The top boss, who is thought to command close to a six figure salary, topped Vision’s power list in July; a consequence of his control over key services such as cleaning, catering, security, timetabling and University bars. However, worryingly the University admits his vital role will be left vacant for some time, commenting, “There will be no direct replacement in the first instance.”

One puzzled student commented, “This isn’t great really, why haven’t they got someone else to do the job yet? Who’s going to manage all the stuff that he used too?”

According to certain members of the university’s non-academic staff, Lilley’s departure will not be cause for mourning. With several anonymous sources telling Vision: “we won’t be sorry to see the back of him”. These remarks come after a year of spending cuts in the university including, most controversially, cuts in the portering system.

One anonymous staff member alleged: “It is pretty obvious that Keith Lilley was simply brought in for one reason only – cutting costs…[As a result] we have all been scared for our jobs.” Another staff member remarked, “Lilley used to work at the NHS, we were told he cut loads of jobs there…it what some of these management people do, they move from job to job cutting us normal people’s jobs.” The University refused to respond to these allegations.

However, Lilley has also been lauded for many successes during his time as Director of Facilities Management. As reported by Vision in the recent Power List, Lilley has been essential in steering the university’s multi-million pound Heslington East development through the recession. Additionally, one YUSU official told us that Lilley was at the forefront of the successful Hes East swimming pool proposal.

The circumstances around Lilley’s departure are unknown, with Lilley himself refusing to comment. The University did remark that, “Keith Lilley is leaving to take up another position”, but refused to disclose where Lilley is moving, claiming it was “a private matter”.

A Heslington Hall insider hinted that Lilley’s departure had more to do with his 3 hour commute from Sheffield rather than any professional disagreement.

At 8.45pm around 30 fancy dressed members of the football team rampaged through the doors of the library, chanting in unison – “I’m Vanbrugh till I die”; however it has been alleged by witnesses in the library that the students were in fact members of Halifax College, who were using the Vanbrugh chant as a cover.

As they stormed up the stairs one first year philosophy student told us, “They were all calling each other names like ‘lads’ and ‘man beast’, but it was a quite funny because one of them was drinking cherry lambrini.”
But it wasn’t so funny for the staff on duty: one librarian who wished to remain anonymous informed Vision, “It really was bad, they started chucking books off the shelves and spilling beer all over the carpet”.

All of this came after Vision reported on a similar incident in the library 8 months ago, although we have learned that these are not two isolated incidences, and such occurrences have become common practice at the end of every term.

Previous rampage 8 months ago

The team continued their rampage ridiculing studious students; one drunken lout pointed to a girl and bellowed, “If you gave that one a few pints, I bet her clothes would fall right off for me…she’s gagging for it”.
Surprised security guards tried to calm the situation, but seemed to wind the sports teams up even more. Mike Bailey, a second year maths student commented, “It was really strange. It was a chase between a podgy security guard and a sporty drunk; they were dodging shelves and computers and all sorts.”

Such behaviour has allegedly been increasing in frequency, especially for the Halifax squad, who after every term celebrate with a debauched tour around campus. The anonymous librarian added, “We have become used to it, but it is pretty disrespectful and these types of incidents seem to be growing”.

The library staff did however have the last laugh. Around half an hour after the team had disbanded, one lone footballer was forced to walk back to the library in leopard skin Speedos and log a lost property request for his wallet. The anonymous librarian smirked, “He was pretty ashamed of himself”.

The vehicles half-mount the pavement and obstruct both pedestrians on the street and moving vehicles on the road. Peter Rek, a second year Economics student commented, “walking past people has become a right hassle” and that “cycling is even more of a chore, if a bus is trying to overtake you it becomes a right mess!” highlighting fears surrounding safety on the roads.

A majority of the cars display staff car park permits, which has prompted the university to send out an angry email to its employees claiming that certain staff had been “contravening parking regulations.”

However, one anonymous lecturer pointed out, “with no yellow lines or parking restrictions on the road, it would seem that there are no parking regulations to contravene.”

Responding to these allegations, the university press officer, David Garner, said they had “made contact with City of York Council, which has statutory responsibility for enforcing on-street parking regulations,” additionally stating that they “are informing the Police of any cars causing an obstruction in this location.”

