500.  And to make things worse, sources claim it’s only to cover for some debacle with the DUP and Red Sky.

The ball’s been passed around you.  But it’s all right, you can track back.  Keep a cool head, chase it up and you’ll make the tackle.  But their best players are working in partnership and before you know it they’ve played a through ball that leaves you for dead.  The Cloyne inquiry’s been announced, there’s been violence on the streets.  Suddenly, the first minister and his deputy announce, without informing you, their commitment to capping fees.  You panic, you don’t answer your phone, a spokesperson for DEL utters a wry laugh when they hear no-one’s answering.

So go to the BBC, they’ll help. Just don’t appear flustered.  Get your message across clearly and calmly and you’ll stop them scoring.

“This is good news for students isn’t it?” asked the Beeb.

“Well discussions are still ongoing and no decision’s been taken yet.” Well said Stephen. Well said.

“Oh, so OFMDFM have jumped the gun?”

“Erm… No… Just… No decision’s been taken yet.”

Hard lines, you’ve been outplayed.  Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness didn’t say freezing fees was official Stormont policy, but they may as well have.  Any increase will now be seen as a major U-turn and on your head be it.  It’s the sort of thing that affects every family in the land, and they’re all struggling enough as it is.   You may as well call it full time, announce that the cap on fees is staying and figure out the details later.

On May 28^th, activists protested across the UK against the dismantling of the National Health Service, and, more broadly, against cuts to public spending, the unfairness of which I don’t have to go into here.

BY ADAM MCGIBBON

UK Uncut is one of the most exciting protest movements of our times. Good-humoured, imaginative, attention-grabbing and effective, it has thrust issues of corporate power and tax avoidance – and the deep inequalities that they perpetuate – into mainstream political debate.

But why has Northern Ireland largely missed out on this wave of activism so far?

After all, our Assembly has passed a £6bn cuts budget. Our universities and colleges are being cut. Belfast Health & Social Care Trust alone is cutting the equivalent of 1,755 full-time staff this year. The consociational nature of the Assembly means that parties in mandatory coalition can blame each other for cuts in individual departments. Nationalists blame the ‘British’ cuts coming from Westminster. Parties can even vote against budgets and still remain in coalition. They all attempt to elude the fact they are all culprits in this.

And while all this is going on, those most able to pay remain untouched and there is a disturbing consensus about cutting Northern Ireland’s rate of corporation tax. All but a handful of MLAs in the Assembly – and all the parties in the Executive – have pledged to cut corporation tax from the current rate of 28% down to 12.5%. Not only is the logic of doing this flawed in the extreme (as has been argued convincingly here), but it’s going to cost money – around £300m a year – which we’re giving to aid corporations when we should be aiding the most vulnerable in our society at a time when they need it most. Corporation tax cuts, slavishly supported by everyone from the DUP to Sinn Fein to Alliance as the false panacea to our economic woes, mean even more cuts to vital public services.

The opposition to corporation tax reduction in the Assembly is almost non-existent, but strangely diverse. In fact, it’s perhaps the only time ever the Greens have shared the same view as the hardline unionist TUV. In Westminster, Mark Durkan is the only NI MP to have signed Early Day Motion 1146, supporting UK Uncut.  Sylvia Hermon came out against it this week too – and she should know, being a member of the parliamentary select committee that’s taking evidence on it.

Surely this calls for opposition outside the chamber – that is why we need Northern Ireland Uncut.

We need a movement of ordinary people to stand up to cuts and the prioritization of big business over everyday need. It can’t be owned by any one grouping or faction, and the decentralized, good-humoured nature of UK Uncut protests can draw in people beyond the usual left political sphere. It’s very simple – we pay our taxes. Why shouldn’t corporations?

There has been at least one action in Belfast so far, but it seems to have escaped the media attention that helps the concept gather public support in other parts of the UK. Others have started – we should join them. It’s really quite simple to list an action, gather some friends and post a Facebook link.

This is not at all a criticism of all that’s been done so far, but a call to participate in some friendly competition with our friends in England, Scotland and Wales. The picture is not complete until every part of the UK has consistent, regular Uncutter actions.

But who am I to say this to you? Nobody. Just some guy.  But that’s the beauty of it. The decentralized nature of this movement means that literally anyone can do it.

So, people of Northern Ireland  – get organised. I’ll see you on the high streets.

www.twitter.com/belfastuncut

The philosopher AC Grayling has decided that the British system of universities is so bad that the only option is to set up his own in Bloomsbury, London.  He’s even asked a few of his academic mates to come along.  The students lucky enough to study under Richard Dawkins, Sir David Cannadine and Ronald Dworkin QC will be very lucky indeed, for they’ll be able to afford £18,000 per year for the privilege, with no student support.

BY BEN FICNH
This is double the price of any state funded place at a British university and Grayling appears to think that it’ll free staff from any of the associated nuisance bureaucracy.  The assumption must be that of the mythical “efficient” private sector; less regulation equals a better product and more profit.  But such regulation also allows for more equality rather than will happen at New College, as Grayling said, “it’s, er, not unlikely that, er, a substantial proportion of pupils will come from [public schools].”  In other words, this is an elitist institution that will be based on an ability to pay, rather than learn.

The entrance criteria are to be set around the AAA mark, but those who attend public school are likely to attain these anyway.  That’s why parents pay to send their kids there.  However, results like this are not necessarily through teaching a broad knowledge curriculum but rather a narrow preparation for examination.  Rich kids are in no way smarter than poor kids, just much, much better prepared.  Assumedly a throwaway number of bursaries will be offered, but only to those kids from a low socio-economic background who have fought tooth and nail to get where they want.  This is not progress in any way, rather a return to the Victorian idea of the deserving and undeserving poor, while the rich are always deserving because they can pay through the nose.  Virginia Woolf would be spinning in her grave to have such a thing in Bloomsbury.

Never mind all that about the class of the clientele though, what about the profiteering staff?  Grayling described most of them as “pink around the gills.”  In other words good old liberal socialists; freedom for all, with the state providing essential services.  An excellent example of an essential service is higher education.  Another philosopher, Slavoj Žižek, describes such people as claiming “that we can have the global capitalist cake, i.e. thrive as profitable entrepeneurs, and eat it too, i.e. endorse the anti-capitalist causes of social responsibility.”  The problem being that a private company’s first responsibility is to its shareholders, those who make cash off it, rather than those who use its service, or provide its service.  A good case in point is FairTrade.

While we’re on the point of ethics let’s stray towards the name ‘New College’ as Grayling has received an email from the warden of New College, Oxford, querying the use.  The bursar of this college also appears to be very jealous of the fact that the new New College gets to use the University of London’s facilities, from lecture theatres to the library.  In fact, it seems the whole thing has been cribbed from UL, they’re even using the same courses, just charging double the price.  If I tried that I’d be chucked out of Queen’s for plagiarism.  Indeed, it appears UL knows nothing about it, having issued a statement saying, “To avoid any confusion, it should be made clear that NCH is not, and will not be, a part of the University of London.”  The government hasn’t even approved the use of the ‘University College’.  Grayling and co. really do seem to be blagging it all, its that efficiency of the private sector again.

AC Grayling thought he’d spotted a gap in the market that he could make a quick buck from.  Instead all he’s done is ruined his and others good names through a serious misjudgement.  Today the Dons of Oxford University passed a vote of no confidence in the Tory Universities Minister, David Willets.  One is being prepared at Cambridge and staff at various other universities are petitioning for the same.  The public and academic mood is not for education becoming a commodity.  As Robert Gildea, who proposed today’s motion against Willets, said, “1. Higher education is a public good.  2. Academic scholarship is pursued with a spirit of enquiry rather than a view to commercial gain.  3. Access to teaching and learning at university is based on intellectual potential.”  University is and must be for those who can learn, not those who can pay.

What is a crisis? Perhaps it is a time of great difficulty or a period of instability. The definition of what actually constitutes ‘a crisis’ is open to interpretation and often context-dependent. However, what is certain is that the corruption scandal that has hit FIFA has left this all-powerful organisation in the midst of a major crisis.

By John Benedict-Farrel

That is unless of course your name is Joseph S. Blatter.  FIFA’s President has always had a rather curious outlook on matters that would seem like common sense to the average punter. It has for a long time been the way of world football’s governing body to bury its head in the sand at the first sign of trouble and hope for things to blow over. Except this time the allegations levelled that FIFA officials from top to bottom are lining their own pockets with illegal payments are a little more problematic.

FIFA started over a century ago as a modest group of individuals passionate about football with the simple aim of furthering the development of the game. Much has changed since then, with the organisation enjoying a global reach with even more associate members than the United Nations.  With globalisation came the opportunity for financial gain, but as some say, the love of money is the root of all evil. Greed has taken hold of FIFA’s officials, and they have been swept up by their own self-importance to the extent that nearly every scenario is now viewed as carrying the prospect of personal profit. The bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups last year, which also saw the suspension of two officials for offering to sell their votes, cast light upon this fact.

Qatar won the right to host the 2022 tournament, but doubts have since been raised as to the legitimacy of this decision.  The inspectors’ pre-voting report stated that it would be the least suitable venue to host it of all the bidding nations. Yet Qatar still won. Why? Jerome Valcke, FIFA’s General Secretary, suggested that money was exchanged for votes, whilst another FIFA official was secretly filmed explicitly saying that the Qatari bid team would have paid up to $500,000 to members of the Executive Committee for their support. This is evidence that something is seriously amiss, and yet Mr Blatter has chosen to turn a blind eye. Personal interests obviously come higher than the protection of the game’s integrity.

Underhand dealings are nothing new to Blatter. His reign as FIFA President began under a cloud of accusations that as much as $50,000 had changed hands to secure each of the 20 crucial votes that won him the Presidency in 1998. This was hardly a perfect start and is a problem which has been allowed to grow into a trend under his not so watchful gaze. Documents were recently uncovered detailing millions of dollars of payments to various officials by a rights-holder during the 1990s. Yet no action was taken by FIFA. In fact there was no investigation whatsoever. In 2006, his right-hand man, Jack Warner, was embroiled in a controversy where he touted tickets for World Cup matches at a 200% mark-up. Alarm bells sounded around the globe, yet Warner faced no repercussions from within the organisation.  He should have, but the powers that be wished once more to ensure its top dogs remained untouchable, so chose not to act – a grave error.

Five years on, Warner has finally been collared for more misdemeanours, as has the man who was to challenge Blatter for the Presidency, Mohamed bin Hammam. Blatter has been all too keen to tell us about FIFA’s Code of Ethics and how it is keeping members in check. Nothing could be further from the truth. This document is no more than a mission statement that is intended to deter any challenge from the media and is loosely adhered to by many officials. It is ambiguous, and doesn’t even lay out the penalties for being in breach of it, except suggesting that anyone who does mightn’t be appropriate for office. The fact is that not one FIFA official found to be in breach of the Code has ever been dismissed. Mr Blatter believes that any problems in his organisation can be solved through “faith, energy and morals,” and points to this booklet as if it is the solution. This approach is simply sweeping the issue under the carpet. In Blatter’s flawed opinion, The Only Way Is Ethics.

