|
|
subtext |
|
Home |
subtext
issue
87 8
March 2012 ***************************************************** 'Truth:
lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every
fortnight during term-time. All
editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors [at] lancaster.ac.uk. Please
delete as soon as possible after receipt. Back issues and subscription
details can be found at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext. The
editors welcome letters, comments, suggestions and opinions from readers.
subtext reserves the right to edit submissions. subtext
does not publish material that is submitted anonymously, but is willing to
consider without obligation requests for publication with the name withheld. For
tips to prevent subtext from getting swept up into your 'junk email folder',
see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/dejunk/. If
you're viewing this using Outlook, the formatting might look better if you
click on the message at the top saying 'Extra line breaks in this message
were removed', and select 'Restore line breaks'. CONTENTS:
editorial, news in brief, obituary, new student media, new head of commercial
services, what are universities for?, casino concert by the Brodsky Quartet,
senate report, note on publicity for brass band contest. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL
Week
eight of term, and the controversial issues highlighted in previous issues of
subtext are currently in limbo. The timelines for decisions about both the
Lancaster-Liverpool collaboration and the Business Process Review have been
lengthened to allow for greater consultation; and on the latter topic, at
least, the Students' Union has expressed views which coincide with our own,
giving us additional reason to hope that the Review will be reviewed. The new
V.C. continues to impress as a reasonable and open-minded leader for a period
which was always likely to prove turbulent (as his predecessor persistently
reminded us, without ever explaining why the prevailing climate should
stampede us into the acceptance of proposals which defied common sense). The
recent email to staff from Victoria Tyrrell announced that the
Lancaster-Liverpool Joint Planning Group, which is looking into proposals for
the two universities to collaborate more closely, has met for the first time,
and discussion documents are now being posted online at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/current-staff/consultation/.
At the Court meeting on 21st March, there should also be further opportunity
for discussion about both Liverpool and the BPR. For the time being, subtext
is happy to reflect that wrong-headed decisions have at least been put on
hold. However, the delay inevitably provokes the expectation that more
sensible counsels will prevail. While everything seems quiet in week eight,
it is worth recalling that the people who have identified themselves with
proposals which could well damage our university continue to occupy
influential positions. This period of relative quiescence should thus not be
taken as a signal to declare 'peace in our time'. ***************************************************** NEWS
IN BRIEF Higher
Education Commission on Postgraduate Education The
Higher Education Commission has launched a review of Postgraduate Education
in the UK. The HEC was set up to provide informed written reports with
recommendations for policymakers. It is made up of representatives from
Higher Education, the Business Community, and the three major political
parties. The current review has five aims. Most notably, it will examine 'the
implications for postgraduate education of the proposed changes to
undergraduate funding and provision outlined in the recent Higher Education
White Paper'. The review will also report on the role of postgraduate
education in supporting the economy, access issues, the U.K.'s ability to
attract international students, and what happens to students once they
graduate. More about the review can be found at http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/hec/research/postgraduate-education.
******* Working
abroad Following
the university's creation of new campuses overseas, news has reached us that
it is becoming increasingly common for contracts for new academic staff to
specify that they must be prepared to work abroad if required. We wonder
about the implications of this. The university seeks to be an equal
opportunities employer, but it's clearly much easier for healthy, single
people to be prepared to work abroad than for those who have families, or are
reliant on the NHS. Depending on the exact wording of contracts there is also
a risk that sacking staff on the basis that they have violated their contract
will be made easier. Even those who are prepared to work abroad will have
limits to where they are prepared to go. ******* KIS From
2012 universities will be obliged to make available Key Information Sets
(KIS) that will give comparable sets of standardised information about
undergraduate courses. These are designed to enable potential students to
make better-informed decisions when selecting courses. The statistics will
give information on student satisfaction, course information (e.g. means of
assessment and contact hours), employment and salary data, accommodation
costs, fees, and information about the student union. A rush to massage the
figures is to be expected, and the details of how the data included in KIS
are to be collected offer some opportunities. For example, students want more
contact hours, but some unusual teaching methods can be included. The
guidance on KIS allows that lectures, seminars and tutorials can all be
'virtual', which suggests that including a few podcasts in a course could be
used to up the hours. ******* University
twitter feed – we follow it so you don't have to Mainly
