1

1st Edition June 2012 Lancastertoeuston.tumblr.com

LANCASTER TO EUSTON

www.garybarker.co.uk

TASTER

EDITION

Don’t

Ju’believe

it!

Adam

Macarthur

What to do

on a wet

Sunday

afternoon?

Andrew Dixon

Jubilee

Hypocrisy

Panem

Circenses

Ethiopia’s

Brother’s

Getting

Bigger

Adam

Harrison-

Henshall

2

ome newspapers print to

please. As Mr Murdoch well

knows these newspapers will

likely be financially successful.

Popularist media will tend to be

popular. Yet hidden behind the red

tops and magazines is a world of

journalism of a different breed.

Lancaster to Euston aims to place

itself within that category. The issue

resting in your hands is a taster copy

of what will hopefully become a

regular feature in the next academic

year. This publication aims to

produce journalism for the sake of

journalism; something we hope you

may dip into and find interesting

topics discussed critically. This is not

written in a way which is tailored to

an audience, but rather, exists in its

own right, and in which you may

indulge if you please.

From that overly grandiose

and pretentious opening I invite you

to join the project this publication

represents. The following articles are

all submissions from people who wish

to deliver their perspective on

political or social issues to you, the

reader. The first step is to read them.

The second is to join in the

conversation. We have comments

embedded on our website on which

all of these articles will be published,

and I can only hope that it will

provide space for extended discussion

of the topics raised. However, I

would like to think that as critically

minded literate people the comments

section will quickly become too small

a stage from which to express

yourselves. My metaphorical door is

always open, and I would be more

than willing to discuss any ideas you

may have for an article of your own.

One of the main aims of this project

from its conception was to provide a

space where young people can write

longer more critical articles and have

their work reviewed by the wider

crowd. Articles will always be

published. There may be an editing

stage where work can be reviewed

and collectively we can aid the

improvement of the article, but the

piece itself will always make it online.

The cream of our crop will, in future,

be funnelled into the hard copy

available for free at a number of

places across Lancaster, as well as in

pdf format online.

This copy has been largely

restricted to the Lancaster University

campus, both in its distribution and

its contributors. However, SCAN

and Whistleblower we are not. The

aim is to take contributions from both

of Lancaster’s universities, and its

many sixth forms, and encourage

politically aware journalism in young

people from within and outside

campus’s ivory tower. We want this

to be a vehicle for trying new things

and experimenting with style and

approach. Despite the above

distancing from campus based media,

it is important to note that we are

still very proud to be joining the

flourishing student media at Lancaster

this year. Our old friend SCAN is still

pushing forward in ever sleeker

costumes, the young upstart The

Whistleblower has joined SCAN in

the league of regulars across campus,

and Fritz... well, not quite. Fingers

shall remain crossed that we will not

fall foul of a similar fate. Alongside

the mainstream printed attractions

Lancaster has enjoyed both SCAM

and The Nibbler over the past year

with their satirical and light-hearted

approaches respectively. If you find

any of the above names unfamiliar

then I do suggest you search around

Google or Facebook and peruse some

of their previous material.

As an aside, the name of this

publication may need to be

explained. The idea was originally to

start a paper which actively

encouraged good journalism, and the

Euston Manifesto was the discussion

board which lead to Lancaster to

Euston’s conception. Hence the

paper begun as a space where the

Euston Manifesto lay the ground for

the following conversations. The

name is not necessarily a permanent

feature, and will be hotly debated

online hopefully, at some point in

September, with any replacement

name to be one chosen as a collective

by the readership.

Lastly, I would like to

extend a personal thank you to all

who worked hard to bring this paper

to print. Of course to all the writers

who have contributed from the

beginning of April, but also to

everyone who has helped behind the

scenes too. On top of these, I wish to

thank everyone who donated their

hard earned pennies to take this to

print; all aspects of this paper have

thus far been in keeping with our

wish to see it as a collective pulpit, by

the people for the people. Also to

Gary Barker for the cartoon on the

front.

I’ll cut the Oscars speech

short, and invite you in to sample

some of our work. See what you

think. Get involved.

Adam Harrison-Henshall -

Editor

S EDITORIAL:

3

Website:

lancastertoeuston.tumblr.com

Facebook Page: Lancaster to

Euston

Twitter: @toeuston

Email:

lancastertoeuston@gmail.com

If you want to become part of the

team, befriend To Euston on facebook.

IN THIS ISSUE

Editorial – Adam Harrison-Henshall : pg.2

Dont Ju’believe it! – Adam Macarthur : pg.4

What to do on a wet Sunday afternoon? – Andrew Dixon : pg.5

Jubilee Hypocrisy – Panem Circenses : pg.7

The Black Hole in The Mind – Beau Nafyde : pg.10

The Internet; something for nothing? – David Gott : pg.11

Ethiopia’s Brother’s Getting Bigger – Adam Harrison-Henshall : pg.12

Rule Britannia... By Any Means Necessary – Northern Loudmouth : pg.14

4

Don't Ju'believe it!

Image: Open Commons

eorge Orwell once wrote " Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” This view

was wholeheartedly embraced by the BBC this weekend, with their coverage of the Jubilee. Unfortunately, they embraced PR and certainly not Journalism; in what was in fact an absolute propaganda campaign for the institution of the Monarchy. I found my own Republican views being further vindicated whilst watching frankly embarrassing and, for the majority of the time, boring programming that even some of my Royalist friends commented on as being "dull" and "dry".

This weekend's celebrations for a woman being in a job for 60 years - from which she cannot be sacked and needed no qualifications other than her inbred lineage to get might I add - was met with a wave of fake excitement from the BBC. This hysteria typified by descriptors such as "amazing" and "spectacular" whilst broadcasting images of boats in the rain; from a river which usually has boats on it in the rain, alongside rubbishy rhetoric describing how the dismal weather made the event "even more British". I suppose if the weather had been glorious it would have been some reflection of nature's affection and affirmation of the Queen's authority?

