Summer is upon us so we’re all scattering ourselves around the country to our respective homes. But don’t worry, we’ll continue to bring you quality news, lifestyle, culture, style, and sports content until September.

It might not be as frequent as during term time, but it’ll be enough to keep you going until we’re back at full-throttle.

Keep an eye out for our World Cup coverage. We’ve already got Bradley King’s World Cup blog on the go, plus we’ll be doing something a little different throughout the tournament… watch this space.

We’ll also be bringing you reviews from some of the many festivals happening over summer.

So, from all The Linc team, enjoy your summer – we know we will!

P.S. Don’t forget you can become a fan of us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to keep up to date.

There are too few occasions where journalists stop and ask themselves why. Not just “why” as one of the five “w”s, but more broadly.

Why am I writing this story? Why is it important? Why is this whole area important? Why are things as they are?

I’m guilty of not asking “why” enough. Most journalists are, too.

It’s time to ask myself: “Why the Students’ Union?”

Why is it important? Why does it exist? Why do the people involve get so worked up, one way or the other?

– Read Rob’s full article, which offers an in-depth critique on the effectiveness of the SU and student apathy, on his blog.

The Students' Union - why do we need it and what does it do? Rob Wells critiques the effectiveness of our union. Illustration: Mike Schofield

Were these positions left open because no one is capable of fulfilling them or because there was a lack of information available to get involved? Or perhaps students just didn’t care about participating beyond a vote.

I can’t quite believe that in our student population of over 10,000, there aren’t numerous people who are capable of fulfilling these positions, let alone one person, and again I’m not so sure that students would be reluctant to get involved if they knew how.

It all comes down to access of information, or more a lack of access. I’m not able to comment on how good advertising was in the satellite campuses, but I can certainly say that it was lacking here on the Brayford Campus. We had a few posters, a banner which evidently little took notice of, and some information published in the Agenda.

Notably, nearly all the candidates that ran in the elections already had ties with the SU through the Student Council, or were an officer when running, and sadly it’s that “elite” connectivity that allows the elections to appear democratic, with choices between candidates.

If we removed those who we know to be already connected with the SU, we would see a tremendously minimal selection of candidates. Liberation would have no one, nor would VP for Welfare and the VP Activities would have probably seen better luck for Katie Blackburn.

Of course it would be unfair to suggest that these people were only running because they were lucky enough to be involved from the beginning, but I’m sure with much better information distribution we would have seen more applications made by other students.

If the SU want to see an increase in participation for next year, I suggest they scrap using the Agenda as an information outlet and instead send an election package in the post to students. It will grab attention and they will read through it, as opposed to the emails which don’t quite spell out the importance.

But for now we’re missing vital representation for our satellite campuses. Hull, Holbeach and Riseholme are missing officers, which will mean that their voice will be lost against the backdrop of the Brayford.

Not having a societies officer will ultimately cut off societies representation since Andreas Zacharia, VP Activities-elect dedicated his campaign to sports, with little to no mention of societies at all. Without one, nothing will change for the the 58% of students who haven’t found a society, nor will the call for recognition from political societies be answered.

And the SU’s events will continue to produce the same poor to average results that they have for the last year, without a dedicated events officer available to gauge what students want from them.

The elections, this year, have not fully completed their purpose.

The Linc has been very busy over the past few weeks. Several of our grand projects have come into place in time for this final issue of the academic year.

Not only did we bring you the full-blown newsprint issue of The Linc, but we also moved our Lifestyle, Culture, and Style sections into a brand-new glossy supplement — The Linc Magazine.

March has also seen the culmination of weeks-long preparation for our bigggest project and success so far — the live SU elections simulcast on March 5th.

But this final issue of The Linc is also special because it is the last one that carries my name as editor. And to top it all off, it’s my third and final year at the University of Lincoln.It has been an amazing journey over the last two years for me at The Linc.

Fast-forwarding from September 2008, The Linc has had an amazing evolution. Over this period, our website has seen over 60,000 unique vistitors and we distributed over 16,000 copies of the newspaper in Lincoln.

Where we stand now, hundreds of people visit our website every day, where we update with the latest happenings on a daily basis. Next to our readers’ appreciation, The Linc also prides itself with the awards it has won and been nominated for. To name a few, The Linc received national recognition from the Guardian and the BBC.

However, we could have never achieved this without the help of our great editorial team, which grew alongside our readership. Also, the tutors and staff of the Lincoln School of Journalism have been very supportive of The Linc, and a big thank you is in order.

So where do we go from here? Well, my work is not nearly done at The Linc, but just the right person to take over is here — Shane Croucher. Shane has been alongside me for the ride since the beggining of my term as editor of The Linc. We have both learnt a lot during this time and I strongly believe he is the right person to take over. Shane is a passionate, fair, and talented individual and he will have a great line-up of staff to run The Linc for the coming academic year.

I am positive I am leaving you in safe hands next year, so it’s goodbye from me.

The remaining candidates for the SU president position, Chris Charnley and Lucy Alborough.

So now it’s just between Lucy Alborough and Charnley. Charnley has the “benefit” of experience, but also the drawback of over six months of questionable actions. Figures also show that he already has a massive lead over Alborough.

Charnley gave students his 10 reasons why he should get the job again.  But leaving aside the issue of it not really mattering who gets in, it’s worth a look at why you shouldn’t vote for him.

1. NOT DONE WHAT HE PROMISED

   Maybe he’s forgotten what was in his manifesto last year. Since it looked like it was copied from the previous president that’s perhaps understandable.

   Ignoring the waffle at the start, there are four main pledges: to improve the shop, do… something with the library, increase “student involvement” in the Engine Shed/Tower Bar, improve the standard of accommodation & introduce more checks.

   Yes, they were that vague (see third section for more on this theme), but see what’s happened so far.

   • The shop

     Well, right now we don’t really have a shop. This isn’t Charnley’s fault, but then again the decision to move it into the Main Academic Building wasn’t his in the first place. The shop was moved out of the ground floor of the library, into the space previously occupied by the careers service — which is now in its own building.

     It’s like a slide puzzle, which started with the construction of the Enterprise building. I somehow doubt that the university relented to Charnley’s campaigning, and built the Enterprise building so it could move the shop to please him.

   • The library

     Yes, there was another 24-hour opening period in December, and another set for around Easter. I’d be very surprised if the library staff didn’t have this planned following the successful trial the year before. Maybe Charnley had some minor influence here, but claiming it as a personal victory (as he does in his current manifesto) is clearly exaggerating the matter.

   • More student control over the Engine Shed/Tower Bar

     It’s still wholly owned and controlled by the university and hardly sees any action outside a few special events and gigs.

   • Improve student accommodation

     There have been no meaningful changes this year. The SU have been playing around with a new rating system and have run a survey.

2. BIZARRE MANIFESTO PLEDGES

   Having largely failed to achieve what he set out to do last year, he’d pick some fairly straightforward goals for the next time. But no.

   For some reason he thinks it’s a smart idea to pledge to get the university to employ more students part-time. A nice idea, but not a smart one. Surely it’s obvious that the university concentrate on keeping the staff it’s already got?

   Another one is “better opportunities”, claiming that Bullet Magazine and the “Media Crew” give students industry experience and this should be expanded. Again, another nice idea, but how’s that going to work? Aren’t the faculties and departments far better placed than the SU to do this?