The university advises that there are parts of the car park still open in addition to further parking spaces in Halifax / St Lawrence Court, Fairfax House and Heslington East (which includes a free shuttle bus to Heslington West).

RESEARCH

To really understand this, I first needed to explore the projects the Biology department conducts when they perform research on animals. When I met Dr Patricia S. Coulson, the Biology department’s Home Office Liaison office, she explained that much of the animal research conducted in York concerns diseases such as Malaria, Schistosomiasis and Leishmaniasis, all parasitic infections that occur in some of the poorest parts of the world. The animal research comes into the fore when rodents are infected with one of the diseases in order to track the parasites’ development inside a living organism, or in more technical language, “sequence the genome”. The results of these such projects in York have been nothing short of ground breaking and the results have been published in some of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals, laying the fundamental framework for potential vaccines to be developed.

But animal research is not just about scientific accolade. Coulson enlightened me on the need for such research: “I have worked with animals for nearly 30 years, and when I went out to Africa and saw the people who were suffering from the disease that we work on; that really just puts it into perspective.”

It was certainly shocking to hear how parasitic diseases such as Schistosomiasis manifest themselves into the human body, “they just jump out of the water and get into people’s blood stream, they travel around the body and multiply in organs such as the liver.” Although the disease is not generally lethal it is crippling and can damage the liver irreversibly. The heartbreaking truth about the disease is that preventative strategies are almost impossible to put into place. “Sanitation to stop the spread can be used, but the nearest toilet might be two miles away – what would you do? Walk two miles or just urinate on the bush?” Additionally Coulson explained, there are drugs available to cure the disease, but with access to healthcare sparse, people aren’t able to walk miles and miles to the local health centre; it’s unrealistic. A vaccine seems to be the only effective solution, but to have this we need to test on animals.

It struck me that for Coulson, animal research was not just a scientific process, it was a lesser evil, a small but crucial element in disease control. Coulson was certainly very passionate about her role, and she seemed deeply affected by the extreme objections that researches are constantly exposed to. I did however find that this passion could very occasionally cast a very one-minded viewpoint. At one point I was told that objections were generally “light on facts and big on rhetoric.” But I’m not sure that’s quite true.

I’m certainly not denying that there is a lot of rhetoric out there, I did actually get in contact with campus animal testing activist about this issue, but after I emailed her, explaining that this would be an informative feature, she seems to have gone of the radar. Could that mean she didn’t really have much to justify her views on?

BIOETHICS

Dr. Tom Baldwin of the philosophy department however did speak to me about some of the more educated philosophical justifications. He explained good humanitarian results, no matter how compassionate the need, does not necessarily justify animal research. We must get to the roots of what animal research is specifically doing and the immediate suffering it causes to animals; that objection, Baldwin added “is certainly not rhetoric”.

What makes this viewpoint especially disquieting is that there is an implicit assumption in the justification of animal research, that human suffering is much worse than animal suffering. Baldwin added, “animal research depends on the exploitation of non-humans for the benefit of humans”, a powerful point when you consider that the vast majority of animal research is not for the benefit of the animal species in question.

It stuck me that the intricacies of such philosophical points, do seem to be taken for granted by researchers such as Coulson who was puzzled by the proposal that animals could have greater rights than humans. “We cannot do [animal testing] on humans because to do that would simply be unethical” – but why? Humans are able to give consent, animals are not. The human race benefits from such research, the animals involved rarely do.

Ok. If we really look at the grand scale of things the sheer necessity of animal research seems a pretty obvious, and frankly overriding justification. As Coulson explained, “cultures and synthetics could perhaps be used, but they could never, ever replicate an animal organism”.

In addition Coulson made the very reasonable point that, if there were a new medicine not previously tested on animals and instead going straight for human trials, this would never work. “Who would want to do that?” she exclaimed, and I cannot help but agree with her, I certainly wouldn’t want to be tested on.
It is fair to say that medical research is incredibly complicated, probably a lot more complicated than scientists like to make out. However, to me it appears that we can’t just abandon animal research- it seems the only practical option. What’s more, and Baldwin also agrees with this, it is the only safe and reliable means to create vaccines.