“

[T]hey embraced PR and

certainly not Journalism;

in what was in fact an

absolute propaganda

campaign for the

institution of the Monarchy

”

My favourite moment being when a guest from a popular fashion magazine described Her Majesty as a "trend setter" and how her outfits "inspired the Catwalks of Milan and Paris". I'm sure we'll soon see Fashion houses the world over playing catch up and embracing mint green and pastel yellow suits topped off with fetching broaches and pearl necklaces! Dunelm Mill should probably brace itself for a run on its curtain collection as wannabe fashionistas scramble for the latest fabric designs. This fawning admiration of a sour faced old woman, who like me seemed markedly unimpressed throughout proceedings, along with the hyperbole drummed up to commentate upon a distinctly average charade embarrassed both Britain and the BBC, as the images were beamed across the globe. What must other countries think of this pathetic frenzy?

The BBC also rather crudely and vulgarly linked the Monarchy with patriotism and being British, with one BBC Radio 5 live presenter mentioning Traitor's gate in the same breath as a protest held by Republic a pressure group campaigning for the disestablishment of the Monarchy. When I think of Britain I think of Democracy, Freedom and Equality, the Monarchy systematically destroys each one of these British ideals and replaces them with principles that we're currently condemning in places such as Syria.

The Hereditary principle means that any child born in this country that isn't swimming in the

Windsor gene pool will never be able to become our country's Head of State. It also means that our genetically superior Head of State will have power bestowed upon them which none of their "subjects" ever had any say in granting them. I was understandably appalled that the BBC would even suggest that my support for a more democratic system of governance was in some way "Anti-British".

In some cases the BBC's programming was downright barmy and incoherent. Coming home after a long evening spent in the pub in an attempt to escape the onslaught of "Jubilee Concert", I briefly turned the television on to discover a programme explaining the History of the Monarchy in Britain. At one point, once the outcome of the English Civil War had been explained, the BBC then attempted to give the most biased and illogical argument regarding Cromwell, that even I after several whisky's could easily decipher. The presenters Dan Snow and Sian Williams explained that Cromwell believed that he was as "worthy" as the monarch and that he was in many respects just like the monarch in terms of his behaviour, in an attempt to disrepute him and I hope not but fear Republicanism in general. Now I am in no way supporting Cromwell as a politician however there is something suspect in the fact that the BBC can discredit an individual for behaving like a Monarch whilst supporting the Monarch so ardently and unashamedly. Does the BBC genuinely believe in the principle that only those who have been genetically chosen to reign should be allowed to display the privilege and sense of entitlement that the Royal Family does? This is in fact brainwashing conducted en masse by a once well respected and trusted British broadcaster.

Also, the public's reaction to the Jubilee was somewhat exaggerated by the beeb, with only tens of thousands of people being reported as actually attending the flotilla during the proceedings, but by

G

INSIGHT:

5

tea time and the 6 o'clock news this figure had miraculously jumped to "hundreds of thousands" the BBC obviously got one of these figures wrong; I wonder which?

Even if we grant the Royals hundreds of thousands of their subjects' support this was still a particularly poor turnout considering it was estimated that millions of people would descend upon the capital to celebrate the country's admiration and gratitude for the Monarchy. Of course there was the rain which put people off, but I thought that made it more British? Then on Monday's coverage it was quite clear that the "huge crowds" that lined the streets were actually sparse lines of Ultra-Royalists dispersed across the city, rather than the hundreds of thousands of the general public described.

“

A spin on a story that

Rupert Murdoch himself

would be proud of I'm sure.

”

By far the largest crowds came to watch the Jubilee Concert; I cannot help but wonder whether it was the "universal attraction of the Queen" or the vast array of celebrities and performers that could be seen free of charge that attracted such large numbers of people. In the end the BBC had to settle for ambiguous figures such as "there was over a million people in central London today", which I'm fairly sure would be the case on the average weekend, to give an illusion of importance to the event.

After this weekend of unrelenting tedium I was intrigued by a story that appeared on the BBC's website entitled "Did the BBC get the Jubilee coverage wrong?". Had the BBC come to their senses and realised their crass and continuous bombardment of propaganda was both a short sighted and offensive

breach of their public duty? No, to the contrary the story was of the view that the BBC was not serious or conservative enough in its coverage, this being espoused by the radio critic Gillian Reynolds. The story in my opinion was used not to criticise but rather exploited by the BBC, as the story tacitly implied that this criticism was confirmation that their coverage was now in fact more inclusive. A spin on a story that Rupert Murdoch himself would be proud of I'm sure.

The BBC's propaganda machine went into royal overdrive this weekend, which spectacularly backfired as they painted a fake and overstated picture of an event that simply didn't live up to the hype. This alongside biased misrepresentations of the institution of the monarchy and its importance did a disservice to their viewers the extent of which has rarely been seen before. Through their naive and irritating assumption that people will watch anything they disenfranchised vast swathes of the public. Hopefully this will lead to an increase in support for Republican politics as people realise that it's time we ditch this medieval and undemocratic tradition, if not least for the sake of our own sanity, through not having to endure another of these prescribed and tedious "celebrations".

Adam Macarthur

What to do on a wet Sunday afternoon?

recent observation, brought on by wet-Sunday-afternoon-induced ennui, lead me to

ponder why it is parents are content to allow their children to remain at home when they finish their Degree? You see, I have just finished my Degree at Lancaster, and my son has just finished his at Leeds-Met. Now don’t get me wrong - I quite like my son, and his three sisters, two of whom are getting married in the next year (not to each other, that would be weird and icky!) - it is just that as I look around me it doesn’t look like any of them will be leaving home soon. Unlike when I first finished further education, fresh graduates today are not expected to have established a home for themselves within a matter of weeks. Why not?

The collapse in the mortgage ‘industry’ certainly must play a part, renting a ‘nice’ property, that my peers and parents will approve of, is expensive and restricts where I can work next year, and even if I could get the deposit together selling my home in three years time, when I need to move on, or up, will be impossible. You see, with my expensive degree I cannot do just any job, I must get the right career - and if that means I have to live at home for a while, then... see how Philosophy, Politics and Economics will convince the ‘rents to offer guilt free accommodation!

A

INSIGHT:

6

“

If your inquisitive mind becomes a “distraction to the class” and must be medicated into mediocrity then something has gone very wrong with the script of your Wonder Years!

