By Jana Bukolovska

Egypt recently held the anniversary of the revolution that started on January 25 last year and has led to the resignation of president Hosni Mubarak, who ruled the country for 30 years.

The mass event happened at Tahrir Square in Cairo and many prepared for the occasion. Traders were offering Egyptian flags, icons with symbols of different political parties and stickers.

The revolution continues in Egypt as thousands occupied Tahrir Square

The most popular commodity became flip-flops with portraits of the former Egyptian president, his son, Gamal Mubarak, a former Interior Minister, Habib el-Adly and a former parliament speaker, Fathi Sorour. All of them are currently on trial, accused of ordering shootings of demonstrators last year.

The attitude of people buying these shoes is clear – wearing them is an act of disrespect. The scene of people gathered on the same square and waving shoes in the air could be seen last February when Mubarak addressed the nation with a television appeal to calm down. Now, after a year, people, who came to the place from all over the country at the time, had a reason to both celebrate and mourn.

The revolution achieved its initial main goal – the authoritarian regime was overthrown, the first in many years, free parliamentary elections were carried out and resulted in the win of Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamists’ Freedom and Justice Party (FJP).

Stating the cost of the revolutionary ideas, Amnesty International reported in May that at least 840 people were killed and more than 6,000 injured during the riots. Now, after the violent clashes between football fans in Port Said last week, 74 people are confirmed dead and hundreds injured.

It would be simplistic to say that there is one force to blame during the brutality that overwhelmed the country with the same rallies that are also happening in Nile delta, Suez and in the Sinai Peninsula. So many residents have disconnected from the violence since the beginning of the uprising, and whether they were united from the start is debatable.

The uprising was inspired by successful protests in Tunisia. Six cases of self-immolation have occurred in Egypt following the story of Mohamed Bouazizi, 26, who provoked the revolution by setting himself on fire in front of the town hall.

There are many young people, like Mohamed, who are unemployed and not given rights to self-expression. However, what they achieved by the demonstrations didn’t change the conditions of their lives. Although the president and the military; that is now being strongly opposed as an extension of the recent regime, are in essence the main government bodies, the quick measures demanded by the protesters are not going to change the minds of employers, of local government branches or of people who might support the old rule; they will not build the immediate democratic state.

If in the beginning there were people fighting against corruption, police brutality, political censorship and state of emergency laws that have been in effect for 45 years, now the disorder in the country’s social, political and religious spheres, serves as background to the different groups and parties struggling for leadership.

While youths are protesting for the nation’s future, political parties that were developing their programmes while being forbidden under Mubarak’s regime, like Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis (party that aims to build an Islamic state controlled by the Sharia law), are trying to fill the inevitable political vacuum that was formed after the president stepped down. According to a popular view among the Egyptians; the way it is delivered by media, at least, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Scaf), Egypt’s interim military rulers, are doing the same.

Now, when the Islamists’ party has the majority in parliament, questions are arising regarding the future of the country. It’s not clear whether there will be a democracy, whether the women will be able to work or whether brutal conflicts between Muslims and Coptic Christians will continue to undermine the image of the new-born nation, depicted in the minds of those, who came to Tahrir Square to celebrate the year of fighting for change.

PHOTO: Gigi Ibrahim (Flickr)

Censorship causes blindness thinks one protester in San Francisco

By Luke Beardsworth

The worst thing about anything related to laws like this is how convoluted it can be. As an example, I’m sure the racism incident involving Liverpool footballer, Luis Suarez is still fresh in our minds and that resulted in a 100+ word document. This leads to many articles attempting to summarise the data and many of those twisting the contents to their favour, knowing that most people won’t have the knowledge to see through their agenda.

This is the case with the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA). While they are now shelved indefinitely; the laws have been portrayed in different ways by different people, but both laws are essentially ways of preventing piracy.

SOPA and PIPA both would mean the owners of websites are made liable for their content, including all user-generated content. For example, if a link to illegal media downloads was posted in the comment section on a blog in The Guardian, then the newspaper would be liable. In short, the laws could result in the complete destruction of free-speech on the internet. These are American proposals and they directly contradict the first amendment.