   The last pledge in his manifesto is for “better communication”, emphasising that SU officers should “[work] alongside student media”. Another nice idea. But his conduct in this regard has been poor, to say the least (despite The Linc’s encouragements to be more forthcoming, I must stress). If he really wants to do this, what’s stopping him? It’s a bit like saying: “I’m going to start exercising… next month.”

3. PURE PR

   You can get away with a lot if you’re vague about things. Charnley does this very well — just take a look at the final line in his manifesto:

   Why should you re-elect me for President? I’ve lived up to my previous manifesto, changed your Union to work for you and proven that with my ambition and drive I’ve delivered for students – more should be done… more can be done!

   Make the claims as much as you like, but there’s no proof. The claim that he’s “changed your Union to work for you” is just bizarre. In what way has it changed? How is it working for me?

   This was repeated in another piece of campaign material, where Charnley wrote: “He fought for a Union that works to benefits students AND WON”. Again, it’s completely devoid of information.

   His campaign poster says:

   Elect a president who has proven he can… protect the student experience, achieve what students want, and best represent YOU!

   Yes, text on posters is best when brief, but not only is this claim lacking any evidence, it’s making claims so vague no one can know what he’s referring to.

   This is typical spin. It’s in the same vein as publicly joining the university in condemning events like Carnage because of fears over binge drinking, and then joining the “LINCOLN’S BIGGEST EVER STUDENT P!SS UP !” group on Facebook. It’s an attempt to be all things to all people, to tick all the boxes.

Correction: An earlier version of this article said that students “shouldn’t vote for [Charnley] and choose RON instead”. This is not the view of the author.

Dan Derricott, a part-time Students’ Union officer, recently wrote a blog post describing what he feels he achieved over the past seven months.

It’s a long read — about 1,100 words — and there are a lot of things in there that need scrutinising. But since this is a staff blog for The Linc I’ll stick to one issue that is of particular concern to us, that of freedom of expression and providing accurate information.

One of the “achievements” Derricott lists is “Founding The Agenda“, which he writes “ticks the box on [his] manifesto labelled Officer Accountability!”

Perhaps he would like to reach for a dictionary and check what “accountability” actually means. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “liability to give account of, and answer for, discharge of duties or conduct.”

I’ve previously written about the SU’s strange attitude to accountability, and this warped understanding of the concept is exactly what allows Derricott to believe he’s ‘ticking the box’.

When communicating anything conscious decisions have to be made. What do you say? How do you say it? Do you emphasise it, or downplay it? Communication is the selection of certain facts, ideas, and opinions over others.

The SU selects what appears in the pages of The Agenda, they have to pay for the printing, and they try and distribute it to as many people as possible. They are not going to spend effort, money, and time describing things that undermine their position.

If you take a look at The Agenda there is no honest evaluation of what the SU is doing. To sum it up in one sentence, it says: “Look at all the great stuff we’re doing.” There is no space given over to consideration of whether they’re doing the right things, in the right way.

On February 5th the leader of the City Council, his deputy, and their head of communications came to talk in one of my university workshops. The council publishes Your Lincoln, which they said is a way of getting information out that the local press doesn’t consider newsworthy. They say they consider it a newsletter, and perhaps there’s an argument to be made there.

But no one should ever think it can scrutinise the actions of the council, and the same goes for The Agenda — it simply cannot hold the people creating it to account.

He publicly expressed his disappointment over the fact that we “did not wait for the full story and the Union’s comment before you started making such obscure comments.” Yet he failed to mention which parts of our report were “obscure”.

Besides failing to clarify the “obscure” comments, Charnley also failed to provide us with the “other half” of the story. He couldn’t dispute the accuracy of our report either, yet he was able to write over 100 words on how a full update from him will soon follow.

What we did not mention in our report is that since the beginning of the week Charnley had arranged private briefings on the shop’s delay with all campus media outlets, trying to dilute and spin the story. If all would have went according to plan, the shop’s delayed move would have been only a mention in a late news bulletin or on the bottom of a news page, because everybody would have heard of it through the grapevine by then.

We decided it is in the public interest this story comes to light as soon as possible, so we ran with it. Waiting a few days would just have given Charnley time to come up with a polished, misleading response, in an attempt to do damage control in advance of his campaign for re-election as SU president this Spring.

The Linc delivers just the facts that matter.

Alex Colman will be spearheading The Linc Magazine, which will accommodate The Linc’s formidable Culture, Lifestyle, and Style sections. Our experienced editorial staff will breathe new life into the magazine, while the news, sport, and opinion sections will expand to fill the space left in the newspaper.

The Linc Magazine will present the reader with 24 glossy pages which will enhance the entertainment features and do justice to The Linc’s brilliant photographers.

The extra room will allow for more detailed and investigative lifestyle features, more from culture, more photo-shoots, and more fashion and beauty articles. Twisted’s editorial staff have become part of The Linc’s team.

The first issue of The Linc Magazine will be launched with the next printed issue of The Linc, at the beginning of March. You will be able to find it across the Brayford Campus and at selected locations in the city. You can also read its content online at www.thelinc.co.uk, where the Culture, Lifestyle, and Style sections regularly post new stories, alongside our news and sport coverage.

Times are changing at the University of Lincoln, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. It’s not easy to build an impressive university from scratch, as retiring Professor David Chiddick achieved in the last nine years. And it certainly won’t be easy to keep the good work going, but Professor Mary Stuart, who has been widely praised, is saying the right things. Now that our new vice-chancellor has taken over, in this issue of The Linc we look at Professor Chiddick’s achievements and Professor Stuart’s plans for the future.

Meanwhile, some other interesting developments have been taking place in the Lincoln student arena. The University of Lincoln Students’ Union, something which hasn’t raised too many eyebrows in my time at the university, has been trying to step up its game. As the only reliable student-led source of information at the university, The Linc managed to fulfil one of its main aims — to serve the Lincoln student population with the latest relevant news — in recent weeks.
The SU, which for the first time in quite a few years began attempting to be more involved with students, have managed this year to make themselves better seen around the campuses, but not better heard.

Off to a bumpy start this year, the SU have had several mildly-successful activities and some failures, and they have failed to capture their passion and spread it to more students. Noticing that their efforts are not publicised as they would have wished them to be, mainly down to poor collaboration with media outlets, the SU decided to put their message through their own publications: Bullet Magazine and, most noticeably by littering the campus with The Agenda, rather than simply using their website more efficiently.

Besides using the above-mentioned means of spreading their message, an attempt to limit The Linc’s objective and balanced reporting on the SU came from the same direction recently. Thankfully, due to overwhelming support from our readers and friends, this attempt was defeated. And as the year is coming to a close, we decided to put an end to this tumultuous set of events.The Linc has fact-checked the SU’s claims for this first semester, and we have separated fact from fiction. But that’s only one angle of the story. The rest can be found in the pages of Bullet Magazine or The Agenda.

The Linc’s team has put a lot of effort into this completely-original issue, working on it alongside our daily news operations over at www.thelinc.co.uk. Almost 12,000 people have visited our website since September, and we are glad that so many of you have enjoyed our articles.

This printed issue of The Linc should help pass the time in the few days left before leaving for Christmas, and you can always read more online while you are away from Lincoln. This issue we are bigger and better with 16 pages, and in full colour for the first time. For you viewing please, below is the digital version of the December printed issue.