”

“Stay at home, your room is still empty and you can save money for the deposit whilst you look for that perfect job” says your loving parent(s). Whilst they continue to protect you from the harsh reality of reality - just how they were programmed by the media to perform - and you get to search for the meaning of Second Life whilst waiting for the CEO to call. And remember, it’s not for long, just until that perfect career opportunity opens up. Now what has lead to this change in family planning? Well, that nice Mr Blair thought schools should be ranked according to how ‘freekin awesome’ they were. That way your parents could make informed decisions on where best to educate you. That’s it. OK, some justification may be needed here, after all just blaming Blair for everything is like kicking the dog when the vicar farts. Blair stole our children’s/your imagination when teaching performance was measured in order to justify education facilitators remuneration packages and empower New Parents to choose the Right Path. If your inquisitive mind becomes a “distraction to the class” and must be medicated into mediocrity then something has gone very wrong with the script of your Wonder Years! When all the children stop being ‘question makers’ and start

being ‘answer givers’, intelligent life on this planet will cease to exist - we will enter the age of banality, the Last Man will take centre-stage for Nietzsche’s epilogue and Fukuyama‘s end of history will truly be upon us! OK, so much for the background - what are the implications of living at home? With the decline in demand for housing brought on by lack of adventurous twentagers, home occupancy levels begin to rise - this happens over the summer of 2012 - demand for first time housing falls - house-builders/sellers hold on for a while, but eventually prices fall - which leads to a lack of confidence in the housing market overall (even more reason not to leave home!) consequently there is simultaneously a fall in consumption of new TVs, fridges and sofas (which were once needed for new homes) - which impacts on peoples habits to make large value purchases (can I borrow the car dad?) which in turn leads to a fall in manufacturing output, more job losses, more reasons to live with parents! Sharing resources within a family unit is more cost efficient - who would have guessed? When I was young we “got on the housing ladder early” and made more money sleeping than working. There is just no incentive to speculate on the housing market today – and once the Baby-Boomers start dying, or moving into sheltered housing or in with their kids, there will be an increase in unsold housing stock, which will in turn lead to depressed house prices whilst the market still tries to clear... So what is my solution? The experiment that Maggie started in home ownership has possibly run its course, there will always be homeowners don’t get me wrong, but homes will be “nests, not nest eggs” (my father taught me this) they will be places where families grow, live together, share resources, and become more secure and happy. We become wealthy in what matters.

Accept that having your family around you is not that bad a deal.

“

The experiment that Maggie started in home ownership has possibly run its course, there will always be homeowners don’t get me wrong, but homes will be “nests, not nest eggs”

”

Our future will be more secure because instead of having to pay someone to care for our parents when they age, we will care for them, as they cared for us. Or, I could always do a Masters and defer the decision for a bit longer... maybe a Doctorate will get me to the top of the corporate ladder in a single bound? Hmm... now... what to do all summer whilst I wait for Uni to start again? What we do, when not sleeping, defines us - we are creative, tool making, rule following, game playing, articulate, imaginative, loving, adventurous, risk evaluating, bi-pedal hairless apes with an opportunity to make an actual difference to the universe. So, what do you do on a wet Sunday afternoon?

Andrew Dixon

7

Jubilee Hypocrisy

Image: CAMERA PRESS/ John Swannell

am not a monarchist; nor am I Republican. Indeed, by instinct, I am a fence sitter. I respect

people’s right to celebrate the British monarchy. After all, there is something about the royal family which, we are constantly told, is essential to our national self-image. I also understand the need to let our hair down when times are tough. I also respect the right of others to object to hereditary privilege and the concentration of obscene wealth in the hands of an undemocratic few. On the one hand, then, the monarchy is symbolic of a centuries-old tradition, embodying the best of British. We are encouraged to adore the Queen since she constitutes six decades of continuity: calm under duress, stability in a time of extreme social flux, commitment and service in a culture of increased selfish individualism. On the other hand, there is something decidedly, and curiously, modern about the royal family: a family of immigrant blood might represent multiculturalism; one member wears her face jewellery with pride; we have the bumbling racist patriarch; we constantly hear stories of adultery and family breakdown. The monarchy is both best of tradition and a reflection of the excesses of the liberalised modern.

We are reliably informed that the monarchy is good for the economy, as if the economy - anthropomorphised as an agent of its

own fate - pimps the Queen to tourists as some fetishist object of the foreigner’s gaze. [As an aside: a quick investigation into those companies which profit from commemorative souvenirs reveals a monarchy-based economy which reinforces the personal wealth of a select few. This is not to analyse where those objects made, nor the working conditions in mass-producing ‘third-world’ factories. Nor is it to draw attention to the ridiculously wealthy individuals profit from London’s hotel trade. In terms of promoting the economic value of Queen and co, academic studies which demonstrate most tourists are drawn to the history of monarchy: it is quite clear Henry VIII, Elizabeth I (not II) and Victoria hold the greater appeal.] We are constantly drilled with data: the Queen and her entourage, at the measly 75p it costs us each per year, represent exceptional value for money (especially when compared the £1.05 per-person-per-year French president, and £1.23 Obama.) We are especially told that the Diamond Jubilee is both good for the economy and good for the national soul. This is where my softly-softly ambivalence hits the hard rock of cynicism. The Romans had a phrase: panem et circenses – Bread and Circuses; the political technique to manage the masses by keeping them fed, entertained and distracted. The rush to wave flag and wax lyrical about pride in Britishness is galling, all the more so since there is plenty of readily available information which informs us the Jubilee is not value for money and that the gush of patriotism is carefully stage managed. If I can’t find it in myself to dislike the royals, I can certainly spit with fury about the ways in which the royals have allowed themselves to be manipulated for political advantage.

More, I am surprised at the

extent of Lizziephilia, especially given the Queen has been compelled to host civil-rights abusers at her Diamond Jubilee lunch (The King of Bahrain is a nasty individual), the royal household put in a bid for money towards heating costs under the fuel poverty scheme (as if the

Queen is not one of the richest individuals in the world) and – we find out in recent news – the pageant was stewarded by those on the god-awful workfare scheme. The etymological origins of the word ‘jubilee’ draws from a Hebrew custom, in which every 49 years, slaves are freed and land is returned to the people. Yet, the modern British form of jubilee includes the appropriation of free labour and the corporate seizure of central London (those kind chaps sponsoring the barge struck a deal where they got control of London’s bridges in the bargain).

