By Jeremy Cliffe Is there anything anyone doesn’t get off on, whether we admit it or not?” In this pithy question the protagonist of Edward Albee’s The Goat expresses the play’s central dilemma: what do we tolerate, and what is taboo? Martin, the superstar architect at the pinnacle of his trade, sits in the living room, his life in tatters; a suitable ending to a drama Albee subtitles “Notes towards a definition of tragedy”.
The opening scene introduces us to Martin (Will Robertson) and his wife Stevie (Sarah Nerger). The pair launches into a convincing, provocative performance, and we are quickly drawn into the world of the ever-so-slightly bohemian denizens of the East Coast bourgeoisie. Those familiar with the patina of the surreal on Albee’s 1962 masterpiece, Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf? will recognise the style. Yet here the very premise is an absurdity, or at least we would be forgiven for thinking so: Martin is having an affair with a goat named Sylvia. As the play unfolds the animalistic amore is revealed to the audience, his friend Ross (Max Seddon), his wife and his gay son Billy (Tom Coates). Add to the concoction simmering discord and dysfunctional communication, and the result is a Kafkaesque collapse of the superficially harmonious world which we are presented at the outset.
A little way into the play, Ross is distracted by the churning, rushing sounds of the dishwasher. “It’s probably the Eumenides” Martin replies wryly. Indeed, where these mythical deities enforced the prevailing moral order upon the heroes of yore, in Albee’s modern tragedy it is this paradigm of modern domesticity that looms over Martin’s nemesis. But Papa Aristotle would be mighty content with the plot structure. Dramatic unity, a fall from glory, circumstances beyond control, and a suitably cathartic dénouement – the play has it all. Albee creates what the Director Guy Levin describes as “a truly modern tragedy”, suited to our atomised, atheist society through its exploration of where we place the boundaries on love; and bestiality, paedophilia, incest and rape are under the spolight.
Launching on Broadway in 2002, the play reached British audiences in 2004 at Islington’s Almeida Theatre (starring Jonathan Pryce), and in its Oxford première Levin does the work full justice. In the first act Robertson’s dry tone is an excellent counter to the vitality of Nerger’s polished, authoritative but affectionate wife and Seddon’s superbly charismatic television presenter. Robertson maintains a quizzical air, clearly troubled, even alienated. As Ross, camera rolling, introduces his friend on interview, there is a brilliant discord between Martin’s expression of undisguised tedium, lip curled, and Ross’s self-important ramblings (“Some people, I guess, are, well…more extraordinary than others” he contemplates, gazing into middle-distance).
With the revelation of Martin’s capriphiliac dalliances, Nerger comes into her own, lurching manically from incandescent ranting to superior, sarcastic barbs. Meanwhile Coates does well as the slightly affected Billy; between uncomprehending outbursts at his parents he speechlessly grasps at his hair. Robertson tends to be more deadpan than frenetic, more wry than fraught, to the point of occasionally underplaying his role. It’s a point of debate whether this trace of the understated wryness of Robertson’s excellent Berthold Brecht in last Hilary’s Tales from Hollywood restricts his portrayal, but in any case he puts in a fine portrayal of neuroticism and inner sadness.
In all, this is a first-rate set of performances, credible but with subtle hints of caricature that well suit the supercharged reality of the world of the play. It has great success in balancing the absurdity and comic word play with Martin’s tragic inability to reconcile genuine love with absolute social orthodoxy, and as such leaves us wary of taking the validity of such a convention for granted. Dir:  Guy Levin
    OFS: 7.30 Tues-Sat, 2.30 Sat
    Week 4