the university twitter feed consists of excitable messages noting that a rep
from the university will be at some university fair in Nigeria, or Moscow,
but one recent item caught our eye. On 27th February we were asked 'Did you
know? ************************************************** OBITUARY Max
Jonathan Lazarus 1937 – 2012 (with thanks to Peter McClintock) Max
Lazarus' funeral took place on 29th February and was well attended by friends
from the university, including a good turn-out of present and past members of
the Physics Department. Peter McClintock said a few words about Max’s life,
some of which we reprint here. Max
Lazarus was a vivid and colourful character, and it's both an honour and a
challenge to be invited to say a few words about him. The reason it's a
challenge is not that there is too little to say but, rather, that there is
too much! So I must be selective. Within
Lancaster University, Max was undoubtedly the best-known member of the
Physics Department. Bob Bliss, former Principal of Grizedale College and an
historian – as far from Physics as you can imagine – wrote to me from St
Louis, Missouri, last week – 'Max was a member of Grizedale College
throughout my principalship and was a complete and absolutely delightful pain
in the neck. He was also very kind and helpful to his tutorial students,
always.' This
care and attention to the needs of students was actually one of Max's
defining characteristics, and I will come back to that later. But who was
Max, and how did he arrive in Lancaster? Max Jonathan Lazarus was born in St
Helens – not so far from here – on 26th November 1937. His family seem to
have been railway workers. Sandy Stewart (our Emeritus Professor of
Philosophy), who was a fellow-student of Max at St Andrews, tells me that he
thinks Max's father was Station Master of some fairly small railway station
in the Midlands. At
all events, Max was the first member of his family to go to university. At St
Andrews, he performed brilliantly. Many years later, on several occasions
when I was in St Andrews on business, or meeting Jack Allen (Max's Professor)
at conferences, Jack would ask affectionately after Max. He regarded Max as
one of their best physics students, ever, at St Andrews. What
was Max like as a person at that time? Well, while the references from his
original application to Lancaster are glowing with commendation, they also
mention what they call his 'extreme zeal'. Sandy Stewart, who lived with Max
in St Regulus Hall, remembers him vividly. He portrays a rather serious young
man who simply could not countenance the idea of anybody studying a subject
other than Physics – and who took no interest whatever in St Andrews' ancient
(often eccentric) traditions. After
graduating with First Class Honours from St Andrews in 1961, Max went on to
Cambridge to embark on a PhD. But during his first year he fell out with his
supervisor ('probably with the faults evenly divided' – Jack Allen). So he
then moved on to Engineering Science in Oxford, where he obtained a DPhil in
1965. It was in Oxford that Keith Wigmore and I first met Max, who was then
lodging with our supervisor Harry Rosenberg. Little did we guess, then, that
we would all end up in the same department at Following
a 2-year DSIR Research Fellowship in Oxford, Max was appointed Assistant
Lecturer in Engineering Science at Exeter University in 1966, and was
promoted to Lecturer the following year. He then moved to our Physics
Department here in Lancaster, as Lecturer in Electronics, arriving just
before me, on 1 July 1968. Thereafter,
apart from his sabbatical leave as Visiting Associate Professor at the
University of California (at Davis) during 1974–75, Max worked in Lancaster.
In a sense, Max did just the same as the rest of us during the years that
followed, i.e. mainly research and teaching, but there were some special
features. Max's
research in electronics was always on the borderline between physics and
engineering. In fact, he was entered with Engineering in the 1996 Research
Assessment Exercise. As a result, he spent a giddy 5 years as the only Grade
4 researcher in the Physics Department (the rest of us being merely Grade 3A)
– but he did not let it go to his head...In 2005 Max was granted Life Senior
Membership of the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). Max's
teaching was illuminated by his boundless enthusiasm for physics, which made
him an inspiring teacher, hugely appreciated by the students. I recall Max
being described in the student newspaper as a 'genius', an accolade not
awarded to any of his colleagues. Of course, with his restless energy and his
flashing eyes, he looked entirely convincing in the role of mad genius! His
biggest and most important teaching contribution was in the Second Year
Teaching Lab, which is still full of experiments designed and meticulously
documented by Max. He went on running that lab, even after his retirement, to
the great benefit of all involved. Max's
generosity was also noteworthy. It was absolutely typical of him that, when
offered the presentation of a gift or cash to celebrate his 25-year milestone
– the completion of his quarter-century in the University – he declined,
replying to the Director of Personnel Services: 'Please could the memento
value be donated to a student hardship fund'. One
of the most important events in Max's life was also, for many of us, the
least expected – his marriage on Saturday 27th March 2004 to Lyudmila
Shakhnova, who quickly became 'Lucy'. Up until then, Max had lived a bachelor
existence, probably rather lonely at times, and his home in Galgate certainly
reflected that. But with the arrival of Lucy, all was utterly changed. She
brought love, affection, friendship, kindness, order and stability into Max's
life. Basic items, e.g. a washing machine, were purchased: first the house, and
then the garden, were given Lucy's 'treatment'.
