To mark the inaugural Wold Radio Day SOAS RADIO will be hosting a panel discussion ‘New Perspectives on Traditional Radio.’ A variety of practitioners, academics and tools providers will discuss how this traditional platform can be used as tool for development and empowerment even in the most vulnerable and remote communities.

Lucy Duran a SOAS academic and BBC Radio 3 presenter will be joined by Guy Berger, Director for Freedom of Expression and Media Development at UNESCO, Dr Chege Githiora Chairman of the Centre of African Studies at SOAS, Birgitte Jallov  from Empowerhouse/ Panos London, Carlos Chirinos from SOAS Radio, Linje Manyozo from the London School of Economics and Amy O’Donnell FrontlineSMS:Radio.  The discussion will cover practical issues related to running a community radio station such as entrepreneurship in radio stations’ business models and obstacles of politicisation of the airwaves. In addition, radio as a tool for language revitalisation and volunteering in the radio and media sector.

SOAS RADIO works with volunteer presenters, producers and academics to create speech and music programmes covering huge variety of topics, conducting interviews with leading international figures in education, international politics, the arts and the media. These have included author and SOAS alumna Fatima Bhutto, influential Bollywood director Yash Chopra, acclaimed musician Manu Chao and BBC presenter Zeinab Badawi.

“As both a broadcast journalist and a SOAS alumna, I’m pleased to see the growth of SOAS Radio,” Badawi said. “It’s an outlet for the incredible diversity of voices at the School as well as a much-needed training ground for the next generation of broadcasters.”

A typical university radio station does not provide consultancy services to Indigenous Communities in Congo, host Middle East news shows in Mandarin or air an 18-part series on Korean hip-hop. But no one ever accused SOAS Radio, housed at the School of Oriental and African Studies, of being typical.

One of the newest additions to our stations is Get in the Groove hosted by French Londoner Healer Selecta and El Nino. The pair dive into their personal collections of original vinyl 45s to bring to the surface a whole host of eclectic, international, feel good records for the listener to enjoy. The station is also home to a veritable radio institution, DJ Ritu’s A World in London. Originally broadcast on BBC London, DJ Ritu now showcases the diverse musical tastes of London and its people from our studio at Russell Square. A World in London is recognized as an essential meeting place for world music fans and a hub for the industry. 

In tandem with World Radio Day, SOAS Radio will be launching their charity Radio Beyond Borders (RBB). Embodying the spirit of World Radio day, RBB will work with student volunteers to support the use of radio and new media to promote development, communication and social cohesion. RBB will work with community radio stations in developing countries to provide advice and support the setting-up of radio stations. We want to shareskills, build capabilities and promote cultural exchange, while providing a unique work and life experience for our volunteers.

Opposing the motion were Petro Fassoulas, former member of the European Commission and newly appointed chairman of the European Movement, and Emma Reynolds, Labour Party MP for Wolverhampton and current Shadow Europe Minister. Tempers were running high throughout the event as both sides fought to the bitter end, blatantly ignoring the formal procedure on points of information, leading Reynolds to state with a disapproving tone that her opponents were “even less polite than her colleagues in the House of Commons.”

“An obscure, Byzantine bureaucracy!”, “A monolithic structure…based on the whims of the European Commission!”, “Intentionally undemocratic!” -  these were but a few of the damning judgements of the EU made by the proposition, whose main argument was the illegitimacy of the European Union due to its undemocratic structure. “There’s less point voting [in the European parliament] than there is in the X-Factor”, alleged Glendening. Oulds later backed him up, saying it is “bizarre” that democracy is so obviously “undermined in the modern era.”

Soon statistics were brought in to support these sweeping statements – Britain has only 9% of votes in Brussels, and the past five EU treaties were not put to a vote in England. The OECD states that Europe is declining. Countries outside the EU such as Norway and Switzerland attract more FDI per capita, and Peter Mandelson has stated that the EU holds back British GDP by 4%. While each of these statements was received with doubting looks from Reynolds and dismissive head shakes by Fassoulas, the proposition crossed the line with the allegation that “more UK laws are from the European Commission than anywhere else”, causing Fassoulas to burst out, “that is a lie.” When Glendening tossed over numerous sheets of paper covered in numbers to prove his point,  Reynolds, after a minute of scrutiny, shot the proposition down:

“In fact it here states that 17%, not 71%, of UK law is determined by the EU. I can understand the confusion if you read the numbers the wrong way around.” An awkward glance between the speakers and several chuckles from the audience later, Oulds ended with the message that we should “look to the more democratic world….to countries with greater prosperity”, in line with Glendening’s call that we, as Europeans, should “defend the legacy of the European Enlightenment.”