Oxford 4-9 (21)  –  University of East London 1-7 (10) A COMMANDING second half performance saw the Oxford Gaelic Football men walk away from their first fixture with a comfortable victory in the British Universities Southern Division.
A nervous start saw Oxford fall 4 points behind just 10 minutes into the first half, forcing player-manager Conor O’Kane to bring himself off the bench, where he had been orchestrating proceedings. From then strong performances from key figures down the centre of the pitch afforded a steady supply of possession into a forward line that showed great skill in front of goal.
Having rectified the deficit before half time, the Blues settled confidently into the lead and the London boys would have a tough challenge ahead in their attempt to turn the match around.
In the early stages of its voyage the ship that was the Oxford Gaelic team found itself battered by strong winds and high seas. O’Kane emerged from the galley, strode onto deck calmed the sailors and trimmed the main sail. Stable again, the cannons of the full forwards unleashed a hail of pain on UEL.
In short it was superior quality more than anything else which allowed Oxford to coast to such an impressive result with UEL unable to provide any answer to the sheer class of players such as Shane O’Brien and Dermot Rock.
A defence led by Ronan Fergusson did enough to keep the opposition at bay with Sean McClory punishing loose marking at the opposite end.
This was a promising start to the season from a team showing real signs of potential for the coming year. Spectator Oliver Broomfield said, “I was hoping to see a rugby match but what I witnessed was quite entertaining.”

Oxford 9 – 1 LeicesterAS THE dark clouds of October descended over Iffley Road, it seemed only the glaring pink jerseys of the two umpires could brighten up a gloomy afternoon.
Anyone who witnessed the opening exchanges could be forgiven for agreeing. Both sides managed to string a few passes together only for a poor touch, a foot or good honest defence to see the move break down. Early signs indicated that chances could be few and far between. But the Blues could be excused for not being at their most enthusiastic.
Having to trudge through the depths of the BUSA pyramid can be tedious, especially as games are often an unwelcome distraction from Southern Premier League fixtures that are played at weekends. After a 3-2 loss to Richmond on Saturday, Oxford will face Staines in their next non-BUSA fixture.
The scrappy opening was brought to an abrupt halt by a freak injury. On ten minutes David Cresswell tried to turn in Leicester’s  ‘D’, raising his stick to strike the ball but succeeding only in finding contact with a Leicester player’s head, leading to an ambulance call disrupting the flow of the game.
After the stoppage, the gulf in class between the two sides was suddenly there for all to see. The Leicester goal was now under siege, the Blues surging forward, making darting runs and finally asking a few questions of the Leicester stopper.
Oxford were being kept at bay, but it was only a matter of time until they broke the deadlock. In the nineteenth minute, a cross in front of the Leicester defence wasn’t dealt with properly, leaving Ivey to beat the keeper from eight metres out.
The home side didn’t rest on their laurels and pressed for more, short corner after short corner coming the way of the Blues, only for their efforts to be parried away. But a second was always on the cards, and it came from another short corner.
Cresswell’s shot was stopped by the keeper, but only as far as Molinari, who converted the simple tap in. A third also came from a short corner drilled in by Sibley,  but a well worked set piece by Leicester pulled one back just before the interval, following a rare foray into Oxford’s half.
That goal could have been the catalyst for a Leicester comeback, but it was the Blues who came out of the blocks fastest and reasserted their dominance after the break. Martin Pickup rifled one past the keeper and Mark Kindo tapped another in after successive short corners.
Short corners continued to cause havoc for the Leicester defence, Kindo profiting from one and claiming his second goal of the match. Brad Tucker added a seventh, before a late brace by Cresswell completed the rout.
There can be no doubting the way Oxford approached the game, but the Blues won’t have felt stretched or challenged. For now, the real tests for the hockey players come at the weekend.

