By Richard Fine

Tootsies is spacious and sparsely-decorated; while aesthetically pleasing, unfortunately this made it feel much emptier than it actually was when I arrived with my girlfriend on Friday lunchtime. By the time we left an hour later, five or six tables had been filled, but we were left hoping for Tootsies’ sake that the place is more popular in the evenings or at the weekends. Was the menu just as sparse? The choice of starters was disappointingly limited, but it offered many mains to choose from. Tootsies bills itself as "the chargrill place," and accordingly the menu is largely populated by steak and chicken – vegetarians will have to content themselves with salads or the lentil burger.

While waiting for our food we ordered milkshakes to fill the hole, which were pleasant but quite thin and a tad on the small side.
The food arrived promptly and was well presented. My girlfriend’s salad was generously proportioned and the lettuce fresh and moist; the chicken was nicely flavoured (if a little dry), but we suspected that the Caesar dressing had come from a bottle. That’s not a cardinal sin, of course – some of the best salads in living memory have been bottled for our convenience, but there’s always a frisson of outrage to the discovery.

I had the Tootsies Classic burger, a 6oz beef burger with bacon and Monterey Jack cheese: tall to the extent that it was impossible to eat without dismantling it first, which is unfortunate as it made it harder to appreciate the combination of flavours. The patty itself was tasty, and the bacon pink and chewy, though it seemed they’d been a bit conservative with the cheese. The lack of oil from the cheese, the saltiness of the bacon, and the dryness of the beef (all their burgers are cooked medium-well) resulted in my reaching for my milkshake quite often.

The bowl of chips that came with my burger was just the right size, and the chips themselves were very successful, being soft on the inside without being soggy, and crispy on the outside without being oily.
For dessert we shared a hot waffle, served with vanilla ice cream, fresh strawberries, and lots of maple syrup. Delicious and sweet, the waffle had absorbed much of the maple syrup, but there were still a few crispier parts keeping the texture varied.
Overall, I wouldn’t place Tootsies on my ‘must visit’ list, but they provide large portions of above-average quality food. It’s not a connoisseur’s choice, but if you like your meat it won’t let you down.

 By Jake Whittall 

Lawyers acting for animal rights group SPEAK have alleged that the University is accusing them of organising "a terrorist conspiracy."

The law firm Hickman and Rose are representing SPEAK in preparation for their forthcoming court case, in which they plan to fight Oxford University injunctions against them.

The injunctions date back to November 2004 and impose restrictions on SPEAK protests against the construction of a new animal testing laboratory on South Parks Road. An additional injunction was obtained in 2006 after SPEAK published the address of a University contractor on its website. A full trial next year will decide whether the injunctions will be permanent.

Lawyers for the group have posted an appeal on SPEAK’s website calling for "supporters of all varieties" to come forward in order to gather evidence against the University.

"We strongly refute their allegation that SPEAK is a terrorist conspiracy against the University," a spokesperson said. "Any restrictions should be proportioned and justified, and Mel Broughton and SPEAK should be allowed their lawful right to protest."

The University responded, saying, "We have not and would not describe or accuse SPEAK of being a terrorist organization or organizing a terrorist conspiracy."

SPEAK protest against the University’s controversial animal testing laboratory, currently being constructed in central Oxford. The interim injunctions limit the scope of action of the group, banning SPEAK from protesting within 100 yards of the construction site and forbidding intimidation and harassment of students, alumni, staff and contractors of the University.

Mel Broughton, founder of SPEAK, accused the University of attempting to bully the group into silence. "We’ve said it’s a worrying development all along as it is a serious encroachment on people’s human rights," he said. "The injunctions cast the net very wide, so anyone who comes to Oxford to protest is immediately under its jurisdiction.

"It's wide ranging and means if you turn up to protest you are tied into this injunction that potentially incriminates them if they fall foul of it. The intention of it was to frighten people away from protesting."Broughton claimed SPEAK are not deterred by the University and would continue to protest. "They are using the tactics of a bully, but I’ve got words for them. It's not going to work. SPEAK members are now more determined than ever."

