Stacks of papers had been missing from Vision’s archive for years and were considered ‘lost’.

Described as a “revolution on campus,” Vision was first published in 1987 and was York’s first fully independent student newspaper.

The first 10 editions of Vision are now available to read online by following the links below, and they give a fascinating insight into the history of the University of York.

Digitising is a slow process, but we hope to continue uploading more issues over time. Watch this space! However, there still remain several issues missing from the archives.

The very first issue of York Student Vision is now available to read here:

To explore more of the editions from the 1980s, follow the links below:

Issue 2
Issue 3
Issue 4
Issue 5
Issue 6
Issue 7
Issue 8
Issue 9
Issue 10

Or view all our archives here.

Many thanks to Steve Teal for providing the originals.

A screenshot of the infamous video

Bradley Manning had been disillusioned with the Army since an incident early in his military career. As a young intelligence analyst in Iraq, he had been tasked with finding out who the ‘bad guys’ were of a group of fifteen Iraqis accused of printing ‘anti-Iraq’ literature. However, when he translated the literature, he found that it was nothing more than a benign political critique. He told his superior, believing the issue would be dropped. But his protestations were ignored and Manning was told to round up more Iraqis.

An angry and disheartened young man with access to guns is dangerous, but one with access to highly confidential data is even more so. Manning attempted to right the previous wrong by showing the world what was really going on in Iraq. Whilst working, he discovered a video of two apache helicopters circling a group of people in an Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad. What he saw next has now been seen by millions across the world.

The footage shows the soldiers on board the apache asking for permission to engage the target after they see one of the group holding an object they assume to be a weapon. They are given the go ahead and proceed to shoot at the group. As the dust cloud settles, one man is left alive, injured, but crawling to safety. A van comes to help the man. However, when they try to carry him into the van, they are shot at again and killed.

Manning analysed the footage and discovered that the object presumed to be a weapon was in fact a camera. And the man holding it was a Reuters photojournalist. In fact two of the victims had been Reuters’ employees. Furthermore, the van held two children who were injured by the gun fire. This, combined with the bizarre light-hearted attitude of the officers in the apache, caused the US Army to cover the video up and keep it a secret.

Unfortunately for the US Army, Manning had discovered it and had the perfect platform to reveal it to the world; Wikileaks.

The website had been in operation since 2007. By guaranteeing anonymity to those leaking information and having a reputation of authenticity, Wikileaks uploaded the video and called it ‘Collateral Murder’. The resulting media frenzy gave the site much needed publicity, and Manning exactly what he wanted.

But the Collateral Murder video is not the first time Wikileaks has upset the status quo. After only three and a half years of existence, Wikileaks has become an impressive force, exposing a number of high profile secrets; the ‘Climategate’ emails, BNP membership lists, Guantanamo Bay procedures among many. Wikileaks is not so much a media organisation, rather a media insurgency. Unsurprisingly, the site has acquired a high number of adversaries. Legal threats have been worldwide – a Kenyan politician, lawyers from Northern Rock, and the dreaded scientologists have all attempted to sue the site.

The founder of the site, Julian Assange, is an elusive Australian constantly relocating to avoid prosecution. But as a former computer hacker, he has created a site that is seemingly impossible to stop. It is so well protected that Assange has boasted “a government or company that wanted to remove content from WikiLeaks would have to practically dismantle the internet itself”. Content is uploaded through servers in Sweden, a country that assures anonymity of sources in digital media. Once it is online, Wikileaks maintains the content on twenty servers across the world and hundreds of domain names. Employing only half a dozen or so full time staff – who refer to each other in code name – Wikileaks depends on donors and supporters who share the belief of free press.

With the stakes so high and the data proving so powerful, why is Wikileaks so important? According to the website, Wikileaks ensures democracy and good governance. They use the example of their expose of Kenyan corruption that was awarded an Amnesty Award. Malaria is almost totally eradicated in the developed world, yet in Africa it still kills over a hundred people an hour. We know how to stop it, yet the problem persists in countries where bad governance persists. This is where Wikileaks believes it can help; by revealing the corruption and holding governments to account. In this case, Wikileaks exposed corruption that amounted to $3,000,000,000 just before the 2007 national elections, which swung the vote by 10%. The new government radically revised the constitution and a more open government was formed. They believe this will lead to better malaria protection and eventual eradication of the disease.

This may sound exaggerated and ideological, but it demonstrates the altruistic nature of the website. Yet Wikileaks is not without its critics.

Authenticity is a crucial problem that is unlikely to be solved. Its first leak was a secret Islamic order written by Sheikh Hassan Aweys, but there was instant speculation that it was a fake and the question of credibility reduced the impact. Since then, it has plagued a number of leaks despite their best attempts to check the data. One member of Wikileaks has stated that he intentionally put through fake documents to test the process. Although the data was flagged as potentially fake, it still got through. Plenty of reputable sources have verified an impressive amount of research into the leaks, but considering the amount that are published and the number who work on the site, it is impossible to prevent frauds filtering through. Wikileaks responds by noting the failings of other prestigious media organisations that are often duped by fakes.

The difficulty in knowing how authenticate information has, according to Assange, created an atmosphere paranoia. So much so, that a founding member, John Young, accused them of being a CIA conduit in 2007. Following his departure, he published 150 pages of confidential emails from Wikileaks. He believed that they should be subject to the same scrutiny that others receive. But Wikileaks were unfazed and published the damaging leak. One wonders whether this was an example of transparency or self-promotion, but either way it has added to the sites credibility.

