Saturday 5th July 2025
Blog Page 1274

Students respond to Wilson verdict

Tom Calver
-
0
Students respond to Wilson verdict

Oxford students have reacted to news that policeman Darren Wilson who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, will not be charged.

OUSU’s WomCam Women of Colour Group released a statement online early on Wednesday stating that they stand “in solidarity” with the parents of Michael Brown and the protestors in Ferguson.

Riots have broken out across America after a grand jury voted not to hold criminal charges against Wilson, who, as put by WomCam, “shot the unarmed teenager six times and left him in a pool of his own blood for four hours”.

The Women of Colour Group’s statement began, “The criminal injustice system in America systematically fails black people. The system repeatedly allows white police officers to murder with impunity. It denies black people employment, decent housing and education, and criminalises and marginalises black lives. It is a system built on the back of black slavery that pushes black people into poverty and prisons. It is a system under which you will serve more time in jail for protesting than you will for the murder of a black person.

“Michael Brown’s murder is not an exceptional case. Police brutality against black bodies happens every day — to people of colour of all genders, of all ages, of all intersecting op- pressions. Time and time again, justice is denied. The criminal injustice system in America is founded on white supremacy.”

The statement was also used to promote a protest on Saturday at noon on Cornmarket with the title, ‘Oxford in Solidarity with Ferguson: Black Lives Matter’. The event currently has around 700 attendees on its Facebook page, which describes itself as a “symbolic gesture of allyship and solidarity with the activists and protesters in Ferguson and across the U.S.”

Protestors are standing “as allies, activists, and supporters of wider radical anti-racism movements and struggles for the rights of people of colour around the world against violence, injustice, and systemic oppression.”

WomCam’s statement added, “We will not be silent. We will not allow this injustice to continue. Our solidarity is with the protestors of Ferguson and elsewhere — people all over the world who are subject to America’s racist imperial violence — when they refuse to be bowed.”

Merton’s Georgiana Jackson-Callen, of The Women of Colour Group, told Cherwell, “It’s not even the fact that there were no criminal charges: that would entail that a trial had actually taken place. Centuries of injustice leaves the Black community expecting the worst in a trial situation, but there won’t even be one. ‘Justice’.

“I am sick at the hashtags and articles co-opting and derailing Black pain. I am wondering how many so-called “colourblind” deniers I will have to interact with who cannot and will not see where the injustice is, or where it comes from, and will think this an overreaction.”

She added, “I am unable to get the thought of the same thing happening to the Black men and women I know and love out of my head. I am exhausted from living at the painful junction of two oppressions; I am longing for a lasting peace and justice that no earthly power can provide.” 

Jesus celebrates 40 years of women

Tom Calver
-
0
Jesus celebrates 40 years of women

Jesus is celebrating 40 years since it first admitted women to the College in what was known as the “Jesus experiment”, with three events for current students and alumni having been planned for this weekend.

Women from the JCR and MCR hosted a drinks reception to celebrate a donation of portraits of the college’s first female fellows on Thursday, while a bar party is planned for Friday and a panel discussion on Saturday.

Although the first women-only colleges, LMH and Somerville, opened in 1879, there were no co-ed colleges until Jesus, Brasenose, Wadham, Hertford and St Catherine’s opened their doors to women in 1974.

Organiser Ellie Armstrong told Cherwell, “Celebrating steps towards equality is always important, and this milestone allows us to look back at the advances that have been made through women’s admission and to look forward to see what we still have to do to get diversity and equality in the University.

“So many of us are grateful for the opportunity to study at Jesus College, Oxford University and the women of the community wanted to give something back. We also wanted to make sure that Jesus did something to commemorate the opportunity in the college, as Hertford and Keble have also done.”

The drinks reception on Thursday celebrated the donation of portraits of some of the first female fellows to the College. Taken by a female undergraduate photographer, Liberty King, in Jesus Fellows’ Library, it is hoped that the portraits will be hung in the Porters’ Lodge.

Armstrong explained, “Getting in touch with these fellows has been really inspiring as it’s shown how important their positions in Jesus were to their academic careers.”

