Tuesday 7th April 2026
Blog Page 1375

Oxford researchers discover origins of HIV/AIDS epidemic

Stanislas Lalanne
-
0
Oxford researchers discover origins of HIV/AIDS epidemic

New research has found that the HIV epidemic first broke out in Kinashasa, now capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo, as early as the 1920s. The analysis confirmed suspicions, though also ruled out less popular theories about the virus’ origins.

An international team of researchers including academics from Oxford reconstructed the genetic history of the HIV-1 group M pandemic, managing to find the common ancestor of group M and trace its history.  Although strains HIV have jumped from primates and apes to humans at least 13 times in history, only one transmission eventually resulted in a global pandemic.

“Until now most studies have taken a piecemeal approach to HIV’s genetic history, looking at particular HIV genomes in particular locations,” explained Professor Oliver Pybus, an Oxford academic and a senior author of the paper. “For the first time we have analysed all the available evidence using the latest phylogeographic techniques, which enable us to statistically estimate where a virus comes from. This means we can say with a high degree of certainty where and when the HIV pandemic originated.”

The study estimates that the first human to get HIV, probably a hunter coming into contact with a chimp blood, was infected around 1920, with 95 percent of the estimated dates falling in the period between 1909 and 1930.

The research also showed the HIV was able to spread due to a combination of factors in the region. The railway lines in particular helped bring the virus to large cities such as Kinashasa, the largest city in the region, which had over a million annual rail passengers by the 1940s.

Nuno Rodrigues Faria, a researcher at Oxford University and another author on the paper, added that “alongside transport, social changes such as the changing behaviour of sex workers, and public health initiatives against other diseases that led to the unsafe use of needles may have contributed to turning HIV into a full-blown epidemic.”

After spreading in Africa the virus later travelled across the world. It was first noticed by US doctors in 1981 though is believed to have arrived earlier, and has since infected 75 million people worldwide and killed almost 40 million.

The research into HIV’s historical origins may prove be useful to prevent future infections.  Rodrigues Faria concluded that the “knowledge of the circumstances that facilitated the epidemic expansion can assist the development of effective education and prevention programs.”

Student outcry over Immigration Removal Centre expansion

Georgia Latham
-
0
Student outcry over Immigration Removal Centre expansion

Plans to expand the Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre in Kidlington from 276 to around 600 beds have been submitted to Cherwell District Council, amid widespread student protest.

Societies across Oxford are showing their support for the ‘Campaign to Close Campsfield’ in condemning the plans.

Joanna Hynes, President of Oxford University Amnesty International told Cherwell, “Oxford University Amnesty International strongly condemn the government’s proposed plans to expand Campsfield House into a 610-bed mega-centre for immigrant detention.

“The policy of indefinite detention, without judicial oversight, is in contrary to the Human Rights Act and the UN Convention on Refugees. What in theory is a centre for short-term detention immediately before deportation has been allowed to develop into systematic indefinite detention, largely for administrative reasons, with Mitie creaming off the profits of systematic human rights abuses.”

Mitie PLC was contracted to manage the facility by the Home Office in 2011. In that time there have been three mass hunger strikes, one suicide and a fire at the centre in October 2013. Detainees are migrants whom the Home Office is seeking to remove from the country and deems to be at risk of absconding. They can be held indefinitely without judicial oversight.

Some have been held for over two years. Alex Marshall, a member of Oxford Migrant Solidarity, said, “The people who pass through Immigration and Removal Centres such as Campsfield are not there for any crime, and those who have committed offences will already have served any sentences before arrival.

We oppose all immigration detention as un-just, unnecessary, and an unacceptable breach of migrants’ most fundamental rights, and we support freedom of movement across national borders for all human beings. At a time when the government should be reducing numbers in detention and closing centres, we are dismayed by plans for Campsfield to be more than doubled in size.”

Dr Austen Saunders, a fellow at Oxford and supporter of the Campaign to Close Campsfield commented, “Campsfield is a waste of lives and a waste of money. It’s shocking that in this country the government can lock people up indefinitely without ever accusing them of a criminal offence – let alone having them convicted. We should be looking for alternatives to this broken system, not expanding it.”

The Campaign to Close Campsfield has called a public meeting at Exeter Hall on 20th October, with plans to protest outside the Centre on the 25th. So far there are nine signatories for a joint statement protesting the expansion, including the Oxfordshire Green Party, Oxford Migrant Solidarity and Oxford University Amnesty International.