The Linc have been commended for their efforts in hosting one of the best student websites in the country at the Guardian Student Media Awards (GSMA) 2009. Senior members of The Linc’s team travelled to London on Wednesday November 25th to represent the publication at the Guardian‘s 31st annual student media awards.

The prestigious event took place at Camden’s Proud Galleries, where the best 21 student publications and individuals in the UK attended. Matt Wells, the Guardian’s head of audio, said they had a record number of applications this year, and whittling down the last 21 from over 800 entries was a very difficult task.

As announced in September, The Linc was shortlisted among the top five student websites in the country, alongside York University’s Nouse, and others from Exeter University and Imperial College London.

The GSMA awards ceremony was hosted by BBC Radio 5′s Colin Murray. The winners in the website category of Wednesday night’s award ceremony were the University of York’s Nouse website, with Manchester Metropolitan’s Pulp as the runner up.

“The Linc are the first nomination for these awards in twelve years of teaching journalism here and five years of being a school. We are all very proud and pleased,” says Deborah Wilson, the programme leader at the Lincoln School of Journalism (LSJ).

Professor John Tulloch, head of the School, said The Linc “did wonderfully well, and the LSJ is proud.”

Among other winners, Leeds Student from the University of Leeds won the Best Student Newspaper of the Year award, while the University of Oxford’s Oxymoron won the Best Student Magazine of the Year award. (See the full winners list)

Earlier on Wednesday, The Linc team attended the Guardian Student Media Conference (GSMC), at their new offices at Kings Place. The conference hosted several series of talks and seminars from some high-profile journalists. Among the highlights were Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, Paul Johnson, deputy editor of the Guardian, Nick Davies, an award-winning investigative journalist at the Guardian, and the SkyNews.com team.

The GSMC painted a bleak outlook on the decline of newspaper sales and trust in the media. However, the speakers and attendees seemed to be positive about the future of journalism in general, when looking at the evolution of social and digital media.

Such an example would be the introduction of a Guardian Apple iPhone app in the coming weeks. This was announced by Alan Rusbridger, who also said the the application would not be free. This identifies with trends of paying for digital content on the internet, which was another topic widely debated at the conference.

Alan Rusbridger opened the GSMC conference, but was not able to attend his scheduled opening of the awards ceremony later in the day, due to food poisoning.

But I do think the points raised by Mr Bloggs are worth addressing, because they touch on a couple of the most important issues in journalism. Here’s the editor’s note:

Editor’s note — Complementary medicine, such as the technique discussed in this article, should be treated with extreme scepticism. The evidence to support such practices is often scant or non-existent. The Quackwatch website has said of Qigong: “[S]cientific investigators of Qigong masters in China have found no evidence of paranormal powers and some evidence of deception.”

And here’s the comment:

The Editor’s Note is a little out of order. Why should such therapies be treated with scepticism? Aren’t reporters supposed to be impartial?

Unless The Linc can prove that there is reason to believe these therapies DON’T work – but I mean, really, how reliable is Quackwatch as a source?!!

Reporters cannot be neutral or impartial in their reporting. Reporting involves selection of facts, of quotes, of an angle, of style, etc. Therefore, journalism can never be neutral or impartial. (When applied to power, “impartial” reporting favours established power and marginalises alternative and dissident views. Click here for a good explanation.)

The second part of the comment says that we should take people at their word. I have a real, breathing, galloping, magic pink unicorn in my garden.

Believe me? No. You’d want to see some evidence, and rightly so.

Students are taught how to “unlock their energy gates, and control their flow of chi around the body,” which can often become blocked due to stress. These blockages can lead to symptoms such as anxiety, difficulty sleeping and muscle or joint pain. (From the article.)

This paragraph in Jamie Hogue’s article doesn’t challenge what is being claimed by the practitioners. It accepts that there is such a thing called “chi” and that it can “become blocked due to stress”. It’s magic pink unicorn time again.

The need for evidence becomes even more serious when it comes to health. Some of these people may have serious health problems, and it does them no good to have someone telling them they can unblock their chi and everything will be fine.

People’s health and even lives are at risk. This is why new drugs and techniques used by real doctors go through rigorous testing, because the last thing you want to do is hurt someone. Evidence is needed to show what the effects will be on patients.

Qigong, and “complementary” and alternative medicine more generally, does not have that evidence to back up its claims. At best it’s a waste of time, and at worst it could lead to someone delaying proper treatment, or not seeking it at all. The consequences could be horrendous.

This is why I put the editor’s note at the top of the article. In an ideal world, it wouldn’t have been run. But that was not my call.

I linked to Quackwatch because they do excellent work in exposing fake treatments. My first port of call was Ben Goldacre’s BadScience.net, but he didn’t have anything specific to Qigong. Having something about what was discussed in the article was important, to emphasise that this thing right here, this thing talking about chi blockages, is likely to be a fraud.

Chris Charnley, the SU’s president, has said in an email to The Linc: “the Union is in no form accountable to members of the press, as students yes but as members of the press you hold no right to hold the union to account, only our members through student council can do so.”

The naivety of this statement is simply astounding. This is like the leader of the City of Lincoln Council saying that the Lincolnshire Echo has no right to hold them to account, and that only taxpayers can do so and through the council’s meetings.

Which is nonsense, of course.

Every member of The Linc‘s team is a student at the University of Lincoln, and a member of the Students’ Union. The Students’ Union is funded by the university — with our fees — and, as students, we want to know how that money’s being spent, and what decisions the SU is claiming to make in our names.

The Echo and its staff have the right to hold the council to account because they’re citizens and taxpayers.

We have the right to hold the Students’ Union to account because we are students and SU members.

On Thursday, the SU unveiled a new propaganda rag, “The Agenda”. The fact that Dan Derricott, a part-time SU officer, can say that this is “making [the SU] accountable” shows that he clearly doesn’t know what the term means.

The notion that they are able to give an objective account of their own conduct is utterly ridiculous. If they truly believe this, they are in cloud cuckoo land, and probably think that Inside Lincolnshire is doing a great job of scrutinising the County Council.

The SU claims to represent the students at the University of Lincoln, even though just 13% of the eligible students (which doesn’t include those studying part-time) voted in the main elections in March 2009.

A similar amount of students took part in Carnage on Monday, which the SU opposed.

They are claiming to do things in our name, and in our interest. In “The Agenda”, they wrote: “The ‘public figures’ of the of the Students’ Union need to be questioned on what they are actually achieving for the student body.”

I couldn’t agree more. We are the only ones doing this in a public manner, and the SU want to stifle us as much as possible. They claim that “accountability is a buzz word [sic] this year in the Student Centre”. To them it clearly is just a shallow, empty buzzword.

To The Linc’s team, it actually means something.

The Linc is the only outlet on campus that dedicates itself to rigorous scrutiny of the Students’ Union, who receive a block grant from the publicly-funded university. The grant is in excess of £300,000. Given that each of the full-time officers in the Union is elected to their position, which benefits a handsome salary (around £17,000, with expenses on top), I believe they owe it to Lincoln students to open themselves up to questioning from the media.

The proposal will be voted on at the All Students Meeting on November 17th. It was proposed by Abdul Alim Bachani, president of the Futsal Society, and is what seems to be a poorly disguised attempt by the SU elected officers to present this as a motion from an individual student.

This is, of course, nonsense. Bachani (who has previously commented on The Linc‘s site telling us we “should be supporting them not criticising them on newspaper articles and blogs on the internet”) is just the face to the agenda of the Students’ Union. Myself and other team members have had many conversations with the Students’ Union about The Linc, to which they constantly complain they give too much attention.

