Images: Philippa Grafton

York’s women badminton side pushed their Leeds opponents to the last, but eventually lost 5-3 to the league leaders.

With York second, they knew they needed to win to have any chance of winning the BUCS league but it wasn’t to be as Leeds proved to be the victors in a highly entertaining match.

The first two doubles matches kept the match square as York captain Clare Breare and doubles partner Rachael Farrington were successful in defeating Eleanor Sach and Alex Brown 21-8, 21-16.

At the same time, Georgia Lee and Leeds captain Gemma Wilkinson defeated Beth Cowell and Louise Kemp of York 21-17, 21-15 to level the match. Cowell and Kemp fought hard but were caught by the persistent drop shots of their opponents.

Next up was a singles match between Dani Farsiani of York and Rae Lamour of Leeds. The Leeds player dominated from the offset despite Farsiani playing well. The Leeds player had an answer for everything and won comfortably 21-5, 21-5.

York were waiting for their second singles player to arrive so instead a doubles match was played between the two winning teams in their respective first matches. This was a fine back and forth match with all players involved performing excellently. It was the quality of York which shone through and they completed an 11-21, 21-16, 21-19 victory.

The next doubles match saw York take the lead in the tie and make it 3-2. Cowell and Kemp were never troubled by their Leeds opponents Sach and Brown. 21-11, 21-13 was the final score.

With all of the doubles matches completed, Leeds were confident of overturning the deficit and they did, emphatically. They levelled the match when Helena Lewczynska defeated Farsiani 21-2, 21-6.

Just five minutes before York would have had to forfeit the remaining two matches their second singles competitor Katie Wilson arrived on the scene but she was powerless in facing Rae Lamour and Lewczynska.

Lamour defeated Wilson 21-3, 21-5 while Lewczynska won 21-2, 21-4. This meant that Leeds won the match 5-3 overall and it will now take some major shocks in the league to stop them from being champions.

York captain, Clare Breare was positive after the defeat stating that she was “very proud of the team” and knew that it was going to be a “very tough match” to win.

Overall, Leeds deserved their victory but York will make sure they stay close enough to Leeds to take the title if they were to slip up. York will be hoping to secure second place at the same time with Northumbria pushing them all the way.

The BUCS table shows York and Newcastle level on points. Today, this was shown to be a fallacy.

The gulf in class could not have been more evident as York showed an incredible desire to win, a mentality that was not matched by their opponents and led to a swift straight sets victory.

Both teams gently eased their way into the match, matching each other point-for-point in these early stages. York’s fighting spirit was evident with their net-play, dominating the battles in this area.

This continued until the middle of the game, the score at 14-14. It was at this point when York decisively sparked into life.

The team in black and gold chained a succession of point victories together, quickly building up a large margin on their astounded opponents. For all their early work, Newcastle had no answers, with York promptly sweeping to victory 25-17.

Newcastle hoped to quickly forget the latter part of that game, showing an attacking intent early into the second period. They soon built a 4-1 margin, helped by several York mistakes. Their opponents played patiently however, and, upon regaining the serve, they began pinning Newcastle back, eventually succeeding at 8-8.

This scoreline saw the point of the match from York, with some instinctive reactive play. A Newcastle smash looked completely unplayable, but two quick York blocks was followed by Christina Sechel smashing from deep. The ball crashed home, leaving Newcastle quite stunned.

This signalled the beginning of a period that saw York win some frankly ludicrous points, playing with a bullish, ‘never-say-die’ attitude. Every single ball was fought for, every lost cause chased down.

The entire team were pulling off incredible shots at a frenetic rate: fighting against improbable odds to keep the ball in play, rescuing poor passes by a fingertip, blocking every Newcastle smash at the net.

At this point, it appeared that York could do no wrong, steaming into an 18-9 lead. Newcastle were understandably showing signs of frustration by this time, and, although they attempted to rally, York again matched them, finishing the game at 25-17.

The third game opened tentatively points-wise, neither side able to take a grip on their opponent, despite bearing witness to some frantic play, with several players throwing their body on the line for the fate of their team.

Again however, it was York that managed to find some breathing space, with efficient play and mistakes from a nervy Newcastle delivering an 11-6 lead. York continued on this path, leading to Newcastle calling a time out at 14-7, their final roll of the dice.

In another pivotal play, York remained composed enough to win the first point after the break. Both sides pushed each other to the limits, with both straining to keep the ball in play at times. However, it was York that snatched the opportunity to win it, touching the ball over the net and out of Newcastle reach.

It was here that Newcastle finally began to push, beginning to build a bit of momentum for the first time in the match. However, this came too little, too late. York’s net play was simply stronger, and they were able to grind over the finishing post, again winning 25-17.

Captain Alex Mitterhuber was rightly pleased with her side’s performance, stating “It was a really important victory for us. Looking at the league table, we’re even on points with Newcastle, and it’s always good to get a win over your rivals. Everyone put in a great performance today, and I’m really happy.”

York’s women’s basketball side endured an agonising defeat in their top-of-the-table clash against Bradford.

In a match that was tight until the final whistle and could have gone either way, the away side ran out 38-35 winners.

Despite Federica Barretta getting some points on the board early on, York started slowly and, even with a couple of nice baskets from Marta Marscionkaite and Lydie Mariutto, they found themselves 13-9 down at the end of the first quarter.

The trend of Bradford dominating the offensive rebounds and making better use of their possession continued at the start of the second period, as they widened the gap to 18-9.

But a wonderful move that saw captain Janne Billiet score with a beautiful lay-up after a steal and quick pass by Mariutto seemed to change the complexion of the game.

York suddenly found their rhythm and were highly unlucky to be trailing 19-18 at half-time, the highlight of the second quarter again coming from Mariutto, who drove through the heart of the Bradford defence and scored with a nonchalant lay-up.

Into the third quarter, and York soon took a deserved lead; Stefania Mataragka produced a classy jump shot, before Christin Kirchhuebel added to the score line to make it 25-21.

The visitors fought back though and when they managed to draw level at 25-25 going into the final quarter it was no surprise, given the pressure they put York under and the home side’s profligacy from the free-throw line.

The fourth quarter was an incredibly tense affair, but in hindsight the away side were on top throughout.

York conceded possession on two occasions and were made to pay, leaving them to chase the game.

Billiet and Mariutto lead the charge, but York’s efforts seemed to be in vain as they were repeatedly caught on the counter-attack.

An impressive three-pointer from Bradford seemed to have put the game beyond York, at 36-30, but a stylish lay-up from Mataragka gave them hope.

Barretta then showed incredible composure from the free-throw line to bring York within a point of their opponents and set up a grandstand finish.

Bradford hit back, with their physical approach paying dividends, and the match finished 38-35 after a last-gasp three-point attempt from Mataragka bounced out off the rim, much to the dismay of the vociferous home crowd.

York captain Billiet gave her reaction at full time: “Last time we played well but lost by 13, and today we put up a really good fight to lose by three points. The problem is that they’ve got a proper coach who knows how to train them, but still it could have gone either way because we’ve got such good players here.”

Images: Philippa Grafton

The men’s basketball firsts were brought back to earth with a bump, as they succumbed to a disappointing 62-43 defeat to Leeds Met today.

Confidence was high going into the game after last week’s dominant Cup victory over Sunderland but York were unable to replicate that performance, instead continuing their poor form in the league.

The match started very promisingly for the home side, though. Cameron Lange and Dan Baark were the stars of the show, as they quickly build up a six-point lead.

Baark showed his skill to score with a perfectly executed jump shot, before Andreas Boedt rode three challenges on his way to scoring a sumptuous lay-up.

That lightning start had seen York take a 15-7 advantage, but they lost their rhythm towards the end of the quarter and were made to pay; Leeds Met’s class began to show as they levelled the scores at 15-15 at the end of the first quarter.

The game was proving to be a low-scoring encounter and, with Baark, Lange and Boedt off the court, York lost their attacking edge.

The trio were soon brought back from the bench, but by that time the visitors had opened up a six-point gap.

Captain Sam Bentley hit a beautiful three-pointer to reduce the deficit, but with the hosts unable to make any headway at the free-throw line, Carnegie took a 25-22 lead into half-time.

The third quarter was when things really unravelled for York, as they struggled to cope with the pace and cutting edge of the opposition’s offence.

The visiting side’s Bodeaga and Sodbayam were tearing through the home defence at will, and despite a reprieve late in the quarter courtesy of Bentley, York found themselves trailing 48-28 and surely out of the game.

Lange found some form at the beginning of the final quarter, scoring ten points in the space of a few minutes to give York some hope.

But as the match drew to a close the end result became inevitable, with nothing seeming to go York’s way, the home side increasingly frustrated at a cascade of missed opportunities that were punished on the counter attack.

Ultimately, the match ended at 62-43 to Leeds Met and captain Sam Bentley expressed his dissatisfaction with the performance at full-time: “Disappointing, in a word. After the first quarter we were dominating and scored 15 points in the first five minutes, but then we only managed 30 for the rest of the match.

“Our offence was static – something we need to work on hugely in training. The attitude was initially there, but for some reason we flat lined. That was a hugely winnable game that could have sealed our position in this league, but now we’ve made it difficult for ourselves. We should have won today.”

Images: Philippa Grafton

The men’s water polo firsts braved the conditions on Saturday and travelled to Liverpool for their remaining BUCS fixtures.

After losing to Liverpool earlier in the season, the York team were under pressure to bring themselves up the group table and produce a win.

The first match saw the optimistic York side pitted against Manchester seconds. Manchester dominated from the outset, aided by York who gave the opposition plenty of opportunities through a series of bad passes.

As Manchester tried to extend their opening lead, York keeper and captain Chris Snowden ‘accidently’ moved the goal down into the water while blocking a shot. This afforded Manchester a successful penalty to bring the score at the end of the first quarter to 2-0.

However the resilient York team improved their play as the game progressed and began to threaten the Manchester defence with shots from Michael Perkins and Yaroslav Magnus-Hamblett that unfortunately went wide.

The rapid and exhilarating play continued with plenty of shots from both teams but it was Manchester that succeeded again with a powerful shot that went straight past Snowden.

A foul on Perkins meant York went a man up, giving a great opportunity for a comeback and a determined Ali Holmes shot from the top of the arc soon gave York their first goal of the day.

This seemed to energise the York team and it wasn’t long before Tim Doran looked set to give York another. However an outrageous foul on Doran saw the offending Manchester player excluded and a penalty for York; Doran scored, bringing the final score to a respectable 6-2 to Manchester.

Still yearning for a win, York came back unbelievably strongly as they faced Liverpool seconds in their second match. With an all-round impressive display of teamwork, York managed a staggering goal a minute in the first quarter courtesy of Ali Holmes, Tim Doran, Joe Marshall and Yari Magnus-Hamblett.

York continued to impress with a superior defence that thwarted all Liverpool’s attacks to ensure Snowden’s goal was under no threat.

With constant possession in front of the Liverpool goal, a timely pass from Doran allowed Perkins to outwit the defence to score with a remarkable back shot.

Liverpool persevered, with a near goal that came flying from the halfway line which Snowden fortunately saved with the tips of his fingers, but York maintained the upper hand with further goals from both Perkins and Doran working in the pit.

However tensions rose in the last minute as an aggressive Liverpool player dunked Snowden for saving another goal.

With York a man up, Joe Marshall managed to break down the pool to put the ball past the Liverpool keeper in the top corner of the goal as the whistle blew. With such spectacular play, York deserved their 12-0 victory.

York didn’t let their standards slip in their final match against Chester, where York’s arc formation and faultless passing proved a winning combination.

Chester surprisingly opened the scoring but Doran and Perkins made sure of a York victory, scoring seven goals between them in the first half.

Although Chester fought back, Snowden did not appear challenged by the placement of shots and performed a string of saves to ensure York maintained possession.

The speed and endurance of York allowed Ali Holmes the opportunity to score another spectacular goal, along with Luca Iling whose shot deflected off the keeper’s fingers into the back of the net. The result was a comfortable win for York with the final score 11-2.

Snowden was proud of his team’s performance, commenting “I think we generally played pretty well. Our first match today was quite disappointing but they were a better team and our other matches were brilliant. Third in the group is a good position for us, especially considering our significant goal difference.”

Man of the tournament: Ali Holmes

York: Chris Snowden (C), Tim Doran, Rob Holmes, Joesph Ramage, Luca Illing, Michael Perkins, Yaroslav Magnus-Hamblett, Ali Holmes, Joesph Marshall, Daniel Chen, Stuart Paterson, Andrew Woodward

Clint Eastwood’s ‘J Edgar’ is a portrayal of ruthlessness, loyalty and irony. John Edgar Hoover was the founder of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and ruled with an iron fist for almost 40 years, eventually becoming an infamous US national symbol of justice and enforcement. He was a man in personal turmoil and, while having potentially damaging information on his bosses, was ironically terrified of his own such information being publicised.

Script writer, Dustin Lance Black’s portrayal of Hoover is one of a man succumbed to his mother and repressive of his sexuality. The conflict within Hoover’s portrayed persona of attempting to simultaneously please his mother and obtain personal happiness in his relationship with the FBI’s second in command and close personal friend, Clyde Tolson, sets up a screenplay which promises a personal battle of emotion against a backdrop of a quest to become USA’s most powerful man. Much like the Iron Lady, Eastwood jumps cyclically from Hoover’s burst to prominence in US polity in the 1930′s to the final years of his long reign in the 1960s.

The eponymous character is played from beginning to end by Golden Globe winner Leonardo DiCaprio. DiCaprio seems to play the role with a lack of flare, and gives a laboured portrayal of a man difficult to master. This is mainly down to the neutral, stale and ultimately unconvincing portrayal of one of America’s most reticent political animals. This neutral reserved stance stems from the weak approach in defining Hoover’s character in the film Eastwood jumps from J Edgar’s conflict with his latent homosexuality to his ruthless, dogged, and corrupt quest for power. While Eastwood brings to the fore the characteristics most associated with Hoover he never scratches beyond the surface. This in turn gives reason to DiCaprio’s unconvincing and subdued performance.

Furthermore, while the movie shows the audience the ideas and acts which made Hoover so famous, ranging from his belief in forensic fingerprinting to his strong efforts in defeating communist rebel groups within the USA, the film never brings forth the sly genius which made Hoover a man so feared within the heart of America’s political establishment. What’s worse is that his life defining ideals are undermined by the unsavoury and seemingly ridiculous portrayal of his cross dressing catharsis in his mother’s (portrayed by Judi Dench) clothes.

However veering away from the satisfactory portrayal of Hoover, Naomi Watts portraying Hoover’s loyal, unrelenting press secretary Helen Gandi, in conjunction with Armie Hammer, who delivers a brilliant representation of Tolson give more credence to the film. Tolson’s portrayal is one of a likable, suave and yet tricky and naive loyal deputy in chief. Rather unfortunately Hammer, while portraying Tolson in his old age, is let down by the distasteful and somewhat exaggerated work done by the make up team. In conclusion the film never moved gears, instead succumbing to being stuck in the middle of two themes, which were never fully grappled, thus the viewer leaves the film without any new or profound understanding of a man in the middle of the USA’s most transformative years.

The truth is though, that all this shouldn’t matter. Just like we have to tolerate the unerringly moronic presence of the cast of TOWIE on our screens, we can tolerate the papers will be full of Joey Barton’s latest genius outbursts, pretending to understand ancient Chinese proverbs or the words of Oscar Wilde. And just like we grudgingly submit to existing in the same universe as Katie Price and Peter Andre, we can do the same with Robbie Savage and his stupid hair.

But it does matter. Because occasionally, when you’ve picked through all the endless, mindless and pointless drivel, you’ll find a piece of news with very real and harmful reverberations right here in the real world.

For months the papers have been full of accusation, rumour and speculation about what may or may not have happened between John Terry and Anton Ferdinand. Without going over the same ground that has been trampled to death by the mainstream media, suffice to say, the issue of race has once again reared its contextually ambiguous head and it seems everyone simply must open their traps about it. From journalists to ex-pros, to the PFA, to the panel of Loose Women (whose opinion we should apparently care about), everyone with a mouth or a keyboard has had to share their thoughts on an incident they were not present to, and have no true knowledge of.

Of course, people pretending to know more than they clearly do has long been common place in football, but this is different. We’re not deciphering the intricacies of the offside rule or questioning the merits of the zonal-marking; we’re debating whether a man has committed a serious criminal offense and re-opened an incredibly delicate can of worms that we thought football in our country had long ago sealed.

By taking the armband from the England captain, The FA has blatantly and gutlessly succumbed to media pressure. If Fabio Capello had made the decision to take the captaincy off Terry, had he cited the need for calm in the build-up to the Euros, had he assured us all that it was a football decision taken to give us the best chance of success while at no time punishing Terry or implying his guilt it would have been somewhat understandable. The travelling circus that accompanies England to every tournament is plenty distracting enough without a captain with a race charge hanging over his head, and it could be easily accepted that for the sake of the team, a change has been necessitated.

But when the FA stick their nose in, when they read the red tops and use the headlines as some sort of opinion poll and then declare they are taking these actions to preserve the stature of English sport’s most revered position, they make a mockery of that position and the so-called principles they say that it stands upon.

I do not know if John Terry did the things he’s been accused of. I don’t know if he is a racist, or if he said a racist thing. I don’t know if I should believe his word, or Ferdinand’s, or even, God help us, Joey Barton’s. But then again, neither do the FA.

What we do know, is that at this exact moment in time, as I type this and as the FA took their decision, John Terry is still an innocent man. He remains as such until proven otherwise, and any punishment administered before that time is every bit as unjustifiable as his alleged crime would be.

It’s hard to criticise an organisation for taking a stand against racism and it would be lovely to think the FA had done this with only noble intentions at heart. But they didn’t. And as long as our game’s governing body seek approval from a media that cares only about ratings and readerships, their crusade will mean even less than the unfounded nonsense that gets spouted about it.

However, things did not go to plan, England succumbed to a 3-0 whitewash and looked like a shadow of the team who broke all sorts of records in 2011. Pitches which were flat in the first days of each test match bamboozled the England batsmen, and at times they looked amateurish with poor shot selection and non-existent footwork. England must learn the lessons from this series, and fast, as they face Sri Lanka in similar conditions in March and April.

The whitewash defeat means that if South Africa beat New Zealand 3-0 in the upcoming Test series then England will lose their number one ranking. The series defeat was so shocking because experts were predicting that it would be the bowlers who would struggle on flat, docile pitches. The direct opposite occurred. Not one English batsman managed to score a century, with Alastair Cook the only man getting anywhere near, scoring 94 in the first innings in the second Test match in Abu Dhabi. The persistent problem England faced was that of spin bowling with Saeed Ajmal, Abdur Rehman and Mohammad Hafeez taking 48 wickets between them. Ajmal was the most impressive and he single-handedly wreaked havoc with figures of 7-55 in the first innings of the first Test match.

Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss must now react to the consistent failures of batsmen throughout the series with Eoin Morgan and Ian Bell’s places looking particularly vulnerable in the team. Bell scored 51 runs in six innings and was dismissed on four occasions by Saeed Ajmal, suggesting that the Warwickshire man who has been in such fine form needs to adopt a new approach in the subcontinent against spin. Similarly, Morgan only scored 82 runs at an average of 13.66 and was out to spin five times. The Irishman looked inexperienced and unsure of the best approach to take and this was reflected in his low scores.

Another man who has to be under pressure is Kevin Pietersen. KP, who is generally regarded as the best natural talent England have at their disposal, has consistently been troubled by left-arm spinners and this problem resurfaced in the UAE. Abdur Rehman continually troubled the charismatic Pietersen and, as Nasser Hussain has stated, “he has to face up to the fact that he has a problem against left-arm spin; the sooner he does that, the sooner he can start solving the problem.”

So who should England turn to if they are to make changes to the batting line up in their Test side?

The obvious choice would be Ravi Bopara – he has been in and around the side for the past year or two and when selected as had reasonable success. He has good footwork against spin and has played in the IPL against elite spinners. Bopara has to be selected if you are looking to combat the effectiveness of spin. Ian Bell would be the likely man to miss out. Another player who has been talked about is the young Leicestershire star, James Taylor. He averages nearly 50 in the County Championship and has experienced conditions in Sri Lanka on the recent tour with the England Lions.

England coach Andy Flower no doubt remains cautious about making such radical changes and is convinced that the players selected for this tour are the best England has to offer. However, being bowled out for under 200 on four separate occasions, and an appalling 72 in the second innings of the second test chasing just 145 to win proves that there is a significant problem. Former England captain Michael Vaughan suggests that the “same players should be selected for the Sri Lanka series”, but many other critics are calling for a rethink. For too long, Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott have been relied on to score massive runs, taking the pressure off of the middle and lower order batsmen and this series has awoken many English fans to the problems that the players have in adapting to subcontinent conditions.

One positive for England was the exceptional bowling performances and the re-emergence of Monty Panesar, who took 14 wickets in the two matches he played. He was supported superbly by Stuart Broad, Graeme Swann and James Anderson who all had success with the ball. If the batsman had done their jobs it would be quite conceivable that we would be talking of an English whitewash and the Test side would now be firmly established as the best in the world.

England will hope this is a minor diversion on their quest for world domination and this series has proven to be a major wake up call for any England players who had become complacent.

Jennifer Rose Hammond, Nestlé Sales Graduate

How soon did you know you were being considered for a job with Nestlé?
Well basically it was never openly said. And then it came to the day of our presentations. And they actually sat us down after, all the interns, and said we’re not considering hiring anyone. The next day though, a few of us got offered jobs but only three interns out of seven. They were really cautious, as they were nervous about hiring people who they think may change their minds within a year.

Do you know much about what that role’s going to entail?
Formally, it’s six months selling in the field so I could be anywhere in the UK literally selling chocolate to Joe in his Newsagent, which means I have plenty of freebies.

We’ll come to you for chocolate!
And the other six months is in York or Croydon in the office, working in part of the team like I was over the summer. There’s also the possibility I might not even go into that formal scheme, as they know me already so they might just put me into an open job.

As you’re on a graduate scheme, what’s the starting package they’ve offered you?
Basically, I got the pension plan through in the post, and I just couldn’t believe it there were so many benefits: flexitime that you can convert into health insurance, links with other companies, discounts from everywhere, and because I’ll be in the field I’ll get a company car. Also, the holidays are really good, and yeah, basically free supply of chocolate all the time, and I will be on a really good starting salary too (between £25,000 – £30,000). I also get a welcome bonus in my first year! Woohoo!

And is there a formal career ladder they’ve set out for you?
Not formally. But you can see it. You can see it with the grad students and they’re very conscious about keeping them. Once they’ve spent all their money and time recruiting them they don’t really want you going on the grad scheme and leaving after two years.

Tell me about the recruitment process for the internship.
Well I had to submit my CV and I sent them a cover letter off my own back and then I had online tests. Numerical, psychometric and language ones.

And then?
I was given this brief and I had to do a three-minute video of myself and pitch it to them – and it was quite similar to what I’d done in York Entrepreneurs, so I was well prepared. Then I got invited to an assessment centre where I had an interview, a group task, more numerical tests, and two individual tasks.

So returning to your experience at Nestlé, how did the internship presentation go?
I came up with a specific plan for our products this year. How they should be launched into Asda and some principles based on how the launches should look like. And I created a massive report as well. We were just meant to do a presentation but I had so much stuff. I think it’s a bit about initiative. I sent the cover letter off my own back, and that report, and I think it just shows you care a little bit more.

Giving advice to first and second year students, is there one thing you wish you’d known earlier?
I’d definitely say get as much work experience and extra curricular experience as you can. Don’t push it too far, do a lot in first year and then find what you really like and pursue it, so you can talk about it a lot, so it’s definitely something you have a passion about.

So where do you see yourself in five years?
I’ve been speaking to a lot of people who are taking years out, and people will hate me for this, but I do feel that my life is quite planned out for me and I’m only 20. I can see myself in 30 years still working at Nestlé.

One thing I’d say about Nestlé is that they went about making me a Nestlé person. Literally a brand ambassador. Thinking about it as a company that makes you love it and think, ‘I’m never going to eat Cadbury again!’

Have you eaten Cadbury since?
Well maybe… it’s the Mars bars. It’s Kraft – I can’t resist it.

Bad Jenni! And I was going to ask you if that’s on your contract. If there are any restrictions?
It’s not in your contract but if you’re seen eating a competitor product, it’s frowned upon. Well, in the building…

Jennifer Rose Hammond, Nestlé Sales Graduate

As all Arts students know, there comes a point in your degree when you finally have to think about what career your degree can be applied towards. We all hope we’ll have figured it out by our final year. However, no matter how little or how much career preparation you’ve done, on the first day of final year, the notion that the real world is really about to come knocking, will still hit you like a ton of bricks.

However, third-year History and Politics student, Jennifer Rose Hammond, shows that this conundrum can be avoided after landing a graduate sales job following her summer internship at Nestlé.

Jenni, so firstly when did you seriously start thinking about what you want to do after leaving York?
The beginning of second year – I was made aware by the department that internships were available and I kind of just saw it as I was in my second year so I had the time to apply for internships.

At that point, did you know what you wanted to do?
Well what happened was my housemate asked if I wanted to take part in a York Entrepreneurs Challenge called ‘the Market’. I joined a team and one of our tasks was to come up with an idea for a new product for Nestlé and pitch it to them. We also had to pitch a cocktail idea to Monty’s and I just loved coming up with all the ideas, coming up with the presentation, and pitching it to them. I thought I want to do something like this, so then I looked into Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) firms.

So you decided you wanted to try to get an FMCG internship in the summer – how many places did you apply to?
John Lewis and Nestlé were the two. At home (the summer before second year) I really put a lot of work into the John Lewis one. (Following a Careers Service lady reading it) I submitted it and I did some character tests and I just got rejected.

And you know the psychometric tests can be quite demoralising…
Yeah, it was an online one and literally it was about me as a person, I wouldn’t even call it a psychometric test. And it was like ‘you’re not matched to John Lewis’. And I thought that’s a bit depressing, like my personality isn’t good enough.

I thought about applying for BP and then I got that rejection from John Lewis so I thought I’m not going to bother with the BP one.

BP?
It was to do with marketing and I was like ‘oh, I’m not going to bother, I’m not a ‘sciencey’ person – if I couldn’t get through John Lewis, I’m not going to get through that.’ So I focused on the Nestlé one and really put everything into it.

And when did you hear back from Nestlé?
I submitted it not long before Christmas and then I didn’t hear anything till just before Easter.

Did you know how many applicants they had for internships and how many they were offering?
No. I know they’d normally offered four internships but because of the number of applicants, they ended up offering seven.

What was your role?
Basically, it was project based – we were each assigned a different manager so my manager was in charge of sales for Asda – he sells all the chocolate to Asda.

Pretty good job.
Yeah. I was looking at how Nestlé could launch their new products into Asda, and basically coming up with a blueprint, a path they could do every time – I had to do a lot of research, talk to a lot of people, and they were really big on me getting to know the company, understanding if I wanted to work there and getting to know the products. I then had to pitch my solution to the company.

Was the internship very structured?
No. I definitely had my own ownership over my project and I sat with everyone so I was constantly talking about it – we had like four meetings every week.

To be continued…

In an unusual turn of events, this looks to be the year of the media maestros stepping into the ring. Whilst us campus media types are usually content to serve as harsh critics from the sidelines of student politics , rather than get our hands dirty, this set of rumoured candidates could break the mould.

Ex-Deputy Station Manager and current treasurer of URY, Helen Marrison, is apparently putting her name forward for the role, keen to swap the Vanbrugh paradise shed for the glossier offices of James. Indeed, her recently adopted position as chair of the Student Development Assembly makes it seems all the more likely she will declare her candidacy.

An outside to the YUSU clique, and with a wealth of media society experience, Marrison could definitely bring some interesting policies to the table. In any case, TR is definitely not adverse to having a media- sympathetic ear on the ticket.

But the might of the media looks to be divided, with ex-Nouse sub-editor, and YUSU volunteering officer Hannah Brearley also with her eyes on the prize. Her breadth of volunteering involvement, as well as her closeness to the current Sabb team could bring in the votes and having won two YUSU elections in a row, she is no stranger to winning over the student masses.

Supposedly throwing some muscle into the mix is last years Vanbrugh press and publicity rep Chris West. Involved in Rugby and Badminton, it certainly gives him a strong voting base from those who haunt the Ziggy’s basement of a Wednesday evening. With Kallum Taylor already making his election ambitions clear, could this be the year of dual Vanbrugh victory?

And finally, TR has a sneaking suspician that RAG officer Baxter Willis will emerge as another nominee for the activities crown. Willis is a familiar face around both the YUSU offices and campus in general, and has an impressive record as RAG officer that includes bringing the first ever ice rink to campus. But will this be enough to skate him to success?

Never one to ignore a tip-off, TR has also heard wild rumour that YUM chair Jaime Riley is putting her name in the game, though the same source reported that ex Vision Editor Dan Goddard was also considering the YUSU presidency. Doubtful? Yes indeed, but it certainly would be one for the history books. Stay tuned- TR most certainly will be.

Well that’s enough rhetorical questions for one day. With student activities looking to be the battle of the BNOCs, candidates are going to have to rely on more than a cult of personality to guarantee election victory. Remember folks, policies are where the power lies.

Know something TR doesn’t? Keep your rumours, tip-offs and insults coming to elections@nouse.co.uk.

Who would have guessed? The issue of Brian Cantor’s wage-packet has reared its ugly head again.

The Vice-chancellor’s pay has been brought under fresh scrutiny as a debate over university workers paid a ‘living’ wage has gripped campus, and like any contentious issue of university financing, Cantor’s perks are dragged into a quagmire of flimsy criticism. But this living wage does indeed beg a number of potentially important questions: is such pay unjust, and is it indicative of the ever widening socio-economic chasm in British society? Regardless, the nest of “Socialist worker” reading Cantor-snipes will add this feather to their bow.

The fact and figures are transparent: the Vice-Chancellor’s pay increased from fourteen times of that of the lowest paid in 2006, to sixteen times in 2012; while his pay rose 26% compared to 15% of that of the lowest paid. Facts are sacred, but we must be weary of reading them as fiction.

Those 154 workers in November of 2011 who were only paid a minimum wage are not in fact viewed as actual employees by the University itself. This is no derogatory slur on these 154, but marks how they are far from an intricate facet of the university workforce.

It is nonsensical therefore to draw a comparison to Cantor’s monolithic status, and most importantly a status built not on sand, but on responsibility, achievement and progress. It would take a braver and more foolish man than myself to posit that the financiers of the university distribute pay directly proportionally to such attributes, but the importance of his role cannot be sniffed at or disregarded. And we do, after all, live in a society which has at its core an economy of knowledge and services which are valued extremely dearly. It is true, though, that Cantor’s role would benefit from greater transparency to identify the value and expertise he brings to role, so he is less susceptible to definition by his privileges and perquisites.

Executive pay becomes a perennial issue in these dark months as companies look into bonuses and the like for their executives at the top. Chief executive of the 83% publicly owned RBS, Stephen Hester, is being paid a bonus of the equivalent of £963,000 in shares and which is rightly causing public outcry, and protestations from both sides of the Commons. On top of a £1.2 million annual salary, Hester thus earns more than 100% more than the lowest paid in RBS, showing it is really rather clutching at straws to baste Cantor with such criticism just through this comparison through the figures of the lowest paid.

There are sound, intelligent and moral arguments in to be made in favour of the living wage, but Cantor’s pay should be disassociated with them. Calling his wage into comparison is as opportunistic as it is predictable, and shows a naïve misunderstanding of our society. It is a contrived critique of the vice-chancellor, and one which is all too selective in what detail it attends to. Disillusioned individuals shouldn’t be so quick to falter.

Now, this isn’t a case of extreme right-wing anti-feminism at play here when I consider the extent to which our Monarch needs the Duke of Edinburgh. He is a constant supporting partner and has been since day one, and not one person in the world could carry out such an important role as efficiently as her husband. She needs his support just as much as the nation needs her, and this has certainly been brought to the world’s attention in light of his recent health concerns.

At a mere 85 years and 90 years old respectively, the Queen and Prince Philip have had an unreasonably busy twelve months. Not only did they host the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton and an international state visit made by the President of United States, Barack Obama, the Queen and her husband also made a historic visit to the Republic of Ireland (for the first time since the Republic was formed in 1916) and travelled the long-haul journey to Australia to attend a gathering of Commonwealth leaders.

Her demanding and inspirational lifestyle might not be envied by many people as much as it is serenaded by her family; The Duke of Cambridge also spoke of his grandmother to Marr ahead of her jubilee, acknowledging the Queen’s ability to juggle her private and public life so efficiently, claiming that she “never had a blueprint”. Upon the death of King George VI on this day in 1952, a young Elizabeth undertook her late father’s duties as Queen, a prominent Commonwealth leader and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, amongst many other key roles. She has taken centre stage since then.

However, you only have to review Prince Philip’s year to understand just how much of a strain this work is for the pair. The Duke of Edinburgh, who was taken to hospital over Christmas and treated for a blocked coronary artery, is not only the Queen’s consort, but her husband and constant companion. And it’s a good job that, despite the strain of their recent events, they are both “still smiling”.

