Letters to Felix
Dear Felix,
As another bike goes missing presumed stolen from Beit Quad, not mine but a friends, I wonder what could be done to try to stop the thieves doing this. Then it occurred to me why not make it so that the entrance and exit were positioned over by a security room. Then if we gave all members of college (staff and students) some form of ID they could identify themselves as they entered or exited with a bike.
Revolutionary ideals that would cost a fortune, the cost of converting that room at the entrance that dispenses snooker equipment and perhaps installing some gates would run to millions possibly, and as for removing the individuals rights by making everyone have a ID card I can see the court of human rights having a field day.
Yours heavily labouring a point
Gary Smith (Elec Eng PG)
Yes, it does make you wonder how a bike can get stolen from the most secure area in college...
political bias in Felix
Dear Alex
While Felix’s long established neutrality was severely strained by last week’s front page news story, which many saw as advocating a vote for new election, this week’s new columnist seems to believe that your paper is a party political instrument. Readers may be used to Mr Baker’s right wing fascist tendencies, but to have a writer openly advocate voting for the Liberal Democrats was just too much.
Previous issues of Felix with the aforementioned Tory ranter have been intensely annoying and I did wonder whether any balance would be applied with alternative view points. Then came along Hamish with his brand of ‘wet conservatism’ to further emphasise your journal’s right of centre tendencies.
But was a column dedicated to the possibilities of a Lib Dem revolution with an exhortation to vote for Ms Osei’s favoured group really balance? Are we to expect a column urging students to vote New Labour, and what about Old Labour, the Referendum Party and the Official Monster Raving Loony Party?
With the General Election rapidly approaching I would urge you to publicly state where your paper stands on this issue. Would it be too much to ask for Ms Osei and particularly the ravings of Messers Baker and ‘Common’ to be controlled, if not gagged?
In the hope of an independent and neutral student newspaper,
Delegations from the parties you mentioned have yet to beat a path to my door, so for now we shall have to suffice with the metered opinions of those who are prepared to put pen to paper.
In any case, I would refute the suggestion that Miss Osei’s piece came down firmly for the Liberal Democrats. The view that some form of change, as opposed to the united front presented by the two main parties on most issues, would be beneficial for the country is a valid one. The Liberal Democrats, coming next in line and with a sizeable political heritage themselves, would be the logical suggestion for someone purporting to support a new direction for British politics.
imperial totty nil point
Dear Felix,
In response to your "Imperial Totty" article in last weeks Felix, I would like to make the following comment to the female student quoted. Although not all the 71.4% of the male students at IC are "top notch", of the remaining 28.6%, not all could be considered to be women, but more appropriately could be described as farmyard animals.
Offended IC student
Dear Felix,
Having read your News in Brief article ‘Imperial Totty’ I felt I had to reply. Bollocks.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The law of averages dictates that at least a few of the 6000 males at IC must measure up enough for the mere 2000 birds, whereas they, frankly, fall into the category ‘rough’. Perhaps if some Cosmo readers would come sharkin’ it would provide us with some decent scenery. For a change.
Signed on behalf of the frustrated male majority of Imperial who have standards by a selection of Imperial’s manhood
Considering the fact that the source of the article had nothing to do with the female population of the college, these two replies seem to go after them rather unfairly. Are we perhaps seeing some inferiority complex coming out here boys? It would be a shame if the hordes of Cosmo reading women, who are without a doubt making a beeline for our august institution as I write, were to be put off by the examples of IC ‘manhood’ that are presented here.
So I suggest that all of you (and I note that the authors of these letters have hidden behind the shield of anonymity) turn yourselves in to the ‘grotesque IC male’ amnesty that Felix is willing to operate for the betterment of our environment. That should leave the better adjusted people behind to lead reasonable, valuable fat-free lives.
review blues
After reading the review of the new U2 album, POP, in Something for the Weekend, I felt compelled to write. There is a serious need to set the record straight for any of the readers out there who feel slightly bemused.
It’s a sad state of affairs when the reviewer finds a need to waste half of his column space on attacking the band’s new direction. U2’s fans have not been brought up on steady "eco-rock and emotive ballads". True, those who appreciate U2’s creative drive and eagerness to include new ideas and new directions will appreciate the album the most. But those who do not, have either been spoon fed a diet of Oasis & Blur three times a day for the last 2 years or they find no joy in change. Lets face it U2 have been so successful because of the ability to incorporate new style and direction into their music. Not by sitting back and relying on the same tried and tested formula.
Another point which I found quite hard to comprehend was the slamming "Bono and the boys" got for continuing to give the public a show. Rather than spitting and sticking two fingers up at any question or challenge posed to them, they come right back and produce an album with all the hype that goes with a U2 production. Hype and change are what we’ve come to know and love about the boy’s.
The hype aside, the album on a first listening did not seem to give all that was promised. However on a second listen it becomes apparent why we’ve waited in anticipation for so long to be given the next installment. The wait was worth while and if any of the reviewer listened to the album more than once and gave a shit about what he was doing, then this would have become apparent.
