Sunday, May 11, 2025
Blog Page 1246

Oxford first in the UK for university research

Suzie Marshall
-
0
Oxford first in the UK for university research

Oxford University has been rated number one in the UK for the quality and volume of its research.

The 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF), a large-scale assessment reviewing the quality and impact of research in different subjects at universities across the UK, found that Oxford has the largest volume of world-leading research in the country.

52,000 academics at 154 institutions across the UK were included in the two year long public assessment of university research output.

2,409 members of Oxford University’s academic staff were submitted for assessment in the REF, researching in 31 academically diverse areas. The analysis, produced by Research Fortnight, graded the research using a four star system, where four stars was the best (world-leading), and one star represented research that was recognised nationally. 48.1 per cent of the University’s research was categorised as four stars, while a further 39 per cent was rated 3 stars.

The University also ranked first in 12 individual academic subjects for volume of world-leading research. These covered all the University’s main academic divisions: the medical sciences, humanities, the social sciences and maths, physics, and the life sciences.

Furthermore, the University performed strongly in the new impact category of the REF. Examples of the impact of Oxford University research ranged from a new malaria treatment which has helped save more than a million lives globally to a major database of ancient pottery and gems, used by museums and the antiquities trade around the world.

Professor Andrew Hamilton, the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, said, “I welcome our superb REF results, which clearly reflect our outstanding world-leading research. It is pleasing to be ranked in first place, but even more pleasing to see recognition of the fantastic contribution Oxford researchers make to knowledge across a huge range of subjects and of the real impact they have on health, prosperity, policy formation and culture around the world.”

“It is vital — if the full economic, social and cultural benefits of this research excellence at Oxford, and elsewhere in the higher education sector are to be realised — that strong and sustained public investment in leading university research is maintained and indeed increased.”

On Twitter, the University of Oxford declared itself to be “very proud”.

The results of the REF are to be used by the four UK higher education funding bodies to allocate £2billion of block-grant research funding to UK universities from 2015–2016. As Oxford ranked first, it is set to accept the largest share of the funding.

The periodic assessment of the quality and impact of university research in the UK ensures funds are distributed selectively on the basis of quality and volume of research carried out at each university. This was previously known as the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and was last conducted in 2008, where Oxford also placed first.

However, despite Oxford remaining in the top position, London universities are dividing Oxbridge. University College London, which in 2008 ranked 3rd, is now placed 2nd, between Oxford and Cambridge, thus breaking up the historic dominance of these universities.

The London School of Economics was found to have the highest proportion of world-leading research, with 49.9 per cent of its research given four stars (compared to Oxford’s marginally inferior 48.1 per cent, and Cambridge’s 46.8 per cent). Oxford was ranked higher in the REF due to a greater of research, and for a higher score in the impact category.

Students have reacted positively to Oxford receiving the highest funding for research of any UK university. Second year Chemistry undergraduate, Harry Bush, commented: “as an undergraduate it’s evident I had no contribution towards this, but it really excites me for the prospects of being part of some world class and novel research in my 4th year and perhaps beyond”.

Meanwhile, James Blythe, OUSU VP for Access & Academic Affairs, and Louis Trup, OUSU President, were also pleased with Oxford’s performance.

HEFCE release the exact funding respective universities receive in Spring, so, as the University commented to Cherwell, “While we are clearly in a strong position, we will not know exactly how HEFCE works out the formula until it is announced in March.”

Review: Morrissey – O2 London

Michael Roderick
-
0
Review: Morrissey – O2 London

They came, presumably, from all corners of the country, maybe from beyond. They had their Smiths shirts, their quiffs, the odd gladiolus, those glasses; mostly they were men, some were old, but the majority (it seemed) were young. As I got off the tube at Greenwich, a great chant filled the station, a choir of wannabe misfits and old timers singing “And if a double-decker bus crashes into us…“ and so on. In the air: a sense of remarkable jubilation, festive almost… almost, indeed, religious. So in they came, electric and chanting, flooding the O2 arena, here to gawp at and worship one Stephen Patrick Morrissey.

