TabTV brings you Sophie Jamieson’s second song with The Punt Sessions.

Part two of Sophie Jamieson’s Punt Sessions:

Check out part one here.

You can find out more about Sophie on her Facebook page.

In association with punting-in-cambridge.co.uk and Cambridge Strolls.

Directed by Emily Dance

Edited by Ashleigh MalyDaisy Turvey and Emily Dance

Camera: Daisy Turvey and Max Toomey

Produced by Nick Harris

Punting: Declan O’Connor 

  • Compared to part 1

    This was pretty unimpressive

    • Really, really

      really nice

  • Fan

    You have a lovely voice!

  • Bored the first time round as well

    She’s managed to out-dull herself

  • Anon

    The NUS should be non-partisan at all times, full stop. Supporting certain political movements is one thing, endorsing or attacking a specific party is another and it is totally unacceptable.

  • ordinary

    I’m voting UKIP and drink with immigrants explain this NUS

  • Button

    I’m sure he meant well

  • Alex

    Daniel has set this up as an individual, not in his role as an NUS officer, so it’s important to make that distinction. Me and many others think it’s a really fun and quirky way of raising some important issues – if you look at the page the response has been almost wholly positive

    Shame the author has used one quote from one student to frame the entire article negatively – but then that’s pretty much the Tab’s style of ‘journalism’.

  • disqus_XaLBrTE1CC

    But UKIP is not anti-immigration in the slightest? Its concern is over quality control. It wants an immigration policy that treats all nations equally on a skills basis as opposed to the current situation. Why should doctor from India not be able to get a visa whilst an unemployed plumber from Romania can? You’ve obviously done no research into actual UKIP policies, rather bought whatever the Guardian has told you.

    • Alex

      UKIP are definitely anti a lot of types of immigration. They are only pro in an extremely limited series of scenarios where it has a clear economic advantage that doesn’t harm ‘native Britons’ – so I think it’s a fair analysis to say they are anti-immigration. The whole way Farage has framed the debate is ‘them and us’. He’s inherently dishonest and often inaccurate with his use of research, and it all comes together to produce a picture of a party that appears very close to being xenophobic.

      It’s also quite difficult to research UKIP policy after they took their own manifesto off the web as it was becoming so embarrassing for them. If they want to be taken seriously as a party they need to get their act together – produce policy, make it public (and then get your party members to actually agree with it), weed out the rest of the racists, sexists and homophobes and finally come up with some non-ludicrous ideas that aren’t just about two or three specific issues.

      • UKIP Austrian Economist

        Putting a blanket cap on immigration is not anti-immigration, it’s pro-controlled immigration.

        Having a points system is not anti-immigration, it’s pro-beneficial immigration.

        He has made it clear on many occasions that when he uses the term “British people”, it includes ethnic minorities who were born here, who suffer just as much from the drawbacks of mass immigration.

        Feel free to accuse UKIP of scaremongering, I’d somewhat agree, but every other party is just as guilty. Nick Clegg has claimed many times that we would lose 3-4 million jobs if we leave the EU – find me a better example of scaremongering than that!

        • Alex

          Would challenge this on a number of fronts:

          1. Saying ‘pro-some’ is exactly like saying ‘anti-some’. My point was that, on balance, Farage and UKIP are mainly anti-immigration – which I think is hard to dispute given their rhetoric to now.

          2. I don’t think he has made it clear what ‘British people’ means to him or his party. I’m a British/EU dual national that has only come back to the UK to study – I have no idea what my place in Farage’s Britain is! (and am one of many…)

          3. ‘People who suffer from the drawbacks of mass immigration’ are a group of people that exist questionably. There’s a lot of economic and social policy evidence to show that immigration net benefits the UK economy, and very little to back up Daily Mail-eqsue stories of ‘immigrants are stealing all my public services!’…

          4. Nobody is near the level of scare-mongering or populism as Farage. 28million Romanians/Bulgarians coming to the UK? Please….

          • UKIP Austrian Economics

            1.) Why don’t Labour or the Greens support unlimited immigration from the whole world? They must be anti-immigration!

