| subtext | |
|
|
subtext ***************************************************** ‘Truth: lies open to all’ ***************************************************** Issue 130 5 March 2015 ***************************************************** Fortnightly during term time. All letters, contributions and comments to: subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk subtext does not publish material that is submitted anonymously, but will consider requests for publication with the name withheld. subtext reserves the right to edit submissions. Back issues and subscription details can be found at www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext For tips to prevent subtext from getting swept up into your 'junk email folder', see: www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/dejunk/. CONTENTS: editorial, reviewing the situation, 50 for 50, competition, fancy chancy, strike out, songbook, UKVI, David Willetts, Anthony Marsella, spinewatch, links, lost and found, concert review, figures, letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL The closing down and recent reinstatement of Chemistry as a subject taught at Lancaster (something that came somewhat to the surprise of many subscribers, to whom it hadn’t occurred that we didn’t teach Chemistry, as it somehow didn’t seem possible to call a place that didn’t teach Chemistry a University) made us wonder about other subjects that were taught here hitherto, but which for a variety of reasons are no longer on the Lancaster menu. (Subscribers wanting to know about this subject in detail are directed towards Marion McClintock’s definitive summary in Chapter 3 of ‘Shaping The Future.) Of course, we’d agree that a University can’t possibly aspire to teach absolutely everything, and shouldn’t try. Limited resources, research funding, government policy, hard choices, etc etc. That said, it is striking how often, when looking down the list of subjects that have been discontinued at Lancaster over the years, one thinks to oneself, ‘Hmmm, you know, that might just have come in handy ...’ The list of disciplines back in 1964(there were three tranches of subjects in all) had 16 subject areas. Of these, three soon disappeared; Chemistry, Classics and Russian Studies. Chemistry is admittedly a resource-heavy discipline, requiring a lot of investment; one could argue that for the price of a single Chemistry Department the University could fund a number of cheaper alternatives. That said, Chemistry is also a big grant-winner, so who knows. But anyhow, it went. (And then came back. Tempora Mutantur, as they would no doubt have been saying in the Classics Dept, except that…) Classics, well, not everyone regrets the fact that it isn’t possible to study Latin in any form at Lancaster, but there are certainly those who feel that it would be a useful addition to several disciplines. Russian Studies? Nah. Why on earth would anyone think that understanding the Russians might come in useful one day? From the second tranche, we have since lost Central and South-Eastern European Studies, perhaps because it had too clumsy a name. Shame. Might have been useful, including places like Greece, Turkey, maybe even taking a look at the Ukraine. Interesting places that one hears about on the news occasionally. European Studies has also been closed down. (Nothing of potential interest there.) And we lost Arab and Islamic Studies. (Blimey, what a waste of time it would be studying Islam.) And finally, they shut down Independent Studies, the flagship of the ‘non-standard scheme of study’ degree. Which, at the back of it all and after many fine words, no-one cared enough about to resist closing. It’s all so much better now, now that every student does the same sort of degree, because, after all, every student is the same. Sorted. The third tranche of subjects added to the Lancaster roster suggested that we were getting better at this sort of thing, as only three have since been dispensed with. (Let’s not forget that Art came within a whisker of closure recently, but two years later was the jewel in the crown. The process of rehabilitation seems to be speeding up.) The three closures were; a brief (1993-9) experiment teaching Chinese and Japanese languages, (yeah, pointless); Music, about which much sound and fury has been expended so let’s not go there again, and finally - and most criminally - the end of Continuing Education. Cards on the table, hearts on sleeves, deep breath. Of all the closures above, shutting down Continuing Education was the most pointless, spiteful, disheartening, self-destructive and mean-spirited. (It was also handled with all the sensitivity shown by the Romans towards Carthage.) We are led to understand that the Vice Chancellor is well-disposed towards what used to be called ‘town and gown’ activities. Reinstating Continuing Education in some form would be easy, and would do a lot of good for very little investment. subtext commends that thought to those in charge of such things. ***************************************************** COLLEGE REVIEW PANEL REPORT Responses to the report of the College Review Panel have been somewhat less than enthusiastic. Billed as one of the most comprehensive examinations of the structure and effectiveness of Lancaster’s college system, the Review garnered evidence and submissions from an impressive range of sources across the university. This evidence was considered by a panel that included lay members of Council, an external university representative, senior academic and Professional Services managers, and LUSU officers. There were no representatives from any of the colleges. (We are reminded