So what now for FIFA? How does this institution solve its problems and clean up its act for good? The simple answer is that its hierarchy must be torn down and rebuilt, giving up its power and returning to its humble roots and acting purely in the interests of football. However, football has a lot to thank FIFA for, so it must be done in a way that maintains the size of the sport but restores people’s faith in the system. We can only hope that FIFA can bring itself to acknowledge this too and decide to act upon it. The game must always be the priority – without it, FIFA would be nothing. Sadly, somewhere along the line they have lost sight of this.

The result of the Belfast West By-Election is a foregone conclusion. Sinn Féin are going to romp home and the only thing likely to reduce their majority is a minuscule turnout. However despite the result itself not being in doubt it would be wrong to say that this by-election isn’t important.

BY ALEX REDPATH

This election will have great significance for a number of parties who are desperately trying to grasp the sixth Assembly seat from Sinn Féin in the future. These parties include the SDLP, whose hopes for a second are all but dead; the DUP, who are frantically trying to regain Diane Dodds’ old seat; People Before Profit’s Gerry Carroll, who is fresh from a minor breakthrough in his own assembly campaign and, most surprisingly of all, Bill Mainwaring of the UUP, who has mastered the art of the scrappy insurgency and established himself as a plausible alternative to the DUP in West Belfast.

The battle for West Belfast’s trenchant Unionist vote is likely to be a definitive feature of this election. The political demise of the UUP’s Chris McGimpsey, who lost his council seat in 2005, was seen by the DUP as the final nail for the UUP in West Belfast. A paltry 558 votes in the 2007 Assembly elections seemed to confirm that the UUP had ceased to exist in the constituency. However, in a year that was otherwise marked with success the DUP lost their West Belfast seat by 480 votes. Since then Unionism’s principle objective in the constituency was to regain the sixth seat and secure Unionist representation at Stormont. But the DUP’s share of the vote has been in constant decline.

The UUP’s new candidate Bill Mainwaring has approached campaigning over the past two years with a fanaticism which is frankly frightening. Mainwaring has increased the UUP vote from 558 to 1,471 during which time his party has struggled nationally. The DUP on the other hand haven’t run the same candidate in an election in West Belfast since 2007 and their vote has decreased from 3661 to 2587. Their majority over the UUP has been reduced by two thirds and they are beginning to face serious challenge. The by-election will be interesting as even the campaigning zeal of Bill Mainwaring is unlikely to keep his vote up in light of a decreased turnout. However, the same decrease in turnout means the advantage falls to the candidate who can get their vote out.

Another question mark which looms over this election is can the People Before Profit candidate Gerry Carroll maintain his steam from the assembly election. Carroll, a former Students’ Union representative, who faces criminal charges over FEE’s protests, performed commendably and successfully hovered up Sinn Féin protest votes which seemed to go to dissident groups at council level. Carroll is the sole socialist candidate running for Westminster. If he can unite the far left vote and poll over half an assembly quota he could establish himself as a far left alternative to Sinn Fein and build for a successful assembly run in 2015.

The SDLP also have a battle to fight. With the success of the far left in the assembly election they are no longer the sole opposition to Sinn Féin. This will cost them the sort of protest votes which won them the constituency in the past. The SDLP’s goal in this election should be to poll in excess of an assembly quota. This will safeguard the party’s assembly seat which has been far from concrete in the past. Equally, the SDLP should be aiming to re-establish their appeal to Unionist voters who may be prepared to lend the party support at Westminster.

The Democratic Unionist Party has a positive vision for Northern Ireland. We want to see a prosperous Northern Ireland, one where people can be proud to live, work and bring up a family. After being marred for decades by terrorism and conflict, our country now has stable devolved institutions at Stormont, where local people are taking local decisions and all parties in the Executive are signed up in support of the police, courts and rule of law.

BY MARK WALLACE

Much has been achieved in the last four years against the odds: everyone over the age of 60 can now use public transport for free; 750,000 households have benefited from the Regional Rate being frozen in cash terms for 3 years; capital investment in our infrastructure has increased to £1.5 billion last year from just £700 million under Direct Rule, to name just a few.

But we believe that Stormont can and must perform better in the next four years. To that end the DUP has set out its seven key priorities for the next term of the Assembly: we will ensure that the Northern Ireland Executive supports the creation of over 20,000 new jobs and work to progressively reduce Corporation Tax to make Northern Ireland the best place in the UK to do business. We believe that householders are already under enough pressure due to the rising cost of living and will block the imposition of additional water charges.

We believe that prisoners should not be treated more favourably than law abiding citizens – we will support tougher sentences. We will work towards establishing a single, shared education system; ensure that academic selection is safeguarded and oppose any above-inflation rises to tuition fees. Greater efficiency and productivity, as well as proper funding in the health service is another thing we will push for.

In order for Stormont to function better, it requires reform. The DUP supports a reduction in the number of MLAs and government departments. We also want to normalise our institutions by removing community designation and moving towards a voluntary system of forming a government. We recognise that such changes will come about by agreement and so we will work with other parties to make Northern Ireland a more settled society.

The DUP is working to build a shared, united community and strengthen the Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland as we approach its centenary. We believe that Northern Ireland can flourish in its second century and become a social, political and economic success story. To keep Northern Ireland moving forward, vote DUP on Thursday.

BY DAVID MURPHY

A vote for Alliance can make a real difference. Belfast City Council meetings used to be beset with the problems of tribal politics, but since Alliance has held the balance of power, co-operation and consensus have become the norm. At this election, we are hoping for more Alliance councillors, to help bring our co-operative approach to more councils. Similarly, at the Assembly and in the Executive, Alliance has taken the same approach, encouraging all parties to come together and reach agreement. David Ford has been widely praised for the fair and professional way in which he has handled a very difficult portfolio as Minister for Justice. More Alliance MLAs will encourage a more co-operative approach based on genuine power-sharing and more coherent Executive that builds consensus to deliver the best possible services for everyone in Northern Ireland.

The most striking thing about Alliance is what we stand for. Unlike the other main parties, Alliance is not defined by narrow sectional interests or by what we are against. Alliance is for a society where every individual is valued and we are for a sustainable, fair and shared future. We are for a society where business and enterprise are encouraged so that we can afford to invest in first class public services and so that our environment is protected. Over £1billion is wasted every single year on maintaining division in Northern Ireland. Too many opportunities, too much money and too many decades have been wasted running a divided society. We cannot afford to waste any more.

Something interesting is happening in North Down; people are saying they would vote Sinn Féin, but feel they can’t. This is because of the role that its members may (or may not) have played during the Troubles. Nevertheless, in a constituency that in its history has always returned Unionists to Westminster (at one point a single candidate got 98% of the vote), this is a fascinating turn of events.

BY BEN FINCH

At the beginning of this election campaign Peter Robinson said this would be the first election fought on policy and economics in Northern Ireland, and for once he’s close to being right. It is Sinn Féin’s policies that are attracting voters here, but it is their past that’s turning people off. People are starting to move away from the old sectarian headcount into an almost normal way of thinking about politics. Some are even asking what difference it would make to become a part of the Republic.

I have no doubt the normal candidates will be returned for the DUP. The UUP may be wiped out since Sylvia Hermon and Alan McFarland became Independent, and there is the increasing possibility of Steven Agnew taking a seat for the Greens. Even this result would show there has been a sea-change and people are beginning to think progressively about Northern Ireland; about the possibilities there are for the country. They’re caring more about what politics means for their families, their work, when their bins are emptied, than about divisive, tribal loyalties.

Whether or not this translates across all the constituencies in the North is a moot point. Catherine Wylie’s piece for the Independent a few weeks ago shows that on the opposite side of the country there may be a slight return to the old ways. But then those I’ve met from the West don’t hold these views, in fact they’re almost always strongly opposed to them. One of the best ways that the dissidents can be shown there is no support for their activities is for a high turnout and a show of confidence in normalised politics, no matter who gets voted in or out.

North Down is not representative of Northern Ireland, it is regarded as being wealthier (although not in all places) and well-educated. This may explain why people are willing to closer examine what parties are saying. Maybe sometime soon we’ll be divided along left and right rather than by religion.

BY ADAM MCGIBBON

Northern Ireland isn’t much different. Despite the Green Party here being severely hindered by the onset of political violence in the province, every election since the Good Friday Agreement has seen the Green vote grow and grow, culminating in the election of the first Green councillors in 2005 and the first MLA, Brian Wilson (North Down) in 2007.

The lazy tree-hugger stereotyping of the past has now largely disappeared; the Greens are now recognised as providing a serious and well-considered social, economic and environmental alternative. Party leader Steven Agnew has become well-known over the last few years and has developed a higher profile than many sitting MLAs, the ranks of which he intends to join, standing to replace Brian Wilson as the Green MLA for North Down on May 5th.

The ‘Green New Deal’ is the Greens’ main priority in the next Assembly; to push for mass investment in public transport and renewable energy to create badly-needed jobs, restart a shattered economy and deal with the problems of depleting fossil fuels, fuel poverty and climate change. The plan has received widespread support and boasts diverse supporters, from the CBI to Greenpeace.

So credible is this idea that many of the other parties attempt to sing off the Greens’ hymn sheet, while on the other hand trying to discredit them as ‘hippies’. While imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, voters are smarter than that. At a time when they are the only party in the Assembly that refuse to take donations from business, they benefit from the shattered credibility of the big parties.

Despite predictions 4 years ago of the Greens being a flash-in-the-pan party, they look set to increase their representation in the Assembly and local councils. With the mechanics of the NI Assembly meaning that the Green Party were the only party not in the NI Executive at the end of this Assembly term, the Greens have an important opposition role to fulfil.

A truly ‘post-conflict’ party has emerged. Peter Robinson said at the start of the election campaign that Northern Ireland was about to enter its “first everyday issue election,” then followed that by pandering to the same old nationalist/unionist division to lobby for votes. However, the Greens have fought every one of their elections on everyday issues, and it has to be said that the growth of issue-based parties like the Greens can only be healthy for Northern Ireland politics.

The Green Party’s manifesto is available at:http://www.greenpartyni.org/documents/Green%20Party%20NI%20Manifesto%202011.pdf

Northern Ireland is 90 years old this week. It is worth remembering that the forefathers of Unionism stood for “defending, for ourselves and our children, our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom” as the Ulster Covenant, often referred to as the birthright of Northern Ireland, put it.

BY SAMMY MORRISON

Equal citizenship is the cornerstone of the Union yet the present form of government means Northern Ireland’s citizens are denied the same basic democratic rights people in Scotland and Wales take for granted.

By voting TUV you take a stand for re-establishing the fundamentals of democracy; the right to have an opposition and the right to change your government. We’re not North Korea, we’re Northern Ireland!

So, why are we denied the right to an opposition? Voters in the Republic changed their government, on 5th May Scotland and Wales may do the same, but on the same date we in Northern Ireland will be denied that right. Why? Because of the absurdity of undemocratic mandatory coalition. It’s irreformable. It must go.

