A talk at Oxford University featuring Graham Binns, the CEO of controversial private military company Aegis Defence Services, has been cancelled after student opposition.

Aegis Defence Services is a British private military contractor similar to the US mercenary company Blackwater. Aegis, founded in 2002 and often described as Britain’s “second largest military force”, has deployed private troops to Iraq, Afghanistan and other conflict zones.

Aegis has been criticised by students who have linked the company to the alleged abuse of human rights. In 2006, an ex-Aegis employee posted clips described as “trophy videos” of private contract soldiers killing Iraqi civilians online. Oxford students cited this as a reason to protest a talk to which Binns was invited.

The invitation was issued by the international affairs graduate publication St Antony’s International Review (STAIR).

Puneet Dhaliwal, a Politics DPhil student and former military reform activist for the group War on Want, was among those who organised a protest against the talk. Dhaliwal told Cherwell he objected to STAIR’s lack of transparency about the event. He said, “The organisers of STAIR have not adequately responded to concerns raised about the event. They have instead disingenuously invoked notions of ‘academic freedom’ and ‘freedom of expression’, while remaining oblivious to the dearth of academic content in this event, the lack of balance provided with respect to theoretical and political perspectives on [private military security contractors], and the fact that companies like Aegis already enjoy a privileged platform in British politics.”

On Thursday, STAIR organisers abruptly cancelled the eighth week talk that featured Binns and deleted the Facebook event without public explanation.
Speaking to Cherwell, organisers expressed their disappointment that it had “become necessary” to cancel the event, citing a lack of “organisational or financial means to ensure the event could run as planned”.

“We wish to emphasise that we believe this event would have given Oxford students a platform to engage in a critical discussion with important stakeholders in the debate on private military and security companies,” the STAIR organising committee stated.

“STAIR wanted to provide an open forum for this discussion. Unfortunately, we can no longer guarantee that a free, fair and open discussion will be possible.”
The invitation had been heavily criticised on the event’s Facebook group. One student called it “deplorable”.

Another pointed out that only Binns and a Foreign and Commonwealth Office official would feature in a open-ended discussion examining private military contractors. They said, “This is not a topic for debate with ‘two sides’ unless we consider arguing for the collapse of democratic and humane oversight of warfare as a legitimate position.

“I urge a boycott of this event and public condemnation of all those participating in it.”

Another joked about getting a job with Aegis, writing on the event group, “I share your academic concern with grappling with the hard issues surrounding security in a twenty-first century geopolitical context…

“As Oxford graduate students, we enjoy a privileged position to make a real difference to securing the world’s resources.”

The academic billed to participate in the discussion, Dr Janina Dill, was unavailable for comment.

AEGIS did not respond to Cherwell’s request for comment.

OUSU Council has voted to support an open letter in which 135 students and alumni expressed “concern and dismay” at the University’s handling of a student’s death.

An inquest into the death of Charlotte Coursier heard that she had been harassed by Pembroke Philosophy tutor Dr Jeffrey Ketland. A coroner told the inquest that Coursier had receive “crazy and rambling emails” from Ketland before she took her own life. Dr Ketland remained an employee of the university while an internal review was conducted, and he continues to be employed at Pembroke.

The open letter states, “We worry about the lack of information communicated to students. We further worry about the decision to keep Dr Ketland in institutionally mediated contact with students after the review began.”

The 135 signatories includes 39 of Coursier’s fellow Philosophy BPhil students, and 24 Philosophy DPhil students. Sarah Pine, OUSU VP Women, Lucy Delaney, OUSU Women’s Campaign Officer, Rebekka Hammelsbeck, former OUSU Women’s Campaign Officer, and several organisers of the It Happens Here campaign also signed the letter.

The letter criticises the University for failing to keep students informed about the review. It says, “The lack of comment has created a difficult atmosphere in the Philosophy Faculty. Some students now fear that harassment charges are not taken seriously. Others were upset to only learn of the situation in the national press.”

Secondly, the letter suggests the University should have limited student contact with Ketland after the police issued a warning under the Harassment Act. It reads, “It is strongly in the interests of students not to be placed at undue risk of harassment. It seems to us that when harassment allegations are made against a member of staff, the University should limit their institutionally mediated contact with students whilst a review occurs.”

As the letter notes, Ketland continued to have contact with students as the University conducted its review, urging “the swift adoption of such a suspension policy.”