            2.) He has made it clear many times. Don’t make false statements based on your own ignorance.

            3.) Immigration contributes greatly to unemployment because it increases the supply of labour without equally increasing the demand for labour, thus lowing the equilibrium wage. That is an economic fact.

            4.) Saying that 28 million people COULD come here if they want to is nowhere near as bad as saying we WILL lose our jobs and all of our trade

            5.) Can’t say I disagree with you on that one.

  • Hurr

    Classic condescending leftie twat who is embarrassingly out of touch with reality.

  • I’ll be voting UKIP

    Australia has much, much stricter immigration laws than we do. Just sayin’…

    UKIP aren’t racists, they just have a hardline view against immigration – not ethnic cleansing, not nationalism, not pro-white agendas, not getting rid of current immigrants, just further immigration into the UK. Just like almost every other country in the world. To compare them to the BNP is ridiculous.

    I would never vote for them in the general elections because that might spell bad news, but I think when representing the UK in Europe, they would do better than any other political party.

  • Tassoulia .

    actually you would be suprised about how important this is, a lot of british students are willing to be friends with other ppl from OECD countries so Australia and Switzerland included no problem but some ppl have a condescending attitude towards those that don’t come from OECD countries. Also seriously this Nigel Farage dude is NOT very clear about his immigration policy at all, a lot of what he said has been implemented already especially against students who are actually the smallest immigration in the country. UK’s biggest immigration group are asylum seekers from countries that the UK promised to support when the regimes would fall. Next comes EU but bulgarians and romanians and polish ppl have been coming to UK before te European union and nothing bad happened the economy didn’t die back then, also these ppl tend to go back to these countries. And then are there are wealthy ppl who hide their money in UK-nobody seems to have a problem with that. Everything was fine until the 2008 crisis when the govt chose to bailout the banks instead of the ppl creating unemployment which put immigrants into competition with locals. BBC made a documentary on immigration in 2008 some UKIP voters need to watch that.

  • morgan

    I someone told me they wanted to have a drink with me cos I was an immigrant, I’d tell them to take a hike.

  • captain sensible

    why is a 14 year old the editor of a media company?

    • EH

      and what do you do for a living?

  • DimBart

    Laurie Penny seems to be the Max Clifford of feminism. Gobby, sanctimonious and some of the tales she tells are, in my opinion, hard to believe.

    • Andy

      Yes, well she missed a very good opportunity to keep her gob shut.

  • S.U.B

    “there is good evidence to show naming people who are arrested can benefit the justice system.”
    MASSIVE CITATION NEEDED. By naming people all you are doing is contributing to the very culture of presumed guilt and repercussions thereof you try to decry in this article.

    • thetab

      John Worboys – After he was first arrested six years ago, several more women came forward to disclose that he had attacked them.

      Stuart Hall
      Max Clifford
      Jimmy Savile

      In all cases more people came forward after an arrest. There are lots of other examples. It’s a big plank of Yewtree.

      Jack

      • Jingleballix

        Jack – i don’t know about this Ben Sullivan guy; but do you know that the law gives specific credence to an ‘early complaint’ in sexual cases………the big, big problem with Yewtree cases is the absence of an early complaint.

        Justice is being morphed and manipulated…….in some cases being made up for money – or the search for it.

        Can you comprehend this?

      • S.U.B

        Okay, that’s fair. Why then, is it not enough to release their name after they have been charged? if the accusation is not entirely baseless, there must be enough for a charge to be brought. Then, at least, there is justification for the above reason – but not before charges have been brought. Others that may have been abused can still come forward at that point; but if the charges are dropped we cannot reverse the damage done to an entirely innocent person’s life.

        • S.U.B

          I worded myself badly at the end there; I meant “If charges cannot be brought” rather than “if charges are dropped” in the final sentence.

      • ZimbaZumba

        It is a balance between between the damage done to the individual and the possible gains to society. The individual is not at the mercy of the “tyranny of the majority”

        To simply state one side of this balance as a complete argument is banal. The interim and long term consequences of someone under suspicion or charged with a sexual offense are profound, especially if publicised.

