Comment at the Pro Bono Debate

With the legal community celebrating the 12^th annual National Pro Bono Week, a celebration of the good will work of lawyers across the country, Exeposé Comment‘s Debate Correspondent Fiona Potigny reviews Debating Society‘s event  with the motion: “This House believes that members of the legal profession have no moral obligation to perform pro-bono work”, fittingly collaborated with the Bracton Law Society. 

For those not in the legal know, or those who simply haven’t watched enough Suits: “Pro Bono” is a term pertaining to cases in which free legal services are offered to those who would not otherwise be able to afford “access to justice”.

“As questioning went on, it became clear that the opposition did not believe “moral” obligations to exist outside of official regulation – likely to the disappointment of any attending philosophy students.”
Photo Credit: SalFalko via Compfight cc

Delivered like a true lawyer, Craig Newbury Jones’, lecturer at Plymouth University, suited-up for the occasion, captivated the audience with his smooth welsh tones, carefully punctuating his discourse with dramatic pauses (though perhaps these were to allow him time to peek at his notes). Despite his good speaking style, he initially failed to make it clear that he was in fact opposing the motion. As he began on his lament of the recent 25% government cuts to legal aid, the confused expressions on all panel members’ faces betrayed a sense that Jones might have in fact misjudged his stance for the evening.

This was fortunately not the case, as this was later used to evidence the government’s implicit rejection of the concept of a “right to justice”. His reference to the lack of enforcement to carry out pro-bono work by the Legal Standards Board and the Solicitor Regulation Code of Conduct further supported this. He ended by questioning why lawyers should bother fighting a system with no benefit for them. This was a compelling argument indeed, though one that did not address the “moral” aspect of the motion.

“Rubbish,” Tom Miller, BLS Bar Group Chair, began. Quickly dismissing Jones’ stance, Miller’s natural public speaking abilities quickly became apparent. Scattering his speech with a series of imperatives: “the Bar must step up”, “we must give back after a tax-free three years of university”, and clever catch-phrasing: “justice is not for sale”, one could easily understand why Miller had been chosen as Jessop International Mooting Competitor for the University. His arguments were equally as strong as his near-flawless public speaking ability. Heads nodded as he mentioned Louis Brandeis, the famous “People’s Lawyer”, as well as Miller’s important addressing of the “moral” clause, claiming that a fair trial with good representation is a right that must be afforded to our fellow man, regardless of class, race or any other criteria that may inhibit their path to justice.

Dr Mitchell Travis, an ExeterUniversity lecturer, made an interesting counterpoint pertaining to lawyers’ self-regulation. Due to their crucial separation from the government, which leaves them immune to State influence, lawyers are thus able to regulate their own hours, pay, and the ethical principles to which they subscribe. He also argued that pro-bono is an ineffective way of administering justice due to its high costs, and that it rarely helps “the little guy”, being moreover a PR strategy for firms to partner with big charities. His best point, however, was that pro-bono conflicts with a lawyers’ ethical duty to partisanship; in a lawyer’s decision whether to perform pro-bono work, they must judge who is or is not deserving of legal aid, and thus in their judgement they are defying the “innocent until proven guilty” regulation.

The earnest nature of local solicitor Stephen Nunn affords him this week’s best speaker award. Whilst the other panellists were well-read on the factual nature of pro-bono, they spoke with a degree of separation. Nunn, however, spoke openly of his own personal experience as the founder of a struggling firm, which owes the majority of this struggle to time spent on unpaid pro-bono work. He also reflected on the year-on-year falling profits of his own firm, and similar high street firms, and a twelve year pay freeze for lawyers in his position despite growing inflation. Yet did he betray even a hair of contempt for pro-bono work and its lack of economic feasibility? Not one bit. As he criticised cuts to pro-bono funding and the closing of Citizen’s Advice Bureau’s across the country, and spoke of his involvement in various protests and pressure groups, he shattered piece by piece the popular representation of lawyers, eloquently described by Miller as “money-stealing pillocks”, and became increasingly convincing in his cheesy yet endearing view that “lawyers save the world one case at a time”.

