Saturday 18th April 2026
Blog Page 1139

Pipe Dreams: Fantasies Fulfilled

0

I expect you’ve already heard the big news. But in case you really enjoy covering your eyes/ears for long periods, here’s a reminder. My friends spent the last week writing erotic fiction for each other. I was implicated. The big reveal came a day late – it took many hours to extract some of the authors from their rooms, where they had worked themselves into various states of hysterical arousal during the writing process. But the Secret Valentine Project well and truly went ahead. And how magnificent the results were. Lustful and loopy, raw and romantic, the Valentine’s erotica delivered beyond any of our wildest dreams. Here’s a highlights reel…

There were some subterranean sexy times:

“A tremor shook the tunnel, everything shuddering except Johnny who stood strong- solid-continuing to thrust back and forth as her cries got higher and breathier. With a howl the train shot past them at breakneck speed, inches from their hidden cubbyhole, bringing with it the moment of climax. Her screams of ecstasy were lost in the shrill screech of wheel on track.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12952%%[/mm-hide-text]

There was positive sexual consent:

“Are you OK?” Is this OK?” Izzy asked anxiously, catching Alex’s eyes with a gentle, questioning manner. 

And even better plot twists:

“I didn’t realise you liked girls too,” Izzy murmured, standing on tiptoes so she could wrap her arms around Alex’s taller frame. 

Heresy featured heavily:

“That night was a jubilee of pleasure, and fireworks flew to rival those of the Queen’s birthday celebrations. On they went until Phillip yelled out ‘bow down and accept my royal blessing bitch!’”

“She grabbed his head, pushing it between the soft cushions of skin, shaking ‘the dynasties’ like there was no tomorrow.”

As did Cary Rae Jepsen:

“You put your wish in my well/Please bang me, I’ll never tell/I licked your succulent bell/And now you’re touching me”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12953%%[/mm-hide-text]

“Hey, I just met you/And this is crazy/But here’s a condom/So mount me, maybe?”

Metafiction, baby:

“She let out one huge sigh. There was silence except for their ragged breathing and the wind and rain, now howling. His hand returned to its previous position between her legs, but she rolled away. He looked quizzical. She sighed again. ‘Three to five hundred words isn’t long enough for multiple orgasms.’”

A few bars of musical musing:

“Meaty paused and then, quivering, presented his bow. Sak took it in his hand and observed it closely, it was hard, and after Sak had admired its length for a time, he began to lubricate it, stroking it gently.”

“Meaty noticed Sak’s baton quickly rise.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12954%%[/mm-hide-text]

Some questionably named genitalia:

“He unfolded the paper with shaking hands and shuddering breath. ‘I’d like our dragons to meet,’ read the lush, looping writing, ‘come and find me by Beowulf.’”

And some confusion surrounding arm ownership:

“’Wait.’ Babushka paused. ‘I want to be in charge.’ She said, as a smile spread across her face. She grabbed some tape from the draw and tied one arm, and then the other to the bed frame. The man didn’t know what to do, all he knew was that he liked it.”

How the group will move forward from this intimate experience is anyone’s guess. We have tested our bond, and survival is certainly not a given. Whatever happens, though, we’ll be releasing our first collection ASAP, because DAMN, this stuff will sell faster than LMH ball tickets (#bestcollege).

Wonderful writing credits (in no particular order): Tom McQuillin, Claudia Graham, Hannah Culver, Tilly Gilbert, Zak Thomas Johnson, Liv Withers, Joe Gage.

Bexistentialism: HT16 5th Week

0

My nose hurts. I push down on it, and now, predictably, it hurts more. I search through my memories from last night’s hullabaloo, my mind whirring and then clicking to a stop. I recall –

An aggressive thud into my face. Pain. Someone saying “sorry” over and over again. A second thud as I am hugged just as aggressively. Pain.

That’s right. I got punched in the face. And not even in a 10+ lad points way. It was an accident.

I push the concentrated aching to the back of my mind. That is until I see my friend rotating her face to the left and right of me, whilst frowning. “What?” I say, brushing the corner of my lips for imaginary crumbs. She replies, not to tell me I have mayonnaise at the corner of my mouth, but to ask, “have you broken your nose?”

My eyes widen as the other people around me begin to leer at my face. I am struck by the knowledge that I am yet to look in the mirror today. Why today, of all days, have I decided to defy the expectations that society has set down on me since the time when I was 13 and I changed my Facebook status to Bex is … feeling realli ugly :(. I sprint out of the JCR and am soon staring at a slightly swollen and bruised nose. The familiar resignation creeps in as I adjust to the blue and blossoming mass upon my face.

I say ‘familiar’, because I seem to be rather prone to accidents. And it made me think, dear readers, that maybe it was time you heard my past. Not all of it, mind you. I’d hate to create some sort of faux-intimate connection with you. Just the day it all started. Let me set the scene. I was 11. I was at a family friend’s house and they had a moped. I’d watched my three brothers happily scoot around a field each time we visited them, but I was always reluctant to have a try. At the time I wasn’t sure why. But on this day, I decide that it’s time.

