Friday 11th July 2025
Blog Page 2046

Doxbridge over troubled water

0

Controversy has arisen in Magdalen College this week following a motion passed at their General Meeting last Sunday awarding £40 to every student going on ‘Doxbridge’, the sporting tour of Dublin involving Oxford, Cambridge and Durham colleges, at a combined cost of £960.

Proposals are to be made at a JCR Committee meeting next week to alter the college’s constitution and allow motions which have been passed at General Meetings to be reconsidered in subsequent weeks.

This proposal has been seen by many as the result of the ‘Doxbridge’ motion, which passed by only four votes.

Over 80 signatures on a petition calling for this to be overturned have since been collected. Under the proposed rule change this will be enough for the result of the vote on the motion to be suspended and considered at a later date.

However, the petition has caused anger amongst many Magdalen students, some of whom are even threatening to resign from the JCR if the motion is overturned.

Matthew Chan, ex-JCR Vice-President of Magdalen, who organised the petition and opposed the original motion, received an abusive email signed by “The Doxbridge Massive”.

Students from Magdalen’s football and netball teams plan to travel on the ‘Doxbridge’ tour, which costs £219 per person and takes place over the Easter vacation. It markets itself as a ‘Sportsparty’ and concerns have been raised over whether the JCR’s money would in fact be spent on sport at all.

The motion passed by the extremely narrow margin of 33 votes to 29. Many complained that the meeting was ‘mobbed’ by those going on Doxbridge and their friends, who left as soon as the motion had passed.

Beth Goodwin and Hannah Thompson, who put forward the motion, argued that the funding would encourage participation in sport and “help with team bonding”. They had already approached the college for funding and been turned down.

Chan said, “This whole motion is a peculiarly macabre joke and deserves to be treated like one. I am kind of baffled that it passed at all, and will be doing everything I can to make sure that it doesn’t second time around, including indulging in a spot of the old constitutional pernicketitude.”

He argues that the email notifying members of the time and agenda of the General Meeting was not sent out until a few hours before it was due to take place, twenty-two hours and fifty-five minutes after the deadline specified in the JCR constitution.

He told Cherwell, “This motion represents a gross abuse of the circumstance that if you get enough people with a vested interest (in this case, £40 each) to come and vote for you at a GM, you can push through measures that privilege the few at the direct expense of the many.

“Some of the people going are not by any stretch of the imagination regulars on the respective teams. There is no way that the JCR should be paying for this, regardless of whether it can or not. And it probably can’t; not without damaging our spending on more worthwhile things.”

Chan’s actions have proven extremely divisive in Magdalen. Arnold Reigns, a 3rd Year English student, said “I support what Chan’s doing; rules should not be so strictly enforced or they become fundamentalist. ”

On the other hand, George Dix, a 4th Year Maths student said, “I’ve done a lot of stupid things in my life, including drunkenly pulling my dad, but none of them as stupid as what Chan is doing now.”

JCR President Tom Meakin told Cherwell, “In Fifth Week the JCR Committee will present a motion to amend the Constitution so as to allow motions to be re-heard if a proportion of the JCR wishes. This ‘cooling-off’ period will ensure that controversial decisions – be they costly, technical or otherwise – are taken only after wide consultation and are thus representative of the majority.

“It’s important to point out that whilst the Doxbridge motion was contentious, this move is sensible regardless. Whilst it might slow some areas of decision-making down, any increase in participation is a good thing.”

Equal fees for asylum seekers

0

Oxford students are supporting a national campaign to grant asylum seekers lower University fees. The students intend to lobby the University to allow asylum seekers to pay home fee rates for their tuition.

Asylum seekers and some refugees are currently classed as overseas students and must pay fees of up to £20,000 per year.  Moreover, asylum seekers are unable to take out student loans, cannot apply for grants and most bursaries, and are not permitted to work.

A motion was passed at OUSU Council pledging its support. It argues “the current funding system, both nationally and within Oxford University, is unfairly punitive towards asylum seekers.”