As questioning went on, it became clear that the opposition did not believe “moral” obligations to exist outside of official regulation – likely to the disappointment of any attending philosophy students. As a result, discussion broke into a debate over semantics – is something truly pro-bono work if it is a legal requirement? While the general consensus was a resounding “no”, Nunn reminded us of the term’s Latin roots: “Pro bono publico”, which means, “for the good of the people.”

Discussion then turned to the implications of forced pro-bono work, in which panel members agreed that a lack of monetary incentive may lead many to do a poor job. Jones, being an expert in popular culture representations of lawyers, advanced this point, adamant that many lawyers do not have the inherent call to help their fellow man without payment, earlier detailed by Miller. It was this, he claimed, that has caused the regrettable rise of ABS (Alternative Business Structures), in which corporations such as the Co-op replace pro-bono assistance with offerings of poor-quality legal advice at a reduced fee. Travis then added that this lack of “moral obligation” is causing a two-tier advisory system, disadvantaging those who cannot receive proper help. Though Nunn agreed, he added that one cannot truly call themselves a lawyer if they do not have an inherent calling to justice.

This final point by Nunn managed to win the proposition the five votes needed to secure themselves a victory.

Fiona Potigny

Did you attend last Friday’s debate? Is this an accurate version of events? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Comment at the Question Time Debate

With term now well under way, Exeposé Comment‘s Debate Correspondent Fiona Potigny reviews Debating Society‘s Friday night Question Time style debate in which students were invited to engage in open-forum questioning with members of the UK’s prominent political parties. 

Unfortunately, Audaye Elesedy, 2014 Green MEP candidate, and Shaun Bailey, former Policy Advisor to David Cameron, were unable to attend due to “personal reasons” and “a boring political engagement” respectively. Nonetheless, their replacements, Kevin Foster, Conservative candidate for Torbay, and Andrew Bell, Press Officer for the South West division of the Green Party, were more than willing to fill their roles.

The evening was split into three sections: Economy, Foreign Policy and Domestic Policy. A question on whether recent figures suggest that the economy has truly “turned the corner”  jump-started economic discussions, which led onto talk over the HS2 (the new high-speed railway), and debate – rather, polite disagreement – over nationalisation/privatisation with specific reference to the Royal Mail and the East Coast Line.

Photo Credit: University of Exeter Debate Society via Facebook
“Wine-winning best question of the evening was asked during the Domestic Policy section, and was awarded to the audience member who asked, ‘A successful party must have three main elements: an inspirational leader, a sound manifesto, and realistic policies. Do you truly believe that your party fulfils these criteria?'”

Though Foster naturally disagreed with Ben Bradshaw, Labour MP for Exeter (as if you didn’t already know), who attacked Osborne for “ruining” the 2% growth under Labour, both concurred along with Bell that the government should ensure that the benefits of new growth are felt in all economic backgrounds. Rick Timmis of UKIP expected 2014 to be a “bumpy plateau”, owing to the remaining international debt and 0.7% inflation across the Euro Zone. Dr Darren Schreiber, however, reminded us of reasons to be cheerful according to the “Human Development Index” including the highest percentage of literacy across the globe and more children than ever living past the age of five.

The Foreign Policy section provided opportunity to discuss whether, in retrospect, the present parties are proud of their position on Syria, the potential future relations with Russia, and whether Iran should be viewed as a threat.

The whole panel was concordant in agreeing that it was right not to take military action in Syria, and agreed with Bradshaw that whilst it was a positive development that President Assad had conceded his chemical weapons, one must not lose sight of the ongoing horrific humanitarian crisis. Foster nonetheless made his disdain for Miliband’s discourse on Syria clear, branding it a “clear political game played out in the House of Commons”. On Russia, Dr Schreiber made clear that whilst good relations are useful in terms of commerce, it is essential that Europe asserts itself against its discriminatory laws. Rick Timmis highlighted the important point that both the European and Eurasian Unions are currently vying for control over The Ukraine, and asked how the UK will be represented while these unions struggle. He also was firm in assuring that Iran does not pose a hostile threat owing to the little evidence to support this view, but an economic one due to its abundant oil reserves. Dr Schreiber was positive about the first steps being taken to normalise relations, though Foster warned that we should still be wary of supporting a country known for its primitive legal systems i.e. where stoning and having one’s hand chopped off are legitimate punishments, as well as its human rights abuses, specifically to the LGBTQ community.