The sitting MP for the area, Nicola Blackwood and both Lib Dem and Labour parliamentary candidates have all publicly spoken out against expansion.

On her petition to the Home Secretary, entitled, ‘NO to Doubling the Size of Campsfield’ Blackwood states, “This proposal makes no sense for Kidlington or for our immigration system. We should be looking for alternatives to detention rather than expanding our detention programme and Campsfield House in particular has already struggled to manage with its existing numbers resulting in a series of serious incidents.”

Sally Copley, the Labour candidate, told the Oxford Mail, “It’s clearly wrong to detain at all people who are not criminals but instead are fleeing conflict, let alone indefinitely. The Home Office have not made a satisfactory case for why they want to extend Campsfield House, and it’s a shame the District Council are only allowed to consider this on planning grounds, as there are strong humanitarian reasons for rejecting it.”

The decision of Cherwell District Council’s Planning Committee on the proposed expansion must be based upon planning grounds alone.

Hong Kong students unite behind pro-democracy protesters

Thea Slotover
-
0
Hong Kong students unite behind pro-democracy protesters

A group of Oxford students from Hong Kong have released a video in which they sing the protest song ‘Who Has Yet to Speak’ in different locations around Oxford and in Hong Kong.

The video has been made as an act of solidarity with the current pro-democracy protesters in their home city. The song, sung to the tune of ‘Do You Hear the People Sing’ from the musical Les Miserables, has been one of the most frequently used pro-democratic anthems of the recent demonstrations.

The video shows the students solemnly aligned, and in some frames dressed all in black. DPhil student Bolton Chau, one of the students who took part, said, “The key messages of the Chinese lyrics is to encourage Hong Kong people – who have long been thought to have little interest in politics – to show more concern about the electoral reform and to voice out their desire of democracy. For the same reason, we have a group of Oxford students and graduates recording the song both in Oxford and Hong Kong.

“We want to show our support to the ongoing peaceful and civilized protest on in Hong Kong.”

The recent demonstrations began with student protests, but have expanded to include a cross-section of Hong Kong society. They come in the wake of the Chinese government’s announcement that a special electoral committee will have to approve all candidates running for the region’s 2017 election, which critics say will only allow for a pro-Beijing slate.

The current political situation has been much discussed amongst the Oxford-Hong Kong students’ community, with varying opinions on different sides. Despite the image recent Hong Kong graduates and current students at Oxford, as opposed to what the Western media describe, are quite diverse.

“While some polarised views are manifested in the support of civil disobedience, most of us share the common hope for practical democracy, the balance of idealism and pragmatism, and our leaders’ emphasis on social well-being amid political deadlock. I deeply appreciate the dedication and fervour of my Oxford friends who wholeheartedly step up to advocate for the core values.”

Zixin Xiang, meanwhile, commented, “I am sad at the confrontational situation in Hong Kong, but I am glad to see the buzz of civil discourse and participation. People are starting to care more, to think more and to be more willing to make sacrifices for what they believe in.”

Oxford-Hong Kong students have also been discussing what implications the current demonstrations will have on Hong Kong’s identity. In a blog for the Oxford-based Blavatnik School of Government, Public Policy graduate Alexander Chan wrote, “much of Hong Kong’s identity in the past has always been defined by ‘what we are not’, rather than ‘what we are.’”

He continued, “The irony is that as the current protests continue, there has yet to be a common voice and song that we can all sing to. And this reflects another deeper paradox -that as much as we do not want to be told what to do, perhaps we also do not know what we really want.”

A number of the students participated in the solidarity protest which took place in Trafalgar Square on the 1st October, but there are no plans for future protests as of yet.

Chan has been writing analysis of the situation for Chinese newspapers based in Hong Kong, and is currently organising an Oxford-based discussion event comparing the student movements to take place within the next two weeks.

Oxford study finds best way to treat social anxiety

Shannon Britton
-
0
Oxford study finds best way to treat social anxiety

A study published in The Lancet has found that Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), a psychological intervention, is the most effective type of therapy for social anxiety. However, although the report found that people generally respond well to CBT treatment, it also highlighted that some sufferers continued to experience symptoms after ending treatment.

The study compared a range of psychological, pharmacological and self-help interventions to come to the conclusion, looking at 101 trials and 13,164 adult participants who suffer from severe social anxiety.  The study was led by Evan Mayo-Wilson, from Oxford’s Department of Social Policy and Intervention.

Mayo-Wilsonsaid that “the good news from our study is that social anxiety is treatable. Now that we know what works best, we need to improve access to psychotherapy for those who are suffering.”