The fellows had interesting stories to tell. One explained how, after dining at high table with the other fellows, she was initially expected not to join the men when they went for coffee in a separate room, much to her dismay. Meanwhile, Susan Ballard, who joined the college’s GCR in 1977, commented, “It was a shock to the college that we wanted irons and ironing boards and sewing machines!”

Friday’s bar party will involve creating a college-collage with memories and photographs about experiences of co-education for current Jesus students. With regard to costume theme, organisers have told students, “Take a great woman as your inspiration and get creative.”

The panel discussion, meanwhile, sees Ruth Saunders, a member of the 1974 matriculation class, and Susan Ward, one of the two fellows admitted in 1974, sitting on a panel with current fellow Patricia Daley, post-grad Rohini Giles, and undergrad Kathy Page. Armstrong explained, “We hope to discuss how College has changed over the intervening 40 years, how attitudes and expectations have been influenced by the presence of women at Jesus and how their memories and experiences have been shaped by attending Jesus.”

JCR President Leo Gebbie told Cherwell, “It’s fantastic to see Jesus students celebrating the contributions that women have made, both within and beyond our college, over the last 40 years. The events which have been organised are encouraging people to think of those women who have inspired them, and it’s great to see so many JCR members coming together to celebrate the achievements of our alumnae.” 

Banerjee U-turn on resignation

Tom Calver
-
0
Banerjee U-turn on resignation

Oxford Union President Mayank Banerjee appears to have backed down from threatening to resign his position after deciding that new electoral rules are in place for today’s (Friday) elections.

At the meeting of the Consultative Committee on Monday, Banerjee announced his intention to resign if the recently passed electoral changes were not in place.

The changes involved the introduction of a ‘Re-Open Nominations’ (RON) option, and the legalising of campaigning, including slates. The changes were approved by 92 per cent of member voters on Thursday November 13th, although the validity of that poll was questioned when Returning Officer (RO) Thomas Reynolds issued a rule interpretation on Saturday, declaring the electoral changes invalid.

The ballot papers for Friday were printed earlier this week without a RON option.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10638%%[/mm-hide-text] 

 

However, after consulting an advisory board on Tuesday, and after the majority of election candidates signed a declaration saying they are standing by the rule change, the President declared that he would be ignoring the Returning Officer and running the election under the new rules. This, in his view, seems to have removed the need for his resignation — despite the fact that there is no RON option on the ballot paper.

Furthermore, when Cherwell requested the minutes of Monday’s Consultative Committee meeting in which Banerjee reportedly threatened to resign, the Chair of the Committee refused to hand them over — despite the rules stating that the minutes have to be available at least 72 hours after the meeting.

Banerjee told Cherwell on Wednes- day that, “On Monday, I considered resigning if the new electoral rules were not in place by Friday’s elections. This was because I believed they were being blocked undemocratically. 

“Yesterday, an advisory board asserted that the new electoral rules were in place, and as such, Friday’s elections would be run as per the wishes of 92 per cent of the members who voted in the poll. I am glad that all of the candidates in this election have expressly recognised that the new set of rules is in place, and that they will campaign accordingly.

“I would like to thank the Returning Officer for all his hard work so far, and look forward to his administration of the new set of rules on Friday. I will do everything I can to help him to that end.”

If Banerjee is to resign, he would become only the fourth Oxford Union President ever to resign, and the first since 1972.

Banerjee also issued a ruling at the Union on Wednesday, stating, “On Sunday 23 November 2014, the RO issued a series of interpretations and a ruling reguarding the validity of the poll which occured on Thursday 13 November 2014.

“After consulting with an advisory board made up of the Senior Officers and a member of OLDUT (the Oxford Literary and Debating Union Trust, which owns the Union’s buildings), which has strongly asserted that the interpretations and ruling were outside of the RO’s jurisdiction, I rule that the interpretations and ruling were outside of the RO’s jurisdiction.

“This is the final ruling or interpretation on this matter until a Senior Disciplinary Committee rules otherwise.”

Hours later, though, Reynolds responded with another ruling; in its Preamble, he insisted, “I unambiguously have interpretative power over Rule 32(e), which describes my duty.