Elena Cagnoli, Graduate Students Women Representative, said, “I signed the letter to urge the University to handle cases of alleged harassment more openly and carefully. The University’s duty of care towards its members, I think, demands such openness and attention toward the students’ welfare.The lack of information communicated to present and incoming students and the decision to keep the alleged harasser in institutionally mediated contact with students after the review began created a bad atmosphere amongst the student community.”

At OUSU Council on Wednesday night, an emergency motion passed that was proposed by Sarah Pine, OUSU VP Women. It noted the “lack of information communicated to directly affected students is concerning” and that the decision to keep Ketland in contact with students “did not have to occur.” The motion resolved “to add OUSU Council to the list of signatures” of the open letter.

Pine commented, “I share in the concern and dismay directed towards the information denied towards students at Oxford, as well as the decision to keep Ketland in contact with students while an investigation was ongoing.Women, even Oxford women, experience harassment and relationship abuse so frequently, it is saddening that they cannot be sure that others will respond in the ways that will best support them.”

An Oxford University spokesperson responded to the letter, saying, “The University can confirm it has received the open letter and has noted its contents. All University policies are kept actively under review.”

On the question of communication with students, a spokesperson told Cherwell, “The Department of Philosophy has held a meeting with graduate students to inform of the outcome of the inquest into Charlotte’s death and to discuss any questions arising.

“A University review concluded in October. Its purpose was to inform senior members of the University of the circumstances of Charlotte’s death and to advise on any future steps. The findings of the review remain confidential but University is continuing to consider the most appropriate action as a consequence.”

Several signatories responded negatively to these University comments. Rachel Fraser and Jacob Williamson, who attended the meeting held by the Department of Philosophy, said, “The University’s statement is potentially misleading. The meeting referred to did take place, but students were given no details not already in the public domain concerning any review or investigation undertaken by the University. Details of the coroner’s inquest were given to students during the meeting. The results of the coroner’s inquest were, at the time of the meeting, a matter of public record. No one representing the Department or University attended the inquest. All questions concerning particular cases were met with an insistence that no comment could be made.”

Cambridge has beaten Oxford once again in the ‘QS Top Universities’ ranking.

A study found that Cambridge is the best university in the country at which to study fourteen subjects, with Oxford best for only ten. Behind these two comes LSE with three and Reading, the Institute of Education and Edinburgh with one each.

However, globally Oxford outperformed Cambridge. The university was found to be the best university in the world for the study of English Language and Literature, Geography and Modern Languages. Cambridge came top only in History and Archaeology. This places Oxford third, behind Harvard and MIT who dominate the global rankings, coming first in eleven and nine subjects respectively. Despite this, Oxford is ranked 6th globally.

The QS Study is published annually, and takes into account a range of factors in its assessment of each university. These include indicators such as citations per faculty, the faculty/student ratio and, most controversially, academic peer review – an opinion survey amongst 33,744 academics regarding which university is currently leading in each particular field.

A University spokesperson, commenting on the findings, explained, “There are always limits to how precise league tables can be. However, the latest QS tables confirm Oxford’s leading international status across all subjects, delivering some of the best research and education in the world.”

The reaction from the student body has been mixed. One Oxford student commented, ‘These league tables tend to be based on somewhat tenuous evidential findings and change dramatically year on year. I do not believe that the results of this report are of particular relevance to students of either university, other than those looking for some pointless one-upmanship. Besides, obviously Oxford’s better.”

One student noted, “Those wankers in Cambridge might get a slightly better education than us but we both know who would win in a fight. Besides we do better globally than them and we’re not as socially inept as those tossers.”

The reaction from Cambridge was more positive. One student commented, “I am overjoyed with the news. Our famous rivalry has finally taken a twist towards Cambridge and I could not be happier. I was rejected from Oxford but look at me now! They’re terrible and I’m pleased they’re slipping down the league tables”.

A first year lawyer at Jesus stated , “I went on a crew date with Jesus College, Cambridge and I can honestly say they were the biggest twats I’d ever met and I would be happy to never meet them again. All night they went on how Oxford weren’t in the top 3 universities in the world in an attempt to impress every girl in the entire restaurant. I guess it’s all they’ve got.”

In the run up to the Oxford Union elections today, the official photos and manifestos of multiple candidates have been defaced.