Instead, after an election, with no party being big enough to govern on its own, parties should negotiate to see who can agree a programme on the key issues of the economy, health and education. Those who can agree, whoever they might be, and command the necessary Assembly majority, govern. Those who can’t, whoever they might be, fulfil the vital role of opposition. Only when such basic democracy is injected into Stormont will it ever work.

TUV is not opposed to shared government. We believe Stormont should have a system of weighted majority voting to ensure that the rights of minorities are protected. However, to have a system where parties can never be removed from office and where government departments are treated as the plaything of political parties does no one any good.

But TUV is about much more. With 60,000 people without a job and many bright, young graduates finding it almost impossible to find work we believe that job creation should be the number one priority during Stormont’s next term.

Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK to fail to show any economic recovery and there is a simple reason for this. Decades of IRA violence has ensured that our private wealth-creating sector has been weakened and remains smaller than any other UK region, Until we address this structural imbalance in a meaningful way, we will continue to lag in the slipstream of the rest of the UK.

Even worse, under the current failed Stormont Assembly, a North/South agenda for economic growth has been prioritised. The Irish Republic’s economy has crashed. Yet Stormont seeks to grow our economy by linking it to the bankrupt South. This is madness.

TUV advocates the dynamic development of East-West links, plugging Northern Ireland into the more vibrant British economy which is still one of the world’s largest. A coherent strategy of helping local business gain bigger shares of economic activity in England, Scotland and Wales is essential. Beyond that boundary, TUV advocates assisting Northern Ireland business gain market share in the emerging new economies around the world. DETI objectives and focus will need to change to achieve this.

What sort of government can find £61 million for the GAA and £400 million for North/South Bodies while at the same time cutting the DETI budget by 64% and having insufficient funds to open a cancer unit?

Stormont is broken. TUV want to fix it. That is why we ask for your support on Thursday.

In the upcoming election I am positive that it will be a very successful one for Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin are determined to keep making politics work, to keep defending the political institutions and keep delivering for ordinary people and demonstrating what true republicanism is about. The party’s successes in the last Dáil election showed that the Irish people responded to its calls for equality, fairness and national unity when 14 Sinn Féin TD’s and 3 Sinn Féin Senators were elected.

BY GRACE LYNCH

We are the only all-Ireland party. We are now in a position to effect significant change north and south and we are committed to doing so. A few of our main priorities in the upcoming term will be to restore the 50:50 recruitment within the PSNI, ensure that there are no increases in student fees, ensure that water charges will not be introduced, job creation, transferring fiscal powers to the North and create a referendum on Irish unity.

We pledge to continue to be bold and decisive, to stand up for ourselves by standing up to the British and Irish governments and to those opposed to change. We ask for your vote as an endorsement of our peace strategy. We ask for your vote to build a dynamic for change throughout Ireland. We ask for your vote to help us shape the future in the way that you want, in the way that benefits all and in a way that builds the Ireland of Equals to which we aspire. Promoting equality for all is the key. The future lies in Irish unity and national equality.

In his most recent article in The Gown, Alex Redpath argues a point that is mirrored throughout much of the world’s media and at its roots, is nothing more than an unprincipled anti-Americanism.

BY DANIEL GILLEN

In his opening paragraph he states that “[Bin Laden's]… death should not be viewed as a victory”.  If we weren’t talking about Bin Laden, but rather a local cat burglar, then yes, the necessity of having to employ two helicopters and a team of special forces for his assassination would indeed be a failure.  But we are not talking an unarmed amateur here. We are talking about, to use Mr. Redpaths own words, “the most ruthless terrorist leader of all time”.  He may well state that it would have been good to see “what would have been just, namely Osama Bin Laden’s trial before the international community”, but he then goes on to say “I have no doubt that Bin Laden’s death was necessary to subdue him”.  And yet his death is not a victory?

One must seriously wonder when encountering such cognitive dissonance whether the author can seriously state that he believes what he is saying. If he does, then the only conclusion left available is that he would prefer it had Bin Laden not been killed at all.  If he cannot see Bin Laden’s death as a victory then he must be totally unaware of what the stakes are here. Whether Redpath likes it or not, there is a war going on between civilisation and Islamic fascism.

Granted, the shores of Ireland may have been spared for now, but what of those who lost relatives in the Madrid Train bombings? What about the parents of children blown to pieces on their way to work in London on 7/7? The thousands who died, of several nationalities and all major faiths on 9/11?  Who exactly does he think it was that spent the last eight years blowing up hospitals, mosques, schools and city centres throughout Iraq, the very cradle of civilisation itself?  Does he not understand why the victims of this savagery, and all those who stand in solidarity with them, would see this as a victory?

Often when discussing the so-called ‘War on Terror’, the anti-war movement, people like to forget and downplay just what people like Bin Laden stood for.  Bin Laden’s aim was the establishment of an ‘Islamic Caliphate’. All those of other faiths under Bin Laden’s vision would have had to convert to his version of Islam or be murdered. He supported the execution of Christians, Homosexuals, Buddhists, Women who wanted to learn to read, Moderate Muslims, Democratic activists, UN aid workers and the list goes on.  Though Bin Laden didn’t just hold these beliefs reservedly, he acted upon them. In 1993 he tried to blow up the World Trade Centre with a truck bomb, and then less than a decade later he flew planes into them. His fellow sexually repressed fascists threw acid in the faces of school girls in the newly liberated Afghanistan. His vile minions blew up truck bombs outside Iraqi schools for children of different faiths.

The horror of Osama Bin Laden cannot be understated. He was one of the few people throughout history where most people could place on him the label “evil” without hesitation or doubt. His death is a great victory for progressive people of all faiths and nationalities, if not relished, it should be at the least celebrated.  Alex Redpath, for whatever reasons holds his tongue, but I extend my sincere thanks to all those who took part in killing this abhorrent man.

US President Barack Obama announced that Bin Laden’s death at the hands of US military personnel meant that “Justice is done”. If this is true then America has a strange definition of justice.

BY ALEX REDPATH

Osama Bin Laden was without doubt the most ruthless terrorist leader of our time. He was directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people and indirectly responsible for the deaths of many more in the “war on terror”.  His death , bleeding from gunshot wounds on the floor of his bedroom, in Abbottabad, some 100km from Islamabad, should not be viewed as a victory. Rather it should be viewed as a pale substitute for what would have been just, namely Osama Bin Laden’s trial before the international community.

Such a trial could only have had one outcome as Bin Laden has never denied his crimes. His trial would have been a powerful display of our commitment towards concepts of a fair trial and the rule of law, values which we are desperate to impress upon the Islamic world.

I have no doubt that Bin Laden’s death was necessary to subdue him and that attempts to take him alive would have endangered the lives of the Navy Seals involved. However, this still represents a missed opportunity.

His death at the hands of US soldiers, with a gun in his hand whilst defending his home, stinks of martyrdom and I have no doubt it will be used by enemies of the West for propaganda purposes. Hysterical media reactions to Bin Laden’s death have not helped the matter and I have no doubt that claims that Bin Laden used his wife as a human shield will be widely contested. These reactions will portray the western media as triumphalists celebrating the death of their enemies.

I have never considered this to be a feature of our society. Rather it could be argued that it is characteristic of the response al-Qaeda would have to the death of Barack Obama or David Cameron.

I  believe that we should be saddened that such a death was necessary to subdue Bin Laden especially as he died without acknowledging the evil of his actions. Such repentance was probably impossible but it still saddens me that he was not made to confront the evil he had committed in an open court and been called upon to repent before he met his maker. That would have been the best form of justice which this world could provide.

I believe our response to this event should be quiet contemplation. A man guilty of great evils is dead and the world is perhaps a safer place. But what he represents is still large and dangerous. We are not yet safe and this death makes us no safer. We must also realise that when fighting this fight we must guard the values that make us better than men like Bin Laden and which are the cause of their hatred of us.  These values are concepts like justice carried out by the court and not by the soldier and should we lose these values in our efforts to protect them our victory will be hollow and fruitless.

BY MARK STEVENSON

At least, we can assume that this day is special with the onslaught of advertising that we face. Teddy bears, boxes of chocolate, weekends away at spas and discount hotel rooms are just some of the amazing gifts that we can treat our partners to at this time of year.

The day is clearly full of sentimentalism and general exuberance. The typical Valentine’s Day card is jam packed with overindulgent and unimaginative rhyming poetry, has a sad looking animal on the front, usually comes addressed to a pet name and to finish, contains a paragraph with the letters, “xo” exclusively.

Most of us including myself have overindulged like this on this day, but that doesn’t seem to make it any more acceptable. Love is a truly beautiful thing and to feel that you must express it to your loved ones by buying them a fluffy toy, or hiring out a budget hotel room seems to more corny than caring. Love should be shared from day to day, rather than being poured out on a special date. Interestingly, virtually nothing is known about Saint Valentine.

Admittedly if I was currently in a relationship, I would also be spouting sentimental things. But if you are celebrating the day on 14 February, by writing bad poetry and going out for a reasonably priced meal at a restaurant, remember to spare a thought for what really matters.

BY MATTHEW MISKIMMIN

One might expect it to be a powerful satire, drawing attention to the cynical, throwaway nature of television programming both here and across the pond, but instead it most closely resembles My Family, with centre-stage given to Mangan and Grieg’s frankly boring domestic squabbles. At least My Family boasts a set of weird children with the potential to make things a bit more interesting. LeBlanc is as professional as ever, but understandably struggles with a bland, predictable script. Finally, Episodes is hamstrung by the fact that the fictional hit sitcom Lyman’s Boys appears to be absolutely awful, so the fundamental premise that LeBlanc’s unsuitability has ruined this otherwise superb show falls rather flat.

Less complex and perhaps more enjoyable is BBC1’s Not Going Out. In contrast to Episodes this sitcom is so preoccupied with providing a constant flow of one-liners that it doesn’t even really have a premise. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. The plot, in so far as one exists, sees ice-cream salesman Lee (stand-up comedian and panel show regular Lee Mack) live in a flat with a woman, who is the sister of Lee’s best friend Tim (stand-up comedian and panel show regular Tim Vine). This unpromising scenario acts as a platform for Mack to deliver a dizzying array of puns and gags, of which some work and some don’t. It really is as simple as that. This week’s episode saw a confused, elderly woman arrive at the flat, unaware of her surroundings. Lee must have been delighted, as this allowed him to unleash a series of amusing one-liners about ageing and the elderly. In a post-Office comedy landscape dominated by subtle observation and social realism, Not Going Out should appear simplistic and dated, but by playing to its strengths it actually feels unusually fresh.

Elsewhere, E4’s flagship teen drama Skins recently returned to our screens. The great stand-up comic Stewart Lee observed that “Channel 4 is like a flurry of sewage that comes into your house unbidden, whereas E4 is like you’ve constructed a sluice to let it in” and rarely has this statement seemed more appropriate. The fifth series introduces us to an all-new set of loveable Bristol teenagers, with the opening episode focusing upon androgynous misfit Franky, a new arrival in the city. Next we were introduced to heavy metal aficionado Rich and his best mate Alo, who appears to live in a van. We also meet the socially dominant and image-conscious Mini McGuinness, although we don’t learn whether she is related to our Deputy First Minister. The show’s writers appear to have moved away from portraying the lives of ultra-cool, hard-partying youngsters, instead focusing upon the unusual and the insecure. Both episodes so far have seen their key characters reject mainstream acceptability in favour of their own interests and convictions. This is all very admirable, and most probably creates a more realistic picture of sixth-form life, but it will disappoint those of us who see Skins as basically an edgier, late-night version of Hollyoaks.