Julian Assange - The founder of WikiLeaks

The accusations of Assange and his team working for the CIA seem ironic now. Whilst Assange has evaded prosecution as of yet, the US are beginning to step up their attempts to locate him. Manning, the man behind Collateral Murder, has only recently been discovered as the leak. He had grown close to another former hacker, Adrian Lamo, online and had revealed that he had leaked the information. Lamo informed the FBI, who are now holding Manning in detention in Kuwait. So far, Manning has revealed to the FBI further leaks that he has already sent to Assange, including incredibly sensitive data of 260000 secret cables between US diplomats and foreign leaders, data that has the potential to be a diplomatic disaster.

It begs the question; is the information that Manning, and Wikileaks, release of actual benefit to the public, or is it putting the public in danger? The Collateral Murder video is surely a benefit, and a soldier who was involved has since been on US TV supporting the leak. However, the problem with the site is that everything is uploaded, the only stipulation being that it is authentic. Wikileaks has a policy of not being the referee, instead letting the world and the media be the judges.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal by L. Gordon Crovitz questioned the ease of exposing and the threat to national security. Crovitz uses the example of Philip Agee, a former CIA official who released the names of hundreds of CIA agents in the 1970s and, as a result, several were murdered across the world. Before the age of the internet, to expose a story; one had to interest a journalist, who would then need the editor to decide whether it was in the public interest to publish. Now it is far easier to sidestep these problems and release them to Wikileaks.

It is difficult to determine the real motivations behind Wikileaks. Is it just a bunch of ‘hacktivisits’ causing controversy or is it the future of investigative journalism? Whilst it has the opportunity to create an honest world, it also has the power to cause havoc.

Sarah Beeny’s place as a TV regular and well known media name marks a remarkable career for the development guru. After studying Drama she had a series of jobs ranging from working for the charity Save the Children, window cleaning, door-to-door vacuum cleaning salesperson and running a sandwich making business. However, it appears Beeny’s passion was always for property. “I always had a keen interest in property so I studied that at weekends when I could. I then bought my first property having saved up for a deposit and from there started my own property development company with my brother and husband.”

This long history allows Beeny to be philosophical about the prospects of what seems like a dilapidated sector. “There are lots of predictions of a house price crash looming – but I think we won’t see this for some time, we will just keep steady at the same level, with prices dictated by demand and supply.” The real estate expert is keen to point out where she thinks there need to be changes in the sector – “I think too many people don’t think of property as a long term investment” and “one of the biggest problems is the availability of finance.
Something needs to be done to get the banks back to lending again.”

However, Beeny is realistic about the property market, stating her golden rule as “Don’t rush into anything. Take your time, do your research and spend some time in an area before you make up your mind.” And with this she is more than happy to impart her time honoured and well-honed property acumen to Vision readers. “Carry out thorough research…an appealing property rental is one that is close to transport links…all of the bedrooms should ideally be doubles…think low maintenance…be prepared to do some hard work…chose a property close to home…steer clear of large gardens.” It is with these simple, but devilishly effective, ideas that Beeny has become one of Britain’s most successful and notorious property industry success stories.

But it was through sheer luck that Beeny got her most notable break – “I got into TV through a chance meeting with a producer at a hen party I went to and they arranged a screen test shortly afterwards.” With this the property developer became a television schedules stalwart with a cross-population appeal that sees both university students and OAPs tuning in to see her programmes.

With this media friendly presentation she has been able to crop up in such programmes as Gordon Ramsey’s F Word where she lent her garden to his sheep to graze and Bob the Builder where she values Bob’s house as “Two Bob”. “I enjoy them. In general I’ve had some great opportunities and love the variety. It’s lovely to be invited to do some of these things.” So does she see herself as an entrepreneur or TV celebrity? “I think a mixture of both; I started out with TV and am now enjoying starting new businesses. Most people probably know me from television though.”

So what are these new businesses? “Mysinglefriend.com and tepilo.com – the former is a matchmaking dating site where you set your friends up on dates, and Tepilo is my new property website – to help people sell or let their properties with no charge or commission. My sites are generally born out of frustration with the ways things are currently done, or the lack of similar sites – so the move to the internet was really a solution rather than planned events.” Beeny seems smitten with these new websites, relaying that both are going really well and saying “It’s great to hear back from people who have sold their houses or got married via the sites.”
Property guru, media personality, internet success – what could be next for the nation’s housing advisor? “I’ve got a new series out soon, and I’m looking into another couple of websites. Can’t say too much at the moment though. I’m also working on a Cancer Research campaign to get people to de-clutter their houses and hand stuff they don’t need into the Cancer esearch shops. There is plenty to keep me busy.”

Four Royal Garden Parties are held each year, three at Buckingham Palace and one at Holyrood House in Scotland. The one I attended was the first of the summer and it was a very exciting affair.

Our invitations had arrived in the post two months before the party. It included a personal invitation from the Lord Chamberlain and a leaflet on what was appropriate to wear. Ladies had to wear a hat, and men a lounge or morning suit. My Dad was set, as was myself and my Mam. My sister on the other hand ended up with a too-big gold hat and what can only be described as an orthopaedic shoe.