of Brendan Behan’s comment when informed that he had been condemned to death as a terrorist: ‘They tried me in my absence and condemned me in my absence, so I decided that they could shoot me in my absence as well.’) The resulting Report is, to use that well known euphemism, disappointing. The obvious is stated as if it was a revelation from on high. Colleges are a good thing and the University should continue to support them, more should be made of their value in our marketing to potential students, strategy documents should acknowledge their contribution, staff should be made more aware of their benefits, and so on. Issues are raised and either not dealt with or incorrectly addressed. The Report recognises that the increasing size of undergraduate colleges is a problem but then boots the issue far into the long grass by recommending the creation of a new college, to be considered ‘should campus development plans offer opportunity to do so’. Likewise with ‘the unique challenges’ posed by the size and demographic make-up of the Graduate College - these are apparently so difficult that they can’t be addressed in this Report and another Review will be required. Bizarrely, the Report then goes on to recommend that students who carry on to postgraduate study should be allowed to stay with their undergraduate colleges. That this is likely to a) exacerbate the size problem of the undergraduate colleges and b) accentuate the demographic differences of Graduate College, seems not to have been considered. Staff engagement with the colleges was another area under consideration. The Report rightly identifies that the volunteer College Advisors should be adequately trained to provide welfare support but makes no recommendation about providing the resources to make this happen. It also recognises the difficulties facing busy academic staff who may wish to be involved with a college. The way round this, according to the Report, is through the departmental workload models recognising college service but in a way that ‘teaching and research time is not unduly reduced’. How this is to be done is not stated, though presumably the intention is some version of the management mantra to ‘do more with less’. The authors must believe that there is still an awful lot of slack in departmental time allocations. Non-academic staff also face considerable difficulties in fitting in a college role with other duties (and finding the time for all this training) but this is not addressed in the Report. It is in the area of ‘college leadership and management’ that the most far-reaching recommendations are made. College Principals should not have an ‘operational’ role but should instead focus their efforts on ‘strategy’. All those things that current Principals are expected to do (working with the administrator, chairing college meetings, knowing their students, encouraging senior members, supporting the social and sports events, making sure the JCR doesn’t do anything daft), would become the responsibility of a new ‘College Convenor’. Two possible models for this role are offered. One would see each college having its own Convenor, the other (and cheaper) version would have all the colleges sharing the services of three Convenors, similar to the bars management structure. The report is coy about ‘reporting lines’ in the two models but it is clear that the Convenors would be Student Based Services staff and not College Officers. This would effectively bring the colleges under central control. With the Convenors in place, the Principal (on a reduced buyout) would have the time ‘to consider the strategy of the College and how this can support the overall aims of the University’. Exactly what this means is not explained but it is envisaged that it will make the role more attractive to ‘senior and experienced staff’. The Report is currently going through a ‘consultation’ phase and all the indications are that its recommendations have been poorly received by the students and by staff who are most involved with the colleges. This has not deterred the Provost for Student Experience, Colleges and the Library from declaring, in her paper to last week’s Senate, that ‘the recommendations to enhance the capabilities of the Colleges and to further integrate them alongside aspects of the University are broadly supported’. If the paper was an undergraduate essay, there would probably be a note in the margin here saying ‘Evidence? Reference?’. Furthermore, ‘.......the intention of the University is to make strong progress against all the recommendations through the remaining months of this academic year’. So they’re going to plough on regardless, despite Professor Chetwynd’s assurance to Senate that consultation was still ongoing. An action plan will be presented to the Council meeting in March for implementation through the remainder of this academic year and the beginning of the next. It’s as if the outcome had been pre-ordained. This is how bad decisions are made. ***************************************************** YOU CAN CALL ME AL The ALs are coming. Subscribers will remember that in celebrating 50 years of academic excellence, Lancaster University announced its 50th Anniversary Lectureships scheme - a new, one-off investment in 50 early-career researchers who would follow a fast-track pathway to a tenured position over a five year period. The lectureships could be held in any of the University's research areas. The Scheme would offer two years free of teaching in which to focus on building up a research portfolio. subtext understands that 36 of these posts have thus far been manufactured. Not quite 50 but these are destined to