Social anxiety disorder is often characterized by intense fear of everyday activities such as meeting strangers, speaking in a group, or eating and drinking in public. Social anxiety can severely affect sufferers’ everyday lives, and some may experience panic attacks. It can also be linked with other mental health disorders, with around 20% of adults with depression also suffering from social anxiety.

Social anxiety is thought to affect approximately 10% of University students in the UK. Previous studies conducted in previous years have suggested that social anxiety may increase the risk of a student performing poorly in exams, failing to graduate, or dropping out of University. It is often considered to be a reason for some sufferers’ excessive use of alcohol or drugs. Social anxiety is naturally unremitting, and so in most cases needs treatment. 

Chris Pike, OUSU Vice-President for Welfare & Equal Opportunities, commented on the findings that “this study is very interesting and it’s great to hear research being done into supporting those with anxiety. It’s important to bear in mind that everyone with anxiety is different and requires different support; I myself have anxiety but did not find CBT particularly useful, instead going down the root of medication and counselling. I hope everyone who is feeling anxious, even if it just seems small, feels they can get the support they need and deserve.”

CBT is a psychological intervention, or ‘talking therapy’, where the sufferer is helped to identify unhelpful thought processes and behavioural patterns, and with the help of a therapist begins to change the thoughts and behaviour to something more rational. NHS guidance already suggests that CBT is the most effective form of treatment, though many sufferers and charities claim that it is not offered to all those with the disorder.

The study also found that for those who decline psychological therapies, the anti-depressant SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) is the most consistently beneficial form of treatment. However, SSRI sometimes has side effects which can have a negative effect on recovery.

Joining the Oxford Union is not for everyone

Max Leak
-
0
Joining the Oxford Union is not for everyone

Freshers’ week is a hectic time. Clubs, societies and disreputable drinking traditions will all be clamouring for your attention as an incoming student. Of course, it’s best not to try to navigate the situation too consciously – there’s something (usually several things) for everyone, and most people just throw themselves into things and see where they wind up. But I make one exception: there is one society that every Fresher should know a bit more about in advance.

The Oxford Union debating society (which is distinct from OUSU, the student union) works intensively every Michaelmas to sign up Freshers. Membership, once bought, is usually for life. This year, Freshers will be invited to purchase perpetual membership at £218 – a rate which is higher than when I first joined up two years ago, and which is (incredibly) a discount on the normal price. The Union is a peculiar environment – it is famous as a training ground for prospective Westminster politicians, and some members enjoy this side of things more than others. But I want to make sure no Freshers make the same mistake I made: after forking out an agonising sum of money for life membership in my first year, I found myself disgusted by the Union’s behaviour and atmosphere by the end of my second. I left, without a refund.

If every Fresher is to be able to make an informed decision, a few of the Union’s self-promoting claims must be publicly challenged. A good place to start is the Union’s insistence that it is, in the words of its website, a “democratic organisation based on merit”. It is true that the Union does have elections – but, thanks to a bizarre and draconian set of opaque regulations, meaningful democratic discussion is non-existent. Candidates cannot widely state their positions on issues, circulate political material, or even publicise the dates of elections. These ridiculous restrictions combine to ensure that open, honest politics, let alone any challenge to leadership, is all but impossible – little wonder that turnout is extremely low, and in decline.

Another of the Union’s inaccurate claims is altogether sadder – the society calls itself “definitive” to Oxford social life, when it is, in reality, of negligible significance. Its bar, for example, is, essentially, a mahogany-decked room full of people not doing much (rooms like this are not in short supply at Oxford). Moreover, the Union also portrays itself as Oxford’s one-stop shop for impressive speakers and interesting talks. But, again, this is unfounded: your new University is a hectic kaleidoscope of famous and fascinating speakers, and as a student here, you’ll always be spoiled for choice as to who to see. It is virtually certain that, at some point during your time here, you will pass up an event with a Nobel Prize-winner to instead drink cheap wine, write a panicked essay, or just mope around. Or, on occasion, all three.

Most Union members dislike the society’s leadership, but simply don’t think about that leadership very much. Union politicians are generally written off as an amusingly self-important bunch of maladjusted plotters. In my own case, however, I came to feel that that compromise was no longer viable – there are more serious issues at play here than the internecine manoeuvres of a small bunch of tiresome hacks (the Oxford term for career-focused student politicians). Despite the slim-to-invisible democratic mandates of Union leaders, the society’s influence over other spheres of Oxford life is highly significant – and, I believe, almost entirely malign.