Wine-winning best question of the evening was asked during the Domestic Policy section, and was awarded to the audience member who asked: “A successful party must have three main elements: an inspirational leader, a sound manifesto, and realistic policies. Do you truly believe that your party fulfils these criteria?” Whilst the majority of the panel gave an unequivocal “yes” response, Bradshaw stated his belief that Ed Milliband is not yet “polished”, though affirmed his respect for his recent response to the attacking press. For once, it was refreshing to see a politician express something other than mechanical agreement with every aspect of their party.

Throughout the debate, all members of the panel remained calm and unflustered, and even Bell and Foster, who had relatively little time to prepare, put forward some good points and counter-questions. It was surprising (read: disappointing – everyone loves a bit of tension!) that there were surprisingly few disagreements – one can only assume that all were well-trained in the art of PR. In fact, Chair Ellie Binks did not even once have to use her gavel!

Despite being political opposites, Bradshaw and Foster were similar in style. Both were well-informed and made successful use of facts and figures to back their arguments. Any quibbles on stance over a certain issue were fairly implicit, without the forthright disagreement that one would expect in the House of Commons. Despite their impressive statistical connaissance, it cannot be said that they were on the whole particularly engaging speakers, though Bradshaw did capture the audience’s attention when, provoked by discussion of the recent NSA scandal, he related stories of his own run-ins with phone tapping. Foster was a little confusing when stating his whole-hearted support of the Royal Mail sale, yet shrugging off the responsibility by claiming that those who disagree should point the finger at Vince Cable of the Lib Dems rather than the Conservatives. He also raised a few chuckles when claiming “I too use the train often” – a classic “politician tries to relate” moment.

Despite being a member of a further right party, Rick Timms’ arguments seemed more level-headed than the audience might have perhaps expected. In fact, a few audience members could be heard expressing whispered statements of pleasant surprise as to how unexpectedly fair and compassionate his arguments seemed. He justified his distaste for the EU through their imposing of economically-damaging business restrictions, and seemed to win over a good portion of the audience when admitting that apathy and disillusionment led him not to vote until he had children during his 30s, whose futures he wished to better. He was perhaps at his strongest when explaining the government’s need to invest into infrastructure in order to attain assets, though expressing doubt over whether HS2 (the new high-speed railway) is the right investment to make, as well as when he lamented the selling of The Royal Mail for just a third of its value, questioning where we will be economically when government money is spent, and there are no more assets to rely on.

Being the Press Officer and thus not directly affiliated with the political world, one can forgive Andrew Bell for the few responses in which he claimed that he simply did not know –  less of a waste of time than a “politician’s answer” (that is to say, no answer, but with plenty of speaking). Bell took a notably different stance than the other panellists on the economy: that the measurement of growth through GDP is “meaningless”. According to him growth should be calculated according to the actual quality of peoples’ lives as opposed to the quantity they earn on average – a fair, but impracticable aspiration, which some might say mirrors certain elements of the Green Party manifesto. That said, he certainly had a good few heads nodding when maintaining that youth unemployment, soaring zero-hour contracts, and pay freezes must all be addressed.

Speaker of the evening award, however, goes to Dr Darren Shreiber. His non-biased presence on the panel was uplifting, and his self-deprecating humour owing to his US citizen status, such as his personal apology for causing the economic meltdown, provided a pleasant injection of laughter into an otherwise serious evening. As an American, he was able to provide useful and illuminating comparisons to the UK, his comparison of the HS2 to a similar implementation in California, which he claimed did not serve to solve problems of overcrowding and continuous traffic jams, for example, whilst his immense knowledge of political science highlighted the triviality in the long-run of certain UK political idiosyncrasies, such as the seeming obsession with privatisation vs. nationalisation.