Soon I am scoot scoot scooting away. It’s going good. Everyone is nodding and waving. Excellent. It’s my third time around the field, and I’m feeling casual. I got this down, I think to myself. I could be the next big thing, I think – except, well, except, I’m getting to the corner of the field, and I’ve forgotten how to brake. Ah. Now my thoughts are less suave, and far less collected. How do you work this fucking thing!!! I speedily muse, in a less expletive and far more charming manner. After all, I’m a precocious but still very youthful 11 year-old. This is the moment, you are thinking, where I fall off. But that’s not my style. I slam on the brakes.

Well. As I said earlier, it’s my first time. And the brakes are on the handle. But so is the accelerator. So, with slapstick inevitability, I find myself soaring, still on the bike, very fast, into a barbed wire fence.

(Cue screams as I sit dazed, patiently waiting to be extracted.)

Since then, I have accrued several broken toes, a scar on my knee from falling between the tube and the platform (as ‘Please mind the gap’ punctuated the air), and my pinky finger is a party trick in dire social situations, after once trying to catch a very quickly flung basketball.

Thus, as the present and agèd me looks into the mirror, I nod at my reflection with a strange sense of glee. Well done you, I think. Maybe the curse is lifting. After all, this one wasn’t even my fault.

Preview: Coriolanus

0

Coriolanus is a play about Roman political history – a subject that is incredibly close to my heart, but, I must concede, is something of a niche interest in the world at large. However, to use that great historical cliché, the patterns and narratives of Coriolanus echo down the ages, and have found themselves acted out again and again in more recent times. It was only a few years ago that Ralph Fiennes directed and starred in a film version of this play, set in the nondescript Balkans. For director Lucy Clarke, this is a play that speaks to Cameron’s Britain – the elite and unassailable heights of British politics inducing protests over welfare cuts, rather than the corn riots, which act as a prelude to Coriolanus.

 

So, we have abused, impotent and mistreated plebs, contrasted against the patrician elite who are beset by infighting and competition. This dichotomy will be stressed in the production by having the “faintly fascistic” senators and tribunes neatly suited and booted, permanently covered by attendants with umbrellas, whilst the plebeians will be visibly soaked to the skin – a highly exciting directorial choice, which I can’t help but worry might cause some health issues over the course of 3 successive shows, outside in Regent’s Park quad.

Into this fraught political atmosphere comes our “relentless dick” (Taylor’s words) of a protagonist, Will Taylor as Coriolanus. The great hero of Rome, who leads Roman armies to victory against the Volscians in the earliest days of the republic, only to be conspired against by the tribunes and cast out by the fickle masses when he attempts to run for office. It is undeniably gripping narrative, that only gets better when the exiled general, railing against the democratic values which Rome so cherishes, decides to side with his former enemies and lead their armies against the walls of Rome, which have lost their sole defender through petty politicking.

The great worry with Coriolanus is that it is so intolerably long – not just long, but dense and packed full of obscure Roman political discussion. Hearteningly, the director (who is writing her thesis on this play), has been merciless in her cuts – enormous baggy speeches, irrelevant subplots and tedious political intricacies have been thrown out entirely, to focus on a streamlined and engaging narrative, which promises for a night of high drama.

One of the few parts of this production that has been spared the editors knife are the speeches of Volumnia (Victoria Gawlik), which have always been regarded as one of the highest of pathos in Coriolanus. I was lucky enough to see the scene where Coriolanus’ mother, wife and son all beg him not to make war on his former home – and I can safely say that leaving these speeches uncut was a wise move directorially speaking. So, brave the cold, and make your way to Regent’s Park this week, if an evening of high political drama and great men reduced to tears sounds like your cup of tea.

Coriolanus, Regent’s Park Quad, 16th-18th February, 7.30

Scalia’s death: a galvanising cause

0

Justice Antonin Scalia, conservative stalwart and constitutional originalist, is dead.

Which is why the complete rowdiness of the latest Republican debate is all the more indicative of the deterioration of the Grand Old Party. The Supreme Court of the United States is in danger of having a vacant seat for 11 months and yet the main sound bite from Saturday’s debate was John Kasich’s “Jeez, oh man.” When the Republican Party should have been uniting, it instead became more fractured, more febrile, than ever.

A few things, then. First: Yes, it is probably in violation of the spirit of the Constitution to promise to obstruct any Supreme Court nomination, as the Republicans have done. But let’s not pretend that Senate Democrats would do any differently if they were in Mitch McConnell et al.’s position and thought they could get away with it.

Second: Replacing Scalia is not the war. The war is the presidential and legislative elections in November. Why? Because Scalia was not the only aging justice on the Supreme Court. By 2017, Ruth Bader Ginsberg will be almost 84, Anthony Kennedy will be 80 and Stephen Breyer will be 78. Any one, if not more, of those three will be likely to step down or pass away before the 2020 election. Even if Obama is able to get his nomination confirmed, the next president could be responsible for remaking the Court’s ideology for the foreseeable future.