In the first place, the Union’s institutional culture is one which leaves many individuals feeling deeply uncomfortable. It would be remiss not to say that some of these concerns came into focus at public events last year, after the organisation’s leadership was hit by a string of scandals including (but by no means limited to) allegations of sexual violence against the then-president (which have since been dropped by investigators).

Events at the Union last term highlighted, through many fatiguing incidents which cannot be sufficiently recounted here, the lack of a compassionate culture, a transparent procedure or a rigorous code of conduct for such scenarios – but they also brought into focus the nature of the society’s broader influence in the University’s public life. One possible example of this came when weekly newspaper The Oxford Student (under the direction, incidentally, of a former Union politician, who has since been removed from the editorship) printed a highly dubious article undermining the two women who had brought allegations of sexual violence. The publication of this article – which was legally questionable, ethically bankrupt, and a journalistic débâcle on every level – was one of a number of events which led me, in a roundabout way, towards eventually handing in my Union membership card. I was no longer confident that the society’s poisonous little games were only hurting insiders.

I don’t mean to spread the notion that any association with the Oxford Union is to be disdained. There are plenty of honourable reasons for signing up, and it would wrong to look down on the very large number of students who do join. But there are equally honourable reasons why some freshers might prefer to stay away, and it’s right that everyone gets to hears every side of things before joining up.

The week ahead – 0th Week preview

Stanislas Lalanne
-
0
The week ahead – 0th Week preview

Freshers’ Week

  • All week, Freshers’ Week– Each college will have organized a different timetable for freshers’ week, involving a mixture of clubbing, information sessions and socializing. Clubs are also open every night as usual for non-freshers. For those who prefer something else, the Society of Alternative Events is organizing a cinema trip on the 11th and a G&D’s trip on the 8th.

 

Clubs and Societies

  • 8th to 10th October, Freshers’ Fair – One of the main events of freshers’ week, with over 400 University societies represented, and will offer freshers a chance to ask questions or sign up. On Friday the fair will be open to all students regardless of year. Most societies’ events will then kick off in 1st week with welcome events for new recruits

 

Music

  • 10th October, The Oxford Lieder Festival, Schubert concert – The first in a three-week cycle of Schubert’s 650 songs, featuring Sarah Connolly CBE among others. This will be the first UK performance of Schubert’s complete songs. The initial concert will be in the Sheldonian Theatre and ticket prices range from £10 to £42
  • 11th October, Merton Organ Festival – Concert by Daniel Hyde in Merton College Chapel, four pieces of music including Bach’s Toccata and Fugue in F major. Tickets cost £12 and can be bought online

 

Art

  • All week, Art Belongs to the People! – Ongoing exhibition in the Ashmolean of selected works from two renowned German artists, Joseph Beuys (1921–1986) and Jörg Immendorff (1945–2007). The exhibition is open until the end of term, Sunday 7th December
  • All week, Mertonian Treasures in the Bodleian – Ongoing exhibition in the Bodleian of a selection of books and manuscripts, ranging from the earliest observations of Oxford weather to the automata of medieval Arab courts to the world of Middle Earth, marking the 750th anniversary of the foundation of Merton College. Admissions to the exhibition are free and it will remain open until the 2nd of November

 

Talks and academic

  • 8th October, Naomi Klein discussion– Canadian author and social activist Naomi Klein will discuss her new book, ‘This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs The Climate,’ at the Sheldonian theatre. Tickets cost £15 and must be booked by the day before
  • 11th October, Oxford Book Club Freshers sale– A sale of selected books for freshers, the event will take place at the Java & Co Coffee Shop, allowing participants to also enjoy coffee and homemade cake at the same time. It is possible to reserve some books in advance
  • 11th and 12th October, Reading Tudor and Stuart Handwriting– organized by the University, the weekend event will provide guidance in reading and transcribing documents of the 16th and 17th centuries written in Secretary Hand. Booking is required

 

 

Stand-up comedian Mark Steel will present his live show in Oxford on Monday. Image source: Wikimedia Commons

 