Did you attend last Friday’s debate? Is this an accurate version of events? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Ben Bradshaw at DebSoc for Question Time debate

Ben Bradshaw, the Labour MP for Exeter since 1997, will be joining DebSoc this evening for a “Question Time” style debate.

Breaking its usual Friday debate format, in which both proposition and opposition compete to convince the audience to vote in favour of their stance on the motion, the panel will instead come under audience scrutiny, answering questions at the audience’s discretion.

The debate will be held in Newman A at 7pm, and will present students with the exciting opportunity to actively engage with the current political world.

Joining Ben Bradshaw MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 2009-2010, will be a whole host of other political figureheads from the main parties.

Representing the Conservative Party will be Shaun Bailey, current Conservative candidate for Croydon South, and former Youth and Crime Policy Advisor to David Cameron. Bailey left Downing Street earlier this year, alleging that the “clique” of Old Etonians were to blame.

Rick Timmis, a candidate for Whipton Barton and Heavitree, will provide UKIP’s presence on the panel this evening. Timmis is also known for presenting “thEUnit”, a daily report broadcast on YouTube, which focuses on the European Union, its institutions, and their wider effects.

Audaye Elesedy, a 2014 Green MEP candidate will also feature on the panel. Elesedy firmly believes that the European Parliament should have a more significant role in finding solutions to ecological and social issues. The Green Party candidate is equally responsible for the co-founding of a number of community projects, and has worked alongside University of Exeter staff on democracy and engagement-oriented projects.

Finally, panellist Dr Darren Schreiber will be a familiar face for many students, as he is the Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Exeter.

Owing to the unique format of this Friday’s DebSoc offering, it is likely to attract a large audience, and thus DebSoc have advised students to arrive early to avoid disappointment in finding seating and losing out on the chance to grill the panel.

Fiona Potigny, News Team

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

DebSoc finish 5th at Southern Debating event

Last Sunday DebSoc finished in the top five teams at the Southern Debating Association’s IV Novices Competition 2013, after sending six of its best novice debaters to the  event.

The event, which was hosted by Imperial College London, attracted 80 competitors split into 39 teams of two, with three groups from Exeter.

As was to be expected, motions varied from the thought-provoking to the downright controversial, “This House regrets the existence of “male power” or “male rights” groups”, “This House would allow individuals convicted of a 3N crime (non-serious, non-sexual, non-violent) to serve their sentence in the military rather than prison”, and “This House would prohibit tourism in countries with a poor record of human rights”, being a few such examples.

All competitors were involved in an intense eleven hours of heated debate from 8.30 until 19.30 with a 45 minute pause for lunch.

Nonetheless, the Exeter teams rose to the challenge with Exeter A achieving fifth place – just two points from winning a place in the final – and achieving the second highest number of speaker points in the top ten teams. The team was comprised of novices Sasha Gibbins and Elizabeth Jessop, who were ranked fourth and thirteenth best speakers respectively, out of the 80 competitors involved.

Sasha Gibbins commented that: “The competition was of a surprisingly high standard, and so we are very proud of our results. Just goes to show the power of cheap beer and Red Bull!”

Fiona Potigny, News Team

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

Comment at the North Korea Debate

Exeposé Comment‘s Debate Correspondent Fiona Potigny reviews Debating Society‘s Friday night debate discussing the credibility of North Korea’s threat to the West.

Once the audience had seated themselves to the smooth tones of “Groove Series 003” – oh DebSoc, you never disappoint in providing us with a toe-tappingly good yet arbitrarily-chosen soundtrack – the debate was prompt to begin. This week’s motion: “This house believes that North Korea presents a credible threat to The West”.

Dr John Heathershaw started by defining his definition of “threat” as uncertainty, drawing on his knowledge gleaned as a leading academic in the field of Security Studies. He argued that this uncertainty stemmed from North Korea’s three previous launch attempts, unceasing antagonistic rhetoric, and complete hostility to the international relations that Western nations have sought to defend since 1945. “In Security Affairs, if there is any uncertainty, measures must be taken in order to decrease potential impact. And so to oppose this motion,” he concluded, “is to oppose the maintenance of national order.”

