The death of the party-hard student

Richard Garner, the Independent's education editor, wrote a piece today where he looks at the change of attitude in university students. As he puts it:

"It used to be about daytime TV, being carried home from bad nightclubs, and halls of residence awash with half-eaten pot noodles and stolen traffic cones, but for the new breed of university student weighed down with the pressures of inflated tuition fees, it's all about business."

The business in question is employment. There is a trend emerging, as students are going to university whilst working full-time jobs. It is a lifestyle that I feel I can talk about, because I am one of these students.

I study journalism at the University of Kent, five days a week, amounting to 18 hours of face-to-face learning. Plus to that, the expected two hours a night in research and reading, my degree is a 30 hour a week course. At the same time, I work as a training duty manager at a local leisure centre. I have set shifts on Saturdays and Sundays, as well as one or two week nights, totalling about 25 - 30 hours in a week, short of the 40 hour mark that is the benchmark for a full-time job.

So why so much work? I am going to be approximately £15,000 in debt by the end of my third year. It is a debt that I do not regret, but my aim is to have enough money that I can strike quite a chunk of that amount off. But that is not the only reason. 

I live 40 minutes away from my university and I have to catch two buses every morning. This is reasonable. But I also have a full driving license. That is the frustrating thing. Ridiculously expensive insurance premiums, averaging about £4,000 a quote, have stopped me from buying a car. A car is not a vanity issue for me; it is not because I am a "GRR PUBLIC TRANSPORT" type. It is just inconvenient when I leave up to an hour before my first lecture and still cannot get there, because a bus is either cancelled or simply does not turn up. And when you are paying £3,000 to be somewhere, you would like to be there. A car is also a valuable thing for a journalist; if your editor tells you to talk to a source within the next hour, and they are not answering their phone/e-mail/messenger pigeon, it is a good tool to have.

Another reason why I choose to work so much is to have money in my pocket. The stereotype is students live off their taxpayer-funded maintenance grants, spending it on what the Indy's Garner described as "bad nightclubs and pot noodles." To be honest, some do. But some do not. Some just get scraps to start with. My own grant is £15 every three months.

Maintenance grants are decided by household income and living at home means mine was dramatically reduced. With an income of about £45,000, I am seen by the government to be in a high-earning household. But this requirement does not take into account outgoings. Simply put, I am poor enough to benefit from government support, through their exclusive grants and bursaries, but too rich to get any of that support from them. That’s a contradiction if I’ve ever seen one.

I admit the tone of this piece is probably making me sound like a whiny, undeserving crybaby with a case of sour grapes. I understand that I am a much better position, financially and socially, than a lot of other people, who really do struggle to make ends meet and fear their next payment of rent or fees. But it is an insight into the various factors and flaws in student finance, from my own personal experience. Take for example, someone I personally know of, who receives a much larger maintanance grant, thousands of pounds worth, by claiming that they live with their unemployed mother. Except their mother lives in another country. And they attend university in the UK. See, flaws.

Saving 9,600 Peacocks

The two girls in this photo work at my local branch of Peacocks. The one on the right is a good friend of mine and has been for 7 years now. Today, she, along with 9,600 others, will go into work unsure of their futures.


Peacocks is a profitable company. In 2011, sales rose by 7.4%, making a profit of £27 million. But it has £240 million pounds worth of debt that has caused the store to go into adminstration. Why so much debt? A management-led buyout led by Richard Kirk in 2005, backed by Goldman Sachs and two private U.S. based hedge funds, saddled the company with enormous debt.


So how do you save Peacocks? The company needs an injection of money, e.g. a buyer. There is speculation than Bon Marche, a women's clothing business owned by Peacocks, will be bought and seperated from its parent company to establish it as an independent brand. Another option being thrown around is for government intervention in stopping RBS, one of Peacock's lenders, from withdrawing support from the company. Liberal Democrat MP, Bob Russell said:


"Is it not the role of government, when it owns the bank, to intervene and can we have a debate?" 


Russell's comments are valid. RBS is owned by the tax-payer after its bailout led to the tax-payer owning an 83% stake in the bank. There is pressure on Business Secretary, Vince Cable to push government intervention and is meeting with Cardiff MPs, where Peacocks is based.


The last option for Peacocks is to adopt the 'John Lewis model.' The model is based on a system, where the company is owned by a trust, operated on behalf of the employees, rather than shareholders. Profit is rewarded to staff in the form of an annual bonus, and effectively create a worker-owned company. For some, this is seen as the way forward for Peacocks. Dr Jonathan Deacon of Newport Business School said to BBC News:


"My ideal would be save this company for Wales, save all those fantastic, innovative, entrepreneurial, creative people in that company. It's got a great management. Why don't we look at an option to think about a workers' buy-out and create another John Lewis? Have a co-operative taking place."


The future is unclear for Peacocks and there is no telling on what will happen. Some jobs have already been lost and the belief is that more will follow. In the mean time, the 9,600 'Peacockers' (what a lovely name) remain hopeful and maybe, just maybe, the company will avoid closure.

On the campaign trail '12: How the U.S. presidential race works

To me, the U.S. Presidential Race is one of the most interesting, enthralling and sometimes plain scary events in global politics. Take for example, recently-departed Texas governor, Rick Perry's 'Strong' advertisement, which is 31 seconds of pure uncomfortableness. To think this man was ever hoping to be President sickens me. It is 2012 and you want to still want to make an argument that there is something wrong when 'gays can serve in the military?' Like I said before, scary. Swiftly moving on, the process of electing the most important public figure in the world is a long one and is commonly misunderstood.    