BY DANIEL GILLEN

What this meant was that working class students in Liverpool, perhaps with only £10 available for a night out after rent and food costs,  could go out with their friends and drink enough to have as much fun as anybody else. However, such a freedom for poor students and residents alike is rarely available to those living in Belfast and this is due to the very strict licensing laws which are in place. Unlike the situation in Britain, if you want to obtain a licence to sell alcohol in Belfast you must first buy one from somebody else. This means that there is a rather limited supply of venues relative to the demand for a city such as Belfast. Naturally this situation results in higher alcohol prices both in bars and off-licences.

For me this situation is an abhorrent attempt for hypocritical moralisers to impose their ‘values’ on those who don’t have the resources to afford price increases. The culprits for this come from both sides of the divide. It’s only natural that the ‘God-fearing’ representatives at Stormont would seek to impose such restrictions. Religions have always tried to repress the natural desires people harbour, both of the flesh and the bottle.

Now, however, even the SDLP are seeking to push for a further attack on the drinking classes in an effort to create a ‘minimum-price’ for alcohol, both within bars and off-licences. Social Development minister Mr Attwood said that “We will go further, I hope, than London… we will set the threshold of minimum pricing at a higher level to be a further incentive to people not to bulk buy alcohol”. He was joined in support for this measure by none other than the Chief Executive of Pubs of Ulster, Colin Neil: “We have long lobbied, as the lead in this ourselves, for a minimum price.” Clearly Mr Neil is excited at the opportunity this will provide for increased profits in his industry.

The effects of such a move would be immediate and shocking. Already students are forced to buy numerous cans of larger or litres of cider before they head out because the alternative is just too expensive. If Mr Attwood had his way this would no longer be an option. Further than this, arriving at a bar or club, gone would be the ‘selected drinks for £1.50’ or ‘6 shots for £6’ and we’d likely be paying £3 something for every drink.

Whether you go out once a week, or every day, this would have a dramatic effect on any student who likes to go out and enjoy their legal right to get drunk. More insulting, these measures would only ever have any impact on the poorest of society and will have absolutely no effect on those in Belfast (such as MLAs) who can afford to spend their nights out in the cocktail bars paying £10 a drink.

These attempts are something that must be severely resisted. It is more than an attack on bars or alcoholics. It is a direct attack on liberty itself. Those in power seem to think they have a right to legislate restrictions onto others who are doing nothing more than engaging in an activity which is their legal right to pursue. Vote them out.

BY SARAH MULVENNA

I am what you would call a classic worrier. My parents find this incredulous: “You’re 21, what could you possibly have to worry about?” Lots of things actually, here’s my top five:  the recession; not getting a job, getting a job but it’s a badly paid one; not getting a good degree classification due to work commitments while at university; getting a good degree classification but it meaning nothing because everyone has a degree; and, of course, the worry of spontaneously combusting due to global warming.

Someone has actually written a book about this including some weighty evidence (statistics and such) to show that if you were born after 1979 these are the problems, along with others, that you will face. Since leaving the cosy bubble of secondary level education, I feel that my striving towards a lifestyle like that of my parents has been pretty futile. The morning of my A-level results was pretty bittersweet; yes, I got what I wanted but along with that life-changing envelope on the kitchen table was a newspaper stating that everyone had achieved better marks than ever before. Good news surely, aren’t we all getting smarter? Au contraire. Exams are becoming easier; the A-levels I achieved were not as difficult as that of my parents. Since that moment on there has been a steady stream of bad news – too many people at university, worthless degrees, the recession, the debt we’re inheriting. You can kiss goodbye to ever affording your own home.

It’s true, we have been left jilted by previous generations, and we continue to be let down by the government. Understandably we are angry. I am angry for friends with first class degrees working in call centers; angry at the suggestion of even higher tuition fees for my younger brother. I am angry at older generations who class recycling as too complicated. Three different kinds of rubbish bin is not complicated; complicated is running out of resources altogether. Most of all, I get angry at the thought of paying for someone else’s mistakes.

Deep breath, exhale, rant over. In the grand scheme of things we are all very lucky, but it can be difficult to stay reasonable when today the outlook seems so bleak.

BY MATTHEW MISKIMMIN

The task itself involved designing and marketing a new household cleaning product. Alex, who “isn’t just another corporate clone”, took charge of Apollo, while ex-sniper Christopher led Synergy. The former struggled to come up with a name, wisely rejecting ‘Blitz’ because “That was a big bombing thing wasn’t it?” before settling on ‘The Germinator’. Both teams canvassed opinion at a mothers and toddlers group, apparently borrowing their assumptions about who might use a household cleaning product from the 1950s. Synergy went with ‘Octi-clean’ on the basis that housework would be made easier if you had eight arms, like an octopus.

Meanwhile, Alex assured his comrades that it would be “perfectly fine” for their TV advert to star a ten-year old boy. No problem with that, except the product was strictly to be kept out of the reach of children. Even worse was the radio commercial, which assigned voices to different unpleasant bacteria. It was agreed that “influenza is definitely cockney”, while e.coli sounded like Joe Pasquale. Also unsettling was their assumption that the average kitchen has bits of e.coli lying around everywhere. Both teams of course failed miserably, although ‘The Germinator’ did so the most. Alex was inevitably fired, but not before five minutes spent screaming in a vain attempt to save himself. As his taxi sped away, he remained bullish, stating that Sugar had made “a bad mistake” and that he “didn’t need him” anyway. No doubt Sir Alan is kicking himself.

This week also saw the return of BBC3 sitcom How Not to Live Your Life for a third series. Perhaps because the lead character, Don, is exactly the same as Jeremy from Peep Show, this is yet to hit the mainstream. Don lives with an elderly woman who says things like “I just did some toilet but it won’t flush away,” and his housekeeper, Eddie, who is a bit like a more pleasant Mark Corrigan. This week’s episode also featured a cameo from Noel Fielding of The Mighty Boosh as intense businessman Marcus Blade. Just as some bands are tolerable because they sound a bit like The Smiths, this is enjoyable while we wait for another series of Peep Show.

On Wednesday Channel 4 screened another episode of Animal Madhouse, which is essentially a cross between Animal Hospital and Embarrassing Bodies. Featured was a dog “with a bumpy head”, a stallion with a missing testicle, and Donald, a duck who couldn’t stop sexually assaulting chickens. His owner sagely noted that “if he was a human he’d be serving life”. Luckily, Donald was implanted with a contraceptive device, allowing the chickens of Warwickshire to sleep soundly in their beds once again. Naturally this was engrossing stuff. I will certainly be tuning in next week.

BY SEAN ASHFORD

This is obviously a fable, but it must be looked at as having double significance today. Politicians seem to have lost the ability to take a moral approach to decision making, and the result has been a series of broken promises, lies and scandal.

Before the election, every Liberal Democrat candidate signed a pledge promising to oppose tuition fee increases and to fight for the right of every student. It cannot be a case of political reinterpretation. Nick Clegg himself said “Our message to students is clear: we remain the only party that believes fees are unfair, and the only party with a plan to get rid of them for good; we’ve developed a plan to phase out tuition fees over the course of the next six years, to ensure this vital policy is affordable even at this time of economic crisis.”

It now seems that a cornerstone of Lib Dem policy has been abandoned, cast aside due to the allure of power. But the question I ask is not whether this is right or not, I ask what standards should we hold our politicians to? Do we expect too much, or indeed too little of them?

It appears now to be an acceptable thing for politicians to behave in an unjust and immoral manner. Thinking back to the expenses scandal, so many politicians were involved in abusing the position of power that we the people had granted to them. Whilst there was public outcry, this was only due to the clear abuse of money. Money, it seems, is the only thing that can motivate us enough to take a stand against the failings of politicians. The mutilation of public services, of education, justice and other areas appears to be so much less of an issue because it involves the abuse of integrity, not money.

This is not a modern problem. It affects all countries and it has done for many years now. In America, from Watergate to Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” speech, and even closer to home with Gerry Adams’ declaration that “The day the IRA gives up its weapons is the day I resign from politics”, politicians find it acceptable to misrepresent and distort for the purpose of garnering support from the duped masses.

Perhaps we need not look at the politicians who are acting dishonestly but instead create a new ethos in our society, one which will not sit back and accept the deceit but instead hold politicians to account. Whether or not a constitutional overhaul is required, I am unsure. We cannot, however, let this situation become even worse. It will only breed voter apathy which is a much greater danger altogether.

The foundation of every state is the education of its youth. This  self evident truth expressed by the Greek philosopher Diogenes Laertius seems to have been forgotten by those who govern twenty-first century Britain. The recently released Browne report proposes huge increases in student fees, signaling a massive step back for education.

BY DIMITVIOS ASVESTAS

Under the proposed measures public school students who are already hugely overrepresented in universities will take over. University places will not be filled by the brightest and the best but by those that can afford to pay for an educational advantage.

In my mind this constitutes a blatant act of social engineering aimed at benefiting the few and to thus maintain Britain’s social rigidity which is unparalleled in Europe. The positive steps taken over the last 30 years are vulnerable to one full swoop which would bring social mobility in Britain to a standstill. Previous Governments stressed the importance of there being a higher number of school leavers attending university; this is aimed at benefiting the country not just the individual, and therefore it is the country which should pay for it. Instead the Government is forcing students to choose between life long debts or accepting their place in society – a choice which has no place in a progressive Western society.

Of course, one cannot deny that the economic downturn has changed everything, however it should not result in regressive proposals which threaten to drag Britain backwards. If anything, students should be encouraged to attend university, and through better education we can hope to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

It is time to reject the classism that has defined Britain for generations and aim for a more equal and fairer society. The days of grand revolutions are gone. These days the only way to achieve meaningful social change is through education. After all, in any society, next in importance to freedom and justice is popular education, without which neither freedom nor justice can be permanently maintained.

BY MATTHEW MISKIMMIN

Worryingly however, nothing struck me as idiotic enough to merit realistic comparison with vomit, bile or phlegm. What struck me was Friday night BBC2 staple Later with Jools Holland. I was oddly transfixed by what I saw. I enjoyed the jaunty opening credits, which saw our host rushing across London to get to the show on time. Fortunately he made it, but I hope he allows more time to travel next week.

He then spoke with his face dangerously close to the camera; something which has become a Holland trademark. Sir Paul McCartney opened the show, dressed as himself circa 1963.

McCartney played tracks from well-known novelty album Band on the Run by Wings, “The band The Beatles could have been,” according to Alan Partridge. Neil Diamond also featured, but accidentally forgot to play ‘Sweet Caroline’. Next, Alice Cooper turned up, seemingly for no reason other than the occasion being Halloween. The studio audience looked on, enjoying modestly-sized bottles of what appeared to be officially branded Later with Jools Holland lager.