      • Roberto Matus

        anecdotal evidence which doesn’t carry enough weight in order to compensate for the damaged inflicted in the accussed who is still innocent before proven guilty.

        • Andy

          You mean ‘Innocent until proven Guilty’.

      • Andy

        I knew Jimmy Savile slightly and he was a weirdo, but that doesn’t make him guilty. And it is very easy to accuse the dead – they can’t answer back.

    • Prudence Juris

      An arrest is news. Speculation as to guilt is not. Free circulation of news is always good for society.

      • anon

        Why don’t we circulate the news of the accuser then? “News is always good for society.”

        • Prudence Juris

          You often prune sentences to get what you want?

          • http://www.genderratic.com/ Alison Tieman

            His “prune” changed nothing of the meaning.

        • Andy

          We use to do so in Rape Cases, just like we do in every other case. But the likes of Laurie Penny forced a change in the Law.

          The problem with that is that it is easy to accuse when hidden behind the curtain of anonymity. Even if the case is dismissed the accuser still keeps that anonymity unless it is lifted by the Judge, and that is rare. Look at the Bill Roache case where one of his accusers was forced to admit under cross examination, after her story had been picked apart, that she could not be sure the event she described had ever taken place – they hadn’t. Has she been named ? No.

    • Oxford veteran

      What if naming someone alerts others to be more careful of that person because of what he or she might have done or even encourage them to do something about it? If the articles are based on corroborated facts and do not suggest guilt or otherwise, and the journalists aren’t regurgitating these details daily using different words (unlike in those articles accusing the celebrities and the court cases), how are they contributing to a culture of presumed guilt? Or are the whispers and speculation among so many of us the cause of opinions swinging one way or the other?
      I’m guilty of being part of the discussions about this. Now I try to change the subject if I can because I’ve realised that it’s possible that someone in my group of friends could be a victim of some kind of assault since coming to Oxford, and they still can’t talk about it. Hearing the chat can only make it so much worse. Hopefully innocence or guilt will be proven in due course without interference, intentional or not.

  • Ol’ Ketamine Williams

    The Tab gon’ fucked up now

  • James

    Brilliant article

  • Jingleballix

    You don’t have to be Ben Sullivan’s friend to worry the reaction is getting out of hand………..is your by-line

    But before that you boasted………..”Oxford Union president Ben Sullivan arrested on suspicion of rape” by Zachary Spiro EXCLUSIVE

    Ben Sullivan brought in for questioning relating to alleged rape and attempted rape.

    Oxford Union President Ben Sullivan was today arrested by police on suspicion of one count of rape and and one count of attempted rape.
    The Tab understands he was woken at approximately 7.10am this morning and taken to a local police station.

    Yeah – it really looks like you were concerned about ‘things getting out of hand’.

    FFS

    • thetab

      tha is literally how you report an arrest. It’s protected by a law called Qualified Privilege. (sorry to sound like a dick)

      Jack

      • Dr Seuss

        Qualified Privilege does not apply to reporting by the media; there is no reciprocal duty to impart/receive information (Dauntex v Flatley).

        You should be considering a defence under public interest (s4 DA 2013) instead.

        • thetab

          Qualified privilege does apply to media – section 15 of defamation act. But you’re right, its not relevant here – its Responsible Journalism and Justification here. Sorry for getting that wrong!

          Jack

  • MC73

    Laurie Penny is possibly the most malicious and stupid journalist working in the UK today. Which is almost an achievement.

  • Bursar

    Why hasn’t anyone brought allegations against Sunny Jain yet?

  • Bursar

    AND RIVLIN SACK SPIRO. I have a strong sense of humour but he is taking this just too far.

    I might have to build another gate to lock him out!!

  • VICTIMSHAVINGFUN

    Also, I must say, the two “victims” have been looking mighty happy – attending every single ball and boat party there is!

    • Dissapointed

      This comment is shameful.

      • Shame

        So is blaming someone for rape because you didn’t win an election.