“In the same way that an SDC or a Tribunal has the power to over-rule both the President and me, I have the power to over-rule the President in matters pertaining to the conduct of the Election.

“The President is appealing to the authority of a so-called advisory board, comprised of a Member of OLDUT and the Senior Officers. This is clearly problematic for a variety of reasons. The most important of which is that this has no basis in the Rules.

“I am ultimately accountable for the conduct of the elections according to the Rules; I must run the election in accordance with my conscience and the Rules as they actually stand. I am accountable for my decisions to the Membership through the Electoral Tribunal and any Member who disagrees with my decision is entitled to bring a claim of Innocent Interference.”

The ruling itself was written “regarding the President’s ruling of Wednesday 26 November, my own previous interpretations and ruling, and, in general, this term’s Elections.” It reads, “On Sunday 23 November 2014, I issued a series of four interpretations and a ruling regarding the validity of the ‘poll’ that occured on Thursday 13 November 2014 and associated matters.

“The so-called advisory board that President has consulted has no authority under the Rules. In my judgment, which is authoritative under [the Rules], the interpretations and ruling were not outside of my jurisdiction. I therefore set aside the President’s Ruling, as my ruling and interpretations evidently have greater authority — this is clearly within the course of my duty.

“Therefore, I hereby rule that on the Election on Friday 28 November will indeed be run as per my previous Ruling on this matter, namely that the electoral Rules have not changed.”

It is understood that Reynolds is backed by the several ex-ROs. Meanwhile, the majority of the election candidates have signed a declaration backing the rule change. Describing themselves as the “people who seemingly benefit the most from the Returning Officer’s blocking of electoral reform,” as they wouldn’t have to face RON and are automatically elected, the candidates’ statement asserts, “We are still arguing that change is the right thing.

“Not only do the reforms make the elections much more open and transparent, it is ridiculous that the decision of 92 per cent of those who voted has been undemocratically overturned by one person.”

If candidates are caught breaking the rules against campaigning, as prescribed by the old rules, they may face a tribunal after the election. It is thought that the tribunal would ultimately decide whether or not the new rules were in place for the election.

The candidates’ statement continues, “The reason you have never seen a statement like this, written by candidates for an election, is that the old rules forbid it. The committee has worked extremely hard to introduce long-overdue reform to these outdated rules.

“We nominated for the election in the belief that we had finally succeeded in achieving this, but the recent undemocratic ruling makes it clear this is not the case. Nonetheless, we are committed to these reforms to make sure that this election, and all elections in the future, are run in the right way.” 

Review: Carousel

Bethan Roberts
-
0
Review: Carousel

★★☆☆☆

Two Stars

Carousel — also known as “that one show ‘You’ll Never Walk Alone’ is from” — is an odd musical. The costume and set design is elegant, the singing is wonderful, the acting (minus a few questionable American accents) is largely very good, but the question of whether this is enough to render a musical that pretty much endorses domestic violence as quality entertainment is a rather more dicey one.

The musical, with the music of Richard Rodgers and the lyrics of Oscar Hammerstein, was first performed in 1945, and tells the story of the doomed marriage between mill-worker Julie Jordan and carousel barker Billy Bigelow. Along the way we encounter outdated values, a totally unforeshadowed foray into the afterlife, and one of the more random incarnations of plot-twist suicide. Half the time the play seems so wholesome you feel defiled just for existing in the Twenty First Century, and the rest of the time you’re either disgusted with the whole institution of marriage or just overwhelmingly thankful you’re not obliged to farm out your uterus to the first guy who looks at you twice.

To say Carousel has aged badly would be an understatement. The idea that domestic violence is an expression of love isn’t so much implicit as half the point of the plot. There’s a particularly unbelievable moment when a girl asks her mother if a punch can ever feel like a kiss, which receives the reply, “It is possible dear, for someone to hit you, hit you hard, and it not hurt at all.”

Sexual assault is not only laughed off as hilarious, but being subjected to it is considered grounds enough for your fiancé break up with you. If this wasn’t enough, “What’s the use of wond’rin’?” — a paean to staying with your man in spite of ‘common sense,’ has been covered by Amanda Palmer as a character study in Battered Person Syndrome without needing to change a single one of the words, or any of the music. “You’re his girl, and he’s your fella, and all the rest is talk,” apparently, and if he’s hitting you, better suck it up and maintain that hollow façade of domestic bliss.

