Letters
NAFF NAFTA
Dear Editors,
In this week's (November 9th) Jack Nory Top 10, Jack cites, "More and more of our imports come from overseas," as an example of Dubya's idiocy. Call me crazy, but isn't it just an insightful commentary on a decline in the proportion of American imports coming from Canada and Mexico?
Yours,
Robin Vowles
OK. Yes. You're right. Have some bagels. He's still a fool though...
RANDOM...
Dear Oxford Student,
Yet again the LibDems claim "we've got fees scrapped in Scotland". Wrong. Tuition fees in Scotland have been reduced and payment deferred until after graduation, but they have NOT been abolished, and top-up fees would still affect top Scottish universities if introduced at a UK level. Furthermore, if Jim Wallace hadn't been so desperate to jump into bed with Labour, Scottish students could have got a much better deal. Don't vote for these liars.
Marcus Pitcaithly
Worcester
Er...Ok... Why are you writing this to us? And who is Jim Wallace? And surely, if what you say is true, they're not lying, they're just exagerrating? But, yeah, thanks for your letter, and keep reading the Oxford Student. And keep writing us random political letters. Although next time, please make it more Oxford relevant. Ok. Bye now.
GOOD OL' BALLIOL
Dear Sir,
Having read in the Cherwell today a quote from one of you saying that: " the short-lived desubscription at Balliol was due to people wanting to further their Oxford political careers...". I wish to assure that as one of the co-proposers of the motion this is not the case, most of us felt that the standard of your paper at the beginning of term was not really something we wanted cluttering our JCR and that it was in the long term going to reflect badly on Oxford as a university. In particular we felt that your slant on the Laura Spence affair was retrogressive and counterproductive concerning the valid issues the case brought up. Most of us are unlikely to have an Oxford political career because most of us, as far as I am aware do not want one, and anyway bringing our concerns to the appropriate democratic forum was the best way of finding out what other people in Balliol thought. We obviously had some support at the time of desubscription because otherwise the motion would not have been passed in a GM, the resubcription vote was entirely valid and brought a lot more people into the debate. However, stating that as the resubcription vote was passed then there is obviously huge support for your paper is not necessarily correct. Some people felt, myself among them that after the first vote the point had been made.
This is purely my opinion and in no way states the opinion of any of the other co-proposers of the original motion.
Peter Baker
Thankyou for your letter. We can fully accept that some of you may not want an Oxford political career, but some of your number certainly do and, indeed, your assertion that this was not the case for 'most of us' seems to admit this. It is certainly suspicious that several first years were co-proposers of a motion that attacked the 'decline' in the standard of the OxStu 'starting in the first issue'. How many issues had they read prior to their first ever week in Oxford? We are also curious as to what you mean by attacking 'the standard of your paper'. The standard of what? The writing? This has remained unchanged from last year, indeed, most of the writers are the same as last year. The layout? This, it is true, has changed, but just because we make the paper look exciting doesn't mean that the 'standard' has declined. We would argue the very opposite. The general 'standard' of the paper in terms of layout, accuracy etc has, by all accounts been much improved this term. We urge you to stop looking and start reading. Having said this, we are grateful to you for writing to us and we note your criticisms. We only wish you had done this in the first place.
16th Nov 2000