The photos, located on the Union’s noticeboard near the reception and library, were repeatedly vandalised, with pen marks seen on the candidates’ faces. The photos were replaced multiple times, only to be spoiled again. The identities of the perpetrators are presently unknown.

The persistence of the defacement led to Returning Officer Joshua Atkinson issuing a clarification of the rules regarding electoral conduct, confirming that the defacement was an offense.

The notice, posted alongside the manifestos, read, “Following a series of defacements of Officers’ photographs and manifestos displayed on the noticeboard throughout term, I hereby clarify that this is an offence under rule 33 (a) i) 8, due to it being electoral material posted by the Returning Officer, regardless of if this Officer is re-running in subsequent elections.”

Both presidential candidates, Mayank Banerjee and Crawford Jamieson, explicitly state in their manifestos their intention to tackle the controversial politics of the Union.

As per the rules of electoral conduct, no candidates running for positions at the Union may speak to the press about electoral matters unless mandated by the President.

Polls close at 8.30 tonight.

Goldman Sachs has made a donation of £1.1 million to Exeter College, under the condition that the college provides £30, 000 a year in financial support for students via the hardship fund.

The college’s rector Frances Cairncross said, “This very welcome gift from Goldman Sachs is tied specifically by the donor to relieving student hardship. It will be added to our endowment and will allow us, under our spending rules, to use just over £30,000 a year to help students in financial need.”

Former JCR President Ed Nickell criticised the way the college manages their hardship provision. “From what I’ve gleaned, Exeter, uniquely among Oxford colleges, operates on a principle of charging all students as much of their living costs as possible, then retrospectively subsiding less well off students with hardship grants. Regardless of what one thinks of the principle, it has failed in practice.

“Do we not have enough less well off students? Do they not apply? Either way, we should be worried. I tried tweaking the hardship grant system last year to include more anonymity and an eligibility criteria but it doesn’t seem to have made much of an impact.”

The gift has been made as part of the bank’s charitable arm ‘Goldman Sachs Gives’. The bank has a history of supporting educational institutions charitably and have previously endowed half a million pounds worth of scholarships at Eton, and have donated to Balliol and Christ Church in recent years.

Exeter students, who have just stopped a hall strike to protest the college’s £840 annual catering charge, welcomed the grant. Rowan Lennox commented, a PPE second year, “Great to see the much maligned finance sector making a serious contribution to social mobility.”

However, some students noted flaws in the way the fund has been administered in the past. Second year Kat Farmer told Cherwell, “As someone who applies regularly for hardship funds, I understand how important they are to students. I’d really like to see college means test people for this money as currently you have to apply and prove you have run out of money.

“Personally I really worry about my finances at uni and spend every holiday working fifty hour weeks to make sure I can afford the next term. This means that I often end up missing out on the hardship fund.”

divert existing provisions elsewhere. In light of the ongoing student protests over the cost of the catering charge at Exeter, this donation could mean that more students are able to receive money from the college and mitigate the impact of the £800 fee.

Alternatively, Exeter could maintain the scope of hardship provisions as it currently exists, the increased cash flow would then allow the college to reduce the catering fee for all students.

The college have declined to comment on which of these two options they will take and have not been forthcoming with statistics regarding how many students benefit from already existing hardship funds and what the gift means in practical terms for students.

Exeter’s Hall boycott ended this Tuesday after two and a half weeks of students not eating in Hall. The boycott ended officially at an open meeting held between students and senior management, including the Rector and Deputy Bursar.

MCR and JCR students had been boycotting to protest Exeter College’s £840 per year non-redeemable catering charge. However when asked, “Should the JCR end the ongoing Hall-Boycott upon the close of Tuesday’s Open Meeting?”, 111 voted “Yes”, with only 49 voting to keep boycotting Hall. JCR President Richard Collett-White explained the situation: “Following a referendum on Monday, the JCR will no longer be boycotting hall.This should not be viewed as a sign of resignation – on the contrary, many students are keen to make their discontent known through other means of protest in the coming weeks.”

His remarks were echoed by one second-year, “We had the boycott because despite repeated calls for College to talk to us like adults about the high living costs at Exeter, specifically the Catering Charge, they were simply ignoring us. I think most of us felt like the boycott was the only way to make College take us seriously, once they agreed to an open meeting, calling off the boycott was a gesture of good will and willingness to negotiate as well as a relief for many in college who’ve found it difficult practically.”

