Page 1703 – Cherwell

5 Minute Tute: Falkand Islands

Opinion

Rupert Nichol

-

18th February 2012

Why do Argentina and the UK disagree over the Falkland Islands?

Argentina thinks that the Falkland Islands (or The Malvinas, as they know them) are their own territory because they are only 200 miles off the Argentinian coast. As far as they are concerned this is the single most important and emotional issue of foreign policy. Britain claims that the islands have been a legal colony for nearly 200 years, although shortly before the 1982 war, the Thatcher government was trying to shed this responsibility. They had a long term proposal for joint custody for 50 years followed by a transfer into Argentinian control. But the islanders themselves were adamant that they wanted British rule, as the Argentine Junta in the 1970s had been a vicious dictatorship. When we tried to save money by withdrawing our patrol ships, the Argentinians thought we were no longer concerned, and mounted an invasion. Faced with this, British forces were sent to recover the islands from 8000 miles away, which they achieved in less than three months of brief and bitter conflict.

Why, after almost 30 years, has the dispute been brought back to international attention?

The Argentines, despite losing the war, never gave up their claim to the Malvinas, and continued to say “The Malvinas are Argentinian”. Now that Argentina has overcome terrible economic problems, the islands have come back to the top of their list of issues. Their glamorous female president has started blowing the Malvinas trumpet knowing she will gain huge popularity for it. Whereas in ‘82 the Argentinian regime was despicable and despotic, they can now claim to be an effective democracy. The Argentinians are not suggesting they’re going to invade, but are claiming that Britain is “militarising” the South Atlantic by sending a new warship to conduct an offshore patrol, though it is actually replacing an older one. There is known to be oil in the offshore waters, which raises the stakes, though it may be difficult and damaging to extract it. The UN retains its policy of decolonisation and self-determination, but the islanders themselves are not interested, and their views have to be taken into account.

Will the Falklands remain British?

By invading in 1982, the Argentinians turned the Falklands into a much more important issue than it had previously been for Britain. After fighting for the Islands and losing over 250 lives, it is difficult to negotiate them away. For as long as Mrs Thatcher remains alive, and for as long as there is a Conservative government in power they will stay British, and Labour won’t give them up soon either. In the long term we might prefer to be rid of them, but now we’ve fought over the islands that is much more difficult.

What is the future of the Falklands dispute?

The Argentinians will always want the Malvinas and they will never be happy until they own them. Argentina should be a close ally and important trading partner. They had been very pro-British before the war, and in 1982 many of their weapons were British and they even had two modern British warships. The irony is that if the Argentines had not invaded we might have agreed a handover timetable by now; but equally it was the trauma of the war that has created a functioning democracy which was not there before. They now seek a political resolution and are pressurising Britain through the UN and other South American countries. There is no question of a war: the islands are much more strongly defended today than they were in 1982, but the question is how long we want to maintain this expensive level of defence, in the face of possible international disapproval.

Rupert Nichol is a retired naval officer who served in HMS Hermes during the Falklands conflict in 1982, and was liaison officer with embarked media teams from the BBC and ITN

No to Norrington

Opinion

Andrew Grey

-

18th February 2012

0

After the recent announcement of Keble’s collections reform, I am convinced that the Norrington Table should be scrapped.

This ridiculous rankings chart, which will inevitably fluctuate every year on the basis of just a handful of results, does not do students justice. A quick glance at the Table since 2000 demonstrates how inconsistent college rankings are.

I write not as a Keble student, but as a Mansfielder. Mansfield college illustrates these fluctuation very well. Until last year, it was known to some as the college that was 29th out of 30 in the Norrington Table. This year, however, the college came 12th. I was very pleased with this achievement; but the reality, especially in a small college like Mansfield, is probably that two or three extra students got firsts than in the previous year.

Given this variation in the table, I was surprised to learn that in a recent meeting, tutors raised the question of how students could be made to work hard enough to ensure their college was near the top of the Norrington Table.