Max's whole existence was transformed, and vastly for the better. Max and
Lucy did many imaginative and interesting things together including
translation projects and in music, with YouTube videos and songs. I believe
that Max's last eight years were the happiest and most fulfilling period of
his whole life. ************************************************** NEW
STUDENT MEDIA A
range of independent student media can now be found on campus. All have been
started by students who are disgruntled by current LUSU practices and feel
that SCAN provides an inadequate forum for discussion. The
emergence of a new student newspaper, The Whistleblower, was noted in subtext
85. The second issue came out in week 6. The newspaper seeks funding from
advertisers. Pieces inside suggest that an alternative to SCAN is required
because SCAN's funding from LUSU means that is unable to subject LUSU
policies to fair criticism. Given this purpose, one might expect some
discussion of important LUSU decisions inside. Somewhat disappointingly, in
the current issue, the main criticism is that the page layout designs of SCAN
are rather repetitive and bear a resemblance to those used by the
Independent. Another concern is that LUSU has spent £800 on a cow statue to
promote elections. With a somewhat tabloidy feel, a sizeable part of the
paper reviews sports and social events in Lancaster, and offers sex tips for
students. Fritz
is a glossier production, produced by students in the Management School.
Copies are being distributed in the management school and can be found online
at http://prelaunch.fritzmag.com/.
Fritz aims to be published fortnightly during term time by 'Fritz Media
Company'. Funding is presumably primarily from advertising, but intriguingly
the magazine also asks readers to contribute funds directly, noting that
£2000 will be needed every term. The magazine contains much pointed criticism
of LUSU, arguing that the opinions of the student body are not being fairly
represented. The remainder of the magazine focuses on the sorts of things
that management school students are presumably interested in – reviews of
biographies by successful business people, upcoming talks on how to use LinkedIn
to full advantage etc. For the next issue, there is a call for contributions
from 'enterprising students at the university' who are willing to talk about
the 'their business and entrepreneurship'. And there are also plans to
produce a 'governance checklist to measure how transparent student
representation is done at the university at Lancaster University'. Finally,
Student Comment and Moos is a satirical publication produced by Lancaster
University Students' Entertainment and Recreation Society. Issues for the
first three weeks of term can be found at http://scam.lusers.co.uk. But given that nothing has been published
in recent weeks this publication may already have run out of steam. subtext
can only applaud the emergence of new student-run publications, but whether
so many new publications can be sustained will have to be seen. ***************************************************** NEW
HEAD OF COMMERCIAL SERVICES As
noted in the recent LU-Text, Jo Hardman has been appointed to be the
University's Head of Commercial Services, in the position left vacant by the
departure of David Peeks a few months ago. A graduate of Lancaster University
with a BA in English and MA in Marketing, Jo has worked for LUSU for many
years, most recently as the Union's Commercial Manager. His
experience looking after LUSU's commercial operations - the Sugar House, the
SU shops, the marketing operations - should stand him in good stead in his
new role, which he will take up in May. His remit for the University will
include conferences, catering, bars, the Pre-School Centre, Folio (graphics
and printing) and commercial leases. Jo says that in his new role he will be
keen to empower people and to foster variety and innovation. This
is not quite the first time that anyone has moved from a LUSU post to one in
the University's management - Angie Park, who used to work for LUSU, is now
Head of Health and Safety - but a number of recent appointments have come
from the business sector, so this new appointment is quite a radical change.