Saturday saw the much-loved Armstrong and Miller Show return for a third series on BBC1. As with Later, the show went downhill after an excellent opening sequence, in which the comedy duo perform an amusingly choreographed dance routine. This was helpful, reminding me that I wasn’t watching Harry and Paul. Unfortunately, many regular characters such as the wartime RAF pilots communicating via ‘street’ language showed that one joke can only go so far. For some reason, the sketches which featured affluent, middle-aged male characters tended to work best. I have no idea why this might be the case.

This week everyone has been talking about Channel 4’s Million Pound Drop Live. The format for this quiz show is that contestants start with a sum of £1 million, but lose money for each incorrect answer they give. Host Davina McCall ominously warned us that “Tonight, anything can happen” while contestants Matt and Kelly said their game plan would be to think about the answers. The pair had recently become engaged, and hoped that a win would pay for their big day. Sadly they went away with nothing, at which point Davina decided that it would be appropriate to shout “Have a great wedding” at the top of her voice.

Next up, bizarrely, was actor Larry Lamb, best known as ex-Eastenders rapist and murderer Archie Mitchell. He and his son George, who I had hoped would be called Larry Lamb Jr, announced they would be playing for charity. Davina created tension by unexpectedly announcing a commercial break before revealing the answer to a question. The joke was on her though because I didn’t really care what the answer was and promptly switched off.

BY SEAN ASHFORD

Firstly, we must consider that the political climate which exists today is very different to that which previous incarnations of the Conservative Party have faced. Strong bonds to political parties are in decline not just in the UK and Ireland but across the western world. In 1964, 40% of people in the UK identified very strongly with a particular party, whereas today this figure has crashed to less than 10%. Modern issues do not simply align themselves along the traditional right-left divide, with issues such as immigration, the environment and Europe becoming ever more prevalent in modern political discourse.

However the reaction to and the embracing of these contemporary issues may at first glance appear to represent a new form of conservatism, but it is in the traditional conservative ideals of national defence and law where we must look to see if the change really has permeated the core principles of the party.

In the recent spending review national defence and the police force were just as susceptible to cuts as any other governmental department. With large numbers of police being reduced, as well as mass job losses at the MoD, my own immediate reaction was one of shock. How could the conservatives cut what has for been many years been revered as a sacred cow?

Contrasting what has happened with defence to areas of the public sector, it becomes apparent that conservative ideals still dominate even their most well concealed attempts at pragmatic economic reform. The cuts being made in the defence budget, whilst appearing dramatic, are actually more easily managed than perhaps any other department. During the Labour years, far too many defence contracts were allocated not on what would be the best value for money but for what would be most beneficial for Labour politically. Most obviously, the two aircraft carriers which cannot be scrapped as it would cost too much are both scheduled to be built in an under-privileged industrial area of Gordon Brown’s own constituency at greater cost than is necessary.

I am no supporter of the Conservative Party, but a pragmatic approach to contract allocation has to be seen as being a positive step, but not necessarily a reformist one. It would be more accurate to describe such acts as being pragmatic, which again harks back to my opening point that the Conservatives are an anti-ideology party. Of course there remains the issue of what exactly the aircraft carriers will do as they will not have any aircraft now that the harrier is being retired. Seemingly the only planes they will have are of the paper variety, made out of half a million public sector workers P-45’s.

According to analyst Anthony Quinton, at the core of all conservative values is the idea that societal problems are not amenable to “improvement” by the application of social and political theories. To put it another way, to put faith into what you cannot foresee is not a pragmatic solution to a problem. Rather they would retain faith in the institutions already in place, adapting the pre-existing mechanisms of the state to cope with the problems which arise over time. Surely therefore it is unreasonable to say that Cameron is a new type of Tory politician. The spending review, whilst radical in scale, is in essence the embodiment of Conservative policy.

The maintenance of a small state which places the onus on individual responsibility is no more radical than a situation in which the Labour Party came out in support of the trade unions. The problem with this is that the Tories have always been seen as ‘the nasty party’, and these cuts will do nothing to help people forget this moniker. When you hear Ian Duncan Smith telling the jobless to “get on the bus” and find work, reflecting very closely Norman Tebbit’s “on your bike” remarks of 1981, you can’t help but wonder whether the Conservatives really have changed, and only time will tell as the coalition struggles to find a stable plan for the future following the spending review.

BY BASIL BABU

While acknowledging that this tolerance to opposing values has enabled humankind to progress further in their quest for betterment, it is important to point out that we also live in a world where Gregory House struts the stage while forgetting that raising one’s voice over 30 decibels in front of a patient can award a doctor with a claim of millions of pounds.

My decision to write this topic came about after hearing a professor ask his 90 or so undergraduates 3 simple questions: “How many here believe in global warming? How many do not believe in global warming? How many believe in global warming as an effect caused by human exploitation of fossil fuels?”

Each was answered in equal measure: a sea of hands too dispersed in the room to count them. Even though I did not expect the undergraduates to be partisans, I was shocked by this revelation. I was quietly confident that at least the science enthusiasts (at least a majority) truly put their faith in the men and women in lab coats throughout the world – and all this over some seemingly incriminating emails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA)?

The term ‘seemingly incriminating’ is important because very few seemed to be interested in the details. For example, few know that the emails in question dealt exclusively with paleo-climate data. For those who are alien to the term and its implications, let me make it clear. Paleo-climatology is the study of past climatic patterns. If we can assume the climatic patterns are cyclic and predictable (roughly speaking they are, save the input of few factors, oh say, human intervention), we can extrapolate the data available to us using computer models to understand the climate patterns at the time of dinosaurs. Awesome, right?

It can be hardly surprising that certain phrases such as ‘hide’ and ‘trick’ seem to offend the critics. Data are extrapolated, if they agree with other evidence, they are supportive of hypothesis, if not discarded for better theories. This is how the paleo-climate science works and it has produced, and is still managing to produce, startling breakthroughs in our knowledge of past global warming periods.

Global warming is very real and its relationship with human actions is becoming more so because, contrary to what many critics seem to think, the evidence concerning global warming and climate change did not emanate from UEA alone. The evidence concerning these effects are collated worldwide from almost all sub disciplines of science, and analysed and validated by scientists who have a hungry appetite for accuracy and reliability. It borders on obsession.

So, imagine the infuriation felt by a climate scientist who has to face mental pressure from a sceptical critic who doesn’t really know the basics of science he or she is tackling. Let there be no doubt. I am not sceptical of critics. Like any academic faculty, science places great importance on criticism. It pressurises the community into refining and sometimes redefining their techniques and knowledge. Scientists also love a healthy banter but their only regret is that few in the critic circle know what they are doing, and nowadays hardly any valued critic dismisses the occurrence of global warming and its relationship with human activities. Critics like Bjorn Lomborg, the world-renown statistician, provided statistical evidence which concluded that cutting the carbon footprint will be too expensive in the modern world. (As if we didn’t know that already. That’s what we are trying to solve, Bjorn.) In the meantime, I encourage all who are engaged in these matters to start differentiating ‘doubting’ from ‘questioning’.

BY MARK STEVENSON

It is wise to note that within a deeply divided society such as Northern Ireland, integration is central to the concept of peace, and dividing children into tribal camps is not useful to the current process of reconciliation. It introduces the idea of “us” and “them”, Protestants and Catholics. This is surely against the concept of community spirit. Children should grow up meeting a wide variety of friends and companions. Sadly, the current segregated education system can prevent this from happening.

It is absurd to label a child as being ‘a Protestant child’ or ‘a Catholic child’. Rather, they are ‘children with Protestant or Catholic parents’. State schools are seen as being Protestant schools, in contrast to clearly defined Catholic schools. Most, if not all, small children have no idea of their theological view, and are oblivious to some key religious terms. Religious schools in Northern Ireland are dehumanising to children. Rather than being seen for who they are, most children are labelled as either Protestant or Catholic.

Some have argued that segregated education in Northern Ireland promotes a strong moral ethos and foundation. This, however, follows the disputed presumption that religion is a strong source of morality. Even if this was true, most children do not graduate from these segregated schools as highly pious individuals. This being said, if children were educated together there lies a greater possibility for young people to all follow a helpful shared ethos, contributing to a strong sense of community.

Peter Robinson’s comments were perhaps surprising in stating that he does not object to religious or segregated schools per say, but holds reservations as far as funding is concerned. I would go further and argue that children should be educated together. Some people may say that it is a matter of free choice, but is it really? It is less the choice of the children who are generally apathetic to religion and much more the choice of their parents and the churches who impose or even demand these choices.

BY RYAN SIMPSON

Many already knew the IFA’s case was likely doomed to failure given FIFA’s very firm stance on the situation. However officials within the association saw it as an absolutely necessary step to take in order to protect the future of the national game in Northern Ireland. Many may look on the situation and think that the IFA are simply denying a player’s right to represent the Republic of Ireland under the current laws of the Good Friday Agreement. However, this is a dispute that runs much deeper than this and has indeed developed into a very complex dilemma.

The Good Friday Agreement allows citizens living within Northern Ireland who consider themselves ‘Irish’ to apply for a southern passport. Many young footballers living in the North have exploited this law to its full potential; however the IFA would argue that this directly contravenes FIFA’s own laws which stipulate player eligibility. FIFA states that to represent a footballing association, you must satisfy one of the following requirements:

-          You were born on the territory of the relevant association;

-          Your biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant association;

-          Your grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant association;

-          You have lived continuously on the territory of the relevant association for two years.

In the case of Daniel Kearns and more notably Darron Gibson (now playing for the Republic), neither of them satisfy any of the FIFA requirements to represent another association other than Northern Ireland. Still, this argument runs even deeper. The Irish FA has successfully run its ‘Football for all’ campaign for several years now, encouraging people of all religious and political backgrounds to become involved in football at international and grassroots level. They have also invested a sizeable amount of money in the development of young players in Northern Ireland only to see scouts from the Republic regularly come to inspect the quality of players the IFA is grooming, and in some cases actively encourage players to switch allegiances.

This situation throws up a major dilemma for the Irish FA as with CAS latest ruling, it means they no longer have any authority to stop a player from changing sides. Indeed, the IFA would argue that this puts them at a direct disadvantage to any other European footballing nation and damages their chances of continuing to challenge on the international stage. At the very least it appears that the IFA should be entitled to some form of compensation when a player decides to defect after having been developed by IFA coaches. Inevitably, many people will question the validity of an international team that isn’t the sole representative of players from this country.

The power of football to bring people together in this country should never be under-estimated, but CAS’s decision is no doubt a setback for the IFA in its bid to create a ‘team for all’. As for player eligibility, it’s an issue that supporters and fans alike will have to continue to agree to disagree on for quite some time.

BY BEN FINCH
In the Ardoyne area, a policewoman was injured when a block of masonry was thrown from the roof of a shop onto her head. Three officers were shot in the area and petrol and blast bombs were thrown at police. Over eighty officers were injured in the riots and millions of pounds worth of damage done to buildings in the community.