A free and open internet hurts many companies and despite what some will say, all labels suffer negative effects. Mega-label, EMI has resorted to suing Ireland as a result of their difficulties. When calculating losses from piracy, it is assumed that you would’ve bought every album you have downloaded. Figures are exaggerated; especially when viewing downloads from the highly populated third-world nations. The actual figure is always impossible to calculate but you can be sure that it’s significant.

It’s important that everyone takes a little bit of responsibility for this. Most people, including myself, have illegally downloaded and it’s the same as walking into a shop and taking something off of the shelf. It doesn’t help that the offence is describe as ‘file-sharing’. This is misleading because when you share physical items, you are doing so at your own expense. The same amount is being consumed. When you share media with somebody, you each get 100% of the product. Many people claim to be passionate about music and it really stinks of hypocrisy when they then illegally download. If it wasn’t for us, as consumers, there would be no need for such laws.

Protesters flood the streets of New York in outrage

We should get behind laws that destroy piracy but these take it a little bit too far. Websites like Soundcloud, Facebook and You Tube would likely face closure as a result of these harsh measures and this would make it very difficult to ‘discover’ new music like we can today. In an ideal world, this would hopefully encourage people to check out more gigs and invest in local music, but the probable effect is that people would revert into the shallow of pop music, heavily reducing the market for innovation.

It’s also very likely that pirates would find new ways to exchange new files. I have no doubt that holes will be made in whatever obstacles they think they can throw up. So bands would lose the ability to spread themselves via sharing and word-of-mouth and their music would continue to be downloaded for free.

The fact that many musicians are so against these changes speaks volumes; they don’t see themselves benefiting from it. These blanket policies are unrealistic and it’s looking very unlikely that they will ever be passed in their current form, but it remains disturbing that they have even been proposed.

I agree that artists need more protection. They also deserve the right to distribute their music freely online. There is a huge difference between receiving something for free and stealing it. Times are hard, but perhaps people need to start putting their hands in their pockets for the music that they love. Something definitely needs to be done, but these laws would do more harm than good.

PHOTO: Steve Rhodes (Flickr)
                 Alain-Christian (Flickr)

May 5, 2010 many students, including myself, voted for the Liberal democrats.

Labour leader pictured at a recent party conference in Lancashire. PHOTO: Bianca McLeish

In amongst their many promises Lib Dem members signed the following: ‘I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative’. Well we all know how that turned out.

Why do I reminisce over a broken promise? As each party strives to show themselves as being the slightly better option, the Labour party boldly claimed that they would reduce the tuition fees cap to £6,000 if they were in power. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? However, Ed Miliband has even less reason than Nick Clegg to stay true to his words, with Miliband avoiding any real commitment to this proposed policy.

In a BBC interview where Miliband was grilled by Andrew Marr he managed to unskilfully dodge questions as to whether this is a policy he would stand by or not. His answer, it is something he ‘would do now’, which is a moot point considering the Labour party aren’t in power. Asked whether this will be a policy used in the Labour manifesto he dodged and said, ‘the manifesto is three and a half years away’. Not really helping public confidence in you or your policy, Mr Miliband. So the status of this policy is unknown, but this is more likely just a weak attempt at scoring points off of his coalition friends.

Miliband has rightly taken heat for his sudden change of agenda. Originally he was supporting a graduate tax, a way of working our fees into tax after we have achieved a degree. Add to this that Labour was shown to be against any rise in tuition fees during the vote. Though you have to wonder if that was yet just another political ploy to win over the public.

It is disheartening knowing that the politicians who are making decisions on how our universities handle fees are those who went to university for free. Most of these politicians cannot comprehend the idea of being in financial difficulty with many coming from public school backgrounds. The distance between the rich and the poor are astronomical in the UK, you have to wonder how detached from society our leaders are.

The claim of reducing fees does unfortunately mean that Labour have reached the conclusion that higher fees are here to stay. We can take something positive from this though; at least tuition fees are still high on the political agenda, even if it is being used as a tool to sway public opinion.

Illustration by Emma Bound

By the time you read this, he will have been and gone, however the debate around whether he should have even made the trip up to Preston in the first place has carried on since the announcement on Facebook on November 11.

Many people have made the assumption that the Students’ Union (SU) booked Cocozza and have criticised the union on social media sites for it. However this is not the case.

Those of you who were at UCLan last year will remember Promo, the club night run by the union in 53 Degrees on a Thursday. Promo has gone, to be replaced by Vodka Nationwide which is organised and run by a company called Taking Liberties. The union just provides the venue.