Is this really the concern of “Average Joe” student? No. It’s in the interests of the SU, who don’t want to face the questions on why they’re not doing everything they promised, why they pander to the university’s views as opposed to those of students, and why they generate such little interest in what they’re doing, amongst others.

Given that, a lot of the time, The Linc‘s phone calls are very rarely returned, emails are not responded to within reasonable time, promises on deadlines are rarely kept. You might say they give us little attention already. Possibly not even as much as the 30 minute limit which is being proposed. 30 minutes. How can you possibly put a limit on the time you talk to the press? And how can you measure these 30 minutes?

What if several news stories broke in one week, all surrounding the SU? “Sorry, you can only have a response to the first two stories, because you’ve almost filled up your quota of time with us.” It’s absurd, and shows a real lack of understanding of how things work. What are they going to do in the real world when they get bombarded with press requests? Ignore them? I don’t think their bosses will like that very much. Are these people so busy that they can’t spare us five minutes on the phone for a quote, or ten minutes for an interview? That’s what they’re telling us, and I don’t believe them for one second.

What about Bullet Magazine, the SU’s own publication, which is the only other print outlet on campus? Will the SU limit the time they spend with them? Of course not. Because Bullet is just a tool for peddling SU propaganda.

These people are elected politicians. They need all the scrutiny we can throw at them, and they know it. So that’s why they’re trying to limit how much we can hold them to account. They will say that the various councils and other such student meetings are where students can hold the SU to account. The only problem with that is that hardly anyone turns up! Apart from The Linc reporters, officers from the Students’ Union, and, if you’re lucky, a couple of normal students, there is no large group from the SU’s constituency in attendance. Hence extremely limited accountability.

Poor turnout in elections, like the recent by-elections which had two candidates for four positions available and suffered a 1% turnout, reflects the apathy that the student body has with the SU. Not many students care. It’s therefore important that media outlets, like The Linc, ensure that the activities of the Union get reported, that shortfalls are accounted for, and that any new proposals are scrutinised. Because nobody else is going to do it, and there’s public money at stake.

I recently had an exchange with the SU on Twitter, which went as follows:

Me: Emma Devine “In my elections we had a fantastic turnout” – wasn’t it around 11 percent?

SU: @shanecroucher Our elections (March 09) last year have again been over the National average for voter turn out, as they are most years!

Me: @lincolnsu That’s a nice way of spinning it. Over the national average doesn’t mean ‘amazing’ if the national average is abysmal.

SU: @shanecroucher We can only continue to do better! Why not try showing some support?

Me: @lincolnsu We show support by advertising your elections. It’s on you to inspire students to actually turn out and vote.

This just highlights the contempt for dissent that Lincoln’s SU hold. We’re not there to support the SU, we’re there to look out for students’ interest and support the democratic process, which we do by publicising elections, councils, etc. What is not in our remit of responsibility is creating a situation whereby students feel it’s worth coming out to vote. It’s entirely down to the Students’ Union to reach out to students and listen to what they really want, instead of patronising them. What do they want us to do? If anything, our being critical of the Students’ Union executive does more to encourage involvement in student politics than blanket support of the SU would.

The SU are so wrapped up in their own sense of self-importance that they fail to see past their office windows in the Engine Shed. This motion should not go through. It will be a heavy blow for democracy at the University of Lincoln.

P.S.: Speaking of democracy and propaganda, the SU have launched their own “official newspaper”, about three years too late. It is called The Agenda and you can find it here.

Here’s the motion in full — copied, pasted and unedited from the SU’s AGM minisite:

The Union Notes:

1. The Linc is one of two officially recognised student publications on campus.
2. The Union welcomes feedback from students on the quality of its activities and services.
3. SU Officers are accountable to student members

The Union Believes:

1. The quantity of time taken up responding to the Linc’s enquiries and accusations is unreasonable.
2. The time spent responding to these enquiries and accusations could be better spent on core activities that serve students.
3. The reports published by the Linc are inflamatory and mislead students about the activities of their union.
4. The Linc should be more reasonable in their demands on Officers’ time.

The Union Resolves:

1. To dedicate no more than 30mins per week responding to the Linc’s enquiries
2. To mandate the VP Communications and Media to be the official channel of communication with the Linc, and to determine the priority for response of the issue that the Linc present.
3. To prioritise representing and supporting students over Linc enquiries

At The Lawn, the Lincoln-based salon had the versatile venue decked out with professional lighting and sound rigs, projection screens and a 30-foot catwalk. Nearly 40 models strutted their stuff down the runway with hair, make-up, and styling all done by the Talking Heads staff.

Sunday’s show was split up into different sections, depending on the hairstyles. Some of these categories were wedding influenced dresses with huge hair; a dapper men’s category with faux-fur, scarfs, and back-combed hair; and a darker girl’s category with heavy eye make-up and blacked hair and clothing.

The event took the best part of a month to put together. Director of the event and senior Talking Heads stylist and hairdresser, Mary Ann Barrett, drafted models in from everyday customers that visit the salon.

Mary asked all the 40 models back to talk styles, dress, and cuts, all free of charge. The technician that was flown in from Dublin to do the model’s hair would have charged €150 per hour for colour. And if the models didn’t like the colouring they could go and get it all put back for free.

Backstage, Barrett was able to tell The Linc about what the evening was about and where the proceeds would be going:

“For a small business that has been open for 25 years this is a fantastic way to fundraise for charities and the like. In the last couple of years we have donated our proceeds to Breast Cancer Research, Any Child, and a few others but this year we thought we’d give something back and donate to the Hairdressers Benevolent Fund.

“We just wanted to make it really special and invite along all of our loyal customers to give them a good night and say thank you for sticking with us for as long as the business has been open.”

The clothing itself was provided by fashion students from the University of Lincoln, and they were on hand all day to dress and style the models.

The models had been on the go since 10am, along with the stylists, haircutters, dressers, colour technicians, choreographers, and the professional photographers.

With a 500-people strong crowd, the audience and all participants were buzzing.

The salon was set up 25 years ago by Keith A. Reeve, and to commemorate his and the salon’s achievement, he was presented with an accolade from the Master of the Hairdressers Guild. Following this surprise guest appearance a short clip was played on the big screens; a personal message recorded by Keith’s daughter, on the other side of the world from Australia.

Paying homage and giving thanks to her dad, she explained to the whole audience how he had got her into the business, and how she wouldn’t be in the place she was today without him.

Personally, it was fantastic to be part of the fashion and hair show. I would most definitely do it again – providing I get to have my hair done for free!

It was apparent that there was a vast mixture of people in attendance: young, old, male, female. As everyone sat gathered in a small, well-lit room, set out in such a way that it was difficult not to feel exposed, the atmosphere was warm and friendly. 

Sitting in a circle around a table, the members took it in turn to read from the “big book”, which basically described the 12 steps of recovery in detail. It was set out a little like the bible, and that’s exactly what it was to them.

Whenever anyone talked, they always introduced themselves and said they were an alcoholic, which was followed by a chorus of “hello”. Everyone then took it in turns to say their bit, whatever had been on their minds. The theme of this meeting was focusing on the “making amends” step: apologising to those they had offended, upset, and even stole from, due to their drinking.

