Blog Page 1249
Does cosmetic surgery have a positive psychological effect?
Cosmetic surgery continues to grow in popularity in the UK. Whilst there is no single definitive reason as to why so many individuals are opting for cosmetic procedures, the constant bombardment of ‘perfect’ media figures and provocative TV shows demonstrating their ‘miracle transformation’ patients, are certainly having an effect on the population. Irrespective of the reasons, cosmetic surgery is definitely on the rise. Statistics from MYA, a UK cosmetic surgery group, show that in the last two years the number of surgical and non-surgical procedures has risen dramatically.
But does it really have a positive psychological effect on us?
A recent analysis of 37 studies monitoring patients’ psychological and psychosocial functioning pre and post-surgery suggests positive results in patients; including improved body image and a boost in life quality. The same studies, however, also showed several predictors of poor results for patients who held unrealistic expectations or had a history of mental health problems. The researchers established that dissatisfied patients were likely to request subsequent procedures or experience adjustment difficulties, and exhibit negative emotions towards their surgeon.
A long term study, as discussed by Science Daily, investigated the psychological outcomes of cosmetic surgery on approximately 550 patients. The researchers discovered that the individuals displayed increased satisfaction and self-esteem after their physical appearance had been altered surgically.
The researchers further examined whether patients who undertake cosmetic surgery are systematically different from others, what their goal attainment entails and whether this is achieved post-surgery. They compared first time cosmetic surgery patients with two other groups; individuals who expressed an interest in surgery then decided against it and individuals who have never been interested in surgery. Interestingly, there were no significant disparities recognised between the three groups in terms of psychological and health variables.
The psychologists subsequently tested the patients three, six and twelve months post-surgery to assess any changes in variables. On average, the participants expressed that they attained their desired goal and were pleased with the outcome. In comparison to the persons opting against cosmetic surgery, the participants were less anxious and had developed more self-esteem. Therefore, the researchers were able to conclude high levels of success of the surgery in terms of psychological characteristics.
Whilst studies imply patients do experience positive outcomes post-surgery, there is contradictory evidence suggesting not all surgery is beneficial. Several studies have indicated that seven to 12 per cent of cosmetic surgery patients have Body Dysmorphic Disorder. BDD is characterized by the preoccupation of one’s appearance; patients with the disorder often experience little satisfaction post-surgery and will request multiple procedures. Fortunately, psychologists are able to work with surgeons in order to identify such issues. Factors such as internal motivations, expectations and excessive bodily concern should be addressed in case a patient should be referred to mental health professionals rather than undergo surgery.
Disturbance outside popular Baby Love club night
Students at Baby Love on Tuesday 2 December witnessed a disturbance outside the club when two individuals were denied entry and allegedly verbally abused revellers.
An Oxford undergraduate who was at Baby Love during the incident said, “I saw a crowd of people outside and went to see what was going on. There were two police cars, and one man was handcuffed outside a car and speaking to a police officer. People who’d been outside told me that some men had come from nowhere, started calling everyone in the smoking area ‘faggots’ and lunging at people. With hindsight, it sounds mildly terrifying – at the time most of us were far too smashed to appreciate quite how risky the situation was.”
David Mark Dunning, a student at St Benet’s, commented, “I did witness a little of what went on at Baby Love on Tuesday evening/Wednesday morning. I didn’t witness anything in the club but I did hear that there was an incident inside. However, as I was leaving the club I was redirected from the steps at the front of the club and told to leave down the disabled access ramp as just at the bottom of the steps there was parked a police car. The bouncers blocked the way, but I could see two police officers were there, and I watched as they arrested two homophobic people, at least one of which, I was told, had a knife. After having watched the police handcuff the homophobes, I then proceeded to leave with my boyfriend, via the ramp, because I wanted to avoid any possibility of danger.”
A spokesperson for Baby Love told Cherwell, “We are aware that 2 residents of Simon House tried to enter the bar and were refused entry by the security on the door. At present we cannot confirm what, (or if anything at all was said), and / or to whom.
“Baby Love is sensitive to the fact that Simon House is a long established hostel for the Homeless and other vulnerable people in Oxford. The management is clear that they do not support any antisocial behaviour of any kind from its residents. They are in the process of investigating the incident and are following their strict protocol that governs the behaviour of its residents.
“Baby Love is working with the management of Simon House and the Police on this matter.”
Baby Love Bar relocated to its current site at the Castle Tavern on Paradise Street earler this year.