“Equally, due to [North Korea’s] isolation from international expertise, their declarations of possessing ten warheads are likely no more than a nationalism-stirring device and, moreover, a distraction from the widespread starvation and malnutrition in their country.”
Photo Credit: yeowatzup via Compfight cc

Dr Heathershaw’s argument was succinct, logical, and carefully detailed with examples, thus it is a shame that much of this was directed at the sheet of paper before him rather than to the audience. Nonetheless, he flourished under audience questioning, providing swift yet well-thought-out responses (even if they did include over-usage of the word “bellicose”).

Sir Nick Harvey, MP and former Minister for the Armed Forces, expressed doubt over the actual capabilities of this “basket case” nation. He outlined the absurdity of believing that North Korea would take on the giants of the West owing to the vulnerability of their already “cranky” regime, and their notable lack of allies. Equally, due to their isolation from international expertise, their declarations of possessing ten warheads are likely no more than a nationalism-stirring device and, moreover, a distraction from the widespread starvation and malnutrition in their country.

Sir Nick’s delivery was tinged with well-justified cynicism and an honest disbelief that anyone would consider North Korea a genuine threat. Despite thorough audience questioning that kept both sides on their toes, Sir Nick remained unflustered, providing a good range of counter points. For example, when the proposition rightly pointed out that even an attack on South Korea would at very least send ripples of economic instability throughout the West, he responded that North Korea would only be threatening itself in doing so, being just miles from the border.

Providing the night’s injection of humour was Richard Foord from Exeter’s International Office who spoke in favour of the motion. His argument was based around the fact that if technology in its “infancy” includes a nuclear warhead able to reach Hawaii or Guam, North Korea will soon be able to perfect a missile with a range far enough to reach the UK. He also spoke of North Korea’s rejection of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the fact that they are still technically at war with the South.

Foord’s delivery radiated confidence and conviction – as one Tweeter pointed out, “someone’s been attending the Monday workshops”. During audience questioning, Foord would wait patiently for his partner to reply before providing his own humorous  addition and looking sufficiently smug after doing so – perhaps thinking that he had secured himself the “Zinger of the Year”, DebSoc’s prize for the best quote. One such example would be his play on George Bush’s “axis of evil”, referring to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of ebay”, due to their constant “bidding” for international aid, which merited a chuckle from the audience. Nonetheless, it was Foord himself who had the last laugh, as he had only been defending the motion as part of his research – he was actually in full agreement with the opposition.

Ryan Aldred of the South-West faction of the Socialist party was sent in place of Deputy Secretary Hannah Sell, who had pulled out at the last minute. Though Aldred started strongly when dismissing North Korea’s rhetoric as a way of being internationally assertive and indicating the discrepancy between their words and actions, he perhaps lost sight of the motion a little as he began his lament of the real threat: the capitalist class.

As his discourse became increasingly aligned with his political stance, the credibility of his argument seemed to become undermined, at least for some members of the audience who audibly tutted and “hmm’d” when he expressed his belief that North Korea serves as a “boogie man” distraction from poverty and austerity in the West. Despite this, credit must be given to Aldred for taking the stand despite the short amount of time in which he had to prepare. Equally, he did not shy away from audience questioning, and provided a series of persuasive responses: that Kim Jong Un’s inadequate leadership would undermine his own position in a war scenario, and that the West must therefore engage in diplomacy that allows the leader to save face.

The final vote showed a remarkably even split, with the opposition winning by just two votes.

Fiona Potigny

Next week’s debate is discussing the best sport in Britain. Vote now to give us your initial thoughts.

[poll id=”43″]

Did you attend last Friday’s debate? Is this an accurate version of events? What could the opposition (or proposition) have done or said for a more convincing victory? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

EXCLUSIVE: University paying hundreds of staff 'poverty wages'

Image credit: The Living Wage Foundation

Over 300 staff employed by the University do not earn the living wage as of June 2013, a Freedom of Information request (FOI) submitted by Exeposé has revealed.