College’s decision to agree to an open meeting was met with widespread positivity throughout the JCR. Sam Perkins, a physics and philosophy student at Exeter, said, “The Open-Meeting in itself symbolises real progress for Exeter, and the College’s emphasis within the meeting on the present situation being a ‘state of negotiation’ strongly suggests that we should be able to work towards a solution to the problem.”

This sense of progress was echoed by Matt Stokes, a fourth year linguist, “The boycott was never going to lead to direct change in a short period of time. We were right to end the boycott in the way we did: it received a clear majority in the referendum, and it’s better to have a decisive end than it petering out as people start to go to Hall, or even worse to descend into JCR in-fighting about when it ends. It was important to end it before the end of term as momentum would be lost over the holidays and finalists especially will be far less willing to boycott Hall next term.”

However, many students were unhappy with the meeting itself. Collett-White told Cherwell, “The open meeting was largely a chance for the JCR and MCR to discuss a meal-plan proposal with College, but it quickly broadened out into a Q&A session regarding the catering department in general. Although it is encouraging that dialogue is now open, most students left feeling disappointed and unimpressed by the answers they received: they did not seem persuaded by the claim that the college could afford no better.”

This view was mirrored by Stokes. “It was a shame that so many of our questions seemed to be brushed away, and that perfectly acceptable ideas – such as opening Hall up beyond the student body, as Balliol does for example – were openly disregarded. Some claims made by college – for example, that a donor would never possibly give money to cover our chocolate fondants – were unsubstantiated and occasionally patronising. I was also quite shocked to see the Rector laugh off the serious point that in ten years we will be donors to Exeter College, and are unlikely to be the most generous, and also the admission by one student, supported by others, that we feel we cannot advise people to apply to Exeter, and may even warn them against it, because of the cost of living.”

The student behind the Twitter account ‘@TheBursar’sReply’, who asked to remain anonymous, commmented, “We’re glad that the open meeting occurred, and that negotiations are now ongoing. However, as ever, the tone of certain members of Exeter’s staff was at best patronising and at worst simply rude. I hope that when questions were answered with ‘we’ll look into that’, these issues are actually pursued rather than ignored because they have been suggested by students.

“A room full of passionate, angry students was a great sign of support and a show of the general feeling of the student body even when the boycott has been called to an end. This is not an issue that will disappear, and the Governing Body of Exeter must now work hard in negotiating a mutually beneficial outcome.”

Focus has now turned to the beginnings of negotiations between Exeter College’s senior management and representatives from both the MCR and JCR.

One student told Cherwell, “We need to make sure the momentum isn’t let off college even if we aren’t boycotting. We can organise more protests and keep speaking to tutors who are often sympathetic to our cause.

“Now that our profile has been raised, it may be time to start putting pressure on alumni, donors and the incoming Rector. There’s always our 700th Anniversary Founders’ Weekend in April for a sit-in and protest. More radical suggestions such as mass non-payment of battels have been suggested, but I think that would be mistaken as we’re just starting to make progress.
“I don’t see us storming posh dinners in hall, chapel services or the Rector’s Garden Party, but that relies on College continuing to engage with us.”

OXFORD’S ROWERS are struggling to find any positives after 2014’s record-breaking rainfall forced the entire cancellation of Torpids, the prestigious rowing event which has taken place each Hilary term for over 175 years.

This year’s iteration was scheduled to take place on the Isis between Wednesday and Saturday of seventh week, but was officially called off by an Oxford University Rowing Clubs (OURCs) email sent to all college captains on Monday morning.

After OURCs initially only called off the first two days of racing, there had been hopes that, despite rivers around the country flowing higher and faster than usual following the recent weather, racing would have been able to go ahead on Friday and Saturday.

However, in announcing the event’s first full cancellation since 2007, Senior Umpires (SU) spokesperson Rachel Quarrell explained, “You won’t be surprised, if you were listening to last night’s rain, to hear that the river’s gone back up way too high for us to be able to run any Torpids at all… We’re a long way off even red-flag racing.”

The decision to cancel the event was made by the SUs and, as OURCs’ Secretary Scott Houghton explained, was backed by “both the OURCs committee and the Environment Agency.”

Houghton went on to say that because of the rain on Friday and Saturday, “Prior experience shows that there is no way it would drop to a level where racing would be possible.”

