To round off a rather political tone this week, I’d like to draw your attention to British Universities and the current debates being channeled through such institutions. Currently at the University of Sussex; an institution which some agree that I should be privileged to attend (but otherwise I am not so sure); a debate is raging over whether the controversial British political party the BNP should be allowed to air their views on the campus facilities.

Sussex with its long tradition as proprietors of free speech, seems to have finally realized the limitations of adhering to something which in truth can only be an ideological concept. A society in which there is complete freedom of speech, is something that can never surely be realized as long as it continues to remain pluralized and variegated. In saying ‘we are for freedom of speech, but this voice shall remain silenced’, is there not a slight return to the totalitarian repudiations that the University is guarding against so fervently in the first place?

For those of you who don’t know your BNP from your B&B, the BNP is a party which runs on largely fascist principles. Although distancing themselves from the stereotypical racism one might come to expect, a strong sense of xenophobia and fear of racial mixing is propagated by the party’s assertions. It is important that we hear their voice in order to determine what is wrong and what is right; if such voices are repressed and sentiments ignored, do we not then come in line with their own strategies of authoritarian control and silencing the voice of the minority?

In British schools all students have to follow the national curriculum, that is an outlay of certain topics in varying subjects that are considered essential to the development of knowledge in young minds. Now, not all the educationary bods in our society can always agree on what should be encompassed in this curriculum, and this has lead to some bizarre points of dispute in the past.

None is more contested than that of the issue of creationism. Charles Darwin has been both the bane and saviour of scientific and religious lives in the recent history of our world. Much like (and I’m making an abstract comparison here) Salman Rushdie, he has been both vilified, glorified and completely ignored, but to withdraw the theory of evolution and natural selection from the mandatory lessons in school, is surely a step backward to the dark days of humanity.

Now discussion of this issue has been directly addressed by Parliament and can be seen on the British Humanist website: http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentPrintArticle.asp?article=1385 There they discuss the relative merits of the curriculum: “The school curriculum as a whole should promote the “spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils””. If this is so, shouldn’t students have the right to decide for themselves whether they accept the theories of Darwinism?

The primary purpose of the British schooling system should be to foster such questioning principles in students. Students should be welcomed to challenge the theories and the facts they learn on the curriculum. In a world where facts and theories are constantly refuted, there should be careful emphasis on whether all that students learn should be solidly set in stone.

For a young voter like myself, there is little accessible information as to what the state of UK politics actually is. It is true that an individual should be responsible for their own education in such fields, but how many of us can tear ourselves away from the insipient vertical transient that is our lives of studying, contemplating the future and consequent escapism.

David Cameron was on Parkinson last night. He talked and joked about how Kate Moss thought he was a plumber, and we all laughed. Well, some of us did. Others were waiting for more important pronouncements, such as what the Conservative party intends to do with the problems of immigration in our society, if indeed there is one? Well, just-for-laughs-Cameron appeared to be appealing to his so called youth voters simply in his claims to know the rich and famous. However, we are not a moronic generation driven by celebrity fascination, we require substantiality from our politicians, and should they make important declarations we will stand up and listen.

The fact is, there is no radical voice in politics. The average young voter is apathetic to politics, they believe that not only will their vote not count, but that there is no distinction as to who they vote for. There is no glamour in politics despite Cameron’s best efforts.

David’s jokes are best left unsaid……

The secondary usages of the Cornish Pasty that you highlight have indeed sown several seeds in my ill working brain:

How about their replacement of bricks and mortar to build a house sturdy enough to withdraw the fervent huffing and puffing of any hungry wolf?

Due to their unfortunate shape how about their use as a substitute to the traditional leather rugby ball? Catching one in the middle of a game would certainly add a little more delight to the players faces, additionally it would justify the length and means (i.e. tearing each other apart) to get to the blasted thing.

