A group of York students has won the opportunity to have their very own I-phone application developed after winning The App Challenge final, held at the Ron Cooke Hub on Wednesday, January 18.
YUSU Welfare officer Bob Hughes has warned students to be vigilant after a student loans phishing scam has been revealed.
Her Majesty the Queen will be visiting York on Maundy Thursday, 5th April, as part of the 800th anniversary of York’s Charter for the traditional “Royal Maundy” ceremony.
A flood caused by a heating system “failure” forced the university IT services to shut down many essential systems on Sunday night, causing problems for many students on the eve of their exams and assignment due-dates.
The Yorker's Rachel Basch and Nick Scarlett were invited by York Labour Club Chair David Levene to join other campus media in a press conference with Labour cabinet minister Hilary Benn.
Benn, who is also an MP for the Leeds Central constituency, was at the university for a question and answer session with students, the focus of which was "Can we build a sustainable community?"
The event, organised by the university’s Labour Club, was very popular, with the P/L/001 lecture hall packed out, and students keen to ask more questions than time allowed.
After successfully navigating his way through tough questioning regarding the British Government's stance on torture, Benn answered questions pertaining to the university's investment in the arms trade and the upcoming review of raising the cap on university tuition fees.
In response to the potential raising of the cap, Benn came across as evasive, stating the government was committed to reviewing the evidence.
He did not seem to share Jason Rose’s concerns that an increase in fees would effectively create a two-tier system of Higher Education. Benn pointed out that so far the introduction of tuition fees and the subsequent raising of the cap to £3,000 had not impacted on the numbers going to university.
He expressed his belief that higher education was worth paying for as Britain was now a "knowledge-based economy".
In response to questions concerning the academic investments in the arms trade, Benn did not address York specifically, but conversed on government policy.
He commented that all exports were regulated according to their individual merits, a fact he reiterated in the general Q&A later in the evening, stating that every country has a right to defend itself.
Benn responded to questions regarding the issue of his defeat in the recent Deputy Leadership, where in spite of polls indicating support he eventually lost out to York graduate Harriet Harman. Benn praised the work of Harman and expressed his gratitude that the election campaign had given the candidates the chance to engage in genuine policy debate.
URY's questions on torture were met with a constant reiteration of Benn's position, stating that the British government "in no way condoned torture in any instance". Benn repeatedly praised President Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo Bay, a move he claimed the British Government had been after for some time.
The Yorker was unable to ask Benn questions on student-related topics such as his take on the value of student politics with the upcoming YUSU elections or the significance of student radicalism in the 21st century.
In the general talk, Benn addressed questions ranging from sustainable fishing and low carbon development programmes, through nuclear power, to questions on the importance of International Aid in a time of recession.
He articulated the major obstacles in the way of building a sustainable world, discussing the dual problems of unsustainable financial spending and controlling carbon emissions.
He did however talk positively about Britain’s commitment to meeting its target of an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, proudly stating that no other country had passed legislation as far-reaching as the Climate Change Act.
Benn was especially candid on his views on the Iraq war, an issue he described as splitting his family. Unlike his father, ex-Labour minister Tony Benn MP, Hilary Benn gave his full support to the war.
Benn explained how he stood by his support of what was, in his opinion, a necessary war. The questioning turned to the current situation in Gaza, and Benn passionately expressed his views on the troubles facing the Middle East. Ignoring heckles from the audience, he suggested that the solution lay in effective political leadership willing to work toward a compromise without the use of violence.
He drew a comparison to the eventual resolution in Northern Ireland, praising the "courage" of the leaders of the opposition parties in deciding to put aside violence and work together. Benn gained an enthusiastic ovation for his words and engagement with the subject.
Benn also articulated his view that he considered himself a "citizen of the world" as well as of the UK when questioned on whether international aid was an "optional extra" in a time of recession. He expressed his belief that aid was never optional, and it was the duty of developed nations to continue to give assistance to help countries help themselves.