Father Gary Donegan of Holy Cross Church on the Crumlin Road has described the violence as “recreational rioting” and likened it to a theme park due to the age of many involved. It has been claimed that there were some rioters as young as eight years old involved in the disturbances.

So far, most attention has focused on the violence and consequences of the trouble. Very little has been paid to the underlying cause. If at all, it has been decried as dissident republicans hoping to scupper the peace process. Without making excuses for any of those taking part in the riots, if the Orange Order had been told they were not to pass through such areas as the Ardoyne by the Parades Commission, chances are that the high level of violence witnessed would not have happened. For years Orange parades have caused widespread rioting by both sides of the community, often in areas not directly affected by the marching. In any other part of the UK marches such as this would be treated as incitement to religious violence.

Plenty of comments made by students, over Facebook or otherwise, have been made along the lines of “If rioters want to throw petrol bombs and fire a few rounds of a shotgun at the police then the police should be allowed to fire a few rounds or a few petrol bombs back. See if they like it…Get off the streets, stop sponging off the government you don’t even recognise and get a job”. Again, this simply focuses on the effects, ignoring the current difficulty of finding and maintaining work, especially for those brought up in under-privileged areas, where young people are less likely to engage in education, thus seriously reducing their chances of gaining qualifications. A lack of engagement with education does not reflect a lack of desire to work. Also, similar comments do not take into consideration the fact that similar acts of violence and the blatant entrenchment of views were among the major reasons why Northern Ireland needed a peace process in the first place.

Comments such as these may represent a large part of the unionist community in Northern Ireland, but not everyone feels the same way. I have been speaking to students who have said that if the protests were peaceful then they’d join them, and others who have called for the outright banning of the Orange Order. These people did not want to be named. This is the crux of the matter. While the violence may be organised by dissident republicans taking advantage of ill-informed youths, the opportunity was handed to them by the Orange Order marching through areas where, as they very well know, they are not at all welcome.

Trouble also occurred in other areas during the twelfth; cars were set alight in Armagh, in Lurgan the Dublin-bound Enterprise suffered an attempted hijack and police officers were attacked in the Bogside area of Derry. All such incidents occurred in specific areas where parades did not take place. Such acts of violence can only be tenuously linked to the marches and should be condemned as Orange Lodges in these areas respectfully diverted their parades away from hostile areas. This approach needs to be followed in the few places where twelfth celebrations are still contentious.

It is constantly hammered into those studying medicine to treat the underlying cause of an illness rather than the symptoms, otherwise the treatment has no effect. Civil disobedience and uncivil disruption happens for a reason, not for the sake of it. Now that the disturbances have ended and a relatively stable situation has at last developed in the Ardoyne area, rather than concentrating solely on the violence, the cause of the riots needs to be examined and dealt with by both sides.

BY LORCAN MULLEN

For a public assembly of 50 or more people, (a number which, according to the bill, can be adjusted on the joint whim of the First and Deputy First Ministers) the authorities must be notified (37 days in advance for a ‘procession’, 22 days for a ‘protest meeting’), organisers must be cited and those breaching the terms of the bill would be subject to arrest without warrant.

Protests are, by their nature spontaneous – they often take place in reaction to sudden, shocking or unifying public events. There can be no doubt that this new oppressive administrative framework will drastically reduce the number of protest rallies held in the North (hardly that many) for no discernible public gain.

The planned spectacle of police Land Rovers circling passionate, if only loosely planned protests is objectionable. A police commander counting to 50 under his breath from his vantage point, and sending his constables wading into a peaceful throng to make scores of arrests, all for the sake of insufficient paperwork, is a chilling, looming travesty.

Under the Human Rights Act 1998, all decisions of UK public authorities are subject to the terms and case law of the European Convention on Human Rights – laws and decisions of politicians and office-holders can be quashed if they are incompatible with the precepts of the Convention.

The Convention holds that:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others…no restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society…”

Does the Public Assemblies Bill feel compatible to you? Anyone would imagine human rights law would have been contemplated at the drafting stage.

The question is, were the DUP and Sinn Fein bigwigs involved too customarily thick to consider the human rights implications of their actions, or did they simply not care?

Neither party has any credible legacy of valuing human rights: the hang ‘em all, knee-jerk authoritarianism of the DUP is now working in tandem with the barely-fathomable moral ambiguities of Gerry Adams’s post-ceasefire Sinn Fein. One grew out of waging a devastating war on the state, the other gathered strength as a vehicle for bleak and pitiless whataboutery. It would be madness to trust either with the sane handling of our civil liberties – they had better just keep their grubby fingers off them.

From the student perspective, this bill is potentially disastrous. Direct protesting and picketing have largely died off in recent times; the vast majority of students gladly embrace their ignorant, consumerist, drink-addled cliché-ride though university life, curiously proud in surrendering their lives to the decisions of others.

However fundamental, unacceptable changes to the education system are on the horizon for this year: the noxious cocktail of savage Con-Lib cuts (a 25% cut in the further and higher education budget come October) and default Stormont fecklessness will have a noticeable impact on university life: the cap on fees is likely to be lifted without significant protest and dissent from students.

I would hope at some point in the coming year, for these reasons, we student leaders could summon more than a meagre 50 people in one outside area, registering a righteous fury at such measures. I would hope the state would allow those student leaders to mount a peaceful, public protest under laws happily adhered to in the vast majority of fellow-European states. I would deem a state that doesn’t do this dictatorial.

Wouldn’t you?

(Lorcan Mullen is the new Deputy President of the NUS-USI)

BY SEAMUS J. MULHOLLAND

The document proposes that, in the absence of permission sought from and granted by a new statutory agency entitled the Office of Public Assemblies, Parades and Protests (OPAPP), events comprising fifty plus people, will be illegally constituted. Now, a person who wishes to organise an event, must give thirty-seven days’ notice prior to the date on which it is to take place, and then submit to the decision-making powers of the OPAPP regarding whether or not it has the go-ahead.

Peter Robinson MLA and Martin McGuiness MLA are also seeking to supply the OPAPP with an impressive arsenal of legal weaponry to ensure compliance. The primary deterrent will be judicially-issued Prohibition Orders. Moreover, in the face of defiance, “A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant a person whom [they] reasonably suspect has committed an offence under the Act.”

The arrestee will then find themselves in front of a Magistrate facing, upon summary conviction, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months and/or a fine not exceeding £5,000.

Local civil liberties groups have condemned the Bill as an attack on rights granted by the European Convention of Human Rights, including freedom of expression and the right to peaceable assembly.

The Belfast Telegraph alleges “The Parades Bill takes a detour from simple common sense”. On the contrary, at sixty-seven pages, I find it provides a rationally thought-through statutory basis on which to make difficult decisions regarding public assemblies. Such events, especially in Northern Ireland, cannot be left to some vague notion of “common sense”. The law, as it will be, sets out the process for dialogue where issues arise surrounding a given public assembly. The cost may well be a thirty-seven day delay, but if this protects the fundamental human rights to peaceful lives, whilst ultimately appeasing our qualified rights of assembly and expression, then this is a cost worth paying. Furthermore, it is important to note that it also provides for fast-tracked applications within seventy-two hours where expediency is required in exceptional circumstances.

Student representatives have noted that the Public Assemblies Bill could represent a curb on academic activism. For the aforementioned reasons, and those which will become apparent in the following prose, I find this small apocalyptic warning wholly unfounded.

In fact the Act also makes many further meritorious and progressive initiatives. For instance it provides that organisers of events must “Take account of the local context and, in particular, of any sensitive locations near proposed assemblies, including locations associated with past conflict or previous public disorder”.

Most reasoned minds will recognise the appeal of incorporating this provision. It would be unfair, for example, to allow people to gather in large numbers in residential areas where they are not wanted.

Moreover the Bill goes some way to protecting the freedoms of minority interest groups. Whilst democracy is a fundamental underpinning of our constitution, it is also desirable to avoid situations of ochlocracy – that is majoritarianism – where the person who shouts or protests loudest wins.  It will be an offence “To prevent or disrupt a lawful assembly” or “to harass persons who are taking part in, or endeavouring to take part in, a lawful public assembly.” Punishments for these offences are every bit as prohibitive as those designed to inhibit participation in illegal gatherings – they are the same .This function of the legislation allows all voices, both booming and timid, to be heard.

It is also important to take note that times have changed too. Just as the majority of Northern Irish citizens have demonstrated their preference for political dialogue, as opposed to the physical demonstrations of the past in making progressive strides forward, in reaching comprises in relation to our owned troubled history, can the physicality of demonstrations relating to contemporary issues not be subsumed and distributed by modern mediums? For instance many of my peers in academia will appreciate that media-driven storms can be just as effective as more primitive demonstrations. Take for example last year’s Facebook campaign to support Rage Against the Machine in attaining pole position in the Christmas popular music chart. Did this involve picketing the home of Simon Cowell or HMV stores? No. Power to the People has taken on a new, more civilised form.

Furthermore, in debating the efficacy of the Public Assemblies Bill one must remember that politicians do not sit on-high making law at a whim, after the fashion of an omnipotent monarch. They serve a societal function; they are accountable to their electorate. Recent and recurrent demonstrations, such as the G8 summit in London last summer and, more locally, the annual Orange Order marches at Drumcree, have revealed the need for legislation to regulate public assemblies and processions. The purpose of the regulations from a political perspective are not to stifle freedom of assembly and expression, it simply is to facilitate the need for the State to be organised in its accommodation of mass activities.

So what’s the verdict on the Public Assemblies Bill? Is it an impingement on genuine democratic freedoms or a justified leveller to give all parties their opportunity in the public arena, with the added benefit of allowing the State to maintain public order and security? Having faith in legal process, my mind firmly favours the latter proposition.

BY CATHERINE WYLIE

The truth should cost nothing, and the Saville Report made the truth publicly and globally official; that the victims of Bloody Sunday were all innocent men, killed unjustifiably and without justification by the State. Critics of the report’s lengthy duration and cost, 12 years and £195 million, should remember why it was absolutely essential that this inquiry be carried out. Saying that they are thinking of the other victims and families of the Troubles who haven’t got a fraction of the attention Bloody Sunday has, critics need to remember the most important factor in this whole affair, and that is that the victims of Bloody Sunday were murdered by Government representatives. They were killed by the State.

The report, due to its fantastic conclusion, is worth every single penny spent by the British Government, as its length and cost is ultimately their fault and that fault needed corrected. Due to Widgery’s lies, I understand why the Saville report was an absolute necessity and why perhaps the Ballymurphy killings have been overlooked in terms of launching an inquiry. There cannot be inquiries like Saville into paramilitary killings as there are too many atrocities on both sides. However, that is not to say that people of this viewpoint value the lives of the victims any less, but it has to be accepted that those killings are different and do not warrant the same sort of inquiry. Michael Mansfield QC has stated repeatedly (even David Cameron has highlighted this), that critics of the Saville Inquiry must accept that when a government’s forces kill innocent civillians there simply has be an inquiry. How can any government, anywhere in the world, expect its people to adhere to law and order, and respect its governance if such disgusting wrongdoings are committed, and then covered up with lies in a report afterwards?