Witty, spikey, a man of Olympian irony and outrageous opinions; the contrarian vegetarian, homoerotic, surly and shy in equal measure, self-deprecating, cheeky and pathologically narcissistic all at once; disgusted with life and sex and yet bewitched by desire for carnal contact: Morrissey is a unique individual, the eccentric uncle of modern British music.

2014 really hasn’t been a good year for Morrissey. Firstly, although attaining pretty saleable reviews, his new album World Peace Is None Of Your Business was withdrawn from iTunes and Spotify after a bumptious spat between Morrissey and his label, Harvest (it still hasn’t been re-released). His American tour was cut short due to illness and yet more quarrels (this time with support acts). To top off the misery, Morrissey revealed in October that he had been treated for ‘cancerous tissues’. Despite this, his European tour this November has been quietly successful, and his performance at the O2 on the 29th proved to be no different.

The show began with the most Morrisseyesque collection of videos imaginable: Jimmy Clithero sketches, scenes from A Taste of Honey, clips of The Ramones and New York Dolls – and, predictably, pictures of the late Lady Thatcher set to the tune of ‘Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead’. After this, Morrissey makes his grand entrance – he’s wearing a white tracksuit – and teases the crowd with two classics: ‘The Queen is Dead’ and ‘Suedehead’. With the crowd primed, Morrissey begins what he came here to do – what he was put on earth to do: promote his latest album and make meat-eaters feel very guilty indeed. He succeeds on both accounts.

He sings almost all of his new material, some of which is very good: I’m thinking particularly of the thundering ‘I’m Not A Man’, ‘Kiss Me A Lot’ (a typical Morrissey ballad of stunted desire) and ‘Neil Cassidy Drops Dead’. Some aren’t so good. The title song ‘World Peace Is None Of Your Business’ is a howler of particular note, a jangly little number full of banal politics and Brandisms (‘each time you vote you support the process’).

As a performer, Morrissey is as good as he’s ever been. His voice is stronger than ever before. His movements, gestures and swoops are glorious to behold: each head-flick, each tragic turn and genuflection is choreographed to transform Morrissey into the doomed, romantic figure he has always longed to be. The crowd buys it; many swoon and weep as he twists and writhes. There is an atmosphere of exquisite fatalism, the electrifying miserablism that has been Morrissey’s stock-in-trade for over thirty years. Morrissey has always fetishized death and illness (existential and physical), but here he excels himself: he ends with an astonishing rendition of ‘Asleep’, urging the crowd: ‘Remember me, but forget my fate’, an echo of Dido from Purcell – a reference to the fatal course of his illness? Perhaps.

A woman next to me quite seriously breaks down in tears for the remainder of the show. By the end of the whole thing, I too am a little weepy, leaving all at once exhilarated and dejected, buzzing and sorrowful. Well, what else would you expect from Morrissey? 

State school colleges are a belittling suggestion

Frances Timberlake
-
0
State school colleges are a belittling suggestion

Lorna Finlayson recently argued in The Guardian for the need for state school colleges in Oxbridge. As a state school student myself, I felt patronised and belittled by her suggestion.

She talks of her concern for the disproportionately low number of students from “non-traditional” backgrounds, or, in other words, less advantaged backgrounds. I could not agree more. She also talks about busting stereotypes, but this is exactly what the introduction of state school only colleges would not do.

When it comes to the issue of access, statistics about background are often bandied about, such as the fact that 5% of students from private school went on to study at Oxbridge in 2011, as opposed to 1% from state school. However, when people cite these statistics, they often do not contextualise them with the fact that a much lower proportion of state-educated students apply. The problem is not that “private school students obtain higher grades,” but rather that state school students are not receiving enough support from their own schools to undergo the application process. I agree with Finlayson that action is necessary to shake the oppressive structures still present within the university, but I feel that creating a form of social segregation within the university would not achieve this. 