Sometimes the English can be downright sanctimonious. We cling on to sentiments because we feel it’s the right thing to do. It’s here I’m going to talk about a touchy subject, which shouldn’t be at all sensitive because time is here to help us all forget. The death of Princess Diana was a surprise to all. However, the most surprising thing is the continual existence of this legacy that her death glorified; it still continues to touch people fully. The media have a habit of picking things up and ceasing to drop them and Diana’s death is just one of their fixations. During the ten years since her death we have been continually reminded of her presence. This has come in varying forms; tributes, probing inquiries into the deep abyss of her private life, inquiries into her death itself and pure speculation about her last days. Was she pregnant? Was she engaged? I have to be honest that I am really too young to indeed care; I accept she was a role model to many people and that she was very committed to helping out others less fortunate, but when is the nation finally going to let things rest?

Death is finality, it happens, it’s sad, but then life moves on. There are deeper concerns we all face on a day to day basis. Diana did not touch us to the extent that we can cease to operate emotionally. To prevent people joking about her death because it is too hurtful on the memory of the nation is really too absurd a notion to fathom. The timing of jokes must be careful, but surely ten years afterward our sensitivities on the issue must be somewhat more relaxed.

Since I’ve probably stirred up a hornets’ nest already, can I just mention our nation’s reaction to the Madeline McCann saga? It’s been six months since her abduction and still the nation and the tabloids cling on to every news story they can make, like moths to a lamp. I cannot help but feel that her tragic disappearance has not been somewhat manipulated by the tabloids in order to sell more papers. However, excusals must be made in recognition of the simple fact that it is us the general public who still cling to her disappearance as if it consumes our every waking sense of being.

No disrespect intended, freedom of speech allows.

This is brilliant not just for a nice little laugh but also from an educational viewpoint. The video makes a host of good points, the fact that the word transcends adjectival, noun and verb use is particularly unique. It’s flexibility and evolution is particularly interesting. The fact that its now so easily bounded about, makes one wonder where the fate of the language’s last taboo word (the ‘c’ word) lies. Is it now a dying word that has a limited effect?

A day at work is time well spent, but what do you most not want to hear upon getting home? “Hello there, I’m calling from Dodgy Loans R’Us and we were wondering whether you would like to take out a policy with us and get routinely shafted in doing so?” To keep your cool is difficult enough; how fair this little upstart calls you up in your home with an irksome little proposition designed to frustrate the pants off you. You have to make concessions though, at least their being honest. Do you think they want to call you up any more than you want to answer the call?

The position of the telesales caller is one of supposed scorn, pity and ambivalence. However, the most hardened of callers must be admired by all those around, for the extreme command of language they possess. It is true most of their spiel is prompted by a computer screen, but their ability to think fast outside of their script is second to none. The little persuasive nuggets of language they possess are like magical beans in the hands of a toddler.

There are of course several approaches to their game: “You’re really doing me a service here”, this downright plea can be as particularly effective as brutal honesty: “Look I just need one more sale to hit my target”. However, the manipulation of the English language to form nice tantalizing little lies is the most common weapon of choice. “Hi there, I’m so glad to talk to you, how are you doing, how’s your day been, what are you doing later?” Peppering the recipient with questions is the easiest way to gain their confidence, it shows a little interest, or a subtle form of flattery if one chooses. But then when the rapport has been built and the opportunity is ripe; is when the caller must go in for the kill: “Ok Jan, so I basically called to ask if you’d take one of these policies off my hands so I can go home and feed my son whose desperately hungry and in need of a Twix, but then we can get back to chatting”. The success of such tactics on the older citizens of the nation is undoubted, but woe be tired if you speak to them in a foreign accent. Despite having a decent command of the English language, if you show anything but a slight trace of a foreign accent then you must expect to be shut out. Telecom racism is still fervent in our society.

The process of cycling is indeed more difficult than the eye suggests. Last weekend to my great suprise I saw a rather portly fellow riding a Penny Farthing along a busy main road. It occured that for a moment I had reverted back to the 19th Century and was no longer concerned with driving my automobile, but rather how to be an upstanding Victorian Gentleman.

Then after reading your post it all made sense. Penny Farthing’s were made so large precisely for the reason you highlight: that is in order to not get too dirty. The beneficial hight of the contraption not only gives you the air of certain superiority but also maintains that your fresh garments stay nice and clean.