I do feel unkind for being so critical of what is ultimately a very well produced and acted amateur production, but at the same time, there are some huge question marks over the choice of this musical. Carousel is outdated, but its value system isn’t yet so far from our own to make it a mere historical curiosity; the attitudes expressed so overtly in the musical still lurk under the surface of our society.

The show finishes with the song it’s best known for — the aforementioned ‘You’ll Never Walk Alone’. Even a song I have largely positive association with (an entire family of Liverpool fans, in case you were wondering) is, in its original context, rather unpleasant as it’s used to endorse the tired rhetoric of the American Dream. No matter how high the production values, I don’t think Carousel is a musical I would ever, or could ever, get on board with, and the association of ‘You’ll Never Walk Alone’ with half-time at Anfield Road is still an infinitely better one.

Debate: Does ‘no platform’ threaten free speech?

Tom Posa
-
0
Debate: Does ‘no platform’ threaten free speech?

YES

Tom Posa

If free speech is to have any possible relevance today, it must be applied without regard for the viewpoint being expressed. What is the purpose of free speech if we grant it only to those whom we agree with, or only those whose views we find ‘acceptable’, whatever that means? ‘No Platform’ policies actively threaten the existence of free speech in this University and beyond. 

The arguments for and against free speech, as a principle, have been rehashed in these pages and in others in the past weeks, given the controversy over the cancellation of the recent OSFL debate at Christ Church, so I will not go into them here. Instead, I will look at ‘no platform’ as a policy and discuss its practical success.

The fundamental problem with the ‘no platform’ policy is that it produces adverse consequences. The ‘no platform’ policy was originally created by the anti-fascist movement as a response to far-right anti-immigration groups like the BNP and EDL. By denying these groups a platform, it was argued, students would be protected from racist, pernicious views. It would also avoid propagation of their ideas to a wider audience. But this argument ignores three key points.

First, it is only through the airing of such views in a scrutinising intellectual environment that their absurdity can be seen. A good example of this is the Holocaust denier David Irving’s appearance at the Union in 2007. Afterwards the then-President said, “At the end of that David Irving came out looking pathetic.” Sarah Ditum points to Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time in 2009 as the beginning of the end for the BNP. So, despite protestations from those looking to stifle debate that allowing them to air their views in public forums like the Union and BBC is dangerous, it actually ends in them being discredited in the eyes of the public.

Second, whilst Holocaust denial is evidently offensive to a huge number of people, the logic of a ‘no platform’ argument is that we should begin to censor Wikipedia, Google, books in our libraries, and any other circumstance in which people might happen upon mentions of Holocaust denial. This is clearly absurd, because we credit Oxford students with more robust intellectual capacities to think dispassionately and rationally about these issues. Having these resources available is valuable to the progression of human understanding.

When I searched David Irving on SOLO earlier, I found on the first page two books by the author, and eight critical responses to his work. This is the value of having these views aired in public: the academic debate moves in response and makes the counter arguments public, hopefully resulting in the loss of public support for the likes of David Irving.

A third and final reason why ‘no platform’ is an ineffective policy is because of the nature of ‘platform’ in the modern era. With the proliferation of social media, particularly YouTube and Twitter, anyone and everyone has the ability to access a platform — a platform free from scrutiny. By marginalising people with popular support (like the BNP in 2008-09), it actually plays into the narrative of the BNP and UKIP, parties which attract much support from those who feel alienated from the political mainstream. When UKIP rails against Westminster, and the ‘urban liberal elite’, the way to respond is not to continue their exclusion, which just perpetuates this argument, but to allow them participation and the inevitable failure that will result from their views being subject to scrutiny and debate.

As a final thought, I ask this. Which other controversial figures would we have denied a platform to in the past? Marx? Socrates? Galileo? These are all people who defied public opinion at the time of publication of their works, and yet have all contributed to the advancement of human understanding. I’m not suggesting that David Irving is any Copernicus, but for all we know we could be missing out on the next great thinker by undermining free speech through the adaption of ‘no platform’ policies. We should be wary of that fact.

