Viewing archives for Debating & public speaking

Teamwork, talent and exemplary preparation all played their part in the success of QE’s eight-strong team in the South East Regional Session of the European Youth Parliament.

The Year 12 boys now progress to this summer’s national round of the debating competition for the third consecutive year.

Guiding them to their success at the regional forum hosted by Haberdashers’ Aske’s School for Girls was Academic Enrichment Tutor Helen Davies. “The team put in a fantastic performance head-and-shoulders above their rivals, being described as ‘too keen and too good’ by the chair of the session!” she said.

“Their success was down to solid preparation before the event and also excellent teamwork and the participation of all eight members, who all spoke many times during the session.”

“In addition to defending the resolution which we had been allocated in advance (for SEDE – the Committee on Security and Defence), the boys’ performance also won them the right to make key ‘attack speeches’ on other resolutions over the course of the day.”

The SEDE resolution stated: “Given the discovery of Russian influence on campaigns orchestrated via social media, and the upcoming European elections in 2019, what steps can the EU take to make sure its citizens are correctly informed and to ensure the security of the election?”

In his opening defence speech, Saifullah Shah said: “Russia is seeking to undermine the very fabric of our society by spreading disinformation.” And in his closing defence speech, Chris Hall stated that the ability of disabled and otherwise immobilised people to vote would be greatly enhanced by online voting.

Among the speakers on other resolutions, Ryan Ratnam, at the Committee on Human Rights, addressed the issue of the age at which the Holocaust should be taught in the National Curriculum. Alex Beard gave a summation in a closing speech for the same committee, attacking the complete lack of coverage of anti-Semitism in the resolution, opining that it was therefore not fit for the 21st century. Referring back to an analogy employed by the proposing committee in their opening speech, and contradicting the view taken by them, he said: “This motion is akin to a tricycle – it is childish and naïve. Unfortunately, during the course of this debate, we can see that the wheels of the proverbial tricycle have fallen off.”

The day ended with a highly entertaining ‘French debate’ in which students debated a final motion in a language of their choice, said Miss Davies: Alex Beard contributed in both French and German.

“The boys displayed good teamwork and in-depth knowledge on each of the resolutions debated during the day – the product of their general excellent political knowledge and their prior research,” she said. “The event displayed well the excellent tradition of public speaking and debating which is upheld at QE, as all eight boys spoke extremely well, which set us apart from the other schools.

“It was very nice to see the legacy of QE success within the EYP organisation: one of the key organisers for this event was Aditya Ravindrakumar, of Year 13, who was part of the QE team which qualified for the EYP National Session in 2018.”

The 2019 QE team comprises: Alex Beard; Kieran Dhrona; Deeps Gandhi; Hanif Gofur; Chris Hall; Denis O’Sullivan; Ryan Ratnam and Saifullah Shah.

Also going through to the nationals are the City of London School for Girls.

Year 10’s Richard Bai has reached the regional round of a London-wide schools speaking competition.

Richard, who spoke about the power of reading, won the QE round, which was contested after Year 10 boys had learned some public-speaking skills during a Jack Petchey “Speak Out” Challenge! workshop run at the School led by a visiting speaker.

The other finalists were: Sarvesh Sabale, speaking about allergies and how to support those with them; Dillan Shah, speaking about video game addiction, and Om Deshpande, who spoke about practice versus procrastination.

Richard goes on to the Barnet Regional Final at Copthall School. After that, the semi-final takes place at the Speakers Trust’s offices in central London on 20th May, before the grand final at the Cambridge Theatre in London’s West End on 1st July 2019.

The challenge, which is a programme run by Speakers Trust and funded by the Jack Petchey Foundation, aims to give people the skills, confidence and desire to speak in public. It is open to schools across London and Essex. Speakers Trust is the UK’s leading public speaking and communication skills training charity, while the foundation was set up by businessman and philanthropist Sir Jack Petchey, who is still working at the age of 93.

The workshop at the School centred on how to be an effective public speaker. In the subsequent competition, the boys spoke on a subject close to their heart.

Supervising the workshop were Head of Year 10 Simon Walker and Extra-curricular Enrichment Tutor Keith Bugler, both of whom said they were delighted by how well the boys had risen to the challenge.

With topics that included a second Brexit referendum, a joint Year 8 debating symposium with a leading girls’ school looked sure to be lively – and so it proved.

The joint event with The Henrietta Barnett School drew intelligent, engaging contributions from all sides, reported Nisha Mayer, Head of QE’s Academic Enrichment

Motions put forward at the symposium ranged from This House believes driverless cars will make driving safer to This House believes there should be a second referendum on Brexit.

Around 70 pupils from the two schools took part in the event, which followed the Extended Mace format. (Mace is the name of a famous schools debating competition run by the English-Speaking Union). This style involves three pairs of proposers and opposers; two from each side make their case and respond before a floor debate. The last pairing then draw the threads of the debate together to make a final case.

The participants were given 30 minutes to research their topics and prepare their arguments before the debates took place. The six best debaters were selected from across all the debates to participate in a final surprise debate at the end of the day. This was on the motion, This House believes that there should be a tax on meat. The finalists were given 20 minutes to get themselves ready.