Making my way down to London with my parents and my sister, I found out that I had only been able to go with them because I was under 25 and unmarried. So, apart from that depressing and a touch insulting fact, I was worried as what to expect.

Our hotel was a short distance from the Palace and was filled mostly with Garden Party guests. Worryingly, those guests seemed to be of a certain age, that being over 65, so I began to think that I would stick out like a sad little sore thumb.

My dress already made me resemble a melting ice cream and my shoes were a touch inappropriate. But now the day had come I couldn’t go back on my choices, I had to lie in my ‘practically deemed a spinster’ bed.
After months of watching YouTube videos of pillocks in hats meeting the Queen, the day had finally arrived. I got dressed in to what I deemed an appropriate outfit for a ‘yes I’m 20 and unmarried but I’m not a cat-lover just yet’ girl and headed to the Palace.

Although we were only 500 metres from Buckingham Palace, we got a taxi. It was a very hot day and who wants to prance about in their finery when you were no doubt going to get caught up in a tourist group tramping on you with their platform trainers.

Paying all of £3.20, we headed to the back of the well-dressed queue that was beginning to form. We became a bit of a tourist attraction in the end, God knows how many photos I will be on in China, and I must admit it added to the overwhelming atmosphere of the day. Paparazzi also photographed me twice and, yes, I did feel special.

We walked through the heavily policed gates and made our way through the house to the garden. It was like a sea of very well-dressed people, with a few questionable hats and skirt lengths thrown into the mix.
There were two tents, one for the peasant masses and one for (actual) Royalty. We headed there first after a quick pit stop at the barley water stand (I’m not even joking). The choice of twee was huge. Egg and cress sandwiches, sans crust, and triple layered Victoria sponge graced the white linen tables, all in mini form of course.

I chose some Sandringham apple juice and walked around the rose garden, trying, very uncoolly, to be in every shot for the DVD. Whether I was successful or not remains uncertain.

The gates had opened at 3pm and the Queen was coming out at 4, so we decided to wait to fill our slightly-posh boots.

We were instructed to form lines for the Queen’s entrance with enough gap so she could move through and meet the lucky few who were going to be introduced.

The RAF brass band began tooting the national anthem as the Queen arrived and took her place alongside Prince Philip on the top of the stairs. She was wearing a buttercup yellow dress and long jacket with a silver embellishment across the front. She had a matching hat and white gloves and, surprisingly, a little black handbag.

We ended up at the front of the queue, near the Royal tea tent after what felt like a lifetime’s worth of bustling about between Yeoman and clucking women. We finally got our place at the end of the line, however, looking back, this was probably a mistake. We were waiting for nearly an hour until she came past. Our entertainment in the wait was banter with the Beefeaters and wondering whether that man opposite was Feargal ‘a good heart these days is hard to find’ Sharkey. Turns out it was.

After the best part of an hour, and after my ankles had swollen like a sponge, the Queen finally made her way past a lady emulating a human Oscar and walked our way. Two girls were pulled out from next to us to meet her; I’m not bitter about that still, honest. Everyone stood stock still as she came into the vicinity. She looked lovely and her hair looked like a cloud up close. A proper little Granny.

And then she looked at me and smiled! I nearly died with excitement. Feargal Sharkey and his bit didn’t even get a look in! Serves you right matey for wearing brown loafers with cream chinos at the Palace. Fool.
Once the Queen was out of sight (i.e. mobbed by her bodyguards – some cheery Scouts and Guides) we hot footed it to the tea tent. We were greeted by a disappointed few who had done what we had – sacrificed a fruit slice to see her Maj up close.

We spent the rest of the time sitting in the sun with our fifth glass of barley water and wondering what on earth Feargal Sharkey was doing there. Many guests had made a half moon-shaped gathering around Her Maj and Pip’s tent, and watched them eat cake. That did not sound too much of a plan to me.

At about 5.30pm the Queen left the party and headed back, again with the brass band playing ‘God save the Queen’ after her. We left at about 6.30 after a policeman asked us ‘kindly’ to leave.

And the party was over. After two ice creams, a fair few barley waters and a smile from the Queen, it turned out to be one of the greatest experiences of my life.

We walked out of Buckingham Palace knowing that it would be very unlikely that we’d step foot back in the place. Well, until I marry Harry that is. Here’s hoping.

This year we’ve included a number of secretive Hes Hall big wigs such as the elusive Keith Lilley, to offer a real perspective on who does what. But position isn’t everything, this year there’s been a real emphasis on knowledge with regular students like Miles Layram easily making it into the top 30.

So sit back, relax and get to grips with York University’s real movers and shakers…

As director of facilities management Keith Lilley is in charge of the entire non-academic side of the University. This broad role means that Lilley rules the roost in the distribution of key services areas such as cleaning, catering, security, timetabling and University bars.

With the campus doubling in size, inside sources tell Vision that Lilley has been charged with carrying out Hes Hall’s masterplan which will see the Heslington East project through the recession.

However Lilley’s mighty plans are not always student friendly, it is alleged that he personally pushed through the portering cuts in key Hes Hall meetings and as director of York University Pensions Funds Ltd., he is also responsible for the University’s continued investment in unethical investments such as BAE systems.

