Monday 23rd June 2025
Blog Page 1225

The Campaign: Oxford Students’ Disability Community

0

“Oxford Student Disability Community accepts people for who they are. We don’t see disability, although we adapt to it without question; we see the person,” Hannah Prescott, President of OSDC, tells me.

Vice-President Sam Pugh expands on this. “Having a disability can often be very isolating, but having the opportunity through OSDC to meet people who are in exactly the same boat has been invaluable.”

OSDC aims to bring together students with disabilities socially, while campaigning for more understanding and treatment of disability. We advocate on behalf of, and support, students with disabilities at Oxford. We view disability as self-definitional, regardless of official recognition. We also welcome students without disabilities who are interested in disability.

One undergraduate told me, “It’s great to be around a bunch of fantastic people who just ‘get it’, because they share aspects of your lived experiences which your non-disabled friends cannot necessarily understand. OSDC is so valuable because it makes you feel not alone as a disabled student at Oxford.”

Oxford has over 1,200 students who have declared a disability and the University states that it is “committed to making reasonable adjustments and addressing any individual support requirements to ensure that students are able to participate fully and enjoy a fulfilling university experience.“ While there are cases of good support, this is not yet every disabled student’s experience.

“I have not found the University to be understanding of my illness,” says Hannah. “Students have reported the same negative circumstances for many years now – for example, delays in receiving adjustments and issues of confidentiality being breached – but not a lot has changed.”

A postgraduate student commented, “Oxford, unfortunately, is not very good at making all its events and opportunities accessible – not only core academic work, but also the panoply of other social events too… The Disability Advisory Service here is not always most effective at coordinating and facilitating inclusion.”

Our termcard is on our Facebook group, ‘Oxford Students’ Disabilities Community (OSDC)’, and any Oxford student can join.

The committee is open to all. It isn’t like other committees, and there will be an understanding that our disabilities come first and we can only do what we can do.

Interview: John Redwood

0

Nearly 50 per cent of the UK’s trade is conducted with it. Membership has created over two million jobs. It allows British people to live, study, work, or travel anywhere within its borders. Given these benefits, the natural question to ask John Redwood is why on Earth he believes Britain should leave the European Union?

“I think we are too embroiled under European power and control when the British people and their elected politicians have made it very clear that we will not be joining the Euro. As we are not part of the central federalising scheme – the creation of a full currency, banking, and in due course, fiscal union – I think it is very important that we have a different kind of relationship. That relationship should be based on free trade and political cooperation but it should not be based on centralised government.”

It is evident from the outset that Redwood is an intelligent man. His views are clear and consistent and he argues that his feelings towards the EU are similar to those of most British people. “I wish to trade with it and I wish to be friends with the other countries in Europe. We should have a range of agreements with them, but I object very strongly to the idea that we should be part of the ‘United States of Europe’ under a Brussels government which is not properly accountable to the British people.”

I suggest to Redwood that free trade with Europe and political integration go hand-in-hand. He insists, however, that were the UK to make known its intention to leave the European Union, the remaining EU nations would be “desperate to agree” to free trade agreements.

“Germany, for example, has already made it very clear to myself and others, publicly and privately, that were Britain to decide to leave, Germany would obviously want good free trade agreements with Britain because we are one of her main export markets.”

Beyond the borders of Europe, Redwood suggests that leaving the European Union would also “allow us to decide to have free trade agreements with parts of the world which the European Union has not bothered to negotiate with.” Other economic benefits, he argues, relate to the reduced levels of regulation that we might see as a consequence of leaving the EU. Redwood reasons that outside of the EU, “we could have exactly the regulatory system we liked.”

There’s a sense of utopia to life outside of the European Union as described by Redwood. But surely it is all too good to be true? In order to continue free trade relationships with countries in the EU, many argue that the UK would still have to abide by European laws, except it would no longer have a seat around the policy table.