He responded to questions regarding the use of the Anti-Terrorism law to spy on local residents with regards to recycling by asking the audience member if he had "been reading the Daily Mail".
When asked if he believed Obama’s inauguration would bring about change on American policy towards the environment, Benn replied, "Yes, a pretty darn big change," before finishing to loud applause and catching his train back to his constituency in Leeds.
comment deleted by the author He seemed to genuinely care about a number of issues, but his answers to a few very important others was disappointing; he merely regurgitated the party line.
"Benn told the audience how he still stands by this support for what was in his opinion a necessary war."
What Benn failed to tell us, however, is what exactly was it that made the invasion of Iraq 'necessary'.
Any weapons of mass destruction yet? That was the excuse for the war, wasn't it? But of course, nobody talks about that any more, just as Orwell would have predicted.
On the other hand, the only thing we heard was a confirmation of the obvious; Saddam was a brutal dictator.
Undeniable, but using that as an excuse for an illegitimate invasion of a foreign nation is an argument that's below-average even for the level of a university debate.
What Benn seemed to forget is that invading a non-aggressive nation in defiance of U.N. resolutions is a crime under international law. There are many brutal regimes in the world, many of them thanks to the support of the U.S. and its allies, but frankly that does not give any government the right to invade and occupy them. Besides, there are other means to depose dictators, i.e. by supporting the democratic forces within those nations.
As for the intentions, I find it extremely hard to believe that the U.S. and U.K. governments were so concerned about Iraq's woes that they decided to stage a 'humanitarian invasion'. They used to be best pals with Saddam once, lest we forget.
And if the U.S. is really that dedicated to promoting 'democracy' and 'liberty' around the world, then can somebody please explain Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Chile, Guatemala, Vietnam, Haiti, Cambodia etc. etc.?
Can somebody explain the U.S. support of the 7-year fascist dictatorship in Greece, the U.S. support of Pinochet, the U.S. support of Batista, the U.S. support of Ríos Montt the pointless destruction of Cambodia and so on and so forth?
As for the latter, do read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu
As Chomsky put it, "in its foreign policies, the U.S. does not punish atrocities, only disobedience."
Shame to the British government for being an accomplice to yet another addition to an already long criminal record.
Wow, beast of an article (length-wise)..!
I was somewhat disgruntled by his response on tuition fees, to be honest. He said that raising the tuition fees hasn't affected numbers and therefore it is good. The point in the argument against lifting it is that it causes DIVISION and SEGREGATION between different income-background students and not that the numbers would be affected. For whatever reason Benn, and many members of the government, seem to ignore the whole economic gap malarky and focus on the benefits that they provide the poor. Not exactly beneficial, really... indeed not really equality of opportunity at all if your background dictates your university.
On the other hand, it could be worse. We could be under a Tory government and be paying £10,000+ per year... in which case I for one doubt I'd be at York over somewhere cheaper.
His comments regarding many things were accurate but when anything was verging on controversial he seemed to dodge. I guess that MPs will usually do that because they'd rather like to keep their job but it's still a shame to get a speaker up because you like his opinions and then have him spout "the government does not condone torture" at you, as if you were unaware that it would be the official response.
"We could be under a Tory government and be paying £10,000+ per year... in which case I for one doubt I'd be at York over somewhere cheaper."
Source? Or is that just partisan conjecture?
"We could be under a Tory government and be paying £10,000+ per year... in which case I for one doubt I'd be at York over somewhere cheaper."
While failing to see the benefits to the nation of the lie master Rose just conjured, he does make it clear in the latter part of that sentence that York would benefit greatly.
Sources say that the Conservative Party are likely to put the cap up to either £10,000 or lift it completely if they win, having been persuaded that the tuition fee system is more useful than they originally thought. The NUS have said it at several conferences and it's general conjecture - by most people. I don't know how true it is but it sounds like a normal Tory policy so I'm not surprised by it. Lib Dems still support free HE though the extra funding is perhaps a little lacking for it to be realistic.