As the members revealed their own experiences and thoughts, I realised that one thing they all had in common was that they were so grateful to have the opportunity to speak, and so thankful that everyone listened to what they had to say.

One member said that in order for him to spiritually move forward, and to be completely happy, he had to let go of any lies he had told in the past, so that he could have a clear mind and move on. Another said that he had written letters of apology to his parents, who had passed away years before he wrote them, which was quite sad to hear.

Many of the people there were refreshingly honest about their past and, in most cases, present. One member said that, although she had hurt people because of alcoholism, instead of saying “sorry”, she just stopped drinking and subsequently changed her behaviour, showing the importance of actions and not words. One thing that I didn’t really think about until afterwards, was the fact that one of the members was drunk at the meeting, which gave a bit more reality to the experience.

I feared that I would come away depressed, full of horror stories I wouldn’t be able to forget, and an urge never to drink again. But I didn’t. The people I met were so grateful to be there, so thankful to be able to share their experiences and have a chance to be positive. To have gone through such a difficult time, and to have been strong enough to fight an addiction, it must be such a rush to then be able to talk about it so openly.

In a non-preachy way, we had hoped to come away with a few off-putting stories to tell any heavy-drinking student. However, even though there were several horror stories told (and many more probably kept secret) everyone had a good outlook on life. The room was full of positive energy, and it was easy to see that these people had turned into very strong-minded people (a strong-minded alcoholic may sound like an oxymoron, so take my word for it).

The aim of attending the meeting was to discourage students not to go the same path. However, I can’t say that the people I met were a deterrent by any means. I’m not for a second promoting alcoholism, but everyone at the meeting was grateful, self aware, friendly, funny, and polite. Maybe we should just strive to be just as well rounded and strong willed, just without the liver damage.

Attending from the University of Lincoln were Professor Richard Keeble and Professor John Tulloch. Keeble is a journalism professor at Lincoln, and also the joint-editor of its journal, Ethical Space. Tulloch is the head of the Lincoln School of Journalism, and joint-reviews editor for journal.

The keynote speaker was Nick Jones, a former BBC political correspondent, talking about the use of apologies by politicians in order to make stories go away.

Jones said out that politicians could rely on the word “sorry” in order to placate journalists, and make them feel as if they’d won. But, he pointed out, the apologies were often not for the actual trespass, but for things such as “the way it was handled”.

“Rushing out an apology… is usually a cosmetic. Journalists end up being deflected.”

I can’t help but wonder whether the journalists and academics who made contributed to the conference had also been deflected.

In ICE’s call for abstracts it suggests, amongst other things, whether “the politics of celebrity culture serve to marginalise more significant issues and perspectives (thus contributing to the ‘dumbing down’ of the media and the rise of ‘churnalism’)?”

Jones’s presentation was the only thing that perhaps had real significance (though one can debate the importance of this country’s political games).

The rest of the speakers failed to “step back” and consider the wider issues. None of them considered the manufactured nature of celebrity, but were happy to think and talk about the ethical issues of letting “Bex” into last year’s “Big Brother”, or the presentation of contestants on “Britain’s Got Talent”.

Surely the real ethical issue is that suggested by the institute, and surely the answer is that the most unethical thing to do is waste time and energy that could be better spent on real problems, rather than manufactured spectacles.

There have been a few things happening recently that one would expect to be marked quite prominently by the Students’ Union.

To start, we have Black History Month. So, what has the SU done, and what do they have planned?

Well, er… not much.

They’re planning to hold a themed Tower Bar quiz, on the 19th. And, throughout the month, sports teams will be wearing black armbands.

Apparently other events ‘are in the pipeline’ but ‘not 100% confirmed’.

When I was asking around before the start of Black History Month, which takes place throughout October, I was asked to hold back on releasing these enthralling details until the 1st, a couple of days after I was told.

I can’t even begin to tell you how hard it was not to break that embargo. (It wasn’t.)

And then we had Mental Health Week, which apparently took place throughout last week. But you wouldn’t know it.

But things get worse. For the upcoming by-election — their own event — they’re tripping over themselves with what they’re not doing. Or what they’re unsure about what they’re not doing.

The basic dates and details were put up on the SU’s website a couple of weeks ago. When I called to check the number of NUS delegates to be elected, I was told they’d know for sure at the end of the week (Friday, October 2nd), and I’d get an email on the day.

Emma Devine, the SU’s (elected) vice-president for communications, also asked me to hold off on publishing the story until the following Monday, when, I was told, they’d have more information about how they were going to promote the by-elections.

Friday, and the weekend, came and went. No news.

On Monday morning, I rang up again. They were electing the same number of delegates as last year (surprise!) and, apparently, they’d had a meeting about the whole thing.

Ms Devine said the SU weren’t really sure about how they were going to advertise the by-election, or whether they were going to make a big deal of it at all.

While they say they’re keen to promote campaigning, they clearly can’t organise themselves to promote even expected events on the calendar.

The Students’ Union seem to have no clue about what they want to do, or what they actually *are* doing.

It’s still fairly early days for the elected team, and students have only been back for about a month. But it is not an auspicious start to the year.

– Editor’s note: this a staff blog entry and the right of reply is granted by using the comments form below.

Following an interesting interview with Tom Haughton, from the Do You Have It? campaign, about controlling Chlamydia in Lincolnshire I was challenged to take the test and see how simple it was.

I have recently started a new relationship and, unsurprisingly at the ages of 20 and 21, my girlfriend and I have had previous sexual partners but have not been tested for infections.

The test comes in a handy plastic packet, with clear instructions on how to take it.

We took the test and for me going to the toilet in a tube was no problem (if not exactly fun), and for my girlfriend taking a swab was easy. She found it a lot simpler than she imagined and it was quick and not uncomfortable.

We are both eagerly anticipating the results and should only have to wait between one and two weeks after dropping our samples into the university’s Health Centre.

“It only takes a second and was easier than I thought to do. I’m slightly nervous about receiving the results but I’ve always been careful so I shouldn’t have to worry. If either of us has Chlamydia then I don’t think it will cause problems,” my girlfriend says.

“If someone is open about it you just have to respect them for it and trust that they haven’t been unfaithful, which is another issue.”

With so many people contracting the infection it doesn’t reflect on your character too much if you’re unlucky enough to contract it.

We will let you know when we get the results in a couple of weeks, and we’ll speak to Tom Haughton about his role on our upcoming podcast.

Having to deal with an army of slow, unresponsive PCs, struggle with your university email, or encounter problems when trying to actually get work done on university computers isn’t something you should come across when at university.

Over the years as a student at the University of Lincoln I’ve learnt (the hard way) that if you want to get work done, you need to separate yourself from any of the IT systems used on campus. Why? Because technology seems to be an afterthought and not a priority.

The Windows Blue Screen of Death. Is this a bit too familiar?

The year hasn’t even kicked off properly yet and I can already see many of my colleagues struggling with the university’s computers. Not only do we have to load pages with Internet Explorer (updated to version 7 late last year), but the university’s reluctance to respond to students’ modern computing needs is frustrating.

The University of Lincoln uses Windows XP on its computers. As a gentle reminder, this operating system was introduced in 2001 — 8 years ago. Of course, all the latest security updates are installed, but it’s unforgivable how we are forced to use Internet Explorer 7, which was introduced three years ago. Install Firefox, Safari, or Chrome at your own risk, of course.