James Blythe, another Oxford student, commented, “Enjoying the final Baby Love of term fuelled by wonderful LGBTQSoc drinks, I was shocked to encounter homophobic abuse raining down from a neighbouring property. The staff of Babylove were amazing and reacted swiftly, as did the police, but it’s a grim reminder of how much violence LGBTQ people routinely experience in 2014 and from which my privilege generally protects me.”
In response to the incident, Chris Pike, OUSU VP for Welfare and Equal Opportunities, commented, “It is very unpleasant to hear that LGBTQ students and locals had to endure this deeply unpleasant behaviour. I am pleased that action was taken quickly to combat the problem, and I hope that Baby Love will continue to act to prevent this behaviour around their venue in future. OUSU will continue to work for LGBTQ students as a community of our university as a top priority, and any students who have had individual problems as a result of their sexuality or gender should feel able to get advice and support from our Student Advice Service.”
Thames Valley Police were unavailable for comment.
OUSU in election recount
OUSU has conducted a recount of votes from this term’s elections, following the revelation that people who had already graduated were able to log in and vote. The results of the election were unaffected by the recount.
According to a statement made by OUSU, five students who were ineligible to vote in the elections and who should not have been able to vote logged into OUSU’s website and cast their votes.
The statement, which was published on OUSU’s website and sent to all candidates in the 2014 elections, reads, “For the current academic year, OUSU and the University have put in place a new and more secure system for ensuring OUSU has access to up to date and secure data about its student members. This involves the provision of data to OUSU by the university via a third-party IT support company. In this instance there was an error in the data transfer that left out information about students that should have allowed OUSU to automatically exclude graduated students from the elections.
“As a result, five students ineligible to vote in this year’s OUSU elections had their votes registered and cast. Having identified this issue, OUSU has re-counted the votes for each post and we are able to confirm that none of the results have changed as a result.
“The University and OUSU have already taken steps to ensure that this problem (which is particular to the election process only) will not arise in the future.”
In addition to publishing a statement, OUSU has removed its list of results and voting numbers from OUSU.org.
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10677%%[/mm-hide-text]
Voting in this year’s elections was conducted on OUSU.org, after the original Mi-Voice system was abandoned. Mi-Voice was found to be unreliable after it was revealed that the result of last summer’s referendum on Oxford’s affiliation with NUS had been manipulated, and the referendum was declared void.
Earlier this term, a number of colleges were unhappy with OUSU’s handling of the situation, with one JCR Returning officer calling the fact that OUSU failed to keep JCRs up to date about the state of the voting system “chaotic and intolerable”.
Will Obeney, the first runner-up in the presidential election, tweeted his support for OUSU’s handling of the matter.
Delighted at fast response by @ousunews over issues with the statutory elections. http://t.co/UKV4NeAbbV
— Will Obeney (@WillObeney) December 5, 2014
Meanwhile, Becky Howe, the winning presidential candidate, commented, “It’s good to see that OUSU has responded very quickly to this unforeseeable problem, by conducting a recount, and investigating how to prevent such a situation from arising again.”
While most of the positions in this year’s race were unopposed, the election for Vice President (Access & Academic Affairs) was a close one. Greg Auger lost out to Cat Jones, despite winning almost 50 more first preference votes. In the end, the result was determined by second preference votes, though these numbers were not released.
Anger at police response to Warwick student protests
Hundreds of students at Warwick gathered outside the University’s Senate House yesterday to express their anger about police response to student protests. Students also occupied a university space in order to have an open dialogue about the events on Wednesday 3 December.
On Wednesday a group of students at the University of Warwick staged a peaceful sit-in at Senate House as part of a national day of action in support of free education, called by the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts.
Police have said that they were called to the University by security services after a member of staff was assaulted by a protester. Three men were later arrested – one on suspicion of assault, and two on suspicion of obstructing the police; they have since been bailed, but their bail conditions state that they are not allowed to return to campus. This version of events is contested by some of the students who were present; speaking to Channel 4 News, Callum Cant, a 20-year-old English student, said, “it’s utterly unbelievable to suggest that [a protester assaulted a member of staff]. It just wouldn’t fit with how the day panned out… It wasn’t really an occupation because we weren’t blocking anything. We spent 20 or 30 minutes talking with security. Then police cars turned up and security told us they were for us.”
Footage has emerged on social media showing police clashing with protesters; a police officer is seen wielding a can of CS spray, which was used on at least two students. West Midlands Police have confirmed that a taser gun was drawn, but not used on any protester.