This is an astonishing attitude on a number of levels. For one, students don’t need to be ‘made to work hard’ for their finals – we know full well that these degrees are our future and that, without 2.1s in them, entering employment will be considerably more difficult. One only needs to walk through any library in Oxford in the middle of Trinity to witness how hard finalists work. Furthermore, the difference between a 2.1 (three points in the Norrington) and a First (five points) amounts to more than just working harder – in arts subjects at least. Some students will work incredibly hard and miss out on the First, whilst others will do the same amount of work (or even less) but get the right exam questions.

Ultimately, the question raised in this meeting encapsulates everything that is wrong with the Table. No tutor should be asking what is necessary to boost their college’s place in a set of rankings. Rather, tutors should be asking how they can most effectively help students fulfil their potential, guide them through what is actually an immensely stressful process and best prepare them for their future.

We didn’t go through the lengthy application process, work on countless essays or problem sheets and accumulate thousands of pounds of debt in the process, to be statistics for a table. We deserve to be seen as thinking people who need to gain the best education possible in order to be helpful, responsible and intelligent citizens. If the Norrington Table is abolished, perhaps this will once again be the focus of tutors.

The Final Stages: Mephisto

Culture

Lloyd Houston

-

18th February 2012

0

After seven weeks of work Mephisto is nearing completion; we have moved from a disparate group of acquaintances to a cast, and our characters have become friends, enemies, family, and lovers – and for some of us, all of the above at pretty much the same time. We have mapped out fights, choreographed dances, and have been forced to make good on all the little white-lies we told about our musical abilities when we auditioned. Above all though, we hope we have created a performance that respects and honours its source material.

With any show there is an obligation to ‘do justice’ to the writer’s work, the issues it seeks to explore and to the character you have been asked to play, however in Mephisto this sense of duty has been far greater. At every stage of the rehearsal process we have been reminded that Mephisto narrative is a true one, that it is composed of genuine experiences, and that our characters represent real individuals.

The idea of transforming these experiences into a ‘performance’ runs the risk of seeming disingenuous and opportunistic – the theatrical equivalent of the ‘Tragic Life Stories’ section of a high-street bookshop. However, through our research and discussions it has become apparent that the only way to do justice to the suffering experienced by those to whom the play is dedicated, is by doing justice to the vibrancy and vitality with which these individuals opposed and subverted the forces that sought to silence them.

The Germany of the Weimar Republic was a place of unprecedented cultural, scientific, and social progress, and some of the most ebullient scenes in Mephisto are the performances that take place in the Peppermill – the Bolshevik Kabarett (the ‘k’ and the two ‘t’s denoting its political intent, as opposed to the sexual burlesque of a ‘cabaret’) that was run in real-life by Klaus Mann and his sister Erika. These scenes depict a satire of malign bureaucracy and institutionalised bigotry that still feels fresh and exciting. Given the energy and inventiveness of those who inspired the play, to perform Mephisto as a dour sob-story would be the most self-indulgent thing we could do.

For my part, I have been given the task of exploring why Nazism proved so appealing to so many. My character Hans Miklas is a disenfranchised young man who experiences the deprivation and poverty of his life in inflation-crippled Hamburg as a symbol of the betrayal of Germany by its bourgeois leaders. However, while it is easy to give these sorts of intellectually rationalised explanations for his actions, far harder is the task of emotionally engaging with the liberating pleasure human beings can derive from legitimised hatred.

One of the stranger intellectual processes acting requires of you is resisting the temptation to pass judgement on your character in performance. It would be easy for the other actors playing National Socialists and I to manifest our disgust at the things we have to say and do, but it would also cause our performances to become muddy and half-hearted. The challenge we face in portraying those involved with the machinery of Nazism is discovering how to enjoy espousing such abhorrent values… before coming off-stage on Saturday night and washing our mouths out with bleach.

