Tuesday, April 29, 2025
Blog Page 1734

Misanthrope

0

Last Friday Ed Miliband treated us to the most humour we’ve had from him since the regrettable removal of his adenoids last year. Rising to full stature he cried, “I always knew it was going to be a fight, it is one that I relish” before proclaiming himself to be a an of “real steel and grit” who would not let David Cameron “steal a march” on the “big battlegrounds” of British Politics.

The notion of Ed Miliband relishing a fight is not only hilarious and completely discordant with his character, it couldn’t be more at odds with this past week’s events. Lord Glasman’s criticisms that the party had “no strategy, no narrative” and “show no signs of winning the economic argument” under the current leader were joined by Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy saying that Labour are lacking “credibility”, and allying himself with the Conservative party’s £5bn defence cuts. As if this wasn’t bad enough, one of the Labour Party’s biggest liabilities, Diane Abbott, caused a furore with her racist remark that “White people love playing divide and rule”.

Was Mr. Miliband, a man of steel and grit, going to let her get away with this, with so many people calling for her to be sacked? Certainly not! He range her while she was in an interview ant told her she had been a very naughty girl! This pathetic PR stunt to try to prove to people he was throwing his weight around was about as useful as the Pope’s bollocks. She got back on twitter and posted a comment distinguished in its stupidity and audacity – “Dubious of black people claiming they’ve never experienced racism. Ever tried hailing a taxi I always wonder?” Since taxi drivers fully reflect the demographic of this country, consisting largely of ethnic minorities, it’s far more likely that she isn’t being picked up because a thoroughly contemptible woman. We can take comfort, however, in the sweet irony that Diane Abbot won’t be getting a cab in London anytime soon.

Ed Miliband, meanwhile, cannot hope to compel us with his infantile babblings about battles after a week of controversy which has exposed him as weak and unauthoritative.

Why cars scare me more than 9/11

0

Since 2001 a new disease has been growing. It is not infectious, nor can it be transmitted by person-to-person contact. The causes are not well understood, and the disease is indiscriminate, occurring in sudden, isolated outbreaks. In the UK each year it kills approximately 50 and affects maybe 150 more, affecting 0.0003% of the population each year. You probably don’t have it.

Roads, alcohol, falls, and fires all kill more people each year. We accept these risks. There were 6,769 deaths directly attributed to alcohol in 2008, but it won’t stop us drinking. Police estimate 730,000 people are killed or injured in road collisions each year – 3,500 times as high as our mystery disease. A big figure, but we accept it. We know the roads are dangerous, but we’ll still cycle to our lectures and drive up and down from Oxford with car-loads of stuff.

So how much money should we put into treating this new affliction? Let’s pick some upper boundaries. Clearly more money should be spent on treating circulatory disease and cancer – two of the biggest causes of death in the UK. Perhaps, more money should be spent on making our roads safer: the cost of injuries and deaths on our roads is put between £15-32 billion. Treatment of a minor disease that affects so few people each year should pale in comparison.

Now suppose there is a treatment for this disease. It is not completely effective, and it comes at the expense of certain civil liberties and massive financial cost. Should the liberties of 60m people be curtailed as a way of maybe saving 200 people a year? Clearly not.

The fact remains: the treatment of such a small section of the population must not be allowed to be detrimental to the lives of everyone else. Treatment like legislation that allows control orders or 30-day detention without trial. Or laws that allow police to stop innocent tourists taking photos in railway stations and other locations deemed ‘targets’. Or, in the United States, legislation signed into law already this year that, according to Human Rights Watch, “[codifies] indefinite detention without trial into US law for the first time since the McCarthy era”. Cite ‘national security’ and do as you wish.

The mystery ‘disease’ is terrorism, and we react to it unbelievably disproportionately – even though the comparative risks are vanishingly small. As long ago as 1993, a study by Eric Johnson, currently at Columbia Business School, found respondents would pay more for insurance cover against just terrorism than for either non-terrorism related cover or – astonishingly – cover for “any reason”. After 9/11, more Americans took to driving rather than flying. The result was an increase in deaths on the roads. Tragically, we accept this as a risk of driving in a way we do not accept the risk of terrorism. We prefer the risk of dying on the way home from work or the risk of detention without trial to the risk of terrorism.

Such fears are not just brought out by terrorism – though it’s there that the feelings are strongest. A report by the Police Federation on the fear of crime cites research in which high levels of investment reduce actual burglary rates by 42% – but the percentage of people worrying about crime actually increases by 7%. Despite the hysteria that surrounded the Fukushima power plant last year, a 2002 report by the International Energy Agency concluded that the deaths per unit energy output are far higher for coal than for nuclear power. An International Atomic Energy Agency report has argued that psychological issues are the most significant effect on health from Chernobyl. The MMR jab controversy dramatically cut inoculation rates, and in doing so put more people at risk. What do these have in common? Misunderstanding of risk.

These are big issues, and they have big consequences. The debates about how we are going to power our iPads, televisions and PCs in twenty years time is always going to be skewed if we cannot properly understand the risks to our health associated with nuclear power. Tackling ‘fear of crime’ will never be construed as a waste of money, in the same way that funding for counter-terrorism will always go up. When the terrorist attack comes, no prime minister wants to have to admit they cut spending to counter-terrorism units.

We react most strongly to specific, if unlikely, threats. Terrorism (or indeed nuclear radiation, or “autism-causing” MMR jabs) create these kind of threats. They are also massive media stories, inexplicable bringers of death. Hidden in our midst, invisible, able to damage us or our loved ones at any time, out of our control. And so we have to rely on our politicians to protect us. They may well protect us, but at what cost – and to whom?

The threat is real, but it is not what we think it is. The greatest risk is not from terrorists or nuclear power stations or murderers. We’re much more likely to get killed crossing the street or cycling to lectures. The real threat is the consequences of our misunderstanding of these risks. The loss of civil liberty, the drop in vaccination rates, the lack of coherent and sustainable energy policy: these are real problems that will affect us all, unlike the fears that hover around them. It’s not the terrorists we should be scared of. It’s the bigger, quieter killers that happen so often they become normal.

 

Cherwell Sport gets the inside scoop

Were you involved in sport when you were in Oxford?

Not at University level, I rowed and played football and cricket for my college. I’ve still got a couple of blades that I won rowing,  at torpids and eights. My cricket team got to the Cuppers final but I wasn’t good enough to play for University.

 

Were there any fixtures or sporting events you particularly looked forward to in an Oxford year?

Any Varsity match really, that’s what Oxford sport’s all about, especially the rugby or the Boat Race. I still want Oxford to win, you can’t not can you? You’ve always got a bit of bias towards your own University, it’d be stupid if you wanted Cambridge to win. I used to watch David Gower who was a bit of a hero when I was a kid, so I’d go to the Parks and watch him play cricket, it was great. I didn’t really look forward to any Cuppers rugby match or something like that.

How did you get into sports journalism? Was it a passion more for sport or journalism?

It probably arose out of a passion for sport and I didn’t really know what I wanted to do when I was at university. I didn’t want to do law, accountancy or all the usual things that students go on to do. I started doing journalism at university and then I did a post-graduate course to get more specific training and I got a job after that as a general news reporter on a tiny little weekly paper. I’d always wanted to work for national papers, which not everybody does because there are lots of good jobs at regional papers. Then I started getting shifts in London working one day a week, one day off. And that just snowballed until what I do now.

 

What is your day-to-day routine as a sports journalist?

I work for a Sunday paper so it’s slightly different from daily papers. You’re obviously building up to Saturday which is the key day of the week. Traditionally there was a lot of sport being held on Saturdays but there is less so now because of TV, and Sunday isn’t sacred anymore for lots of reasons. So there’s even more need to come up with original things every week. Ideally you want the greatest story of the week; for instance last week we had a story about Wayne Rooney which nobody else had. You can’t tell that because it looked like everybody got it, because they stole it off us but that’s just the way it works. We know we got it first. So for our daily routine, it gets more and more busy towards the end of the week. At the start of the week there are fewer people in the office and by the end of the work there are loads of people in the office. You’re constantly trying to get a good story, that’s the main focus but sometimes you have to do the routine stuff, things that happen every week that are a bit boring to set up. In sport you know in April it’s the Masters, in May it’s the Cup Final, in the summer it’s Test matches so there’s all that structure.

 

You’ve obviously written about many sportsmen/women, what characteristics to you think are required for someone to become the world’s greatest in their discipline?

Mental strength is the main one. Top-level sportsmen have competed with thousands of people to get where they are, from under 10 years old and upwards, and were the ones who survived. They’ve been through all those levels when they could have been rejected, and they’ve got through every time because they’ve been able to handle the pressure and they worked the hardest.

 

How do you get football transfer rumours? Is there any rigour attached to their authenticity, or can the source basically be ‘some bloke in a pub’?

We would never print something that wasn’t true, especially on the word of somebody in a pub. Sometimes there are different degrees, because if you know that a football club has contacted an agent to enquire about certain players and you know the club are interested, it’s legitimate to write a story saying that that club are interested by that player. That player might never be signed by them, the club might never admit it because it’s not in their interest. But a lot of the time, the agents are trying to make their own players look attractive so that they get wage increases or better contracts. But it’s always difficult to sort the rumours from the truth. You might follow up a tip that somebody told you. Sometimes we get people ringing in saying ‘My wife’s brother is a patient of a physio who works for Arsenal or Manchester United or Chelsea and he told me that they’ve been treating Fernando Torres who told him he was buying a house in London and that means he’s going to Chelsea. Can you pay me some money?!’ It might be just rubbish, but those things do happen and you check it out. If it’s true – great! You’ve got your story from a total unexpected source.

 

On the note of football coverage, do you think it overly dominates sports journalism or do you think that the number of editorial inches it’s given is justified in light of the public interest?

There’s no doubt it dominates sport and sports journalism. The more coverage you give it, the more coverage people want. Thirty years ago you’d never have had MPs saying they supported a football club. The establishment didn’t like football but nowadays it’s trendy and you can’t be a public figure without supporting somebody. And it’s hard for any sport to fight against football and for us to juggle other sports every week. The Mail on Sunday is a traditional tennis and golf paper; people who watch those sports will probably buy our paper and wouldn’t buy The Sun which has a lot more football in it.

 

Which football team do you support?

I’m more of a cricket fan to be honest but I support Liverpool because I was born nearby and also because when I was growing up Liverpool were a big club that won things. They’re still a big club but they don’t win very much these days.

 

Who do you think will finish in the top 4 of the Premier League this year?

Safe to say Man U, Man City, Tottenham plus one of Chelsea, Arsenal or Liverpool.

 

It looks likely that for the first time in a while, the Champions League will not feature both Arsenal and Chelsea. What impact do you think that will have on their club?

A big impact. You get into the Champions League and that’s a guaranteed income of £20 million to £50 million depending on how far you go, so it’s bound to have a massive impact. And that’s probably going to be played out over the next three or four weeks. If Chelsea don’t make the Champions League next season, you have to say that Andre Villas-Boas might not stay in the job.

 

Do you think that’s what he future depends on? A Champions League spot?

Well, he seems to think that he has the backing from Roman Abramovich to stay in the job regardless. But the problem is that nobody knows what Abramovich is thinking because he’s the most reticent owner of any football club for years. I don’t think it would surprise anybody in Fleet Street if he came back from his New Year’s Eve party and decided to give him £100 million to spend or to sack him.  It’s easier when people know a bit more about the football owner in question. The only people that are close to Abramovich are two or three of his advisors from Russia or Israel or Europe. Nobody in this country.

 

Media is this country is notorious highly critical of the England football team; do you think that they will ever be capable of winning a major competition with the media building such a powerful influence?

I think that there are a whole load of influences on the England team. A lot of England players think that if they do badly they’re going to get another slating, but they also enjoy quite a lot of benefits of being in the England team and getting the profile they get from the media – increased contracts, better endorsements, the status of being an England player. You can’t have one without the other. However, England games are relatively infrequent so people probably do tend to overreact and certainly the media is quite short-termist in its view of not just the England team but of sport, politics, everything in general.

 

Do you think that because sports players rely on publicity to increase their salaries and promote themselves that they should put up with our press or do you think they have a right to privacy? Do you think they have a duty to behave better than they do as role models from young men? Or do you think they are justified in their conduct and it’s their own business?

I think everyone has a right to a privacy of some kind. It’s not a black and white issue being a role model for young people because most players will say “I not a role model, I’m just a football player”. And the vast majority of football players act responsibly, do lots of community work, and the vast majority of football players don’t get paid massive wages. In the Premier League you get paid good money, about an average of £1 million per year but in the lower league you don’t get paid anywhere near as much. I would say that people in the public eye are undoubtedly role models in the sense that what they do influences other people. Whether that means they are morally obliged to act better is another question. They’re obliged to act in a certain way if they want a certain career. The can’t go out drinking every night if they want to play at the highest level, especially not now – it’s more athletic, it requires more speed and fitness than it ever has done before. Besides, you can’t allow yourself to be used as endorsements for certain products and then be surprised when people look at you more closely. If you’re doing things that are perfectly legal in the privacy of your own home, then you’ve get a right for that to be private. If you’re doing things in a public space then you’ve got the same rights as the rest of us.

 

How much notice do you think that sportspersons take to negative speculation printed about them and how much of an affect do you think it has on their performance/moral of the team?

Most players claim never to read the papers but they all know what is written about them. Different people react to criticism in different ways. Often managers like to use it to create the cliché of a ‘siege mentality’. Just like the rest of us, some sportsmen and women are more affected by outside influences than others.

 

Do you as a journalist like it when footballers or other sportsmen misbehave because it’s a story? Are there any sports characters that give you great news stories on a plate and do you thank then for that?

It’s undoubtedly true that Mario Balotelli is more interesting than covering, for example, Gareth Barry. He’s a bit of a gift, isn’t he? I don’t think you can say that you want people to misbehave, but it can make life more interesting.

 

With the Olympics coming up are newspapers really excited by the prospect of London 2012? Who are our best British hopes?

The media is very excited. There’ll be wall-to-wall coverage between now and August: supplements, pull-outs, special editions, there’ll be just endless coverage. Personally, I’m excited – having the Olympics in our own country only happens once in a lifetime. Regardless of the cost of it or whether we should actually have it, now it’s here, you should get as much out of it as you can and soak up the atmosphere. I think we will have more British medallists that we have had in one Games for a long time, certainly in post-War times, because of the home effect.

 

What do you think about the way the tickets were distributed? Do you have tickets yourself?

I have got tickets to see handball and two hockey matches. I applied like everyone else and like everyone else I got about a tenth of what I asked for! I think it was carefully managed to ensure the demand was high at the time, but it’s harder to think of a fairer system, because first-come-first-served would have been a complete disaster: website would have crashed.

 

So cricket is one of your passions. What do you think is the future for England cricket, for test cricket, and do you think we can hold on to the number one spot?

We’ve got a particularly brilliant team at the moment, the best we’ve had for 25 years. In the past there were stages when we were a bit of a laughing stock: England’s collapses were run of the mill, but now if it happens, it’s a major event, it’s so rare. We do have some excellent players, but much of it is down to Andy Flower, the coach, and Andrew Strauss, the captain.

 

Were you backing Strauss for SPOTY or did you think Cavendish was a good winner?

As a newspaper department, we did nominate both Strauss and Cavendish in our top 10. Strauss would have been a deserving winner, but Cavendish did do pretty well in 2011. For a cyclist to win in a non-Olympic year is impressive.

 

Who do you think is the greatest sportsperson of all time and why?

I didn’t see him in his prime, but most people would have to say Muhammad Ali, just because of the impact he had outside of his particular sport.

 

In fifty years time, who do you think will be most remembered from our generation for their sporting achievement?

Messi, perhaps, or Ronaldo maybe for his fake tan and hair! But lot of people think that even though Messi has got the most incredible record for Barcelona in terms of goals and assists, he’s not a great player yet because he hasn’t won the World Cup. Until he’s won a global title with Argentina, is he as good as Maradona or Pele?

Review: The New Men – Take to the Skies

0

There is no ‘should’ in music. Or, at least, there should be no ‘should’, even if those edgier or more classically minded than I tell you otherwise. My two listening companions to Take to the Sky were a self-professed ex-quasi-semi-famous bassist and a charming lead violinist for the New Chamber Opera, and, against all odds, they seemed to like the all-cheese, all-a cappella New Men as much as I did, if not more. Take to the Sky is a forty minute amble through a cappella paradise, with a couple you’d expect (‘Summertime’, ‘Swing Low’), a few that will be familiar to needy fans of Out of the Blue’s back catalogue (‘I Kissed a Girl’), and one or two that are way out on the left field. Expect high ‘camp’ from musicians who probably ought to know better – and thank goodness they don’t.

Composed of the eight choral scholars of New College’s all-male choir, Take to the Sky is a twelve track departure from choral tradition, in four- and eight-part harmonies ripe with the – going from the closing laughter of the final track – lingering notes of lots of shared bottles of cheap wine. Frankly, it really is terrific fun. The arrangements are clever and focused; the top notes sparkle; and everything is done with tremendous panache. In Oxford, a cappella appears to be having a bit of a moment; the New Men give all you’d expect and a little bit more. Though Out of the Blue’s former success might risk making them sound a little derivative, the smaller size of the ensemble makes for a slightly more intimate feel, with a sense of irony that might well be lost in a bigger group.

I usually write reviews sitting in my dank flat scowling at the poster of the Breakfast Club, feeling at best a bit post-modern, and at worst really bloody miserable (read: hungover). I gave the New Men an airing in the Cherwell offices (still miserable, but mostly about collections), and now I can’t stop smiling. The New Men are ‘curious for you,’ and you certainly should be for them. In short: this is really rather excellent. Great stuff, lads.

Review: Shame

0

Steve McQueen’s Shame never makes it explicit that its protagonist is suffering from a sex addiction. Unlike the men McQueen and his co-writer, Abi Morgan, interviewed in new York as part of their research, Brandon (Michael Fassbender) has not sought help from a specialist, has not labelled himself an ‘addict’, has not attempted to be ‘cured’. Instead, the film, beginning with a sequence showing the mundanity of his daily conquests, frequent masturbation and use of pornography, asks the question: where does ‘normal’ end and ‘addiction’ begin? What makes Brandon distinct from the rest of us?  American cinema frequently uses a routine of sexual encounters and urges as a means to create a portrait of male characters in particular, from American Psycho to The Catcher in the Rye. For these characters, their sex lives form the rhythm of their story, its climaxes and crescendoes. For Brandon, his sex life is his story.  

The subtlety with which this subject matter is breached in the film is enormously to its credit. It is easy to imagine a film about sex addiction straying into anecdotal scenes of marriages ruined and embarrassing meetings in sex shops, and I am sure McQueen and Morgan could easily have taken many stories of that nature from their interviews with recovering sex addicts. Instead, Morgan explains in a Q&A following the film, what she took from these meetings was ‘an overwhelming sense of sadness, a shame.’ It was this sadness, instead of any individual story, that she sought to communicate with the script. Shame, in its palette of blues and greys, its occasional flashes of red, communicates an underlying hopelessness felt by all its characters- Brandon’s boss, desperately chatting up women, Brandon’s sister, (excellently portrayed by Carey Mulligan) desperately calling up the men who have left her. Brandon’s addiction seems to be a reaction to this same desperation, but he is, as McQueen puts it, ‘imploding rather than exploding’, using his addiction as part of his self-containment and as a way of finding control.

Fassbender, as Brandon, is excellent in his portrayal of what McQueen calls an ‘everyman’, playing Brandon with enormous restraint. Facial expressions, or even lines, are few- but in the scenes where Brandon breaks out of his self-containment, the results are astonishing. Carey Mulligan as Sissy fizzes in place by contrast, and Mulligan communicates a warmth felt nowhere else in the film’s 100 minutes.

 The film could be blamed for being a little too restrained: there is no backstory, the ending is inconclusive, and perhaps the narrative is a little thin- but McQueen and Morgan have succeeded in pitching perfectly the short, thoughtful feature they have produced. McQueen seems to feel very strongly about his subject matter, responding viciously to an audience member’s suggestion that Fassbender might have objected to the many scenes of full-frontal nudity and explicit sex: ‘Any actor who wants an act has a duty to portray reality and I wouldn’t work with them if they refused to do that.’ McQueen seemed, more than anything else, to be objecting to the notion that displaying sex in all its honesty wasn’t ‘normal’, was some kind of transgression. Brandon is not, as McQueen put it, ‘sweaty handed in a raincoat.  He is like you or me’, and because this is not a story of a character so different from us there is no easy escape, no easy cure, ‘no War Horse sunset’. 

3.5 STARS

Oxford student survives storm

0

One Worcester student had a different kind of tree in their house this Christmas.

Eleanor Wilkinson, a third-year classicist, was awoken on the 13th December by a huge beech tree falling through the roof during a storm. She described a “deafening crash which shook the whole house.”

The tree fell into her parents’ bedroom, landing on the side of the bed where Wilkinson’s mother usually slept. She was away on the night but her father was taken to hospital, having suffered severe damage to his ear.

The family were moved out of their home while surveyors were stabilising it with scaffolding, though they eventually did return. Having found the house cramped and stressful, however, she decided to return to Oxford early.

Wilkinson told Cherwell that it had been “a terrifying experience.” She stated, “It was all fairly surreal and I felt quite shaken up for a week or so.” The incident has also affected her Oxford work, as the student has since been unable to access her books and has taken time out to help clean-up the house.

Despite the negatives, the Worcester student said that she was grateful that there were no more severe injuries, and that her mother was away in London, stating: “I hate to imagine how much worse it could have been had this not been the case”. She even found a positive from the incident and its subsequent reporting in The Sun, posting a link on Facebook remarking, “it isn’t everyday you pose for the Sun in your pyjamas.”

Mass resignation at St Hilda’s MCR

0

The St Hilda’s College administration has been accused this week of causing much of the college’s MCR committee to resign, after various members left their positions prematurely at the end of last term.

MCR committee members at St Hilda’s are normally elected in Trinity term, and carry out their roles for a full year. However, seven members of the 2011-12 committee, including the President, Vice-President and Treasurer, announced their resignations in November, having served for just one term.

A member of the St Hilda’s MCR, speaking to Cherwell this week and claiming to be “familiar with the events that happened last term”, alleged that these resignations were the result of an ongoing conflict between the MCR and SCR.

The MCR member, who wished to remain anonymous, said that conflict arose after disagreement surrounding an MCR cocktails event, which had been scheduled to take place in St Hilda’s MCR on Guy Fawkes Night but was cancelled shortly beforehand.

The MCR member’s account of events suggested that college authorities stopped the cocktails from taking place, on the grounds that the MCR, as they saw it, had not followed correct procedure in arranging them.

The member claimed that “This event fuelled a state of confusion within the MCR, as the MCR was no longer sure of what the college rules were for running events”, and also criticised the college Dean, Dr Margaret Kean, claiming that when asked about the rules “she gave snippy remarks and avoided answering.”

The MCR member continued by alleging that meetings were held following the incident between MCR and SCR representatives, but that “no resolution was reached in the course of those meetings, as it seemed that the SCR was unwilling to hear the other side or make any concessions.”

The member gave an account of events leading up to the seven committee resignations, saying, “It was quite apparent that events had reached a stage in which the MCR Committee and the college administration were no longer able to work together.

“This breakdown exhibited itself as the administration’s breaking of agreed protocols, the administration’s unwillingness to communicate new rules to the committee, and the administration’s unwillingness to take steps to resolve the contention between the committee and its representatives.

“Given these circumstances, the MCR Committee felt that they were no longer able to work in an environment where what had been agreed upon was randomly changed, while the new rules were not being communicated.”

However, the source criticised the manner in which the resignations were handled, saying, “The resignations were poorly announced. The MCR body was not made aware of the underlying problem with College (only the committee knew what was going on). Likewise, the college was not officially informed of the reason why the MCR committee was resigning.”

The St Hilda’s JCR President, Sarah Finch, though not endorsing this version of events, seemed to accept the notion that some kind of conflict with the SCR was to blame for the multiple resignations, telling Cherwell, “I can’t really comment on the details of what happened, but I understand that it was a clash with college. It’s a shame that things went to such extremes, but a new committee has been elected now, so that is good news, as Hilda’s has a really strong graduate community.”

By contrast, those MCR committee members who resigned last term have offered alternative explanations. In a joint email, they told Cherwell that they left the committee “principally in relation to time commitments”, saying, “These were all roles that people had taken on in Trinity term last year, before knowing their schedules and commitments for 2011-12.”

They denied that the MCR cocktails were cancelled by the college against the MCR’s will, saying that the decision not to hold the drinks was due to the fact that they coincided with a memorial event for Chao Cao, an engineering fresher at St Hilda’s who died in tragic circumstances last term.

Outgoing committee members also refuted the claim that “the MCR Committee and the college administration were no longer able to work together”, claiming that they continued to organise “events planned both prior to and following the cocktail party, and which were, where relevant, agreed with College.”

One resigning member, speaking individually, added, “There were some misunderstandings and miscommunication between the MCR and college but certainly nothing sensational. As one of the members who chose to resign, I can assure you that my decision entirely based on
time constraints as I explained at the college and MCR committee at the time.”

Dr Georgina Paul, Tutor for Graduates at St Hilda’s, echoed the account of outgoing committee members, and suggested that relations between the MCR and SCR are now healthy, saying, “Communication channels between the MCR and the relevant College officers are functioning excellently as the incoming MCR President and her team set about organising a schedule of events for the forthcoming term.”

The Dean and the Tutor for Graduates issued a joint statement, saying, ‘The College is grateful for the hard work of the outgoing Committee members and is looking forward to working with the current MCR Committee this term.’

Councillor’s comments cause backclash from residents

0

An Oxford councillor reviewing a bid for the construction of 26 student flats in East Oxford has labelled some complaints against the bid ‘frankly offensive.’ Tony Brett, a councillor for Carfax Ward and Chairman of its Planning Review Committee, said that the language used in emails to him sounded ‘horribly like the racism of the 60s, the homophobia of the 80s and the sexism of the 70s.’

He cited emails from residents claiming that students ‘are incapable of talking quietly or without using offensive language in every sentence […]along with continuously playing loud music.’ Another email from a resident said that the ‘community is being destroyed and controlled by the universities and their students.’

Mr Brett, an alumnus of Corpus Christi, said, ‘It is very dangerous to start making assumptions about people’s behaviour based on who they are rather than what they do. There has always been a bit of ‘town/gown’ tension in Oxford and I suspect there always will be.

‘It’s true to say that student numbers have increased quite significantly in the last five to ten years but I don’t believe that should be any reason for all people in Oxford not to be able to get on with each other and live in harmony. We hear about resident/student battles but my view is that students are also residents and as much a part of the community as everyone else.’

Ed Chipperfield, Chairman of the nearby James Street Residents’ Association, criticised Mr Brett’s choice of comparison. ‘Residents, including students, should feel free to raise objections to planning or voice criticism about how their environment is managed. Tony has carelessly abused the trust that people place in him as a councillor by ridiculing people’s honest opinions in a public arena.’

He pointed out some tensions in his area, saying, ‘There are a few issues that everyone agrees need tackling. We have a real problem with antisocial behaviour, particularly late at night and especially after Fuzzy Duck’s at the O2. I can’t speak for everyone in East Oxford, but I can let you know what I’ve seen in the last six months. People kicking walls over, knocking bins off their stands, climbing lampposts, urinating through people’s letterboxes, urinating through garden fences, falling over in front of moving traffic, two cases of ABH – there’s more, but this gives you a picture.

‘The real friction is just a simple fact of numbers: there’s an expanding amount of students in a very small area, making locals into a smaller proportion of total population than ever before. You can’t blame people for wanting to live here. If the proportion of students is allowed to rise without check, then we’ll see a lot more independent traders shutting down because they can’t sustain their businesses.

‘There is no divide between students and locals in East Oxford. Clean streets, safety at night, thriving local businesses, a good night’s sleep without disturbance – what’s good for locals is good for students, too.’

A spokesman for Oxford University said, ‘The University of Oxford is committed to playing a role in the local community and minimizing any disruption to Oxford residents. We are the city’s largest employer; our world-class museums and our various green spaces are free to enjoy; our medical research directly benefits local hospital patients; we work closely with local schools, including primary schools; and over 3,000 Oxford students are involved in volunteer work, many of them locally.’

The spokesman also said, ‘The University of Oxford provides extensive accommodation for its students: at least two and often three years of accommodation for undergraduates, in contrast to most universities, which provide one.

‘The University is committed to creating more student accommodation to further ease pressure on the local rental market. Student accommodation developments are undertaken not just for the benefit of students but to ease the pressure of a large student population on city residents by taking students out of the rental market.’

St John’s officially Fairtrade

0

St. John’s announced this week that it has officially gained Fairtrade status, and become the eleventh college to join the Oxford Living Wage campaign.

Uchechukwu Ukachi, John’s JCR President, told Cherwell that the changes were achieved through the collaboration between the JCR, MCR and some members of the college staff.

He said the changes were “fantastic”, adding, “the JCR believes that this is just the beginning of our commitment to Fairtrade and living wage.”

Although Oxford Brookes became the world’s first university to attain Fairtrade status in October 2003, and Oxford itself has held Fairtrade City status for over five years, Oxford University has not yet become Fairtrade. The University would need over two thirds of colleges to conform to Fairtrade Foundation rules to qualify.

Philip Coales, JCR Vice President, said, “The Fairtrade certification is a strong move and we are also looking into sustainable fish sources. Soon the only cod served in college will be a healthy portion of Modern Warfare.” Edward Love, Environment and Ethics Officer, said it was “an absolute pleasure” to see the college officially become Fairtrade.

Following discussions which began last year, the college will also ensure that all scouts see their wages increased. Those with a GNVQ (General National Vocation Qualification) will be paid a Living Wage while staff without a GNVQ are encouraged to obtain this qualification for a further pay rise.

The Living Wage Campaign, which “calls for every worker in the country to earn enough to provide their family with the essentials of life”, sets the Living wage at £7.20 an hour, an increase of nearly 20% on the national minimum wage of £6.08.

The Chair of OUSU’s Oxford Living Wage Campaign, Carys Lawrie, called the changes “a great achievement”, adding “we are hoping this will lead to increased pressure on other colleges to follow suit.” Speaking on the campaign, she said “We aim to have everyone in the university understand why the Living Wage matters, and more specifically to work towards having a campaign in every college which does not already pay the Living Wage. We are also hoping to encourage those colleges who do pay a Living Wage to work towards accreditation as Living Wage Employers.”

Dan Stone, OUSU Charities and Community Vice President, commented, “This decision shows a commitment to ethical employment practices and the just treatment of workers across the globe. We welcome the decision and hope that other colleges will follow suit despite the tough economic times”.

Birmingham University Injunction

0

Birmingham University has recently been granted an injunction that criminalises any occupation of university property for the next year.

The injunction follows a recent occupation of an abandoned campus building and other protests which have resulted in sanctions against students.

Tessa Gregory, a solicitor at Public Interest Lawyers who is acting on behalf of Birmingham students, described recent events as being ‘a shameful attempt by the university to prevent students from exercising their lawful right to protest.’ A Birmingham University spokesperson claimed that the injunction would have no effect of the right of student protest on campus; ‘it merely covers the unauthorised occupation of campus or buildings.’

Other universities have also resorted to legal action to end occupations. Sheffield University have recently withdrawn a similar injunction last week after successful negotiations between student occupiers and university authorities. Students at Royal Holloway were also threatened with a high court injunction, although the occupation ended before the university resorted to such action.

Asked to comment on the Birmingham injunction and Oxford’s response to a future occupation, an Oxford University spokesperson stated that the University ‘fully supports people’s right to protest, as long as it is within the law. We do not support occupying University buildings as a means of protest. Any response to a particular protest would depend on the circumstances.’
In November 2010 the Radcliffe Camera in Oxford was occupied by a group of students as part of a wider protest against public sector cuts. The protest ended after more than 24 hours when the police managed to break through a door.

The National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts has placed the blame on the increasing privatisation of higher education. They say that certain principles, such as freedom of expression and democracy on campus, are being lost, as ‘high paid university executives are cracking down on all forms of dissent on universities’ campuses.” They will ‘fight this draconian injunction in court’ as well as disregarding the injunction in practice by organising more protests at Birmingham University.