The heavy rainfall has decimated rowing this term, with crews having been unable to train on their usual stretches of the Isis since Michaelmas.
As well as racing being rendered unsafe, the Isis’ water level is currently too high to move houseboats moored on the river. Temporarily altering the river’s flow to move the houseboats in order to make room for potential racing has been ruled out for safety reasons.

Quarrell explained, “It was hoped, a few days ago, that we might reach a point where the lock could be shut in artificially for a few hours to shift a small number of houseboats, but it is obvious that now can’t happen since yesterday’s rain has filled up the water table again to the point where artificial shut-ins would cause flooding in residential areas.”

The four days of Torpids will be sorely missed by both participants and observers, as the event typically draws large crowds. Pembroke captain Camilla O’Driscoll commented that, “When the river gods are being kind and racing goes ahead, Torpids is usually a very exciting event – its historic rivalries make it the main fixture of collegiate rowing in Hilary.

“There is always plenty of action in the lower divisions where ability varies hugely between crews (so dramatic bumps are more likely); and in the top divisions, feuds between boat clubs vying for higher positions can go on for years.”

The cancellation also represents a blow to novice rowers who have already been affected by limited training opportunities. O’Driscoll told Cherwell, “While in Summer Eights many top division crews will be bolstered by returning Blues team rowers, Torpids crews tend to have a few more seats available for novices who competed in the Christ Church Regatta in Michaelmas to show how much they have progressed.”

Jesus’s Anna Turner-Major, one of the first-years to miss out on the competition commented, “My stomach sank when I heard the news that any chance of racing had been blown right out of the water. It was a shame to waste all those early mornings, but at least everyone’s in the same boat.”

The Senior Umpires’ statement said that, “It is extremely disappointing for the many crews who have trained hard on land and water, but [cancellation] was sadly unavoidable.” Quarrell explained that the Senior Umpires and OURCs were considering alternatives which could replace the event, but that “at the moment there is no route to convert Torpids into Isis Winter League-style (time-trial based) racing.”

Despite the setbacks, Pembroke’s O’Driscoll remained positive. She said, “I’m sure nobody feels that this term has been a waste: the rigorous training undertaken for Torpids has benefited our overall strength and fitness, and the crews that have worked hard this term will find themselves strongly placed to do well in Summer Eights next term.”

Crews’ entry funds have been fully refunded, OURCs confirmed, but the OURCs secretary was apologetic, “This will do little to raise the spirits of enthusiasts who have seen a third of the year’s rowing cut short.”

Despite the cancellation, some rowers are still hoping to celebrate in traditional style, with Exeter College Boat Club optimistically planning for a Saturday barbecue.

Professor Marian Dawkins has been presented with the RPSCA’s Sir Patrick Moore Award for her work to improve animal welfare, in a move criticised by some animal rights activists.

Dawkins is head of the Animal Behaviour Research Group at Oxford, and works on animal welfare. The aim is for good farm animal welfare to benefit humans by changing attitudes in developing countries, encouraging people to view animals as sentient beings rather than solely as a source of food.

Speaking to Cherwell, Professor Dawkins said, “My work involves research on animal welfare and working with farmers towards high welfare farming that enables farmers to make a living and for me, winning this award means that animal welfare science is now accepted as a scientific discipline.”

The award has been met with some controversy due to Oxford University’s use of animals in scientific research. The chief executive of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, Michelle Thew, said of the award, “Humane alternatives already exist so Oxford University should be leading the field in pioneering alternatives to animal experimentation, instead of causing more suffering and distress.”

Oxford was responsible for the deaths of 202,160 animals in 2012, according to a recent Freedom of Information request by Cherwell.

The University defended its use of animal research. “Research using animals is a small part of the University’s overall programme of world-leading biomedical research into solving pressing health problems which cause suffering and death. There is overwhelming international scientific consensus that some animal research remains essential for medical progress. Animal research in the UK is limited and very strictly regulated. Where use of animals is essential, the University is committed to very high standards of animal welfare. Almost all the animals used in Oxford research are mice.”

A medicine student at Somerville, the college where Professor Dawkins is a fellow, told Cherwell, “Marian’s work is important for the advancement of animal rights in the less developed world, and I think it’s a real shame that the benefits of the work she has been carrying out are being overlooked by some simply because of the fact that she is affiliated with Oxford in her work… Clearly the wrongs that are committed are not Marian’s doing, so she should receive the recognition she deserves.”