        • Surfbort

          Go look at yourself in the mirror and tell yourself you’re proud of posting that about a rape allegation.

          • LOL

            I just did. It was great. Soz mate

  • Redrose82

    Respected ? Laurie Penny. Come off it.

  • GOBLINWORLD

    Who agrees that Spiro looks like a constipated goblin?

  • Lisa’s slate

    Shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit

  • Spiro

    Has everyone not seen Spiro with Kostas and Crawford every single day? How can anyone think he’s not biased?
    DEAR MR RIVLIN – I suggest you sack Zachary Spiro as these “astounding and stupid” things you say people have written and said about this case – he has actually been liking all of the LIBELLOUS comments (most of them being on Cuntry Living, as well). So control your journalists is what I’d say.

  • Dorilant

    Ah yes, Tab and Co. attempt real journalism. Akin to watching young Simba work on his roar. Don’t let the moral pangs keep you up at night Rivers.

    Oh, and sack ZSpiro? He’d be a real’n’proper kant if he wasn’t so boring.

  • Barry

    Who is Laurie Penny?

  • edtastic

    “Oxford, like most universities and most ancient institutions, has a problem with sexism. There is, rightly, a growing clamour for more to be done about sexual assault.”

    Sexism does not cause sexual assault and the conflation of the two issues is a serious problem. Sexual assault is a human issue with female and male perpetrators/victims of all ages and classes. It’s a HUMAN ISSUE! Sexism on the other hand would be about actual discrimination against a person because of their sex which does not include things like taking sexual interest in a person because of their sex.

    Sexual harassment is not sexism. That again would be humans showing sexual interest when it’s not wanted or appropriate which again deals in both sexes, all races, classes and ages. Sexism would be firing a man for having sex with a student while retaining a female teacher who did the same.

    We need to separate sexism from human sexuality. Conflating the two is a power grab by feminists desperate to protect their manufactured position of moral authority.

    • Alyson Cruise

      Science has shown that sexism does, in fact, cause sexual assault. As one example, telling a joke about women’s place being in the kitchen increases both rape myth belief and self-reported willingness to rape.

      Prejudiced Norm theory, first outlined by Ford and Ferguson 2004, has been consistently supported in study after study. What’s your source?

  • Are you serious?

    This article is so hypocritical

    • Are you serious?

      AND badly written

  • UoS

    Why the f*** anybody would care what that dozy bint Laurie Penny thinks is beyond me.

  • aa

    I agree. Balls consist of spending £150 to get 10 things at any other time you’d spend a fiver on.

  • Anna

    Cocaine? Ketamine? One-night stands? Dodgems? My life is so boring compared to yours.

  • John_Page

    Whatever happened to innocent until proved guilty? Or do such niceties not apply to the jumped up, opinionated morality police?

  • Zoe

    I don’t really see how reading the open letter (which asks that he step aside whilst under investigation, which is not the same as an assumption of guilt) would prejudice a jury any more or less than reading what has been written in the press elsewhere. It adds absolutely nothing to the bare ‘facts’ of the case other than the fact the union doesn’t seem to be taking it seriously.

  • Pingback: wow news

  • AustrianEconomist

    Your opinion would take a sudden u-turn if the party they were bashing was the one you support. Just remember that.

    You do bring up a legitimate problem though, which is why ideally the NUS should stay out of politics altogether unless it’s directly related to students.

  • booby

    If you insist on naming (and thereby shaming) the accusee, you should name (and thereby shame) the accuser. That statement sounds shocking, and it is. Think about WHY it’s shocking, really think about it, and you see why nobody who is accused of such crimes should be publicly named until proven guilty. The press is NOT a court of law!!

  • Ciaran Goggins

    Either X was raped or was not. Why not extend anonymity to murder, shoplifting? Finally, what is happening in Ben’s case and that of many others is in contravention of several articles of human rights law. Oh yes, now I get it, Britain thinks civil liberties are optional. Vote Norsefire.

  • Alyson Cruise

    Because murder and shoplifting are different crimes.

    Sort of shocked you haven’t realised this.