be filled by the cream of the crop, the brightest, best, highest calibre folk, designed to become the academic leaders of the future. These paragons are set to become Readers or Chairs within 5 years. subtext looks forward to welcoming these soon-to-be ‘Top Guns’ to Lancaster. subtext also looks forward, in due time, to welcoming these elite into the main body of the academic fold. subtext is certain that University Managers have already thought through and anticipated the possible consequences of this influx of academic gunslingers, and will thus have already begun to put in place the most robust of mechanisms to prevent any resentment and hostility towards these leaders as they settle in to work alongside those long-serving colleagues who, while the 50 or so Masters of the Universe have been Fast-Tracking their research, have continued to publish, carry a more than average teaching load, have held junior and senior departmental administrative post, and who despite this have yet to attain the lofty heights of professorship. **************************************************** COMPETITION TIME **************************************************** ALAN MILBURN AND ELITIST BRITAIN Our new Chancellor Alan Milburn, installed at a ceremony in the Great Hall just yesterday 4 March, is chair of the Commission on Social Mobility and Child Poverty. He gave a lecture yesterday evening at The Duke’s in Lancaster, under the title Bridging the Great Divide, which drew heavily on the Commission’s report Elitist Britain, published in August 2014 (see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/elitist-britain-report-published). The chief finding set out in the report, and in Milburn’s lecture, cannot be news to any of us: in Britain, people’s career success is much more strongly correlated with their parents’ income and social position than with their own merit or potential. The report is based on an analysis of the educational background of 4000 people in ‘top jobs’ - judges, cabinet ministers, senior civil servants and so on. Most of them were educated at a private school, whereas only 7% of the general public went to such schools. Most were also Oxbridge graduates, compared to only 1% of the general public. There is no evidence that talent is concentrated in these narrow segments of the population: clearly the UK is failing to develop and to capitalise on the potential of many of its people. The cost to the nation of this waste of talent must be enormous. More surprising, and possibly of concern for Lancaster, is the finding that many of the holders of these ‘top jobs’ were educated at schools in London and the south-east. These privileged 4000 people are a tiny minority of the country. Far more important than restricting the privilege of these few, or bashing the bankers, is the task of enabling the bulk of the population to realise their potential. Milburn clearly wishes to use his influence to move in this direction, starting with the aim that Britain should become a Living-Wage Country. As he noted in his lecture, two out of three children classified as ‘poor’ are in households where there are people in work, but the UK has far too many jobs that are insecure and low-paid. To the credit of the Commission, and of Milburn as chair of it, they are trying to loosen the tectonic plates of British (and particularly English) society. Repeated attempts have been made do this for at least the past 150 years, but with no more than limited success. Power to their elbow - but they have a tough job ahead of them. **************************************************** A VICE CHANCELLOR WRITES Last week the VC sent staff a letter regarding the recent proposed industrial action. Subscribers will recall that the University’s response to the proposed action was (we generalise, but putting it simply) to threaten to withhold pay from those on strike and to make staff liable for any subsequent claims on the university by students affected by the strike. Or so we thought. The VC has now written to clarify the situation. The University’s position was and is, we now understand, altogether more nuanced than the above simple summary suggests. Let’s have a look: ‘At the time of issuing the communication back in early November 2014 we were being advised by UCEA to withhold full pay…’ Ok, true, but the advice from UCEA wasn’t necessarily good advice and didn’t have to be followed, and there were alternatives. ‘…and to prepare for what could have been a lengthy period of industrial action, which by design, would have a negative impact on the student experience.’ Well, yes and no. What strikes are aiming to do is to make the University’s life difficult and by ‘University’ we mean the institution, not those it serves. There would inevitably be aspects of this disruption which would, in time, start to have an impact on students, but in the short term it would make almost no difference. It is an open secret that many striking academics just reschedule their seminars, in order to minimize the impact on students (and thereby teaching for nothing). Besides, many students supported the strike. ‘As you will recall after some deliberation and discussion with local UCU branch members we settled on a position of deducting 100% of pay but rebating 75% as an ex-gratia payment.’ Or, putting it another way, withholding all pay, including pay for work already done, and then deducting a random fine from it. ‘Given the range of approaches being taken within the sector at this particular time, we felt this to be a reasonable stance to take.’ See above. ‘Within the same initial communication we felt that in the interests of transparency we should highlight that we were reserving the right to adjoin staff to any claims that came from students as a result of sustained industrial action. It is important to note that this ‘right’ is not new and it is something that all institutions have the ability to enact should the situation require. The insertion of this wording into the staff communication was not meant to be a threat; it was simply a statement that would only apply in extreme circumstances.’ This was the part of the original communication that caused most disquiet, and the VC’s letter is surely being somewhat disingenuous here. If it was something that was only to be applied in extreme and unlikely circumstances, then what possible purpose could there be, what possible inference could be taken from it, other than to frighten off potential strikers? To suggest that it was done purely ‘in the interests of transparency’ strains credulity. If two countries are arguing over something and Country A says to Country B ‘Look, if we can’t sort this out by next Friday then we’re going to be jolly upset and we might even have to put sanctions on our soft cheese exports to you. Oh, and BTW, of course it could only happen in the most extreme and unlikely of circumstances, but in the interests of transparency, we should point out that if this goes on much longer we’re going to nuke you,’ is Country B likely to see this as a simple statement of reality, or as some sort of threat? Let’s try it with Putin, see how that goes. ‘It was inserted based on advice to the sector from UCEA and there were several universities that followed this advice. I do however appreciate that for many of your members reading the communication without the full context it may have seem misplaced. I think it does need to be stated for the record that it was not the University’s intention to enact this right at the first opportunity or within anything less than exceptional circumstances.’ Ok. Mind you, it would be interesting to know what would constitute ‘exceptional circumstances’. Just for the record. ‘Moving forward, I am however reassured that the employee relations context has changed nationally and given recent progress within the JNC and UCU’s retraction of their industrial action notice this has enabled us to rethink our position. As a result, in the interests of maintaining progressive local employee relations, we are willing to retract the statement made in the communication back in November relating to the current USS reforms and on-going negotiations. Clearly, in the context of any future disputes we will take advice at that particular time on our position.’ Fair enough, that’s gracious, thanks, we should take that in the spirit in which it has been offered. But please, no more threats dressed up as information, ok? ***************************************************** SATIRE BOOM A subtext subscriber declares himself happy to see that the tradition of subtle English satire lives on in a new generation of students. He went to enjoy what he describes as ‘the amazing young German pianist’ (Joseph Moog – see review below) last week, and found the Music Society entertaining the audience in the foyer with selections from the popular classic ‘The Sound of Music’. While accepting that, as an older person, he is more likely than some to find this choice a problematic one, our subscriber suggests that it might have been more sensitive to dip almost anywhere else in the popular songbook for material. Though, come to think of it, perhaps not from ‘Cabaret’ either. ***************************************************** UKVI The UKVI (formerly known as UKBA, formerly known as the Border and Immigration Agency/UKvisas/Revenue and Customs, etc. etc.) is at it again, making life difficult for UK universities and and above all for the international students on whom they so desperately depend for income. In what seems to have become an annual event, they have again changed their policy on Tier 4 Visas, which many of our international students need in order to study here, midway through the admissions cycle. The history of Home Office policy bungles is long and so ridiculous it is almost entertaining (to people with an interest in language testing at least), but as a result, as of April 6th this year, only one “Secure English Language Test”, namely IELTS, can be taken abroad by students joining pre-sessional courses before their main course of study. It is far from clear whether IELTS testing centres, already often booked up months in advance, will be able to cope with the added demand this may cause. Perhaps the extra pressure might even cause issues with security and quality like those experienced by test centres for other tests, as detailed in last year's BBC Panorama documentary that seems to have triggered the latest policy changes. While this will possibly result in a dip in international recruitment, particularly for departments with high numbers of students who come via pre-sessional programmes, it may not have as big an impact on Lancaster and other UK universities as we might fear - for students entering degree-level courses, universities can still (for now at least) choose their own means of assessing language proficiency for incoming students. But longer term, it is yet another barrier to studying in the UK, and international students may increasingly look to countries with policies that do not start with the assumption that they are trying to cheat the system. ***************************************************** ANOTHER TRIUMPH Subscribers may remember David Willetts, quondam Minister of State for Science and Universities, announcing in 2012 his intention