Outraged students at Greyfriars have attacked the Hall authorities’ decision to permanently close without consulting any members of the student body.
Greyfriars, one of the University’s seven Permanent Private Halls, is to close next year following a national review of the Capuchin Franciscan Order’s ministries.
Students at the PPH, who first heard the decision on Tuesday, will be transferred to Regent’s Park in October next year to complete their degrees.
In a statement released on Tuesday, the Hall’s governing body explained that the closure was largely motivated by a shortage of friars, as well as considerable financial difficulties. They claimed their decision was not based on a scathing University report published in September that criticised the ethos and practices of PPHs.
“The Hall is already highly subsidised by the Capuchins, and has become a financial burden to their other areas of activity within the UK. It therefore became apparent during the course of our review that there is no long-term future for Greyfriars Hall as a ministry of our Province,” they said.
Former JCR President Ellaine Gelman was highly critical of the PPH’s actions and felt measures to ensure students needs were being met were insufficient.
“Many of the freshers present at Tuesday’s meeting were crying, and the feeling was: why did they accept us if they knew this was going to happen? Some students who don’t want to go to Regent’s Park are now looking into moving to colleges instead. I think Oxford’s losing an important part of itself,” she said.
“They claim that everything they’re doing is in the interests of the students. If this was the case, they should have consulted the JCR president. It’s quite insulting to be kicked out of your own college and community. My personal opinion is that the Capuchins no longer want the students there. If it was just a financial issue then they could have found the money somehow,” she said.
Gelman added that the general feeling among students was one of great sadness at the College’s closure.
“Everyone knows each other’s name at Greyfriars, it’s such a tight-knit community. We feel our sense of identity is being taken away from us. Some of us will be spending our third year in what feels like a foreign institution,” she said.
Greyfriars MCR President Sheridan Taylor agreed, “We’re all in a state of shock. It’s very saddening that part of our family, the friars, are going to be separated from us. I love it here, it’s so vibrant, and adds so much to the diversity of the University as a whole.”
The Hall is to keep its student accommodation operational for two years after students are transferred to Regent’s Park.
Greyfriars JCR President Jonathan Hamill commented, “[We are] understandably disappointed. As a student community it offered a very special place to study with amazing academic and social opportunities. The closure of the Hall, for reasons beyond the student’s control, is an issue that provoked great sadness.”
Staff at the Hall will have their positions reviewed in the coming year, although it is hoped many will continue teaching in conjunction with other colleges.
Communications Officer for the Order Barry Hudd explained, “There is only a handful of staff at the Hall and one permanent staff member. The majority of people working there won’t be affected.”
OUSU President Martin McCluskey said he was impressed with the University’s response to the Hall’s closure. “Given the circumstances, we’re pleased with how the central University are handling the situation and we’re confident that the move to Regent’s Park is in the best interest of Greyfriars students and their academic experience at the University.”
The University has issued a statement, explaining that they are unable to influence the Hall’s decision to close. “The University of Oxford is bound by the decision of the Capuchin Fraciscan Order that their ministry at Greyfriars can no longer continue after the end of this academic year. We regret the loss of Greyfriars as a Permanent Private Hall but respect the Order’s decision.”

AFTER arriving ten minutes after the scheduled kick off time, Coventry must have hoped that it was time for their luck to change. Instead, they found themselves confronted with a Blues side full of enthusiasm and energy for the start of a new BUSA rugby league season.
From the kick off it was evident that the Blues, playing in the unfamiliar grey of their old boys’ kit, were looking to exert their dominance in every way possible. Their defensive line was quick off the mark and gave the visitors no time on the ball, leaving Coventry unable to play with any width. It didn’t take long for the home side to make their mark on the scoreboard. The first score came through winger James Batstone who stormed over the line for the opening try of an eventual hat-trick.
Although Oxford were playing against an obviously weaker side it was important to maintain good shape in attack and to stick to the same game plan and patterns they had begun the game with. As they face three though fixtures in the next three weeks against Staffordshire, Loughborough and Nottingham, the second half was not the time to be taking it easy.
With the half backs leading the side and man of the match Charlie Morris controlling the game from dummy half Oxford started to set about finishing off every opportunity they had. Some poor tackling from the visitors made it easy for the Blues to make their way up the field and a mix of quality and sometimes speculative offloads ensured the tries kept coming.
Scrum half Tom Muir was kept busy in his kicking role scoring an impressive eleven out of twelve conversion attempts. Club President George Smibert summed up the afternoon the visitors had been forced to endure when he put in a massive shoulder charge on one of the Coventry players, leaving his opponent reeling on the floor. Victory insured an impressive start to the season for the Blues but they have a long way to go before recapturing the form that saw them walk away victorious from last year’s Varsity.