 

NO

James Elliott 

Allow me to indulge in a little thought experiment. You’re organising a panel discussion on the politics of immigration. You’ve agreed your line-up, booked the room, sorted advertising, then the phone rings. It’s the voice of well-meaning liberalism, and he (for it’s rarely anyone but a he) wants you to invite a few more speakers in the name of free speech, including Tommy Robinson, David Irving, the Ku Klux Klan and the Devil. Assuming you decline the request, you’re then blasted as a totalitarian, a “Stepford Student”, and an enemy of the open society.

Whatever happened to the principle that not everyone deserves each and every platform on which to promote their views?

As the President of the Cambridge Union, Tim Squirrell, put it so eloquently this week: free speech doesn’t mean you get every platform you want. Unfortunately for Oxford’s students, our own Union President Mayank Banerjee thinks there is something of worth that the knuckle-dragging, racist thug Tommy Robinson has to say to Oxford students. I don’t. Despite his ostensible public abandonment of the English Defence League, he nonetheless tweeted last month, “Happy to hear the EDL gave a round of applause for me before their demo. The EDL will always hold a place in my heart.”

Robinson’s airtime gives credence to racist and fascist views, and perpetuates a culture where people of colour are put at risk of violent attack, as well as contributing to their ongoing oppression. On the night Nick Griffin was lampooned by liberals on Question Time, 3,000 people joined the BNP, making a mockery of countering fascism via “exposing its ideas’’.

Given Robinson’s continued, if muted support, for the EDL and given that I believe he still holds racist views, it should have been clear to the Union that they should not privilege their desire to have a (probably very boring) speech ahead of the safety of our society’s people of colour.

Much of this also applies to the “abortion culture” debate last week. Brendan O’Neill is obviously not a fascist, although his cover piece in The Spectator this week confirms he is an intellectual and political turd. In fact, he was the allegedly pro-choice speaker in the debate.

The issue at hand was that the oppression of women, by a society and state that is yet to grant fully legalised abortions, was trivialized and reduced into a debate between two people without uteri. In Britain, after a woman has decided that she wants to end her pregnancy, she has to persuade two doctors to agree to her decision on the basis of restrictive legalcriteria.

Christ Church had the choice, either to stand with the victims of such oppression, or contribute to that oppression. Remarkably, one of Oxford’s most conservative colleges got it right: we don’t need to platform oppressive views about “abortion culture” in our communities.

Going further, Edinburgh University Students’ Association are now opening investigations into the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity on campus. A close friend of mine helped to expose this vile group. Their Facebook page showed members talking about feminists in disgusting ways, with one asking, “How are we going to rape them?” whilst another said, “Let’s go to Montenegro, for a raping trip.” Fraternities like this are a threat to women’s safety and should be driven from campuses.

In all these cases, language is used to oppress, not merely to offend. The proliferation of these oppressive ideas contributes to human suffering and oppression. If it means anything to be on the political Left, and advocates of ‘no platform’ are almost solely of the Left, then it means standing unreservedly and unconditionally with the oppressed.

Those who would give a platform to the Tommy Robinsons of this world are knowingly and willfully contributing to the oppression of those less privileged than them for the sake of a liberal debating fetish. I condemn them. 

Review: The Crucible

Archive
-
0
Review: The Crucible

★★★★☆

Four Stars

The Crucible is one of my favourite plays. It was written with courage in a time of fear. Miller parallels McCarthyism with the Salem witch trials remarkably, if not particularly subtly. Writing such a play had serious consequences for Miller, as he was brought before the House of Representatives’ Committee on Un-American Activities in 1956. This only adds to the gravitas with which the play ought to be treated, and I think this production recognized that well.

I was very impressed with the aesthetics of the play. The setting of St Hilda’s JDP worked well, as they did not attempt to cover the bare bricks and wood. The sparse props and stage settings, with tables and chairs serving only functional purposes, further accentuated this puritan simplicity. The costumes (Sarah Trolley and Sanjana Shah) work perfectly in the context of puritan 17th century America: everyone is clad in monochrome, apart from Abigail (Mary Higgins), who wears a dress of deep burgundy. She also sports blood red lipstick, which works particularly well.