A Wolfson student disagreed, saying, “I frequently attend protests to prevent animal testing, and strongly believe that it is wrong to do so. Furthermore, any good work that Dawkins does for animals is negated by the fact that she chooses to associate herself with an organisation that thinks it is acceptable to test on animals.

The Oxford Radical Forum was held this weekend for the seventh year, with a well-attended series of lectures, talks, workshops and film screenings hosted by Wadham College.

Speakers included Trenton Oldfield, the notorious protestor who disturbed the 2012 Oxford–Cambridge boat race, alongside literary theorist and public intellectual Terry Eagleton, who also spoke at the 2012 forum. Eagleton gave a talk entitled ‘The Death of God and the War on Terror’, in which he expanded on his criticism of the ‘New Atheism’ of Richard Dawkins. Other speakers included Vanessa Baird, editor of the New Internationalist magazine, who raised questions about the independence of electronic communication as it becomes increasingly commercialised, and Linda Bellos, an intersectional feminist, who spoke about “feminism, labour and Marxism.”

The Oxford Radical Forum describes itself as “a completely free and open annual festival of radical ideas and culture. Each year leading critics, authors and activists spark critical thought and debate about how we understand the world and struggle to change it.” It aims to address, “the meaning of current events in Egypt and Syria, the fight against sexism, racism and homophobia, radical political and labour projects… and of course the weather.”

Events were free of charge and open to the public, covering topics ranging from political economy, intersectionality, feminism, and the media, to drone warfare, arms divestment, sex work, and current events in Latin America and the Arab world. There was also a noticeable international presence throughout the weekend, with talks on Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Palestine, the Arab uprisings and Latin America taking place, many by citizens of those countries.

Social media appeared to help the Forum gain its 500 attendees, with multiple events on Facebook attracting record numbers. The event was hosted at Wadham, described by one attendee as “trusty bastion of all that is hip and happenin’ in Ox.”

Kate Guariento, one of the organisers of the event, commented, “there was an immense feeling of satisfaction at how successful this year’s forum had been.”

Xavier Cohen, another co-organiser, also praised the 2012 Radical Forum. “I was sixteen at the time and it was a formative experience for me, the beginning of my political journey. It’s great to think that two years on, from that person who sat there baffled not knowing anything about left wing theory or radical ideas at all, I’m now so involved and have learnt so much.”

Oxford found itself at centre of BBC TV license fee debate last week, as the University’s journalism institute released a study on BBC funding, and the BBC Director-General addressed the Oxford Media Convention.

Researchers at Oxford University’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that, in the absence of the BBC, British consumers could expect less value for money, and the investment in UK television would be significantly lower.

The study, entitled ‘What if there were no BBC television?’, is intended to contribute to the debate on BBC funding, ahead of its charter renewal in 2016. The study found that investment in first-run UK television content could fall by up to 50%.

Professor Patrick Barwise, who authored the study, told Cherwell, “We wanted to test the widespread presumption that consumers would be better served if the BBC were smaller and provided only narrowly defined public service programmes that the market won’t. Our analysis shows the opposite”.

He continued, “The main issue is to ensure that the BBC itself is properly funded beyond 2016. That’s in the best interest of the public as both consumers and citizens, and very much in the interest of UK programme producers.”

The study was released in the same week as as BBC Director-General Tony Hall defended the licence fee in his speech to the Oxford Media Convention. Speaking last Wednesday, he said, “every day the BBC is actively chosen by the British public close to 150 million times. Every day, the average use of the BBC is over six hours per household. Each hour of that consumption costs each person in the household three pence. I challenge anyone to find better value for money than that for high-quality advertising-free content”.

He continued, “Twenty years ago, the BBC received nearly 40% of all the revenues in broadcasting. Now the figure is around a quarter – 25% – a much smaller part of the media market. Twenty years ago, the licence fee was over £147 in today’s money – now it’s a bit lower. But look what you get. Twenty years ago, we had two TV stations, five national radio stations, and local and Nations radio. Now we deliver four times more television channels, twice as many national radio stations, impressive web services and the iPlayer”.

Some polls have shown that up to 70% of people want to abolish the BBC funding through the TV licencing fee.

One Hertford student commented, “I think the BBC makes a valuable contribution to Britain. I like the BBC the most out of all the channels, and I think I prefer BBC to many of the alternatives.”