Fassoulas opened as first opposition speaker holding much less paper and speaking in a much more light-hearted tone. However, his conviction was no less strong. “Do we really want to stand alone? Why should we create borders?” he asked. “Democracy is a conversation”, he stated, and “25 out of 33 referendums have been pro-EU”. The answer according to Fassoulas was not to abandon the EU but to reform it from within. In an interview after the debate he freely admitted that the EU is not perfect; however, he maintained that arguing over its legitimacy was a waste of time and energy which could be better put into coming up with ways to improve it – a directly elected Minister of Finance, more power to national parliaments, and US-style midterm elections every two years were only some of his suggestions. “I’m a half-full kind of guy”, he said with a smile, yet towards the end of his speech he warned, in full seriousness, that Britain’s withdrawal from the EU would leave it “with its face pressed up against the window, looking in onto what is happening about us, but without us.”

Up stood Emma Reynolds, barely glancing at the notes she had been scribbling furiously during the proposition speeches, as she argued her case with a no-nonsense tone so dominant that the proposition took on the facial expressions of scolded children. “I spend a lot of time debating this with the same MPs over and over again”, Reynolds said, “and I can tell you that British membership in the EU is not only viable, but vital to our national interest.” Her list of benefits the EU brings – lower mobile roaming charges, rights to travel, and the ability to live in countries like Spain with far better weather – demonstrated that she knew her audience. Further advantages included access to the European Court of Justice, the ability for joint action on issues like sanctions on Syria, and access to the largest international markets. She accused Cameron of doing Britain a “great disservice” in December 2011 with his veto against EU Treaty changes, and drew heavily on her experience in politics to support her case. The proposition, however, did not lose confidence, continuing to let off statistics like there was no tomorrow. Alas, the vote left the proposition brutally defeated. Oulds nevertheless attempted to end the debate on a humorous note when, upon seeing a few stray hands go up for the proposition, in comparison to the majority of the audience for the opposition, joked that this must have been “the biggest landslide victory Emma has ever had.”

In anticipation of their upcoming London gigs, London Student has tickets for Frank Skinner, Chris Ramsey and Chris Addison to give away.

Frank Skinner’s new show; Frank Skinner and Friends, runs at the Noel Coward Theatre from Monday January 23, to Thursday February 2, and we have three pairs of tickets for the show on the Tuesday January 24. To win a pair of tickets to see Frank Skinner, simply answer the following question. What football club does Frank Skinner famously support?

Chris Ramsey’s new show; Offermation, runs at the Soho Theatre from Wednesday January 25, to Saturday January 28, and we have three pairs of tickets available for the show on Thursday January 26. To win a pair of tickets to see Chris Ramsey, simply answer the following question. In what year did Chris win the Chortle Student Comedy Award?

Chris Addison is currently on a nationwide tour with his new show; The Time Is Now, Again, and we have three pairs of tickets to give away for his London date at the Hammersmith Apollo on Wednesday February 29. To win a pair of tickets to see Chris Addison, simply answer the following question. What is the hit British sitcom in which Chris plays the role of ‘Ollie’?

To enter, email: comedy@london-student.net, giving the answer to the relevant question. The first three correct entrants will receive a pair of tickets to see the comedian of their choice. Only one set of tickets may be applied for, and multiple entries will not be considered.

Directed by Flight of the Conchords co-creator James Bobin, and written by emerging screenwriter Jason Segel, The Muppets is the first cinematic release from the franchise in twelve years, and with a full UK release not until February 17, the preview at the LoCo festival is likely to be popular.