This is the point that critics are missing. Regardless of where one’s political views lie, anyone with any sort of belief in justice, truth and legality, should accept the Saville Report with joy, and that joy should be for not only the exonerated victims and their families, but for the victory over a government trying to cover up the dirty wrongs committed by their military representatives on a day that arguably kicked off The Troubles proper. There is no hierarchy of victims, and to suggest there is insinuates that supporters of the Saville Inquiry value the lives of those killed on Bloody Sunday more than lives lost in other atrocities. Supporters of the Saville Inquiry see it for the absolute necessity it is and their persistence in obtaining justice and the truth has been rewarded sweetly.

The Saville Report is not “revisionism” as Gregory Campbell said, but is instead a 5000 page long document stating exactly what happened on that fateful day in 1972. Describing it as “revisionism” suggests that Campbell holds Widgery’s report in some regard, and that can only be viewed as pitiful. On BBC Spotlight, on the day the report was made public, journalist and political activist (and previous Gown reporter), Eamonn McCann, called Campbell a “sectarian disgrace”, and a vast majority of people would surely agree with that. His insistent refusal to say anything positive about the report has ousted him as an even bitterer man than he has always been viewed. He has repeatedly asked why the Paratroopers were in Derry that day, suggesting that such aggressive force was needed to contain the Catholic violence. He fails to acknowledge why the Catholics were marching in Derry. He also repeatedly says that we now need to move on and stop looking back. In just under four weeks, Campbell will commemorate an event that took place centuries ago, so it seems that he’s quite choosy in what he wants to move on from. He’s not a fan of anything in which Catholics are the victims.

Another way in which Unionist critics of the Saville Report are making themselves look bad is their focus on the revelation about Martin McGuinness “probably” carrying a sub-machine gun. Out of all that is revealed and cleared up in the report, this is just about the least significant thing in it, and to focus on this whilst at the same time ignoring the great victory for justice, is laughable. McGuinness admitted his involvement with the IRA some years ago now. We all know he was a member. He is denying the report’s suggestion that he probably had a machine gun on him by asking how one could possibly hide a sub-machine gun. He has publicly admitted that he was second in command of the local Derry IRA at the time of Bloody Sunday, so the notion of him “probably” having a gun is hardly groundbreaking news. The IRA was active at that time, so it is not interesting to hear that the second in command “might” have had a gun.

Watching the Widgery Report being torn up was possibly one of the most emotional and euphoric moments of this week. Not to mention the anonymous thumbs up which the anticipating crowd could see at a window at the Guildhall, before erupting with cheers of relief and joy that justice had been done. Or the families of the victims emerging from the Guildhall in a state of euphoria, which had been waiting for over 38 years to be released and enjoyed. Euphoria for the families, truth for the victims, justice for the world.

The 14 men shot dead by British paratroopers in Derry on 20th January 1972: INNOCENT

BY THE HOOD

Sex, drugs and rock’n’roll are simply everywhere on campus. The dark underbelly of QUB and QUBSU life remains unseen to most but thankfully I have my spies and touts. I’m currently residing in the Snack Bar on the 2nd floor before it gets turned into a state of the art events venue that nobody will go to because they’ll all be in the Bot listening to a the 5ive mega mix instead. And if the Union puppeteers (watch those strings don’t choke McGrizzle) don’t get a new Ents Manager sharpish then they won’t have any bands to put in the new venue. What a shambles it all is.

If QUB is the entrepreneurial university of the year then I suggest they send over some lads (…too sexist to say twice?) to sort the Union. Although, they might be running low on entrepreneurial students because they went and dumped that MA which probably won them the entrepreneurial award in the first place. I want to know why the MA was scrapped. Well, apart from the fact that having an MA based on entrepreneurship is quite the contradiction in itself. But then that’s QUB all over isn’t it? A couple of years ago Peter Gregson was quoted in the Irish News saying that he wanted to do all he could to help students. But, then he goes and wastes money on Gentleman’s Club fees (this isn’t mentioned enough), he fails to take a pay cut despite the VC of University of Ulster taking one, and he’s happy to stand by and allow the fees cap to be raised/removed. Queen’s – Probably the only center of education in the world where the student VP Education will ask for help in spelling ‘enrol’.

I wanted to bring to your attention the fact that the highly successful New Venture Creation (NVC) MSc run by the Management School has been cancelled for next academic year (2010-2011).

This is the same MSc New Venture Creation programme that won postgradireland’s Postgraduate course of the year in business just last Thursday. The same MSc which the Management School was ‘supposedly’ delighted to have won an award for, and which an independent panel of industry experts had judged to be outstanding in its class amongst the other high impact programmes.

I was personally interested in applying for this course, so that I could start up a new business in the coming year. I had researched the course (it was an incredible opportunity for enterprising students), talked to current participants (all of whom have praised the support and resources it offers the entrepreneurial Queen’s graduate, particularly in the current economic climate), and had attended a pre-application information session (just two weeks ago). This was my future plan for next year, and would possibly set me up for a future in business.

It was only by chance that I heard the course would not be going ahead -  Through a friend whose friend had telephoned the Management School post-grad office so he could get more information on what details were required for the obligatory application process, which includes a business Feasibility Plan. He was simply told the course had been cancelled. When I found out, I too went into the office wanting to find out if what I heard was true, only to be told the course had been cancelled.

Not only has this resulted in me now not knowing what I do after graduation, I’m sure there are many more students who have no idea this course is not running next year and is no longer an option for them. I personally know of three students (all of which I informed) who are now completely at a loss of what to do with themselves next year, and all of which are annoyed at finding out about the cancellation at such a late stage. Many of these interested students, myself included, have already put a lot of time and effort into preparing our applications.

While I do recognise that acceptance onto the programme was to be only after an evaluation of applicants based upon business ideas and personal attributes, with a decision in July, I have to query the reasoning (of which I am completely uninformed) behind cancelling a programme that has been critically acclaimed, has been of enormous benefit to enterprising graduates, and which ‘had’ funding in place less than two weeks ago.

How can the university allow the cancellation of a course for which funding is available, students are interested, and at a time when many of its graduates are struggling to find jobs?

How can the university drop the country’s most applauded award winning enterprise course, in the areas of business creation and entrepreneurship, at a time when this country’s economy needs graduates with these skills the most?

How can a university that has been awarded the title of ‘Entrepreneurial University of the Year’ 2009, shamelessly cancel its flagship entrepreneur MSc for no apparent reason the following year?

I hope that the Gown might be able to get some response to these questions, because so far I have been unable to get any.

Dismayed & Angry,

James McKevitt

QUB Business Club President, QUB Student & NVC MSc Applicant.

BY LAURA SHEARER

The major complaint is the clunking attempt to mesh together the action genre with good old fashioned slapstick humour.  Supposedly meant to add to the genre, offering viewers a more intensely comic experience, yet it falls short revealing a lack of seamless authenticity.  The ridiculousness of the referenced slapstick does help in emphasising character stereotypes, but these are already pretty inherent in the minds of the viewer and those who haven’t seen the first won’t struggle to work out who stands where. 

Perfectly suited to the role of Ivan Vanko, Mickey Rourke is immediately introduced as the brooding bad guy.  An over the top western ideological presentation of the vodka swilling Russian underground thug that holds a grudge is done justice by Rourke’s lack of dialogue and rough physical presence.  His accent is by-passable and those little evil chuckles really give him a genuinely mysterious edge.  The costumes are one of the elements that have been treated with care, so when Rourke unravels invention after evil invention, it’s thrilling to see how much fun he’s had filming. 

Scarlet Johansson plays the feisty Black Widow come Russian spy with such ease it’s difficult to see how this was anything but a cleverly executed career choice.  She does her usual feminine chic style, roughed up with a mysterious alter-ego superhero personality that is delivered with a high level of professionalism.  Clearly a good casting decision for an injection of sex appeal to the film, but the expected indie quirk so apparent in Johansson’s other film roles is severely lacking. 

Lots of weaponry, cars and boys playing with toys leaves mixed audiences divided on the inclusion of female characters placed so far into the foreground of the narrative.  The typically moral negatives that come with the progression of a corporate company is shown in the egotistical Tony Stark of Stark industries and as much as these aren’t exactly righted, they are challenged by the underdog Ivan Vanko who’s aim is to topple Stark industries.  This is all too typical of the mainstream narrative, and without giving away much of the soppy ending, lessons are expected to be learnt.  The narrative puts a heavy weight on the political implications of the story, with claims to world peace and rivalry between the democratic USA and the almost soviet Russia.  An interesting debate between art and egos is presented in the flimsy conflict dialogues between Stark and Pepper Potts, but this is just another element of the film that makes it gravitate towards the attention waiving run time.  In all, do go see for that extra comic to film fix, but with news of a third film, it’s nothing to get excited about.

BY BEN FINCH

This is because of Cameron’s ill advised statement on the Northern Ireland public sector and how it needs to be reduced. The public sector in Northern Ireland has reduced the effects of the recession here and has kept thousands of people in employment throughout the Troubles. While a reduction in the Civil Service may be necessary, it should be slow, controlled and not affect frontline services. It should also be met with an increased investment in the local economy, rather than trying to lure big business from overseas. However the vampiric George Osborne has been preparing for “Slash and Burn” all over the UK and it is very worrying that Northern Ireland is top of the hitlist.

In the regions of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales there has been a clear rejection of Conservatism. Only 8 Tory MPs, out of 117, were elected from these areas, seven from Wales and one from Scotland, with 9 Lib Dems in total from the regions, if Naomi Long is ignored. This means that Northern Ireland is essentially being ruled by England, by a government that the electorate has shown they don’t want by removing the two UUP seats held. While the DUP has traditionally voted with the Conservatives (about 90% of the time) they took the decision to support a possible Labour Government to protect Northern Ireland’s interests.

On top of all this the Conservatives show stronger support for the Union than Labour have done and are likely to take a harder line on Nationalism, which will push its supporters further away from the government. The result seems to have led to an increased unity among politicians from the province, as the SDLP, Alliance, DUP and Sylvia Hermon all decided to join the potential rainbow alliance in order to oppose cuts in the public sector and the block grant. It also appears that, along with Scotland and Wales, there has been an increase in Nationalism as people would prefer to rule themselves due to fears about the state of local economies as the Conservatives tend to ignore and underfund the regions. This can only lead to further tensions between regional government and Parliament.

Universities are likely to see a decrease in funding from the Government, which will only see them wanting to increase the already unfair tuition fees, which are a premium on education and discourage many people from furthering their knowledge. As students we have to be prepared to resist this and anything that we see to be bad for our regional economy, where we expect to be employed soon and a double dip recession could destroy.

The Lib Dems appear to have pulled the Tories to the left but it remains to be seen just what has gained their support and just how far right they have allowed themselves to go in order to get bums on government seats. Hopefully they can temper the excesses of a generation that has grown up with Thatcherism. But in deciding to take the Tory whip they may not be able to without bringing down the government.