It seems an interesting and promising development. ***************************************************** 'WHAT
ARE UNIVERSITIES FOR?' Readers
of the Guardian of Saturday 25th February may have seen an article by Stefan
Collini entitled 'Learning for its Own Sake'. Collini is professor of
Intellectual History and English Literature at In
elegant prose, Collini sets out what he believes a modern university is, and,
at rather greater length, what it is not. He mounts a spirited defence of the
university as a space for learning for learning's sake, suggesting that,
apart from the other functions they have accreted over time, at their essence
they are 'perhaps the single most important institutional medium...for
conserving, understanding, extending and handing on to subsequent generations
the intellectual, scientific, and artistic heritage of mankind'. He quotes an
interesting American comparison of the forces influencing higher education 50
years ago with the pressures on higher education now. At several points he notes
that the arrangements that worked well enough when about 6% of the age cohort
went to university are under strain when 45% are doing so. None of us is
likely to disagree with much of this. But
when he turns to the Browne Report, his powers of analysis seem to evaporate.
He makes it abundantly clear that he doesn't like the Report, and
particularly abhors its preoccupation with 'the market', but his arguments
seem too much like special pleading to be convincing. To quote an example
from his Guardian article: 'our higher education system is to be turned
upside down even though at no point....has there been any evidence-based
analysis of how universities are alleged to be failing in their tasks at
present.' There
is an unfounded assertion here. Universities were not 'alleged to be failing
in their tasks'; the question the Browne Review was asked to address was how
best to provide funding for undergraduate and postgraduate students now that
student numbers are approaching 50% of the age cohort, a problem to which
Collini had himself drawn attention in the book and again in the Guardian
article. Probably many of us would be on the same side as Collini in any
debate about this, but his writing is a rather tiresome litany of complaints,
with no clear proposals for any alternative means of providing financial
support for students. The
book has been widely reviewed, not entirely favourably. Peter Conrad, in the
Observer, is clearly exasperated by Collini's academic contortions, and sad
that he doesn't mention 'the joy of discussing novels and poems with those he
teaches', at http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/feb/19/what-universities-for-collini-review;
Howard Newby, V-C of Liverpool University, writing in The Independent, is
more charitable: Part One of Collini's book consists of 'a measured, though
critical, analysis of recent trends in higher education in England' (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/what-are-universities-for-by-stefan-collini-7422765.html).
Following this, one might expect (Newby says) if not a manifesto, then at
least an agenda; but what we get is reprints of old articles. In last
Saturday's Guardian, dated 3 March, Keith Flett writes that while Stefan
Collini makes good points about the enduring value of universities, he harks
back to an undefined golden age of academia - http://publicuniversity.org.uk/2012/01/06/purpose-of-education-an-extensive-public-debate/#comment-40324.
Flett
suggests that the imperative now is to defend the principles of a liberal
education against the demands of a neo-liberal politics. Unfortunately,
Collini has not succeeded in doing this. ***************************************************** CASINO
CONCERT BY THE BRODSKY QUARTET There
were no programme notes to be had for the Great Hall concert by the Brodsky
String Quartet on 23 February, for a very good reason: no one, not even the
musicians of the Quartet, knew in advance what they were going to play. The
programme was selected, before the very eyes of the audience and the players,
by a kind of giant roulette wheel, spun each time by a member of the
audience. This was not a totally random process: the works were in groups,
ten suitable to be played as the first item on the programme, ten as the
second item, and so on, with forty works in all to choose from. The
first piece to come up was the Chaconne by Henry Purcell, a magnificent piece
of string writing that confirms Purcell's standing as one of England’s
greatest composers - many would say the greatest of all. The next item to be
selected was the second quartet of Erich Korngold. Born in Brno in 1897,
which at that time was called Brünn and was in Austria, Korngold was a
musical child prodigy who could have rivalled Mozart or Mendelssohn had he
been born as a contemporary of one of those earlier composers. The second
string quartet, composed in 1933, was already in the romantic style which
characterised Korngold's later music. Soon after this, he turned to writing
music for films, travelling to the USA in 1938 to write the score for the
Warner Brothers film Robin Hood, which is still considered one of the
greatest film scores ever written. Having thus fortunately avoided the
Anschluss, he stayed on in the USA, where he continued to write film music of
high quality which he intended to be able to stand alone in the concert
hall. After
the interval, the Brodsky Quartet offered ten new works, one of which -
Quartetto Doloroso, written by the Norwegian violinist Henning Kraggerud -
had been completed only two days earlier. Given this opportunity to be
present at what was no doubt a world première public performance, the
audience requested this item by acclaim. A romantic and rhapsodic work, it
featured the viola strongly. The final work in the concert, this time chosen
by the wheel, was Dvorak's magnificent Opus 96 Quartet, written during his
visit to the USA and nicknamed 'The American'. This
concluded an exciting and unusual concert, with decidedly innovative
programming. With the players on a low platform on the Great Hall floor and
the audience seated around them, it had brought the audience and the
musicians together in a much more intimate way than on most concert evenings.