Although he describes himself as the University’s “most senior administrative officer”, Cantor has substantially more power on a national scale, and thus has less influence on the student body than one might imagine.

Despite this, his actions do affect the student body, with one anonymous YUSU insider describing him as the University’s “chief salesman”.

If anything Cantor’s power lies in what he can do for himself, lets not forget Vision’s investigation last month which exposed Cantor’s enormous expenses.

David Duncan is relatively new to the job, joining the University in 2008.

Duncan has become an influential figure in the multi-million pound library renovation, a project which has seen whole floors of the library cut-off causing chaos in peak exam periods.

Duncan will continue to reign over the project next year as the library works look set to continue.

Duncan also controls computer services, human resources and health and safety in the University, as well as a taking a key role in the quality and assurance of academic assessments. A source close to the University described him as “a very, very busy man”.

When Ngwena won his first term as president, he entered the union as a very non political individual, however over the past year Ngwena has positioned himself in the mainstream of campus politics, swiftly embedding his authority.

Tim has pushed through YUSU’s ambitious ‘strategic plan’ which sets the stage for YUSU objectives over the next 4 years.

Another term as president next year will further cement his already powerful position in not just campus, but University politics. However, this has led some to question his authority – is Tim too close to University bosses?

Having said this, Ngwena seems to have defied troublesome set-backs in the portering campaign and even avoided a motion of censure.

Poor old Grenville hasn’t had the best of years, and it’s reflected in this year’s ranking – number five as the Pro Vice Chancellor for STUDENTS ain’t great. Over summer she is said to have buckled under pressure to cut portering hours, a further exposé on the front page of Vision didn’t help her reputation.

It isn’t all bad news though, Grenville continues to have major sway, chairing influential bodies like the Special Cases Committee and the Student Services Committee. She is also in charge of the college Provosts.
6. TREVOR SHELDON
Deputy Vice-Chancellor in charge of learning and information.

7. YUM
Campus’ eyes and ears. The coolest kids in town, or so we’ve heard.

8. STEPHEN TOWN
Director of University Library and Archives.

9. LEWIS BRETTS
YUSU D&S Officer/promise breaker. Bretter luck in your next job.

10. GRAHAM GILBERT
Director of Finance. Keeping his hands on the purse-strings in this time of recession.

11. ELIZABETH HEAPS
Most important figure for Hes East besides “The Beast”.

12. BEN HUMPHRYS
Welfare officer Humphrys has shown himself to be an assertive sabb this year, leading relatively successful campaigns such as ‘Keep Your Cool’ and ‘Crime Week’. His successful bid to become next years’ academic affairs officer confirmed his strong support base and has further boosted him up the power list.

13. JON GREENWOOD
Director of Commerical Services. Not barred yet.

14. BAILEY OLIVER
It’s been a tough year for our Security Operations Manager Bailey Oliver, with a restricted portering service and increases of crime on campus. Oliver was, however, instrumental in ensuring that Prince Andrew’s visit ran smoothly earlier this term.

15. CHARLIE LEYLAND
YUSU’s leading lady after two years at the top.

16. PHIL KEMBER
As head of the Conference Office, which looks after the University’s most important visitors, Phil Kember wields enormous power over the University community by securing vital revenue. Outside term-time, his conferences effectively take over campus completely.

17. RHIANNA KINCHIN
Steering societies and wrangling RAG

18. EMILY SCOTT
YorkSport President – lost Roses but won our hearts

19. KATE DODD
Should you get into trouble, Kate Dodd, the University’s Academic Registrar, is the person who will decide whether or not to kick you out. She also plays a pastoral role for the university.

20. UNION TRUSTEE BOARD
Guiding YUSU and making the big decisions

21. SUE JOHNSTON
Head of Campus Services. A very im-porter-ant figure

22. SAM ASFAHANI
YorkSport President elect and Bluto from “Popeye” lookalike

23. TIMETABLING OFFICE
Keeping tabs on who goes where, when and why

24. MILES LAYRAM
He has no position in YUSU, yet English Ph.D student Miles Layram has used his years of YUSU knowledge to assert himself on campus. A cleverly timed censure on Tim Negwena and Ben Humphries didn’t succeed but had a lasting impact on the way students viewed YUSU sabbaticals in action.

25. CHRISTIAN UNION
Spreading the word whether you like it or not.

26. SUSIE FOTHERGILL
Fundraising for societies just like us. Wonderful!

27. NICK SCARLETT
King of Kids Camp and Student Activities Sabb elect

28. STEPHEN KENNEY
Legendary 21+ Rep with sway

29. CHARLIE ROWLEY
Cheesy Pop fan and Council Chair

30. HOLLY BURTON
Darts Darling and Derwent Chair

31. DAVID CLARKE
Environment and Ethics for a second year running, David Clarke is building up contacts and gaining momentum in YUSU. He has is tipped to be an intergral player in campus campaigns next year.

32. JASON ROSE
Still a prolific meeting attender and insatiable UGM proposer

33. LYDIA BLUNDELL
Halifax President and yet another cheese fan

34. GSA – RUI HAUNG
Helping the aged

35. YORK ENTREPRENEURS
Thanks to their various events, these campus Del Boys are easily one of the richest societies.Their competition launch parties often run into the thousands and feature some of the most expensive speakers on campus.