Drama

  • 6th October, Mark Steel’s in Town – Mark Steel will present his live ‘In Town’ show at the Oxford Playhouse on Monday. A stand-up comedian and writer, Steel is also a regular on ‘Have I Got News For You,’ ‘QI’ and Radio 4’s ‘Newsquiz,’ as well as having a BAFTA-nominated series on Radio 2. Tickets can be bought online for £16 but are almost sold out
  • 6th and 7th October, Conscientious –  written by Adam Z. Robinson, ‘Conscientious’ is a dramatic thriller which manages two parallel storylines- of a student, and of her grandfather, a conscientious objector in the first world war. Tickets can be bought online for £10
  • 8th to 11th October, The Angry Brigade – Based on a real terrorist anarchist group from the 1970s, the play follows the formation of a specialist police squad to understand the anarchists and hunt them down, while presenting both sides of 70s anarchism. Ticket prices range from £11 to £27 depending on seat and day

 

Town

  • 9th to 12th October, House of Commons Oxford – A four day event organised by citizens, activists and housing professionals concerned with the national housing crisis, and will include both speakers and workshop. Recent reports have found Oxford to be the most unaffordable city in the UK in terms of housing and rent
  • 11th October, Lou Lou’s Oxford Vintage Fair – a large vintage tea party with almost 2,000 people currently attending on Facebook, will include a Vintage tea room and a vintage beauty salon. The fair will take place in Oxford Town Hall, tickets cost £2
  • 11th October, Film Producing on a Microbudget – Led by film producer Bruce Windwood, the interactive workshop will offer practical advice for people wishing to make and market their own film. Costs £120-165 depending on residence, people wishing to take part are advised to book tickets ASAP
  • All week, The Riot Club – The controversial film based on Oxford’s Bullingdon Club, released last month, is still screening at our cinemas

 

Sport

  • 6th October, Oxford University Hockey Club vs. Oxford Brookes– Women’s Hockey teams from the two Universities in Oxford will play on Monday, location TBA
  • 11th October, London Welsh vs. Newcastle Falcons – the Oxford’s local Aviva Premiership team will take on Newcastle at the Kassam Stadium (south of Oxford).
  • Various times, University sport trials – Check the website/facebook page of the sport you are interested in to find out when they are to hold trials.

The preview for 1st week will appear on Saturday the 11th. If you would like to bring an event to our attention for possible inclusion, please get in touch with [email protected].

Review: A Walk Among The Tombstones

Michael Roderick
-
0
Review: A Walk Among The Tombstones

★★☆☆☆
Two Stars

If we were to believe most crime thrillers, it always rains in New York. It would also be apparent that most detective work is done at night in backstreets and subways or, if done in the day, that the light is always the colour of chilled dishwater. The city always looks plague-ridden, its filthy inhabitants mouldering and mad with crime, its buildings exhausted with the polluted drizzle, its detectives corrupt and terminally depressed. Yep, these are the weary tropes of the New York noir and Scott Frank’s new picture A Walk among the Tombstones, which does little to spice, twist or shed them- though it is a fairly thrilling and decent expression of them.

Our depressed copper and anti-hero, Matt Scudder, is played by the ever-fatigued Liam Neeson, fresh (or not-so-fresh) from saving his daughter from a gang of sex traffickers (Taken) and his wife from the parent of said sex trafficker (Taken 2). The film opens in 1991, poor Matt is a grizzled, greasy, hard-drinking, hard-smoking cop working for the NYPD. He gets pissed, ends up shooting a load of people, including one rather unfortunate little girl, and decided to call it quits – both from policing and drinking.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10205%%[/mm-hide-text]  

Cut to 1999 and Matt is clean-shaven, showers regularly and is a frequenter of Alcoholics Anonymous, though he still has that classic Neeson melancholy and gravel-throat. His somnolent routine is interrupted when he’s hired by a drug-dealer (played by a dashing Dan Stevens, from Downton to Downtown) whose wife has been tragically dismembered – and he wants our cop to find the killers. Matt, being a man of Principle and Justice, takes the job.

What follows is a fairly conventional detective drama, as seen pretty much every night on British television (Luther, Broadchurch, The Bridge, Messiah etc.). Along the way, Matt befriends a young miscreant called T.J who spends his time ‘making a mess’ in public libraries, drawing what appears to be violent pornography and waxing cynical about the stupidity of the Y2K crisis (this is 1999, after all – references at the ready!). He also believes that fizzy drinks are designed to lower the sperm-count of the poor and carries a gun he doesn’t know how to use at all times.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10206%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Despite these strange traits, Matt inexplicably elects this promising candidate as his sidekick – a weirder pairing hasn’t been seen since Mikael Blomkvist met a girl called Lisbeth Sandler. I really couldn’t help but thinking that T.J is an absurd and unnecessary character – Matt evidently likes him, but not that much, and he doesn’t really do anything except stand in the way until the end, when he is finally of use. In any case, the two chase down the brutal killers, one of whom is capably, if clownishly, played by David Harbour. The film ends with the obligatory detective-in-peril scene.