It was proposed by Michael Walker, a representative of the Oxford branch of Student Action for Refugees (STAR), the group leading the campaign.
Speaking to Cherwell, Walker commented, “Considering Oxford’s current public effort to widen access to the University, we hope it will recognise the importance of the ‘equal access campaign’ in working to achieve this end.”

Jonny Medland, OUSU VP Access and Academic Affairs, commented, “Getting into Oxford is hard enough for students from privileged backgrounds – any asylum seeker who has got an Oxford offer should be given all the support that they need to make sure that they can come here.”

Manchester, London  Metropolitan, Liverpool, Manchester  Metropolitan, Middlesex and Edge Hill Universities have all reduced the fees they charge asylum seekers to the level of home students, and Walker hopes Oxford can soon be added to that list.

“STAR’s campaign in Oxford is part of a national movement that has already achieved success around the UK, including at Manchester University, where fees for undergraduates seeking asylum have been lowered to the ‘home rate’. We strongly believe that Oxford has a responsibility to add its weight to a campaign to persuade the government to change its punitive funding policy.

“Furthermore, until government policy has changed, we urge Oxford to follow the lead of other universities in offering those seeking asylum an education at home fee rates, thus helping to reduce the injustice caused by a funding regime that effectively excludes those seeking asylum from higher education. STAR looks forward to working with the University to achieve a positive outcome on this issue.”

Wadham and Somerville JCRs had declared their support for Walker’s motion. However, in an online survey at St Edmund Hall, the overwhelming majority voted against the motion. Students expressed concern that the University funding is limited and this may eat into it. However, Walker pointed out that the number of students this would realistically affect would be minor, and that this was more “a matter of principle.”

As well as campaigning on this issue, Oxford STAR is involved with other projects. According to Ellie Bates, a member of the group, the Oxford branch “has been established for many years and the current membership are really active with 50 people attending events.” 

The University had offered no comment on the issue at the time of going to press.

More money, better JCR?

Tabassum Rasheed, PPE, St John’s

‘The JCR has more resources at its disposal’

Yes. Obvious as this may seem, and hard as it may be to take from a St John’s student, there’s no denying that, all other things equal, having a rich JCR makes a huge difference to my life. There’s a difference here of course, between college and JCR. Whether it’s the annual book grant available for all students, or the £3.50 formal halls, having a rich college definitely makes a big impact upon my life. I don’t have to deal with the real world for that little bit longer – the security net provided by the college’s coffers is in general a weight off my shoulders. Having a rich JCR, though, makes every day that little bit brighter, because it’s spent on the members who make it up.

The annual budget covers subsidies for punting, finances a 200+ DVD collections for JCR members, and even provides for a college tv station, complete with broadcasting camera and studio lights. Every term in fifth week, the JCR get together to have cake and desserts to get over those blues; we’re in the process of buying a college tortoise; there was a subsidised trip to Amsterdam last summer and plans for Prague in the coming year. Of course the freebies are welcomed gifts, but, more importantly, it brings the members of the JCR together. The JCR budget isn’t spent on one or two people, it’s there to ensure we have fun as a college, have access to a strong welfare team, and, provide us with opportunities to try new and exciting things, from film-editing to tortoise-keeping. There’s also a lifesize cardboard cutout of Sarah Michelle Gellar, which I’m sure will add value to any student’s life.

What makes a real difference though, is having that money when it comes to financial motions regarding charities. Each year, the JCR donate thousands of pounds to charity, all motions put forward and debated by the members of the JCR, who set it aside from the budget. We may not have as big an Entz budget as other colleges, but we can make sizeable donations to worthwhile causes, and, yes, have fun whilst doing so.

It may be true that there are JCRs who manage to be happy and self-sufficient without these goodies. And it may be true that money isn’t necessary to having a JCR that’s close-knit. But if you’re really sitting there thinking it makes no difference, then I’m sorry you go to such an impoverished college. Money doesn’t define a JCR, by any means, but it certainly makes it a damn sight better.

James Pickering, ex-JCR treasurer, Oriel

‘It’s not how much the JCR budget is but how you spend it which counts’

Reading the Cherwell’s article on JCR wealth last week, one might be forgiven for being shocked to see the huge discrepancies that exist across colleges. Certainly at Oriel, where we have often considered ourselves rather well-off as a JCR, many students expressed vocal surprise that our JCR budget was so small in comparison to others’ that Hertford’s entz budget alone dwarfed it. But with that shock came a recurring comment: “What on earth do they spend it all on?!” And this is quite understandable, given that it seems many JCRs are operating in accordance with a policy which just isn’t true, namely that ‘money buys happiness’.

Every college will have certain crucial needs which need to be tackled by college and JCR budgets before anything else – welfare being a key one. So once these have been tackled, we are left to assess what is done with any surplus left over from the essentials. The great problem faced by a JCR with any amount of money going spare is that interest groups within their open meetings will want to glean off substantial portions of this wealth for what are often very specific pursuits which affect only a small number of the student body. Such pork-barrelling essentially detracts from the remit of a JCR – that it is meant to represent and support all of its students – and tends to indentify the JCR as capable of fulfilling this remit only in so far as it has the money to do so.

However, a JCR is not just some pseudo-governmental gravy train. Considering that JCRs comprise some of the most dedicated, passionate, and downright friendly students in a college, if you take away the distraction of money then you have a team of individuals who, bending to the democratic will of a college’s students, can be put to surprisingly creative use. Given the variety of tastes and interests of students (not everyone recognises the delights of a night at Park End), the financial muscle of a college or JCR will almost certainly have no correlation to how much fun individuals actually have in college. Bearing this in mind, huge budgets that throw thousands of pounds at club tickets, shop discounts, charities and subscriptions will often fail to have a lasting effect on students’ enjoyment. Think about what we, as students, really remember about our time at Oxford: be it punting, formal dinners, garden parties, crew dates, inter-college exchanges, sporting endeavours, or even setting up a club to celebrate your favourite all-singing American television programme. In the end, the willingness of individuals to participate and use the intelligence we are supposedly blessed with is what makes the Oxford experience truly worth having. This doesn’t need huge financial resources to achieve, just a little college spirit.

A grinding form of productivity

0

News of these new brain boosting substances first hit Oxford about a year ago, but all has remained mysteriously quiet since. However, in the aftermath of the recent Nature debate which brought to light that 16% of American college students were regularly using cognitive enhancers, universities across the UK will soon have to get serious on the smart-pills debate.

‘The substances facilitate a pinched, unromantic, grindingly efficient form of productivity’

Students are turning to these substances in preference to the traditional stimulants of coffee and cigarettes to help them work harder, meet deadlines, and concentrate in exams. They don’t inspire new, original ideas. Rather, they facilitate a pinched, unromantic, grindingly efficient form of productivity. But what are the offending articles?

Most notorious is Ritalin, a stimulant drug introduced in 1956 for the treatment of attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Ritalin’s less infamous accomplices are Modafinil (a drug used to treat the sleep disorder narcolepsy), Donepezil (used to treat dementia) and Amphetamines. The most attractive aspect of drugs like Ritalin and Modafinil is that they seem to have no addictive potential.

‘Oxford students are already devouring instant-coffee granules off tea spoons in order to bypass the time-wasting water boiling stage’

If this study aid was endorsed by universities, it would probably spread like wildfire, particularly in an environment like Oxford where students are already devouring instant-coffee granules off tea spoons in order to bypass the time-wasting water boiling stage.

So why not just stock up on these pills? Well, coercion might be one argument against; if a significant number of Oxford students start ‘using’, then the rest might be simply coerced into popping pills in order to stay on top. There’s also the linked question of disparity in society and the fact that only wealthy people would be able to regularly afford the drugs. Also, what’s the difference between this and sport, where the use of performance enhancing drugs is considered grossly unfair in such a competitive environment? Mental activities are clearly competitive too.

Ethical considerations aside, I would prefer to wait and see how the long-term effects really pan out for the student guinea pigs. I also quite like the taste of Kenco medium roast, and feel that water certainly improves it.

OFS leaves thesps out of pocket

0

The Old Fire Station Theatre has faced complaints over action which threatened to financially cripple members of OUDS.