Discotheque was a production which shocked and wet the appetites of the waiting public when released a few weeks ago. Bono is in his element writing some moving ballads such as If God Will Send His Angels and If You Wear That Velvet Dress. There is so much to take in during one listen, electro experimentation, soaring melodies, and emotive lyrics, forgetting to mention the breaks and Mullens strongest drumming to date, which does far more than keep the rhythm. The rest of the album delivers as far as I’m concerned, roll on the tour in the summer. How will they top the Zoo tv tour? is the question on most peoples lips. I’m sure we won’t be disappointed.
A final word to any of the reviewers. Listen to what the fuck your reviewing and don’t dismiss something because that’s the easy option. And remember we are people concerned with change not sitting stagnant dismissing any progress, simply because its not the norm.
A Jarvis (Maths I)
Sometimes it would be nice to get something right! I agree with a lot of what you say, though I would point out that you are speaking form the perspective of a U2 fan. The reviewer in question wasn’t.
If you feel so strongly about music, then we want you in our team of reviewers! Come along to the meetings in the Felix Office (far-left corner of Beit Quad), every Friday lunchtime at 1.30pm.
long live the queen
Over the past few years I have learned to groan every time I see an article about the pros and cons of the monarchy. This is not because the subject does not interest me, far from it, but because of the frustrating poorness of the arguments usually advocated by the monarchists side. As a general supporter of the principle of Parliamentary Monarchy I know that there are sound reasons for retaining the institution; reasons concerned with the liberty and welfare of teh people, not just the usual polemic about symbolism, tradition and the tourist trade.
The head of the British state is in her position by virtue of her hereditary right. Many people find this unacceptable, but this does not mean that although all other public office may be fought over in whatever unscrupulous and vulgar manner the politicians see fit, the highest office of all is above the dishonourable means so often employed in the game of politics. I see this as an opportunity for te monarchy to restrain the excesses of grasping politicians and to protect the people from their various forms of corruption, whilst in no way interfering with the legislative process. Historically, the monarchy has done much to protect the people from the excesses of Parliament often suffering for it. In a republic, the head of state would most likely be another Conservative politician intent on lining his own pocket.
Yours sincerely,
Despite failing to live up to its promise of expelling the tired and painful cliches that surround the monarchy debate, I find your letter intriguing as it casts the Queen as squeaky clean against the grubby common politicians. This is viewpoint is rather too simplistic, however I do not have the time to adequately discuss this issue, maybe next term!
green green grass
With spring fast approaching, I have been looking forward to the days in the summer term when the Queen’s Lawn becomes the place to go for a quick fix of greenery and sunshine (or shade!). As a result, I was more than a little perturbed to see an item on "Queen’s Lawn and Dalby Court" on page 5 of that august organ of propaganda aimed at the alumni, IC Matters.
This article suggests that not only are college looking forward eagerly to the transformation of the Queen’s Lawn into some sort of bizarre water park, but they also plan to turn Dalby Court into a car park, and put a landscaped terrace on top.
As far as I can tell, this means no more grass for us students to loiter on. Presumably a few extra benches might be provided, but I can’t see college shelling out for seating for hundreds of students.
The college is already extremely short of green spaces, and these latest plans will, as far as I can tell, leave only one grass verge for those of us who prefer to sit on grass rather than concrete. In addition, both the Queen’s Lawn and Dalby Court provide a lift to the spirits even when one is rushing past on the way to the library or along the walkway.
Yours sincerely,
high times for all
Re:High Times in last issue
The issue of drug "abuse" is always clouded with ignorance, disinformation and preconceptions. Not meaning to criticise the authors of the article, it was claimed that all "safe drugs" are "far more dangerous and addictive than tobacco and alcohol."
To the best of my knowledge cannabis, amphetamine, LSD and MDMA are not physically addictive, unlike tobacco and alcohol. People may come to feel that they need the mental effects of the drug to face certain situations - psychological addiction - but their bodies will have no cravings.
A few more facts that people should know are: no-one has ever died from taking too much LSD (and I would imagine the numbers for death through cannabis overdose are fairly minute); the deaths caused by ecstacy are nearly all caused through heatstroke or drinking too much water rather than from the direct effects of the drug (NB - most of the deaths "caused" by E are due as much to the amphetamine that is often taken along with it rather than the E itself); it is statistically more dangerous to eat your first peanut than take your first E.
The article also claimed that legalising soft drugs would lead more people to try them (a positive thing in my opinion) and then on to harder drugs. Admittedly if someone is buying soft drugs from a dealer regularly then they may be offered some harder drugs and so a connection may be arguable, but if that same person is going to an off-licence to buy the same soft drugs then there will be no need for them to meet anyone who can supply them with hard drugs, surely reducing the chance of further experimentation?
In my limited experience, alcohol causes much more social problems than any other drug. If everyone went out and did ecstacy instead of getting pissed then there really would be little need for police to patrol the streets looking to stop violence as there wouldn’t be any. And people would have a lot more fun.
Drug addiction is a terrible thing (although I have only experienced this through one or two alcoholic friends, and most of the people I know who smoke) and naturally I would not advocate the rampant use of all drugs. My standpoint is that if people want a different drug of choice rather than alcohol then it should be available. I have much more to say on this subject but this letter is far too long already.
Yours faithfully,