The last few days has also shown the complexity and difficulty of the job I have as a trustee of the SU and editor of this paper. It’s been a conflict of the need to protect and defend the union as well as being the editor of Pluto, which wants to ask is the booking of Cocozza right.

I find that it can be a case of being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The other day I was asked why Pluto had put a story about Frankie Cocozza on the website (www.pluto-online.com) and the reaction to the announcement.

As a journalist, the natural instinct is to write something about it and ask questions to give you answers.

The fact that five times as many people went and read it as well as the highest engagement Pluto has managed online in several years, proved that it was an issue which got people talking. But what should a Media Officer do in this situation if students are criticising the union?

As an employee of the SU I feel that I should defend the union, which is why I have explained the relationship between 53 Degrees and Vodka Nationwide in this piece. But then again how would it look if Pluto didn’t pick up on the reaction to Cocozza and ask: “Is this right?”

Student media aims to hold people to account.

We held the university to account over the timetabling problems earlier in the year and asked them to explain what had gone wrong and what was being done about it.

We held Funk Events and Sankeys to account when students were left in Manchester during a night out and had to make their own way home when they should have boarded a pre-arranged bus which never appeared.

However student media can, and should, hold the union to account if there are issues which people think need addressing.

The report Pluto did into the reaction saw much interaction online and many people seemed against it but official complaints to the union and SU President, Reni Eddo-Lodge were low, with only one e-mail received.

But if you still feel strongly about the booking of Cocozza by Taking Liberties, you can still air your thoughts and question the union; and one of the ways to do this is through student media and me. It’s what we are here for.

This piece is also online where you can comment about it and the whole issue surrounding the booking.

The booking of Cocozza is going to divide students, as it divides people up and down the country.

People complained online, but ticket sales for the night were higher than previous Vodka Nationwide nights, so was it right to book him?

It’s impossible to please everybody. As an employee of the union, it can potentially make working relationships difficult to question and hold colleagues accountable through the public forum that is student media. However, if the issue deserves questioning then it’s for the greater good.

The union has many ways of representing students and fulfilling its motto of making life better for students.

The Annual Members’ Meeting, elections and Student Council are just three of those ways.

But student media is another vital tool and has the great ability to sometimes question the union as well as others.

Don’t get me wrong, the union does a lot of things well. Many other events are announced at 53 Degrees without the online scrutiny the Cocozza one did. Student Council has some interesting debates and the Annual Members’ Meeting sees some fantastic new ideas for the future direction of the union.

But nothing is perfect, and student media can help push things that little bit closer.

Controversy in Preston seems to spread faster than Nutella over toast and this time everyone is really sinking their teeth into the big story of the day.

Frankie Cocozza is coming to 53 Degrees. You’d think the sentence I just wrote was that a serial killer had been given day release to perform but no, it’s good old X Factor loser Frankie. The main argument is that he’s a bad role model, somebody who shouldn’t be seen as promoted by the Union. I think that is simply rubbish.

Frankie has openly admitted he was booted for taking cocaine which earned him the title of Frankie Cokenozza in an emotional interview in The Sun. He spoke out against what he did explaining he was an idiot and how sorry he was. This is a young lad who made a very public mistake. A mistake that could be made by anyone who was suddenly shot to fame. Imagine, for example, Davina McCall decided to do a Public Appearance at 53. Would we be angry then? Of course not, she’s lovely. She also used to take drugs. Frankie has said that he made a mistake. Why shouldn’t he be forgiven?

Then there’s the idea of people being influenced by him. Are you kidding me? You could easily say that 53 should stop playing any rap music then, or how about songs like “Sexy Bitch” that are derogatory to women? It’s ridiculous.

I fear that the core of this issue isn’t about Frankie’s reputation at all, I feel it’s music snobbery. It’s people who believe he isn’t worthy of having an event at 53 and I mean, honestly, why hasn’t there been an uproar about other guests?

Can you honestly say the cast of Geordie Shore are upstanding, moral citizens? Another big guest coming up at 53 is Professor Green. A man who used to sell Marijuana (which is where the Green part of his name comes in). He also says how he didn’t have an education and dropped out of school. Are we going to go watch him and decide that uni isn’t for us? No.