By Laura Pitel
UNION President Luke Tryl has been forced to apologise for a “preposterous” publicity campaign that has been accused of discriminating against women.
The series of posters, found in the entrance to the main Union building and put up in college JCRs, includes photographs of Jeremy Clarkson, Michael Howard, Trevor McDonald, Boris Johnson, Pierce Brosnan and Winston Churchill, but not a single female speaker.
The posters have been condemned by women and womens’ groups across the University. Maegan Chadwick-Dobson, PR Officer for Oxford Women in Politics (Oxwip) said, “Oxwip are dissapointed that the Union has decided to advertise itself in this way.
“As a society that was set up in 2004, partly in response to the Union’s lack of female speakers, we feel that these advertisements both neglect the women who have addressed the Union over the years and, furthermore, dissuade a new cohort of female talent from making their contribution to the Society.”
OUSU Vice President (Women) Hannah Roe criticised one of the posters that advertised “world statesmen from only £99”. She said, “Benazir Bhutto (twice elected Prime Minister of Pakistan) was actually a Union President, so there should be more awareness that women are heads of state too.
“Many organisations put special provisions in place to ensure that their diversity is part of their practices and old-fashioned cultures are changed, from the ‘Women’s networks’ of the ABC companies to the Ministers for Women in different governments.
“At the very least, I imagine the Union will now write some kind of guidelines for their advertising,” she added.
Third-year Wadham student Naomi Hirst tore down the poster she found in her JCR. “It’s a preposterous image, giving a false image of not only the Union but, by extension, the University. It’s irritating that this is the image of the University that freshers are presented with,” she said.
Hirst is not a member of the Union herself and said that she felt “vindicated” after seeing the posters. “This justifies every reason why I didn’t join,” she said.
Union President Luke Tryl described the incident as “a mishap and an oversight”. He said, “It certainly doesn’t represent any kind of institutional bias within the Union.
“I apologise for the oversight: it was organised by a junior officer, not myself, and we will be putting it right in future poster campaigns. I’m very keen that the Union is open and accessible. Three of our officers are women and we have equal numbers of male and female members.”
President Elect Emily Partington also defended the Union, saying, “These days people don’t have to worry about feeling subjugated. If you look at the termcard you can see that there are a lot of women involved in the Union.”
She claimed that being a woman had not impeded her rise within the Society in any way. “I’ve had incredible support from of a lot the men and women involved in the Union,” she said.
The Michaelmas termcard details 14 male and 14 female speakers due to speak.
Prominent women who have spoken at the Union in the past include Mother Theresa, Cherie Booth and Judi Dench.

New 0 – 0 Wadham

With New College among the favourites, to take this year’s title and Wadham newly promoted, one could be mistaken for thinking the only thing close between the two, is the short walk down Hollywell Street.

But for New, without a single training session under their polyester drawstrings, what should have been a walk in the park, turned to war of attrition, where second touches were a luxury. They appeared ring rusty and struggled to gel, resorting to route one from the kick off.

This tactic gave New the upper hand in the opening exchanges, with Wadham initially trying to pass the ball around on the deck, but they soon switched to clearing their lines by hoofing it long before the home side fashioned the first chances of the match. A shot by New’s left winger, James Sutton, was deflected behind for a corner, which resulted in a header going wide at the back post.

But as Wadham worked their way into the match, it became an intense and scrappy affair, with tackles flying in from all angles, players from both sides being afforded little time on the ball and no one managing to string three or four passes together. Both sides traded speculative pot shots at goal, but still the ‘keepers were seldom tested. At times they made work for themselves, a poor goal kick from New stopper Sam Evans falling straight to a Wadham attacker who beat the 'keeper, but also the far post.

Set pieces appeared to be the best chance of troubling the score, with both sides creating a reasonable amount of havoc in the opposing penalty boxes. New threatened to break the deadlock, and would have done if it wasn’t for two woeful misses towards the end of the first half. The first of which came when captain Robin Cantwell managed to miss from eight yards out and the second, as another Sutton cross from the left flank created more problems for the Wadham defence, led to the unmarked attacker’s shot somehow missing the far post.

Any hopes that the second half would be an improvement were soon dispelled as both sides appeared to play for territory, with defences consistently opting to kick and chase and the increasingly weary forwards bearing the brunt of the work. And it was this tactic which appeared to end any chance of one side leaving with all three points, both sets of attackers gave up on chasing lost causes, and relieving defenders of any extra pressure.

Both sides did, however, have late chances to snatch the win. With Mazdak Sani latching on a through ball he beat the defender for pace, but could only find the side netting. Then New started to push Wadham back in their own half, and created the best chance of the game, where another cross from the left came in and the otherwise excellent, Tommy Stadlen, couldn’t beat the Wadham No.1 from six yards.

Both sides will have thought they could have snatched the maximum, but a draw was the deserved result, with neither side doing enough in front of goal, and all twenty two players showing their lack of match practice after the summer break, and the fortunes of these two teams and their spectators, that had better be true.

By Natasha Vashisht 
CHRIST CHURCH’s Junior Censor has banned college bops indefinitely and room parties for four weeks in an ‘edict’ issued to the JCR, following complaints of disruptive behaviour during freshers’ week.
Richard Rutherford told undergraduates, “It is clear to me that guidelines laid down for both freshers’ drinks parties and the bop got seriously out of hand. There has been a great deal too much noisy disruption of others, drunkenness and resulting misbehaviour. I have no alternative but to adopt appropriate disciplinary measures…College bops are banned for the foreseeable future and parties involving alcohol are banned for the first half of term.”
Rutherford’s decision came after intoxicated undergraduates allegedly tried to assault one of the porters after the ‘Fears and Fantasies’ themed bop. Members of the rugby team were also fined £200 for misbehaviour.
One Christ Church student, who wished to remain anonymous, complained that College authorities were overreacting.
“The general consensus is that the edict is a rash way to go about it. They’re being very strong-handed, but we do understand that you can’t have a member of staff virtually assaulted like that,” he said.
Third-year Julian Robinson suggested that the Junior Censor had exaggerated the situation. “I think everyone’s a bit annoyed,” he said. “Someone threw something in the porter’s direction and that’s the reason for this edict, because one person got too drunk. Rather than fining the individual concerned, they’re punishing the whole JCR. It’s an overreaction.”
After the Fourth Week ban on room parties is lifted, the College has also ruled that alcohol will still be banned.
Although the Junior Censor’s office was unavailable for comment, some of the student reactions to their new Junior Censor have been hostile.
One student noted, “It was Freshers’ Week and room parties are what happen. There may have been some bad behaviour but it’s not going to happen again. It’s not exactly a normal week at Christ Church. I can see some merit in their decision, but we don’t feel we have any say in it because the Censors run the College.”

It is every student’s curse to get through money at an alarmingly fast rate. Save all you want, the minute your hard-earned cash is safely deposited in the bank it seems to have vanished, with interest. Much like socks, you never seem to have enough of it.
This strange state of affairs, along with battels, may go some way towards explaining why you’re already into your overdraft and feeling like a bit of extra cash to fund your newly acquired drinking habit. Of course, being a student, getting a job is completely out of the question. Working the floor of Miss Selfridge is hardly a good way to unwind after an all-nighter, and whilst you’re not exactly lazy, there’s no way you’re giving up your daily 2pm wake-up call. Not to mention the University’s cruel rules about jobs in term-time.
So what on earth is a poor cash-strapped student meant to do? Starve, or worse, live off hall food all term? If scavenging the streets of Oxford isn’t quite your bag, maybe it’s time to seek some help. For the creative there are myriad ways to earn a little extra dough. In case you’re too lazy to think of them yourself, we’ve put together a guide to help you on your way. Sell your soul, sell your friends’ souls, hell, even sell their bodies. The unscrupulous are always minted. If you’re lucky, you won’t even have to get out of bed. Play the Trading Game

It may be an old trick, but there’s still an offensive amount of money to be made through ebay, and where better to start than with gig tickets? Ticket touting is a veritable industry in its own right, to the extent that the Culture Minister Tessa Jowell has hosted a series of ‘ticket touting summits’, with the aim of eradicating it entirely. Whilst Ms Jowell has branded it “the preserve of people with bulging wallets”, it’s unlikely that your average student would ever describe their own wallet in such terms. So no guilt required.
The process is, of course, undeniably tedious. For outrageously popular events it could involve hours on the phone, sampling the tinny delights of ‘XXX’, or a good forty minutes of hitting ‘refresh’ on the relevant website. But should you succeed in getting the golden tickets in question, the financial reward to be reaped could be staggering. The Spice Girls Reunion Tour in January of next year, for example, has proved highly lucrative for touts, with one cheeky ebay user demanding a starting price of £800 for a pair of tickets with a £150 face value. I’ll give you a moment while you convert that into the equivalent number of bottles of Moët/handbags/tailor made suits.
Unfortunately, this looks to be an industry in decline, with Glastonbury organisers already cracking down on the tout phenomenon by requiring photo ID and several lengthy forms in order to purchase festival tickets. It could only be a matter of time before this stringent method of buying tickets becomes widespread.
No matter though, for there are plenty of other markets to be exploited. Snapping up new games consoles, for example, or limited edition products (think speciality I-pods, Kate Moss clothes ranges, Star Wars memorabilia) is a guaranteed bread-winner. Free Stuff

More fun than actually doing anything at all to get money, is just being given it. Free money is a beautiful thing. And Oxford just happens to be full of it. OK, it’s not in note form, but you can save yourself a lot of time (which is money) by snatching up the freebies offered at some of Oxford’s many events.
You need never again buy your own pens/paper/highlighters/paperclips/USB sticks/lip balm/mugs or any number of other commodities after attending a corporate careers fair. With a little bit of luck you might walk out with a job prospect. But if all else fails you can always pick up a free stress ball for when your bank balance hits rock bottom and you realize you only have £50 to last the rest of the term. Freshers’ Fair is particularly full of goodies, which include £1 Oxford tube passes, free Blackwells’ mugs and lots of eager people who want to pay you to do things.
Of course, when times are desperate, there is one source of a guaranteed handout: parental visits. Turn up looking scruffy and forlorn, emphasise how little you’ve been eating. Perhaps throw in something about how expensive things are these days. A real professional won’t be wearing socks – you just can’t afford a new pair. Finally turn on the water-works and ask daddy for some cash…  Legal Loopholes

Cheating is an unpleasant word. It implies dishonesty, corruption and deceit. Cheating the system, on the other hand, is a blow for the proletariat, and it’s bound to get you a cash bonus. Vive la revolution!
There are of course, moral issues here. Cheating is cheating and somewhere along the way someone is losing out. So remember, we in no way condone or promote cheating in any way. We are merely pointing out certain flaws in the system which some mean spirited individuals might find it convenient to exploit.
A great place to start is your college. Unversity is an expensive place and colleges rightly recognise the need to help students financially. For those in need grants are many, varied and completely legitimate. They are also means tested, and so not available to any old student who has irresponsibly stretched the limits of theirbank manager’s kindness. However, colleges also have a strange amount of money that they are are just itching to give away to anyone, so get downloading those application forms.
At Christ Church every single student is eligible for a book grant of £140. Regretting not applying there? Never fear, if in need other colleges usually have some form of bursary to help you along with your studies. Of course you’d never dream of spending this on anything other than drinks. Travel grants are equally lucrative ways of getting some cash from college. Describe the many things you think you could be given £500 to travel the world, then proceed to sit back on a beach and perhaps take a look at some of that holiday reading. Take A Chance

A risky business, it has to be said. If you have a notoriously addictive personality, or can’t predict a match result to save your life, then perhaps stay clear of this particular money-making method. 
Some bookies offer a generous start-up bonus to lure in the online and real-life punters. Put in £10, for example, and a company might give you an initial bonus of £25 to bet with. Make sure you’ve perfected the art of your chosen game before embarking on a glittering gambling career and you may never make a loss. Get some practice in with the Oxford Poker Society
Should you find yourself with a few hundred pounds cluttering up your student account, you could always play it safe and bet on a match where one team is almost certain to win. Think Brazil versus Man City. Given the pitiful odds offered by the bookies, you’ll have to risk a considerable amount of money to make a profit, but after three or four big wins you could be lunching at Quod four times a week. Become a Walking Advert

Consumerism is a terrible thing. You see something, you want it, you buy it, and voila, you’re still broke. A slave to the producer, you dutifully trapse to store after store to buy useless goods you’ll never use, all because you read something, somewhere which said you had to have it. How to break this vicious cycle? A simple return to an old adage should be enlightening: ‘If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.’
If you’re tired of wasting your money buying useless stuff, flog it to your friends instead and get paid. It’s amazing how far advertisers will go to get their product noticed by the right market. Offering to advertise on your blog/facebook/body can earn you a tidy sum in as much time it takes to set up a facebook group.
Don’t feel like shamelessly exploiting your friends? Try promoting yourself. For men, sperm donation can be a quick fix to financial difficulty. £30 a pop, and you’re getting paid to do something routine. New legislation means that there’s always the danger of being tracked down by a mini you in twenty years’ time though, so use with caution. Less dangerously,  exploit any talent you have, particularly a musical one. Sharing it with the world can be a beautiful, and lucrative, thing. Ever wondered how much the buskers on Cornmarket earn in a Saturday afternoon? Lots. Sometimes £20 per hour or more. It’s colder than simply getting an advertiser to pay you for some e-space, but it can be more satisfying. And of course, the greater the pain, the larger the gain. Look as young as you can to exaggerate your musical skill.  All in the name of medicineIf it’s good enough for the humble guinea pig, then surely it will suffice for the penniless undergraduate. You can offer yourself up as a test subject for a range of different experiments involving different levels of risk. Comfortingly, all experiments the Psychology Department requests its students to carry out are pleasingly non-life threatening, and require relatively little effort. Adverts for these experiments frequently pop up on facebook (keep your eyes on the left hand advert bar), or are plastered on faculty and JCR noticeboards.
One recent study required all participants to take a new form of anti-depressant drug for a week, after which they were examined to see if their energy levels and general happiness had increased. Each individual was then shown a series of video clips, showing images of a sexual, violent or tear-jerking nature, and their emotional responses recorded. A bizarre experience, certainly, but hopefully not a particularly painful one. Be warned – the number of experiments you can put yourself up for per year is limited, so choose carefully.
Needless to say, experiments advertised by organisations other than Oxford University should be avoided at all costs. Whilst experiments conducted by our Department of Experimental Psychology are governed by the British Psychological Society guidelines, the same cannot necessarily be said for other sources. Horror stories about experiments gone horribly wrong are rare, but exist nevertheless. And in all honesty, allowing someone to inject you with a dodgy form of a rogue malaria virus doesn’t seem enormously sensible. 

by Heather Ryan  

Malcolm X, Ronald Reagan, Yasser Arafat, Helen Clark… try spotting the odd one out. The Prime Minister of New Zealand is perhaps one of the lesser-known politicians to have graced the Oxford Union with their presence, but her achievements suggest such obscurity is undeserved. The first female Prime Minister of New Zealand to win office at a General Election, Clark has overseen radical changes to her nation’s welfare system. In her speech – surprisingly well-attended given that it was on Monday of 0th week – these were outlined: 8 increases to the minimum wage in as many years, an increase in employment levels, and a reduction of unemployment to 3.6%. Her government is as notable for its positions on international affairs and green issues as it is for its commitment to social justice, and much of Ms. Clark’s talk focused on the themes of her foreign policy.

While the somewhat uninspiring delivery detracted from my enjoyment of the speech, the content itself was interesting, centring on the themes of New Zealand’s foreign and environmental policies. The country’s commitment to nuclear disarmament was discussed, as was the active role in international peacekeeping played by the New Zealand army.

Clark described New Zealand as "clean and green", and also advocated her government’s support for human rights, interfaith dialogue and international aid.

She concluded by contrasting the UK and New Zealand, suggesting that while we share many values and beliefs, due to geographical separation the focus of our diplomatic and trade relationships is different. Several insightful questions followed, including a criticism of her government’s rejection of nuclear energy, which Clark rebutted confidently and fluently. I was left in no doubt that the Prime Minister is principled, articulate, and a liberal through and through; it’s just a shame that her public speaking skills undersell her.

By Joy Wong 
WYCLIFFE HALL’S troubles continue following the resignation of another Council member in protest at the PPH’s governance this week.
Claire MacInnes announced her resignation in a letter to the Council’s chair, the Bishop of Liverpool, which was forwarded to the Church of England’s newspaper.
Her resignation follows last term’s crisis when five academic staff quit in protest at the way the Hall was being run, in particular the actions of its Principal, Christian Evangelist Reverend Dr Richard Turnbull.
In the letter she claimed that that the Council had “failed to observe due process” in its dealings with the staff.
“I am disturbed by the Council’s failure to respond to allegations of bullying, intimidation of Council members and a lack of transparency in its decision-making,” she said. “I regret I have no confidence in the chair, the Principal or the Council as a whole to address these serious matters of governance, employment practice and simple human relationships.”
Her letter suggests that a decision to pay Turnbull a salary thousands of pounds above national pay scales was not properly appraised by the Council when he was appointed.
MacInnes said she decided to put the letter in the public domain because of the “importance of the issues for the ongoing welfare and governance of the Hall and the wider church.”
Wycliffe Hall has been the focus of a dispute involving allegations of a culture of bullying and intimidation, and an ultra-conservative attitude to women.
Complaints have focused on the Turnbull’s management style and his appointment of Rev Simon Vibert as Vice-Principal, who made public his belief that women should not teach men.
Turnbull has denied allegations that he is a member of conservative religious groups, saying, “I am not a member of any Evangelical pressure group and never have been.”
The governing Council of the PPH announced a review of the Hall’s governance this week.
A Council statement issued on Tuesday said, “The Council has embarked on a major review of its governance and a new development strategy for the future of the Hall in the light of changing patterns of ministerial formation. This inevitably involves changes that are unsettling.
“Wycliffe is committed to maintaining its Evangelical ethos and its international reputation for excellence in theological education, ministerial formation, and training for Christian leadership in the Church and the world.”

On women they are multitaskers: suckling aids, an indication of sexual arousal, a work of art; on men they do little more than resemble mosquito bites and have no obvious function. The answer to the enigma of male nipples lies under the microscope.
In the first few weeks of development, each embryo is effectively bisexual. The base template for humans includes nipples, which continue to develop fully if the foetus gains female characteristics, and become redundant if the Y chromosome kicks in and testosterone starts pumping around the developing foetus. As it is more effective for the body to keep what has already been added than to remove parts, the nipples remain.
In fact, male nipples are not entirely redundant. They contain all the essentials of functioning organs and are connected to blood vessels, nerves and even milk ducts. Men do possess the milk-producing gland but this only develops if there are sufficient quantities of oestrogen present.
Some male babies contain an overdose of their mother’s oestrogen when born, causing them to lactate dramatically upon suitable stimulation. Rather than imagine why anyone would want to rub a baby’s nipples on the remote chance that milk might spurt forth, let’s leave this so-called phenomenon of “witches’ milk”.
It is not only newborn male babies who could rival Moo Moos for milkshakes, but also some grown men and teenagers. Gynaecomastia is the clinical term for abnormal enlargement of the breasts. While this might be every lads-mag fantasy, it’s not such a turn-on when it applies to men themselves.
Certain diseases or hormonal conditions, including many provoked by excess consumption of alcohol, can cause breast tissue to grow and men to lactate. In a particularly unsexy turn of evolution, it is teenage boys who most frequently suffer such a fate.
Redundant nipples are present in most male mammals, whilst in other genera, such as horses and mice, the male sex hormones completely prevent nipple growth. On the contrary, female possums are endowed with between seven and twenty five nipples, making our own two seem rather pitiful.
In fact, in the early stages of human development, up to seven pairs of nipples are arranged along a “milk line” running from the upper chest to the navel. Usually only one pair develops but aproximately one in a hundred people have a third mole-like nipple.

David Taylor defends the right of the state to act on behalf of its population The term ‘nanny state’ is usually meant to be derogatory and tends to be employed by those who fear too much obstruction of personal freedom by government. Even those accused of creating such a state deliberately distance themselves from ‘nanny statism’, at least rhetorically. Government ministers frequently deny that they have any intention of creating such a state. However, it is rare that the phrase is properly defined or that critics suggest any viable alternative.
Here is my definition of the phrase: a nanny state is one in which a government acts on behalf of its citizens in an attempt to prevent the development of serious health crises. It is very difficult to find someone who genuinely disagrees with this principle. Much as we like to believe that we have control of our own bodies and that our personal health is our responsibility, many of the things that most affect our health are completely out of our control. One example is the driving of motorists. When drink driving legislation was first proposed, it was decried as being part of a drive to create a ‘nanny state’. There are also those who have opposed vaccination programmes, motorcycle helmets and the ban on smoking on public transport. However, in each case the majority of citizens have realised the genuine health benefits of such regulation and the dissenters fade to a small hardcore who probably regard the existence of any government at all as an affront to their personal freedom.
Another more recent example is that of the public smoking ban, which came into force on the 1st July 2007. There are those who regard this as a breach of civil liberties and as unnecessary. However, they should perhaps consider the freedom of those who have to work in public places that prior to the ban were smoke filled.
A government must feel able to take action for its people which it believes will, in the future, be beneficial towards the majority of  the population. Whilst some individuals within society may be unable to see the long-term benefits of new legislation, the government must be given the right to act on their behalf, in the hope that in the long run their actions will be recognised as sensible. Whilst our leaders must remain entirely accountable for any legislation they choose to introduce, they must also have the freedom to do the job we elected them to carry out. After all, if we elect a government only to constantly hold back any attempted improvements, then doesn’t that make it more or less redundant?

---

 Freddie Parton rebels aginst government control of our actions and our minds.The government is worse than a nanny. It has become like those teachers at school who in sickeningly sweet voices refuse to let you do things because they are too dangerous or difficult.
The amount of ‘risk assessment’ forms that we have to fill in when organising any trip are ridiculous. It’s impossible to assess risks, because they are unpredictable by definition. How long is it going to take people to realise that life is full of dangers that cannot be neatly broken down into bullet points? By always worrying about what could go wrong, people kill all sense of adventure and spontaneity. If we accept that danger is out there, what’s wrong with facing it?
The irony is that the government’s avid concern for public safety is actually putting people’s lives in more danger. Look at Jordon Lyon who drowned, trying to save his eight-year-old sister, whilst two community support officers just stood and watched on the grounds that they did not have sufficient training to save him. The government’s obsession with health and safety has destroyed the natural human reaction to help someone in distress, and has replaced it with a calculating spirit of selfishness.
How can the emergency services be so concerned about their own personal safety, when danger and risk must be part of the job description? A new fire station in Plymouth has been built without a traditional ‘fireman’s pole’ after fears that the servicemen might hurt their ankles. How can we expect these ‘fire fighters’ to save us from burning buildings when they’re not fit enough to slide down a pole!
It’s not just physical dangers that the government are trying to ‘protect’ us from. They are also concerned with the risks of overstretching our minds.
You may remember the criticism that Nigella Lawson received from the government this summer that her cookery books were too difficult for people to understand because of their ‘complicated words’ and ‘long sentences’. How can they judge what is too difficult for the general public to understand? As Ron Liddle put it, Nigella’s ‘hardly Marcel Proust, is she?’
Why the government are trying to control our cook books I don’t know, but it is a good example of how their concern for the public’s welfare has gone too far. Things in life are always going to be tough and hard to understand. Surely we should try to face these difficulties rather than pretend they don’t exist.