On Saturday 28, Edgar Wright, director and writer of Hot Fuzz and Scott Pilgrim Vs the World, will take his place as the inaugural LoCo Hero of the festival, by introducing a double bill of Shaun of the Dead and Mike Leigh’s Life Is Sweet.

Perhaps the most notable and innovative feature on the programme is the LoCo Discovery Screening. The inclusion of this feature will allow one group of emerging comedy film-makers the chance to premier their film to one of the country’s most discerning audiences. Its inclusion reflects Loco’s dedication to helping Britain’s new comedy talent.

Further highlights include the hugely anticipated world premiere performance of The Day Off, a lost script written for the legendary Tony Hancock.  The script has been made available by Hancock’s collaborators and co-writers; Ray Galton and Alan Simpson, and they will introduce the performance, and take part in a Q&A session afterwards.

The festival’s LoCollege will also hold a two-day workshop for emerging comedy film-makers, providing them with the knowledge and expertise to realise their scripts to the screen. Furthermore, the festival’s ‘School of Slapstick’ is running its own mini-programme, including a class for kids on how to make their own silent comedies, and screenings of Charlie Chaplain and Buster Keaton classics.

 
Booking is currently open for all events

“What I like about this debate is that it’s not really about Goldman Sachs. It’s about power – where it comes from, what it means, who it affects.” – Sean Dolan, Proposition

“You know who runs the world? It’s the guys with the guns. It’s the government.” – Brian Carney, Opposition

“Conspiracy theories are the ultimate fairy-tale.” – Joseph Bates, Opposition

“Don’t invest in stocks and crappy commodities…invest in your mind. Invest in yourself.”  – Alessio Rastani, Proposition

New Turn’s opening event of 2012. A hall packed with students and anticipation, a line of debaters in suits in front, and New Turn President and Chairman of the debate Babatunde Williams in the middle, his beer kept close – though not quite close enough, it seems, as Brian Carney, Editorial Editor of the Wall Street Journal and Opposition speaker at the debate, manages to sneakily reach over and take a sip, to the laughter of the audience.

On Babs’ other side sits Sean Dolan, an experienced debater for New Turn, and Alessio Rastani, an independent trader who caused a scandal last September when he stated on the BBC that “governments don’t rule the world; Goldman Sachs rule the world”. Debating with Carney is Joseph Bates, who, noticeably younger than his fellow debaters, says he’s probably only there to “relate to you or something.” Be that as it may, all the speeches, including his own, were filled with powerful rhetoric, chilling statistics, and a conviction of their own position which swayed the audience from side to side throughout the event.

The debate began with Babs reeling off the impressive and extensive list of upcoming events New Turn had to offer – “The Post-War History of Capitalism – what went wrong?”, “The Shadow-World – Revealing the Arms Trade”, and a heavily reduced price Policy Training course run by Prospect, exuding a confidence which only the head of such a successful society can. Sean Dolan proceeded to open the debate by stating that the idea that politics controls power is becoming “less true every day.” Dolan’s tactics of winning over the audience involved questions like “Who would only work for a decent or good salary?” followed by “Who would live in deprivation doing something they loved?”, noting the difference in number of hands raised and stating that those whose hands remained raised for the second question should “all date each other, because clearly you’re all great people.”

Peppering his speech with mind-blowing statistics of the tax revenue in the UK in 2010 ($650 billion) and Goldman Sachs’ net worth (1.3 trillion), his main weapon was invoking economic fear in the audience, telling them economies in crisis are “addicted to debt”, “politicians only want big business”, and investment banks possess a “sickening power”.

Carney both eased the tension left by Dolan and initiated a theme which would remain prevalent throughout the debate with his opening allegation: “You know who runs the world? It’s the guys with the guns. It’s the government.

“Banks are only as powerful as people let them be,” he stated, and after throwing out his own fair share of mind-boggling numbers, wrapped the list up with “…and you know who collects the taxes? The government. And you know how? With guns.” Carney possessed a no-nonsense attitude and a conviction of his position so strong that he claimed to truly “pity the poor gentlemen sitting opposite” with the task of defending such a “big-lie” motion.