The argument that state school colleges are comparable to women-only colleges becomes redundant when we consider that the latter were only introduced because women had previously been banned altogether from enrolling at university. As sexual equality in education has gradually improved, sex-segregated colleges have mostly become co-educational. As a member of a former women-only college, I revel in the pride of being part of a progressive body, reflected by the college’s decision to embrace gender equality and to fight against sexual discrimination.

A move to women-only colleges would be a move back into the past. In the same way, the creation of state school colleges would be a step backwards for the University, serving only to reinforce the hierarchy that already exists. All too often I have been the brunt of comments such as, “Oh, you’re from state school? It must have been easier for you to get in then, they favour state-schoolers,” or belittled by notions of us being “less intelligent” than our private-school counterparts. Creating a college where only state-schoolers can apply would simply seem to prove that right.

One of the most exciting parts of coming to university, for me, has been meeting people I never normally would have: those from worse-off backgrounds than my own as well as, yes, those famous Etonians discussed by Finlayson. And, indeed, some of them do live up to the stereotype. But to create a divide between state and private school pupils would simply deny us the opportunity to prove them wrong, and deny both of us the opportunity to make friends with those we otherwise might have dismissed as clones of our own stereotypes.

Finlayson talks of a continued division and inequality between state and private school students, and condemns the society to which it belongs. It is not this that I disagree with. In fact, I do feel keenly at times this state/private division in Oxford, although due less to antagonism, I believe, than to lack of shared experience. However, further entrenching this division by the introduction of separate colleges would only support the stereotypes of there being any distinction at all. So please stop patronising state school students. We are just as capable as our private school counterparts, and we do not need to be told otherwise.

Guardian editor to become LMH Principal

Elliot Burns
-
0
Guardian editor to become LMH Principal

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger has been announced as the new Principal of Lady Margaret Hall after a meeting of the Governing Body on December 17th. Rusbridger, who last week announced his decision to stand down from his position at the Guardian after 20 years, is expected to take up the post in October 2015.

In response to his election, Rusbridger, who is replacing the outgoing Principal Frances Lannnon, commented, “I am honoured that the Fellows of Lady Margaret Hall have elected me to be their next Principal.

“LMH is a pioneering college, beginning with its roots as the first to admit women to study at Oxford.  Its history is an inspiring one of intellectual distinction and of opening up equal educational and career possibilities.

“I am looking forward very much to joining the College next autumn and to building on the tremendous achievements of Frances Lannon, who has led LMH with such distinction over the past 13 years.”

The College is equally positive about the new relationship, with a spokesperson declaring that LMH was “delighted” to unveil Rusbridger as the incoming Principal. The University was also enthusiastic about the appointment on Twitter.

Rusbridger will take on his role at LMH in addition to his new responsibilities as Chair of the Scott Trust, the body that owns the Guardian and seeks to ensure its editorial freedom. Rusbridger addressed concerns about sharing his workload between the two, saying, “[I] look forward to combining Scott Trust & LMH.”

Lady Margaret Hall student Alice King supported the announcement, commenting, “It’s a really exciting time for the college. LMH has been home to a number of prominent journalists, including war journalist Tim Hetherigton, who was killed while investigating filming in Libya in 2011. I hope Mr Rusbridger feels well at home in our college. Dr Francis Lannon has presided over periods of serious development, so it’s interesting to see what happens next.”

However Lewis Hedges disagreed, saying, “I can’t help but feel that the last thing that LMH needs is another leftie. Besides, LMH is all the way over in OX2, that’s practically the moon, you couldn’t appoint anyone who would put them on the map.”