This controversy is a storm in a tea cup, exaggerated by people who appear to simply enjoy being outraged. I feel that the real issue here is being covered up.

It’s been made extremely clear that the Union has no control over who performs at Vodka Nationwide events held at 53. Is this not worrying? Why is that type of contract being allowed? Surely the debate shouldn’t be about Frankie, it should be about who is really in control of one of our Union’s main attractions.

Frankie Cocozza is a boy wrapped up in dramatic tabloid stories. The country is dying to paint him as a bad person for making a mistake, a mistake made by hundreds of celebrities. Would you stop watching Jack Whitehall? Would you say Amy Winehouse couldn’t perform at 53 (obviously, before she died)? Or is this simply a matter of music snobbery, people pushing their noses up at this boy because of the attitude he gave off?

This is a lad looking to get what he can out of his 15 minutes… who are we to say he isn’t worthy?

By Joe Guy

Pluto asks “does the Students’ Union strike a fair balance between its financial and ideological aims?”

Peter Shilton-Godwin, the Students’ Union’s Chief Executive, thinks it does

“In common with every students’ union in England and Wales UCLan SU u registered with the charity commission for the first time this year. We are now registered Charity No. 1142616.

“This change reflects the growing sense that students’ unions do an important job that has real benefit to students and society. That our activities like independent advice, clubs and societies, Give it a Go, job shops, student media and supporting course reps are an essential part of campus life.

“There are few obvious outward changes to what we do but the new status brings into focus our responsibilities to make sure we spend union funds to fulfil our charitable objectives.

“The trustees of the Union made up of elected students (the SAC you all elect and unpaid volunteers from the outside) are charged with making sure this happens. They also have the job to ensure that our services meet the needs of students and the Union safeguards its positive reputation.

“One area the Trustees discuss regularly is the commercial aspects of the Union. How well they are performing and whether students use and value the services?

“One traditional area of debate is bar prices and promotions. The Union has to walk a delicate line between offering promotions we know students like and our responsibility for student health and welfare. We can’t, like some bars just give away drinks so our response is to offer year round competitive pricing and to use limited promotions for particular events.

“We also know from a survey last year that discounts are really important to you so in Source this year we are offering 10% off everything with your NUS extra card which we think is great value.

“In retail we have also teamed up with the Co-op to make sure there are load of promotions in Essentials, our on-campus convenience store.
You might also like to know that every penny spent in the Union supports Union activities. There are no shareholders or highly paid directors with bonuses hovering in the background to take money out of the Union.

“If you buy a sandwich in Atrium, an NUS Extra Card, a meal in Source or a Mars bar in Essentials you help keep the Union going and support the nearly 400 students we employ each year.

“So we think we have the right balance between being business like and meeting students’ needs. We offer good value in a safe, student friendly atmosphere on a not for profit basis.

“We need to be ‘business-like’ but we always need to remember that we are here to make life better for students.”

Pluto’s Deputy Editor, Hannah Breeze, thinks it doesn’t

“When you ask the average student what their Students’ Union means to them, traditionally, the most frequent answer would most likely be to do with nights out, cheap alcohol and freshers’ fair freebies.

“However, UCLan Students’ Union does a brilliant job of making our Union more than just that, by promoting engagement on all levels.

“This has been proven time and time again, with hundreds of students demonstrating against higher fees last year, high voter turnout in elections, and more people standing for elected positions that before.

“But student engagement doesn’t make money, it’s as simple as that.

“So how can an organisation continue its good work, when the fruit of it provides no income? We all know that the union is a non-for-profit organisation, and that any money it does make is invested back into its services.

“However, some money has to be made in order for it to fund the political side of the union; things like the electoral processes, campaigns, and indeed the very paper on which this debate is printed.

“The frustrating issue arises when all of the hard work that the union does in terms of its political and ideological aims is often contradicted by its events of a night-time.

“When the union is so keen to promote liberation, representation and non-prejudice, how can it justify event themes such as Playboy and Chavs and Geeks?

“The Playboy themes event last year actively encouraged women to dress as Playboy bunny girls, and for the men to come in their dressing gowns just like Hugh Hefner.

“How does this promotion and reinforcement of gender roles fit into the agenda of women’s liberation, and does this not directly contradict the role of the women’s representative?