Unlike the minimum wage, which stands at £6.19 an hour, the living wage is calculated according to the basic cost of living, including necessities like accommodation, food and clothing.

The principle has cross party agreement in Parliament and boasts David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Boris Johnson as vocal supporters. Various other universities, including Loughborough, Queen Mary and UCL, have voluntarily agreed to pay all of their staff the living wage, alongside numerous higher education colleges and student unions.

But 302 Exeter staff earn under the £7.45 an hour threshold, with one apprentice being paid as little as £2.77.

Despite six of these staff members earning less than the minimum wage, the University is breaking no laws because apprentices are not subject to the legislation brought in under the previous government.

A further five apprentices earn £6.19 exactly – which remains a full £1.26 per hour less than the living wage.

The bulk of the 302 low paid workers are cleaners or catering/retail/domestic assistants, though the University did not break the statistics down further. 58 of those staff members are paid £7.11 an hour, with a further 233 earning £0.18 more.

A University spokesman said only: “we are actively considering the living wage, but will need to discuss further with the unions.”

The University also highlighted how pay rates are negotiated at a national level, through Joint Negotiating Committee for Higher Education Staff.

The revelations come as the University continues to invest heavily in new facilities, with hundreds of millions of pounds being poured into developments over the past few years, raising questions about where funding should go.

In a piece published today, Exeposé’s Online Comment Editor, James Bennett, notes the cost of the Forum and argues that the disparity between this and low staff pay is indefensible. He concludes that: “as a student population we should encourage the Guild to put pressure on the University to take up the voluntary living wage scheme.”

Freedom Society’s President, Liam Taylor, disagrees, suggesting there is nothing wrong with the University’s pay rates.

“A living wage sounds like a nice idea on paper when times are tough. Unfortunately the economic reality is that it doesn’t work and would do more harm than good by costing jobs,” he said.

The statistics will nonetheless place the spotlight on the University’s ethical obligations, and a number of other political societies have hinted at launching future campaigns in relation to staff pay.

Debating Society have said they would consider putting forward a relevant motion at a later event, whilst Labour Students, Liberal Democrat Society and Socialist Students have expressed concerns. All three groups are considering lobbying the University in response to the news.

SocStu co-President Carlus Hudson described the statistics as “outrageous,” suggesting that his society would put pressure on the University “to pay all of its staff the living wage.”

“Paying poverty wages is a totally unacceptable way to treat staff who are essential for keeping one of the highest ranking universities in the country running,” he added.

A detailed list of staff working for less than £7.45 per hour is pictured below.

Harrison Jones, Online News Editor

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

The full run down of staff members paid less than the living wage (click to enlarge).

Comment at the Thatcher Debate

Exeposé Comment‘s Debate Correspondent Fiona Potigny reviews Friday night’s Debating Society‘s record attended debate discussing Margaret Thatcher’s global legacy.

With this week’s motion being, “This house believes that Margaret Thatcher was a global force for good” and Katie Hopkins heading up the proposition, it’s no wonder that the Debating Society felt the need to upgrade from the Moot Room to Newman A in order to accommodate a record attendance.

“Now, who thinks I’m a complete cow?” – Katie Hopkins
Photo Credits: University of Exeter Debating Society

It was surprising that the initial vote of conscience was dominated by abstentions. Here would be where the final votes mattered, and each side would have to battle to convince the uncertain in order to win a majority.

Percy Prowse, Conservative Councillor for Pennsylvania and Duryard, opened by tracing the life of this “humble grocer’s daughter” to a “lonely old lady suffering from dementia”. Although this did serve to tug the audience’s heartstrings, it did not inherently support the motion. Whilst short snatches of his speech did pertain to the “global good” clause, such as Thatcher’s Cold War efforts, putting Great Britain on the world map, and forging an important relationship with the US, Prowse’s discourse primarily dwelled on his picket line experience as a policeman in the 1980s.

“Percy the Police Officer” – the name post-debate Ram-goers later used to refer to him owing to his constant prefixing of “when I was a police officer”– was incredibly endearing; clad in a green checked short-sleeve shirt with his hair a little ruffled compared to his suited counterparts, there was a hopeless charm about him that allowed his stumbling over a question on “Section 28” to be met with audience “awws” rather than infuriation over his apparent ignorance. (Over the same blunder, Hopkins’ was not met as lightly).