Let’s say you want to bring your laptop in, as it’s going to be much faster than the majority of the university’s own computers. Tough luck though, as the WiFi connection in many buildings only has limited connectivity. For example, in the media building you get stronger signal from the Library Bar’s network than from the university’s own.

Just a few week’s worth of emails or so will quickly get your university inbox full and you will be unable to receive further emails. Many students have a Google Mail account already (with over 7GB of storage) and many of my colleagues have just stopped using university email altogether or forwarded it to their personal account purely because they can’t stand being asked to keep deleting their emails. It’s futile to even ask about university email compatibility with your mobile device or calendar synchronisation.

The list of things that need addressing goes on and on. Luckily, there are a few students around who hack and fiddle with the university’s system to give us a better experience. Student Alex Bilbie has written a script so that students can use their timetables with various calendar management solutions. Nick Jackson finally found a way to enable students to print from their own computers instead of going through the uni’s PCs, though it’s not implemented as of yet.

A hat tip for Alex and Nick, and I’m looking forward to some sort of survey from the IT services regarding students’ computing needs. I know changes won’t happen overnight, but at least future students at the university will have a better experience.

I’m surprised that I’ve never seen the above clip before. I’m equally surprised that it’s been viewed less than 9,000 times. This is the kind of evidence that needs to be spread far and wide. Nick Griffin openly declares that the BNP hide behind a soft lexis of propaganda in order to gain popularity. Perhaps more shockingly, he happily reveals his true agenda — a whites-only Britain.

In the video, Griffin imparts BNP spin-tactics. He says:

There’s a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas. The British National Party isn’t about selling out its ideas — which are your ideas too — but we are determined now to sell them. That means to use saleable words.

Basically, Griffin has told an audience consisting of David Duke supporters, i.e. racists, that the BNP holds the same views. He categorically says that the BNP has not changed at its core. It’s still the same fascist National Front that it used to be. Yet it is gaining popularity. Some people are starting believe that they aren’t racist, just realist. They’re falling for the softly-softly BNP spin and being lured in by the buzz-words. Griffin sheds light on their new propaganda tactic:

[selling our ideas] basically means using saleable words… freedom, security, identity, democracy. Nobody can criticise them. Nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas. They are saleable.

Griffin clearly identifies areas that the BNP can manipulate and distort in order to gain support for the party. The idea that your freedom is at risk from foreign invaders, you should feel insecure because of the risk of terrorism, misrepresenting perceptions of political correctness as erosion of identity and heritage. I could go on. Hyperbole, fear-mongering, and scapegoats are the BNP’s most powerful weapons.

The man showed that he is intent on duping the public into thinking the BNP holds legitimate views when he said if the BNP is “subtle enough” then they may find themselves in control of the media, and subsequently in a position to brainwash the electorate into wanting the removal of all non-whites from Britain. This is abhorrent, scary, and once again highlights that the BNP are not fit to be listed as a political party.

Griffin says:

“If you hold that [fascist policy] out as your sole aim to start with, you’re going to get nowhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity we talk about identity.”

The evidence just comes through thick and fast. The BNP do not want non-whites in Britain, no matter what they say in the press or on their website. They will use the public’s desperation at our current ruling elite to gain popularity and pursue their hidden motives. The truth lies under the surface as has been proven time and time and time again.

Nick Griffin once said:

Without the white race nothing matters. [Other right-wing parties] believe that the answer to the race question is integration and a futile attempt to create “Black Britons”, while we affirm that non-whites have no place here at all and will not rest until every last one has left our land.

There’s no room for the BNP in Britain.

The September 2009 issue of The Linc.

Over the summer, while most of the student body was away, we had a trial, with some very interesting outcomes.

For just over two weeks in May, we worked every day to deliver you with the latest news and fresh interesting material for you on our website.

During this trial we also had an image overhaul, which you can now see reflected in this printed version. And the results were positive.

Thanks to your feedback on Twitter and Facebook, together with our own survey, we found that you liked what we did.

So this academic year we decided to attempt what no other Lincoln student publications had: starting September 28th, we will be updating our website daily throughout December and then again from January through May.

If you visit our website daily, you will find the latest news reports from the campus and local area. We will also keep an eye on what the Students’ Union is doing for you and what are the latest sports stories with the athletic societies and local football.

Also starting September 28, our culture, style and lifestyle sections will bring you the latest gigs in Lincoln, student stories and fashionable advice.

Weekly podcasts are on the table as well, and you can check them out on iTunes from October.

“So what will happen with the printed version of The Linc?”, one might ask. “No, we are not scrapping it!” is the answer.

Because we are dedicated to bringing you the latest news every day online, there will be only two other printed editions of The Linc this year: in December, before students go on their holiday and in May, just before many of us will finish their courses at Lincoln.

We hope that you will benefit from our extensive online coverage, which from now on will include more multimedia content along written stories as well.

Even though it’s only September, we are thinking ahead of next year, when a majority of The Linc team will finish their courses here at the university. Due to this, we are now looking to get more people in our team, and to prepare for the transition. And to do that, we need your involvement.

We are looking for talented students, with fresh ideas and a practical sprit to join The Linc and edit the paper the next academic year. If you are one of them, drop us an email.

You might also notice that most of the stories in this issue feature mainly men — so I must assure you this wasn’t intentional. We will endeavour to even the balance in the next issue.

And on a last minute notice, www.thelinc.co.uk has been shortlisted by the Guardian as one of the Best Student Websites in the Guardian Student Media Awards 2009. The awards ceremony takes place on November 25 in London, and that’s when we will find out who all the lucky winners are.

Meanwhile, I’m looking forward to your feedback via email, and I’ll do my best to get back to you swiftly.

This is how I came to have my funds illegally withdrawn, got it sorted as quickly as possible and how you can safeguard against this.

It started with an ATM refusal of money from my current account. I checked other ATMs, and found that this was a recurring problem. I returned to my bank’s ATM and read the mini statement. I had lost £1700 in less than two days.

I was obliged to go to the bank in the morning and to cancel the card. On reflection, with live statement updates, the branch pulled-up information on where the funds were being drawn from. And also how it was withdrawn. I learnt that the funds had been taken by using my signature – card cloning.

I was asked to fill out declaration forms stating that I had no knowledge of these transactions. As a result direct debits would be cancelled and only be reset once the account had been cleared of all fraudulent transactions. Finally, everything was refunded in two weeks.

It’s really worth looking at a separate savings/expenses account – perhaps not even with the same bank as you have your current account.

Finally, here are a few tips to safeguard against this happening to you:

1. Keep an eye on your accounts

Internet banking can be an easy and fast way to make sure nothing is happening without your knowledge; this is a free additional perk from most banks.

2. Double-check your agreed overdraft limit

Granted, having the laxity of a large margin for unexpected expenses can be good. But if something like this does happen, minus-credit exceeding a smaller overdraft limit will make the account deny further money to be withdrawn.

3.Notify as many people and departments as possible

My credit rating was said to be at risk, even though it wasn’t my fault. Letters kept coming and money was even transferred between my savings and current account to make up differences needed to make payments. Just because your branch looks into it this doesn’t mean that head office will issue warnings against you. Make sure your branch communicates with the right departments.

4. Shop safely

Online and in store, shop only where you know is reputable. Don’t give out your pin, change passwords regularly and keep card cancellation numbers in your phone’s address book.

A-level students who are hoping to carry on their studies into the realms of higher education could see their chances increased.