Redwood dismisses this point by using the example of Norway: a member of the European Economic Area. This means it benefits from free trade with EU countries, but only “has only implemented ten per cent of the EU directives that the UK has had to implement”. He adds: “Of course, Norway has to implement things if she wants to sell into the EU, just as if you want to sell to America then you have to accept its rules. And we sell a lot to America and we do not have any seat around the table to settle the rules about the conduct of the American market… so it is a complete myth that we need to be ‘round the table’.”

Having mentioned America, I ask Redwood whether the UK would lose sway with the US as a consequence of leaving the European Union. The EU is a powerful international actor. Does the UK need a seat at the table in order to preserve its standing both within Europe and in an international context? Redwood evidently doesn’t think so. Were the UK to leave the EU, he explains, it “would then have a seat at all the international tables that we are currently barred from belonging to because the European Union takes precedence.

“The UK would be in a much stronger position because we would be negotiating our own trade and environmental agreements, for example. We would get our voice and our vote back, which has been stifled and overwhelmed by EU representation.”

Much of the debate in the run-up to the General Election concerns Britain’s membership of the European Union. I ask Redwood, however, whether Britain’s relationship is really the primary cause of concern for the average voter?

Redwood tells me, “You cannot look at it as a single issue. If you ask people whether they are mesmerised by or most interested by Europe then no, they are not. But if you say to them, ‘Are you worried about higher energy prices?’, then they say yes, they are very worried about that. And that is directly as a result of a series of bungled EU policies. If you ask them, ‘Are you interested in the UK controlling its own borders and deciding who should come here or not?’, they say, ‘Yes, that’s exactly what we want, that’s a very important issue to us.’ And that, again, is an EU issue. So yes, I think people are desperately worried about the consequences of Europe.”

Redwood’s argument makes it evident that the European issue is not as clear-cut as some people think. Redwood’s opinion, however, is very clear. “I’d far rather we made our own mistakes than have people impose big mistakes on us from Brussels.”

Postal vote to remove top floor of Castle Mill fails

0

Congregation has voted against the motion to remove the top floor of the Castle Mill accommodation complex in a postal ballot. There were 460 votes for the motion, and 1696 votes against.

Castle Mill is a graduate accommodation complex by Port Meadow, and has been the cause of much controversy over the last few months. An Environmental Impact Assessment report in January found that the buildings had a high “adverse impact” on Port Meadow, the Oxford skyline, the Thames, and St. Barnabus Church.

The report suggested three options to rectify this, the third being to remove the top floor of the accommodation complex. This has been estimated to cost £12 million, and would require current residents to seek alternative accommodation for a year, leading many students to join the ‘Save Castle Mill’ campaign, attempting to prevent option three from being carried out.

The success of the ‘Save Castle Mill’ campaign has been a victory for OUSU. OUSU President Louis Trup told Cherwell, “I am delighted to hear that the student accommodation at Castle Mill has been saved. The ‘Save Castle Mill’ campaign has proven how students can come together and make a significant impact on issues affecting the University.

“I would like to say a massive thank you to the students who wrote to academics, stood outside of the Sheldonian, spoke to their tutors and more. OUSU will continue to campaign for good quality and affordable housing for all students.”

OUSU VP for Grads elect Nick Cooper also expressed his pleasure at the result of the vote, commenting, “I’m delighted that members of Congregation have turned out and supported the overwhelming view of the meeting in February to keep Castle Mill intact, and it’s unfortunate that we had to go through the unnecessary added rigmarole of a postal vote to get there. Accepting option three would have wasted millions of pounds that I look forward to helping to convince the University to use more effectively towards graduate scholarships.

“However, keeping the top floor of Castle Mill is not enough to solve the significant housing and financial problems faced by graduate students in Oxford – and I know that everyone involved in this Castle Mill struggle will continue to fight for more, better, and more affordable accommodation in the near future.”

This result is in accordance with the most recent vote on the motion, on Tuesday 10th February, where 72 per cent of voting members of Congregation chose not to remove the top floor of Castle Mill.

However, two days after this vote was taken, a postal vote on the motion was called. OUSU released a statement explaining, “The decision taken by a small but sufficient number of people to unnecessarily bring the decision made on Tuesday into question serves as another threat to residents of Castle Mill, students, and other people living in Oxford who will be hit with further rent spikes if this resolution passes.”

Interview: Denis Goldberg

0

In the midst of the drizzle and pessimism of 4th Week at Oxford, I had the pleasure of meeting Denis Goldberg. Goldberg brought all the warmth of South Africa and passion of the campaign against apartheid with him to a small room in the Old Bank Hotel.

He travelled from his home in Cape Town to deliver a talk as part of the Oxford’s 10th annual Israeli Apartheid Week. The speech, entitled ‘The Prisoner’s Struggle: From South Africa to Palestine’, discussed his percieved similarities between the two states and how civil society outside of Israel/Palestine might support peace and justice in the region. Goldberg was the only white activist to be sentenced to imprisonment alongside Nelson Mandela in the Rivonia trial, serving 22 years in a Pretoria prison. He was a close friend of Nelson Mandela, describing “Nel” as a “tough old man”, and was present during his fi nal hours. Sitting across from Goldberg, I immediately admire him for refusing to retire from political activism. Aged 81, he has on numerous occasions condemned Israel’s systematic oppression of the Palestinians and is a strong proponent of the international campaign for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel.

He describes the current situation in Israel as being a form of apartheid, commenting, “One must go back to the international defi nition of apartheid, which was based on the situation in South Africa, but generalised from it to say that where there are laws and administrative practices and decisions affecting a minority of the population or section of the population separately and to their disadvantage; this is apartheid.”

He offers an illustration, referring to the Law of Return, guaranteeing Jews the right to live in Israel and Palestine, which runs parallel to the policy of denying Right of Return to Palestinian refugees.

Goldberg himself is of Jewish descent, although he says he does not identify with Judaism as a religion. Despite this, he still vehemently condemns what he calls “the policies of the Zionist state of Israel”. Indeed, for Jewish critics of Israel, such as Barnaby Raine, President of Oxford Jewish Students for Justice in Palestine, Goldberg “epitomises the long and proud Jewish tradition of solidarity in the struggle against injustice”.

This stance is strongly linked to his actions in fighting apartheid in Africa, “As a white South African, I fought against apartheid because it was wrong. Like Nelson Mandela and the comrades I went to prison with, it was so wrong we were prepared to lay lives on the line for the rights of people. I would not be part of the oppression.”

He encourages people to take part in the campaign for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israel, explaining how he thinks they are effective means of breaking apartheid. He refuses to shop at upmarket shopping chain Woolworths, the South African answer to Marks and Spencer, because they stock products imported from Israel. He half-jokingly concedes, “We are a land of wonderful fruits and theirs are the best of the best! But,’” he asks seriously, “what does it cost me to eat an orange with flecks on the skin against one without flecks?” Continuing, he challenges, “What are you afraid of? You have the power.”

I ask Goldberg how significant boycotts, divestment, and sanctions were in the campaign against South African apartheid. “International sanctions against apartheid South Africa were, in the end, quite effective. Not just economic sanctions, but also sporting boycotts, cultural boycotts, although they were often broken. But nonetheless people with conscience tried to uphold them. In the end, economic sanctions and the liberation struggle in Angola and Mozambique in particular were key to the weakening of apartheid South Africa.”

He went on to tell me his firm position on institutions investing in companies affi liated with apartheid states, saying to such companies, “I demand you divest. You are part of the oppression of people.” BDS against Israel is very much a live topic in the student community. A motion calling for blanket sanctions against Israel was rejected by OUSU Council in 2013, whilst as recently as Wednesday, OUSU Council voted against an anti-BDS motion.

Goldberg explains to me how important it was for universities to use their influence in the campaign to break South African apartheid. He recounts a conversation he had over breakfast with trustees of the student’s fund. “The students had a campaign and I was asked to come and speak. I said why are you invested in IBM, they’re in South Africa? You should divest.” He purses his lips, recalling their reply. “Oh no, we can’t, they would remove the computers and so on.”

His response to this is characteristic of Goldberg’s boldness and outstanding commitment to justice. “Your job is to secure the money of the University, not to play politics. You should be charged in court for dereliction of duty… and if IBM threatened you, you would simply go public! The other big companies would have computers and software there the next day, they’d love it!”

Here lies a lesson for Oxford colleges, whom Goldberg challenges. “I know times are tough, but how about taking a stand on principles?” With news arriving at the final lecture of Isreali Apartheid Week that SOAS had voted by 73 per cent in support of an academic boycott of Israel, it seems that Goldberg’s hopes for the role of universities are materialising.

Goldberg embodies a commitment to empathising with others struggling to achieve their rights. This is something he encourages us to embrace. “I would like to see an understanding internationally that you can go on shedding blood forever or you can say, ‘I do care about the lives of Palestinian children brought up in refugee camps, in extremely diffi cult situations, and I care for their humanity.’” His compassion also extends to Israelis, as he claims that they are ultimately victims of ‘Israeli apartheid’ too. “I also care for the humanity of the young oppressors who become brutalised and de-humanised.”

Goldberg read Civil Engineering and during his imprisonment completed half of a Law degree. He clearly values the role of education in bringing about unity between people, expressing his desire for “our young people in particular because they are going to change the world – nobody else is going to do it – to understand the nature of the oppression”.

He goes on to highlight the importance of higher education. “I want young people to grow up knowing that it doesn’t matter what background people have, do you like each other? Can you be together? Can you enjoy each other’s company? I go to university campuses in South Africa which were once seas of white faces and now they are now the opposite, all our young kids can go. People are together.” He laughs, glancing at his lap as he considers relationships between young people. “In a way I rely on hormones to put things right – people can meet each other on much more equal terms!” Goldberg has spoken at many universities across the world, and blinked in surprise at the standing ovation he received from his audience of Oxford students at the end of his talk for Israeli Apartheid Week.

With 30 per cent of current MPs being Oxbridge graduates, Goldberg was keen to encourage integrity and morality amongst potential future leaders. “I would like to see young Oxonians, especially students of history, sociology, and politics understand that these are not theoretical subjects. They are about people’s lives. And as concerned human beings, one needs to take their knowledge and show their support against oppression. You can’t do this everywhere, at the same time, but there are enough of us with interests and connections to be able to pick our targets… Education is not just about facts and knowledge. It’s about values. What values are you upholding?”

In 1964, Goldberg was sentenced at the famous Rivonia trials to four life sentences. He was sent to a separate prison for whites, where he resided for the next 22 years. I ask him whether he ever felt like the outside world had abandoned him during these long years. He responds, strongly, “We knew we weren’t abandoned. We weren’t allowed postcards or Christmas cards for many years, and when they were allowed, each prisoner would get hundreds of cards from all over the world, from classes of children, trade union branches, churches, their leaders, and just ordinary people. It was very encouraging, I have to say. Eventually we were able to receive 12 cards and answer them. I’d always pick some I didn’t know… But to see a pile of cards like this,” he motions with his hand to the height of his chest smiling at the memory, “we were never forgotten.”

Goldberg has high hopes for the future of Israelis and Palestinians, picturing justice and peace. “I’m optimistic. If we can do it in South Africa after all those years of deep bitterness and psychological scarring, I think other people can do it as well.”

I shake hands with Goldberg, and step back out into the drizzle and swathes of tourists, snapping pictures of colleges. Goldberg had relayed intimately, in the space of half an hour, how ordinary people are instrumental in bringing about social change. It’s impossible not to feel a new sense of optimism and and empowerment as I walk away.

Review: The Boy Next Door

0

★★★☆☆

Three Stars

In a moment of lonely vulnerability, Claire – played by Jennifer Lopez – makes a mistake which turns her life into a living nightmare. Struggling to forgive her cheating husband and focusing hard on her job as a Classics teacher, Claire allows herself to be momentarily seduced by her new neighbour and pupil, 19 year old Noah, played by Ryan Guzman. It is not difficult to sympathise with Claire when things begin to spiral out of control; who wouldn’t be seduced by Ryan Guzman, after all? Caring, charming, intelligent and certainly no strain on the eye, Noah is unable to accept that Claire has made a mistake. His obsession with her grows stronger as he first hacks her computer and imposes himself not only in her work life at school but also in every moment of her home-life, both day and night.

The film, starting off as the typical bland contemporary American love affair, shifts its mood. A sense of unease seeps into the narrative as Noah, despite his adolescence, begins to show an aggressive and threatening side. Ryan Guzman displays the shifting tempers and emotions of this seemingly besotted young man spectacularly, cleverly managing to manipulate Claire’s husband, her son and even her colleagues at school with his innocent angel-like smile and switching instantaneously into someone menacingly violent. As Noah begins to realise that Claire will not willingly submit to his charms again, he begins to blackmail her, and plots to destroy every aspect of her life so as to take her by force.

Unsurprisingly, the film has attracted a large audience due to the presence of singer, songwriter and model Jennifer Lopez. Despite her unexpectedly convincing, half-decent acting skills, many people (primarily male) seem to want to watch this film in the hope that they will catch her in some various stage of undress. They will be disappointed. The focus on her face within this film does however make it rather difficult to forget the numerous L’Oreal make-up advertisements of her visage which have, throughout the years, haunted the aisles of Boots. Co-actor Guzman displays a lot of promise and is certainly a figure to keep an eye out for in the future.

For a film which I expected to find truly disastrously bad, it is actually rather difficult to stop watching The Boy Next Door. There is something about it that is both mildly gripping and even, to an extent, quite exciting. Indeed, the most disappointing thing about this film is that it is not really that disappointing. None of the actors are outrageously awful, the script is tolerable and, despite the odd glitch in its levels of believability, the characters are easy enough to warm to. Yet the film’s narrative is a repeat of countless past TV dramas and failed thriller movies in which the psychotic ex-lover obsesses to the periphery of murder. Ultimately it is not hard to predict that it will fall, just like all the others of its kind, into the limbo of films which are neither good nor bad enough to be remembered.

Review: Focus

0

★★★☆☆

Three Stars

Focus sees Will Smith do what he does best. It’s certainly a fun film, in which Smith plays Nicky, a charismatic hustler who takes wannabe con artist Jess (Margot Robbie) under his wing, and teaches her his age-old familial trade.

It’s hard to put your finger on the exact genre of this film, possibly placing it somewhere between comedy, drama and even romance. Yet as ever, films like Focus let you enjoy the theatrical glamour of grifting, and allow you to leave your morality at home.

Nicky is a master of the hustling scene. He runs his crime ring with precision, using complex gadgets to steal everything from purses to identities. His team hit the streets of New Orleans, and Jess is a natural, stealing trinkets as well as other people’s attention. Of course Nicky has some morals: he warns them all, “Don’t steal from anyone old or in a wheel chair,” as “that’s just bad luck.” The film takes us from Jess and Nicky’s first meeting in New Orleans, to three years later in Buenos Aires where Jess returns to throw Nicky’s world into a spin. There’s little more we can reveal about a con-caper like Focus without giving too much away.

The script is anything but predictable, almost verging on a little too erratic in parts, and leaving you asking yourself ‘what really just happened’ following the final scene. The film’s writers and directors, Glenn Ficara and John Requa possibly play it a little too safe, and leave us wondering whether a bit more depth could have been added to the characters, especially Nicky, without subtracting from their comedic value. The dangers of the grifting world remain too fleetingly touched upon.

Robbie’s performance is sparkling; it undoubtedly equals Smith’s, and provides the greatest complexity of performance. It proves to be a very strong follow-on for her from The Wolf of Wall Street, impressive for an actress who started her career in Neighbours. Together they are a dynamic duo – who have a fiery chemistry – and carry the plotline brilliantly.

Despite its minor pitfalls, Focus is an exciting though un-challenging film, leaving you wondering who is really conning whom by the end. 

Run, run as fast as you can

0

As David Cameron submitted his “final offer” to broadcasters on TV debates yesterday, other party leaders were quick to label him a coward, and rightly so.

But David Cameron and the Conservative Party aren’t only running scared, they are also acting in an entirely un-statesmanlike manner. I hate to agree with UKIP, but their spokesperson was right when he asked, “After praising what a good thing debates were for democracy as recently as 2014, why is David Cameron now acting chicken and running as far away from them as possible?”

The thing is, unless you’re particularly engaged with politics, general elections in this country are quite mundane. News channels will show endless reels of politicians with tired smiles shaking hands with local supporters, workmen and pub landlords, newspapers will carry analyses on the most minute of policy differences, and in the process we will all be thoroughly bored.

The TV debates were a way of reinvigorating popular engagement with politics. If the people can directly question the politicians, and if you can watch the different leaders battle it out on stage, then politics becomes more interesting and people will care more.

What is of even greater importance is that the TV debates are live. No matter how well you script your performance (think Nick Clegg in 2010), if you get a tricky question you’re going to have to answer it, or try to. And the relatively bare production of the debates will expose those politicians that try to wriggle out and leave questions unanswered.

The TV debates are about engaging a population that is plagued with apathy about politics. So if politicians aren’t going to think big and start talking about real changes and visions of the future on their own, let us force them to do so together, live, and on a national stage. That way we can challenge them at least in our own minds, or challenge our perceptions so we can make a better decision at the ballot box.

When David Cameron thinks he has the right to control the format, number and timing of TV debates, we have to question how much he cares about our democracy, about the people he supposedly represents.

The Conservatives I think know full well that opening up the debate to seven parties will dilute its effectiveness. On each question posed, every party leader will want to get their opinion across. But in doing so, the likelihood is it will descend into an uncontrollable and incomprehensible slurry of soundbites. It’s an outrage that any party would allow this to happen, let alone that they would try to make it happen.

Cowardice is one thing. If Cameron feels he cannot debate against Clegg, Miliband, Farage and the other party leaders, I have no sympathy. It is his job after all. But arrogance and an interference with democratic process is quite another.

That a governing party would have the nerve to try and dictate the parameters of debate in the run up to the most significant aspect of democratic engagement for the general public is appalling. The right to choose our MPs and hence our government only comes about once every five years. The least we deserve by them in the meantime is full and free access to information about their views and plans for our country.

I moaned when broadcasters excluded the Green Party and Cameron was right to demand their inclusion. But this was based on the assumption that we would not sacrifice close scrutiny of the major leaders who could end up controlling our government. One 90 minute broadcast with seven parties is not going to be a fruitful means of popular engagement in the run up to the election (especially when it occurs before electoral race even officially begins).

David Cameron’s offer to the broadcasters is cowardly, yes. But moreover it is unfaithful to the public he represents and the manner in which he laid out a “final offer” is appalling. I hope the broadcasters don’t back down, and if he won’t do a U-turn I hope he is ‘empty chaired’. We should be outraged.

Get involved in a worthwhile Oxford charity tournament

0

Two Oxford University alumni have organised a charity football tournament with the goal of raising money for two local charities.

Jonathan Fennell, Pembroke, and Jamie Dear, LMH, (both pictured right) decided to set up a charity football league in 2012 to raise money for Jacari, a local charity here in Oxford. The Charity Football League has since arranged this year to hold its first six-a-side football tournament, in addition to the league. It will take place at the Oxford City Football Ground on Friday 17th April from 3-6pm. They already have teams from Balliol, but are still looking for competitors to take part. The tournament is for an extremely worthy cause and is something that anyone who likes playing football, and is in Oxford on the 17th, should definitely consider getting involved in, or even just supporting.