Review: Charli XCX – Sucker

Sam Joyce
-
0
Review: Charli XCX – Sucker
★★★☆☆
Three Stars
 
It’s been a busy year-and-a-half for Charli XCX. After penning global smash ‘I Love It’ for Icona Pop, she released her debut album, True Romance to critical raves, recorded an unreleased punk album, and then followed it up with lending her commanding presence to Iggy Azalea’s summer smash ‘Fancy’. Then, in between writing for Britney Spears, Gwen Stefani and Rihanna, she gained her first solo UK and US top 10 hit with ‘Boom Clap’, and still found time to record another solo effort Sucker, which having been already released in America, comes to the UK next January. Yet despite these huge successes Charli XCX still seemed as if she was on the perpetual come-up, never quite landing that elusive home-run. All that should change with this massive, crowd-pleasing sophomore album, which sees Charli obliterate any lingering doubt that she can’t hang with today’s top-tier pop stars.
 
Abandoning the fascinating but alienating alt pop stylings of her debut, Sucker instead sees Charli appropriating from pop punk and new wave, which she combines with a sugar-coated 90s nostalgia trip. Yet for all its derivativeness, the record still feels immediate and current, partly due to the incongruity of these musical stylings in present-day pop, but also thanks to the anachronisms snuck in here and there – an 8 bit sample on ‘Gold Coins’, the synths on ‘Boom Clap’. The record has few of her previous lyrical abstractions, instead favouring crowd-pleasing chant along choruses. On its own, Sucker is a fun, silly pop record with expertly crafted but shallow hooks. Yet, within the context of its mastermind’s oeuvre, so chock full of diverse influences and disparate styles, it becomes a masterclass in selling a personal identity distinct from a musical sensibility.
 
Where True Romance gave us Charli as pop’s alternative “it” girl, here, she styles herself as the ultimate teen queen. Songs like ‘London Queen’ and ‘Gold Coins’ rely on deliberately opaque references, defining her persona in terms of cultural signifiers and commercial iconography. Yet her cynical transformation into a globe-conquering pop product is offset by the joyousness of the songs, and her ability to sell the simple, ridiculous choruses she’s written for herself. She makes the most of every confident seduction or cocky put down, alternating between a melancholic lower register and a high, bratty whine. It’s a commanding, tour-de-force vocal performance. Sucker is self consciously commercial, serving up obvious cultural touchstones and accessible nostalgia, all helmed by a singer styling herself as the quintessential post-Britney pop star. Sucker therefore becomes a witty and thorough examination of what pop music means to us in 2014.
 
 
Like many recent big pop albums, Sucker at first plays as somewhat top-heavy. The opening six tracks, chock full of pre-release singles, are the most bombastic and distinct on the album. Right from the off, as the titular opening track screeches “Fuck you, Sucker!” we’re hurtled through a parade of kiss-offs and come-ons, from ‘Boom Clap’, to ‘Breaking Up’, via ‘Break the Rules’. Yet as the album reaches its centrepiece – the glorious roller-disco anthem ‘Doing It’ – the vulnerability behind the angst and bravado comes to the fore. To say tracks like album closer ‘Need Ur Love’ are emotionally perceptive is to stretch the bounds of credibility given the album’s admirable determination to never let up its relentless chase of hits. Yet, the songwriting gradually reveals the insecurity and confusion at the heart of her bluster, making the album a surprisingly compelling re-listen. 
 
Sucker is a love letter to the mainstream, to generational touchstones and to pop music. It’s entirely, gloriously derivative, and yet sonically interesting and somehow refreshing. Like the lolly-pop Charli XCX brandishes on the album cover, Sucker is obvious, sugary and delightful. But it’s almost entirely empty calories.
 

Petition asks The Sun to apologise for "transphobic" remark

Suzie Marshall
-
0
Petition asks The Sun to apologise for "transphobic" remark

A petition has been set up by Wadham undergraduate Rowan Davis, which demands that The Sun publically apologises for a purportedly “dehumanising” and “transphobic” comment made in an article published by the newspaper last week. It has so far reached over 25,000 signatories.

The Sun columnist Rod Liddle wrote of Emily Brothers, a blind, transgender Labour MP candidate, “Thing is though… being blind, how did she know she was the wrong sex?”

In response to this, Davis, a Trans Rep for the Oxford University LGBTQ Society, started a petition calling for The Sun’s Editor, David Dinsmore, to issue a public apology.

 Davis told Cherwell, “I have been overwhelmed at the hugely positive response to the despicable comment posted in The Sun by Rod Liddle concerning Emily Brothers. His article demonstrated completely the hatred that comes at the intersections of transphobia and ableism, ridiculing experiences of oppression for a quick laugh. I hope that this petition to ask for a direct and full apology from The Sun‘s editorial team will continue to grow, and that from it we can start to see changes in the way that trans people and those with disabilities are treated in the media.”

The petition argues that, “By reducing [Emily Brothers] down to her blindness and transness, Liddle has contributed to the dehumanisation and oppression of trans people and those with disabilities, and has helped uphold ableist and transphobic norms in politics.

“We deserve better, and as such The Sun should publically apologise.”

Brothers is standing to be MP for the constituency of Sutton & Cheam in the next General Election, and is the first openly transgender Labour candidate to run for parliament.

Liddle released a statement on Friday apologising for what he described as a “poor joke”, saying, “I wish Emily the very best and I’d definitely vote for her if I lived in Sutton and Cheam.”

Responding to this apology, Brothers wrote that she had “wondered aloud how he [Rod Liddell] knows he’s a man when he turns the light out. I believe strongly in press freedom. But it should hold the rich and powerful to account, not mock and undermine the vulnerable and disadvantaged.”

In reaction to Brothers’ response to Liddell’s apology, and due to the attention the petition received, Davis added an update on December 16th, which stated that “It is vital that we keep pressure up on the editors of The Sun to issue a full apology without reservations.” Having reached 25,000 signatures in just five days, the goal for the petition has been shifted to 35,000 signatures.

Davis launched the petition after Wadham student Tim Cannon posted a link to the original article in The Sun on the Facebook group NoHeterOx**.

The Sun has not responded to Cherwell’s request for comment. 

Hertford becomes accredited Living Wage employer

Alex Stronell
-
0
Hertford becomes accredited Living Wage employer

Hertford College has become the first college at Oxford University to pay all staff the Living Wage, according to the Living Wage Foundation.

Former JCR President Josh Platt, who campaigned during his tenure for the College to adopt the wage, told Cherwell, “I’m absolutely over the moon that Hertford is accrediting as a Living Wage Employer. This is fanastic news for all the staff at this College, who now know that Hertford will always prioritise fair wages for its employees. Accreditation is testament to the hard work of our students; it was their passion for this cause and their determination to see it through that has got Hertford to this point.”

A spokesperson for the Living Wage Foundation confirmed that the College was the first of Oxford’s colleges to officially accredit to the scheme.

Hertford student Harry Coath, who campaigned for the adoption of the Living Wage, commented, “Hertford’s accreditation is great news for staff and we hope that other colleges will follow its example. This change only happened because Hertford students expressed their dissatisfaction and lobbied college on low pay. Students in every college should do the same.”

Likewise, Fergal O’Dwyer, Oxford Living Wage Campaign co-chair, told Cherwell, “Hertford’s accrediting as a Living Wage Employer is a hugely significant moment in our University’s progress towards fair pay, security, and respect for it’s lowest paid workers. It proves that there is no reason that an Oxford college committed to these basic principles should choose not to accredit as a Living Wage employer.”

He added, “We hope that Hertford proves to be an example for other colleges, and that this news will contribute to the growing conversation about the importance of accreditation in Oxford.”

Ruth Meredith, OUSU Vice-President for Charities and Community, told Cherwell, “I am incredibly pleased that Hertford have made the decision to listen to the voices of staff and students calling for them to become an accredited Living Wage employer.
 
“This term, OUSU’s Living Wage Campaign heard from scouts at Hertford what accreditation would mean to them. The responses mentioned being able to give up second jobs, not worrying so much about switching on the heating at night, and showing that staff are fully respected for the work they do. We applaud Hertford for listening to their staff, and would encourage other colleges to do the same.”