“ The monarchy is both best of tradition and a reflection of the excesses of the liberalised modern. ”

Given that these damning revelations have not damped down public affection, I want in this short piece to look to the example of history: the only other Diamond Jubilee. The similarities and contrasts are fascinating. Victoria’s jubilee (1897) was equally an exercise in lavish, pompous, national celebration. Whereas Elizabeth’s jubilee has worried some for its imperialistic undertones (how much military pomp on display?!?), Victoria’s diamond jubilee served primarily to enforce late-Victorian imperial achievement (and the reinforcement of Britain’s racial superiority). Both Queens had monarchy thrust upon them at an early age; both existed in the public eye. Victoria threatened constitutional crisis by refusing to appear in public, even for the state opening of Parliament, such was the extent of her grief following the death of Prince Albert. Elizabeth’s stoical maintenance of the stiff British upper lip when the public demanded she show a trembling lower lip in response to the death of Diana, led to a strange moment in the 1990s when monarchical favour was at its lowest. Yet, through state managed occasions

I

FEATURE:

8

(weddings are always good fare), the monarchy was thrust back to the pinnacle of popular affection. Both jubilees were celebrated by street parties, no doubt enhanced by the granting of bank holidays and extension of licensing laws in both 1897 and 2012. Whereas Elizabeth was paraded by boat from Battersea to Tower Bridge amongst a flotilla of privately sponsored vessels (we are an island race, part of the national identity package must include the depiction of mastery of the sea), Victoria travelled by stagecoach from Buckingham Palace to St Paul’s Cathedral.

“ I am surprised at the extent of Lizziephilia, especially given the Queen has been compelled to host civil-rights abusers at her Diamond Jubilee lunch... ”

It is no surprise that millions should celebrate such significant moments in the royal calendar. Indeed, state-organised celebrations are just as ‘traditional’ as the monarchy itself. Only, jubilees are not really that traditional: royal jubilees only started with George III’s Golden in 1809, and that was a rather low key affair. Victoria’s Golden Jubilee (1887) was the first event geared towards mass celebration. The idea of a royal jubilee is an example of what Eric Hobsbawm calls ‘an invention of tradition’: modern mass marketing seeks to render something traditional and historic in order to make it more appealing to the modern consumer. In a context of selling the monarchy as a core ingredient of Britishness, the late Victorians were just as keen as our contemporaries to exploit the image of the Queen for commercial – and, crucially - political gain. Victoria’s face adorned mugs, umbrellas, commemorative food packaging, and so on. Promoting national cohesion has its political benefits: a nation at one in celebration of its identity is

made up of a public likelier to accept, rather than challenge, the status quo.

In the 1880s and 1890s, just

as now, Britain was suffering a state of economic hardship. There was no welfare state then: child poverty was widespread and ephebiphobia (the irrational fear of children) was rife: sensationalist and xenophobic media told horror stories about dangerous foreigners stealing jobs and women; the church was in decline; and, increasingly, questions about the ethics of overseas wars were being asked in public arenas. The exploitation of workers was made increasingly obvious since socialism and anarchism, taking shape in an increasing number of protest movements were the growth political movements. Britain at the end of the nineteenth century was undergoing a crisis of identity: the answer was to promote patriotism, generate a cult of heroism (including the monarchy) and to make the individual performance of patriotic duty an object of citizenship. Heroes were created in 1880s and ‘90s: people who died in the service of nation, who led wisely and well, and gave unto others as they would have done unto them. Even though the word is bandied about carelessly by the redtop papers, it is difficult nowadays to identify ‘heroes’ who are not sportsmen and women, actors or musicians: that is, they are not heroes, but celebrities.

So, the late nineteenth

century was the period in which Victoria was impressed upon her subjects not just as the Empress of India (demonstrating Britain’s huge imperial swagger), but the Queen of Wessex: the invention of tradition (especially as the arms race with Germany was heating up) dictated that the monarch of German origin must be made English. As one school book for children informed them in 1897:

Our Queen is the descendent of the Saxon chiefs who settled in Wessex more than fourteen centuries ago. She represents the growth of our people from very

small beginnings to its present worldwide power: and all who know the history of our country feel a thrill of pride and joy when they think of its wonderful past and its prosperous present, with all of which our royal family has been so closely associated. When we sing “God Save the Queen” we think not only of the Queen, but of the people whose past and present life she represents. For we remember that we are one people, one nation, closely related in blood and community of interest.

It was essential for the late Victorians to make Victoria a heroine, a symbol of continuous national history, an icon of national unity: not only would that lead on to mass public affection for her, but it would – as Lord Salisbury, the then Prime Minister argued – make the conduct of politics easier for those who played the national card. This does not mean that there was no affection for Victoria: indeed, the streets thronged during both her Golden and Diamond Jubilees. However, one must wonder how much this owed to a careful manipulation of new media and its appropriation of patriotism as a national duty. And: everyone loves a party, especially hard-working Londoners for whom the idea of a bank holiday was previously unknown. The similarities between 2012 and 1897 are evident: mass public spectacle and celebration around the national figurehead of a frail old woman. The crisis of Victorian Britishness owed mostly to class division and imperial trepidation (the Titan was weary and conscious of its exposed ankles). The Victorians were entirely successful in thrusting the monarchy onto the public as a national treasure. Our contemporary crisis of identity is not so straightforward, nor so straightforwardly solved. Times are tough. The UK union is in crisis as Scots prepare to vote on independence. In the 1950s, at the time of Elizabeth’s coronation,

9

Britons had multiple institutions of Britishness from which to draw national pride: most of those have lost their emotive and rational pull. In the 1950s, the Bank of England and the City of London were cited as sources for collective pride: not so now in an era of financial collapse, casino capitalism and mass disdain for bankers’ bonuses. The institution of Parliament was cited as something distinctively British to be celebrated – yet, expenses scandals, Jeremy Hunt and media bribery have eliminated that (not to mention a cabinet of millionaires presiding over the dismemberment of the welfare state in the name of ideology rather than economic commonsense.) In the 1950s, many mentioned their Christianity as a cause for collective celebration, yet the Church of England is now riddled with infighting and has lost much of its moral authority: it certainly cannot speak for the national whole any more. It is not surprising that, following the Second World War, 1950s Britons found much pride in the armed forces. Although the Help for Heroes campaign indicates a continuing public warmth for the army, the legal and moral validity of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan means many – including returning soldiers – now question the legitimacy of the phrase “for Queen and Country”.

“ Attention to the differences between 2012 and 1897 further underline the extent to which the Diamond Jubilee is, above all, a dubious and nefarious political exercise: uneconomic and, I would argue, unpatriotic. ”

Despite the breakdown of these constituent ingredients of Britishness – finance, democracy, religion, military, UK union – the monarchy remains popular: indeed, one possible reason for such dramatic

Lizziephilia might well be that the monarchy is the last remaining bastion of ‘traditional’ Britishness. So it is understandable that we should wish to celebrate her six decades of national service; it is certainly understandable that the current government – as Lord Salisbury did in 1897 – should seek to take advantage of an affection for the Queen as a means to bolster national identity. The other two icons of Britishness identified in the late 1950s were the BBC and the NHS. As the Tories systematically sell off our public services and seek, like in the 1980s, to wind up the BBC, it is no surprise that the monarchy must be celebrated.

“ I am sure historians will appreciate the irony of Cameron having to read from the bible about the need to be humble and give up riches, even if contemporaries have not. ”

Attention to the differences between 2012 and 1897 further underline the extent to which the Diamond Jubilee is, above all, a dubious and nefarious political exercise: uneconomic and, I would argue, unpatriotic. The royal purse had contributed £50,000 towards the cost of the Golden Jubilee in 1887 – that’s just under £3 million in modern money. Victoria refused to pay towards her Diamond Jubilee; nor did she want the public purse to be troubled. Instead, the celebrations of 1897 were primarily funded by private organisations and individuals. Victoria refused to wear the clothes of state ceremonial and refused to meet with foreign dignitaries. Moreover, she insisted that half a million of London’s economically worst-off (we will put to one side the Victorian construction of deserving and undeserving poor) should be fed, given alcohol and tobacco, and asked to take a central role in her procession. Victoria insisted on a

festival of Britain, not the celebration of herself as an individual. Compare this to 2012. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport suggest that ‘our’ jubilee celebrations would cost the taxpayer £1.3 billion. This includes the cost of an extra bank holiday, 7m spent on 400,000 jubilee medals, and the suggested £550,000 to be spent by local councils on beacons and other such jubilee celebrations. The figure - £1.3 BILLION – does not include the cost of policing, including overtime, nor the Jubilee concert (paid for out of the TV licence). Unlike Victoria, Elizabeth’s budget was increased by a million so she could entertain foreign monarchs – including that awful King of Bahrain (it makes me sick to my stomach that a child-killer gets to quaff champers and eat caviar with our monarch, at our expense). Such mass expenditure at a time of savage austerity measures must surely be hard to justify. Little wonder that the Archbishop of Canterbury felt compelled to invoke St Paul’s critique of the selfish rich and their destruction of community in his jubilee speech. I am sure historians will appreciate the irony of Cameron having to read from the bible about the need to be humble and give up riches, even if contemporaries have not.

Rather than celebrate the ‘people’ of Britain, the 2012 jubilee sought to celebrate the royal family at the expense of the people: if we did not celebrate, we were accused of being antipatriotic. It seems to have worked: the popularity of the monarchy is at an all time high. Cameron and co must be delighted. Yet historians are cynical bunch and won’t be taken in by the Bread and Circuses. I am not critical of people who support the monarchy, nor am I critical of those who enjoyed themselves at the jubilee: we all deserve a break, a rest, and the feeling of national pride in something which is not sports-oriented is overwhelming. However, I cannot help but wonder how much of this fleeting popular celebration of monarchy would endure had the

10

Queen sought a jubilee more in keeping with our economic situation. After all, in the 1950s she helped popularise the NHS and contributed towards job creation schemes. The Queen has remained popular because she is the most well known woman in the world, but the one about whom we know the least: her preference, we are told, has not been to embrace the limelight, never to share an opinion, not to show emotion in public. Instead, I suspect posterity (monarchists and republicans alike) will look back at the gaudy X-Factorisation of Buckingham Palace during the Jubilee gig as a rather tawdry affair: if Victoria was made a heroine, it was because she merited popular affection and she insisted the poor were part of the national pageant. Queen Elizabeth, instead, has been clothed in the trappings of celebrity. Stardom is fragile; heroism stands the test of time.

Panem Circenses

The Black Hole in the Mind

he thing (if indeed it can be called a thing, for it is so broad as to surpass all

boundaries of definition) we can be most sure about is that we cannot ever be too sure about anything. Even that supposed one secure vessel of certainty “I think therefore I am” is

not unassailable by the marauding doubts of sceptical piracy. But it is of no real consequence to any of the actions we can perform in this sphere of existence, whatever it may possibly be. It is however of consequence to our spiritual, that is our mental, wellbeing. Most will recall a time in their lives when they were stood eye to eye with that feeling of the utterly unknowable nature of existence (I neglect the term reality intentionally). Camus calls it the absurd, Sartre nausea, those of an entirely different disposition may call it a religious experience. The labels are irrelevant here; what matters is the nature of the experience, and it is such an overwhelming experience, such an alien feeling that it is very difficult to describe in any meaningful sense. It will be felt differently by each according to their background and character, and will engender different effects and responses. But it is staring into the abyss and feeling it’s cold gaze as it stares back. To put something essential between ourselves and this abyss has surely been the aim of so much of human thought, to erect barriers to prevent our falling once again into the precipice of utter uncertainty. It would be wrong to attack those who rely on this philosophical health and safety legislation, for it is no easy task to look over the edge of a skyscraper built by countless centuries of human endeavour and to see not the ground (which can be frightening enough) but utter nothingness, something so inhuman, so far beyond our comprehension that we cannot put it into words. There is no devil, merely darkness. And if that darkness be star studded, sporadically lit with the glare of long dead nuclear reactions, that is hardly more comforting to the human condition.

“ Most will recall a time in their lives when they were stood eye to eye with that feeling of the utterly unknowable nature of existence”

I remember the exact moment when I was first faced with the all-seeing eye of the black hole. I was eight years old, and it was late at

night, I’d gone for one of my regular ‘midnight’ walks around my local area, and me and a friend had ended up sat on the swings at the local park. We were discussing God and the world, and infinity in that childish way, unperturbed by an adults experiences and knowledge, and like a bolt of lightning the thought came to me. I tried at the time to put it into words, and then as now language failed me. I believe it is this which is the antithesis to humanity, our only enemy is this feeling, this utter opposite to the way of thinking and living as our necessarily selfish constitutions prescribe. It is not a fear, it is deeper and less rational than that, deeper than death, which we experience and can conceive of. At least with death we may imagine the world around us continuing, we may imagine the other people still alive. This is a feeling of the living when faced with the boundaries of everything. It is being briefly pushed beyond those boundaries and being asked what you see. It is misleading even to metaphorically speak of seeing in this sense even, as it is what can never be seen. Any full realisation of this feeling is impossible, but it is the partial glimpses of that which is behind the scenery which has so terrified us survivalists into creating explanations so implausible that only the desperate accept them. When a man is happy he will have no need of his supposed master. When he is dying, when he cannot find his own solution to some problem he will put his hands together or look to the skies. And if he still does so when he is happy, he does so in the knowledge that there will be a time when he is not so, and will yet again look toward the skies. One thing, I think it is important to state contra Kierkegaard that religious belief is no leap. It is the parachute, the hang glider, the hot air balloon. There is only one true leap (the irony is intended) and

T

INSIGHT:

11

that is, it seems, impossible to do. We cannot choose to plummet into this abyss, when it is so difficult even to look into it. Religion, humanism, existentialism are all steps away from the precipice; walls built to protect us from it. It is the question why repeated over and over until even the experts have exhausted all their replies. It is epistemic regress, cosmology, physics and biology. It is psychology and religion, book after book, speech after speech and prayer after prayer. We build Towers of Babel not as monuments to our own excellence, nothing so vain, we build towers so that we may reach the heavens. We build them so that we may not have to contemplate the alternative. It is not hell, nothing so mundane. It is worse than fire, which we can see and feel and which we couldn’t live without. It is worse than a beast or an angel gone rotten. It is far more pleasant to conceive of an epic battle between supernatural good and evil, which may at the least assign us some minor purpose than to have to live everyday in that barren desert of darkness that we cannot even begin to explore. I must change approach now for fear of painting too one-dimensional a picture. Existence is as it is, and if it isn’t, we will live and die none the wiser. Whether it is god or Cartesian evil demon or even laws of physics and biology that form the boundaries of our lives, it seems less and less likely that we shall ever come to any point where we can be adequately sure. We are it seems left with no choice but to roll our rocks up the hill with Sisyphus, for staying at the top is as impossible for us as for the rock. The realisation then is hardly a realisation at all, it is almost the opposite. It is with Socrates coming to know that we don’t know, but knowing what it is that we don’t know still eludes us. It makes problems of politics and ethics pale in comparison. This no grey area, but an absolute black slate, in a world without chalk.

What, then is to be done? We shall continue to live our lives, and hope and pray and enjoy ourselves and enforce non-enjoyment, we shall continue to kill and love, breed and die. Could it be then that this abyss above which we all live must simply be ignored? Or perhaps instead we must become content with our walls. Unfortunately the inquisitive intellect strives for liberty from such boundaries. No stone unturned, nothing left unsaid, the quest for knowledge becomes the journey of our lives. And perhaps therein lies the answer. It is absurd, and although we may never know we keep trying to find things out, throughout the ages, and across cultures and changing paradigms. The destination doesn’t much matter, there have been enough discussions about that, and I point you back to that famous sentence from Socrates. What matters is the journey, this absurd journey. Pushing our rocks up hills, running on treadmills. A world of traffic lights, signposts and roundabouts.

“ It makes problems of politics and ethics pale in comparison. This no grey area, but an absolute black slate, in a world without chalk.

”

But the view, the view from the hill, when you reach a peak and must yet again descend, surely that’s worth something? We can laugh, and we can smile, and we can love and care. We can create our own meanings for life, and laugh heartily but fight passionately, even if the whole endeavour is no more meaningful than an ant following their little paths up and down the hillside. But enough, I hope at least some of this makes sense to someone. If you think existence is absurd, it becomes a lot more fun, in

my silly opinion at least. Of course, it’s also absurd to suppose we could truly be nihilists, those ingrained morals and beliefs can’t be eradicated completely, and that’s probably a good thing. But we can free ourselves if we really try at it, and become impassioned sentimentalists who secretly long for the truth of the things we’ve spent all our lives trying to disprove.

Beau Nafyde

The Internet – Something for Nothing?

will start off my contribution to the print edition with a short

article about Facebook. I have to acknowledge that in many ways Facebook is useful. It can be used to set up events, chat to people or message them (much easier than e mailing) and yes- it can be a lot of fun. But don't worry, this isn't an advert for Facebook. The purpose of this article is to consider the nature of Facebook and similar free to use sites. Facebook, Google and You Tube are perhaps the "big three," but there are many others which also provide (totally legal) services without charging a penny. I'm not going to attempt to argue that these sites are "not really free." They are free, and in the words of Facebook itself they always will be. So far, so good. But it would be naive to assume that these sites are based on altruism, or that the founders of these sites are not expecting anything in return. What they want in return is (to put it bluntly) you. A user is worth something to these sites, because these sites provide a very lucrative platform for advertising. Sites like You Tube are essentially doing what Independent Television has done for years- free

I

INSIGHT:

12

entertainment, with clever and subtle commercials throughout. That in itself is nothing new.

“ What they want in return is (to put it bluntly) you.

”

Facebook on the other hand is a little bit different, a bit more advanced. We tell Facebook a lot of information. Our birthday, our "relationship status", even what football teams, shops or brand of vodka we like. They also use our friends to encourage us to "like" more things. "Your friend likes Curly Wurlys- do you?" Facebook's on-site advertising spaces are very lucrative for Facebook. And yes, it's also a very handy and enjoyable site. But are we selling ourselves short? What concerns me slightly is just how far this collection of personal data will go. Will we reach a stage where our movements are tracked, and where everything we buy or do online is tracked? To some extent and is this happening now. If I for example visit a site about Berlin (on my totally free browser) I can guarantee there will be adverts for holidays to Berlin appearing on my Facebook page. This is clever. Too clever perhaps. The bottom line is be savvy. Be aware of what you are telling websites and be aware of how your computer works, and opt out of tracking when possible. Never feel obliged to give away information, and never feel that you "owe" the website anything. Above all, be aware that successful websites are commercial ventures. If you are not paying for something, you are not the customer. You are a product that is being sold.

David Gott

Ethiopia’s

Brother’s Getting

Bigger

984 instils the reader with fear and unease, but why? The second half of the book is quite

possibly the most drawn out torture sequence in literature, where Winston is exposed to his deepest darkest fears, and is broken bit by bit until he is but a shell of a man. The torture is horrific. The torture is scary. But, for me at least, the torture is not what shakes and concerns me. My mind was always caught on his powerlessness, and the pure domination of the all seeing eye of the state. The torture wasn’t at the end of the book; the torture was present on every page. The true horror of the omnipotence of the malevolent state extends far beyond the timescale of the novel; it was present during Winston’s entire life, and continues to be present for all others in that society before, during, and after the snapshot of Winston’s life to which we were exposed.

Privacy in the modern age is a fiercely contested topic as technology has advanced and our data has become a much sought after commodity. Nevertheless, despite

draconian anti-terror legislation and the constant watchful eye of Google et al we in the west still feel relatively secure in the knowledge that our information is being used in a manner

which won’t harm us particularly. Not all areas of the world are as fortunate as we are. There are many nations around the world where surveillance and censorship are rife, and many of these countries are known to us. China is notorious for the degree by which it monitors its citizens and there is mainstream concern about its policies. Iran violates human rights on a regular basis and use communications systems to systematically prevent political discussion. This coming weekend Amnesty are holding a rally in Paris in protest over Iran’s human rights record, with Amnesty hoping to attract 100,000 attendees. Lancaster University’s own Amnesty society are running a coach over for the event also.

“

My mind was always caught on his powerlessness, and the pure domination of the all seeing eye of the state.

”

However, not all human rights violators and authoritarian regimes are known about by the everyday UK citizen; Kazakhstan, for instance. The rarely publicised nation in particular in this article though, is Ethiopia. The Prime Minister of Ethiopia is Meles Zenawi. He was president of Ethiopia from 1991 to 1995, and then he became Prime Minister and has remained there since. Despite being a democrat he isn’t particularly keen on elections. He did hold an election in 2005, but according to Abebe Gellaw, a prominent journalist, he lost all 24 seats in the capital city Addis Ababa and promptly cancelled the count of votes cast from around the rest of the country. Zenawi then declared himself the winner. However, maybe we shouldn’t trust Gellaw, he is after all a terrorist, and one of many Ethiopian journalists who have been forced into exile. Interestingly, in

1

INSIGHT:

13

2011 the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) published a report claiming that over 200 journalists were forced into exile by the Ethiopian government, putting Ethiopia atop a worldwide list of countries that abuse their journalists and press freedoms. Then again, many of those journalists and other opposition politicians are terrorists, which we should bear in mind. I suppose producing so many terrorists is why the School of Journalism may or may not have closed down; the topic is littered with conflict reports.

The state in Ethiopia operates in a very authoritarian manner. There is again conflicting reports about the available media, so I’ll present both stories as both may have truth behind them. The State runs the television channel, though there may now be three channels. The State runs the biggest radio station, though there may be as many as seven. The State owns the only ISP. The State publishes the only daily newspaper, however, across the country there may be as many as 149 periodicals of some form or another, the vast majority of which are local publications. The State run daily actually prints 30,000 copies, which when put in the perspective of a country with a population of 80 million, 0.49 of which own a television, 0.09 own a computer, and 0.02 have internet access, is maybe not enough to provide sufficient media access, even if the adult literacy rate is only at 30% (UNICEF).

“

Despite being a democrat he isn’t particularly keen on elections

”

To provide some more statistics, this time to help paint a picture of Ethiopian society, UNICEF inform us that child mortality rates

are 23rd in the world, domestic abuse is alarmingly commonplace, female genital mutilation is disgracefully high, and despite the poverty and disease prevalent in the society, government expenditure on health is 1% of the budget. Alongside this Human Rights Watch report that the 2006 Charities and Societies Proclamation restricts any Ethiopian non-governmental organisation from doing any human rights work, and the regulatory body established by the proclamation froze the bank account of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, and forced its prominent members to flee the country. As if this wasn’t depressing enough, back in 2005 when Zenawi won the election, protests broke out, understandably, as a result hundreds were killed and 40,000 people were jailed, according to Gellaw.

Why isn’t the international community in uproar, applying diplomatic pressure and using whatever tactics it can in order to help the people of this country? You would be surprised to hear that Zenawi has very strong links with America, Britain, and to a lesser extent Europe. The West supporting a dictator? Surely not! We believe in democracy and freedom and other lovely fluffy things, we couldn’t possibly be supporting a cold blooded authoritarian state and not even attempting real diplomatic pressure; even though Ethiopia relies on our humanitarian aid. Well, as it transpires, we do all those things. Ethiopia is apparently very good for helping the fight against terror. Presumably, if the citizens hate Zenawi, then that’s less time they spend hating America?

This collusion by the West gains more relevancy as we start to consider why Ethiopia has drawn media attention of late. In Ethiopia under recent legislation you can be jailed for up to 15 years for having a 30 second Skype call. The state says that it is a result of ensuring national security. The real reason is layered

and long. Firstly, the state owns all communication and charges a very high price for the use of them; losing business to Skype, most often used via internet cafes, would hit the government’s profits. Thus, impacting on the personal wealth of the president and others who benefit personally from corrupt government. Another aspect is simply that Zenawi knows he’s unpopular enough to have to fight off coups or revolutions. What we have with his policies for censorship and monitoring is preventative medicine. When you go online in Ethiopia websites which criticise the government are blocked, and they also recently blocked access to Tor, a network which epitomises the phrase Deep Web and where anonymity is ensured. You can no longer access content which is critical of the government, and are instead fed only propaganda. You cannot attempt to espouse your political views to others as any form of distance communication which is not provided by the State is banned. And if you wish to just shout your perspectives to your peers, then you must be sure there are no informers/police/or tataqi (local militia). Banning Skype et al keeps all communication under State control. Which leads into the last point, supporting national security and fighting terrorism means two things. It means protecting the State from those who do not support it. It also means protecting the West from those who do not support the West. The tighter Ethiopia’s security, the more brownie points Zenawi earns in the eyes of America and Europe. But we wouldn’t encourage a malevolent oppressive state, would we? A question which could only be asked by someone who has been switched off at least for the duration of the Arab Spring. Russia is currently supporting the horrors in Syria by selling weapons to the Syrian government while watching civilians die at the hands of those weapons day/weeks later. We have done the same, and we continue to do so.

14

“

In Ethiopia under recent legislation you can be jailed for up to 15 years for having a 30 second Skype call.

”

It can appear to be fairly easy to identify human rights violations, and problems within societies which need to be fixed, however, the problem of the poverty and the suffering in Ethiopia traces back to us. This won’t be the argument that capitalism necessitates poverty, which I would stand by; but instead a more intricate path of blame. The philosopher and sociologist Slavoj Zizek indentifies two particular conceptions of violence, subjective violence and objective violence. In short, subjective violence is the physical violence inflicted by one individual onto another; objective violence is the oppressive violence of the system as a result of societal structures. Objective violence breeds subjective violence, and we are very much party to the creation of the objective violence employed by the state against the citizens of Ethiopia. The oppressive draconian nature of Ethiopia’s security system is in many ways encouraged by us in the West, partly as a means to ensure our own security, and partly in our lack of condemnation of the practices.

Until the West, on whom Ethiopia is heavily reliant, choose to stop supporting this Big Brother dictatorship the violence and suppression will continue. We must work to ensure that our nation and our leaders are made aware of the crimes committed abroad, and encouraged into applying diplomatic pressure. I would advise anyone who was remotely interested in the political situation in Ethiopia to visit ethsat.com, home of the Ethiopian

Satellite Television (ESAT) a collective of Ethiopian journalists operating out of exile, and bravely attempting to provide an alternative to State run media in the country. Ethiopia needs our support. The longer we allow this corrupt regime to rule with an iron fist, the longer we allow for the underfunding of healthcare, the systemic abuse of women and children in the society, the soaring number of political prisoners, and all the other social ills which are the result of an oppressive regime our country willingly supports.

In the words of Abebe Gellaw: “We don’t need sympathy; we need support”.

Adam Harrison-Henshall

Rule Britannia...by any means necessary

hy is it in times of crisis or great events the people we vote into

office see fit to start rolling back our civil liberties? All under the mantra of "the greater good" of course, it’s like some nightmarish unfunny version of Hot Fuzz living in the UK at the moment.

London will be turned into a full on police state for the Olympic games, with the military, heavily armed police, private security and even surface-to-air-missiles on residential buildings deployed to "protect us". It’s highly likely if you are around London this summer you

won't be able to cough, sneeze or even piss in your own toilet without it being scrutinised by some stonefaced, angry, power-mad neanderthal with an M5.

Imagine the horrific scenario where terrorists hijack an aircraft and head straight for the Olympic stadium: are the anti-aircraft missiles going to be used to shoot it down? In which case the fiery wreckage will rain down on residential (predominantly poorer) areas of London. But hey, what's the death of a few poor black people who are unemployed and caused us some

trouble last summer if it saves the spectacle of London 2012!

The reason for the above is that my ire has been provoked by the Home Office's plans to press ahead with its communications data bill as well as the upcoming review in the Lords of the Security and Justice Bill. Let me break down what these bills propose:

First of all, the communications data bill would require all communication providers to store information such as the when, where and how of virtual communication which can then be accessed on request by security services without need of a warrant from a judge. Although this will not include the content of communication

Secondly, the Security and Justice Bill would widen the use of secret hearings in civil courts on national security grounds. The accused and their lawyer would be excluded from the courtroom which essentially takes the founding principle of justice and buries it completely. It also means any information of UK involvement in

W

INSIGHT:

15

wrongdoing in other countries (such as the use of torture or collusion with unsavory regimes) would not be disclosed.

It seems no matter how much the Human Race seems to advance and how "civilized" we claim to be, the people in government office seem determined to continue to infringe on our basic civil liberties. It is an approach that has become more and more draconian and shady the further we have advanced in fact.

The great French philosopher and social theorist Michel

Foucault is revered as the foremost thinker and one of the pioneers of the politics of life (Biopolitics). It was here the dilemma was created of how you secure life in an everchanging world like we are in now. To secure it is to imprison it and shackle it; Foucault was a man for individual freedom.

Unfortunately our government has decided it doesn't want to concern itself with this dilemma and is determined to clamp down on our civil liberties and infringe on our privacy more and more. These moves were not restricted to this government, this was a process started by the last government as part of the War on Terror. It seems to be a problem across the board among our elites, that they wish to rollback our civil liberties more and more.

Speaking for myself I do not appreciate being told what is for my own safety, particularly when the people I voted for won't even give me the courtesy for a reason for my "protection" or as to why I am being spied on.

As a natural cynic, I have become suspicious of such measures as they have been pushed as people's dissatisfaction with the economic system has increased and they agitate for change and to shove austerity up the government's backsides. Michael Bloomberg (The Bitch of Wall Street) already demonstrated in New York what lengths he would go to protect his cosy system and I get the feeling that our government is doing the same as they tighten the economic screw on the majority of us for a crisis we didn't cause.

However with a Jubilee just

gone by and the vulgar London vanity project known as the Olympics on the horizon it is unlikely people will protest and agitate (as they should) over this latest infringement on our basic rights. Instead we will walk right into a police state on a standing ovation and a 27 million pound ridiculous ceremony if it meant no one on this pleasant little Island of ours was kicking up a fuss.

Northern Loudmouth

16

The image on the front cover is property of

Gary Barker (garybarker.co.uk) – used with

prior consent.

All other content unless stated belongs to

the author responsible.

Feel free to share this around!