36. TIM ELLIS
Leading students over in Hes East

37. LGBT COMMITTEE
Having a gay old time

38. DAN WALKER
D&S Officer elect and apparently the son of a hegdehog

39. RACHEL HESSELWOOD
Volunteering Veteran – well liked by YUSU and others

40. CHRIS ETHERIDGE
May not be in YUSU anymore but recently proved he can stir up quite a bit of trouble

41. TAHIR SHETTY
Vanbrugh Chair

42. MATT BAILEY
Influential Chemistry Course Rep

43. YUsnow
Snowbotherers and Yeti lovers

44. YUSU ENTS REPS
The union’s wannabe party boys

45. LAURA BO
BO ‘electa!

46. YUSU WOMENS OFFICERS
YUSU women’s committee are planning big things for freshers next term, the committee features a well connected bunch and they are looking more and more influential.

47. RUGBY CLUB
Scrum chums

48. SAM WESTROP
NUS Delegate and Freedom Society founder

49.GREG DYKE
BBCause he has a bit of sway with the VC

50. RAG

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.

This was February 2009 and the week of a court ruling on extraordinary rendition and an opportunity for the human rights campaigner to really earn her keep. The focus of her speech and the applause of the audience certainly showed she had succeeded. Now it was up to the former Secretary of State for Defence, the Right Honourable Geoff Hoon, to stage a rebuttal. His dismissal of Chakrabarti’s statement as “emotional” didn’t get very far when she savaged him with the words “Yeah, I am emotional about torture, sir. I certainly am!”

Media Style

This straightforward style and dead pan delivery has come to characterise Chakrabarti’s media appearances. Although she may look angry during her media appearances she says she “enjoys doing it. I am not dazzled, spooked or scared anymore. I am just addressing people.”

However, the Director of Liberty has labelled herself as the “Grim Reaper” in a Daily Telegraph comment piece. Her justification for this? “People like me are not usually associated with comedy; we are associated with tough issues. When I appear in the media something unfortunate is usually happening.”
Now as a Director of one of the most prolific pressure groups in the UK for nearly a decade, Chakrabarti has had a phenomenal journey from Home Office lawyer and barrister to, what at points appeared to be, a lone voice for civil liberties in the UK.

Career

From being Liberty’s in-house counsel, Chakrabarti has risen up the ranks to lead one of the most widely known and well respected pressure groups, in an industry that doesn’t always wish to showcase it’s power or influence. When I ask her about how her professional experiences helped her in Liberty she replies pithily – “You don’t have to be a lawyer to be a human rights’ campaigner, but it is very useful.”

Her career reached the point in 2005 where the Today programme listed her as one of the ten people who “may run Britain.” She takes this accolade in her stride. “I think whoever was compiling the list had a good sense of humour. I think it was just part of the context and atmosphere of the time with ID cards on the statute books and the War on Terror. But I take it as a compliment.”

This was followed in 2006 by being listed as the second “Most Inspiring Political Figure” by a popular vote, in Channel Four’s Political Awards. With this award she beat wider known names such as Tony Blair, David Cameron, George Galloway and Bob Geldof, but was pipped to the post by Jamie Oliver.

Average Day

Vision caught up with her on an average Wednesday morning in the office. Well, not that average really. “My days aren’t average. They can range from campaigning in the courts, to lobbying politicians in Parliament, to doing media appearances…my day could go in any number of directions.” It is 9am and, I’ll be honest, I don’t see that many nine o’clocks in the same day. However, Chakrabarti is wide awake, witty, honest and on the ball.

New Labour

Chakrabarti is probably best remembered for her consistent and stinging criticisms of the Blair and Brown governments which earned her the somewhat clichéd epithet of “the thorn in the side of governments”. However, while her reputation may be as a foghorn for the civil liberties movement she remains fair and balanced evaluating New Labour saying they have “a mixed record really.” On a positive note she says “The Human Rights Act was wonderful – it is a positive and consistent measure… and there were many aspects of equality that were good.”

But she does not shy away from laying down criticisms – “They gave up too much freedom and became associated with Bush and the War on Terror, they criminalised young people and they started to wrongly link asylum and crime.” However, the idea that all the problems around civil liberties in the last decade can be pinpointed on one person or group is dismissed by Chakrabarti. “Blair certainly had a big part to play and he was a central feature. But I think everyone had a part to play, especially those around Tony Blair.”

The Burnham Affair

Although criticism and judgement may be part and parcel of Chakrabarti’s job she probably did not expect to be drawn into full scale insults during the debate over plans to extend the custody period in the UK to 42 days.

Liberty used all of its usual methods in an attempt to defeat the bill – lobbying the government, media appearances features in all outlets that would listen, campaigns involving as many MPs as possible, etc. And at the same time David Davis (the then Shadow Home Secretary) decided to resign his parliamentary seat in order to force a by-election debate on the issue of civil liberties.

This led MP Andy Burnham to insinuate that Chakrabarti and Davis were having “late night, hand wringing, heart-melting phone calls.” The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport’s slightly odd accusations are probably something of a sore point for Chakrabarti who dismisses them as “silly remarks which simply trivialised the issue.”

She will not be drawn into whether this affects Burnham’s suitability to lead the Labour Party – he is standing in the recently announced leadership battle triggered by Gordon Brown’s resignation – saying that it is “a matter for the Labour Party”. But she is quick to point out that “he did apologise to me.”
Chakrabarti is not keen to earn political points or capital from the incident that you must feel she would rather forget. But she is forceful in pointing out “this highlights a wider issue about women in public life and how they are treated.”