The Queen has carved out her own path and managed it to the point where it would be difficult to find anyone with a negative impression of her reign. Forget Cheryl Cole, our Queen is the real nation’s sweetheart, a true inspiration for thousands if not millions of people, and one of the most successful monarchs in history. Nobody can argue with that. She is the second longest serving monarch of our country, behind Queen Victoria who served for less than four years more than her. In a world where national leaders seem to be more hassle than they are worth, the Queen is one of this nation’s best assets. Our majesty has a nation of followers and she is certainly a leader to be proud of.

Her lifetime achievement as Queen amongst many other roles is commemorated today with the start of this year’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations. This might not be an easy year for the royal family, but it will definitely prove how absolutely essential Her Majesty is as a representation of our society. There will be plenty of events, travel and hand-shaking involved for the Queen and Prince Philip, and they will both throw themselves into their work and their country once more. They have done so much for this country and this year could be the best opportunity we have to give something back. God save our Queen (and her consort).

I remember Omid Djalili’s first performance on the BBC’s “Live at the Apollo”, and I remember really liking him. Never lacking in energy, Djalili used topical humour, a wavering accent and intermittent belly dancing to set people rolling in the aisles. Things certainly started well for him.

Not much has changed and that is precisely the problem. He’s the same high-energy performer, who still brings out the moves and continues to play with his range of accents, but it’s all the same material. In the process of telling a humourous anecdote, he explicitly recycles his past routines, such as his Royal Variety performance. Admittedly, it’s more honest than trying to pass it off as original, but it reduces the novelty of this new tour.

A giant iPhone was projected onto a screen at the back of the stage and throughout the performance PowerPoint images would slip into his routine. I know we’re all religiously addicted to our mobile phone devices, whichever item of fruit they may resemble, but Djalili’s set led me to question why his comedy is so similarly dependent. Technology-reliant comedy has become prominent recently; popular examples include Russell Howard’s “Good News”. “Tour of Duty” is reminiscent though not as frustrating as the “Mock the Week” star passing off YouTube videos as his own sense of humour.

Djalili’s Iranian background has featured heavily in his comedy for years, and does so in this tour too, and it has been the source of much criticism but I’m not so condemning. I would argue that almost every comedian has a specific topic that they
tend to focus upon; Jo Brand has her husband, Simon Amstell has his loneliness but this concentration doesn’t stop me from laughing. It often leads to a more consistent and enjoyable routine.

What was strange, however, was the determined defence of recent aspects of his career, whether that’s his performance in Lionel Bart’s “Oliver!” or his appearance in recent insurance advertisements. This is a comedian very aware of criticism, and seemingly its not all water off a duck’s back. Why else would lengthy moments of contemplation fill the Opera House? Whilst at his most vulnerable, this hushed silence was crudely broken off by cheap one-liners, that I was held awkwardly in anticipation of.

The audience, however, were buzzing at the Grand Opera House and greatly enjoyed his encore. For me, nevertheless, familiarity with this comedian’s work and style was my evening’s downfall. I would never go as far as to say that’s he’s not a good comedian; that’d be wrong. On this circuit, he’s only just got started, but I want to see his skill, such as his comic timing, his lovable nature, and his enthusiasm directed towards a pen and paper.

‘Delicious’, ‘Marvellous’, ‘Irresistible’- since its opening night in November critics have been showering the West End’s new arrival Matilda the Musical with five star reviews. This sensational theatrical adaption of Roald Dahl’s cherished tale has been put together by writer Dennis Kelly and comedy-musician Tim Minchin and is directed by Matthew Warchus. Having met applause during its showing in Stratford that would rival even the noises produced by the Crunchem Hall Kids, Matilda has moved to the Cambridge theatre where praise continues to pile up: the RSC production has already been nominated for nine prestigious awards.

It’s difficult to express how exactly Warchus has managed to magic Matilda onto the stage with such creativity yet commitment to the original story. His cast materialise those distinctive ‘Dahl-ian’ traits we take such pleasure in reading: the adorable Sophia Kiely (sharing the role of Matilda with three others) gave a stunning leading-lady performance accompanied by a lithe and ludicrous Paul Kaye as Mr Wormwood, the woman with ‘a little less brains, a lot more hair’ Mrs Wormwood played by Josie Walker; and sweeter than sugar Miss Honey played by Lauren Ward. The role of the hammer-hurtling Trunchbull taken by a cross-dressed Bertie Carvel, who pivoted between prancing around with ribbons and marching with the full force of a murderous malignant dictator, deserves special mention and drew a magnificently rich reaction from the audience.

After the famous children’s novel itself most people will probably recall the 1996 Danny DeVito film which, despite its on-going success, Minchin has lightly criticised for losing the anarchic ‘Dahl-ness’ of the Matilda story. With impressive lasers, lighting, smoke and shadow effects the West End version of Matilda has rightfully attempted to bring back the more sinister elements of Dahl that can be found in his child-transforming Witches and the evil trickery of the Twits to make bird pie. Maybe it is for this reason why so many have agreed that the musical reaches far beyond that naïve category of a ‘kids show’: “this is for everyone” says James Dreyfus.

Even a good couple of weeks on from seeing the show I am still singing along to the songs (which are nothing short of the comic lyrical brilliance we expect of Tim Minchin) and re-watching youtube clips of the production (which show-cases the abilities of some absurdly talented pre-teens). First cynical about the ability of the minds behind West End productions in adapting my favourite stories, I have been fully converted and recommend anyone out there to witness Dahl-defining moments like the Trunchbull’s toss of Amanda Thripp by her pigtails across the school yard; pulled off spectacularly by this fantastic show.

The afternoon began with Derwent securing a 7-3 victory over Goodricke to move above their opponents in the table.

Derwent raced into a 4-0 lead, with the team of Mike Taylor, Clara How, Liam Boshell, Charlie Parker, Janis Hopkins and Maddie Croucher dominating their opponents.