The race is contested between the two major parties in America, the Democrats and the Republicans. Barack Obama (Democrat) is currently President and the Republicans must decide who will contest Obama in the general election of November 2012. However, before Obama, the Republicans fight amongst themselves to win their party's nomination to face Obama in a stage called the primaries.

The primaries are votes carried out over a period of time across all 50 states. The only exception to this is caucuses, which are not a ballot, rather a meeting where voters gather together and discuss who they think should win the nomination. In both the primaries and caucuses, the votes are tallied up and shared amongst the candidates, according to the percentage they received. What they win is a delegate, a person who will represent the candidate at the next stage of the race. The number of total delegates are proportional to the size of the state. Still with me? Well, simply put, the primaries and caucuses decide who will be the candidate to face the President.

In this current process, there are only four Republicans still in the race: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Originally, there were eight candidates. But the purpose of the primaries is to eliminate weak or even scandalous individuals. Herman Cain is one such candidate, who amongst other issues, was accused of having a 13-year affair. That is a strength of the primaries. Without them, would-be Presidents would not be scrutinised or challenged by the media as intensely as they are during primary season.

After the primaries finish on June 26th in Utah, the next stage of the race begins: the conventions begin. The conventions are very media-friendly events, with television cameras rolling nonstop as party figures make speeches to promote the upcoming general election. It is also the place where the party officially announce their chosen candidate. The delegates from primary season gather and call out who they back, and who won their vote, and although the delegate is not technically made to follow who won their vote, the answer is typically known. The delegates are totalled and the candidate with the most wins. Cue, confetti, fireworks, generic mainstream rock song as they walk onto the stage, fist-pumping the air and giving a rousing speech to kickstart the final portion of the race: the general election.

Back to 2012, the current favourite is Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts. Romney's popularity amongst Republicans surprises me. In 2006, he introduced universal-healthcare to his home-state, and bearing in mind the popularity of national health-care reform, 'Obamacare', among Republican voters, Romney could alienate his voterbase when it comes to tackling Obama.

Come Tuesday 6th November 2012, the 57th presidential election will take place. The belief is that voters will have a choice of Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. By that time, the process will have lasted 21 months and cost billions of dollars (the 2008 campaign was the most costly in history totalling $5.3 billion.) Is that too much money? Is it too long of a process? That decision is up to you, but remember this is the selection of the President of the United States. As long as the right man ends up in the White House, the time and effort will all be worth it. After all, we definitely do not want Rick Perry.

The keyboard warriors' last stand: A SOPA story

"You are talking about the destruction of new media as we know it." - TotalHalibut, a popular YouTube user.

'TotalHalibut', a.k.a, John Bain, is one of many Youtubers who have voiced fierce opposition to the U.S. SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act) bills, that are currently raising hell across the Internet. It was the reason why today, Wikipedia, underwent a blackout, joined by a number of other sites. The reason for the blackout was simple: to make a statement against SOPA and PIPA. If these bills become law, access to free information will be restricted or denied.

This is because the bills allow companies and corporations to seek court orders to remove content from websites that is deemed to be an "infringement of copyright." As a concept this does not seem too unfair. Copyright infringement and piracy in the entertainment industries, such as films, music and video games, cost the U.S. economy $58 million in 2010. But the bills are so poorly constructed that it will not combat piracy. Instead, it allows companies the power to shut down sites that host copyrighted information or content, through a method called DNS blocking - even if the sites are not aware or responsible for this.

A real life example of this came on November 29th, when content-sharing site, Megaupload, was taken down, as per a request from Universal Music Group under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act.) Universal argued that the site contained pirated content that harmed their business. In response to this shut down, a number of musicians, such as Kanye West, Alicia Keys and Snoop Dogg posted a video on YouTube, 'the Mega Song', in support of Megaupload. Then the Mega Song was removed.

Why? It is not yet known. Universal have stated that they are "contractually authorized to use pursuant to its written agreement with YouTube." What agreement? It is not yet known. This is the scary thing about SOPA and PIPA. It furthers the powers that the DMCA already has. If a user posts a video to YouTube which is in violation of copyright, SOPA and PIPA would facilitate the shut down of YouTube. Not the video, not the user, an entire website itself. This does not end with YouTube. The likes of Facebook, Twitter, even beloved Piczo (if it still exists) are all at risk. That may sound like nut-job conspiracy theorist guff, but if Megaupload, with 81 million visitors and a four percent audience reach, can be shut down, if a video from YouTube can be removed with no reason given, because of a 'written agreement', then it is squeaky-bum time for the Internet.

Furthermore, the long-term effects of SOPA and PIPA seem to be understated in the mainstream media. If a SOPA-world, websites will be working under the strict legislation that the bill lays out. With the threat of complete closure if the sites step out of line, they will be initiating a form of self censorship. Less risks will be taken, less revenue will be made through advertising and less investment will hurt the innovators on the cusp of the next technological phenomenon. Do you think that Jack Dorsey, the man behind the development of Twitter, would have made the steps needed to turn his "daydream" into reality? A reality that would act as a tool for strengthening democracy and free speech across the globe? The likelyhood is no. Innovation and genius will be beaten by legal clout and the next Twitter, or the next YouTube, could never see the light of day.

Piracy is a genuine concern for the entertainment industries and something that could be combated. It is these industries who are sponsoring SOPA and PIPA. Companies such as EA, News Corporation, Sony and CBS are among the 358 who want to see SOPA and PIPA enshrined as law. Their views should be recognised. To them, they are seeking a way of recovering lost revenue through copyright infringement and piracy, which has in turn cost jobs in the industry. This is a valid argument. But SOPA and PIPA will not beat piracy. It merely acts as a way of allowing companies to break down and remove websites that might harm their image or challenge their power, whether the site intended to or not. It is censorship, it challenges freedom of speech and as a journalist, this is integral to my beliefs.