If you happen to live in a less affluent postcode area than the next fresh-fresher you stand a better chance against other candidates from more comfortable households.

In fact, there is a chance that if the better off candidate does marginally better than the candidate living in the poorer postcode area, that candidate would get the place at the university; not the hypothetical middle-classed candidate.

While leading central government figures are looking into the idea, professionals working with the BBC have said it was important to widen the social mix in universities. Other institutions like the Mail have totally carped the idea, suggesting it is positive discrimination.

This poses the question,in relation to those universities non-leading — would these boosts lead to future hopefuls falling short in their applications? This scheme would only dwindle and die the minute we see balance in income-assessed student numbers for loans and tuition.

Ultimately, bringing about this kind of scheme will always come with the same recoil from those who won’t benefit from it. There is also scope for this scheme to suffer a fair amount of abuse in terms of how it can be played — solely by people who don’t want to work that much.

And then where does that leave the university? They may have a fairer and broader scope in relation to applicants, but is work ethic is going to suffer overall? There is a 60% attainment percentage one needs to reach at their school/college before being let onto the scheme.

The fact remains that if there are identical grades attained by two different students, what will depend on entry in this circumstance is where they come from; one from a poorer postcode will have grades boosted and the other not.

The only loop-hole would be if both students were to get three A’s. Retrospectively, shouldn’t the state schools just raise the bar? Get up to that standard, preparing all for higher education?

National coverage: The Mail | BBC News | The Student Room

I must begin with an apology. Starting with Daniel Hutchinson I wanted to see whether the full-time officers had completed any of their manifesto pledges.

For a number of reasons this didn’t happen, mostly because I didn’t have the time.

I still think that this is important. The six full-time officers for the 2008/09 academic year were paid as much as £18,461. Two of them, Dan Windross and Maria Yesufu, faced no competition in the elections.

Below you will find the pledges made in each of their manifestos. The full documents are linked at the bottom of the article, and they contain more details than this list.

Can you see anything that you think has been done well, or poorly? Let us know in the comments.

The pledges, summarised:

Kayleigh Turner:

• A 24-hour library.
• Wednesday afternoons free for “enrichment activities”.
• Spend more time fund-raising.

Dan Windross:

• “Improve the communications links between the Students’ Union and the students.”
• “Assist … in creating a (sic) good and beneficial publications such as the Student Handbook.”
• Set up a “media centre”.

Maria Yesufu:

• “Open access” for students to university facilities, like the Emmtec & LPAC buildings.
• “Better efforts” to “integrate international students or students from different backgrounds.”
• Support for new societies, “rather than a first come first served basis”.
• Printing credit for societies.
• Raise more money as part of RAG.

Vicky Wieczerzynska:

• Continue work on sexual health and anti-bullying campaigns.
• Improve relations with the West End Residents Association.
• ‘Increase awareness of’
  • Recycling facilities.
  • “Getting home safely in the evenings.”
  • Alcohol abuse.
  • Disabilities.
• Set up a “Welfare Campaigns Committee”, that includes students.
• “More integration between students” at different campuses.
  • Including better transport from the Engine Shed on certain nights.
• Increase availability of GUM clinic.
• Free pregnancy tests for some people.

Chris Roberts

• “Constant communication with different teams and individuals” to “improve all university sport.”
• “More support for less established and new societies.”
• Gym discount for team members.
• Make the tri-society games an annual event, and hold similar events between societies.
• “Make better use of the Tower Bar.”
• “Have Sub-TV in the Tower Bar.”
• Transport for team supporters to “key matches”.
• External training and coaching for teams.
• Sporting tours “for all our societies”.
• Set up a “Sports Committee.”

The full manifesto documents, for academic year 2008/09:

Kayleigh Turner
Dan Windross
Maria Yesufu
Vicky Wieczerzynska
Chris Roberts

Anonymity is something that gives Internet users ease of mind that they can say whatever they want, about anyone they want. But many of the anonymous commentors on our website forget the UK’s defamation and libel laws.

Over the past weeks, due to our increased coverage of the Students’ Union, many have decided to post anonymous comments making various accusations, which were not entirely based on fact (or which we cannot possibly check before approving).

Although we edited some of these comments and then approved them on our website, some have forced our hand. Starting today we have introduced a quick and easy sign up process to our website, where users will have to register with their real name and email address in order to comment.

It is very quick and only required once. Whenever you comment, your real name will appear, along with a link to your blog or website. Your email will not be shown, but it will be visible to our website administrators.

Trying to cheat this system with fake names and email addresses will also be spotted, as we can see every user’s IP address. Please rest assured that no sensitive or personal data will be publicly available. Our privacy policy is still in place, and covers these matters.

If you have been commenting with your real name, then you have nothing to worry about. You simply have to go through the sign up process once, and then our website will recognise you the next time you visit (so there’s no need to enter your details over and over again). This will actually make it easier for you to comment.

Your name and your blog will be more visible due to this change (if you put your blog/website address in the required field) as our website will display the number of comments you have made previously here (and on which posts) and also display the latest entries of your blog (if you are using WordPress). You can check this feature out by hovering over a commentator’s name with your cursor.

The new comments policy is directly targeted at those who post anonymous comments and use it as a cover to make libellous accusations. As in real life, one would have to attribute their words to their name, and take responsibility for what they are saying.

Lastly, this decision is final and irrevocable. If you want to share your thoughts on this decision, feel free to comment or send me an email.

The new ‘Equality Bill’, which is currently under debate in Parliament, could broaden special privileges for religions at the expense of true equality.

In a recent piece in the Guardian, Jessica Shepherd writes about how the new bill could help students whose religious observance interferes with their university commitments.

She mentions the example of a student who wanted time off to worship Imbolc, a Wiccan goddess.

But this is clearly absurd. Universities are meant to be devoted to serious academic study, institutions of intelligence and rationality. Asking them to bow down to such nonsensical practices is ridiculous.

Some of them already have. In a report by the Equality Challenge Unit, a lobby group, lists several universities who have committed to scheduling around religious holidays and festivals.

This just imposes an arbitrary restraint on other students, who find their regular timetables disrupted and have to fit their studies around the holy days of belief systems they have no connection to.

On a purely practical level it is utterly stupid. Universities have to set timetables for thousands of students, and plan around staff and room availability.

Many students have suffered from scheduling problems at the start of each semester, with the kinks not yet ironed out. Such concerns pose enough difficulty, without having to watch out for the festival of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or other such things.

Though this is bad, it is even worse on a more theoretical level. Surely the way to ensure equality of religious and non-religious groups is not to grant them special privileges, like this.

In a recent column for The Linc, Shane Croucher argued that atheists and other non-religious folk should campaign vigourously for representation in Parliament. He said he was “not suggesting that faiths shouldn’t be represented,” and mentioned the 26 bishops that sit in the House of Lords.

However, this is exactly what should be done. There is no reason why religion should be the source of privilege. We should strip away existing ones, and not grant new ones for this reason.

Goddess worship should be done on your own time.

Despite cynics often pointing out that the difference between the major political parties in Britain is comparable to the difference between a sultana and a raisin, the candidates in SU elections are worse.

Happy to be here: Chris Charnley, the new Lincoln SU President | Photo: Sam Fisher

“One of my favourite sayings about politics is that ‘Whoever you vote for, the Government always gets in.’ You can seamlessly replace ‘Government’ with ’Students’ Union’.” Forget different varieties of grape; ours mostly come from the same vineyard.