We should treat the philosophical debates as significant: they help us understand, develop and refine the procedures surrounding the practice of medical research. Such guidelines are already playing a huge role in animal testing, Coulson didn’t just acknowledge this she was passionate about some of the more nuanced philosophical viewpoints that have entered the scientific world. “When we conduct such research it is all about the animal, every aspect of its life of protected- we control the humidity, the sound, the temperature, the fire alarm is even different – all to suit the animal, because that’s the way it should be”. I was even told that animals were given time with one another to give them happier and more natural lives.

The 3 Rs

Both Coulson and Baldwin told me about the 3 Rs of animal testing increasingly coming to the fore. They include replacement (where if there is an alternative animals should never be used), reduction (where if reports or journals already exists, the use of more animals is rejected) refinement (where animals suffering is minimized as much as possible).

It’s funny really; I expected the whole ‘animal testing’ thing to be a much bigger issue, but actually what I found was a mutual understanding between biologists and philosophers. Of course, sometimes, certain issues are given a lot more emphasis and treated with much more complexity in one department than the other, but this is only natural, there will always be a knowledge gap between the two departments. But if, on our campus, we could start a bit more debate and discussion between the two departments that would bring us, at least here in York, closer to that goal of mutual understanding.

For example, when Vision searched for a candidate in the London School of Economics Library, we found this “fitty” on the website: “Female, Black hair. Sexy girl: wanna see how hung my parliament is?”

The website is the invention of UCL Computer Sciences student, Rich Martell and has spread like wild-fire since its inception last month. Martell explained that he first got the idea from his friends claiming that, “When we’re revising in the library we all text each other when we see an attractive girl. That planted the idea in my head for a website.”

Although the York section of the site was launched just last weekend, a number of “fittys” have already been added, one post reads: “Main Library (Silent room) Female, Blonde hair…Gorgeous green eyes – she totally gave me sex eyes”.

A second year PPE student, Tom Ibbetson, told Vision: “I think it’s going to be a massive hit, it’ll be really good to sift through when I’m bored in the library, or frustrated by revision”.

YUSU Welfare Officer, Ben Humphrys, however has a somewhat different opinion, venting, “This website is bizarre and…if I’m honest, slightly creepy, it reminds me most of secondary school kids perving on classmates/teachers.”

On a more serious tone however, Humphrys added that, “If anyone does feel harassed by being the target of one too many tweeter’s wet dream they should get in touch and we’ll look into it.”

Kinchin’s complete overhaul included a new “framework set by national standards”, a greater emphasis on the personal development of kids’ camp volunteers, and a “safer environment” which bans all alcohol on sight. The resounding 30 page overhaul was unanimously passed following a detailed presentation by Kinchin.

Although Kids’ Camp had its beginnings over 40 years ago, in recent history the scheme has had been at the centre of several embarrassing and controversial incidents.

In 2002 there was a nail biting minibus accident in which a vehicle, according to a YUSU document, “tipped off a cliff” – although nobody was injured. Additionally in 2008, a damaging letter was received from a child’s social worker accusing an individual of entering a child’s room in the night (although the child later denied this claim).

After each of these incidents, the trustee board continued to approve the running of Kids’ camp with little reform; one PhD student, who wished to remain anonymous, told Vision that this was due to a “weak trustee board that was much bigger and had greater politically bias than what the trustee board seems to be today”.
More recently in 2009, Kids’ Camp was at the centre of yet another incident in which the children were deemed by one ex-volunteer as “out of control”.

An email that Vision obtained, from the owner of the accommodation to YUSU confirms this, stating: “I very much regret that owing to the poor behaviour and lack of control of the children during both weeks during August I am not able to accept further bookings from you”.

This seems to have been the final straw for the current, much stronger trustee board, and a new proposal encompassing all necessary procedures and processes was deemed absolutely necessary.

Following Kinchin’s successful proposal, she commented: “I have dedicated many hours of work over the past months…transforming concerns raised by YUSU’s trustees, local professionals and the Kids’ Camp Working Group of volunteers into a practical, safe and exciting solution for running Kids’ Camp”.

When we quizzed Kinchin on why she felt her proposal would last so much longer than previous proposals, she told us that, her proposal was significant in that it “will control the risks of running a residential camp for kids that the Trustee Board have been concerned about.”. Kinchin further added that, “Local professionals in safeguarding children have been involved in working towards these big changes, and the Trustee Board is now confident that Kids’ Camp has been thoroughly reviewed and reconstructed.”