The Tories will have to affect a central stance in relation to Northern Ireland and treat the electorate fairly or else a situation, slowly becoming more dangerous and only supported by a few, could explode. Cuts to public services, such as education and healthcare, could destroy the increasingly fair and harmonious society we live in. We have already used our democratic voice to oppose these cuts and we will have to continue to use it over the next few years to ensure society remains.

BY MATTHEW OKOT

Brown was there from day one in 1997, spending a decade as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was consumed by jealousy of his younger colleague, Tony Blair, who got to 10 Downing Street first. Their fractious relationship hampered Labour’s ability to govern effectively. When Brown finally got Blair’s job, it was a poisoned chalice. It was possible to feel sympathy for Brown but he authored his own misfortune.

It is true that Blair got out in time, yet if Brown got the top job too late, this was his own fault for not deposing Blair when his rival became a liability after the Iraq war. Brown dithered constantly, to the exasperation of his own supporters. He was willing to wound Blair but afraid to strike. It was this dithering that undid his premiership. Brown made a deceptively good start and he stoked up election fever in the autumn of 2007. Yet a sudden Tory poll surge scared him. He scrapped the election after seeing the opinion polls. Brown denied that the polls had influenced his decision – nobody believed him. He had ‘bottled it’. His authority collapsed. Labour MPs became rebellious. The government started its drift to defeat. Brown had snookered himself.

Opponents who felt that he lacked the character to lead were vindicated. As the global recession started to bite, Brown felt his hour had come. The economy was his speciality. Brown led a commendable rescue of the banking system but the recession threw an unfavourable light on his Chancellorship. Despite boasting repetitiously about his own economic skills, Brown had left Britain inadequately prepared to cope with a recession. The economic castle had been built on the sands of debt and borrowing.

Late in the day, Brown re-discovered state intervention; an admission that his policies as Chancellor were wrong. The self-styled economic genius leaves a grisly economic legacy for the next government. Often Brown talked about his ‘moral compass’ but he presided over the 10p tax debacle, which hurt the lowest paid, whilst the fiasco over accommodation for the Ghurkhas revealed a leader out of touch.

The war in Afghanistan was the centrepiece of the war on terror, yet New Labour skimped on defence spending. For a man who lived and breathed politics, Brown was extremely bad at it. Many of Brown’s defenders pointed out that the media were focussing on his dour image rather than his policies. Yet many of his policies were simply wrong. There is no doubt that Brown possesses intelligence and conviction but he simply lacked the courage of his convictions. Gordon Brown was up to the job of prime minister, if only he had never had it.

BY GOWN REPORTER

It was shortly after 12.30.a.m when the first Northern Ireland seat was declared, with Sinn Féin’s Pat Doherty returned to West Tyrone, boasting an increased majority since his 2005 victory. Another first was the announcement that the DUP’s Ian Paisley Junior, alternatively Ian Óg, had recorded a comfortable win over TUV leader Jim Allistair in North Antrim. Junior finally put to bed previous promise of a serious Traditional Unionist challenge and rounded off a triumphant victory with a quality karaoke session. The Lagan Valley constituency produced no such surprise with the return of the DUP’s Daniel O’ Donnell look-a-like Jeffery Donaldson, comfortably seeing off the challenge of UNCUNF’s Daphne Trimble, wife of former First Minister, Lord David Trimble. UCUNF’s Freddie Mercury impersonator ‘Flash’ Harry Hamilton had no such luck, however, in his bid to unseat Democratic Unionist David Simpson in Upper Bann.

Weeks of speculation has passed and it is still unknown whether North Down’s incumbent MP, Lady Slyvia Hermon cut her ties with the Ulster Unionists due to the principle of the Conservative link up or the insulting UCUNF acronym. Running as an independent, victory for Hermon was never in doubt. Commiserations to the UUP’s Ian Parsley on a second consecutive electoral defeat, his first with the Ulster Unionists. Belfast West witnessed another landslide for Sinn Féin. A modest man of the Bible, in a shirt and blue jeans Gerry Adams was a picture of comfort in the constituency where he boasts one of the biggest majorities in the House of Commons. Deputy First Minister Martin Mc Guinness likewise had no problem retaining his Mid Ulster seat in a rather confusing 6.7% constituency swing from DUP to Sinn Féin. Newry and Armagh returned local Sinn Féin Regional Development Minister Conor Murphy, pledging his party will carry on not turning up at Westminster but holding onto the taxpayer’s money.

In Belfast South, Foyle and South Down, the Social Democratic and Labour Party hoped to hold on to the three seats they had whilst contesting constituencies for the craic. East Antrim returned the DUP’s Sammy Wilson, as did Gregory Campbell hold East Londonderry (only sometimes known to Jim Allistair as ‘Derry’) as expected. Meanwhile their Strangford DUP counterpart Jim Shannon easily saw off the challenge of ladies’ favourite Mike Nesbitt of UCUNF to take the seat previously held by young men’s favourite Iris Robinson.

In the run up to the general election all eyes were on South Antrim where Ulster Unionist leader Sir Reg “never-to-be MP” hoped he could gain the holy grail of a single Westminster seat. This was a close contest but even tactical voting by some nationalists was not enough to put Willie McCrea’s seat in Tory hands. Reg later claimed, “I’m not stupid”, an insight not shared with potential leadership candidate David McNarry. Sir Reg Empy was not alone in his dejection as Peter Robinson, after 31 years, lost his massive majority along with his East Belfast constituency seat to the Alliance Party’s Naomi Long. Both seats will no doubt have repercussions for the leaders, possibly an end to single jobbing for both figures.

The Fermanagh/South Tyrone constituency always looks forward to elections, and on occasions multiple recounts. Sinn Féin’s Michelle Gildernew came up against unionist independent candidate Rodney Connor here. SDLP’s Fearghal McKinney, formerly known as Fergal, was happy to win back his £500 deposit after polling enough votes. After rumours and recounts, Mrs Gildernew was announced victorious by a majority of four seats, boasting the smallest majority of the House of Commons.

The green and orange map of Northern Ireland remained almost the same on 8^th May 2010. An addition to the mix is the first Westminster seat ever to be held by the Alliance Party. The anti-Good Friday Agreement TUV had no such luck. The race for Assembly seats has begun, with unionists plotting pacts, nationalists picking fights while Norn Iron neutrals have their ears to the ground.



BY DANIEL GILLEN

I’ve always been fascinated by the electoral process, and four years ago, almost to this day, I was lucky enough to be able to attend the local count in my home town of Burnley and help play a part in supervising the counting. Interestingly, I did witness a few mistakes (a vote for labour going in the conservative pile for instance) and it was clear just how decisive a recount could be, if the vote was close enough. In the end however, the labour candidate won by quite a sizeable margin.

President Shane Brogan will bring this argument to Management Board tomorrow on behalf of The Gown editorial team and Gown Trust. Gown management met with Union and University officials last Friday to discuss the ongoing issues between the independent newspaper and the Union, which have caused significant difficulties for the newspaper to continue operating as normal. As part of the clubs and societies review, the Union is proposing to move The Gown from their office on the 3rd floor of the Union into a shared office. The Gown team is still suspended and members have been denied access since Monday 15th March.

UPDATE: The suspension imposed on The Gown from their office on Monday 15th March was lifted at this evening’s Management Board meeting.

There are obvious traditional and historical reasons as to why we believe The Gown should remain in an exclusive office, mainly due to the paper enjoying the usage of an office in the Union for decades. But The Gown editorial team and Gown Trust are adamant that the future survival of the newspaper depends on the continued use of an exclusive office. The internal affairs of a newspaper are by their nature private and confidential, and it is unthinkable to expect the independent student newspaper to share space which would compromise the very essence of its existence. This year The Gown’s current office has been used daily by a core team of 10 members, a wider voluntary body of 50, and a focal point of reference for hundreds of occasional student writers, not to mention whistle blowers, morning, noon and night.

BY CATHERINE WYLIE

You will see from the sign-in file at the ground floor reception just how often this year’s volunteers made use of the 3^rd floor office. As editor, I can confirm that each and every time the key was signed out, it was to genuinely work on the development and furthering of the newspaper, with hours upon hours of work going into keeping the publication fortnightly and the website updated as often as possible (The website has been updated daily for the majority of the academic year). I would be confident in saying that the small space taken up by The Gown on the top floor of the Union was possibly one of the most utilised spaces in the Union, and the most productive in terms of helping students and providing a service, this academic year. Without an exclusive office, but instead a shared environment, I would very much doubt if The Gown could continue in its present form of steadily returning to its glory days of former decades.

A newspaper office is notoriously busy and fast, and can be often disruptive, noisy, untidy, and high spirited. It would be unfair for the Union to expect any club, society or organisation to share with The Gown. Again, as editor, I have been in the office almost daily all year (up until the ban) and can vouch for what goes on in the daily running of the paper and its office. We have archives that go back to the 1950s, we have a selection of books left by editors and reporters in days gone by, we have a large amount of space dedicated to the business and financial side of the newspaper, and we talk, discuss, deliberate, debate, have differences of opinion and generally spend 100% of the time being very vocal. A shared office environment accommodating The Gown and another organisation would not be a productive working space for that organisation due to constant interruptions. The suggestion that each would have dedicated hours of working so that they would never be in the office at the same time is a nonsensical suggestion due to both the nature of breaking news and the total confidentiality expected by whistle blowers, and indeed anyone at all who speaks to Gown volunteers about any issue. To expect anyone to share with The Gown, whether it is on the basis of restricted and dedicated hours is simply unacceptable and would lead to inevitable clashes which would become problematic for sabbatical teams for years to come. It would eradicate any good faith or strengthened relations encouraged by a memorandum or document signed between The Gown and the Union, and as this year has shown, a particularly rocky relationship and bad feeling between the two is very stressful for all involved, and is therefore to be avoided at all costs.

The Gown has had an important presence on campus for 55 years, and has become a widely known and revered publication. Not only does it act as an independent voice for the student body, but it provides invaluable experience for a vast number of QUB students in the fields of journalism, business, advertising, design, and photography. The paper has been, de facto, an acting School of Journalism at Queen’s for over half a century, and has been an influential launch pad for innumerable successful journalists, both at home and abroad. There has been more editions published this year than in any other year, and we see the newspaper going from strength to strength from this point onwards. The success of the plethora of previous Gown writers is evidence that it is a fantastic beginning for anyone who wants to pursue a career in journalism, and an outlet that should be encouraged rather than quashed. Professor Gregson echoed these sentiments at our re-launch earlier in the academic year.

We ask you to put aside any ill-feeling you have for this year’s editorial team and volunteers, and instead focus your attentions on the fact that next year, and beyond, will bring fresh editorial teams that all have one common goal. That is to emulate the enviable successes of previous Gown volunteers who went on to realise their hopes of succeeding in the cut throat world of journalism. Keep this tradition at QUB alive and re-instate the independent voice which sparks healthy debate and makes the Students’ Union feel like a Students’ Union.

The above statement is supported by The Gown editorial team and Gown Trust:

The Trust consists of: