Society

I’ve been at university for 17 days, and yesterday had my fifth contact hour: my second tutorial. ‘Tutes’ are what an Oxford education is all about. They’re the reason any self-respecting applicant will give when asked why they’re putting themselves through a three-month ordeal of entrance tests; essay samples; interviews, and an agonising, Christmas-ruining wait. Of course we weren’t swayed by the architecture, the prestige or the challenge: what we really wanted, my sixth-form self often insisted, was the chance to be ‘taught by the people who write the textbooks’. It’s now dawning on me that we’re not really ‘taught’ at all — not in the conventional sense. What we’ve

Sir Brian Leveson, who has ascended from his inquiry podium to President of the Queen’s Bench Division and Chairman of the Sentencing Council, seems to be getting a taste for public appearances. Last week he frustratingly stonewalled two parliamentary committees who had the temerity to ask for some post-publication thoughts on his report into the press, saying ‘I am a serving judge. It would be absolutely inappropriate for me to come back into the question of my report or regulation of the Press.’ A parliamentarian, Philip Davies, called him a ‘berk’ in consequence. Mr S has heard a few of the good judge’s learned friends express a similar view over the years.

The front-page of yesterday’s Sunday Times carried the news that up to 20 retired members of the British Armed forces are likely to be taken in for questioning in relation to the deaths of 30th January 1972, known as ‘Bloody Sunday’. Some readers will know that I have taken a great interest in this case and have written a book which I don’t think spares many details on what specific soldiers of 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment, among others, did that day. In certain cases – including that of at least one soldier who is still alive (‘Soldier F’) – I do not hesitate to call what they did

A friend has exhumed instructions issued to Daily Mail journalists by their editor, Mike Randall, in the mid-1960s, about how to behave (below). The first three items read: ‘1. No member of Daily Mail staff intrudes or is called upon to intrude into private lives where no public interest is involved. 2. No ordinary member of the public is lured, coerced or in any way pressed by a Daily Mail representative into giving an interview or picture which he is clearly unwilling to give. 3. It remains our duty at all times to expose the fraud and reveal the mountebank wherever the public interest is involved.’ This is a good deal crisper than Leveson, but it

Spectator literary competition No. 2822 This week’s challenge is to submit an extract from a scene from a contemporary soap opera (TV or radio) as Shakespeare might have written it. Please email entries, of up to 16 lines, to lucy@spectator.co.uk by midday on 30 October. Here are the results of this week’s challenge, in which competitors were invited to write a poem either in free verse mocking rhymed, metrical verse or in conventional verse mocking free verse.

David Cameron is currently trying to work out what his position on jumpers is after Number 10 was forced to issue an amazing clarification this afternoon. A spokesman said: ‘To be clear, it is entirely false to suggest the PM would advise people they should wear jumpers to stay warm. Any suggestion to the contrary is mischief-making. The Prime Minister would point people to a range of things being done to help people with their fuel bills, such as legislating to put everyone on the best tariff for them. He believes Labour’s “price freeze” policy is a con – and certainly would not advise people on what they should wear.’