Summer Kid’s camp 2010 will therefore take place from the
23rd – 28th August (1st Week) and 28th August – 1st September (2nd Week).
Contact YUSU for more details on how to get involved.

The injury happened into the second half of the women’s rugby 2nds, when a challenge between two opposing players, rendered the York player with what was believed to be a neck injury. The York player went straight to the floor at the time of the incident, but is believed to be a in a stable condition, having been treated by St. John’s Ambulance.

Spectators did not realise the full implications of the event, until an air ambulance landed on the field 25 minutes later, quickly followed by an emergency ambulance vehicle.

Before the incident there were over 200 spectators at the women’s 2nds rugby game, however the arrival of an air ambulance turned the previously vibrant and jovial atmosphere to sobering confusion.

However a second year York spectator, who did not wish to be named, alleged to Vision that certain Lancaster players and spectators were “celebrating the halt that had been put on the game with beers and champagne”. The student added that she was “more confused than angry” about this aspect of the incident.

Another student who was playing for York in the event expressed her sympathy for her wounded teammate, saying that she was “absolutely gutted“ for the injured player, and that “ the whole thing was just terrible”.

The referee and his officials called a necessary halt to the game with 60 minutes on the clock. Scores were level at 5 a-piece at the time, and the game has been deemed a draw.

The player is thought to be recovering well in hospital and is expected to be released within hours. The injury is thought to be less significant than had previously been thought.

Photographs by Daniel Gilks

The total investment, £7.3billion, amounts to a rise of 0.9%, but when inflation is taken into account this is actually a 1.1% decrease. But for York, funding will rise from £58,248,170 (adjusted in real terms) to £59,714,600, making York one of the biggest gainers in the UK.

This is in stark contrast to other UK institutions. LSE, for example, is set to lose 11.9% of its funding. These cuts, combined with a 23% increase in student applications this year have caused serious concern, with some studies suggesting that there will be 6,000 less places in UK Universities this year. In fact, Aaron Porter NUS vice-president has warned of a “summer of chaos” this year.

These findings would seem to confirm suggestions that York’s Heslington East expansion was to provide a valuable source of income for the University in these dark times. It was additionally hinted by the Hefce that Universities that are to receive increases in funding are those that have high quality research.

The University has reacted with reserved enthusiasm commenting that they were “content” with York’s funding levels, adding that “It is a positive outcome that reflects our position as a leading high quality research institution, and the success of our strategy for growth and development”.

Additionally, The increases have provided relief for some students who were worried about the Vice-Chancellor Brian Cantor’s remarks in a recent Vision interview, where he stated that political lobbying was a “waste of time”. Second Year PPE student, Thomas Ibbetson commented, “This is really good news for York, I was expecting funding cuts and all the negative consequences that would come with them, so this comes as a huge relief.”

First up, York Sport: I’m pretty sure this is in the bag for Asfahani. He has a good support base and his campaign has been a cut above Newton’s.

Next on my agenda, it’s Academic Affairs. Inevitably as returning sabb, Humphrys will win it, but it won’t be without a fight. Humphrys has had his fair share of bad luck lately (what with the censure and all). The others contenders, won’t have as much bad press so they could prove a bit harder to fight off, but none of them have ran amazing campaigns. What I can almost guarantee is that Jason Rose won’t win. If we go by previous election results – he was once beaten by RON- he’s not exactly a strong player.

Welfare now and my money is on a fight to the finish between Laura Ona Borisovaite and Peter Warner-Medley, with Warner-Medley going on to win in the second round. Not sure why I think this one, but call it a hunch!

On to student activities now, and in my view it’s a two horse race between Scarlett and Hesselwood. Tom Flynn has run a tight ship with Scarlett’s campaign and Scarlett is a popular boy, so I really think he’s the one that’ll be standing on the podium tonight. However,  his policies have come under fire this week, and such bad press will not help. Hesselwood could well benefit from this – but with a campaign seemingly kept inside the library, her chances aren’t as strong as they could be.

Democracy and Services is probably going to be the closest fight between Sam Daniels and Dan Walker. I see campus’ very own John Major (a.k.a Chris Etheridge) going down at the first hurdle, but then it will be close between the other two. If I had to decide, I’d pick Walker – with strong Goodricke support behind him, he will come out triumphant.