This is especially significant for Democrats, who have an opportunity that has not been available to them in decades. The Court has leant consistently conservative since the 1970s. Were the Senate and executive branch to both fall to the Democrats in 2016, the possibility that they could replace Scalia, Breyer and Ginsberg in one fell swoop is one that must have party strategists salivating.

Third: Victory in 2016 now hinges on each party’s ability to galvanise its voter base and get them to the booths. The Party that is best able to control the narrative and capitalise on the fight in Washington over Scalia’s now vacant seat will be the one handed the reigns come Election Day. This necessity to mobilise is again more true for Democrats than Republicans. Republican voters are whiter, older and richer – that is, of demographics already likelier to vote.

This is why John Cassidy, columnist at The New Yorker, writes, “If you were a Democratic strategist trying to maximise turnout, what would you most like to see? One possibility, surely, is the prospect of the election being transformed into a referendum on the President versus the do- nothing Republican Congress,” as he argues would occur if the Republican leadership is utterly intransient contra whomever the President nominates.

I am much less sure that explicitly pitching the election as a party struggle, instead of about the issues themselves, is necessarily the Democrats’ winning strategy. Cassidy seems to forget that Obama is tremendously unpopular among most Republicans. And indeed, the battle over the Supreme Court appears to me to be as likely to energise the Republican base as it is the Democratic one. Conservatives in America have long felt that Democrats rule by decree, for instance on gay marriage, and the idea of social values and law being determined by a cloistered, liberal (read: authoritarian) group of Harvard Law School graduates is probably a terrifying one for many.

Yet I do think that Scalia’s death is an advantage for Democrats – not because the battle is inherently an easy one, but because the Democratic establishment is much stronger at present than the Republican one. Sanders might have elites spooked and Clinton, despite all her strengths and expertise, is considered by many (however unfairly) to be a disappointing, dishonest candidate. But for those who dislike her and would therefore have considered staying home in a regular election year, the possibility of Republicans seizing control of the judiciary must be a greater evil than another Clinton presidency. Hillary is still the clear favourite to win the nomination and rightly so – pragmatism dictates that she would fare better in a general election.

Meanwhile the Republican field remains in a state of almost risible disarray. What a bizarre world: the GOP’s frontrunner is a man who said that Planned Parenthood actually does do some wonderful things and claimed aloud that President Bush was responsible for the Iraq War. Donald Trump has succeeded by exploiting class, not ideological, division, revealing a new cleavage in a party that already was threatening to split apart at the seams.

And the Supreme Court is a frontier along which new fault lines could appear, as, for example, the puritanical Ted Cruz tries to convince the electorate that he and he alone is truly capable of fighting the liberal cabal. So unless the base coalesces around the probably-too-moderate Kasich, Tea Party darling Marco Rubio or Jeb ‘Jeb!’ Bush immediately, Republican leaders might soon be too late to stop Trump’s hostile takeover of their terrain or a Cruz ascendancy.

Of course, as I wrote February 3, we seem to be in a world where common sense defies us. The punditry has fared predictably poorly; the polling geeks at FiveThirtyEight, who so successfully predicted the last two election cycles, have done no better. Who can say that Republicans will not come back down to earth to vote for someone electable? For the sake of American progress: let us hope not.

OULC Co-Chair resigns, citing antisemitism within club

1

Alex Chalmers, Co-Chair of the Oxford University Labour Club, resigned Monday evening, stating that he could “no longer in good conscience defend club policy.”

In a Facebook post Monday explaining his decision, Chalmers wrote that he perceived that, “A large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews.”

He cited OULC’s decision on Monday to endorse Israel Apartheid Week (IAW) as the immediate cause of his resignation. Israel Apartheid Week is an annual series of lectures against Israel occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and in support of Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movements.

He wrote that he felt the club was “becoming increasingly riven by factional splits, and despite its avowed committment to liberation, the attitudes of certain members of the club towards certain disadvantaged groups was becoming posionous. Whether it be members of the Executive throwing around the term ‘Zio’ (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon, senior members of the club expressing their ‘solidarity’ with Hamas and explitictly defending their tactics of indiscriminately murdering civilians, or a former Co-Chair claiming that ‘most accusations of antisemitism are just the Zionists crying wolf’, a large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews.

“The decision of the club to endorse a movement with a history of targetting and harassing Jewish students and inviting antisemitic speakers to campuses, despite the concerns of Jewish students, illustrates how uneven and insincere much of the active membership is when it comes to liberation. I had hoped during my tenure as Co-Chair to move the club away from some of its more intolerant tendencies: sadly, it only continued to move away from me, to a place I could no longer hope to retrieve it from.”

Chalmers was referring to a motion passed by a vote of 18-16 at Monday’s OULC meeting which stated that the group “formally [endorsed] Oxford IAW.” OULC further resolved to publicize this decision to its “members so a wide audience of people attend IAW events” and “mandate the Co-Chairs,” which would have included Chalmers, “to make our opposition to the apartheid in Palestine if invited to comment by the media on related subject matters”.

Chalmers told Cherwell, ”Leaving OULC was a difficult decision, but it had reached the stage where I no longer recognised the club that I joined last Michaelmas. I hope my decision will go some way in raising awareness of the campus antisemitism that has gone unnoticed for far too long in Oxford.”

His Co-Chair Noni Csogor said, “I’m deeply upset by Alex’s decision to resign, but it’s one I respect; his commitment to his principles is honestly admirable, and he is – and will remain – one of my close friends.

“That said, I was heartened by the healthy and – while passionate – civil nature of the debate this evening. The persuasiveness of both sides of the argument is obvious from the result, 18-16 in favour, and I’m glad we as a club can be a place for this kind of democratic debate. We did not vote on a blanket position on the Israel-Palestine conflict; we voted to support Oxford’s Israeli Apartheid Week. At Oxford, IAW has hosted a wide variety of Israeli, Palestinian, and South African speakers, such as Denis Goldberg, who fought against apartheid in South Africa, and Oxford professors like Avi Shlaim, Karma Nabulsi, Sudhir Hazareesingh, and David Priestland. As the motion notes, OULC and the Labour Party have always been against racism and oppression in all its forms; this must include the policies of the current Israeli government.

“That said, it also includes anti-Semitism. Alex is right to highlight growing anti-Semitic violence in the UK as a major issue; it’s also horrifying that Jewish students feel unsafe on campuses. It’s unsurprising, given incidents like that at KCL Israel Society a few weeks ago, and I’m sure OULC members would join me in condemning the silencing of Jewish students, who often have uniquely nuanced perspectives on the Israeli state. Jewish students spoke on both sides of the debate this evening, but we take allegations of anti-Semitism in the club very seriously and I will be discussing, with my executive committee, how to deal with the kinds of statements Alex mentions, and what concrete steps we can take in future to preserve a club that’s been a safe haven for Jewish students in the past.

“I understand Alex’s position, but am looking forward both to running the events we’ve organised for the rest of the term, and to contributing to an ongoing discussion about the complex intersection of justice for Palestine and the safety of Jewish students.”

Oxford University Jewish Society also issued a statement, saying, “Oxford University Jewish Society is saddened by the anti-semitic reports coming out of Oxford University Labour Club, and stands fully in support of Alex Chalmers’ decision to resign.

“We are, however, unsurprised by this news. It is not the first time that Oxford JSoc has had to deal with anti-semitic incidents within the student left and it will not be the last. It is a significant and worrying issue and one that on many occasions, Jewish students have felt that they are fighting alone. We are grateful that Alex Chalmers has made the statement that he did and has brought the issue of anti-semitism to the fore in a way that Jewish students have so far been denied.

“Oxford JSoc strongly rejects any accusation that Jewish students are inventing claims of anti-semitism to discredit Palestinian solidarity politics. This is a repeated trope that has been used to silence Jewish students and it will carry weight no longer. When anti-semitism intersects with Palestinian solidarity politics, it is not the job of Jewish students to be quiet, but the job of Palestinian solidarity activists to rid their movement of anti-Jewish prejudice.

“Many of Oxford’s Jewish students who hold progressive views have long felt excluded from left-wing political spaces. Jewish students who raised the issue of anti-semitism at the OULC meeting were laughed at and mocked. It is high time that this issue is confronted. We hope Alex’s resignation triggers a broader awakening amongst student political movements, and that anti-semitism, particularly on the student left, is finally taken seriously.

The national group Labour Students said they “were deeply troubled to hear reports of anti-semitism at one of our most prominent Labour Clubs. We unequivocally condemn any form of anti-semitism. We are taking these allegations very seriously and will do whatever is necessary to ensure every Labour Club is a safe space for Jewish Students. We are proud of the long history we have of working with the Union of Jewish Students and the National Union of Students to protect Jewish students on campus and this will always be a top priority for Labour Students.”

Current and past members of OULC have expressed differing opinions.

Former Co-Chair David-Cesar Heymann endorsed Chalmers’ stance, telling Cherwell, “Alex has contributed a great deal to OULC, and recently took a courageous and principled decision. In doing so, he raised pressing concerns about anti-Semitism in the Oxford Hard Left. As his statement explains, anti-Semitism is a common ocurrence among the hard left, with slurs such as ‘Zio’, apologism of Hamas and other terrorist organizations, and casual dismissals of anti-Semitism as ‘crying wolf’ being common. The decision of the hard left within OULC to suport the one sided demonization of Israel that is Israeli Apartheid Week is only the most recent example of a long, troubling pattern; and I can fully understand, and sympathize with Alex not wanting to have anything to do with this disgraceful decision. “

Ella Taylor, Women’s Officer-elect, who is herself Jewish, said “[OULC] is a vibrant, well led, diverse group. At its events I constantly meet interesting and inspiring people with a whole spectrum of views and whose opinions are well informed and interesting. Last night however, I witnessed a side to the club which was thoroughly unpleasant and I am increasingly becoming aware of some of the awful outbursts about Jews which have been made over the past 12 months.

“I am not used to eyes being rolled when I start a sentence with ‘as a Jew’. Not only that, but I was astounded to hear the comparison of Jewish concerns about anti semitism during Israel Apartheid Week with straight people feeling uncomfortable attending LGBTQ+ night clubs. This is a problem that needs to be tackled head on. The club has an overwhelming number of members who are able to tackle the question of Israel Palestine appropriately – Zionist or not Zionist and who don’t use racist slurs and anti-semitism.
“Therefore I think that from both within OULC and in the wider community this issue can be tackled and I hope to be involved in working to remove the racist undertones that have surfaced of late. This isn’t a question of support for Palestine or Israel, but a question of helping fight against a rising tide of anti-semitism and ensuring all students of any religion or race feel safe.”
However former Social Secretary Michael Muir told Cherwell, “We had a heated but not hostile discussion and voted to support a week of action that brings together Israeli, Palestinian and international activists and scholars to draw attention to Palestinian human rights causes. We are sorry that one of our members felt this was a resigning issue; we take the welfare of our members very seriously.”
And Aliya Yule, a member of OULC and organising member of Oxford Jewish Students for Justice in Palestine, said “We are saddened to see the very serious allegation of anti-Semitism being used as an argument against those standing up for Palestinian human rights: it is imperative to reiterate that being critical of Israeli apartheid is not in itself anti-Semitic. Oxford Jewish Students for Justice in Palestine is delighted that OULC voted to endorse Israeli Apartheid Week, and we are proud to be helping organise a week committed to anti-racist, anti-colonial politics.
“As Jewish students, we are committed to the ongoing battle against anti-Semitism, and we don’t tolerate it from any quarter. The OULC meeting saw much healthy debate, and none of it was anti-Semitic. Passionate supporters of Israel like Alex Chalmers are of course entitled to their strongly held views, but so too are those of us profoundly concerned by Israel’s human rights abuses. Anti-Semitism is a poison, and it shouldn’t be cheapened by misleading allegations like this.”
Another former Co-Chair, Charlie Atkins, focused on the greater unity of OULC, saying, “Any situation that leads to a Co-Chair resigning is regrettable. The club should be – and in my experience has always proven itself to be in the past – a welcoming environment for party members with a range of political views. I think it’s vital that all OULC members cooperate and focus on helping the party put forward a positive vision for the country and winning public support. The club has a long and successful past and so I am confident it will be able to once again play its part in returning the Labour party to power.”
One Labour Party MP, John Mann, also commented on Chalmers’ comments, saying “The use of the term Zio as an abuse by some Oxford so-called left-wingers is comparable to the language of Pegida zealots,” in reference to a far-right anti-Muslim group in Germany.
“Overt anti-Semitism rife amongst certain elements at Oxford University. These casual racists need to be directly challenged and more,” Mann said.

Review: The Union Ball ‘Oxford and the Chocolate Factory’

0

Having had to clean my suit especially for the Union Ball (with the traditional frantic search for anyone with a black tie they could lend me), I was expecting great things from the evening. The Ball, I am glad to say, did not disappoint. Themed as ‘Oxford and the Chocolate Factory’, stepping into the hallowed halls was like stepping into a giant box of chocolates. Although the entrance through Frewin Court felt slightly unglamorous, giving guests the surreal experience of walking past the Purple Turtle relatively sober and in a suit, once inside there was a host of surprises left, right and centre.

After being greeted by a sparkling reception of champagne, with glasses being pushed on us like they were trying to get rid of the stuff, we were led into a huge tent, taking up nearly the whole of the Union’s court and giving the odd impression that the debating chamber had expanded overnight. The walls were draped in black and deep purple fabric and the ceiling dotted with small lights that winked down at the crowd below, who were already mingling, chatting and doing what Union members do best- networking. I slid past a dozen people trying to introduce themselves and made my way to the free cocktail bar. After all, it was my duty to Cherwell to try absolutely everything on offer- especially if it was all alcoholic.

As the evening continued I was surprised again and again by the wonderful experiences put on by the Ball to entertain and engage the guests: a series of jazz bands struck up at regular intervals, allowing the chatting crowds to break off into groups of tipsy dancers. The music was kept to a pleasant background level as photographers weaved amongst people, and we even bumped into a talkative magician who was wandering through the crowds, confounding the guests- which must have got steadily easier as the cocktail bar was emptied. There were photo opportunities everywhere, reminding everyone of the chocolate factory theme with a huge photo booth in the upstairs of the Union building filled with giant candy canes and lollipops for guests to pose with. At points it seemed you couldn’t move for a photographer trying to capture the moment. In a further room was, according to the adverts, the ‘world’s largest’ chocolate fountain- it was certainly large enough to leave most unsuspecting guests with smudges on their jackets they’d be rubbing at for weeks afterwards. 

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12944%%[/mm-hide-text] 

The success of the Union Ball, organised by the adept Henna Dattani, is shown by the speed with which the event sold out. I was surprised by the sheer amount of distractions on offer- after a delicious box of curry from the Alpha Bar, which had set up a food stall in the courtyard alongside a stand giving away free crepes drizzled in chocolate and strawberries, we spent far too long lounging in a decadently draped hookah lounge. Here I found myself sharing a pipe with people from all over Oxford and beyond, puffing at flavoured shisha and discussing the evening. The night finished with a silent disco in the debating chamber until 1.30am, and although we were offered the unenviable choice of Disney medleys or 2000s teenage disco hits, the hilarity of dancing around the Union debating chamber in headphones more than made up for it.

I was told afterwards that the mix of huge amounts of alcohol and the chocolate shots handed round at midnight ‘disagreed’ with many of the guests, though it must have been closely controlled by the staff as we never saw any disturbances. This epitomised the smoothness with which the event ran- one experience led smoothly into another as the evening wore on. We left that night full of food, drunken and very happy- a wonderful night in the chocolate box that was the Union Ball. 

Barcelona FC: the apex of football aesthetic

0

It’s over, isn’t it?

Okay, there might be 15 weeks left – but come on. Ever since Atlético blew their last chance, who are going to dethrone Barcelona in La Liga? They’re three points clear with a game in hand.

Well, Real Madrid is the obvious answer, of course. 66 goals in 23 games. But only if you forget that Cristiano Ronaldo hasn’t scored against a team ranked higher than Celta Vigo all season and that it took a strike from Luka Modrić in the 85th minute just to make it past Granada.

If you forget that watching Barcelona, you just sort of feel like the way they’re playing, they have to win. There is something almost inevitable about the treble-winners march to reclaim at the very least a domestic double (sorry Sevilla fans, but the Copa is Barca’s).

Not because of Barcelona’s magic front three or the strength of their squad. After all, Real Madrid’s squad is also excellent, probably even better in terms of depth. Chelsea’s is pretty good too – and what are they, 13th in the Premier League? 27th?

Chelsea digs aside, what I’m trying to get at is that squad strength does not a good team make. Which is a very clichéd point. But there’s more to it than that: there’s the fact that football clubs, and football itself, represent something greater – or at least, I think that we feel they should.

It’s why supporters care about Florentino Perez’s outrageous spending on players, but not Barcelona’s on Neymar and Suárez. Of course, on one level Barcelona fans don’t mind because the latter pair have brought results and trophies, while Perez’s galáticos haven’t.

But my suspicion is that there is more to it than that. Even if Barcelona didn’t win, they would still be admired. Pep Guardiola didn’t win much in his final season at the club, but that hasn’t impacted his legacy. The Spanish national team was great this last decade not just because they won every tournament, but because their tiki taka style of play was beautiful to watch.

And I would further that in some ways, the aesthetics of a team’s play go so far as to outweigh other aspects of a club’s identity. Simply put, the clubs that most successfully not just attract but retain supporters outside of their regional and cultural base are the ones whose football doesn’t just earn victories, but entrances the audience.

It could be said that because beautiful football is always winning football, I am making a fallacious distinction. And while that might be true, I think it is an argument that misses the point. It skips over the fact that we don’t give importance to the teams we support in sports just because we are interested in vicariously achieving victory in competition. We do so also because a game’s aesthetic can be taken to be one’s own aesthetic. Poor playing is not repugnant because it results in losses – it repulses because it is ugly.

Hence with Barcelona, we have a team that seems to have mastered football’s symbolism. And to return to the idea that beautiful football wins, we realize that the flaw in its expression is in its emphasis. Winning is not the end, as seemingly implied; it is rather a byproduct, with the football itself the goal.

When we see, then, a team playing the way Barcelona has been, we have learnt by now to recognize that it will end up with a long column of Ws in its match results. But that’s not why we watch the matches. Instead we watch because the team is improving the form of the game – redefining its acme. Barcelona’s football is football qua art.

So in the end, all I really want to say is: ¡Visca Barça!

The Cherwell Encyclical: HT 4th Week

0

Google’s Europe Boss has unintentionally become a comedian as he told MPs on the public accounts committee this week that he doesn’t know his own salary. Coming from the boss of a search engine, the irony of his inability to answer this question was not missed by the humoured panel of MPs. At another hearing in 2012, he was accused of behaving in a “calculated and unethical” manner as well as being told by the chairman of the committee “I think that you do evil”. He really had hoped that it would go a bit better this time, and has been described as perplexed that the committee didn’t think that having a salary so big it is hard to count was an excuse.

 [mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12939%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Rats sightings in Liverpool have increased by a third since 2014, say the city council. It is speculated that this is due to the increasing number of fat cats in the country, and many have become so fat they can longer be bothered to catch rats. Cameron assures us that this is not an allegory for his economic policy.

 [mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12940%%[/mm-hide-text] 

As the race for Mayor of London drags on and nobody cares, Zac Goldsmith is rumoured to be attending lessons on logic after someone finally pointed out that his statement back in 2009, “I was born into a position of privilege and am therefore not corruptible”, does not agree with either common sense or history.

 [mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%12941%%[/mm-hide-text] 

It would be hard to ignore the news in the health sector this week. Especially if you are a Guardian reader. The health regulator for England has announced plans to use social media to spot failing hospitals. Sadly, the government have no intentions to do the same with cabinet ministers. Jeremy Hunt has reportedly said that his negotiation skills are “inspired by the success of Islamic State” and is in discussions with the group about a possible joint venture against the British Medical Association. There are a lot of conflicting statements, but I think that the issue can answered simply when you ask yourself, why is Hunt attempting to win the dispute? He values the NHS, wants to pay doctors more and has no ulterior motives, of course.

Unheard Oxford: Andrei, Trinity rower and assistant steward

0

I first came to England on the 23rd  August 2009. Before that, in Romania, I was working full-time and studying full-time. I studied chemistry, which I only did two years of, but I also worked in a hotel bar. 

Originally, I wanted to go to America, but that was too expensive, so I signed up to a recruitment agency to get a job in England. I found out about the agency through someone I already knew from the old bar, who had gone to London to work. This person said it was fine and dandy over here. Everybody can afford everything. Well, obviously not a Ferrari, but within reason. 

I asked him how to apply and he told me it cost roughly £1000. That’s a lot of money. It took me a year to save that. When I went home I felt like an outcast, not because people pushed me away but because I don’t spend my money on luxurious things. In Romania, if someone earned half what I earn here, they would go out every night, buy expensive stuff, treat themselves and only leave themselves a euro.

I had two interviews; one here in England and one back home. It turned out I was overprepared for it, I was so stressed but in the end it was only a conversation. I got through this first interview and then I had a phone interview with a hotel in Oxford: Oxford Spires Four Pillars Hotel. They must have liked me because they asked if I could come and start work on Friday. The interview was on Monday. It happened just like that. I said I could. The flight was £50. I only bought a one way. One-way only, I wasn’t going back.

When I arrived, I was a newbie. I changed all my Romanian money into Pounds and, you know, it’s not a fair exchange. But I’d never been abroad, so I got fooled. I ended up with only £70 for five weeks. But that was okay, I knew how to survive on bread and tea. At the start I worked every day because we got given free food at work.

The main reason people come to England is because of the diaspora. Yes, it is an English word. Everyday you learn something new. Diaspora is a group of people of the same nationality when you go abroad. When I first arrived, English old people, they couldn’t understand anything. The younger ones were ok more or less. The Older ones were like:

“I beg your pardon. Sorry?”

And I was like, why don’t you understand me? It’s your language.

Turns out I was just talking too fast. In Romania people talk fast.

I stayed at the hotel for a year. I had to stay there a year, as at the time according to the agreement between the EU and Britain there were restrictions on Romanians working here. After three months I was promoted to supervisor, but they forgot to increase my pay, so I ended up earning the same.

I started working here at Trinity in 2011. It will be 5 years this May. I love working at Trinity, it’s nice and relaxing. The best bit though has to be the food. What’s that saying? The path to a man’s heart is through his stomach? My official title is SCR assistant, which at other colleges is called ‘under butler,’ but that role is on paper only.

I like it here, I work Monday to Friday, 8 till 4, I can row, and I’ve been told I can play college football on the weekends if I want to. I used to play football before with some Romanian guys; we called ourselves FC Romania and played in lots of competitions with teams based on nationalities. The games were five-aside or seven-aside, and the Spanish usually won. I mean, we have skill too, but they are just better. We did it for charity too.

My main day-to-day roles? You mean, apart from taking your money in the mornings? After that I just have to tidy up the SCR, make the fireplace and make it as comfortable as possible for the fellows. For a few months I would listen to the radio in French, just to hear people talking in French, and to help me remember it from school. One day they were talking politics in French and the French tutor asked me why I was listening to French radio, so I said, why would I listen to English radio? I like French, it’s more musical than English. I’ve been doing it since kindergarten.

I first wanted to get involved with the Boat Club three years ago. The captain at the time told me I should go for it. So one day when I was in the gym, I realised that I could lift as much, if not more than, some of the rowers. I asked the Boat club guys what the test was to join. I didn’t know if they let anyone do it. They told me row as much as possible, so I went on a rowing machine for ten minutes and then I was dead. Now I love being able to row in M2.

Next year I am starting a French course at the Oxford University Department for Continuing Education. It’s two hours a week and you just do French. I think they start by teaching you the alphabet and things like that, but I want to start on a higher level. I guess I’ll go along and see what happens.

My funniest memory of Trinity hall is when all the football players took their trousers down for ‘trousers-down dessert’, whilst high table were still there.

Sometimes I feel bad when students leave. Last year I did a ‘degree day,’ it was Ben Lake’s year finishing and I started at Trinity when he started. When I saw him and some of the other students leaving I nearly cried. They were such nice people and very polite, regardless of their backgrounds. Likewise, the fellows here are very humble and will help me if I need it, which surprised me.

If I was studying here what subject would I do? I think I would do philosophy. One time a philosophy tutor left their tutorial papers in the SCR, so I read them whilst working on the till. It was about metaphysics, and I thought, I could study this. I like talking in the SCR about random stuff with him and the other philosophy tutor. I like the way they think. They’re so objective about everything. They simply want to learn as much as possible. They don’t label you, but try to understand you and why you do things. I think having a mentality like this is very useful in day-to-day life even if you don’t want to be a philosopher.

Hong Kong: fanning the flames of localism

0

As Hong Kong’s Chinese New Year celebrations descended into chaotic rioting, my Facebook wall exploded with vehement denunciations of the city’s government. It transpires that police officers had fired warning shots into the air, a virtually unprecedented act in one of the world’s least violent cities. Bizarrely, the latest set of protests that provoked a police crackdown were waged not over political issues, but were instead carried out in the name of defending unlicensed street hawkers from a government crackdown. 

Whatever the merits of such policies (surely the government could have picked a better time than the most important holiday of the year?), it is difficult to see why this could have aroused a crowd of this sort of protestors. These were violent and deliberately confrontational campaigners, ostensibly linked to the ‘localist’ movement. And that was precisely the point: the specific trigger of last night’s events was nothing more than a convenient casus belli for a large, alienated and increasingly vocal segment of the city’s population. 

Most self-identified localists are of course entirely law-abiding citizens. It would be delusional for the government to try to paint all protestors as bottle-throwing anarchists, although Chief Executive C. Y. Leung certainly cannot be accused of possessing either moderation or common sense in abundance. I do understand why so many young people in the city state, people I grew up alongside, have found themselves attracted to a movement which professes to uphold ‘Hong Kong’ values and Cantonese culture. But I am nonetheless appalled by what parts of this movement stand for and what they aim to achieve. I shudder at the thought that the city of my birth would turn its back on the currents of trade, of intellectual ferment, and of courageous, ambitious immigrants who transformed a barren outcrop on the fringes of China into one of the world’s greatest cities.

Been on the Star Ferry? That was founded by a Parsi from Bombay in the nineteenth century. Stayed at the Peninsula Hotel in Kowloon? That was founded by Mizrahi Jewish people from Iraq, a family which remains prominent in Hong Kong’s public life. But the city is not unique in this regard. The world’s great entrepôts did not spring out of nowhere – it took ingenuity, perseverance, and tolerance of outsiders from undistinguished backgrounds speaking eccentric languages and worshipping foreign deities for Hong Kong to acquire its glittering skyline.

Today’s localists reject anything that is not ‘indigenous’ to their city – for them, you cannot be a member of the community without speaking Cantonese. They adopt the mantle of liberalism and progressivism, yet many turn a blind eye to the systematic and shameful marginalisation of refugees, asylum seekers and domestic helpers who live in the city’s dark shadows. If their views had triumphed a century ago, neither of Hong Kong’s two famed seats of higher learning could have existed. The egg tarts much beloved by our Chancellor (and your correspondent) would never have existed in their current form: they’re largely an adaptation of a Portuguese staple. 

We often look wistfully upon the vanished, cosmopolitan world of port cities the world over. The imperialists who shattered that world, bringing misery, bloodshed, poverty and ignorance in their wake genuinely believed in their goals. They were in many cases principled, honourable men and women fighting for a cause they deemed to be just. And so history repeats itself, thousands of miles to the east this time, in the second decade of the twenty-first century.

In the name of fighting tyranny, imperialism and exploitation, the radicalised youth direct their anger towards the same forces that have brought peace and prosperity to their nation. The signposts and bottles flung at Hong Kong’s police force last night will easily be turned against defenceless immigrants from China, Pakistan, Myanmar, Nigeria, the DRC and even further afield. For months, years already, waves of abuse and contempt have already been unleashed online. I despise Hong Kong’s government for its pusillanimity towards Beijing, for its incompetence and for its sheer insensitivity to public opinion.

But let’s not kid ourselves: there is an increasingly dark underbelly amid the democratic opposition as well, and one that does not bode well for anyone who stands for the internationalism and basic tolerance. In this confused landscape, I cannot understand how so many can blind themselves to the intolerance and hatred that permeates part of the localist movement.

And of course, there are a great many Hong Kong people who are tireless advocates for minority rights but nonetheless identify with the ‘localist’ movement. They fear that mainland immigrants will dilute the city’s culture and take over local institutions, but treat those of their friends and relatives from China with respect and courtesy. I have little faith that Beijing’s propaganda outlets will recognise this basic distinction, but there remain, in an increasingly divided city, decent men and women from across the political spectrum who reject both extremes.

Yet equality and tolerance are not items on a menu from which we can pick. You cannot advocate sympathy and tolerance from some people, yet reject the basic equality of others. It is high time that we discard the irrational supposition that your basic loyalties are determined by the lottery of birth. Across the world, there is a pressing need to engage in a sensible, rational debate on immigration and refugee policies. But that can never be a pretext for vilifying an entire people en masse without regard to the unique circumstances of each and every individual. Oxonians are never slow to condemn racism or intolerance in their own university or country; the challenge now is whether we are willing to hold other countries to these universal principles, or consign the ‘Hong Kong’s of this world to the trap of low expectations and the untold misery this brings.