“Ironically, the profit made from the Playboy event would go into the same non-for-profit pot that enables the facilitation of a women’s rep, and indeed all other liberation reps, SAC positions and everything else representation based across the union.

“It is at this point that I must stress that is it not the theme of the events that I am opposed to in general, it is simply that it is the union that holds them which then often contradicts and undermines all the other work that they do.

“Additionally, the promotion of a Chavs and Geeks event again reinforces prejudice, trivialises issues like bullying and strongly adheres to stringent stereotypes.

“How can such events be established, funded and promoted by a union that, by day, spends the profits of such events on providing remedies for the very issues that, by night, it encourages?

“To sum up, I believe the union does a brilliant job of promoting liberation, representation and democracy during the day, but its after house events that fund such good work severely let the side down.”

This summer of preparation for studying in the United States has been the most challenging, rewarding, and exciting of my life. It really doesn’t 

Chris McBriarty.

feel like I’ve had a summer break.

Almost immediately as year one ended and I got home, I had to think about the Visa process; which I knew all along was going to be complicated.

However, once that was out of the way everything became extremely smooth. My university in Connecticut, Southern Connecticut State University, were wonderful−keeping in constant contact and any query I had was answered without delay.

Now I’ve arrived, I definitely feel as though I underprepared for just how much of a huge jump it was. On arrival there was nothing. My dorm had a bed and wardrobe – that was it. The university isn’t very central so it’s tough to get out and buy the essentials; but my biggest challenge was finding an adapter. I rather stupidly didn’t get one before my trip, so I was also without power for a few days.

To make matters worse, Hurricane Irene decided to blast its way up the east coast towards Connecticut, so people were told to leave campus and go home. Us international students, well, we were shoved into a basement for a few days, which wasn’t pleasant. My patience was definitely running thin. After we were released there was limited damage and I felt as though it had been overhyped somewhat.

It caused enough disruption that classes were cancelled for the first two days, but everything has since fallen back to business as usual. I’ve endured my first two weeks now and gotten asked if I’m enjoying my time here− to that I respond: “Enjoying isn’t quite the word, more like adapting.”

Welcome!

UCLan Students' Union President, Reni Eddo-Lodge

 

First of all, I’d like to say hello to both returners and freshers. It’s an absolute honour to be your student union president for the year ahead. If we’ve not met yet, come and find me on the first floor of the students union, and while you’re at it, come at see the rest of the Student Affairs Committee!

Is it time to hold another national demo?

Some of the more beady eyed amongst you will notice that there’s been a concerted effort from other student unions across the country to hold another national demonstration.

Those of you who were students at UCLan last year will probably know that, with direction from the National Union of Students, UCLan Students’ Union took three coach-loads of students to the streets of Westminster to protest against higher fees.

Over the past year we’ve seen the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance, the scrapping of the government’s Aim Higher scheme, and the tripling of tuition fees- not to mention the recent announcement that 794,000 young people are not in education, employment or training. Many universities have already made their fee decision, including our own, but the creeping privatisation of higher education as a whole is a prospect that worries many.

There a pros and cons of holding another national demo. Many will argue that it’s important to keep up the momentum. Others will say that the battle has already been lost. There are debates to be had locally, and the changes to higher education could potentially cause changes to the university that we know and love.

But ultimately, these are my opinions, and as president I’m reluctant to make a decision without consulting the people I represent first.

So, what do you think? Do you love the idea of another national demo, or think it’s pointless? There will be an open meeting next week (Tuesday 27^th September, 5pm, Atrium) for some discussion and debate, but in the mean time you’re welcome to email me with your thoughts at supresident@uclan.ac.uk.

Last year's national student demonstration. Photo by semisara (Flickr).

On hearing of the coming mass demonstration by UCLan students on December 8 Cllr. John Swindells spoke out in support of student action.

As councillor for University ward I fully back the UCLan students in their protest against the Coalition Government’s plans to treble Tuition Fees.  The protest is rightly directed at the Lib Dem’s and the breaking of their pre election promise to vote against any rise in tuition fees.

Preston’s MP Mark Hendrick also signed the pledge in the run up to the general election and he will honour that pledge in the vote on Thursday.