Goodricke mounted a brief comeback, as Scott Edwards and Heather Roberts narrowly defeated Taylor and How 22-20 before Anthony Howard and Daphne Allamenou won their match against Hopkins and Croucher.

Derwent, though, were able to grab the win they needed to claim the win, Boshell and Parker winning 21-11 against Edwards and Roberts, and went on to win the tie 7-3.

Afterwards, Derwent captain Taylor said that “Everyone played well, though we did make a few mistakes”.

7-3 was also the score as Vanbrugh beat Halifax in the battle of the second and third placed teams.
The match was tight throughout, with the teams inseparable after the first six games.

But the Vanbrugh team of Joe Davenport and Blonnie Walsh won two of the last three matches, alongside victory for Jonny Tait and Fabiana Macor against Ian White and Lucy Rodgers, to give the final score line a more one-sided feeling than had been anticipated.

Next up on court were league leaders Langwith to take on James.

Again, this match-up was incredibly tight, with the James pair of David Loving and Bella Grant recording hard-fought 21-18 and 21-19 victories to keep their side in it.

Then came the most exciting game of the day, between Langwith’s Al Qasyaff Zainal and Sarah Howarth, and their James counterparts Chris Butterfield and Nia Powell.

The James pair came out on top, 25-23, after stunning display of quality and resilience from all involved.

It wouldn’t be enough, however, as Langwith won the final two matches of the tie to claim a 6-4 victory overall, though they were pushed hard by the side sitting second from bottom of the college badminton table.

Alcuin were also 6-4 victors over Wentworth, a real coup for the side who went into the day’s games propping up the table.

This proved to be yet another close encounter, but a comprehensive 21-6 win for Alcuin in the final game of the day handed them some much-needed points.

English Course rep and Faculty rep Zahra Latif is also thought to be considering putting her name in for the Presidential Race. Whilst her areas of expertise may lie more in the realm of Academic Officer, she has proved popular and efficient, and was voted Course Rep of the year at York’s answer to the Oscars, the YUSU awards, so could bring a little outside perspective to this year’s race. Her candidacy would also beef up the female numbers for what has been a noticeably male-dominated position over the last 4 years; as TR recently noted, there hasn’t been female President since the outspoken Ann Marie-Canning in 2007/8. Will Latif or Wayland show the men how it’s done?

And is there any foundation to the whispers of Tim Ellis considering re-running? TR has only heard speculation, though as history tells us the allure of office has proved difficult to resist. Certainly if he chose to run it would be a blow to the other ambitious nominees, for, as Humphreys, Asfahani and Ngwena have all proved it is something of a golden ticket. But has Ellis done enough to win over the student electorate for a send year running? From TR’s perspective, verdict is out on all counts.

Know something The Race doesn’t? Want to get your name in the game? Keep the rumour mill running, and send all your election tips to elections@nouse.co.uk.

Runs: 3-5 February 2012

Director: James Soldan

Producer: Liz Cahill

Star Rating: ****

Standing in the -1°C chill outside York’s Drama Barn, I had little faith in Soldan’s student adaptation of Dorian Gray; doubting that it would lift the foul mood that I found myself in. As someone who had previously avoided all student productions, I had certain generalised preconceptions denoting amateur acting and offensive pretentiousness. Appealing to the typical nineteen year old male was the warning at the door of ensuing ‘strobe lights, loud music, explicit drug use and scenes of a sexual nature’ giving one a far more optimistic feeling.

Entering the barn to find the three, darkly clothed, multi-role narrators contorting themselves like statues, the dedication of those involved became instantly apparent. Illuminated by blue-filtered lights, the stage was menacingly strewn with torn papers, empty alcohol bottles and back-dropped by a curious combination of old monitors. Soldan transports Wilde’s novel to the 80s where Basil Hallward (Jonny Glasgow) has been transformed into a new-fangled film maker both infatuated and inspired by the beauty of History-of-Art graduate Dorian Gray (Connor Abbott).

The adaptation is at once hilarious whilst entirely dark and disturbing. Entering the brightly lit stage in a pair of black Ray Bans, Ryan Hall playing Henry Wootton wittily remarked that he thought it fully acceptable to ‘stare into an abyss if wearing Ray Bans’, drawing upon the cruel superiority of wealthy, glamorised drug users and the hedonism driving the characters throughout. Hall’s performance was enchanting, his character rendered despicably hateful yet simultaneously alluring in his eccentricity and self-destructive fearlessness. Aligned with Dorian in identifying the appeal of such a man, I felt complicit in his ultimate deceit and murder; experienced a bizarre sense of guilt after laughing at the ‘gay disco’, dance routine which resulted in the murder of Herman (John Askew).

Remarkably given the strength of particular characterisations, the cast is free of a compromising weak link. Demonstrating genuine promise, Helena Clark was exceptional not only in her vocal ability and evident range (playing both Fergus and Lady Victoria) but her physical ability to transform her own image into that of an old woman without the assistance of costume or makeup. Abbott’s self-conceited portrayal of Dorian Gray was equally exceptional, evoking a binary hatred and jealousy of the attractive figure. The commitment of the cast to heavy homoeroticism and drug use demonstrated a professionalism and bravery that must be commended. The convincingly jittery portrayal of the heroin-addict-Herman, highlighted the director’s meticulous attention to detail.

Innovative in every sense of the word; manipulating film, music, lighting and choreographed dance to fulfil all potential, Soldan’s production Dorian exceeded my expectations of a student play in elevating itself to the standard of professional theatre. As a ten-a-day smoker who was still slightly stifled by Hall’s incessant chain-smoking, my only point of concern would be for asthmatics to sit at the back and bring an inhaler.