A production scheduled for 7th week this term, Murder in the Oxford Poetry Society, a new play being written by St Catherine’s student Caroline Bird, recently had to be cancelled. This left the Producer contractually obliged to pay OFS a sum of £3,000.

University Drama Officer Barney Norris pledged, “it is my aim that no student should ever lose their own money on drama in Oxford”, appealing to members of OUDS to pull together to produce a new play within six weeks to avoid “a perilous financial hit”.

A production of Blood Wedding, originally scheduled for the Moser Theatre in Wadham, has now stepped forward to fill the empty week at the theatre. OUDS President, Roland Singer-Kingsmith, commented that although the situation was unfortunate, the cancellation charge was actually a very realistic figure given the financial loss that the OFS would have to endure.

He estimated that a producer is personally liable for a budget of around fourteen thousand pounds in an average production, and that the contractual clause is, in the majority of cases, “a formality, with a really slim chance of ever having to be enforced”.

Some students have expressed grievance about how OFS handles payments to students.

One producer of a show staged last term commented “we were owed our money fourteen days after the last performance…and I received the cheque last week”.

Members of the show’s production team were owed approximately two thousand pounds, and were unable to be paid earlier, despite making requests to OFS.

OFS contracts stipulate that, should the production make a loss, the deficit owed to the theatre will accumulate 4% interest for each day after the fourteen day time slot.

However, the same system does not apply to money owed by the OFS to students, meaning the theatre does not suffer the same financial penalty for late payments.

As the producer put it: “think of the interest we didn’t make in that time!”

The financial system surrounding student productions at the OFS can “lead to a general feeling of not being entirely control of your finances” commented Go Back for Murder producer, Clare Bucknell.

She labels the budgeting system OFS uses “disproportionately complex”, with OFS providing the initial capital for publicity costs which the production team must reimburse, meaning the production is indebted to the theatre very early in its development.

Bucknell remarked that “I felt pressured to repay my creditors as swiftly as possible (many of whom were students in the production company)… but the OFS took weeks to send me a cheque for the profit we’d made.  Our show was in 3rd week; I didn’t get the money until the end of 7th, despite receiving the final accounts via email in 4th.”

Suggestions of delayed payments have been stringently denied by the OFS, with General Manager Jamie Baskeyfield. He stressed that “[OFS is] in the business of working with, not against our valued student producers”.
Whatever issues students have had in their past dealings with the OFS, the Oxford dramatic community as a whole will mourn the loss of this convenient and invaluable performing space.

Ellen Jones, the producer of Blood Wedding, commented that the closure was “really sad” as it has been an ideal venue for many years.

The OFS is preparing to bow out of the Oxford drama scene at the end of May after almost two decades hosting student productions.

The theatre has been bought by the charity Crisis, which plans to turn the space into a homeless shelter incorporating a community theatre.

Coulthard’s circuitous career

0

From the Scottish hills of Dumfries and Galloway to the timeless race circuits of Monaco and Melbourne. Growing up as a teenager these were dreams far beyond what David Coulthard could have ever imagined.

In a career spanning fifteen seasons, Coulthard achieved praiseworthy success: thirteen Grand Prix victories, sixty-two podium finishes and becoming the top British points scorer to this day. Yet one gets the feeling that ‘almost, but not quite there’ is perhaps destined to be the epitaph of Coulthard’s Formula One career.

When reflecting upon his career in Motorsport in his recent talk at the Oxford Union, he does so colourfully and candidly. Like most Formula One drivers, Coulthard started in kart racing competitions, and then came up through the traditional European single seater series, Formula Ford. In 1994, having spent the early months of his career as a test driver for the Williams-Renault team, Coulthard was thrown into the cauldron of Formula One in somewhat difficult circumstances. He had witnessed, like many millions around the world, the death of a Formula One great at Imola – Ayrton Senna.

Despite such tragic consequences, Coulthard did not shy away from the monumental task of attempting to fill the boots of a man who had driven himself into Formula One folklore. He wanted to fulfil his motto of “making the impossible possible”. His first Grand Prix victory in 1995 in Estoril, Portugal signalled Coulthard’s arrival on the Formula One stage and from there he harboured hopes of going on to achieve bigger and better things. That was, until a certain M.Schumacher emerged.

To his credit, Coulthard remained resolute and, alongside his fellow co-drivers at McLaren – Mika Häkkinen and Kimi Räikkönen – they laid down some sort of gauntlet to Schumacher. Nonetheless, Coulthard, like his contemporaries, could only watch and admire from their cock-pits, the brilliance of ‘the Red Baron.’

In 2001, his best season in Formula One, he finished second in the Driver’s Championship – a massive sixty five points behind the German. In keeping with Coulthard’s humble nature, he remains “comfortable with the fact that I never won a Drivers’ Championship.” He unequivocally maintains that he “got used to finishing second”.

He apportions part of Schumacher’s success to the man himself but also to his car, so much so that he jokingly remarks that “Schumacher would struggle in an old Minardi.” Although Coulthard went on to record a number of Grand Prix victories at McLaren, his time there was spent playing second fiddle to his Northern European colleagues, and shrouded in controversy.

Followers of Formula One will no doubt recall the infamous ‘Overtaking-gate’ scandal at the 1998 Melbourne Grand Prix – something which he still regrets partaking in to this day. Following his turbulent time at McLaren many critics were calling for his retirement but in 2005 Couthard was given a new lease of life at the newly formed Red Bull Racing. Despite a promising start to his Red Bull career, he rather faded away into retirement in 2008.

But for Coulthard retirement has been a relatively easy pill to swallow. He asserts that for the first half of his life “Formula One ruled the way.” Now though, at the age of 38 a father for the first time, Coulthard wants to enjoy the second half of his life although “the inefficiency of everyday life,” does frustrate him.

Still, he is never too far away from Formula One. Working as a consultant for Red Bull Racing and as a pundit, or in his words “whatever that means,” for the BBC’s Formula One coverage, he admits that he now has more time to appreciate the technology behind the cars. When pushed on a possible return to the sport a la Schumacher, Coulthard remarks that “things are not what they were like before.”

His admission that he has “nothing in common” with the next generation of upcoming drivers, referred to by him as “The Playstation Generation,” reinforces both his paternalist attitude and acknowledgment that he has moved on from Formula One to new opportunities.

Through life in the fast lane, Coulthard had it all – supermodels, satisfaction and success. Whilst he fully accepts that some will regard his time in Formula One as a failure, one must not forget that he was, like many others, unfortunate or fortunate enough, however you see it, to be part of an era dominated by the Roger Federer of Formula One – Michael Schumacher. Yet, the modest man that he is, Coulthard does not want to reflect upon the past but to inspire and influence the next generation of drivers, including Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button.

Call him what you like – the Tim Henman of Formula One to many – but he rightly remains humble and proud of his achievements to the end. Every sport has its nearly men, and David Coulthard is one of Formula One’s.

5 Minute Tute: Iraq Inquiry

Why is an inquiry happening now?

The Chilcot inquiry is the fifth inquiry into the Iraq war. There were two inquiries by parliamentary Select Committees in 2003 – the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and the joint Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. There was also a judicial inquiry by a law lord, Lord Hutton, in January 2004, into the circumstances surrounding the apparent suicide of a scientific official and expert on weapons of mass destruction, Dr. David Kelly. It concluded that the Blair government could not be blamed for Dr. Kelly’s death, and that, contrary to allegations on the BBC, it had not knowingly exaggerated published assessments of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

Then there was a five-member inquiry in July 2004, chaired by Lord Butler, a former Cabinet Secretary, and former Master of University College, Oxford, into the role of intelligence concerning Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, an issue which played a key part in the British government’s decision to join the American-led invasion. It concluded that, although British intelligence officials believed that Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapon capacity and was working towards a nuclear weapon, nevertheless, more weight was placed on the intelligence than it was able to bear’.

The Chilcot inquiry was set up by Gordon Brown in June 2009 following pressure from critics of the war. There was a similar inquiry after the Falklands war in 1982, chaired by Lord Franks, a former Ambassador to the United States and Provost of Worcester College, Oxford.

What is the inquiry’s remit?

Its remit is to establish as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. By contrast with previous inquiries into the Iraq war, Chilcot is intended to be comprehensive, and Sir John was allowed to write its broad terms of reference.

When will the report be published?

The inquiry will come to a temporary halt at the end of March to avoid interfering with the general election. It proposes to report at the end of the year though some have suggested that the report may be delayed until 2011.

What did Tony Blair’s testimony reveal ?

Tony Blair had to deal with the following charges:

First, that he deceived Parliament and his colleagues, by agreeing with President Bush at Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, to deal with Saddam one way or another. Blair replied that there was no commitment to war, and that Saddam could have avoided war by disarming.

Second, an issue considered by the Butler inquiry, Blair was accused of having have made the evidence as to weapons of mass destruction appear firmer than it actually was. He appeared to accept that the evidence was not as firm as he had suggested.

Third, he is accused of having ignored the widely held view held that the war was illegal in international law, unless a second UN resolution was achieved. He replied that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, had given it as his opinion that the war was legal even without a second UN resolution.

Fourth – and this too was an issue examined by the Butler inquiry – he is accused of having subverted the principles and practice of Cabinet government, in order to secure support for the war. Blair denied this and said that the Cabinet had discussed the issues involved with a full and free exchange of views on a number of occasions.

Finally, Blair is accused of having failed fully to equip the troops and to have done insufficient planning for the post war situation in Iraq. This, some argue, is why post-war reconstruction has proved so difficult. Blair insisted that the difficulties of the occupation were due to terrorists from Iran and al-Qaeda, but he also implied that the Americans were in part responsible for the failure of post-war planning.

Could the inquiry result in any prosecutions?

No. The inquiry is in no sense a tribunal nor a court. Indeed, Sir John Chilcot was careful to insist before Tony Blair appeared for questioning on 29th January that the former prime minister was not on trial. None of the inquiry team are legally qualified, nor are witnesses provided with legal representation, nor are they under oath. Nevertheless, there is an undoubted public perception that the Blair government, and Blair, in particular, are in the dock.

Vernon Bogdanor is a Professor of Politics and Government at Brasenose.

 

Journalism under threat

0

Sitting in the Trinity SCR overlooking a snowy Oxford, speaking to a man who edited The Times for a decade and now edits the Times Literary Supplement (TLS), I wasn’t expecting to hear the phrase ‘Wham bam, thank you ma’am’. But hear it I did – it was one of the many animated phrases Peter Stothard used to describe his experience of online journalism. This delightful term (and I speak entirely without sarcasm) came up relating to Stothard’s worries that in recent years, websites have ‘taken a hammer to writing which could have been done more carefully than it was’, a trend about which he was ‘quite concerned’.
However, his perspective is changing; ‘old-line papers are getting to grips with this pretty well these days’, he argues, looking to improvements in technology as well as a familiarity with the medium as possible reasons.

‘In terms of speed, online will always win’

This enthusiasm is peppered by an apparent dubiousness. While conceding that, ‘in terms of speed, online will always win’, he stresses that the most important aspect of journalism remains, ‘crafting a story about how and why something happens’. Perhaps unsurprisingly for the editor of the TLS, this seems to be intensely important to him. A good journalist is someone ‘able to sift information – to work out who is telling the truth’ and to make a story out of it.

This view of journalism is part of why he believes that online journalism will not be the death of the kind of work that they do at the TLS. The internet only means that ‘the raw material of journalism is available to more people than just journalists’. However, that doesn’t mean that ‘understanding it, crafting the story, putting it in any kind of context or making it in any way explicable is any less of a duty and a task and trade’.

What about paying for online content? As Stothard loyally notes, the company he works for ‘has put a lot of effort into it happening for The Times and The Sunday Times’. Although he seems to recognise the controversy of the issue, he is fairly sure that it should be regarded as a ‘positive thought’ – and should be pursued.

And given that his boss is Rupert Murdoch, it’s perhaps surprising that this doesn’t seem to emerge out of company loyalty – his allegiance to this side of the debate seems to come more from his own experience than anything else. Despite his argument that, ‘journalist training is fantastic for considering the audience’, he looks at the whole argument from a journalist’s mind, and it’s a refreshing perspective.

‘People are prepared to pay for cups of coffee, and cocktails, and almost everything – except information’

He sees what he refers to as a ‘terrible disease’ in society at the moment; ‘people are prepared to pay for cups of coffee, and cocktails, and almost everything – except information’. This, he argues, is the central issue surrounding the future of journalism, and the impact of the internet; as he phrases it, ‘payment is the point’. ‘The work’ he points out, ‘will only be put in if there is some kind of reward for it’, and this trend will continue unless they establish a method of workable financial incentives.

Rather than seeing the internet as the death of professional journalism, he argues the opposite; ‘the more nonsense that is crashing around on the blogosphere, the greater the need for someone to give you some sort of order and tell you what’s true and what isn’t.’

However, a distinction must be made between the work of professional journalists and that of those less established, and thus less qualified to guarantee what he views as the cornerstones of the industry, ‘the ability to shape stories, to tell the difference between truth and lies, and to find things out that people don’t want to, or can’t, tell us’.

Stothard fears that if the situation continues as it is, ‘you’ll only get cheap journalism, which will change the calibre immeasurably’. The whole trend is dangerous, he argues, and it’s a particular shame ‘because it’s not that the nature of journalism is fundamentally changing, it’s just that these things do cost money’.

‘This is not a good time for people who say “we’re going to do it exactly as we’ve always done it”. That is really doomed.’

And it is not just the recession he’s worried about, the issue seems to go deeper than just the ever-cited credit crunch. It is ‘when the advertising comes back’, that Stothard is concerned about. The worry is that, ‘instead of being concentrated on a few institutions, it will be shared between lots of little sites’.
This is when his assessment of the current state of journalism gets a bit scary. This, he says – and I sense a little sympathy in his eyes – ‘could mean the little ones don’t want to hire you, and the big ones don’t have as much money as they used to’. However, he isn’t self satisfied or smug with his lot, he rather recognises the need for media to change its stripes. ‘This is not a good time for people who say “we’re going to do it exactly as we’ve always done it”. That is really doomed.’

He is enthusiastic about the future of the industry in which he has remains very prominent, but also seems to have fond memories of his impressive career, and especially what kicked it all off, Oxford. In fact, it seems to be university which lingers most prominently in his mind. ‘I can remember the years at Oxford – things I read here, people I met here – much more vividly than I could remember my first year as The Times editor.’

And there is an apparent circularity in his career; he has just published his latest work, in which he travels the route of the Spartacus Slave war. In doing so, he writes a book which seems to be an intertwining of history with memoir, and – he tells me excitedly – is full of ‘a whole bunch of characters who turned up along the road; real characters that are living now, and then people like Statius’. I’m not sure who Statius is, but it all sounds fascinating. He tells me that the book is full of ‘stuff that I learnt here in Oxford, often stuff that I hadn’t thought about for many years’ and the enthusiasm which writing the book seems to have ignited in him is similar to that which we have – or at least which we are supposed to have – as students.

‘Beware, what you’re doing now will affect you for the rest of your life’

He is so passionate about Oxford that it even starts to filter through my own cynicism. He later gives me a tour of his old college and it is wonder which seems to infect his tone. He seems keen that we make memories good enough to last. Oxford ‘is going to be driven more heavily into your head than a lot of things that will happen to you’.

Given the pessimism which seems to shroud the real world outside the dreaming spires, it is quite reassuring that he is encouraging us to make the most of our time here.‘Beware’ he says – with a definite seriousness couched in his jokey tone – ‘what you’re doing now will affect you for the rest of your life’.

Peter Stothard’s new novel ‘On the Spartacus Road’ is available now.

F1’s greatest champion returns

0

There are only a few people in the history of sport that have achieved what Michael Schumacher has achieved in his career. Over a 16 year career in Formula one, Schumacher won a total of 91 races and seven World Drivers Championships; making him the most successful Formula One driver of all time. In fact, to this day Schumacher holds over 30 Formula One records including: most consecutive days as world champion with 1813 days and the largest number of fastest laps with 76.

He is a man who will do whatever it takes to win; even if this means bending or breaking the rules. This character trait being perhaps best shown by his actions during the 1997 Spanish Grand Prix; in which leading the Drivers Championship by one point from Jacques Villeneuve, Schumacher developed a mechanical problem. With this problem most likely signalling the end of his race, Schumacher deliberately tried to crash into Villeneuve, so that he may keep his one point advantage and win the Drivers Championship.

Without a doubt, he is the type of man that will always want to win one more race and to hold one more record. So perhaps unsurprisingly, last December, the 41 year old German announced his comeback to Formula One when he signed for Mercedes.

Now with the majority of past sporting greats; one would be excused for thinking that at the age of 41, after numerous injuries and 3 years out of the sport; any return to the pinnacle of their sport would be a foolish and simply nostalgic act. However, with Schumacher one should not be so hasty to disregard his chances of a fruitful return. It is almost certain that the likes of Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso will be seeing Schumacher as a genuine threat to their title aspirations.

Schumacher’s combination of sporting greatness with this trend of un-sportsman like behaviour makes him unique in that his sporting achievements command respect from all those who witness it. Yet his willingness to do whatever it takes to win makes him somewhat of a villain.

Beyond a doubt however, the return of Schumacher to Formula One is certain to make this season much more exciting and may even be the start of one of the greatest sporting comebacks ever.

Knife threat in Escape

0

An Oxford student was threatened with a knife following an altercation at Escape nightclub last Friday.

A man described as Eastern European took out a blade and pointed it at the stomach of Christchurch undergraduate Michael Taylor, after a row about a lost mobile phone.

Security guards at the club made sure the man was not able to leave until police arrived. However, he was not arrested.

Having searched the the man, police were unable to find a knife on his person.
Taylor told Cherwell that he was with fellow Christ Church student Joe Angliss. Both had been drinking, and Angliss had lost his phone, according to Taylor. The two went to the first level of the club in an attempt to find it.

They then met a group of two Eastern European men and two women. Angliss started talking to the group about his phone, and they took offence at what he had said.

“He was drunk so it may have come over worse,” said Taylor. “‘Why is he accusing us about his phone?’” he reported one of the men as saying.

Angliss described how he knocked over one of the group’s drinks and offered to buy them another one.

“I offered to buy the guy another drink which he accepted but for some reason he didn’t relax; instead, he became more aggressive and confrontational,” he said.

In an attempt to diffuse the situation, Angliss moved to the bar to buy another drink, and this is when the pair claim that the knife was pulled out.

“It was whilst my back was turned to him just a few feet away that he pulled a knife on the friend standing closest to me, briefly holding it to his stomach and warning him to watch out,” Angliss said.

“I handed him the new drink unaware of the threat, but then two of my friends took me aside and explained what had happened; they both left straightaway, one particularly shaken.”

Taylor said how the man, whom he described as around five foot nine inches and with blonde hair, “took out a penknife and pointed it at me”.

Once Angliss realised what was going on, he came over to Taylor and said “He’s got a knife, let’s leave him”.

They then alerted the club bouncers, who made sure the man was not able to leave the club until the police arrived.

“They were searched, but a policewoman informed me that they could not arrest them,” Angliss said.

Thames Valley police confirmed that they had been called to the scene regarding a knife threat in the early hours of Saturday morning.
They responded to the call immediately and were on the scene within two minutes.

A spokesperson for the police service said that they took knife threats “extremely seriously.”

However, despite the confirmaiton of a knife threat by the students, no blade was found on the man by police. He was left without charge, the spokesperson confirmed.

Taylor described his feeling as “drunk and a bit shaken” as he left the club immediately after the incident, but said it would not put him off clubbing in Oxford. He claimed that Escape management dealt with the situation “very well” and that he had never felt threatened when out at University before.
Angliss said he was not upset by the incident, but was concerned that the police were able to take no action.

Police praised the quick response of the students and the Escape management, and advised anyone else involved in a knife threat to contact them immediately.

Escape and Varsity management were contacted but have not yet responded.