Last, and certainly not least is President. Well Nouse’s poll kind of said it, Vision’s poll indicated it, and now I’m going to jump on the bandwagon and predict Hutchings to come out as our next YUSU president. If he doesn’t win in the first round (which I guess he will), it might be a little less likely – Hutchings is just like Marmite, you either love his policies or you don’t, and he may not be able to scoop up the that many second preference votes. If it goes to a second round it’ll be a close fight between him, Ngwena, Levene and possibly Freckelton.

Well that’s it! I may be absolutely wrong, but they’re just predictions. Lets face it, it’s anybody’s game.

Conservative

Julian Sturdy, who describes himself as a ‘local farmer’, was first to feel the force of our interrogation. We won’t lie; he didn’t get off to a great start. When asked to sum up his university days in three words, he replied with “great fun”. “Sorry Julian,” we remarked, “that’s, um, two words…moving swiftly on, what would be the soundtrack to your university days?” After little deliberation, “hmm, that would have to be New Order” he said, with an unrepentant grin. Oh, and his favourite pub…“Sam Smiths, Bishopthorpe”. Ok, starting to impress us now Julian.

Regarding the serious questions, Sturdy was focused in his attitudes towards politics. He cares about the student body, saying that the new restrictions on student housing was “a delicate issue” and that “politicians must be careful about legislation that might damage the accessibility of university to young people today”. Furthermore, Sturdy is outright in his conviction that British politicians should be held accountable for the debacle that is the expenses scandal. Sturdy said in disgust, “We should get rid of all the MPs that broke the expenses rules.”

We concluded our interview with some election gossip. Julian was quick to point out “the banter” involved between himself and James Alexander. Although poignantly he told us, “it’s a little more cagey with Madeleine Kirk”. On further questioning he claimed that Kirk’s campaign line ‘Voting Labour only helps out the Conservatives’ was a bit “disingenuous”.

Labour

Next up: political maestro, ex-YUSU President and Vision ‘stalwart’, James Alexander. Describing his university days as “fantastic, fun and wasted – educationally that is”, Alexander was quick off the mark to show the student inside him. He told us that his favourite pub is Pivo; swiftly adding to the comment with copious lip-licking, that this pub has “excellent beers”.

When we quizzed him for the song that would represent his university years, Alexander wasn’t ashamed to admit, “Rhythm of the night, definitely”. When Vision asked James about his presidency, he stated that it “was three years of accelerated life, you make some of the best friends of your life, but boy do you make some bastard enemies.”

On politics, altruistic Alexander believes that organ donation should have “presumed consent”. With regards to the housing legislation, he was a little less sympathetic to students concerns, claiming that the new legislation will create more diverse neighbourhoods, adding that more “responsibility should be placed onto landlords through tenancy agreements”.

We completed our interview with the same request for election gossip, as we had asked Sturdy. Alexander, however was rather more reserved, he claimed that Kirk’s slogan was “fine”, suggesting that he would “probably have done the same”. One can’t help but feel his response was a little bit canned, after all Alexander seems the most political of this bunch.

Liberal Democrats

Our three minute interview with Madeleine Kirk was as well received as Zippo the clown would be at a wake. We began our questioning, with Kirk stating “I don’t know how we can have an in-depth discussion in three minutes”. This, we thought, is not going to be easy.

With clear indignation of our three word request of university life, Madeleine Kirk barked “mature student- different”. We tried to break the awkwardness that accompanied her emotionless responses by asking her what song was the soundtrack to her ‘mature student’ days. Her reply followed the same blunt pattern, “Erm, motown. ‘Sitting on the Dock of the Bay’.” Feeling that we may have touched a few nerves, we moved on to more familiar territory: politic

Kirk was in support of the new legislation to restrict student housing, claiming that “in built up areas, it has the potential to be useful in that it restricts multiple tenancy houses.” Probing her views on British politics in general, we asked her what she would change, “implement proportional representation”. In fairness, she had some extremely useful policies that would benefit students, one of which being “promoting the Liberal Democrat policy to abolish tuition fees for third years”, we liked this!

Kirk was quick to justify her tagline ‘Voting Labour only helps out the Conservatives’, claiming that it was a fact and that “voters are not unintelligent, they can work out [who to vote for] for themselves”. Kirk concluded that “Labour cannot win this seat”, although she swiftly added, “we’re not confident – don’t print that”.