Coalition Government

In comparison to recent events these battles all seem like ancient history. There is a new Parliament, a new government, a new Prime Minister and new Secretaries of State in place. But will all these new facets of politics lead to change?

“It is only a couple of weeks old so we will see” states Chakrabarti. “On a positive note they are scrapping ID cards and I am happy with the announcement of an inquiry into extraordinary rendition. ..Most of all they have to make sure they work for everyone.” On whether the Lib Dems have done the right thing going into partnership with the Conservatives she is pragmatic and straight forward. “I am not a party political animal. But I think they will be judged on what they achieve.”

One thing Chakrabarti is certain of is the usefulness of the “wonderful” Human Rights Act. “For an infant bill of rights it faced a lot of attacks. But it stood those attacks well. I think when you explain to people what it actually is and what it does it becomes a lot more popular.” It remains to be seen whether Chakrabarti can convince media outlets, who have usually lumped the legislation together with “political correctness gone mad” and “elf and safety craziness”, of the uses of the legislation.

Ideology

But Chakrabarti is not afraid to confront her critics and answer those who dismiss her, as her many appearances on Question Time, Any Questions and a host of other political programmes. “I don’t attack in a personal way. And no one should ever feel guilty about talking up to power.” She remains stringent in her views labelling the “crucial issue” as “whenever there is any interference with free speech there should always be a rigorous debate.”

But the civil liberties campaigner does not maintain a rose-tinted view of a incorruptible world. Her ideology is one of high-minded ideals with a large dollop of realism and cynicism. “Sometimes we are our own worst enemies when dealing with our own privacy. The biggest questions is whether we believe in rights just for British citizens or for everyone in Britain.”

While almost everything in Westminster may be changing one thing remains nearly certain – Chakrabarti will maintain her position as the government’s disgruntled mother-in-law, watching every naive plan, criticising every silly mistake and tut-tutting when it all goes wrong.

Future Plans

Chakrabati seems more than happy in her job. Although she may describe her media performances as akin to the “Grim Reaper” her steely resolve and good humour are infectious and inject a sense of hope into what can often be a depressing subject.

Asked whether she would ever take a job in government she replies “I don’t think so, no. I certainly haven’t been tempted so far. There is nothing wrong with it, but it is just not my thing.” So what are her future plans? “I have no idea. I love what I am doing at the moment; I count it as an enormous privilege.”

With this the mood becomes upbeat. But you can’t help but feel she represents a strict primary school teacher at the start of term in political metaphors.
For her a new government is like a new unruly class. And as soon as they put a foot out of line she will certainly be giving them one hell of a telling off. We will certainly know when the first detention of the year is dished out when another politician has to sit through a grilling on national TV. If I was the producer of Question Time I would be emailing her an invite very soon.

These criticisms were probably somewhat inevitable when you are attempting to lead an organisation that is inextricably linked to the Labour movement and has seen many of its former Presidents rubbing shoulders with Labour party glitterati.

Instead of focusing on this Aaron Porter likes to point to his own experiences as an undergraduate, a sabbatical officer at the University of Leicester and as Vice President of the NUS as putting him in the “strongest possible position.” While he states that he “really enjoyed university and had a great experience” he is achingly hasty to acknowledge that some people don’t have a good experience at university.

It is with this that Porter launches into what you feel must be a slightly over used tirade on the endless problems facing the higher
education sector. “Budgets under threat…direct impact on the student experience…a real prospect fees will be increased.”

Although over used you get the sense Porter is genuine throughout. And with this he fires an attack on his next target – Vice Chancellors. “Many VCs, probably including Brian Cantor, are calling for fees to be increased.” Porter is not going to draw back or mince words when dealing with what he seems to believe are some form of anti-Christ figurehead for all that he is campaigning against. “They have received record pay; if they campaign for increased fees they should expect a backlash.” With this he throws out what is probably his most stinging criticism – “Not every VC really cares about students and the student experience.”

However, Porter is confident that his campaigns, particularly the NUS campaign against a rise in fees, will garner popular approval. “Public support is on our side and there are not sufficient numbers of MPs supporting a rise in fees.”

It remains to be seen whether the new NUS President will be able to translate this apparent support into successful government policy. The Browne Report (a government study into the possibility of raising tuition fees) is underway now and due to present its findings to those in charge by the Autumn. Porter sees this as the next big struggle. “They have no real regard for students and they will recommend higher fees. The committee’s inclination is towards the free market and they are keen on students paying more.”

Porter certainly sees fighting against fee increases as an integral facet of his presidency. When asked what he wants to achieve during his term he reels off a list of plans – “no fee increases”, “a better deal for part time students”, “a fairer admissions system” and “I want the university timetable to be re-jigged so you apply once you have your results.” And there will certainly be a lot of people waiting to see what Porter can achieve.

The new NUS President is also happy to argue against those who dismiss the NUS as ineffectual or pointless. “We have the most democratic structure of any organisation in the world.” However, Porter is keen to remember some of the problems of the recent past.”The NUS has had some real successes over recent years. But I do appreciate that up until a few years it was mismanaged and poorly directed.”