West Midlands police have issued a statement in response to allegations of excessive use of force on student protesters stating, “During the incident a taser was drawn as a visible and audible warning to prevent a further disorder. CS Spray was also used by police during the protest when a group advanced on officers. Police officers and security staff from the university worked together to ensure everyone was safe.”
Coventry Police Commander, Chief Superintendent Claire Bell, said in the same statement, “We are aware of videos of the protest being circulated on social media sites. We expect the highest standards from all officers, and if any officer is found to have fallen below these standards, they will be thoroughly investigated.”
In a statement the Vice-Chancellor of the University, Nigel Thrift, said, “Let me be clear that the police were called solely to investigate the alleged assault on a member of staff and not in response to the protest on campus. When the police arrived our security team still endeavoured to get the individual alleged to have made the assault to fully identify himself before the police engaged directly with the protestors.
“Sadly that individual, and others present, would not co-operate with this request and the police were obliged to intervene directly. I, like many others, have been saddened by the images of what then occurred which saw police and students having to engage in and resolve an unnecessarily challenging situation which led on from the actions of one individual.”
There has been an angry response from many on and off campus to the incident. A change.org petition started by Warwick alumni demanding an unreserved apology to students who faced ‘police violence’, a review of the University’s policy on police liason, and a guarantee of assistance from Warwick University for students who want to make complaints or take legal action against the police, has gathered over 2000 signatures.
Yesterday around 100 students occupied the top floor of the Rootes builing on Warwick Campus and issued demands to both the University of Warwick management and to the West Midlands police. Demands included an apology from the West Midlands police and for the University of Warwick to release a statement about the incidents which occurred in which they declare their total support to Warwick students.
Speaking to Cherwell from inside the occupation, Hattie Craig, a student from the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts who has been involved in organizing yesterday’s action, described the mood on campus, commenting, “The feeling on campus has been incredible. I was leafleting for the protest today but all the students were already aware and were pretty shocked and horrified at the way the police had dealt with the sit-in yesterday. It’s been great to see that there’s been a really strong response- there were over a thousand people out on campus today showing their support. Students thought that it was necessary to have a strong response to police brutality. We haven’t ever seen CS gas used at student protests in this country; we couldn’t let this go unnoticed. A hundred of us are currently staging an occupation and we will shortly be issuing demands to both West Midlands police and the University.”
Amnesty International has also voiced its concerns about the events with its UK Arms Control Director, Oliver Sprage, saying, “Videos of the incident and accounts from several eyewitnesses raise serious concerns about whether the police acted heavy-handedly and seriously endangered people at the scene.
“We’re worried that West Midlands Police are becoming increasingly trigger-happy with Tasers.”
Protests in solidarity with Warwick students have also been held at campuses around the country, including at Lancaster, Manchester, London and Leeds.
Review: Jackson and Grumitt – Planet Marmalade
★★★☆☆
Three Stars
A new comedy duo, Jackson and Grumitt, staged their ticketed debut at the BT studio this week. The pair exposed their audience to an eclectic mix of sketches, including a top secret M16 meeting (located in Starbucks), a couples’ counselling session, and an advert for jelly babies (“putting the babies back in jelly”). The sketches ranged from silly to satirical to somewhat political to downright bizarre. I could see similarities to Mitchell and Webb, Marcus Brigstocke, and perhaps even CBBC’s Horrible Histories.
An already classic Richard and Grumitt sketch opened the show. The lights came up and we were immediately thrown into a father-son chat between, you guessed it, God and Jesus. “Good morning, Jesus!” smiled Jackson as God, clothed in a lycra robe. Grumitt, as Jesus, introduced us to his fantastically wide-ranging vocabulary of facial expressions, as he stared in disbelief at his fathers plans to invent ebola and put “loads of it in Africa.”
The juxta-position between Ollie Jackson’s typically bright and skippy characters and Grumitt’s more stoic ones creates a real charm about the duo. The energy is at its best when they are onstage in dialogue together, because their differences in physicality (not to mention physique) immediately gives space for endless humour.
One very successful sketch featured a scene in which Jackson, as Thomas Culpepper, is meeting Catherine Howard (Becky Rutherford) The two are discovered to be having an affair by King Henry VIII, who is played by Grumitt. The scene was expertly planned, with the identities of the two characters onbly being revealed just before the King’s ridiculous entry. Grumitt’s Henry VIII rubs his belly gleefully and grins wickedly as he sentences his wife, in an exaggerated English accent, to be beheaded.