Now despite being about as constrained by the dreary tropes of the genre as a madman in a straightjacket, the film is atmospheric and it does what it does – that is, a somewhat clichéd cop-drama – pretty well. The harsh, grizzly lighting of noir is expertly deployed and Matt’s descent into that New York grimoire of drugs, low-life and crime is at least enough to entertain. And, as with Taken, Neeson once again proves that he can not only handle a mediocre script with aplomb, he alone is capable of making bits here and there shine. He does well. Having said this, there is really very little here that one couldn’t see if one just bought the boxset of any TV crime drama series. So, it’s up to you; spend 8 quid on a cinema ticket or just tune in to the BBC. Either way, you’ll get depressed detectives, dreary light and dismemberment.

 

The Sunday Mirror were in the wrong over Brooks Newmark

Tjoa Shze Hui
-
0
The Sunday Mirror were in the wrong over Brooks Newmark

This weekend has seen a veritable media frenzy over the case of Alex Wickham, the journalist whose honey trap prompted the now ex-minister, and self-confessed fool, Brooks Newmark, into exchanging provocative photographs with him.

When other papers accused Wickham of crossing some sacred line of journalism, The Sunday Mirror responded with a regal wave of its hand. Wickham’s story, claimed the paper, was published entirely in the service of the public interest; in fact, it did Britain a favour by rooting out a man who was heavily involved in the advancement of young women in politics, yet prepared to take sexual bribes from them.

Unsurprisingly, this defence has also been echoed by the likes of Guido Fawkes who, true to  form, ran a blog-post decrying the UK’s media standards as a type of censorship that left the wrongdoings of the powerful unexposed. “We will continue to use subterfuge and clandestine methods to go after wrong ’uns,” its post trumpeted proudly.

There is massive problem with this sort of argument, however, and here it is: Newmark was not actually a ‘wrong ‘un’’ until explicitly prompted off the straight and narrow by Wickham’s virtual wiles. To date, the Sunday Mirror‘s sting has not proven successful in uncovering old cases of misdemeanour on Newmark’s part; indeed, no other women have spoken up in the wake of this scandal to confirm that other politicians — let alone Newmark — preyed on them via social media. Wickham’s piece, then, did not lift the flap on some kind of ongoing and unseen hive of criminal activity, as pieces of investigative journalism ought to do. Instead, it created a contentious sensation precisely so that it could report on it.

This, put very simply, is why I think that The Sunday Mirror is going to lose its case at IPSO (the new press regulatory body): Wickham’s story told us nothing new or pertinent about politicians’ existing abuses of social media, only that such abuses were possible. This means that it cannot be justified as a defence of public interest, since it reflects not on reality as it stands, but only on what could be. And anyway, didn’t we already know that the politicians in office are human beings just like us, with the potential to make mistakes? Can you indict someone on the grounds of mere potential?

These questions aside, there are also several issues of methodology that belie the sting operation’s validity. For one thing, Wickham filched pictures off young women’s social media accounts without their knowledge or permission to help improve the authenticity of his Twitter avatar, a “Tory PR girl”: his coy profile picture was nicked from a 22 year-old Swedish model’s Instagram account, and his sunbathing selfies off a 26 year-old woman in Lincolnshire. There’s no need to expound on how being used as online lures has proven degrading and humiliating to the women involved, or about the kinds of avenues for legal action that it might open to them. Suffice to say that The Sunday Mirror may have more than just IPSO to worry about. 

Then, of course, there’s the fact that Wickham distributed his virtual bait only amongst Tory MPs, strongly suggesting that he hoped to ensnare them in particular. This is the sort of rookie error that, unfortunately, makes The Sunday Mirror’s heroic claim to be defending the public interest even more dubious than it already is. The paper’s unabashed dislike of the Tories is widely known, which means that to a casual observer, the whole thing comes across more akin to a vindictive stab at a perceived political enemy than as a gallant, self-sacrificial public service.

There’s no disputing that Brooks Newmark did wrong by his family — and wrong by a public that trusted him — by responding so readily to Wickham’s online wiles. His fall has been inglorious to say the least, and will probably haunt his career for a good many years to come. Nevertheless, one can’t help but feel that the bigger scandal in the whole debacle has less to do with Newmark, and more to do with the journalist and newspaper which ran his scoop. 