I hope that as many MPs as possible will vote against these unnecessary, unfair plans and also vote against this and the ConDems decision to scrap educational maintenance allowance.  The educational maintenance allowance is a vital lifeline to students from the poorest families in Preston to enable them to go into further education.

The coalition are cutting money for university teaching by 80%, much more than other services, and are making graduates pay the whole cost of most degrees. Students will be forced to choose the cheapest course, not what’s best for them – and will be paying back debts for 30 years.

This generation of students will not only be faced with paying back their student debt but they will have to work longer and pay more for their and our pensions over their working lives.  Together with the prospect of finding bigger deposits and mortgages for setting up their homes and starting their own families will leave them with the biggest financial burden faced by any generation in living memory.

The plans are bad for universities and not the road we should be going down.

The Labour Party will be voting against the plans. Labour would avoid the big cuts in the university teaching grants and share the costs of higher education fairly.

I hope that many parents, grandparents and other Prestonian’s will join the students in a peaceful protest on the flag market on Wednesday to send a message to the coalition government that they must re think their plans even at this late stage.

Cllr. John Swindells
Preston City Council

John Swindells was speaking to Samuel Gardiner.

This week has been an eventful one here at UCLan Students’ Union and we haven’t participated in the national day of protest which took place last Wednesday.

As well as many other activities, this week has seen UCLan Students’ Union organise an event in Burnley for Friday 26^th November. Here we are encouraging all Burnley students and members of Gordon Birtwistle’s constituency, to attend his surgery and demand he sticks to his pledge to vote against a rise in tuition fees. We have also organised a peaceful protest to take place outside the surgery with the approval of Lancashire Constabulary and the venue hosting the surgery.

Since this was confirmed, boy has my week got busy!

To begin with I received a phone call from a very irate and flustered parliamentary office who claimed my actions in organising the above were ‘childish’ and ‘immature’. Not only that but it was also stated that ‘when you work in the real world you will find out you cannot just turn up anywhere and protest.’

Subsequently I have filed a letter to the MP’s office and regional news desks around Lancashire reminding them that we live in a democracy, where the ability to protest is a legal right. Not only this but I currently pay £1776 a year in tax and therefore am more than aware that I do currently work in the real world.

Today in particular has seen the call log on my mobile increase spectacularly with the regional media, TV, radio and print all wishing to discuss UCLan’s Students’ Union plan of action. I have appeared on BBC Lancashire radio (‎2:27 http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/p00c6x8x/), as well as Rock FM and answered many phone calls from numerous local papers. Further to this, I have replied to a factually incorrect press release from Gordon Birtwistle’s office in which he states:

(i) I have refused to meet with him.

(ii) That properly arranged meetings are the way forward.

(iii) He has apologised to his constituency in case there is any disruption to the surgery.

Well,

(i)  I have meet with Mr Birtwistle twice already and welcome any approach from his office to talk to UCLan students at Burnley, which currently I will add, has not occurred and there are no plans for this in the future.

(ii) His desire to hold any sort of prearranged meeting I believe is a party tactic to keep the discussion behind closed doors and out of the public eye. Gordon won the Burnley seat by just over a 1000 votes, it is a swing seat and as he is new to the MP political limelight, he wishes for only the good press he is receiving about fighting the closure of a local children’s ward (and so he should), to dominate the press and not his weak stance on a public promise he made to the entire of his constituency, which includes hundreds of students and their families!

(iii) I can assure Mr Birtwistle that our plans are to ensure we peacefully protest and attend the surgery. Ensure we keep access to the building clear while not obstructing any member of the public in carrying out their daily business. We are there to deliver a message that we expect him to stick by his pledge, honour his duty as an MP to his constituency and vote against the proposals, demanding the Government takes time to look at alternatives.

Some of you might be asking why Burnley and not Preston? The simple answer to that is your Student Affairs Committee have been hard at work and already secured a commitment from Preston MP Mark Hendrick that he will vote against any increase in fees and stick to his pledge. Secondly the University is not currently the target and therefore staging walk outs/sit ins only disadvantages the students who risk missing out on crucial contact hours and precious course material. Finally we are using our time and resources to support the membership in Burnley, of which there are nearly 1000 UCLan students the Union has a duty to.

For now, I am off after another 12 hour day but leave you with this thought….If you signed a credit card cheque 8 months ago and then decided you didn’t want to pay for it today…would the bank let you off?