Jackson seemed to very much to enjoy skipping around as Thomas Culpepper. He seemed equally comfortable playing his dimmest character yet: Brian, a member of the three musketeers, alongside Grumitt and Alex Mckenzie. Brian doesn’t quite seem to understand that they are meant to be brave and intimidating and bizarrely enters the stage carrying a tail, which he claims to have been trying to pin to a donkey. Yet again, laughs were achieved by the exasperated Grumitt, who dion’t know what what to do with the absurdity of the situation.
It might be said that Jackson and Grummit’s show needs a little bit of honing in before it hits the nail on the head. Occasionally, the wackiness went over the heads of the audience, and they were scarcely able to keep up with the high energy performance. There were points at which the laughter may well have been due to slight disbelief, for example as a result of the use of some rather crass humour involving doctors encouraging their male patients to have their genitals removed. The duo are daring, certainly, and it seems likely that over time they will come to refine their art.
The dangerous assumptions behind the latest porn regulations
On Tuesday, a considerable list of sex acts became illegal to film and distribute in the UK, spanning from spanking to, bizarrely, female ejaculation. The move has been a cause for controversy amongst adult film actors and the media as a whole, and has left a nation baffled rather than grateful of the ever-watchful nanny state.
The justification for the extensive and rather arbitrary exclusion list comes from a ‘Think of the children!’ narrative, just like Cameron’s ‘internet porn ban’, which came into action earlier this year. While you will struggle to find anyone who advocates children’s access to pornographic material, particularly that which simulates aggressive scenes, this particular regulation will have almost no impact upon its directed demographic – children.
Why is this? Because, firstly, it is only the filming and production of these acts that have been prohibited within the UK. These scenes will still be filmed in many other countries and, thanks to the global nature of the Internet, they will only ever be a few clicks away. Secondly, the legislation only applies to videos that are paid for online, allegedly to bring it into line with material that is currently sold in sex shops. But to watch these videos online, you would need to enter credit or debit card information. Therefore, it is not only nigh on impossible that children would actually have access to this exclusive UK porn, but the legislation is also completely undermined by the fact that free-to-view videos are completely unaffected by these new measures.
So, all this clampdown will do is prevent British adult filmmakers from producing certain scenes for profit because the acts are considered distasteful. While some of the acts may be considered to be life-threatening (understandable for acts of asphyxiation, doubtful for others), I have a hard time believing that the proponents of this ban had performers’ or even viewers’ health interests at heart. If lawmakers did feel genuine concern for adult-film actors performing certain scenes, then why not make certain agreements, contracts and evaluations compulsory before such films are allowed to be aired? Better still, why not actually do something for the people who are truly at risk of violence in sex work, and decriminalise activities relating to prostitution that frequently force sex workers into dangerous situations?
These regulations are little other than a thinly veiled censorship of “unacceptable” depictions of sex. Most bafflingly among the list of newly forbidden acts was female ejaculation, especially when one considers that male ejaculation remained completely unregulated. Perhaps this makes sense, with ejaculation being on the age-old list of ‘man things’ that women should under no circumstances do – a list that previously included studying, voting and even wearing trousers.
It is undeniably similar to the view on nipples and when they are decent or indecent to be shown. While male nipples are shown in media all over without a second thought, the same things on a female body will be shut down as “indecent” and censored. Our fear of female nipples has reached the extent to which it is perfectly normal for people to claim offence at mothers’ audacity to breastfeed their children outside. Indeed, breastfeeding is still censored online on several influential social media sites. After considerable backlash, Facebook recently caved in to pressure and allowed photos of breastfeeding and of breasts after mastectomy surgery. But images can be, and still are, removed when people cry in revulsion at the sight of women’s bodies.
Once more, shouts of “What about the children?” echo, as they always will whenever censorship is brought into question. But this most holy and innocent sounding of causes can be, and is, manipulated for the sake of prudish prohibition. The controversy over Cameron’s opt-in scheme for pornographic, violent and drug related content online is still fresh in the mind of many Brits.
Given the initial controversy of sex education sites being on the list to be blocked, this policy was met with plenty of opposition. But despite widespread disapproval at the need to declare your private viewing habits, many supported the policy, arguing that opting into such content should not be shameful or embarrassing as a grown adult is able to make their own decisions. However, Snowden’s revelation that the USA’s National Security Agency tracked the porn habits of actors and columnists with “radical” views in order to defame them should unnerve all of us. Should we really feel that comfortable opting in?
These regulations are founded upon the 1959 Obscene Publications act; this alone is reason enough to seriously consider how appropriate this ban is for us 55 years later. In 1959, our society was radically different. Whilst paying a man and woman unequally for the same job was legal, both abortion and homosexuality were not; is this out-dated mindset really a fitting base for the laws that govern our country?