Wow, Clearly the Astrophysics department has much lower standard for citation than mine!
Generally Jason, when someone asks for a source, they're asking for something more than 'sources say' and 'sounds like a normal Tory policy'.
Hopefully that might help you out in your essays; in addition, why not check out some of the information available as part of Academic Integrity Week athttp://www.york.ac.uk/k-roy/
Clearly that's a stupid comment. My work within my degree has been cited far above an adequate level from a range of sources.
The fact that it isn't official Conservative policy is because they HAVEN'T GOT ONE. However when MPs have made general implications, the NUS are confident and other people have speculated that it is likely then I would say that is acceptable. Indeed you are allowed to use "personal communication" as a citation on a research paper so it's perfectly acceptable.
Also, since I was the only person to attend the last NUS Regional Conference from York I feel that I'm in a much better place than you to comment accurately on the current situation within the tuition fees debate.
More misinformed stuttering and ill made political points from Jason
That's an "I'll" that you were trying to type there. Effort.
Why is that an "I'll"? That doesn't even make sense if you are referring to #9 stating that your political points are ill made. "I'll made"? Outstanding. I'm glad your work has been cited as far above adequate.
Lack of effort.
Once again, Jason Rose excels in the art of espousing misleading 'chat' on a comment thread.
Jason, how one one hand can you assert, "We could be under a Tory government and be paying £10,000+ per year", followed by "The fact that it isn't official Conservative policy is because they HAVEN'T GOT ONE"?
Doesn't this mean that your first statement really was just complete rubbish, void of all facts and referencing?
Jason, pipe down.
No, Dan it isn't. The Conservative have refused to make their official policy on this known because they know that most of the country think it's a bad idea. I can't believe that it hasn't been discussed by them at least and there would be no reason to hide policy unless it was politically stupid to do so.
So you are just making assumptions as I thought.
Posted on Iain Dale's blog, a link to the interview between URY and Hilary.
http://www.totalpolitics.com/blogspot/HILARY_BENN_INTERVIEW_FINAL.mp3
The NUS aren't an authority on either tuition fees or the tory party. On fees, they flip-flop from opposing them altogether, to opposing just a cap, to changing payment methods to a graduate tax, or lamely supporting the status quo because most officers are labour party members.
Because the NUS is effectively a youth branch of the labour party, it's views on the tories should be taken with a handful of salt. Chip-on-shoulder class-war leftism in the NUS is never going to be the kind of environment for serious political debate and tolerance of the conservative viewpoint.
There;s no mention of the £10k figure on any party policy document, nor is there mention of raising fees from the current level. All they do acknowledge is that higher fees have improved universities.
Lib Dem plans for abolishing fees depend on greater funding through vastly cutting the budget for overseas operations, including withdrawal from iraq and gradual retreat from afghanistan, as well as backing off from the trident renewal programme.
Sources: Conservative website, conservative home, libdems.org.uk .
Not true. The NUS is full of people with differing opinions on the subject. Whilst many still oppose tuition fees at all, only 1% of member organisations (2/200+) said that they saw any advantage in increasing the cap.
A small percentage of the NUS delegates are members of Labour Youth and, albeit that their current President is, they can be outvoted easily at conferences. The last President wasn't a Labourite.
As I said, the Conservatives have refused to say their position which makes it look very much like they would either agree with Labour or do something unpopular. Granted, Dan, that I have assumed that NUS, after spending a heck of a lot of time over the last two years researching this issue, know roughly where the parties stand but otherwise I haven't heard directly from the Conservative Party. Unsurprisingly they don't respond to queries on the matter.
And yes, the Liberal Democrats have suggests cutting the budget for a number of things, which I am pleased with, but I am unsure of how realistic their aims are when the extra funds may end up being shared with the NHS, etc.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report