His criticisms also happily wander onto the subject of the NUS itself. “We need to be better at communicating with students. Most students don’t know what we do apart from the discount card. We need to get our message directly to students.” However, it is not with NUS that Porter seems to think the responsibility of communication lies but with universities. “We need access to students’ email addresses; we need a visible presence on university campuses and should have web links on student union websites.”

Porter certainly shows a genuine vivacious appetite to get things done. He has campaigns spewing left, right and centre and enough criticisms to fill up a week’s worth of newspaper comment pieces. But students have been failed a few too many times for the new NUS President to have access to the trust some might have once taken for granted in the union. Add to this a report likely to recommend raising tuition fees and a government in its overdraft and it will remain to be seen where all Porter’s campaigns and criticisms will get him.

He’s currently teaching at the Madison Media Institute, with experience from teaching “The Business of Touring” at Columbia College Chicago. Recently he founded his own school- Revolution Number Three. He’s author of Tour:Smart, arguably the most definitive guide to touring available. The nearly 600 page mammoth details everything from booking your own show to constructing a guestlist. The contributors range from Henry Rollins to Chris Connelly to The Suicide Girls, with many other industry insiders.

Add to this already comprehensive list: producer, DJ, documentary filmmaker and columnist, and you’ve got one hell of an impressive CV. In short, when Martin Atkins talks music, you listen.

Though he undoubtedly looks like an old punk he has got an air of professionalism and authority about him. He says that in one way or another, he’s been involved in the music industry all his life. However, he maintains that certain things haven’t changed.

“You still have the big business on the one end and the innovators doing the new shit on the other end. Major labels versus indie labels; the D.I.Y. crowd versus the not D.I.Y. crowd. The differences have always been there, but now the D.I.Y. crowd has a distinct advantage, as the big oil tanker of the traditional business loses its way. It’s the small speedboats that can make quick turns. They can try one direction and if that’s no good, they can go back and try another one. The big oil tankers are committed to one direction and if that doesn’t work out than that’s it; they’re stuck, they can’t manoeuvre. The advantage is with the small entrepreneurial thinkers.”

He does however recognize that technology represents big change and he praises the fact that the barriers to distribution have now disappeared. I wonder whether this increased accessibility to music has made it easier or harder to make your mark as an artist?

“Well, for the D.I.Y. crowd, its just another day, another problem. What I’ve done all my life is solve problems, so just bring me another problem. When I see people who want to change the rules and dial it backwards, that’s disappointing. The rules can only be changed by moving forward. People either get it and they do it and they’re not afraid of making mistakes. They change the course and respond and learn from their mistakes or they sit in a room shaking with fear.”

With the changes in distribution Atkins believes that the era of supplying music through selling albums is over, but he does not believe that the physical format is dead. “The physical model is coming back, not as a way to mass market, but as an artefact. It becomes art objects for people to own, rather than a form of distributing the music. Now vinyl is cool. People are worried about illegal downloading, but the same thing happened in the 70s through the black music market.” With all his experience Atkins remains philosophical about major shifts – “When you’re as old as I am, you see this shit and its like ‘oh people are getting hysterical over nothing again’.”

Atkins doesn’t see illegal downloading as the big problem the industry perceives it to be. “It seems to me people are quite happy getting their music the way they’re getting it and bands are succeeding. What problem exactly are they trying to solve? Are they trying to make money? Trying to insert themselves into the supply chain? This is middle managing and there’s a lot of that going on.”

Middle managing is something the business veteran is not fond of. In Tour:Smart he advises bands to cut out the middle man and book shows themselves. Is there no room for that linking body?

“There is room. But anyone who can help a band could help 20 bands, and the business model is that if you can help 20 bands you should be trying to help 50. The more times you spin the wheel, the more likely you are to get the prize. The people who can help you don’t have the time to help you because they’re busy helping everybody a tiny little bit. So you have to do things yourself, make your own mistakes and keep a record of everything.”
Atkins sees a future without major labels; he feels they have played out their part. He envisions a set of loose organisational alliances, whereby like-minded people use their leverage to help each other.

“Just think of all those millions of plays on MySpace, yet the bands themselves have no leverage over the MySpace machine. None of the bands have a voice within MySpace. But if say, 50 bands got together then they would suddenly have much more influence.”

With the arrival of services like MySpace, an unprecedented amount of music has become available. This means that the music industry is losing ground not only as a distributor but also as the main tastemaker. Atkins however, feels that the role of the tastemakers, in one form or another, is still important.
“The voice’s role is so important, because we’re getting so swamped. When somebody you respect and trust recommends something to you, you’ll go out and get that album. Instead of it being like, ‘here are a thousand records you should maybe listen to, maybe not’. That ends up being so overwhelming that you don’t listen to anything at all. It’s weird because if you think back at the 50,000 people seeing the Beatles at Shea stadium, that’s never gonna happen again. The total activity is the same, maybe more, but it’s meaningless because there are just thousands of bands. The model is just changing, it’s diluted.”
Ultimately, the times they are a-changing. Atkins believes music can no longer be marketed as a product. People are still able to have meaningful experiences with music on a personal level, but he does not see it crafting that collective bond for future generations. Something else entirely seems to have taken up that place.

“The market forces are still there and people want to worship something. It seems to me that it has just changed from people worshipping the Beatles and this band and that band to worshipping a product. Applications are the new hit singles.”