Following Carney was Alessio Rastani, the man whose speech we’d all been waiting for. “Here’s what I want to say,” he began. An independent trader, Rastani claimed to have seen “behind the scenes”, and what he saw caused him to lose all faith in democracy. “The Feds essentially hold the government at ransom”, he alleged, with an expression so serious and hand gestures so vigorous that the entire room went deathly silent. His most controversial statements proved to be “with all due respect to my colleague working at one of the biggest newspapers in America (“THE biggest”, corrected Carney), we cannot trust the media”, and “Goldman Sachs was the biggest contributor to Obama’s campaign.” The latter statement was apparently the final straw as Carney, his face reddening for the past five minutes already, stood up with an indignant “that’s BULLsh*t!”.

The peacemaker of the event was Joseph Bates, whose ‘googling’ of the motion had come up with some information which seemed more trustworthy than that which the more passionate debaters were defending. With periodical nods of approval from Carney, Joseph pointed out that many politicians linked to Goldman Sachs are no longer in office and that conspiracy theories are “just a way for people to give up responsibility.” Matters flared up again during the questions from the audience, with Rastani stating “you’ve got to live in a Disneyland if you don’t believe corporate money goes into election campaigns” and Carney shooting back with the argument that all companies fulfil a role and if you think like the proposition you may as well say electric companies rule the world, because if they didn’t, “we’d all be in the friggin’ dark.”

All in all, the opposition made the better case and won the debate, to the noticeable annoyance of Rastani; however, his point must have gotten across to some because just before closing the event with a reminder of New Turn’s upcoming events, Babs asked a former Goldman Sachs banker sitting in the audience:

“So what do you think – did you rule the world?”

“Yeah, we did.”

My task was to interview Paul Fowler. Clearly he was a man with a large brain and a genuine desire to solve real human problems. Fowler’s project, REEF, is interested in finding out if low level environmental chemicals harm female reproductive health and, if it does, is there anything we can do to stop it?

A worthy cause. But journalists and writers often refer to this sort of writing as ‘the dark side’. You are engaged to write an article with a predetermined point of view; i.e. that this person’s research is brilliant. And, if you happen not to think that* (once you’ve done a bit of digging around and finding out facts) – well, tough. You still have to make them sound brilliant.

On a parallel point, the subject matter of science journalism is often hard for journalists themselves to understand. It’s considered difficult to remain impartial and keep a discerning yet critical point of view. This often results in copy getting shown to researchers, for fact-checking purposes, before it is published. But, as a recent article in The Guardian shows, this can be controversial.

Personally I don’t think it’s a big deal to show your copy to someone you’ve interviewed for fact-checking purposes – as long as that’s all it is. But, I respect the opinions of those more experienced than me, who say it can, and does, lead to sticky situations.

One way to potentially avoid this is to get clued up about the science, and check the facts yourself. There will always be situations where you don’t know everything about a subject you are reporting, but the more you digest the better your journalistic skills will be, and the less you rely on experts.

That’s why I believe the odd advertorial piece of paid work is probably no bad thing. It’s clear to everyone that these types of article are not objective journalism, but writing and researching them probably helps a journalist learn more about science as a whole.

*This is not a comment on Paul Fowler’s research – I think what he does is great.

It is well known that fluid flow in natural vascular systems is driven by a pump, more specifically the heart. This fluid travels along a vast network of vessels, enabling the distribution of cells, hormones, oxygen and other components necessary for maintaining a healthy system. Similarly, a self-healing material relies on embedded vascular networks of micro-channels, each less than 100 millionths of a metre in diameter, to transport reactive fluids to regions of damage – allowing the material to heal in response to damage, wherever and whenever it occurs.

Self healing materials have been researched thoroughly for almost a decade, with the aim of reducing any risk and cost from cracking and damage.. To date most research in this field has been limited by the small amounts of healing agent that can be contained within the material without weakening it, and also the slow diffusion rates of the healing agent to the damage zone – due to the dependence on capillary action.

An experiment, carried out by Professor Nancy Sottos and her team and published in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface, aimed to overcome these issues. Taking a lesson from biology, the researchers devised a way to actively pump fluids into their micro-vascular networks, because “in a biological system, fluids are pumping and flowing,” said Professor Sottos. They used external pumps which significantly improved the distribution of the healing agents within the material.