Any discussion of ‘the theatre’ (Darling!) and the process of play-making is apt to sound self-congratulatory, but the down-to-earth atmosphere that our director Milja has fostered in the rehearsal-room has meant that ego-stroking has never threatened to obscure the reasons we feel Mephisto’s story ought to be told. In the end, so long as we can convey those reasons to the audience the whole process will have been worthwhile.

‘We never broke any rules’

Opinion

Jack Harris

-

18th February 2012

0

Paul Kenyon is not an ordinary journalist. His CV reads like a mixture of James Bond and Punked; he has sleuthed his way around some of the most violent dictatorships on the planet, and was the first person to film Iran’s secret nuclear facilities. He has tracked migrants across the Sahara along a trail of dead bodies and discarded water bottles, gate-crashed a wedding to expose it as a visa scam, and even faked his own death.

Kenyon is a fairly chipper character, perhaps surprisingly given the bleak material he deals with first hand. Smiling, he recounts his run-in with Iran’s security services after filming a documentary on the country’s nuclear facilities. “They ran up to us shouting BBC! BBC! as we got to the airport, then dragged us to a side room and went through our luggage till they found the tapes. It was the most terrifying experience of my life.”

Eventually, the crew were allowed to return to the UK, once they had been relieved of their more sensitive recordings and been persuaded never to go back to Iran. Luckily, they had sent the cameraman back a day early with another copy, and he’d managed to slip past the guards.

I ask where he picked up the kind of skills needed to sneak past security agents quite accustomed to beating people until they do what they want to film a facility kept secret from even the UN. In part, he says, the job is self-selecting. “Most investigative journalists I know are rule-breakers and have a problem with authority, and through school, through university, you develop tactics to get around those rules. It’s instinctive; if someone says this is the room that you’re not allowed to go into, that’s the room you want to go into.” Even so, that taste for rule-breaking takes honing. “I’ve had loads of training from ex-police officers, learning how to avoid getting detected, how to trail a car in traffic, how to follow someone without being noticed.”

Kenyon rarely reports from the UK, instead working mainly in Africa and the Middle East. I ask what draws him to foreign reporting. “In Britain we can be quite blinkered, only interested in our own lives. I suppose it’s slightly idealistic, but I think that it’s important for people to be able to put their own lives into context and see how fortunate we are, which is a bit of a cliché but its true.’ As much as anything, though, it’s about the desire for a good story. He tells of “rich seams of corruption, there for the taking”, with an oddly bittersweet eagerness that I suspect you need in order to be willing to report from some of the grimmest parts of the world.

He seems a little embarrassed about his early work. He made a name for himself in his first show, Kenyon Confronts, with a program that exposed a life insurance scam in Haiti. Not beating about the about the bush by questioning the scammers, he simply faked his own death and filmed the funeral that they arranged for him, which came complete with a service and a band to play a requiem. He even got a shot of himself mourning his own tragic demise in the back of the church. That, he says now, was “a bit sensationalist”.

His recent documentaries, made mainly for Panorama, are far broader in scope than exposés of individual cases of wrongdoing. He spent weeks following a group of African migrants along the trail from Ghana to the southern coast of the Mediterranean. His aim now is to give airtime to the voices of the people often hidden from the West, rather than just the wrongdoings that go on outside of Europe. “It annoys me when people in the Daily Mail or whatever claim that African migrants are only in the UK so they can get their hands on benefits. They don’t; they come to work, because they don’t even know what benefits are.”

He tells of the respect the migrants receive in their hometowns. “These men are viewed as heroes in their village; their families save up to pay for their travel, so that they can send money back to the village from Europe”. Some make the journey several times, only to be deported home from Libya or Italy to wait for another chance to make the journey.

The migrants he tracked are not motivated solely by money. They have a sense of their place in the world’s history and politics that rarely makes it into discussions of migrants, idiosyncratic as their beliefs are. “One man told me that there was nothing wrong with going to Europe for money, since the Europeans had been taking what they wanted from Africa for centuries; he was even convinced that there are huge vaults under London and New York containing preserved trees to guarantee the first world’s wood supply.”

He laughs about the twists and turns of getting permission to film in Libya, where he investigated the trafficking of African migrants, as well as covering the civil war. “We’d try every contact we had in the government there and get no response for months. Then, in the end we got a call in the middle of the night saying that we could come, telling us even what flights we had to be on. They were all mad.”

Are British minds starting to broaden in step with globalisation, I ask. Kenyon is optimistic, “Over the last ten to fifteen years and very much in the last five, there has been a real change. People are starting to think about the stuff we have taken for granted, that we import very cheap T-shirts from Cambodia, coffee and chocolate from Mexico and Africa. You’ve got to ask yourself why they’re so cheap, and they’re so cheap because they don’t have the same standards of labour as we do, because there’s huge exploitation in those countries, in some cases even slave labour.” Paul tracked a group of child slaves from the families from which they had been taken to cocoa farms in Ghana, and eventually freed several with the help of Ghana’s police (who then claimed all the credit).

I ask how he feels about the backlash against aggressive journalistic techniques that erupted after the News of the World was shut down, and whether he feels that his own methods have much in common with the nastier end of what went on at the tabloids. He laughs, “The tabloids crossed a line that we don’t go near; phone hacking is, obviously, completely illegal. Of course, investigative journalists might hire private detectives, but then whether you want to call them a private detective or call them a freelance journalist doesn’t really make a lot of difference. I don’t even know what the difference is.”

I ask about blagging, one of the methods singled out in the coalition’s Leveson inquiry as an example of unethical tabloid tactics. He hesitates, “Well, of course, when you’re working undercover you are pretending not to be a journalist, but there is a difference. Everything we went undercover to expose was serious crime, or failing that, the next level below, which has to be pretty serious anti-social behaviour. We didn’t just go after celebrities.” Kenyon is a staunch believer in the right to deceive in the name of the public interest, however much that term may have been stretched by the tabloids. “Yes there are similarities, but we never broke the rules.”

Paul Kenyon spoke at the Oxford Media Society last week

Lovely Bones: Behind-the-scenes video

Culture

Aerynn

-

18th February 2012

0

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%4945%%[/mm-hide-text]

Video by Nikos Sarikakis, assisted by Natalia Davies
Photography by AERYNN
Jewellery by SweetDelirium
Makeup and hair by Gemma Sutton, assisted by Victoria Poland
Model – Verity Whiter

www.aerynn.co.uk
www.gemmasutton.com
SweetDelirium online store

Culture Vulture

Ten torturous years and counting

Opinion

Richard Hill

-

18th February 2012

0

In November 2001, Mohamedou Ould Slahi was detained by Mauritanian police. After being held for a week without trial, he was told that he would be sent to Jordan. Naturally shocked, he asked why. The Mauritanians told him that they were acting under American orders. ‘Why weren’t they protecting his rights?’, he asked. ‘Because the Americans said they will punish us if we don’t turn you over,’ was the reply. So he was sent to Jordan; imprisoned; interrogated; and denied access to the Red Cross. Soon he was transferred again. This time to Bagram, an American base, where he was threatened with torture. And then, of course, he was sent to Guantanamo. He is still there, untried and mistreated.

How do we react to this story? The leader of the free world is implicated in arbitrary detention, torture, and shocking disregard for international law. But we’ve heard this all before. Everyone knows about Guantanamo: practically everyone in the UK has condemned it, from the Guardian to the Daily Mail. Repetition acts as a narcotic: can we still be shocked by Guantanamo’s tales of abuse after ten long years?

The answer is that we must be. We must remind ourselves of these crimes and continue to be outraged by this expression of contempt for human rights. We must remember the story of Binyam Mohamed. The judge who presided over his case noted, “Binyam Mohamed’s trauma lasted for two long years. During that time, he was physically and psychologically tortured. His genitals were mutilated. He was deprived of sleep and food … Captors held him in stress positions for days at a time. He was forced to listen to piercingly loud music and the screams of other prisoners while locked in a pitch-black cell.”