“Years ago, labels used to have fake promotional stories, like “Led Zeppelin have left the tapes to the new album in a taxi”. Now, it’s “somebody left the new iPhone in a bar in San Francisco.” When I saw that story, I was like ‘wow, technology is the new music industry’.”

One explanation could be the sheer amount of people in higher education, and the Labour Party’s continued target of 50% participation in higher education; critics of their policies and those who take an arguably more elitist view can easily point to high drop-out rates as conclusive evidence of the folly of Labour’s vision.

At first glance the facts appear to show an obvious, if unfortunate story; the universities with the highest drop-out rates, including Bolton and Greenwich, are stuck right at the bottom of the league tables, with lower entry requirements and possibly less motivated students who are regrettably going to struggle more with their degrees and potentially drop out. Simple, right? Bolton University, with over a third of students leaving their studies or failing their course, is a good example of why the government has spent nearly £1 billion in the last 5 years attempting to prevent students from dropping out. But will this solve the problem?

Some people claim that many young adults are simply unsuited to university-level study, with the highest drop-out rates coming from the ‘new’ universities set up to broaden access to degrees. It could be possible that the rising drop-out rates have been caused by a desire to increase the participation of those who do not necessarily have the ability to study or were encouraged by the government to undertake a degree they had no real desire to do. Yet to jump to these conclusions is to reduce the multitude of reasons students have for a leave of absence or quitting their studies, to lifeless statistics and political sniping.

Financial pressures worry the vast majority of students but they tend to be pushed towards the back of the mind… until we find ourselves in the middle of an incredibly unhealthy financial situation. Alternatively, we can interpret the universities with the highest drop-out rates as being those with the highest proportion of state school students, which would include those from low income households, with families unable to offer financial support to students struggling to cope. Moreover, these universities are some of the more financially over-stretched. Bolton, with 99% of its students coming from a state school background, offer a maximum of £360 a year in bursaries compared to Oxford’s £3,225; startling considering that just under half of Oxford’s students come from private school. Shouldn’t questions be asked about the disproportionate level of funding available at different institutions rather than questioning the ability of financially constrained students?

Additionally, when I talked to students who have dropped or taken time out of our university, many of the reasons they gave for leaving focused on the emotional stresses affecting students.

Will* took a leave of absence after his first term; he told me: “quite simply I was not enjoying the university life I had been looking forward to all of sixth form. I didn’t want to compromise on my experience, and despite having the best of friends around me and supporting me, I faced too many personal issues to really relish first year both academically and socially.”

Will maintains that the history department was excellent, offering all the support and advice he wished for, a statement that explains the very low drop-out rate within the department. However, upon returning to York, he encountered huge difficulties with the accommodation office, being denied university accommodation and offered a room in a shared house instead, with those in charge assuming that he would still enjoy a true Freshers’ experience. How the university thought it acceptable to place a student, who had already been forced to leave due to emotional issues, in a small shared house with students in second or third year, removed from the campus bubble that shapes the Freshers’ experience, is frankly mind-blowing.

Meanwhile, the university website directs students thinking of dropping out to their academic supervisor rather than to a centralised system of welfare and cohesive support. This led to a situation in which the history department felt it necessary to get directly involved and plead Will’s case with the accommodation office. If this was standard practice instead of a contingency plan, much stress could have been avoided.

Questions need to be asked about the way universities deal with students wishing to leave their studies. While it is completely understandable that a small percentage of students will choose to leave university, a drop-out rate of more than 25% is frankly unacceptable.

It may be a matter of reducing the government and secondary school’s expectation that half of school leavers attend university. Many sixth form students do feel that university is the only option open to them, and are forced into attending, where they struggle and lose interest in their degree. However, specific universities need to take responsibility for the welfare of their students, from providing adequate financial aid to making sure students are given cohesive, sympathetic and accurate information and help to those who decide that the university experience is simply not for them.

*names have been changed for privacy purposes.

I dropped out of university…

University is supposed to be the highlight of your young life. Who could fault the carefree days (and nights) of academic enlightenment, gratuitous alcohol consumption and the fantastic friends you make along the way? Some people immediately embrace this new setting and all its freedoms, others feel daunted by being thrust into a new home, with new friends and a completely new way of life. It all looks very promising on paper, yet nothing can prepare you for that feeling of complete bewilderment when you finally get there.

And yes, that feeling happens to us all at some stage in Fresher’s Week, but what happens if it doesn’t fade, like so many say it should? That’s what happened to me. I chose to go on a leave of absence after Christmas of last year because I’d fallen in love with York and didn’t want to leave it permanently, but didn’t feel like I was ready to take it all in just yet. Many people I knew had taken gap years and talked about the benefits of taking time out before starting university, and I felt that rather than soldiering on with university when I wasn’t happy, I would return home and try again the following autumn. This approach proved to be perfect for me; I’ve returned to university on my own terms and feel much better about the way things have panned out.

My advice to people feeling lost and confused in their experience of university is this: talk to your supervisor. They’re incredibly supportive and will help you out in any way they possibly can. Perhaps a leave of absence isn’t right for you; there are several options to explore and you might even find that the initial shock of university life fades over time. But if you’re unhappy, don’t suffer in silence. Your time at university is meant to be an enjoyable experience; don’t settle for anything less.

By Maria Kwok