The experiment consisted of delivering the healing agents via a sparse vascular network of two isolated, symmetrical micro-channels in the plastic. One channel was filled with liquid resin and the other with liquid hardener. A pre-crack was formed and after a dynamic pumping routine, bursts of the hardener were injected into a steady flow of the resin. The computer controlled pumps facilitated the flow of the healing agents to fill the crack in the damage zone.

This technique was found to yield the best results with respect to filling the widest cracks, and improvement in the degree of mechanical recovery. As a result healing efficiencies of up to 87% were reached. I spoke to Dr Haixue Yan, a post doctorate in materials at Queen Mary University of London, who said “it’s an interesting development and works well for plastics due to their low melting points, it could also be implemented in metals with low melting points but might affect their mechanical properties”.

Although the method of constructing the self-healing materials is clearly refined using 3D scaffolds, the main drawbacks lie within incorporating the pumps into the material itself; without compromising the structural integrity of the material. The researchers envisage that large hydraulic systems could be incorporated into large scale structures, to act as pumps in the self healing material.

Time will tell how much further research is needed, but this technology could benefit many industries, as well as consumers if it reduces the cost and damage of repairs. Having demonstrated the potential of improved repair that an actively pressurised system provides, an exciting development might be to seamlessly integrate it into commercial applications. This technology could play a crucial role in civil engineering, the automotive industry, smart phones and the aerospace industry, to name a few.

The comedy begins early with Jonnie Marbles, as he puts a small espresso cup under the nozzle of the coffee machine and watches nervously as it rapidly overfills. He dives in to try and save the situation, rescuing just enough coffee in a larger cup to settle his nerves. I’m instantly struck by his soft and tender nature – “He’s not quite the overbearing galactic hero come to destroy Rupert Murdoch’s empire I thought”, I tell myself.

As we go up to the London Student office he recounts details of the busy week he’s had and it’s evident that the media frenzy is taking its toll. I’m keen to know whether he has any regrets but I leave that question for a while, hoping to flesh out some of the issues that may have induced regret during the interview.

Hesham Zakai: What is the background to this incident?

Jonnie Marbles: Well, I had the idea a few days beforehand when I realised Rupert Murdoch had a face and that I could get into the same place as him. I spent a couple of days preparing for it, thinking about how I was going to put things in my bag to make it look as innocuous as possible.

In the end, he tells me, there wasn’t much difficulty getting past the security and he took his seat not too far away from the Murdochs. He isn’t excited or energetic as he talks about the build up to the incident, but maintains a calm demeanour.

HZ: What was going through your mind as you prepared to throw the pie at him?

JM: I was really hoping I’d get some excuse to not do it [he laughs]. Initially there was no possibility of doing it as there were people to my left and right, but to my horror one-by-one they got up and left. I sat there in abject terror for about 10 minutes. When I got up, my legs felt heavy, my hands were shaking.

It was clear that he didn’t want to do this up until the moment he did, and there was no sense of joy in it for him. So I pressed him on why he had still gone through with it.

JM: It might sound silly to some people, but I saw it as a responsibility. Once you realise you can do something like this – and there aren’t a lot of people who have the opportunity to – I felt that I had to do it because I knew there were lots of people out there who would have relished the chance. It was a bit of catharsis for everyone who’s ever looked at the front page of The Sun and felt absolutely sick with the state of the world.

He can’t quite suppress a smile as he revisits the precise moment he threw the pie on the face of “the most powerful man in the world”. The smile turns into a laugh as he praises Wendi Deng, the wife of Rupert Murdoch, for her quick reaction. Deng hit him on the head and threw the pie back at him. Looking back, he jokes that handing himself over to the police was going into “protective custody”, to spare him the full force of Deng.

Amidst the laughter, I ask Jonnie whether this was an act of comedy or an act of activism.

JM: It’s both. Activism informed me of what’s possible. I think most people go through life thinking politics is a bit of a spectator sport, but it’s really not; you can get involved. You can go out there and make direct change to your world.

Tired of what he sees as an illusion of democracy, Jonnie has been involved with UK Uncut and supports creative protests, but insists that he selected the foam pie as his form of protest not for its comedic effect but because of its political and historical significance.