There were a couple of instances where there were significant differences between the candidates, such as in the contest for the full-time Sports and Teams position, which went to Rowing Club president Chris Farrell.

Some of the five candidates’ policies overlapped – such as increased publicity for teams – but their manifestos were noticeably different.

However, if your turn your attention to the candidates for the SU presidency, it looks like the they sat in a room together and agreed on pledges they could all make.

All four of them said they wanted to be more involved with the university’s satellite campuses. The winner, Chris Charnley and James Mason both mentioned expanding the university shop and making sure accommodation is checked. Mr Charnley and Stacie Ridley both discussed extending the library’s opening hours.

The amount of overlap between this year’s candidates for the top job was ridiculous. It gets even more so when you compare Mr Charnley’s manifesto to that of his predecessor, Daniel Hutchinson, when the latter was elected president in 2008.

They both stress the importance of “re-engaging” with students, and then go on (in almost the same order) to promise to improve the shop, keep the library open for longer, check student accommodation – Mr Charnley calls this “victimisation”, Mr Hutchinson calls it “taking advantage”, I call it a synonym – and finally to increase student influence over the Engine Shed and the Tower Bar.

However, it would be glib to accuse the SU’s new president of plagiarising his predecessor’s positions.

The reality is far more worrying. Those attempting to get elected to office in our Students’ Union have apparently discovered a set of safe, uncontroversial proposals that can be safely repeated year-after-year.

This has allowed them to bypass the inconvenience of policy and focus on what cynics have always accused these elections of being: a popularity contest. Who do you know, and how can you attract more attention to yourself?

This year it was Chris Charnley’s superman costume.

It would be incredibly naive to suggest that injecting some actual difference and serious competition into these elections would substantially increase student involvement and voter turnout. As mentioned, the Sports and Teams contest was better in this regard, but attracted just 15 more votes than the presidential vote.

But it can not hurt. According to the SU’s figures, voter turnout was 11.9%. Even adjusting the number of members to account for part-time students, who are not eligible to vote under NUS rules, turnout is still just 13%.

That is atrocious, and being elected on stale, year-old pledges does nothing to help.

Sarah Palin

That’s right, it’s Sarah Palin. The woman with a welcoming smile, but a demonic twinkle in her eyes. A ‘pro-life’ candidate, Palin takes her anti-abortion message to the extreme. Even in the case of incest or rape, Palin views abortion as an “atrocity”. A somewhat sickening viewpoint, yet apparently this resonates with many people across middle America.

It’s interesting how someone claiming to be ‘pro-life’ is a competent moose hunter and a supporter of capital punishment. She’s a devout Christian. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the fundamental principle of Christianity was forgiveness? Quite where capital punishment fits this ideology, I don’t know.

Interestingly, perhaps her Christian ethics weren’t heard loudly enough at home. Well, daughter Bristol might have missed her message, but her son Track certainly didn’t. He’s about to go and fight in Iraq, in a war Sarah Palin described as “a task from God” – a line more suited to 11th century crusades.

In one sense, I actually admire this woman. She has managed to get close to a powerful job with a total lack of experience and understanding. Aside from her city councillor role, she has had just under two years in state government. She got her first passport in 2006, so diplomacy on an international level goes out the window. She is a creationist, and believes it should be taught alongside evolution in schools – need I say more? Well I will…

I don’t know if you’ve ever watched her speaking publicly but she’s good. It’s easy to see, for those who want to, that she is reciting memorised script, carefully crafted word by word, with little understanding of the meaning behind what she is saying.
But, her delivery is good; sometimes that’s all it takes.

This despicable woman means war. With a concoction of religious fanaticism and political naivety floating around her brain, Sarah Palin being one step away from huge military and political power would probably mean a less safe world.

Imagine, it’s a cold late October morning. You’re already in a bad mood because you know that the minute you step out the door, returning after a weekend away from uni, everything stops being free.

East Midlands Trains

So you steal – they’re your parents, it doesn’t count – you take food from the fridge before leaving so that you’ll have something to eat for the journey but nothing, nothing can prepare you for a day of travel on trains in the East Midlands.

Knowing full well that I would have a mammoth book-ridden load slowing my already sullen pace down between the 3-4 connections I had to look forward to that day. I came to realise that there’s no point in hoping, most of all in England, for a good day on the trains.

My old-man pessimism spoke to me; I missed my first connection from Ipswich to Peterborough because the train taking me there was 30 over minutes late. ‘East Midlands is sorry to inform you that there has been an unexpected…..’ oh joy. When getting into Ipswich I was astonished that we had to stop outside the station to let my train going to Peterborough pass!

‘Tickets please….’ I had to ask him whether the train had a plug socket I could use to send an important email. I saw one on the way in saying ‘Not for public use.’ It posed the question ‘What is it for then?!’ Vacuuming?! I doubted it by the look of the floor… I waited until the station.

Paying £30 to get home (railcard discount) and back is madness. I paid £170ish last year travelling round France Spain Italy and Switzerland for one month on one ticket. You can’t help but think ‘Where is this money going?’ The prices, speed, cleanliness efficiency are all pathetic compared to rail travel on the continent.

Decorum on trains is a laughable matter too. In Japan it is frowned upon to have a loud conversation or answer your phone. I had a guy shouting to his mate, in my ear, why he wouldn’t go over and talk to his mate the other end of the carriage (which was only a single and consequently heaving). If it weren’t for the immense strain in my back lugging books platform to platform I swear I would flatten him.

However, when I got into Lincoln my mood was lifted as I discovered that the music blaring out the earphones of the girl sitting next to me was Ben Harper. ‘Fantastic,’ I thought, ‘Escapism doesn’t just apply to my UK psyche when I’m on a train!’ Then she answered the phone ‘Cou Cou! Qu’es ce tu fais ce soir?’ Oh…

the-linc

Worried about feeling cold this winter? Energy bills heading towards unaffordable? Let the 4.4 million homes in “fuel poverty” turn to senior executive Mark Owen-Lloyd at E.ON UK for some reassuring words about the months ahead; “It will make more money for us”

I’m sure Owen-Lloyd’s fire will burn hot as he tosses bundles of fifty-pound notes on top, keeping the embers glowing and his family toasty as he guffaws his way through a bottle of the finest brandy your money can buy. His contemptuous comments reflect the blasé ethos towards the general public and their real struggle to pay the bills. Recently, British Gas announced a 35% rise in profits and a 9% rise in electricity prices. This is unjustifiable. In the past decade, over 260,000 pensioners have died from cold-related illness. Many of these deaths are directly related to the increase in energy bills.

The Government have made steps in the right direction. They’ve just announced several measures aimed at tackling energy problems for households, such as free cavity wall and loft insulation for pensioners and the poor. But is this enough? Prices aren’t lower and we are staring at a recession. How many millions of people suffering at the hands of energy fat-cats will it take? Should individuals be allowed to make such obscene profits from a household necessity?

Nobody denies that energy prices are rising and therefore energy companies pay more for raw materials. But STILL they manage to increase profits further. There is now a very serious argument for nationalising the energy industry. The money spent by the consumer could be pumped back into communities. So many groups that benefited many people are being forced to close due to a lack of government funding, for example, ‘Phoenix Survivors’, an organisation that helped abused children. The only trouble is finding people with enough competence and integrity to head it up.

By Shane Croucher