SOME flirt with the idea for a few sessions, maybe even a fortnight, but you can spot the reaction in people’s faces: this is hard. When you enter the ring you know that there’s no team to back you up. The guy in the opposite corner has trained for weeks and has dedicated hours of his life to ensure these are the hardest three rounds you’ll ever face. You can’t afford to be weak, you can’t afford not to train hard and you can’t afford to make a mistake.
For the squad the pinnacle of the season is Varsity. But to get there you need bouts, which means a continual cycle of peaking physically for fights throughout the season. No one can afford to be on anything other than top form for a contest, so the training is intense from the word go. Preparations begin before the start of Michaelmas when our nutritional plans kick in and the hard work starts.
 All squad members train 7-10 times per week with the emphasis on building up split second explosive power and technical ability. In a typical session sprints precede circuits on the rope, then sparring. Rounds on the bags are mixed with drills, shadow boxing and more body weight circuits. Track and hill sprint sessions are run two mornings a week, conditioning the body through intervals to reach maximum performance quickly with the fastest recovery time possible. You don’t eat before these! Weight circuits run in the evening focus on explosive movements to build strength and stamina without size, where dedicated sparring sessions focus on building the finished product.
We have a mature squad this year, retaining talent from past Blues and others who have trained with the club before. The female squad has gone from strength to strength, receiving recognition from the Blues’ committee, although not counting towards our Varsity fight. We stand to make it 3 wins in 3 this year at the Town Hall, and the pressure of wanting to achieve is already bearing down on us.

A Union debate on the Israel-Palestine conflict almost collapsed on Tuesday after President Luke Tryl retracted an invitation to controversial writer Norman Finklestein, alleging that he was pressured into withdrawing it.
A panel of prestigious academics and politicians was due to debate the motion, “This House believes that one state is the only solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict,” but the withdrawal of Finklestein’s invitation prompted every other celebrity speaker to also pull out.
Finkelstein, a former historian at DePaul University in the United States, claims that he was no longer welcome at the event after Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz wrote to Tryl, objecting to his forthcoming appearance.
Finkelstein and Dershowitz have been sworn enemies since 2005 when Finkelstein published Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Misuse of History, which was strongly critical of Dershowitz’s 2003 book The case for Israel.      
Tryl originally claimed that he retracted Finkelstein’s invitation due to an anti-Israel bias among the speakers, but in a private email to Finkelstein he said, “Many people expressed concern that the debate as it stood was imbalanced…I tried to convince them otherwise but was accused of putting forward an imbalanced debate and various groups put pressure on me.
“I received numerous emails attacking the debate and Alan Dershowitz threatened to write an OpEd attacking the Union. What is more he apparently attacked me personally in a televised lecture to Yale,” Tryl claimed.
Professor Dershowitz said, “What was the Oxford Union thinking?  Why would it select five debaters – on both sides of a debate about the one-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict – who were virulently anti-Israel, along with one who is kind of neutral?
“They asked me to be part of the two-state solution team, but when I saw the line-up and the topic, I smelled a rat and declined. So then they asked Norman Finkelstein to replace me on the pro-Israel side.”
Dr Finkelstein responded, saying that in his opinion, “Professor Dershowitz has sought to banish me from public life because I exposed him as a hoaxer. It seems that his successful campaign to deny me tenure in the US did not satiate him. Now he is hounding me in the UK. It is regrettable that the Oxford Union capitulated to his bullying tactics.”
Tryl said, “I think it’s a shame that both of them sought to use the Union and this debate as a vehicle to further their own disputes. Both men are welcome to come to the Union and debate head-to-head, and I hope that they’ll do this in front of our members rather than tit-for-tat behind-the-scenes manoeuvring in the press.”
In protest at the retraction, both Green Party human rights activist and Peter Tatchell and Nobel Peace Prize winner Lord Trimble pulled out.
Tatchell said, “I know of nothing that [Finkelstein] has said to justify his invitation being withdrawn. The attempt to ban him goes against the principles of free speech that the Oxford Union claims to defend.”
He added, “I was astonished that the Oxford Union was prepared to host Nick Griffin and David Irving in the name of free speech but not Norman Finkelstein.”
Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe and Ghada Karmi, who are all academics, opposed the removal of Finkelstein on the grounds that his views were being suppressed.
Luke Tryl rejected accusations that he acted against the interests of free speech. “Dr Finkelstein was not dropped because of his views or because of any attempt to censor him,” he said. “The issue was that with Pappe, Karmi and Shlaim on one side and Finkelstein on the other the debate was imbalanced and had too much of an anti-Israeli bent.
“I took representation from various groups within the University, who felt uncomfortable with the debate being imbalanced. We suggested therefore that Dr Finkelstein might not be best suited to this debate.”
Paul Usiskin from the organisation Peace Now UK, who spoke at the replacement student debate, supported Tryl’s decision. Asked why he thought Finkelstein had been removed, he said, “He is on record as an opponent of Israel, of denying the right of Israel to exist.”
He added, “[The other speakers] clearly thought they would have a clear field for victory. They were faced with Lord Trimble, who does not have a very good track record on the issue, and Peter Tatchell who has, and they clearly thought they had it sewn up.
“I believe they’re desperate for another arena in which to delegitimise Israel, after the failure to begin the academic boycott of Israel, in which all three were key. What they expected was a clear field for a one-state solution as the start of creating that new arena. Those of us who believe in Israel and support a two-state solution remained steadfast and denied them their victory.”
The events come in the wake of international controversy surrounding Luke Tryl’s decision to invite historian David Irving and British National Party leader Nick Griffin to take part in a free speech forum. Last week, East Oxford MP Andrew Smith wrote a letter to Tryl urging him to retract his invitation to Irving and Griffin, and Dennis MacShane MP pulled out of a debate scheduled for next month.