JM: I’m not a violent person, I wasn’t going to hit him over the head with a brick. It was an opportunity to humiliate him a bit, bring him down to size. Pieing him in the face has this historic political tradition, going back nearly 100 years. In the 60s and 70s it gained a lot of traction again…it’s a really effective political statement because it re-humanises people, and humiliates them; it says ‘whoever you are, it you don’t treat people with dignity and respect, you don’t deserve to have those things yourself’.

Microsoft business magnate Bill Gates and former director of the IMF, Michel Camdessus, are just two notable individuals who have been ‘pied’. Despite it being a political decision, I wondered whether Jonnie had faced opposition to his actions even from his political friends.

HZ: Did you unwittingly lend Murdoch sympathy?

JM: Everyone I know in the real world has been incredibly supportive. I’ve had a lot of people online being very unpleasant. Looking back on it now, I think one of the reasons for that is I had no faith in the select committee process at all from the start. Basically it was a mock trial being held so that we had the impression of justice…but I understand that some people thought we would actually get justice so I see why they’re upset.

He proceeds to impressively go over a brief history of select committee hearings, focusing particularly on the case of Robert Maxwell in 1992. It’s clear Jonnie’s an intelligent individual who did a lot of research before packing his bag with foam and a paper plate in quest of justice.

HZ: Have you had a response from any politicians, particularly those that were present at the hearing?

JM: Louise Mensch called me a loser, and then apologised to losers for comparing me to losers – [he takes this in good humour] – and I apologised for giving her and the other members of the select committee an excuse for their abject failure. So very polite, yeah, we’re going for coffee next week [he laughs]. I’ve also heard through some channels that Tom Watson thought it was very amusing.

Jonnie has amassed a very large Twitter following but is under no illusions about this. “Let’s be honest, it’s a fifteen minutes of fame thing”. He continues to use his Twitter account in the regular way he did before, “putting up political stuff and funny things”, but plans to make the most of the extra followers whilst they last by retweeting friends’ fundraising attempts and other philanthropic causes.

Following the incident, Jonnie was kicked out of the Labour Party, or so it seemed anyway.

JM: I bought membership last year in May simply so I could vote in the leadership election and I let it lapse this May. A rumour started that I was a member of the Labour Party and so they, for PR reasons, kicked me out.

So if he didn’t renew his Labour membership, what politics or political party did he subscribe to, I asked.

JM: I’m in an anarchist in the sense that I believe arbitrary power structures should be torn down and rebuilt, and we should reclaim space for human beings rather than corporations.

Nonetheless, he doesn’t find the term anarchist particularly useful because of its misinterpretation and its restrictiveness. He suggests that the term autonomist might be more useful or, better still, for him to have no label at all. His belief in the lack of restriction extends beyond political nomenclature; he’s part of a movement called NoBorders, campaigning for the rights of migrants.

JM: We live in a system of international apartheid. The moment you start to think about the international migration system, you start to see that something’s not right; it’s just grossly unfair. It’s comparable in many ways to slavery in the US before the civil war. It’s just one of those things which, when you take a step back, when you stop listening to the Daily Mail nonsense that comes out of this country, you realise we’re living in a system of international apartheid. That’s the sort of thing I feel very strongly about. Throwing a pie in Murdoch’s face is a stunt, it’s a bit of catharsis, but there are much more important and much more serious issues out there.

Jonnie is a former Royal Holloway University student but doesn’t look back on his time there too fondly; he cuts a somewhat forlorn figure as he tells me that he doesn’t have too much to say about it. During his time at the University he wrote for The Orbital and the editor at the time, Mario Creatura, said:

“[Jonnie] was a funny, and articulate guy. He was very morally impassioned. We disagreed in a friendly way during a lot of political discussions but there was never any hint of aggression on his part. Just odd-ball and eccentric humour.”

During his time at the paper he had a droll column titled ‘Out of Loo Roll’. That was then and Jonnie is now focussed on social media. He sees it as an important step in reducing the “incredibly destructive influence [of the Murdoch press] on democracy and on peoples’ lives”.