Jacari is an Oxford student charity that has been providing free home tutoring since 1956 for local children aged four to 16 who do not speak English as their first language. The charity started as a result of cooperation between the University Labour, Conservative, and Liberal clubs, and has a history of wellknown backers and high profile speakers supporting the charity.

In addition to supporting Jacari, the tournament will also be supporting SpecialEffect, another very special local charity, dedicated to using technology to enhance the quality of the life of people with severe disabilities by giving them access to video games and life-enhancing technologies. The charity was founded in 2007 and has grown substantially in following years.

Besides great competitive, fast-paced football, there will be a cash bar and trophies for the best placed teams. Team entry is £100 (up to ten players in a squad) with all proceeds going to these amazing local charities.

If you are unable to make the tournament, but would still like to support these great charities and play some football, you can also get involved in the Charity Football League’s spring 6-a-side league which will run from March to September.

This is played at the Oxford City Football Ground.

The Charity Football League is still accepting entries for this event, so if you would like to enter, go to www.charityfootballleague.co.uk/sign-up. 

OUHC optimistic about varsity match

0

This Sunday will see the 115th annual varsity hockey match between Oxford and Cambridge being played at Southgate Hockey Centre in London.

The match has a long history, first taking place in Oxford in 1890. The following year, the match was played in London on neutral ground and has been ever since, changing venues a further ten times before the current venue was established at Southgate, which has been the location since 2003.

In total, Oxford has won the match 45 times, Cambridge has won the match 51 times, and it has been drawn 18 times. Previously, if the match was drawn, the previous holders of the trophy would retain it, but 2014 saw the introduction of a shoot-out in order to decide the winner. In the shoot-out, five members of each team are given eight seconds to score in free play against the opposing goalkeeper, which would make for an exciting (and extremely tense) finish to the match.

In recent times, Cambridge have come out on top, winning the trophy three years in succession from 2012. Last year’s match was extremely tight, finishing in a 2-1 victory for Cambridge. For many of the Oxford squad in this year’s varsity, it is likely to be the last varsity they compete in, and will be even hungrier for the win because of it.

This year, the Blues faced some difficult times early on in the season as the team settled in and team members took time to get to know each other. However, the group has subsequently begun to find form, finishing third in their British Universities and Colleges Sport (BUCS) league, and reaching the quarter finals of the national BUCS cup. The team eventually only went out to a strong Durham side.

According to spectators, the squad has also displayed some very promising performances in the Saturday league recently. Team members will be extremely positive going into Sunday’s encounter.

Transport from Oxford is available for supporters to watch the match, but space is extremely limited, so interested parties are encouraged to approach members of the team to book spaces as soon as possible.

Oxford Uni Snooker Club varsity win

0

Oxford beat the Cambridge team by a score of 27-5.

The contest occurred on February 28th at Riley’s Pool and Snooker Club in Cowley. The match involved 32 frames in total, with each team member playing four frames of the total.

The captain of the Oxford team, Paul Allen (St Catherine’s), led by example, winning all four of his frames, and scored the highest break of the match with a 31.

Team members Sam Bunt (St Hugh’s) and Gavin Cheung (Linacre) also won all four of their frames, while Sam Bentham (Christ Church), Abrar Chaudhury (Green Temple- ton), Xiaochun Meng (Merton), Alex Pappas (Christ Church), and Chris Speller (Mansfield) each won three of the four frames in which they played.

The match began with some tight frames, but with a series of one-sided wins by Sam Bunt, Alex Pappas, and Gavin Cheung, Oxford raced to a swift 7-1 lead, from which Cam- bridge was not able to recover.

Team captain Paul Allen told Cherwell, “Oxford’s man of the match has to be awarded to our reserve player Gavin Cheung, who, after a late drop out, only discovered he was playing two hours before the match. Gavin played exceptionally well, winning all four of his [frames] and compiling a personal best competitive break of 16.”

He added, “On the day, Oxford were too experienced for the newly formed Cambridge team but, with only four returning players, next year could be far more competitive.”

This was the first varsity men’s snooker match with Cambridge since 2003, when Oxford won narrowly by a score of 17-15.