to give more real choice to students by ensuring that the sector became more diverse. To this end, during 2013 he allowed the first for-profit university, gave permission for 10 smaller specialist university colleges to upgrade to full university status, and awarded degree-awarding powers to a small number of other institutions. He stated at the time that he hoped that this is would be just the start and that more diversity and choice would drive improvements through the sector as a whole. Now we can see how this aspiration has turned out. Radio 4’s ‘Face the Facts’ broadcast an edition on 26th February (listen again on http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b053bsfr) that reported on the outcome of this expansion of choice. For those of you not familiar with the programme ‘Face the Facts’ is a long running show which undertakes original investigations into social injustice, public policy, inefficiency and fraud. It transpires, according to the programme, that for-profit, private higher education colleges have had access to hundreds of millions of pounds of public funding with too few checks on how the money is being spent. The Government wanted the new sector to flourish in competition with State provision and since the new system was put in place in 2012, it has. But it turns out that some students were being registered just to get access to student loan money, that colleges were recruiting en masse, and that the standard of academic work then being produced was inadequate. In the programme the presenter John Waite speaks to former staff and students at one college, London's St Patrick's College, who allege a chaotic learning environment with large classes, over-crowding and some students claiming to be motivated mainly by getting access to student loan money. Some student work has been rejected as sub-standard by the examining body on eight separate occasions in the last twelve months - meaning some students have to redo work they thought had been passed. Regulator, the Quality Assurance Agency, is investigating. St Patrick's denies any wrong-doing or failure in standards. Public money going to these colleges has now been capped, after the Coalition policy designed to widen access to higher education for those who missed out first time around on leaving school, became a drain on public resources. You could perhaps not make this stuff up, but fortunately that isn’t necessary as government policy does it for us. ***************************************************** CHANG MAI NEWS Every time that we think that it’s time to stop banging on about Anthony Marsella, he confirms his status as the gift that keeps on giving. Not content with being a marketing guru (stop that hollow laughter at the back); an online Far Eastern jewellery magnate; the CEO of a house of only the very finest repute in Thailand (‘Mummy, when I grow up, I want to be an In-room Hands-on Satisfaction Facilitator at Mr Marsella’s Thai Lanna Resort’), as well as being the author of the sort of novels for which every reader can reach for relief when they find themselves exhausted by the lexical richness, convoluted syntax and sheer literary complexity of 50 Shades of Grey, he has now added several new strings to his bow. He is now, we understand, an ‘Assistant Police Detective’, which is a sort of Volunteer Police Officer responsible for assisting Thai police with criminal matters relating to foreigners in the Kingdom of Thailand. Seriously. As a result (one assumes) of this important and responsible post he is also now the proud holder of an FBI Pistol Proficiency Certificate and a Parachuting Proficiency Certificate. We’re sure this knowledge will enable all expats in Thailand to sleep more peacefully in whatever bed they happen to find themselves. ***************************************************** SPINEWATCH Five young yellow-jacketed contractor’s employees come around the corner of Alexandra Square laughing and joking, and then, at the sight of the well-known sandwich shop, burst into a song of praise using the familiar tune of the Allegro to Mozart’s Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpG_P7UqCXY All together now: ‘Greggs, oh Greggs, ohGreggsohGreggsohGreggs…’ ***************************************************** LINKS We had a great idea for an editorial, then the Guardian beat us to it. Worth a glance – in particular, ‘why there is a value to universities that exceeds their ability to transfer specific skills and stimulate economic growth’. ***************************************************** LU TEXT LOST AND FOUND More that didn’t quite make the cut of LU Text’s weekly media roundup: Declared links? Certainly no links to those who have to bear the brunt of fee increases (students) were declared. subtext will report further in the next issue: http://tinyurl.com/lphz3w2 Fight or flight, Vice-Chancellor?: http://tinyurl.com/lgto3be ***************************************************** REVIEW: Joseph Moog and the cult of the virtuoso The first half of the 19th century produced a remarkable series of musical virtuosi, whose fame enabled them to make a good living by touring and playing - often playing their own compositions or their own transcriptions of the works of others. Pieces by two of these virtuoso-composers, Franz Liszt and Anton Rubinstein, featured in the Great Hall concert by the pianist Joseph Moog on 26 February. Moog has a powerful technique and, despite the gap of two centuries, he appears to be aiming to follow in the footsteps of these great predecessors. Included in his concert were Liszt’s Reminiscences de Norma. Themes from the opera Norma by Bellini are the starting point, but Liszt develops them into a 20-minute piece which tests the pianist’s technique in all departments: it is impressive, but as music it is not particularly enjoyable. If there is subtlety in the piece, Moog did not display it. The final piece in the concert was the Fantasy on Hungarian Melodies by Rubinstein, an unfamiliar piece which Moog had ‘arranged’, adding ‘cadenzas and combinations of the existing material.’ The result is an amazing exhibition piece, which Moog played brilliantly. But when he was playing more familiar pieces, Moog was more of a problem to come to terms with. He opened his recital with the Pathétique sonata by Beethoven, which, rather than providing an opportunity for display, is a work that requires the soloist to convey the composer’s deepest feelings. It came as a shock that Moog played the first chord (marked fp) extremely loudly, almost like a hammer blow. The fp marking means forte-piano, i.e. loud and then immediately soft; it doesn’t mean very loud indeed. It took your reviewer some time to recover from this. The programme also included works by Scriabin, whose music (as the programme notes said) is visionary, mystical and erotic in nature - but Moog did not succeed in capturing the subtlety of these moods. Joseph Moog is only 27 years old. Perhaps when he has matured a little, he will be able to find the meaning in the music he plays, rather than treating it as an opportunity to demonstrate his formidable technique. ***************************************************** GET YOUR FIGURES OUT England has the highest tuition fees in the European Union according to an analysis of current charges by the European Commission. As reported in subtext Germany has scrapped tuition fees altogether and let us not forget Scotland where they do not charge fees for their own students. Meanwhile Australia is considering going in the opposite direction by allowing universities to charge whatever fees they want. As mentioned in the last edition of subtext, Labour has been flirting with cutting fees to £6,000, and has finally made a firm commitment to do so. Meanwhile some universities are pushing to charge more than the £9,000 upper limit. A report from the Higher Education Commission late last year said the real-terms value of the £9,000 announced four years ago has now been eroded to about £8,200. Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, says if universities want to persuade the public and policy makers that they need higher fees, they need to show the evidence. In particular he has highlighted Oxford University's claim that the real cost of an undergraduate course is £16,000 - calling on them to "show their workings" to explain this. In a welcome act of transparency Leicester (see subtext 118) University published a breakdown of its income and how it spends its budget (with tuition fees the biggest source of university income) - £292m coming in and £285m going out. It shows that the money has to cover more than 3,000 staff and investment in "libraries, labs, computers and IT services, buildings and the campus estate". Leicester University argues that the term "tuition fee" suggests it is just about the cost of teaching, rather than the full campus experience. But that still doesn't provide much detail of the cost of individual courses - or the cross-subsidies below the headline figures. Should the sociology student pay the same amount as an engineer (even in a new building), and what would be the long-term consequences if every subject was costed differently? Wouldn’t it be nice if Lancaster were the first university to break the mould and provide a comprehensive, fully transparent breakdown of where the money goes? ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext I was delighted to read John Drew’s account of student occupations at Lancaster in the early 1970s. It certainly brought back memories. The Bloody Sunday occupation was as he described but it was not, in fact, the University of Lancaster’s first sit-in. This took place in January 1969 and it was in solidarity with students at the London School of Economics. There had been a number of occupations at the LSE during 1968 as part of a long dispute about effective student representation on School committees (sounds familiar?) and the authorities had responded by installing iron gates at all entrances to the admin building that could be locked in the event of trouble. The LSE students, with picks and crowbars, removed the gates and went into yet another sit-in. A wave of sympathy occupations from universities across the country followed. Students had the quaint idea that universities should belong to them and to staff and their right to protest should not be impeded. At least this was the argument that was put to a packed Federation (students union) meeting in the Faraday lecture theatre and the motion ‘that this meeting should adjourn to the Senate Chamber’ was duly carried. The sit-in lasted one night and was held to be a great success. Earnest discussions of the role of students in the coming Proletarian Revolution were followed by a live performance from a local blues band (Urbane Gorilla) and the inevitable sharing of exotic cheroots. By the early hours we were all bedded down, and just before lights-out were visited by an oldish gentleman who advised us to get a good night’s sleep as he knew that some of us had classes at 9.00. He was Charles Carter, the Vice-Chancellor. Best wishes Joe Thornberry, Lonsdale 1972. ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: George Green, James Groves, Ian Paylor, Ronnie Rowlands, Joe Thornberry, Johnny Unger and Martin Widden. |