My first impressions concerned me, however. The loud beat that begun the play sounded a little too much like house music for a 17th century setting, but the strangeness of the first scene was well conveyed. Sadly, they also chose to play the same music at the end of the play. It drowned out Elizabeth’s (Alice Gray) last, poignant line, and left the end of the play feeling entirely flat. One of my only other concerns was the use of accents. It was inconsistent, with some trying and succeeding, others failing, and some not trying at all. I think the play would have not suffered if the accents were lost altogether.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10558%%[/mm-hide-text] 

This was truly a shame, because the acting was, on the whole, superb.  Higgins’ Abigail was complex; she played her forcefully, with a conviction that conveyed power, but didn’t allow this to overcome the fact she was playing a young girl, who felt betrayed and hurt.

David Meijers’ John Proctor was also excellent. The audience started with no sympathy for him, but slowly and very deliberately, Meijers turned Proctor into a symbol of courage, even if it was not enough to redeem him. His interactions with Gray were heartfelt, and appropriately moving. In particular, his delivery of the famous line “You bring down heaven and raise up a whore!” was perfectly delivered. Gray herself presented well a meek and humble Elizabeth, who was by no means pathetic. The Putnams (Kristztina Rakoczy and Richard Grummitt) were suitably irritating, and Bee Liese’s (Betty Parris) scream was bone-chilling; it truly changed the tone of the play.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10633%%[/mm-hide-text] 

The scenes with the girls crying out in the courtroom, and pretending to be bewitched, were well staged and very convincing. Marshall Herrick (Soham Bandyopadhyay) perhaps shouted a little too much, which meant that some of the emphasis was lost on a few lines; however, his convincing portrayal of a man stuck between wanting to do his job and convict witches, and seeing the flaws exposed by Proctor more than readily made up for this.

Overall, it was a good, straight production of an excellent play. The beginning and ending may have been let down by a poor choice of music, but the impressive talent of the actors allowed this play to shine as an example of how well-directed student drama should be performed.

The insensitivity of the Sainsbury’s Christmas advert

Mary Reader
-
0
The insensitivity of the Sainsbury’s Christmas advert

It’s that time of year when corporate businesses jostle to pull our heartstrings and tap into our purses so that they can push up the Christmas bonuses. What a wonderful time of year it is.

For the last couple of weeks, social media has been beguiled by Sainsbury’s new Christmas advert, which teamed up with the Royal British Legion in commemoration of the centenary of the First World War. The advert sent a shiver down my spine, not because it was emotionally engaging (which it was), but because it reinforced how we have become the emotional puppets of a cold and calculating corporate sector.

On one level, the advert is beautifully crafted and emotionally touching. But, despite its sentimentality, it is important to remember Sainsbury’s are not trying to change the world with this advert: they are trying to sell turkeys at Christmas.

Using a war that killed 40 million people in order to trump John Lewis’ sale of Christmas paraphernalia is almost as insensitive as Tesco’s’ “Poppy Pepperoni Pizzas”. One of the worst things about the advert is its attempt to be ‘subtle’ by weaving in the theme of food (and consumerism) as a sort of saviour of the situation. I almost expected to see a “Taste the Difference” label on it — luckily they didn’t push it that far.

The advert encapsulates one of the biggest problems of the whole Poppy Appeal. While the campaign claims to honour the lives lost in past wars, it also legitimises the wars of the present. The cloak of remembrance disguises a multitude of sins. It is hardly surprising that the Royal British Legion derives a great deal of its funding and sponsorship from arms companies, including BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, and Thales, all of which have provided arms to dictatorships the world over.

The irony of our “remembrance” is that, despite our sentimentality, we are forgetting the major driver of the First World War: the arms market. The British arms company Vickers-Armstrong, later to become BAE, sold arms to the Ottoman Empire that were used later against British troops. Remembrance by donating to the Royal British Legion is not, therefore, a statement of nationalism or solidarity. It is a statement of complicity in a system that acknowledges capitalist profit as the ultimate good and thus facilitates the exploitation of the bottom 99% by the top 1%.