JM: Luckily, I think we’re in a position now where what’s increasingly replacing all mainstream media is social media. I genuinely think we’re at a point in history that could be compared to the invention of the printing press. Everyone’s got their own blog, everyone’s got their own Twitter account if they want one, and you can just completely bypass those big institutions which tend to be very corrupt.

Jonnie has been charged by the police and is due to appear before a Magistrates Court on Friday 29^th July. Upon hearing the news, one of Jonnie’s old teachers said they were “shocked, but not surprised”. As the interview comes to an end, his teacher’s assessment seems to ring true. Beneath the fame and furore the incident has fanned, Jonnie has maintained his reasoning rigorously and offered it to those willing to listen articulately. I’m left with only one question to ask, but fairly sure of the answer before I’ve even asked it.

HZ: Has Jonnie lost his marbles?

JM: [He laughs] Erm, the question is whether I had any in the first place! I’ve always liked to work outside the boundaries, I’ve always been a little bit eccentric and a little bit unusual, I don’t think this is at all out of character for me. No.

The news sparked a campaign to ‘Save Our Wardens’. Over 500 people have joined a Facebook group opposing the proposals and ULU Senate, the policy making body of University of London Union (ULU), passed a motion to support the campaign.

A consultation period on the proposals comes to an end in mid-june and a decision is expected at the end of June.

Criticism for the proposals centres on the removal of pastoral care for students, an end to a community spirit in halls and a lower level of service at a time where accommodation prices are increasing by an average of 12.6 percent.

Martin Burchett, Director of Estates and Facilities for University of London and the man behind the proposals, does not agree with such criticism.

“We are not doing away with pastoral care, we will just be doing it in a different way,” he says.

Under the proposed plans, the Warden’s current responsibilities would be divided between the Bursars, who currently deal with the administration of the halls, and Student Members, who assist the Wardens as student representatives.

Some Wardens have suggested that the Bursars would not engage in welfare or the care of students as they are based away from the halls of residence and only work nine to five. It has also been suggested that to expect students to take on the work of Wardens is not only unfair but unrealistic.

Burchett disagrees, saying that the Bursars will take the majority of the workload. He adds that all students will be, “appropriately trained”, receiving the same training that Wardens do currently and stressing that the plans are, “entirely in accordance with UK code of practice”.

“We are simply concerned that their life in the hall is as smooth and as enjoyable as possible,” he says. “We do not want to go to the extreme of a private hall, with just the guard on the desk and that’s it.”

The motive behind removing the Wardens, according to Burchett, is to free up space for additional rooms. By removing the Wardens, who receive free accommodation as part of their job, around 50 additional rooms will be made available for students. “We’re not looking at the Wardens thing to save money,” says Burchett.

He adds that they will be, “humane” about removing the Wardens if the proposals are approved. Many of the Wardens live in the halls with their families and while the proposals would be implemented from September 2011, Burchett accepts that many of the Wardens may need longer to vacate their rooms.

In addition to the potential removal of the Wardens, students will face a hefty increase in accommodation prices.

According to Burchett, next year’s accommodation prices will increase by an average of 12.6 percent across all Intercollegiate halls, putting the price of a standard single room at around £160 per week, including two meals a day.

Burchett says that this steep increase is to bring University of London halls in line with the price of comparable halls of residence in the area, such as those offered by UCL or LSE. LSE’s High Holborn Hall currently charges from £188 for a single room and UCL’s Ramsey Hall charges £170 for a single room.

Burchett adds that, “increasingly students are going to be expecting more than they’re getting” and that an increase in rent is required to fund this. However, some still feel that to increase prices so markedly without improving quality will short change students. Nonetheless, Burchett maintains that University of London Halls compare, “favourably” with the competition.

Burchett recognises that there is opposition to the plans, in particular from the Wardens, which he says, “isn’t surprising”. However, Burchett adds that, in his view, “the vast majority of people in halls have been silent on the matter.”

When the consultation period ends, Burchett says he would be, “foolish” not to listen to any concerns raised. “We’re not just doing the statutory consultation. We are consulting more widely than that.”

He adds: “There is no point in the likes of me thinking something is a good idea. We need to find out from the people themselves.”