JCR presidents are calling for a University-wide referendum on OUSU’s no-platform policy, claiming that “all members of OUSU should have a say in such a controversial but important policy”.
An email being circulated between college JCR presidents calls OUSU’s policy “highly controversial” and “heavily criticised”, and asks them to have their JCRs consider passing motions to hold a referendum.
Both St Hugh’s and St Catherine’s JCRs have already passed a motion in support, and several other common rooms are expected to follow suit. At least ten motions passed by common rooms are required to force OUSU to hold a referendum on the issue.
OUSU President Martin McCluskey claims that holding a referendum would have no effect on OUSU’s current position regarding the Oxford Union’s decision to invite David Irving and Nick Griffin to speak. “OUSU has a set of beliefs extending back thirty odd years, which are enshrined in the no-platform policy, but which are separate from the no-platform policy itself,” he said. “If, hypothetically, a referendum were to take place, it would be separate from the Irving and Griffin issue.”
OUSU Council has already formally condemned the Union’s decision to invite Nick Griffin and David Irving to address a free speech forum in 8th Week. One speaker has already been forced to pull out as a result of pressure from the Foreign Office and a government-imposed travel ban.
St Hugh’s JCR President Alistair Wrench brought the motion to the attention of JCR presidents and wrote in an email, “It would be nice if all common rooms decided whether this was something that should be decided by individual members of OUSU.”
Wrench has echoed comments made by other JCR Presidents by refuting suggestions that the motion is intended to criticise OUSU’s current policy. “The document has been deliberately worded to be entirely neutral. The aim is not to show support or otherwise of OUSU’s position, but rather to open up the issue to the wider student community,” he said.
The motion to be put to JCRs states that “there is a strong difference of opinion about OUSU’s policy”, and that “all members of OUSU should have a say in such a controversial but important policy”.
Wrench confirmed that St Hugh’s JCR passed the motion with “only two or three people” not voting in favour of it. St John’s, Brasenose and Hertford JCRs have also confirmed that a motion will be brought to their next meetings.
Tom Lowe, Hertford JCR President, said, “Opening up Council decisions to common rooms and to popular referenda is good for OUSU and should be supported by everyone. There has been no central organisation in putting together the motion, but a number of us want to find out what our common room thinks on this issue.”
Oxford Union President Luke Tryl is seeking to reassure members that the forum will still go ahead in 8th Week as planned. Tryl has previously stated that he does not agree with OUSU’s perceived attempts to interfere in Union issues, adding that he supported JCRs for challenging OUSU’s “dangerous” policy.
McCluskey has responded by pointing out that around 75 per cent of OUSU’s members are also members of the Oxford Union, and therefore the issue is directly relevant to OUSU.
He stated that the no-platform policy renewed by OUSU in 2005, and not in 2007 as stated in the motion, was a “completely different issue” from OUSU’s stance towards Griffin and Irving. “If the referendum were to go ahead, the result would have no bearing on OUSU’s decision to oppose the invitations,” McCluskey said. “Our no-platform policy is designed to stop people taking advantage of OUSU’s resources in order to spread their extremist views.”