This ban on obscene material echoes the moral policing of a time long gone. Lady Chatterley’s Lover, once accused in 1960 as being something you “would not even wish your wife or servants to read,” was once considered unpublishable filth – mere decades later it was used as a set text in schools across Britain.
If our government really does want to act in the interests of our children and our society, instead of using the cause as a guise for controlling what they deem to be tasteless material, let them start where their efforts will be truly felt. Perhaps by setting a precedent and handling accusations of child abuse seriously, such as the ones that allegedly took place in Westminster over 30 years ago but have still not yet been fully investigated.
Detainees protest at Campsfield House
Detainees at Campsfield House, along with a number of people from outside the centre, have protested the recent alleged assault of a man at the site.
The Campaign to Close Campsfield has come out in support of the protest, while the director of Asylum Welcome, Kate Smart, commented, “A detainee who suffers from severe epilepsy had an epileptic fit close to the shop within Campsfield. Several detainees witnessed this and were concerned.”
However, she also admitted, “I must stress that I cannot claim this is an accurate account — it is our best guess based on what we can piece together.”
Campsfield House is an Immigration Removal Centre in Kidlington. Last week, a large group of Oxford academics signed an open letter pressuring the PM to close Campsfield, while Cherwell reported from a protest at the controversial centre in October.
The Campaign to Close Campsfield stated that as of Sunday 30th December, 60-100 inmates had occupied the centre’s courtyard to protests against the conditions of their detention. In video footage recorded outside of the centre, protesters can be heard chanting, “England! Hear our voice!”
When asked for comment, the Home Office issued the statement, “We are aware of an incident at Campsfield Immigration Removal Centre on Saturday [November 29th] which resulted in an officer sustaining minor injuries.
“No detainees were injured and nobody required hospital treatment.”
In a video, circulated by Asylum Welcome, featuring several anonymous detainees’ testimonies of the incident, recorded via phone calls.
One detainee can be heard stating, “The Campsfield staff have beaten my friend very badly. And they’ve beaten up two or three guys more… My friend is in critical condition at the moment, we’ve called the police up… but they didn’t let the police come inside Campsfield.”
Another detainee related, “The officer pushed him, and then he pushed him back as well, and the manager said to four other officers here, to beat him up. Five other detainees saw it. They put him down on the floor and they beat him up really badly.”
One testimony stated that the inmate who had been beaten up was “mentally disturbed”, and that he had been beaten by guards on an earlier occasion. They said, “This is the second time our guy has been beaten up. The first time he was beaten up, he had mental issues. He got mentally disturbed. But this is the second time they have beaten the same guy up. He’s already mentally disturbed.” Detainees report that they are not being allowed to see the injured man.
29 November 2014: Detainees Protest at Campsfield House IRC from Standoff Films on Vimeo.
The protesters’ demands include: permission to see their friend in order to see what happened to him; the release of the (at least three or four) people forced into solitary confinement; the punishment of the guards who allegedly mistreated the detainee; an end to inhuman treatment, deprivation of freedom, and separation from families.
Joanna Hynes, head of Oxford University’s Amnesty International group, said that the event on Saturday was not unusual. She spoke of the problems associated with Campsfield security being run by private firm Mitie, explaining, “This incident is unfortunately not abnormal in a place like Campsfield where basic rights are systematically denied to detainees. Harassment and violence on the part of Mitie staff is part of the everyday lives of these detainees, and with (according to the IMB’s most recent annual report) the vast majority of complaints made by detainees being referred back to the centre to be dealt with internally, there is little hope of holding Mitie staff accountable.
“The detainees who occupied the courtyard on Saturday could be heard chanting, ‘England! Hear our voices!’ — it is about time we listened to their pleas, and stopped shutting away such abhorrent practices in industrial estates all over Britain to be run by unaccountable private security firms like Mitie.”
Vera Wriedt, a member of Oxford Migrant solidarity, described the difficulty she experienced trying to contact the protesters. She explained, “When trying to visit one of the people involved in the protest, I was threatened with arrest by the police. A few hours after the protest it was already impossible to get in touch with some of those who spoke out on Saturday, which probably means that their phones were confiscated and that they have been moved to solitary confinement or different detention centres.
“Immigration detention is indefinite and without trial. Article 31 of the Geneva Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees stipulates that ‘states shall not impose penalties … on refugees who … enter or are present in their territory without authorisation’. Nevertheless, detainees are imprisoned in Campsfield House for administrative convenience.”
Cherwell has contacted Mitie for comment.