And let’s consider the treatment of Mohamed al-Qahtani. He was forced to wear a bra and had a thong placed on his head. He was tied by a leash, led around the room and made to perform dog tricks. He was sexually humiliated, forced to listen to loud music for hours, deprived of sleep, and exposed to extremes of heat and cold. Dogs were used to mock him, “brought into the interrogation room and directed to growl, bark, and show [their] teeth” at the detainee. It’s appropriate that dogs played a role in his torture, stripped of humanity as he was. His dignity is nonexistent.

In 1911, the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on torture proclaimed that “the whole subject is now only of historical interest as far as Europe is concerned”. It is the sort of thing that “was frequently inflicted by the Greek despots”, but is now considered barbaric by all civilised countries. After the first half of the twentieth century this judgement appeared sadly premature. It was to ensure that the horrific war crimes of the Second World War did not happen again that America played a leading role in establishing the codes of international law which safeguard human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. This was taken almost verbatim from the US Constitution, which declares that “cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted.” This same constitution grants the right to a fair trial. It was to circumvent such laws that the Bush administration opened Guantanamo, an off-shore military base where “enemy detainees” could be kept indefinitely. A Bush memo in 2002 declared that detainees were “not legally entitled” to humane care. Detainees are also not entitled to a trial. Dick Cheney elaborated upon America’s interrogations in Guantanamo: “American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information.” “An elaborate legal proceeding”, of course, means the due process of law.

Things have improved under Obama, but not enough. Torture has stopped, but there has been no attempt to mete out justice upon those who inflicted it. Detainees remain stranded in this legal no-man’s land. The administration tried to close the camp, but this goal seems to have been abandoned. The reason for this failure, according to Obama, was the difficult “politics” of the issue, and Attorney General Eric Holder attacked Congress for opposing the move. This seems convincing until we remember that nation states may not claim political controversy as an excuse for systematically violating international law.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration appears indifferent to the human rights disgrace that is Guantanamo. When it does speak out against it, it uses purely pragmatic arguments: ‘The detainee camp helps our enemies and is counter-productive’. Few would dispute that: even Bush has conceded that the camp is “a propaganda tool for our enemies”. But to argue this is to believe that human rights can be suspended, anywhere, anytime, if there is any reason to suspect that it might be useful to do so. Sadly, this view won support in the aftermath of 9/11. Nonetheless, it is morally unacceptable, and Amnesty International is opposed to any attempt to subordinate human rights to political expediency. It is long past time for America to reclaim its Enlightenment legacy and remember Benjamin Franklin’s adage that “those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”. If the American government heeds this advice and shuts down Guantanamo, it will not only improve America’s global image, it will strike a much needed blow for human dignity around the world.

A Bluffers’ Guide To: Surf Pop

Culture

Cherwell Music

-

18th February 2012

0

Era? Well, it all began in the 60s with the Beach Boys. And then it just… never stopped.

So my parents might like it, then. It’s pretty hard not to like. Sunny, strumming sounds with lots of references to girls, surfing and the many delights of the O.C.

The TV show? Er, not really. California. Actually, even though everyone talks about the West Coast lots, it’s being made virtually everywhere, with Y Niwl being probably the only Welsh-speaking beachy supergroup in the whole world.

Who listens to it? People who like that Little Mermaid meme, the Missing Bean and Hipster RunOff. But that shouldn’t put you off, even if it is so #totesindie. Increasingly, it’s got all the sunshine of the Beach Boys with a hefty dose of whimsy and a slight dash of wistfulness.

Hipster beard optional, then? Trust us. You’ll have to take off the thick-rimmed glasses to surf, anyway.

Check out our selection of five bona fide bangers:

‘California Girls’ – The Smiles

‘Misery’ – Veronica Falls

‘Undegpump’ – Y Niwl

‘Let’s Go Surfing’ – The Drums

‘Vacation’ – Beach Fossils

Hear all these tracks, and more, on the accompanying Spotify playlist.

