Sam Harding says bah humbug to the shops that think Christmas begins in October 
 

From October, the tinny strains of carols start to echo down the supermarket aisles. Had they been two months later we might have found them uplifting, but this early on frankly, they just make you feel rather sick. So why do stores feel the need to force the festivities upon us so early on? 

Logically speaking, it makes perfect business sense. It is the 21^st century after all and Christmas has moved away from a purely religious festival to a frenzy of consumerism. Every aspect, from the parties to the presents, is about spending, mostly on disposables. This means that encouraging consumers to get caught up in this frenzy earlier on in the year has huge financial potential. All the managers I have worked for admit that it makes a great deal of profit. But some consumers are fighting back to what they see as a pressure to spend more and more, over a longer period of time. 

Sarah, a local shopper who I met on Cornmarket, said that “ they [Oxford’s local shops] try to force us into the Christmas spirit so early on that by the time I’d actually start thinking about Christmas myself, I’m sick of it already! It really wakes you up to how materialistic Christmas has become in England.”  

She makes a fair point.  Of course, this is not to say that we shouldn’t enjoy Christmas and all the festivities that go with it.  But can’t we have them at an appropriate time, and in moderation? Most of us put up our trees in early December.  Early October is taking things too far.   

Encouragingly, one shop assistant that I spoke to said that her manager was retaliating against the premature Christmas displays in neighbouring shops, and was refusing to put up any decorations until late November. An admirable move indeed.  We can only hope that the shop will not suffer as a result. I for one would far more happily shop somewhere where I won’t be choked in cheap tinsel and have to listen to another cover of ‘Santa Claus Is Coming To Town’.  All I can say is, if he saw Cornmarket in October, he might well turn around.  

The festive season has been prematurely over-hyped, and ‘tis the season to be jolly might well need a timescale in the future. This doesn’t mean that we don’t have our festive cheer, we’d just like to see it displayed with our good old-fashioned British reserve.  

Rhiannon Nicholson and Daniel Millichip interview Union President Luke Tryl about his term in office.

 

See also: Protests at Union over free speech debate

Protesters have forced a delayed start for the controversial Free Speech Forum, due to be held this evening at the Oxford Union. The event, scheduled to begin at 8:30 pm, was delayed by nearly two hours.  Five hundred protesters gathered outside the gates of the society, blocking members from entering the grounds for the event. Approximately thirty protesters then climbed over walls and pushed through barriers to enter the chamber, staging a sit-down protest. Irving and Griffin had already arrived at the building several hours prior to the scheduled time of the event. The Union has been under fire from anti-fascist groups for the invitation of Griffin, the leader of the BNP, and Irving, previously imprisoned for holocaust denial in Austria.
 

An Oxford MP has spoken up in defence of the Union's decision to keep open its invitation to Nick Griffin and David Irving at the controversial Free Speech debate which takes place later this evening. Dr Evan Harris, who has agreed to take part in the debate tonight, rejected the claims made by Dr Julian Lewis that the debate would give the speakers "an aura of respectability". Speaking earlier on Radio 4's Today Show, Harris claimed that he was making a stand against the "pick and choose mentality" used to support no platform policies, saying that it was reasonable within a university setting to give the speakers an opportunity to speak.Harris described Irving as a "horrible, discredited historian" and both of tonight's controversial speakers as "deeply unpleasant" but raised concerns over where the line would be drawn once platforms start to be denied. He told Radio 4: "I wouldn't be attending tonight if there wasn't this huge campaign for no platform […]"I'm making a stand to say that no platform policies are wrong."

Did you hear the one about the hacks, the socialists and the huge tombola prize? Well here you go.

Friday night saw the Bundespresseball, Germany's annual media ball, which took place at the InterContinental in Berlin. It’s been a regular event since 1951, and the centrepiece is a tombola intended to help fund cash-strapped journalists. All a very benevolent undertaking, you’d think.

Well, that is other than the top prize — a seven-day trip to New Orleans, including tickets to the NBA All-Star Game, plus an Apple iPhone with a two-year T-Mobile contract. The winner? None other than Dietmar Bartsch, the top man running the financial workings of Die Linke, Germany’s left-wing party.

Observers were quick to point out that Bartsch, as a socialist, was (just slightly) contradicting his own principles by taking advantage of three capitalist-driven prizes. As the blog of Germany’s leading evening news programme, Tagesschau, reports, Bartsch had a snappy retort: “It’s the just distribution of wealth from the top to the bottom.” Apparently he whizzed off to the hotel bar to have a cigar as soon he’d said this, presumably to avoid further probing. I don’t blame him; his party has this to say about America:

The aims of imperial policy under the leadership of the United States of America are a world totally subordinated to capital exploitation, unhindered access to raw materials and sources of energy, and the expansion of domination and spheres of influence

and holds this stance on the aftermath of the Cold War:

When the greatest counterweight ceased to exist with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the destructive tendencies of the unbridled capitalist market were able to develop more and more.

Hold off with the wealth distribution for the moment — will a man with these political affiliations even be let into the USA?