She added, “Hertford’s accreditation is recognition that paying a Living Wage to all members of our community at Oxford is vitally important, and completely possible.”
 
The College, which accredited to the scheme in November, had asked staff not to speak to the press about it. But a note leaked to Cherwell, addressed to the Governing Body from housekeeping staff, read “we would like to say how much we appreciate the hard work that has gone into getting the college staff onto the Living Wage. This is an issue very close to our hearts and we are very relieved to finally be awarded this increase.”
 
It went on, “We are very proud to hear that Hertford is the leading college to move forward in awarding the Living Wage to its lower paid staff and hope that all the other colleges will follow Hertford’s example.”
 
In Trinity term, 200 Hertford students signed an open letter to Hertford’s Principal, Will Hutton, calling for the College to become an accredited employer.
 
Commenting on the letter, outgoing JCR President Josh Platt remarked, “I would like to thank all who signed our open letter, or spoke to your tutors about this issue before it went to Governing Body, or helped with the campaign in any way. I would like to thank the fellows who, when presented with the possibility of accreditation, grabbed it with both hands, and worked tirelessly behind the scenes to iron out all of the finer details. Most of all, I’d like to thank all the staff at Hertford College, who make it such a wonderful place to live and work.
 
“Accreditation to the Living Wage is something for the entire college community to celebrate.”
 
Incoming JCR President Holly Redford Jones told Cherwell, “This is really great news.”
 
Queen’s College, Cambridge was the first Oxbridge College to become an accredited employer, earlier this year. OUSU also announced earlier this year that all its staff would be paid the Living Wage.
 
In order for an employer to become a Living Wage accredited employer, all staff and contracted staff must be paid the wage, and must then obtain an accreditation licence from the Living Wage Foundation. The Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University calculates the UK Living Wage, which is currently set at £7.85 per hour.
 
But campaigner Harry Coath pointed out, “This victory should be the first step in building a closer campaigning relationship with staff. The City Council calculates the ‘Oxford Living Wage’ at £8.36, whereas accreditation only guarantees £7.85. It is important that we continue to support staff where they have grievances, and to involve them in the campaigning process. I would like to see more permanent staff solidarity groups in colleges, perhaps existing as part of the JCR structure.”

Should music fans put their trust in Trust Fund?

Ben Wilkinson-Turnbull
-
0
Should music fans put their trust in Trust Fund?

Two Stars

★★☆☆☆

Despite the security suggested by their name, Trust Fund’s entry onto the stage was disturbing. In the midst of the lead singer‘s oscillating vocal range, the drummers gurns were fear inspiring.

It was not, however, just the audience’s eyes that were affronted. The lyrics cringed our ears until they bled. One of the songs featuring earlier in the set, ‘Scared’, is made purely of the two words ‘I’m’ and ‘scared’ shrieked over and over again. Their bands unified voices clashed and it was simply uncomfortable listening. Another deliciously bad titbit was the line ‘After our exams… If it still feels weird we can just break up’. Like the two characters of that relationship, I found myself at this questioning- what is the point in all of this? Their lyrics sounded like the angsty pages of teenage diary, but with all the juicy gossip left out.

I will admit I was quick to judge Trust Fund. Once the initial cringing was overcome, the guitar riffs weren’t bad. As a whole, Trust Fund sound like a collaborative effort. Johnny Foreigner has written their music, Slow Club have written the lyrics, which have in turn been sung by the lead singer from Bombay Bicycle Club. A musical lovechild birthed by NME favourites. They sounded their best when they employed their voices in harmony, as the evidenced in the almost-delightful performance of ‘No Pressure’. Onstage, the band were seething with enthusiasm. Sure, they sound like a pastiche of Slow Club, but that band have done okay for themselves. Trust Fund just need to channel that enthusiasm away from the discordant shrieks and towards a better collection of lyrics.  