Leader of the South West Trade Union Coalition Nigel Costley, began, “This woman was divisive.” Whilst Costley’s speech did not centre as much around trade unions as expected, like Prowse many of his points did not extend beyond the UK. Nevertheless, the audience were noticeably shocked by his mention of Thatcher’s homophobic policy, and the fact that under her, child poverty increased from a sixth to a third. Though he acknowledged her strong leadership in the Falklands War and her engagement in the fight against the Soviets, he claimed that she was “lucky with her enemies” and that any politician would have had to rise to the same challenge.

Costley then ended on the point that Thatcher was not the feminist symbol many assume her to be. After rising to the top, “she kicked the ladder from beneath her, only appointing one woman to cabinet”. On the whole, Costley was clearly well-researched and thus peppered his dialogue with facts and figures. This, however, was not the best tactic in terms of engaging the audience, though perhaps this was more due to anticipation for the next speaker.

Met with boos Apprentice ‘star’ and all-round controversy causer Katie Hopkins took to the stand. “Is this panto?” she joked. “If it is, you’re the witch!” one heckler snapped back. It was going to be that kind of evening and the audience were set to lap up as much drama as possible. After briefly inquiring what proportion of the audience “thinks [she’s] a cow”, mocking Costley’s “dull list of dreariness”, and threatening audience member Ollie that she would sit on his lap unless he swayed his opinion, Hopkins launched her passionate laudation of “Mrs T: The Woman”.

Although she referred to Thatcher’s Falklands and Iron Curtain victories and her power coalition with Reagan, Hopkins tended to only discuss Thatcher’s personality, caricaturising her as “someone who would update their Facebook profile with varicose veins rather than pretty pictures”. Naturally, the entertainment value was fantastic, but did not seem to sway the audience in her favour. Questions provoked further hilarity, although more serious points were often skirted around with parroted parts of her opening speech.

Alison Seabeck was the last to speak, opening with, “we’ve had the entertainment, now time for the facts.” Seabeck attacked Thatcher for “permanently souring” the UK’s relationship with Europe, selling £350 million worth of arms to Saddam Hussein, declining to place economic sanctions on South Africa, as well as maintaining murky relations with Pinochet, amongst other more domestic criticisms.

Crucially, Seabeck was the only speaker to fully address the “global” aspect of the motion, which is likely to have ultimately swung the audience in the opposition’s favour, and impressively held her own against Hopkins, who constantly attacked her party of “idiots”. She remained self-assured at all points in the debate, and calmly asserted that, whilst she accepted that Labour was not perfect, this was not relevant to the motion in question.

In the end, a head-count was not necessary as the opposition took the debate by an overwhelming majority. The debate saw the highest attendance since 1893, proving that DebSoc are off to a good start this year.

Fiona Potigny

[poll id=”40″]

Did you attend last Friday’s debate? Is this an accurate version of events? Was Katie Hopkins an appropriate choice for this debate?  Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

DebSoc set for big attendance at Thatcher debate involving Katie Hopkins

Image credit: DebSoc

The University of Exeter debating society continue their successful start to the year this Friday with a debate about the legacy of Margaret Thatcher.

The motion ‘This house believes Margaret Thatcher was a global force for good,’ will be debated by a heavyweight panel battling for members’ votes. On the proposition is local Conservative Councillor Percy Prowse and controversial TV personality Katie Hopkins. The latter is an Exeter alumnus and recently sparked accusations of a class warfare by revealing on This Morning that she judged her children’s classmates based upon their names. The opposition is being represented by Labour MP Alison Seabeck and leader of the South West Trade Union Coalition Nigel Costley.

The debate follows the death of Baroness Thatcher earlier this year. The former Prime Minister divided opinion during her time in office with a strong economy countered by the loss of many jobs in the unions. Her other controversial policies included privatisation and the poll tax.