Inevitably, with 40 works available to form the programme, the players of the
quartet were not as thoroughly rehearsed as for a more conventional concert.
They visibly had to concentrate rather harder because of this, and the
performances were not entirely without blemish, but this only added to what
was already an interesting evening. Paul Cassidy, the viola player and chief
spokesman for the Quartet, said at the end that they had 'had a real fun
evening' - and so had the audience. This
concert was dedicated to the memory of Philip Reynolds, vice-chancellor from
1980-85 and a keen supporter of the University's Concert Series. It was good
to see Philip’s wife Mollie in the front row, together with members of his
family (who took their turn at spinning the wheel), as well as Bob McKinlay,
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, and Fiona Aiken, University Secretary. ***************************************************** SENATE
REPORT The
new Vice-Chancellor's first Senate meeting on 22 February was unusually well
attended and lasted an unusually long time – not far short of three hours. Professor
Smith began with some reflections on Lancaster and the wider higher education
scene. First, he praised the university's response to the killing of Anuj
Bidve. He then observed that from his initial observations of Lancaster he
had found little that was unexpected, which was good. He had identified some
activities that might be described as bold or even adventurous, such as the
overseas partnerships, the link with International Study Group, and the
revival of Chemistry and the expansion of Engineering. He thought the last
two developments were risky but right. He
then turned briefly to the wider policy environment, in which little was
predictable: the promised Higher Education Bill based on last year's White
Paper seemed to have been shelved; regulatory changes requiring legislation
had been postponed, including the opening out of the sector to private
companies; and funding for taught postgraduates had been retained, against
the betting. On local matters, Lancaster's applications were healthy: among
traditional universities in England, we were third in the league table for
applications, behind only (he revealed in response to a question) Reading and
Anglia Ruskin. The reasons for this ranking were opaque. He singled out for
mention three recent big research grants, all involving collaboration with
other universities, Liverpool among them. The V-C's style in all this was
low-key, informal, tactful, and at times humorous. Senate
then turned to the main agenda. On the proposed Guangwai partnership,
Professor McKinlay reported that there was nothing to report – a situation he
described as slightly but not seriously disconcerting. The operation of the
Senate Effectiveness Review was described as reported in subtext 86. The
quality of Marketing and Maths and Stats had been periodically reviewed and
found to be satisfactory. The first real discussion came in response to a
question from Bill Cooke about the university's duty of care towards staff
misrepresented on the world wide web. Fiona Aiken said how difficult this was
to regulate: rules that could be applied internally could not be applied to
the internet, the boundary between work and home had been eroded, and there
could be a tension between minimising reputational harm to the institution
and to the individual. The best thing could be to ignore misrepresentation on
the internet. In discussion it was suggested that we might want a code of
practice that would discourage unkindness (which, it occurs to subtext, would
seriously cramp the style of some academics); it was also suggested that the
university could not sensibly be thought to have a duty of care over this,
since it would be impossible to exercise it. Legal advice seemed to be that
there was no such duty, and the Thought Police were mentioned in passing.
Bill Cooke thought there could be a moral if not a legal duty, and that the
issues were different for non-academic staff, who are not in the business of
being unkind to each other in public. Senate
then turned to 'possible strategic options for Lancaster' – i.e. mainly the Liverpool
Question. The V-C said he would allow 45 minutes for this discussion, but in
the event it lasted slightly longer. Introducing the topic, he reported that
the view of Council was 'Get on with it and let us know what you think', and
that there were no apparent legal impediments to the retention of separate
institutional identities while also achieving the desired outcome of
increased 'research power'. Senior figures wondered if Liverpool was the
right partner: were we being ambitious enough? Might some overseas
universities be better partners? The timetable looked tight – to which the
V-C replied that he had resisted pressure to go with an even tighter one.