Catz 3 – 51 Keble THE  reigning champions Keble virtually secured their crown for the third successive season, touching down seven tries on their way to a comprehensive victory over St. Catherine’s, who went into the game with genuine hopes of causing an upset. After the previous week’s defeat of Teddy Hall, Keble have only the misfiring St. Peter’s and Magdalen left to play – games that should be a walk in the park after this performance.
Catz entered the game on the back of a hard-earned win over Hall on Saturday, but the effects of playing three games in a week were clear for all to see after half-time as the home side made hay while the sun shone in the second period. Time and again Catz’s efforts would see them penetrate the Keble defences, only for an error to allow the champions to switch play to the other end of the field.
Chief scourge of St. Catz was Keble wing Alex Fox, who exploited the visitors’ sometime lack of defensive organisation to score four tries, one of which was the culmination of a breathtaking solo run.
The game began an even affair, with Catz backs and forwards alike unafraid of taking the game to their more esteemed opponents. With what would become a familiar pattern, however, the visitors lost possession allowing Keble to claim first a Peter Bolton penalty kick, and five minutes later a try in the corner from a driven lineout.
Despite losing fly-half Henry Haslam to injury, Catz then had their best period of the game, with fast forward play allowing the backs plenty of space to run with the ball. Keble looked rattled but managed to survive with only a penalty goal against them, winning a penalty of their own on the try line to escape relatively unscathed from their opponents’ spell of pressure.
Keble immediately showed why they hold such a grip on college rugby by striking back with two quick tries from Fox, exploiting a Catz backline that had been rearranged due to injuries. Coupled with their dominance at the lineout, the home side’s advantage out wide would be a constant threat as Catz threw caution to the wind and attempted to run everything in the second half.
The Manor Road outfit kept trying to break Keble down, and could not be faulted for lack of effort; but the more expansive game they tried to play, the easier it was for the Cuppers champions to hit back on the break.
Fox completed his hat-trick before adding a fourth score for himself. Two more tries completed the rout, leaving a result for the record books that doesn’t reflect the tough time Catz gave Keble throughout the game.

Everything’s going to be alright. Sort of. This is the message of John Simpson’s new book, Not Quite World’s End. Bombs may be falling, the ice caps may be melting, but the human race is set to endure for a while yet. We may hardly exist in peace and harmony, but we’ll still muddle through. As Simpson himself puts it, “Although we’re stupid as a species, we’ve also kind of got a low, rat-like cunning which makes it possible for us to avoid the very traps that we’ve set for ourselves. That’s why I’ve got a certain kind of optimism that we’ll get through this.”

Perhaps this stoic optimism, if you can call it that, is hardly surprising in someone who’s survived the Cold War, the terrorist activities of the IRA and the current War on Terror, not to mention all he’s experienced in the line of duty for the BBC. If we can hobble this far, why shouldn’t we eventually make it over the finish line? Certainly Simpson admits we are struggling, but we’re also improving. As he sees it, “The world is objectively a better place than it was when I started as a journalist, it’s a damn sight better place than it was in the inter-war years and unthinkably better than in the Victorian period. Although we managed to smash and wreck everything along the way I think we are progressing as well.”

And he has a point. When Simpson started as a journalist for the BBC in 1966 the majority of countries were dictatorships of one form or another, now this number has dramatically fallen. Likewise, there are far fewer wars now than 40 years ago and, as Simpson writes, “There were some really nasty wars going on then.” This is no naive or rose-tinted statement. Certainly wars persist, nasty ones, and many of those countries which are no longer dictatorships in name remain ones in practice, but it is pleasant and relieving to be reminded that in general things have got better.