DebSoc had a record number of sign-ups at the Freshers’ Fair and had to turn people away from last week’s debate on Pornography. The debate on Friday has been upgraded to the larger Newman A lecture theatre and will start at the normal time of 7pm, with spectators being advised to arrive early to avoid disappointment.

Scott Pepe, President of DebSoc, said: “I am so excited about this Friday’s debate. There seems to be a lot of people talking about it on campus which helps to build the atmosphere and is one of the reasons we have had to move to a bigger room.”

“In true DebSoc fashion we have a controversial motion with a controversial panel to debate it. I thoroughly look forward to a fiery debate in Newman A, and then an enjoyable social in the Ram after!”

Simon Dewhurst, News Team

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

DebSoc begin the year with controversial pornography motion

Image credit: Exeter DebSoc

The University of Exeter Debating Society is tonight preparing for one of the biggest events in its history, with a high profile panel debating a controversial motion on pornography.

The first proposition of the year, entitled ‘This house believes pornography provides a good public service,’ will be discussed at 7pm this evening, in the Amory Moot Room. The proposition will be represented by feminist columnist Jane Fae and erotic author Zak Jane Keir. Opposing the motion will be former porn star Dr Shelley Lubben and anti-porn campaigner Tiffany Leeper. The debate has attracted national media interest and is set to be a highlight of Freshers’ Week. It will be followed by a White T-Shirt social in the Monkey Suit. Scott Pepé, President of DebSoc, explained: “We are known for holding blockbuster debates but I’m really excited about this one. We have our first all-female panel which will provide an interesting perspective. At a time when politicians can’t stop talking about porn, Exeter’s oldest society remains the best place to discuss contemporary issues.”

James Roberts, Third Year History and Politics Student, said: “DebSoc are putting on a strong performance in their first debate with excellent speakers and a controversial motion. It should be a top event for Freshers’ Week and I hope that DebSoc can maintain the high standard in their next few debates.”

Simon Dewhurst, News Team

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

Animal testing: a dissection of the debate

After another lively, informed and incredibly close debate from DebSoc, Peter Tse outlines the main arguments in support of animal testing.

Animals do not suffer: our “self-delusion”?

Following the fanfare of Exeter’s American election, DebSoc moved onto the more closely contested debate titled “Animal Experimentation cannot be justified.” The vote of conscience, used to determine the general consensus of the audience at the start of proceedings, resulted in an unusually large proportion of abstentions (voting neither ‘for’ nor ‘against’) and it was an indication of the evenly-fought event that unfurled.

The proposition was opened by the smooth speech of the animal rights lawyer David Thomas, who wasted no time in painting the shocking picture of the pain and suffering that animals go through in animal experimentation. From this he swiftly reached the crescendo of this speech, by aligning humans and animals in the same equation and thus posing the awkward question –we are all animals after all, why not just experiment on humans? With the idea of vivisection and injecting drugs into the animals still worming around the conscience of the audience, he concluded by revealing some myths, namely the “self-delusion” that animals do not suffer and he opened up the debate to the fact that animals are also tested for cosmetic purposes and not just in the name of research for life-saving drugs.

The esteemed Dr Richard Ryder followed Thomas by reiterating that humans are part of the animal kingdom. Admittedly this argument featured prominently in their collective effort to persuade the audience, with wider references to the role humans plays in the animal kingdom and that we must be responsible for our actions. Ryder expanded on this point, going as far as saying that the pain that animals experience from experimentation is one that is shared in a “community of pain” with us. He took another audacious step in asking the audience to envisage the possibility of the colonisation of our planet by aliens. We are faced with the scenario of aliens experimenting on us and with the same terrifying prospects that animals face, and he questions whether then we would agree with animal experimentation.

The proposition reacted incredulously to the opposition’s claim that “human beings are special”, as an argument to justify our Darwinistic superiority to animals, their next point that humans have every right to experiment on animals seeing that they do not fight back represented the dichotomy of the issue, between those that believe humans are indeed ‘special’ and those that hail animal rights. The final vote gave the opposition the, albeit marginal, victory, but the close contest was the greatest impression that remains.