We are crafting how we choose to remember the horrors of previous wars according to a narrative that is created and sustained by this corporate elite. A series of elitist networks of businessmen, media moguls, and politicians ensure the dominance of this narrative. All too often, the media manipulates two of our most powerful human emotions: desire and fear. We are constantly manipulated into desiring products and lifestyles; this ensnares us into consumerism and cycles of debt, which in turn benefit financial institutions and corporate businesses. Meanwhile, we are encouraged to fear the Other, whether defined as immigrants or benefit recipients, and thereby encouraged to vote for parties that strip away provision for these groups while maintaining the incomes of the rich. This fatal combination of desire and fear is a case of “divide and rule” that gives the controllers of popular media — the elite — enormous power.

In What Money Can’t Buy, Michael Sandel argues that we are en-route from being a market economy to being a market society. From buying the right to healthcare to traders betting on people’s life insurance in the viaticals market, commodification dominates every aspect of our society. With the increasing dominance of big business in politics through the funding of political parties, it is inevitable that corporate interests will shape the political agenda. As Sandel puts it, “Our politics is overheated because it is mostly vacant, empty of moral and spiritual content. It fails to engage with the big questions that people care about.”

How can we escape the pernicious influence of corporate business in our lives? We can protest at the disgusting use of war as an emotional marketing tool to manipulate us into consumerism and support of the arms trade. Whatever it is that we do, we must do something. If we do not, we will progress inexorably towards a society in which we know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. 

 

Review: Le Kesh

Ching Lee
-
0
Review: Le Kesh

I had been looking forward to meeting one of my oldest friends all week. Unfortunately she lives in Cowley, whereas I live in Jericho, so, being the lazy soul that I am, I caught the bus to Cowley Road and walked up to the O2. I then decided to go for the nearest decent-looking restaurant. Thankfully, my generally lazy approach to restaurant choosing paid off and we really did have a great evening.We were looked after the moment we stepped through the door. Water was brought to the table immediately followed not long afterwards by menus. As usual though, our main focus was the food, and we ordered a lamb (£14.95) and a chicken tagine (£10.95).

The menu was fairly conservative and was obviously trying to cater to people who probably weren’t used to more unusual Moroccan tastes and textures. With orders made soon after we had sat down, we sat back in contentment and looked around at our surroundings. The room had an air of luxury, with scarlet walls and ebony arches and beams, and lots of vases with fresh flowers. The polished tables and white booth seating added a nice touch of modernity.

Our meal began with the complimentary man’oushe (Lebanese flatbread) and houmous. The bread was soft and warm and light, the houmous smooth and fresh and fragrant. The tagines were brought to the table in their pans, and the smell rushing out as the lids were removed was extraordinary. The meat jus was wonderfully rich and flavourful, the stewed fruit melted in the mouth, and the meat fell off the bones. The general texture of the dish was silky smooth and moist, and the couscous that came in a separate bowl was brilliantly fluffy. The portions were generous and both of our dishes tasted so good that we ate them in near-unbroken silence.

For dessert we shared a konafa (£3.50), which our waitress described as a sort of cheesecake; but it was unlike any cheesecake we had ever eaten before. A thin layer of semolina-cake topped actual melted cheese, and seemed to have been soaked in syrup before being left to dry, and then sprinkled with crushed pistachios and warmed before being served in a shallow pool of syrup.Both aesthetically pleasing and delicious,it was not sweet and sickly at all, but a good palate cleanser after the heavy main meal. However, I don’t know if I could have eaten an entire konafa by myself since it was extremely rich.

Before leaving the restaurant, we had a peek into the garden at the back. I was surprised by their tented hookah lounge, which had the all-important outdoor heaters. There was a long list of shisha flavours available, and real charcoal is used in the hookah burner, so the shisha tastes authentic.

My one major criticism is that their card machine was very temperamental but it did eventually work (thank God!) and we left feeling more than satisfied with what we had experienced.

All in all, there were no disappointments,and I have only positive things to say about the entire evening. You could go here for a meal or just for a drink; in a group, with a friend, or even alone — the waiters are up for a chat and this restaurant is more than worth the long walk. This was a great meal out.