From his experience at Warwick, he thought that if we were to spurn Liverpool
we might not find an alternative. For many Senators, the key issue remained
the relative quality of the two universities: it was difficult to see how a
merged institution would not be lower in the league tables than Lancaster is
now. The V-C said that Liverpool might look different in 2015 than in 2012,
but that there would need to be exit points along the road to closer union.
But it was said that the Manchester-UMIST experience suggested that after a
certain point pressure – not least from ministers - to continue towards full
merger would become irresistible. We should think first where we wanted to be
in five years, and then consider how a link with Liverpool would help us get
there. Senior management in Liverpool apparently think – as reported in
subtext 86 – that only 'a fully integrated collaboration' will enable an
increase in research power. The V-C said that work was going on to test the
truth of this claim. A member asked if prospective students might apply in
the hope of benefiting from Lancaster's reputation while intending to study
and live in Liverpool, where the night-life is believed to be livelier; the
V-C agreed that this was a risk, and mentioned another – that in trying to
have an open discussion we ran the risk that others, including ministers,
would notice what's going on, and possibly try to stop it. Finally, a member
asked if we should treat the Liverpool Question as an unhelpful distraction
that the V-C had unfortunately inherited, and concentrate on other avenues of
progress. The V-C seemed not unsympathetic to this, remarking that our
strategic objectives at present lacked detail: the ambition to be a top 100
university was 'hugely stretching', and we had a long way to go. Fiona
Aiken then proposed a change to our Statutes – specifically, to amend Statute
9 so that the Lancaster City Council member of the university's Council would
have to be approved by the Nominations Committee, like all the other lay
members. This was presented as an anomaly in need of correction in the
interests of tidiness, but the proposal was eloquently opposed by Joe
Thornberry. Well informed about the Statutes and the history of town-gown
affairs, he argued that the amendment would entail an unjustified
interference in the business of a public body with which we ought to want to
maintain good relations. What if the Nominations Committee rejected the City
Council's nominee (which, another member pointed out, it might well do,
because it takes its duties seriously)? The motion to amend the Statute was
put to the vote and defeated 33-24. There
was still some important business in front of Senate. Trevor McMillan spoke
of our preparations for the REF. The mock REF had been well managed and had
proved constructive. All academic staff should meet their heads of department
to discuss what it meant for them. This sparked some detailed and pertinent
questioning: how much could staff be told? (Professor McMillan thought they
had a right to full disclosure.) Were very small units of assessment viable?
Could we afford to leave out any 4* output (even if its author's other
outputs were non-existent or unimpressive)? The
last matter that was discussed at any length, though with some sense of
exhaustion, was the Business Process Review. Andrew Neal said that following
'full and frank' discussions we had now entered a ‘pause for thought’
(another similarity with the government's NHS reforms, whose relevance to the
BPR was suggested in subtext 86). The V-C said that while any university
should be engaged in almost permanent review of its administrative processes
it was clear that the sheer scale of change envisaged in the BPR was causing
concern. A member said that heads of department were being kept in the dark
and that as a result their authority could be undermined, since they did not
know what they could reasonably be expected to know. The V-C said that some
decisions arising from the BPR could be taken managerially, but that anything
affecting academic structures would be brought back to Senate. Fears were
expressed that crucial decisions had already been made and that some of them
would mean more administrative work for academics. The V-C said, 'You don't
design a system only for its efficiency, you design it for efficiency plus
quality' – a wise opinion, and one which subtext hopes will prove to be more
than a reassuring piece of management-speak. ***************************************************** NOTE
ON PUBLICITY FOR BRASS BAND CONTEST subtext
86 included a report on the National University Brass Band Contest
(contributed by David Denver, for which much thanks). The piece noted that
the publicity for the event was minimal. We have since heard the publicity
officer responsible for this event contacted local newspapers with
information about the competition, but that they decided not to publish it.
The Lancaster Guardian had intended to come to the event, but got held up at
another event they were covering in Morecambe. ***************************************************** The
editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order)
of: Rachel Cooper (PPR), Mark Garnett, George Green, David Smith, Bronislaw
Szerszynski and Martin Widden. |
|
|
|