Cherwell24 is not responsible for the content of external sites

Protesters are expected to swamp the streets of Oxford tomorrow as the controversial Free Speech debate takes place at the Oxford Union.More than 1000 people are predicted to arrive in protest which will take place tomorrow at 8:30pm. The decision to go ahead with the debate was finalised last night after Union members voted 1062 to 640 in support of the invitations. Anti-fascist groups have condemned the decision to invite BNP leader Nick Griffin and David Irving -convicted of holocaust denial by an Austrian court – as irresponsible and dangerous, while OUSU President Martin McCluskey has expressed concern over the platform it will give to BNP views. Irving has been invited to speak at the Union before. In 2001, he was to take part in another free speech debate, but this event was cancelled. At the time, Thames Valley Police raised public order concerns surrounding the event. In a statement made earlier, they said that they were aware of the issues surrounding the event and reassured students and the public that they will be closely monitoring the event.
Chief Inspector Dennis Evernden said: “Our role in this event is to prevent any breech of the peace, facilitate any lawful protest and reassure the general public.

“We are very used to dealing with protest in Oxford and will deal with this event in a sensitive and professional manner.”

Dr Julian Lewis, MP for New Forest East and shadow defence minister, has resigned his life membership to the Oxford Union in protest at the invitation of David Irving and Nick Griffin to the society. Dr Lewis wrote in a letter to the Union's officers and standing committee that "Nothing which happens in Monday's debate can possibly offset the boost you are giving to a couple of scoundrels who can put up with anything except being ignored."In an open letter to Union members on 15 October 2007, Union President Luke Tryl maintained that "Stopping them from speaking only allows them to become free speech martyrs."
The extension of invitations to Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, and David Irving, a historian jailed for three years in Austria for holocaust denial, has drawn widespread criticism. A poll was added to the ballot at Union elections on Friday, in which members supported the invitation of the speakers by a margin of 1000 to 600.
The sold-out event is scheduled to take place at the Union Monday, November 26th at 8:30pm.

A new student media phenomenon, a satirical paper called The Tart, has hit universities across the country. It is the first free student newspaper of its kind that is available nationally.

The project, masterminded by Tobes Kelly (22) an ambitious recent graduate from Bristol University, has a print run of 60,000 and is distributed to Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Bristol, Warwick, Bath, Sheffield, Reading, Cardiff and several London law colleges.

Kelly describes the paper as “a blend with wit and observation, put in a tabloid format” aiming to give student writers a national audience where they can share their satirical work and was keen to emphasise that satire “should never be destructive; paradoxically, I think it should be constructive”.

The Tart has already sparked controversy and disapproval among other student publications. A spokesperson for Epigram, Bristol’s student newspaper, dismissed Kelly and his work, saying: “before too long, most readers will have grown bored of student attempts at satire and wit.” However, Kelly does not appear to be hindered by this.

The project is funded by a private benefactor who Kelly is keeping quiet about: “he believes in me, to be frank. He believes in the product”.

The Tart’s website details plans for expansion into radio and TV, and perhaps even a global distribution. Kelly admits that he is “tempted to send the paper out of the UK”. Given his own media background, coupled with his ambition and apparent enjoyment of controversy (he delighted in installing a page three in Bristol’s student paper Sanctuary), global domination is perhaps on Kelly’s agenda.

The results of the MT2007 Union elections for officerships are as follows:
 
President:
Krishna Omkar, Merton

Librarian:
Edward Waldegrave, Christ Church

Treasurer:
Corey Dixon, Oriel

Secretary:
Charlie Holt, LMH

by Fraser RaleighCries of ‘shame!’ rang through the chamber as it half emptied before the debate itself had even commenced, after yet another Free Speech diversion; heaven forbid the issues at hand are the main attraction any more.

Ed Waldegrave, by his own admission, bumbled through his first paper speech with an acceptable overview of the issues delivered with a likeable style. Austin ‘Haddock’ Mitchell, however, served as an example of what happens when you throw an eccentric speaker into a potentially boring debate. Charismatic and over the top, he bought up questions central to European integration such as: ‘Do British fish carry passports?’ and ‘Do they go on holiday to Spanish waters?’

As entertaining as he was dogmatically simple, he was one of the few speakers who managed to bring a smile to the face. Corey Dixon made some good points, speaking of how the advantages of the EU serve as a carrot for development and improvement with a slightly irritating, though earnest style. In a well argued riposte, Alex Betts spoke logically and in great detail but was far too long and somewhat grating.

Sometimes, it seems like Union debates are two speakers away from perfection and this was one such occasion. Eight speakers can often yield the appropriate variety of style, content and depth but when two of them are uninspiring and repeat arguments already made the debate feels disjointed and overly long. Lord Pearson, UKIP peer, delivered an interminably boring summary of previous points while David Curry was similarly forgettable. The surprise of the night, however, was Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP. While many didn’t subscribe to his politics, few could refute his stylistic competence. Bestriding the chamber like a cross between Hugh Laurie and Jeremy Clarkson, his voice carried through the chamber, his rhetoric was persuasive and his delivery smooth, articulate and off the cuff.

Despite these criticisms, however, the debate was a well balanced approach to a complex and divisive issue; it’s just a shame that so many felt the need to walk away from such discussion and debate. We have our politicized Union back, but at what cost to its fundamental purpose?