Friends – Looking back 20 years later

Anna Corderoy
-
0
Friends – Looking back 20 years later

2014. It’s the year of big anniversaries. Wars, presidencies, the fall of Communism in Europe…And then there’s one anniversary that Comedy Central has really done a sterling job of beating us round the face with. Yes, at some point during the (too) long vacation, most of us have probably found ourselves grateful for the endless re-runs of Friends gracing our screens 24/7. It’s now been 20 years since we first met the beloved Central Perk gang – and 10 since we left them behind.

It was a difficult breakup. There are few TV-fads in history that the international viewing public has found it so difficult to get over. In our heart-of-hearts, we’ve still not really moved on yet. Friends got the sitcom formula beautifully, impeccably spot-on in a way that productions since have striven to replicate and missed the mark. I had a go at analysing what makes Friends tick even now, 10 years on. 

The Characters

It’s an incredibly cheesy moment in all of our lives, but everybody’s been there: the “Which Friends character are you?” conversation. The nice thing is that this conversation always ends in some form of disagreement. Nobody ends up being 100% Rachel or 0% Chandler. Why? Because the characters in the show are so incredibly multi-faceted that we manage to share something with all of them. You may hate Ross, but let’s not lie; there’s probably something about him that reminds you uncomfortably of yourself.

The actors and directors have done such a wonderful, thorough job of building these characters, each with such a careful balance of strengths and weaknesses that you cannot help but see them as equal. True, we can rank them in order of preference, but nobody can deny that there are consistently six main characters. Meaning that there’s always someone for everyone.

At the same time every character is a perfect individual; each has their own quirks and mannerisms. From Phoebe’s musical gifts to Joey’s aversion to sharing food…could they BE any quirkier? It’s difficult to get six equal characters and keep that uniqueness there. But Friends does it.

 [mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10201%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Use of Comedy

Let’s start by making a few comparisons. In Two and a Half Men, the comedy is incredibly recycled. I’ve never sat down and watched a run of Two and a Half Men episodes, because there’s no point. Every episode is built from exactly the same material, and none of them ever seem to be going anywhere. You know precisely what you’re going to get for the full 21 minutes: Charlie hammering on about his sex life (character and actor are entirely synonymous, both equally unlikable), Alan being painfully awkward and enough misogyny to last a lifetime. Then there’s How I Met Your Mother, which I found myself watching for the first time the other day. It’s the kind of show a Friends lover should warm to, being effectively the same programme. But I think it’s trying too hard; the moment the writers find something funny, they milk it for as long as possible until it’s not funny anymore.

Friends treated comedy differently; they’d strike gold, let it go and then, when we were least expecting it, the joke would resurface later in a new, sometimes deeply ironic circumstance (unagi, anyone?). The sheer range of comedic material is huge and delightfully varied, in terms of both content and delivery. There are 236 episodes available to us, but each one has something uniquely special about it; they all manage to be different in some way. So, even though we’ve watched these episodes a million times, we never seem to get bored of them.

Setting

By definition, a “sitcom” means that you’re using same environment for every episode. However, how you use that setting is up to you. A lot of sitcoms overlook this, but there was something so warm and homely about how Friends “looked” onscreen. When we see a Friends soundstage, it doesn’t scream high budget (however high budget it was). Obviously, a great deal of money, time and meticulousness was invested in creating the perfect environment for the gang to inhabit, but it is done with such art that that’s not what you see when you look at the stage. You see the story, and the setting functions solely to compliment it. That’s how it should be. The setting is used to bring out the best in the characters; they make the setting. Monica’s apartment is, in its essence, a wonderful, colourful jumble of “stuff”; a space that truly seems lived in. This is what brings the show alive.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10202%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Most Importantly: It Gets Life Spot On

One thing will never change, and that’s the basic fact that life sucks. Life has its funny way of throwing obstacles at us on a daily basis. Work, family, love…every element has its more difficult moments from time to time. Friends has a wonderful way of making these moments seem a) a little worse for the characters onscreen (making us feel a lot better) and most crucially, b) funny. Whether it’s Chandler’s espresso-fuelled break-up with Janice, Joey’s endless struggle to fulfil his career (who can forget “Ichiban – Lipstick for Men”?) or simply Ross’ epic tanning mishap, Friends has all life-struggles covered.

Even the most depressing scenarios are presented with an eventual touch of light-heartedness and are an effective medicine for many things in life. Hands up: how many of us have, at some point after a nasty breakup, found temporary solace in a Friends marathon? As Phoebe points out, the gang’s “collective dating record reads like a Who’s Who of human crap”; the show has a delightful way of making us feel like we’re not alone, and really, it’s not all that bad. And as long as life keeps on being a little rough around the edges, there will always be a place in our lives for Friends.