Police brutality is not a new problem

Sian Meaney
-
0
Police brutality is not a new problem

Our police force prides itself on being an agent that works for the good of the people, keeping civil order, and protecting property and rights from those who would seek to undermine or remove them. This positive impression of those entrusted to maintain our law and order is largely correct. However, recent demonstrations might suggest that our police force is slipping out of working for the public good and into the practice of police brutality.

Nevertheless, whilst there is a clear need for greater training and transparency, it is not necessarily true that recent instances of police brutality mark a new trend within policing. 

According to Section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984, police are empowered to employ “reasonable force” if necessary. The phrase “reasonable force” is ambiguous; it is broadly defined as the correct amount of force police may use if they feel that they are in serious danger. Behaviour is labelled as “police brutality” when excessive force is used intentionally to carry out a lawful police purpose. I feel that our police force ought to be better trained to differentiate between the two, especially in high-pressure situations, so as to prevent the deterioration of the relationship between the police and the public that we are beginning to witness.

Students at Warwick University appear to have become victims of police brutality during their sit-in protest, which occurred as part of a national day of action against student fees. According to Nigel Thrift, the Vice-Chancellor of Warwick, the police were called in after reports of an assault on a member of staff, with events escalating as the guilty individual refused to identify themselves. However, the use of CS spray on students (as caught on video) and the emergence of a taser to combat fewer than 30 peaceful students, as well as the level of intimidation evident in footage posted online, seem to show a greater level of force being used than may be deemed “reasonable”.

This is not the first time that unreasonable force has been used by police around student protests. In a 2013 University of London protest, in which students occupied the University’s Senate Headquarters, police used, as labelled by Taylor, Rawlinson and Harris in their Guardian headline, “excessive force”. Video footage of the incident shows one officer striking a hooded protestor in the face, in a move that is certainly excessive considering that the officer was not under attack by the protester in question. Were a protester to do the same to a policeman, it would be labelled as “police assault” and would carry a punishment of up to six months in prison. Commenting on the event, Michael Chessum, president of the University of London Union, said that “[T]he level of police force that we have seen in the last couple of days is totally unprecedented on university campuses. It appears pre-planned. It is as if they are reacting to a riot situation – taking the level of force – and using it against students protesting on a university campus.”

Yet another incident concerned Jody McIntyre, a disabled student who was dragged from his chair along the ground by officers during a protest. In a statement about the event released in August 2011 the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) concluded that “this did amount to excessive force.” There needs to be more clearly defined guidelines as to what police officers may and may not do in protest-situations. Clearly, dragging a defenceless person across the ground is unacceptable. 

The risk of police brutality occurs not only in student protests. Another point of contention is the use of batons– especially long-handled batons. It is these weapons, which officers are permitted to carry, which caused the brain damage and eventual death of Brian Douglas in 1995. Following Douglas’ death, Coroner Sir Montague Levine questioned the level of training given to officers, stating that “[T]here is a need for all officers who have been trained to use a baton to be taught the specific dangers, the after-effects and potential symptoms that can follow a baton blow to the head.”

Not only is more training needed for officers in the limitations of “reasonable force”, but greater transparency is needed. After the Douglas and similar incidents, Henry Cohen wrote to the Home Secretary expressing concern at the “excessive, disproportionate and unnecessary damage” that a baton can cause, and asking for a full public inquiry. There was no response.

Perhaps most clearly illustrating the need for greater training was the Ian Tomlinson incident in 2009. During the G20 protests in London at this time, the civilian was struck by a police officer with a baton and pushed from behind, despite not engaging with protestors. Shortly after this police attack, he collapsed and died, which led to an IPCC investigation into his death. This investigation followed a review by an inquest jury that ruled “excessive and unreasonable force” was used, and that he was unlawfully killed. The police officer involved, PC Harwood, was later found guilty of gross misconduct by a Metropolitan Police disciplinary panel.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10709%%[/mm-hide-text]

However, despite the recent press surrounding the issues of police brutality, especially regarding protests, I do not believe that our police force is slipping into this action. The issue has been continually latent in our police’s history, and has been continually ignored in an attempt to focus on the (undeniable) good done by the police. As far back as the 1936 Battle of Cable Street we can see unreasonable force being deployed, while the 1985 Battle of the Beanfield acts as an extreme example of what may happen when events and our police force escalate out of control. Their conduct was so bad during the 1985 incident that the Court judgement six years later found police involved guilty not only of wrongful arrest and criminal damage, but also of assault against the new-age travellers attempting to reach Stonehenge. 