Mrs Mayer said: “The event was a fantastic success. The finalists were debating at the level of Year 9 or even Year 10 debaters. The floor debate was particularly engaging, too. Events such as this are important because they aid the boys’ oracy and thinking skills, while enabling them to socialise with pupils of similar ability from a girls’ school.”

Five of the nine boys on QE’s debating team for the national session of the European Youth Parliament have qualified for the international round of the competition.

The five were chosen after strong performances at the national session held over a long weekend at Liverpool Hope University.

Academic Enrichment Tutor Helen Davies said: “This was an excellent event at which our boys shone during formal debates that looked in some depth at the very diverse challenges facing Europe.”

They had reached the national event after previous success at the EYP South East forum, where they were chosen to go through, together with teams from two independent schools, St Paul’s and Guildford High.

The national session programme began with team-building activities on the first day, followed by the various committees forming resolutions on the Friday. At the General Assembly, held all day Saturday and on Sunday morning, the committees debated the resolutions.

The QE boys, all from the 2017-18 Year 12, were representing Italy, with the team even asked to bring along Italian food for themselves and their fellow competitors in the ‘Eurovillage’.

The team comprised Ibrahim Al-Hariri, Parth Gosalia, Shivam Masrani, Laurie Mathias, Aditya Ravindrakumar, Mipham Samten, Akshat Sharma, Anake Singh and Mudit Tulsianey. Ibrahim, Aditya, Mipham, Akshat and Anake all qualified for the international stages, which start next month.

The QE contributions included Mipham playing a key role in steering the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee, which was debating distributed ledger technology – databases that can securely record financial, physical or electronic assets for sharing across a network through entirely transparent updates of information. (The first incarnation of this was ‘Blockchain’, which underpinned digital cash systems such as Bitcoin, but it has now evolved.) In his final summation, which Miss Davies described as “very persuasive and engaging”, Mipham called on the committee to embrace, rather than fear, progress – we no longer ride horses to school, he pointed out! Such technologies should be regulated in a pragmatic, open-ended way that allows the technology to develop, he suggested.

For his part, Ibrahim gave an opening speech to the Committee on Security and Defence, which was debating the measures European nations should take to prevent the recruitment and radicalisation of terrorists. Among the points he raised were the importance of a lack of social inclusion as one of the biggest causes of radicalisation: people in prison are particularly vulnerable, he stated. Another group vulnerable to radicalisation is young people, since they are especially open to new ideas. It was, said Miss Davies, a “clear, well-structured speech which opened up the floor for an interesting debate”.

Other topics covered in the General Assembly session were European–Russian relations. Anake said European nations should recognise in their dealings with Russia that President Putin is becoming a dictator, showing similarities with Lenin and Stalin, and that consequently stronger sanctions on Russia were necessary.

With the recent media furore over Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, the topic of this year’s Elizabethan Union Dinner Debate held particular resonance.

The Old Elizabethans secured a decisive, although not totally one-sided, victory, as they and a pair of sixth-formers debated the motion: This House believes that in the digital age we should not expect our online activities to remain private.

Pupils Akshat Sharma and Tej Mehta put forward the motion for the 53rd annual debate, which was held on the day of the 445th anniversary of the founding of the School. It was opposed by Jonathan Hollingsworth, who opened, with support from Pravin Swamy (both OEs 2006-2013).

Headmaster Neil Enright said: “The debate itself was a typically lively and good-humoured affair. The whole event serves to help prepare boys for handling similar such formal, but social, occasions as they progress through university, their careers and life more broadly.”

Captain of the School Aashish Khimasia proposed the customary toasts to Her Majesty, the Queen, and The Pious Memory of Queen Elizabeth I, whilst Ross Lima (OE 1995-2002) proposed the toast to The Elizabethan Union.

Ross read Law at Sheffield and now works for Shell as Lead Legal Counsel for the sale of catalysts across large areas of the globe. In his speech, he reminisced about his first day at QE and meeting friends Laurence Burrows and Panicos Petrou, both of whom attended the dinner debate as his guests, along with Ross’s wife, Sarah. He remembered how the then-Headmaster, Eamonn Harris, told them to look around at the prefects: “He told us we were wearing the same blazers, but we hadn’t earned ours yet.” Looking at his Dinner Debate audience, Ross said: “You are now in the same position as those very boys that I looked up to on that day, and through your achievements at this School you have earned the right to wear that blazer.”

He spoke of the challenges the boys have already faced in their School careers and encouraged them to continue to seek out new challenges and opportunities, and to learn to overcome their fears.

The indicative vote at the outset indicated that the floor was leaning against the motion.

The debate began with Akshat putting forward the proposal. He and seconder Tej set out their case that it was, in fact, a reality that our online activities are not private – using state surveillance, as an example. They also argued the importance of being aware of how others use the data they hold, via social media or online gaming. They put forward the view that if people agree to the terms of surveys and ‘apps’ they use, then companies like Cambridge Analytica had, in law, not necessarily done anything wrong.

They also expounded the case for the positives of monitoring online activities, for the purposes of detecting and preventing crime and acts of terror.

The opposition countered these arguments, claiming the price of giving up our online privacy would be to give up part of our humanity, including our freedom of speech. Facebook came in for criticism, and the alumni said that even Mark Zuckerberg has now opined that such companies need regulating. They argued that people would not expect more traditional forms of communication – the Royal Mail or faxes, for example – to be open to others to view, so why should the internet be any different?

They also questioned whether the good citizens represented on the floor should be subjected to privacy breaches by the state in the name of security, advocating a higher threshold. They proposed a series of policy interventions to ensure better data protection online.

The floor debate saw enthusiastic contributions from Year 12 speakers and guests. These ranged from the question of how to monitor and deal with the terrorist threat, through to the different expectations there should be users in terms of the sharing of social media posts and messages between, on the one hand celebrities (and those who court social media attention) and, on the other, ordinary users. They also raised the already-strict financial and criminal penalties that exist for those who breach data laws.

The three-course meal started with leek and potato soup. There was a choice of main course between vegetarian tart and salmon, which was served with crushed new potatoes, green beans and tomato and basil sauce. Dessert was lemon and lime tart.

A team of senior QE boys have reached the national finals of a competition that involves mock criminal trials in a crown court in front of real judges.

The QE team performed strongly in three initial rounds at the regional finals of the Bar Mock Trial Competition, before emerging victorious from the final round, where they were pitted against the day’s other best-performing school, the Reach Academy.

After seeing off all 11 of the other shortlisted London state schools at the regional event at the Inner London Crown Court, they will now compete in the national finals at Cardiff Crown Court in March 2018.

English teacher Lucy Riseborough said: “The boys did extremely well and the judges commented on how well the ‘barristers’ in our cases performed.”

Each team comprised not only pupils playing the part of barristers, but also others needed to create a realistic court scene, from witnesses and jurors to court reporters and ushers.

The QE contingent prepared two different cases in the run-up to the event. One was a theft and fraud case involving a carer accused of stealing £1,320 from the man she was looking after. She used to do his shopping and claimed that she had accidentally taken his bank card home and had left it in a safe place. Since she lived with five other people, she argued that one of them could have accessed the card.

The second involved a charge of grievous bodily harm: a couple had an argument and the defendant broke his partner’s tibia. However, he claimed she threatened him with a knife and that he was acting in self-defence.

Teacher Tom Jack reported that the boys not only performed well, but also improved through each round, with third-round barristers Laurie Mathias and Mipham Samten learning from the judge’s feedback from the second round, when the QE barristers, Anake Singh and Saifullah Shah, had successfully prosecuted the same defendant.

“The two barristers therefore restricted their questioning to crucial facts, meaning that their closing argument was a mystery to the opposition until the very last moment. Confident performances from the witnesses for the defence (Hector Cooper and Viraj Mehta) put the prosecuting barristers under pressure, leading them to halt their questioning earlier than planned. By the time the jury retired, the result was just a formality; they found the defendant innocent on both charges.”

Having done so well in the three rounds, the boys knew they had a good chance of reaching the final, but were nevertheless excited and proud when this was confirmed.

“This achievement afforded the boys the opportunity to prosecute a case inside one of the main courtrooms, an experience nerve-wracking and enriching in equal measure.” The final round brought intense questioning on both sides and “a tangible impression of strategising from the respective barristers”, said Mr Jack, who teaches Music. “During the exchanges, the QE boys had to contend with one defence witness who clearly had the potential to intimidate the opposition and throw them off their game with her lengthy and convoluted responses. However, after neatly extracting the responses required from the ‘difficult customer’, Saifullah Shah’s closing statement tied up the various strands of the prosecution’s argument, leaving the jury to retire with a difficult decision.

“Although they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict, a majority decision narrowly found the defendant guilty, but the boys still needed the marks to go in their favour to claim a deserved victory. After deliberating for a good ten minutes, the judge returned with the news that the QE team had triumphed!”

The Bar Mock Trial Competition, which is open to young people aged 15-18, aims to give pupils insights into the justice system and encourages the development of skills such as logical reasoning, clear communication and teamwork. Now in its 26th year, the competition is run by the Citizenship Foundation and supported by the Bar Council of England and Wales, the Faculty of Advocates, the Bar Library of Northern Ireland, HM Courts & Tribunal Service, the Circuits and the Inns of Court.

The QE participants were as follows:

Barristers
Laurie Mathias, Year 12
Mipham Samten, Year 12
Saifullah Shah, Year 11
Anake Singh, Year 12

Jury
Alex Beard, Year 11
Nathan Chu, Year 12
Shivam Masrani, Year 12
Benjamin Suen, Year 12
Sajan Suganth, Year 11

Witnesses
Hector Cooper, Year 11
Kieran Dhrona, Year 11
Haider Jabir, Year 11
Viraj Mehta, Year 11

Court Clerk
Rivu Chowdhury, Year 11

Usher
Akram Ahmad, Year 11