Out and onstage

Culture

Daniel Frampton

-

18th February 2012

0

Say ‘theatre’ and most people would probably reply that it is one of the most gay-friendly environments there is. Looking for a topic to write on this week I was bombarded by gay related theatre news; Alan Bennett, gay playwright, has confirmed that his new play, People, will be showing at the National Theatre this October, directed by Nicholas Hytner, also gay. In the wake of a particularly good production of Richard II at the Donmar Warehouse, Michael Dobson reminds us that some of the best portrayals of said Shakespearian villain have been given by John Gielgud, Michael Redgrave, Ian McKellen, Derek Jacobi and, a cross-dressed Fiona Shaw, all of whom are gay. In other news, gossip rages on in Hollywood about the sexual orientation of some actors. But surely it doesn’t matter. This is the twenty-first century after all.

Well, if we are to believe a recent equity survey, which stated that only 57% of gay actors feel they can be open about their sexuality to their agents, and that a third of actors have experienced homophobia within the industry, we might have to reassess our initial assumption.

Rupert Everett said that coming out ‘ruined’ his career, and another actress, who wished to remain anonymous, was quoted highlighting that ‘the representation of gay women in the media is usually of young feminine women. Casting directors are usually looking for a ‘type’ based on the heterosexual model, which means you have to act ‘straight’ regardless.’

Is this 57% any better or worse than the situation found in other professions? It is probably impossible to say, but there is evidence that awareness of homophobia in the workplace is increasing.

The Equality Act, passed in 2010, condemns discrimination based on disability, sex, age, religion, belief, maternity, pregnancy, and, for the first time, homophobia or prejudce based on gender reassignment. It applies to any employment body that receives public funding, and therefore to organisations like the BBC and the National theatre. Employers now have a ‘public duty’ to eliminate discrimination, advance equality, and foster good relations between groups.

Yet legislation is only the first step in tackling the stereotypes and typcasting rife in the world of acting, and the belief that someone’s sexuality affects their ability to effectively play a character.

Theatre groups such as Pink Triangle Theatre and the Spare Tyre group (whose tagline is ‘theatre without prejudice’) have taken the medium and used it to tackle homophobia through educational workshops, perhaps an apt reminder that putting these issues on stage in a form an audience can’t escape from can tackle prejudice head on.

Say ‘theatre’ and most people would probably reply that it is one of the most gay-friendly environments there is. Looking for a topic to write on this week I was bombarded by gay related theatre news; Alan Bennett, gay playwright, has confirmed that his new play, People, will be showing at the National Theatre this October, directed by Nicholas Hytner, also gay. In the wake of a particularly good production of Richard II at the Donmar Warehouse, Michael Dobson reminds us that some of the best portrayals of said Shakespearian villain have been given by John Gielgud, Michael Redgrave, Ian McKellen, Derek Jacobi and, a cross-dressed Fiona Shaw, all of whom are gay. In other news, gossip rages on in Hollywood about the sexual orientation of some actors.

But surely it doesn’t matter. This is the twenty-first century after all.Well, if we are to believe a recent equity survey, which stated that only 57% of gay actors feel they can be open about their sexuality to their agents, and that a third of actors have experienced homophobia within the industry, we might have to reassess our initial assumption.

Rupert Everett said that coming out ‘ruined’ his career, and another actress, who wished to remain anonymous, was quoted highlighting that ‘the representation of gay women in the media is usually of young feminine women. Casting directors are usually looking for a ‘type’ based on the heterosexual model, which means you have to act ‘straight’ regardless.’ Is this 57% any better or worse than the situation found in other professions? It is probably impossible to say, but there is evidence that awareness of homophobia in the workplace is increasing.

The Equality Act, passed in 2010, condemns discrimination based on disability, sex, age, religion, belief, maternity, pregnancy, and, for the first time, homophobia or prejudce based on gender reassignment. It applies to any employment body that receives public funding, and therefore to organisations like the BBC and the National theatre. Employers now have a ‘public duty’ to eliminate discrimination, advance equality, and foster good relations between groups.

Yet legislation is only the first step in tackling the stereotypes and typcasting rife in the world of acting, and the belief that someone’s sexuality affects their ability to effectively play a character. Theatre groups such as Pink Triangle Theatre and the Spare Tyre group (whose tagline is ‘theatre without prejudice’) have taken the medium and used it to tackle homophobia through educational workshops, perhaps an apt reminder that putting these issues on stage in a form an audience can’t escape from can tackle prejudice head on.

Lovely Bones: Interview with SweetDelirium Jewellery

Culture

Aerynn

-

18th February 2012

0

Lovely Bones: Interview with SweetDelirium Jewellery

Many readers will be interested in the origins of your organic materials. Where and how do you source them?

The sourcing of organic supplies is often the first question I will be asked by a concerned customer before deciding to purchase, curious fans and fellow artists. It is also a very controversial choice of material to work with, so I have spent a lot of time making sure I am doing everything right and can confidently fight my corner when approached! All of my organic items are obtained ethically, in what I believe to be the purest sense. You will often come across a taxidermist or artist that defines ethical as ‘not hunted or killed for the sole purpose of art’, yet they will happily use animals that have been killed by pest control. I will not use these supplies in my work, as I still deem culling cruel practice. My items come from either local farmlands, or the Highlands of Scotland, where birds and rabbits are found in the countryside naturally dead, from conservation areas or animal sanctuaries. I really do struggle to convince people at times that certain items could ever be ethically sourced, but believe me, if I couldn’t source my supplies with 100% confidence in their ethical origins, they would not be in my work. I do also offer a replica resin version of the taxidermy items, hand made feather wings in place of the real preserved ones, and resin antlers, so even if you would not be comfortable wearing organic animal items, you can still have the designs.

What are your ethical concerns regarding production?
I do worry that due to the relatively fast rise into the public eye SweetDelirium has had over the last twelve months, others will be encouraged to ‘jump on the band wagon’ as it were, and incorporate animal skulls and so on into their work, or to set up new businesses using such items. This is no bad thing on a small scale, it is good to inspire, but a rise in demand for animal skulls, wings and the like, could in the future lead to less than ethical methods of obtaining them, especially as unethical = cheaper to buy in, therefore larger profit. I am not in this line of work for profit, I am doing this to show people how beautiful death can be if made into something ethereal and elegant, but as with all areas in the alternative industry, there will be people wanting a piece of the action, and maybe not sourcing carefully enough, or doing the work justice.

What is your artistic background?
I am an only child, and spent a lot of my time when I was young drawing, reading and writing stories. As a teenager I was mainly focused on being an author, and did manage to get a few poems published, but as I got older I was drawn much more strongly into the more creative side. I spent a short while at art college, but didn’t get on well with the surprisingly strict way of teaching. I moved into the tattoo industry in 2004, working as a Body Piercer, learning tattooing through an apprenticeship until the birth of my daughter in 2007. After that I found it too demanding to be a part time mum, part time tattoo artist, so after a couple more years piercing part time, moved into jewellery design.

What inspires your work?
Pretty much everything inspires me in one way or another. I draw my ideas mainly from stories and books I enjoy, listening to music when sketching ideas, memories and favourite images. I like to make jewellery that I have always wanted to own, but could never find!
You have spoken about the saturation of the ‘alternative’ industry with the influx of large numbers of new models, photographers and designers. Do you believe that this is a positive thing? Yes and no. Yes in the respect that it is great to see more young people using their initiative to do something creative that they have a passion for and to make a go of it, I think it’s wonderful that people still follow their dreams, no matter the cost and sacrifice, and wish them only the best of luck. I try to work with as many new up and coming models, photographers and designers as I can, after all I was there this time last year, and some amazing people gave me the chance to show them what I could do, which I am so grateful for.
On the flip side, there are a lot of people coming into the industry for ‘the glory’. People see someone making themselves a success, and seem to think it’s such an easy thing to achieve, but chances are you will have to work yourself nearly into the ground to get noticed at all, because there are so many people doing the same thing as you! I work 16 -18 hours a day at this, seven days a week, while running a family. You have to be prepared to make sacrifices, suffer setbacks and to work very very hard.

How do you see your brand? Do you consider it to be ‘alternative’?
SweetDelirium is ‘alternative’ in the respect that you would never find my style of work on the High Street. I would actually be appalled if any large chain would ever consider selling real skull jewellery, taking us back to my point in a previous question, which would mean very unethical sourcing of the skulls, on a mass produced level. Ten years ago, there was a definite line between what we describe as ‘mainstream’, and ‘alternative’, and the people either side of it were easily identifiable as one thing or the other. Now, the line has nearly vanished, which is I think a great thing – why should we categorize people based on lifestyle and image? So I don’t tend to describe myself as an alternative artist in that respect. I would say I’m more of a specialist artist. What do you think has caused the recent trend of taxidermy jewellery?
Taxidermy jewellery has been around for a very long time. Most people trace it back to the Victorians, but you can go way back to Ancient Greece and Egypt and find examples, so the concept itself is nothing new. However, within the last 5 years or so, it has been creeping up in popularity. I will admit to being rather naive at first when starting – I was aware there were people making taxidermy jewellery, but I didn’t realize the effect bringing my own take on it would have. I have had a few troubles with seeing incredibly similar pieces of work to mine appear, and in the same vein, I have been contacted by designers I’ve never even seen before telling me I have stolen their work! This is also happening in latex, modelling and photography, due to the ‘over saturation’ I spoke about before. At first I found it upsetting, as it was never my intention to tread on toes, and it is heartbreaking seeing something I though was unique to me being sold somewhere else, but I have learned to understand there is only so much you can do with a skull, with a wing, with some bones, and similarities will crop up. The best thing to do is just keep your head down, and keep raising the bar by adjusting your work to keep it fresh and new. I am lucky enough to have a large following on Facebook, and a busy Etsy shop, so I need to keep on the ball!

Do you feel that your work has had any influence on the new popularity of animal pieces in fashion and jewellery?
I have definitely had some effect on the rise of taxidermy jewellery. I get lots of emails asking advice into where to get skulls, how I make certain pieces and that kind of thing. Some requests are written politely and some are really cheeky! Just because someone has had success with a certain style, it shouldn’t stop you from doing the same, but do bear in mind it is a controversial area to work in, you will get negative comments, and you will get compared to other artists, it’s not a big enough industry to ever escape that I’m afraid.

Have you had a generally positive response to your work?
Overall I get lovely feedback and comments from both customers and newcomers to my work. There will always be a minority, whatever it is that you do, that will not like what you are doing, and a smaller minority of those will not hesitate to be rude about it! You need a thick skin to do this kind of work! Generally though, people understand what I am doing and trying to portray through my work.

Where do you see ‘SweetDelirium’ in five years?
In five years, I would like to have exhibited some larger pieces of my work, I would love to do some sculpture and installation pieces if I can ever find the time! I would like to have released a number of ranges that stand out as elegant and unique. I am happy with the level of traffic I have coming through the page and the site at the moment, much busier and I will need some assistants!

Can you tell us about any upcoming collaborations?
There are a lot of collaborations on the way this year! I keep things pretty closely guarded until they come out, but look out for some Ancient Goddesses, some Old Wives Tales and some Victorian Deviants, among many others!

See more SweetDelirium Jewellery at:
Facebook Page
Etsy

UrbanObserver

Oxford's oldest independent student newspaper, est. 1920

5 Minute Tute: Falkand Islands

No to Norrington

The Final Stages: Mephisto

‘We never broke any rules’

Lovely Bones: Behind-the-scenes video

Culture Vulture

Ten torturous years and counting

A Bluffers’ Guide To: Surf Pop

Out and onstage

Lovely Bones: Interview with SweetDelirium Jewellery

Support Student Journalism

Explore

Follow us

More