Cocktails with Cai

Archive
-
0
Cocktails with Cai

The French and the British have had a rocky relationship for centuries, and cocktails are no exception to this rule. The Sidecar has, since its inception, been plagued by debate between the English and the French schools of cocktails, both of which insist on claiming the invention of the cocktail as well as the correct ratios used. Eventually, the English School won out, and thus the Sidecar we know today was born.

Either way, the cocktail has illustrious origins, and both the Ritz in Paris and the Buck’s Club in London claim ownership over this fabulous creation. Yet the drink was popularized by Harry’s Bar in Paris, the famous cocktail bar which has produced many a feature of Cocktails with Cai, including the French 75 and the Monkey Gland.

With a huge range of fans, from Coco Chanel to Ernest Hemingway, you can be sure that you’ll look sufficiently chic and debonair with a Sidecar in tow.Cognac, being a protected name (like champagne, it can only be made in a specific area of France, and only using specific ingredients) is of course slightly more expensive than normal brandy but I recommend splashing out on Courvoisier’s at the moment because it’s on offer at Sainsbury’s for £26 pounds, down from £34. Also, Sainsbury’s own brand French Brandy tastes horrible and I can’t think of anything that I would recommend less.

Like most of the classics from Harry’s New York Bar in Paris, an excellent Sidecar can be sourced from Angel’s Bar on Little Clarendon Street. As cold winter days grip Oxford, a little brandy can’t go amiss. With its dash of orange and a corresponding garnish, the drink is easy on the eyes as well as the mouth – even when you’ve had five in quick succession. For the extra sweet touch, sugar the rim of the glass.

2 measures Cognac

1 measure Cointreau

1 measure lemon juice

Bar Review: St Anne’s

The Bar Review Team
-
0
Bar Review: St Anne’s

★★★☆☆
Three stars

I was once forced to take extra PE classes because I cut such a pathetic figure on the sports pitch. As I ran up St Giles I was reminded of this small and somewhat tragic part of my past. This was not a good start, especially since those scars have yet to heal. But after getting lost twice, I finally made it to the St Anne’s bar.

The set up is unusual, but works very well. There is a larger area with the bar, a TV, and a foosball table and then a separate pool room, a darts room, and a room full of bean- bags with fairylights in which looks a lot like your stoner friend’s bedroom. The fact that the games each have their separate rooms is quite a nice feature since I wasn’t having to constantly duck under darts or leap away from pool cues. Also, playing pool in a separate room meant that I wasn’t constantly worried about the balls clanking too loudly or an errant ball hitting someone in the face. It also meant the pool table was in better condition because people weren’t constantlyputting drinks on it.

The painted murals are interesting even though they do make the underground bar a bit dark and, if I’m completely honest, they look a little bit like paintings you’d see on the walls of some shitty emo/scene kid hangout. It’s not the most charming of environments but, having said that, it was admittedly nice to not see blades everywhere, though, and the murals did make for a unique bar.

The selection of beers is very impressive, with Hoegaarden and London Pride, and there is a great selection of spirits, although no signature drink which is a little sad. Prices were decent, especially considering the fact that we were in Jericho, an area where a £4 pint is not uncommon. The bartender was very sweet, had some good chat and pulled my pint perfectly. And although it was Sunday evening, there were still people in the bar who were very friendly and wiling to have a chinwag. It seemed as though this bar solved the problem of having people having essay crises alongside people getting wasted and neither side seemed to bother each other, which I have to say is quite a feat.

The major issue for Anne’s is that it is quite a way out and is obviously not on the way to clubs for most colleges. So, it seems unlikely that people from other colleges are going to pre-drink here, but I can see that an early evening catch up would indeed be very pleasant here. As long-term readers of this column may have noticed, I am not one to give praise easily, but this was a very well thought out bar. I don’t know how much input students had with the bar renovation but it seems to have been well executed and very practical. I really enjoyed visiting this bar and it deserves more stars, it’s just unfortunately, too far out for most people.

1...1,2731,2741,275...2,515Page 1,274 of 2,515

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