Of course, Simpson’s experiences have not all been of the type which would encourage this optimistic world view. He begins his new book with an account of a bombing he experienced in Iraq in which his translator was killed. The consummate professional, a bleeding Simpson broadcast the event moments later to BBC News 24 via a telephone. This is hardly his first near-death experience. He has served in 36 war zones, including Kosovo and Afghanistan, consistently putting his life on the line for the BBC. His adventures are countless and range from cowering in a gutter with bullets zipping over his head in Tiiananmen Square (which apparently doesn’t afford much cover) to dressing as a women to be smuggled into Khabul. It may make a good story, but the dangers Simpson face are very real.

Yet despite all the risk involved, he tells me he has only once ever thought of quitting. “The last time I thought that was when I was in a cemetery in Northern Ireland and I was mistaken because of my own stupidity by the IRA as a British army spy, and I was very lucky to escape being killed. That evening I sort of sat there and thought, I’m not this kind of person; I’m too sensitive for this sort of work.” So what convinced him to continue putting his life in danger? His reply is quick and simple. “My general insensitivity and brutality of nature, I ordered a steak on room service and had a nice glass of wine.”

But to assume that Simpson’s aptitude for concentrating in difficult situations comes from an ability to desensitize himself is to misunderstand him. He is passionate about his work and deeply affected by the things he has seen. He still has nightmares about being bombed in Iraq and agonizes over mistakes he has made, claiming to remember every single one. They are invariably the subject of his worst memories. He recalls one time when he named the wrong person as President of Lebanon. It is a black irony that the actual president was killed in an explosion two weeks later and the man Simpson originally named took his place.

So if his bravado is just that, why does Simpson really continue putting his life in danger? The answer is a deep commitment to inform. “That’s what people like me exist to do, it’s just to tell people. I don’t put it any higher than that – we’re not going to save civilization.” This is not to undermine the importance Simpson places on his work. He believes it very important to know what is going on in the world and is constantly disappointed by the fall in viewing figures the BBC has experienced in recent years.

For Simpson this symptomatic of a growing crisis, not just in the BBC but in news journalism in general. As more and more people become technologically literate, pictures taken by phone cameras are superceding those taken by professional cameramen merely because individuals with this kind of simple technology are more likely to be in the right place to get the footage. Think of the recordings of 9/11: the most poignant and gritty filming was missed by the professionals, who did not arrive until after the event. Similarly, people are turning in increasing numbers to blogs rather than broadsheets to get their news. Nowadays opinion matters more than fact. For Simpson this turn of events, which he sees as a regression, is a constant puzzle. “It amazes me actually.” He muses, “I would have thought that people would want to watch pictures. I’ve spent pretty much a lifetime trying to find and present the best most striking most interesting most valuable pictures and putting words to them. And it’s very strange to go back to an almost newspaper-like existence.”

Despite his bleak outlook, Simpson certainly still feels there is a place for his brand of film journalism, if only because a picture is so much better at transmitting the reality of a situation than words. He is very aware of the difficulties of explaining what the situation in a country is to an audience halfway round the globe. “If you live in a nice comfortable society, for instance, being in Baghdad in the height of summer, perhaps 54 degrees, 55 degrees, no water, certainly no electricity for air conditioning or anything like that, it’s quite hard to tell people what life must be like.” He himself often struggles when trying to relate to people appearing in his reports. The nature of his job often forces him to discuss delicate subjects and tragedies people have experienced. How is it possible to relate to someone who has just had their family killed? Simpson says he simply tries to be as sensitive as possible. “There are times when I lie awake at night groaning at the thoughtless and irreflective way I’ve talked to people”, he admits. “I just try and be polite, try and be pleasant, and not to treat people as an exhibit.”

There’s no denying that Simpson has lived through shocking times. He has seen a degree of tragedy and horror that the majority of us, sitting comfortably in our college rooms, can barely imagine. But he has also been privileged with amazing experiences, and it is this which motivates him to go back in front of the camera even after witnessing something horrific. When asked what his best moment has been, he tells me, “Seeing captive peoples win back their freedom is something that you’ll never forget, and I’ve seen this now several times. The best of the lot was seeing the end of apartheid. That was a wonderful, wonderful moment and I’ll never forget it.” When you listen to Simpson talk about this and other memories, it becomes clear how he maintains his optimistic world view despite all the anguish he has experienced. But for once in this journalist’s life, the sensation is difficult to express. He remains convinced that we’re going to make it, just don’t ask him how.