The men in black: Life as an usher

Kenny Dada
-
0
The men in black: Life as an usher

Going to the theatre is supposed to be a fun, enjoyable experience. It’s a chance to get away from the hustle and bustle of day to day life, even if it’s just for the afternoon or evening. It’s a chance to de-stress and immerse yourself in the drama that’s unfolding on stage. During the Christmas holidays, it can even be a treat for all the family with pantomimes and an invaluable way of keeping the kids entertained. However, this experience isn’t always enjoyable. For some people, an evening at the theatre begins long before the lights go down and continues after the audience have left. I’m referring to the invisible troopers in black, armed with the door wedges and torches, the people that carry those ice-cream trays like a cross: the front of house ushers.

During the holidays, I work part-time at my local theatre as an usher. Most people seem to think that this is the ‘easiest job in the world’, as all ushers have to do is let the audience in and sell some ice-creams, right? Not quite. Front of house is so much more than that. The woes of the job tend to fall under two categories: obnoxious customers and demanding directors with their pretentious actors.

To begin with, let’s examine the customers. One of the many lessons that I have learned from working as a front of house usher is that Harry Gordon Selfridge and Marshall Field were wrong; the customer is not always right. First of all, there are the ‘guests’ who think they’re entitled to free tickets and programmes because the lead in the show is their brother’s wife’s cousin or similar. These ‘guests’ sometimes have the nerve to push for other audience members to be moved so that they can have their better seats just because they didn’t book in time. 

Then, there are the latecomers, the bane of every usher’s life. These customers will turn up five, ten minutes after the doors have closed and then become angry at the ushers when they can’t be let in straight away because the latecomers point hasn’t been announced yet. They’ll shout and rant about how ‘London theatres let people in straight away’, no matter how many times the ushers try to explain that every show is different, and that letting people in at the wrong time can be very distracting for the other audience members and actors on stage. But they still won’t listen and they’ll insist on sitting in their actual seats, even if it’s right in the middle and they have to walk past fifteen people to get to it.

Last but most definitely not least, there are the litterbugs. Do you ever wonder whose job it is to clean up the melted half eaten ice-creams, or the many other weird substances that people leave behind in auditoriums? Why, your friendly, neighbourhood usher, of course! Over the years, I have seen many delightful things such as bits of skin, used tissues, damp handkerchiefs and the colourful vomit from children who went a bit too wild over the ice-cream, to name a few. It’s safe to say that the job is never dull.

Now for the demanding directors. These kind of directors definitely need to be taken down a peg, or three. They’ll completely ignore ushers most of the time (in the theatre hierarchy, ushers are at the bottom, apparently), pretend they can’t see them when they’re giving notes to their actors on stage before a show and only talk to them when they need impossible errands to be done. Ushers will also get the occasional ‘shhhh’ and death glare from directors for breathing too loudly when they’re giving notes. Pretentious actors are exactly the same. I once came across an actress who was arrogant enough to be completely rude to an eight year old fan, just because she ‘knows’ Matt Smith. Actors, eh?

Life as an usher is not all bad though. There are many perks of the job such as the wide variety of shows that we get to see for free (theatre is definitely not cheap on a student budget); operas, ballets and even classic films from time to time. Sure, having to watch the same show over and over again can become tedious. Even panto can get very irritating (oh yes it can!) after hearing ‘He’s behind you!’ for the millionth time, but so much exposure to theatre is absolutely incredible as the arts are so important.

Some of the ushers that I know could give most theatre critics a run for their money because they’ve seen it all; actors and shows come and go but ushers are always there. Also, not all customers, directors and actors are as frustrating as the aforementioned ones. Ushers get to meet people from all different walks of life; from the elderly couple who have been going to the theatre since they were children and still dress up for it, to the four year old who is gushing about how amazing his first ever panto way. It’s always a pleasant feeling to know that you helped make someone’s theatre experience enjoyable.

The biggest perk of being an usher is getting to work with a great team of people. As corny as it sounds, the various trials and tribulations of the job tend to bring the ushering team closer together and as they say, a team that cleans up dead skin together, wins together. Or something like that. So, the next time you visit a theatre and you come across a member of the front of house staff, play nice. 

1...1,3741,3751,376...2,577Page 1,375 of 2,577

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 Jamie Ashley