This said, I do acknowledge that the existence of a broadly transparent police force is something we ought to be grateful for, and that we are fortunate to have an excellent public relationship with officers. We are privileged to live in a country where selfies with law enforcers are permissible, and talk of police brutality still shocks us. However, in order to maintain this trusting relationship, I believe that greater stress needs to be placed on the level of force permissible in high-pressure (especially protest) situations, with greater transparency and honesty between officers and members of the public when mistakes are made. 

Review: Netsky Live!

Henry Hodson
-
0
Review: Netsky Live!

It’s only a quarter to ten on a Wednesday night, but the keen crop have been here for nearly three hours now, and the O2 is really hotting up. Literally, I swear the ceiling is dripping – I presume a mixture of the jettisoned pints, the sweat and the spit of hundreds of chanting fans. What they want is Netsky; or ‘Netskee’, as opinions seem to differ. Either way, Boris Daenen has a lot to live up to.

The hype is no less real after both drum n bass veterans Chase and Status and Pendulum successfully made the switch, establishing themselves as epic and elaborate live acts in their own right, with cheeky upstarts Disclosure following hot on their heels. Netsky LIVE! however quickly reveals itself as an altogether more simple formula: Daenen is flanked only by his drummer and his keyboardist, with long-time collaborator Script MC fronting the outfit. Indeed at first the word formula seems appropriate, as they plough through a handful of songs with scarcely a pause for breath. No sooner has one song finished, and the crowd quietened down, than the drums work up to yet another numbing climax.

Netsky’s set list contains a much lesser proportion of the liquid funk style of his self-titled debut, and when at last the keyboard makes the transition from screeching synth high notes to the lilting pianos of ‘Anticipate’, and Daenen turns to the microphone to deliver the lyrics with vocoded finesse (and the slight hint of a Belgian accent) it becomes obvious what we have been missing all along. Aside from the odd drumstep remix or hip hop breakdown, Netsky rarely deviates from the drum n bass tempo, and when featuring artist Billie sings live on his house hit ‘Puppy’, it is the change in pace that the crowd seems to appreciate most of all.

However, for all Netsky LIVE! may lack in variety or even ambition, it makes up in focus. Now over two years into a string of worldwide tour dates, the ensemble is tight, at times almost clinical. Whilst it is easy to lose yourself in the crowd, more mesmerising still is the sight of the keyboardist’s psychedelic flair and the drummer’s metal levels of intensity racing together, neither missing a single beat. The energy of the room is pooled and recycled from one banger to the next, old favourites ‘Iron Heart’ and ‘Secret Agent’ are greeted like Chelsea Dagger at a football match, and mosh pits form of their own accord in anticipation of almost every devastating drop. Script MC, if anything, seems to bring order to the chaos with some well-placed call-and-response. Netsky, too, has always been quietly confident. The 25 year old stands before us in a plain white t shirt, his unassuming charm more reminiscent of a house party tastemaker than the self-indulgent frontman, and it is this sense of equality, of community under one roof, that Daenen builds from the opening notes to the final encore.

As the crowd disperses, only debris remains to tell the true cost of such a ceremony. While a friend of mine, mourning his newly chipped tooth, scrambles in search of a lost phone among trampled sunglasses, shoe soles and the tatters of hair extensions, I instead am inclined to reflect on the reciprocity of the whole affair. Because for every second of energy that Netsky gives to the performance, another young fan gives up their mosh pit innocence. I should really have helped him find that phone.

1...1,2451,2461,247...2,493Page 1,246 of 2,493

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley