Tuesday 1st July 2025
Blog Page 2046

5 Minute Tute: Iraq Inquiry

Professor Vernon Bogdanor
-
0
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

Holly Graham
-
0
Journalism under threat

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

Andrew Wilton
-
0
F1’s greatest champion returns

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

Theo Merz
-
0
Knife threat in Escape

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.

Rumble at the Union

Scott Mody
-
0
Rumble at the Union

The annual Town versus Gown event presents a singular boxing experience that only Oxford could conjure: the Union’s revered debating chamber, so often the arena of verbal blows and pejorative jabs, hosts a full-size ring in the centre of its famous floor- for one night only, where punches count for more than put-downs at Frewin Court.

OUABC is the oldest student amateur boxing club in the country, and has been competing for over a century; the Town versus Gown tournament itself has taken place for many years, with the event’s announcer speculating that it might even be the oldest continuing fixture in the sport. The show is unique on the Oxford calendar; few fixtures attract this volume of attention or anticipation- at least 500 people, possibly more, crammed into the hall (a complete sell-out) for what proved to be an extraordinary evening of entertainment and sporting prowess. Ringside benches were quickly filled, and dozens more watched from the chamber’s balconies. Lights glared down upon the daunting canvas as music pumped around the venue, generating an excited, expectant atmosphere before the bouts had even begun. The sights of awaiting ambulances and stand-by stretchers did not necessarily ease a tense crowd, either. The noble brutality of boxing was about to be unleashed at the Union.

Eleven individual match-ups were scheduled, each pitting a member of the Oxford University Amateur Boxing Club against a ‘Town’ opponent. The ‘Town’ team comprised a variety of fighters and clubs- some were members of local organisations (Oxford Boxing Academy, Blackbird Leys ABC), where others, intimidatingly, were active paratroopers representing their regiment. Each clash lasted three rounds, with each round lasting two minutes; that might not seem too long, but the duration between the opening and closing bells must feel like at eternity at this intense level of exertion and physical punishment.

The first pairing were the lightest fighters, and Oxford made an excellent start to the contest- Melvin Chen won the bout convincingly, setting the tone for what was a commendable performance from all of the Blues boxers. Some bouts were extremely close-fought, where victors won by only the slightest of points margins; others were dominated more comprehensively, and a number of the fights were awarded by the judges as unanimous decisions. The overall score on the night was 7-4 to the ‘Town’ amalgamation, but the Blues were competitive in every battle. Victories were achieved by Chen, Meredith, Pickering and Guevel, all of whom thoroughly deserved their success. The team’s coaches and trainers were delighted with Oxford’s efforts here, especially considering that several of the university fighters were boxing their very first competitive contests.

Equally, the Blues’ opponents were at times excellent. Oxford University’s Walton performed admirably in the face of ruthless boxing quality and efficiency: his challenger, paratrooper Private Barry, was undoubtedly the night’s most complete fighter, a frightening blend of raw athleticism and devastating technique. His constant barrages of hooks and uppercuts were delivered with precision and power, eliciting moments of empathetic recoil in the crowd, who were by now vicariously throwing fists and absorbing hits with each lightning combination of punches. Chalidhary was notable for his unorthodox fighting style, where he seemed to discard the need for any obvious defensive guard- his reach was so long, though, that Oxford’s Upton could scarcely get close enough to land a punch.

David Lee was unfortunate to lose against Town’s Tukunov in a contest that was too tight for the casual spectator to call. The defeated Blue was proud of his inaugural bout, never wilting under the pressure of a paying and baying crowd: ‘I just zoned it all out. I really enjoyed it in there, I knew it was going to be a close decision so I kept fighting and working.’ In fact, all of the Blues’ losses were close, and no fight was disproportionately one-sided. Tyrell, Mahoney, Fields and Morris fought balanced bouts that might have gone their way with minor technical or tactical adjustments.

The crowd revelled in the spirit of the event, fervently supporting boxers from both teams. It has always been the paradox of the prize-fight that such a ferocious sport can foster such a convivial, social mood: if the Union isn’t Caesar’s Palace, it at least succeeded in bringing a shade of a big-time Vegas bout to the centre of Oxford- glamour might not be the word, but the show certainly felt somehow special. That the event was flavoured in an idiosyncratic Oxford fashion is undeniable: perhaps the best image was of the team’s water jug, used to refill the boxers’ sports bottles- printed in large red letters on the container was, of course, ‘Pimm’s’.

OUABC captain, Richard Pickering, received a huge reception from the crowd; his boxing style was aggressive and relentless, giving his opponent very little opportunity to settle into any sort of offensive rhythm. Pickering’s win was arguably the most accomplished Blues performance, and his demeanour in the ring suggested a composed leadership that will serve this team well as it approaches the all-important Varsity bouts.

The final word should go to Borna Guevel, though, the Blues’ most charismatic and compelling boxer: within twenty seconds of his first round, this fierce hitter knocked his counterpart to the canvas with a sharp hook to the face: after that, the crowd went wild for every left-right combination that he landed, another after another after another. ‘That was awesome’, he said. ‘I loved it, awesome. A big crowd like that just makes it better; it was great how they got behind us with so much passion. I love fighting.’ The Light Blues over in Cambridge had better watch out then.

Roundup: How the Blues fared:

M. Chen beat W. Houston

D. Lee lost to I. Tukunov

J. Meredith beat M. Mallone

W. Tyrell lost to M. Gibson

L. Upton lost to M. Chalidhary

S. Mahoney lost to S. Jitsingh

J. Fields lost to A. Craigmile

R. Pickering beat D. Flatley

C. Walton lost to Pvt. Barry

B. Guevel beat S. Reese

B. Morris lost to M. Ellis

Why not take a look at Cherwell’s extended photo coverage of the boxing?

Keble bear down on Teddy Hall

Katie Whicher
-
0
Keble bear down on Teddy Hall

The cream of college rugby, Keble and St Edmund Hall, found themselves up against each other in the final hurdle of a tough season. The Oxford inter college league drew to a close with a winner-takes all decider.

With the title of league champions ready for claiming just eighty minutes away, the pressure on both teams was visible. Crowds gathered in University Parks to witness these two well established rivals battle it out once again.

Would Teddy Hall be able to repeat their Cuppers final performance from two years ago and steal the title from within Keble’s grasp? An electric atmosphere rose from the side lines as the match kicked off and the action began.

A shaky first half for both sides left the score close at half time. Both teams had been pumped up after coming off the back of eight game winning streaks, but it was Teddy Hall that emerged as the stronger side, on the back of an impressive season, despite being relegated last year. Keble was forced into needless mistakes, with a few bemoaned dropped passes at vital points and some crucial missed kicks.

Teddy Hall, determined and focused, were quick to cause trouble at the base of scrums, creating opportunities for attack at several points. Hall meant business, and despite a strong performance from Keble’s defence, the persistence of Teddy Hall’s front line meant that Keble conceded two penalties. Hall raced into a six point lead, thanks to the talented boot of Angus Eames, who had an outstanding game as kicker.

This, however, could not stop Keble’s well organised and powerful forward pack striking. Thanks to a toppling maul from a line out within ten metres of Hall’s try line Richard Brown was able to score a try in the fifteenth minute, in a move lifted straight from training and characteristic of Keble’s attack. This left Keble only one point behind, causing the game’s intensity to rise paralleling the support from the crowd. The tension was reflected in both teams’ play, tackling hard and leaving little mercy for the opposition, with some big hits all over the field, and a few close escapes from the sin bin.

Building on their superior performance though Teddy Hall managed to secure their lead for the second half with another successful penalty from Eames on eighteen minutes, resulting in a 9-5 score line at half time. Keble’s defence returned to maximum strength in the second half of the game as Alex Arcourt-Rippingale came on to complete the Keble back line. A strong first ten minutes saw a few opportunities for Keble to score, but Teddy Hall continued to thwart them with their substantial number of powerful players, which gave their side important depth. It wasn’t until ten minutes in that a slight lapse from Hall allowed Keble’s talismanic No. 8, Bob Pittam, to touch down from yet another rolling maul. Keble had taken the lead for the first time in the match, but at 10-9 the game was far from won.

Possession and territory continued to swing between the teams throughout the second half, and it wasn’t until the thirtieth minute that Keble fly half Charlie King was eventually able to secure three points for the title holders. With a 13-9 lead going into the last ten minutes, the game was still neck and neck.

Chanting from the sidelines laced the edges of a pitch where it would take more than s.ome mud and wind to crack the determination of these premium college players. Hearts were racing when in the final five minutes a cracking break and ambitious pass by Teddy Hall’s number 11 was rendered futile by a vital fumble, a reminder that this was by no means going to be an easy win.

As the final whistle blew, 13-9 secured Keble’s eighth consecutive league win, reinforcing their strong hold on the college rugby scene, and ensuring they remain a cut above the rest. No doubt the trophy will serve as a useful addition to their celebrations.

Scenic View: New Zealand

Hector Keate
-
0
Scenic View: New Zealand

The first thing that one has to mention about New Zealand is that it really is the end of the earth. Arriving at Auckland airport one cannot escape the impression that to go any further would be to fall off the edge of the map, and within hours one will find oneself desperate to do so, because, in all truthfulness, New Zealand is simply the most god-awful place to which I’ve ever been.

For some reason New Zealand is currently in vogue as a holiday destination, and the attraction of the ‘Welcome to Narnia/Middle Earth’ advertising campaigns I’m sure are part of its success. Beautiful the country may be, but the similarity to those fictional lands lies less with the stunning scenery and more with Lewis and Tolkien’s white supremacism.

I was staying with my cousins in the countryside outside Wellington and sitting around a dinner table one night, wallowing in post-colonial guilt, when particular discussion was given to the massacres in Tasmania where the natives were hunted like animals, to the extent that Tasmania no longer has an indigenous population. “That’s what they should have done here” was one of the Kiwi responses. He was not being ironic.

Terrifyingly this kind of talk was apparent everywhere we went. It seemed that people were unable to refer to Maoris without the addition of some derogatory epithet whilst all views on immigration were firmly in the “flog ‘em and send ‘em home” camp. Some were, of course, worse than others but whilst I was not surprised to hear my cousin talk of how the non-white girls were ostracised at school (she is the sort of person who would have fitted into 1930s Germany very nicely), my aunt, who probably held the least objectionable views, having been brought up in Britain, still admitted that Maori babies “were probably better off dead”.

It seems so incongruous that such a poisonous society lives in such an idyll. At one point we drove through Masterton’s most impoverished suburb, and yet despite the one abandoned car, the place was filled with little wooden houses with half acre gardens basking in the sunshine. Maybe I was just unfortunate that I was stuck where I was, and that maybe things are slightly better in the comparatively cosmopolitan north, but given the fact that the people I was meeting were all members of the educated middle classes (although not educated enough, it seemed, to know that the Punjab was an area of India/Pakistan rather than just a racial slur) gave me little hope.

For a country with such a low population density, one would think that people would be open to immigration, particular for the much needed expansion of the workforce. Yet, apparently, all the immigrants want to do is live off welfare (a topic of particular prevalence in kiwi conversation). Upon the suggestion that the economic boost given by immigration may help New Zealand become more significant as a global player the response was along the lines of “But we are; we have the best rugby team in the world”, quite how that will get them a permanent seat on the UN security council I don’t know, and anyway, is it not the case that their team is composed mainly of “lazy islanders”?

If ever tempted to consider going to visit New Zealand, I would advise you to consider the other 194 more exciting countries to which you could go. Because the essential problem with New Zealand is that it is backwards and boring, an insignificant, cultureless void on the Pacific Rim. For half the price and flight time I would recommend one went somewhere more interesting; Russia, the Middle East, or maybe even the Punjab.

The search for the gay gene

Diamanto Mamuneas
-
0
The search for the gay gene

Since the Gay Pride movement began just over ten decades ago, we have come far in our acceptance and understanding of ‘non-standard’ sexual orientations. In 1967 we finally began the amendment to Biritsh law to decriminalise sex between men. In 2001, the age of consent was equalised and in 2003 and 2005, same-sex couples were allowed to adopt and enter into civil partnerships respectively.

Though same-sex marriage is not yet legal, we appear to be heading in that direction with some recent polls indicating up to 61% of the public in favour. And in spite of the occasional bigoted Jan-Moir-esque article, the straight majority has come to recognise the validity of the ‘alternative’ sexual orientation as a natural inclination rather than as a ‘life choice’.

We still have a way to go, no doubt, but perhaps part of the plateau of approval can be blamed on science not quite keeping up with our cultural bounds. But science does, in fact, hold some of the answers.

Most people have heard rumour of the ‘gay gene’ and some Daily-Mail-reading-uber-traditional-Tory-types may even lose sleep over its pattern of inheritance (though as an interesting aside, it is intriguing to note that it is, in fact, Labour supporters – 12% versus 11% for Conservatives and 8% for Liberal Democrats – who would reject their gay child on the grounds of the orientation being ‘unnatural’ according to a 2009 Populus poll). Those of us of a biological persuasion, however, are excited to be able to finally draw some – albeit still rudimentary – conclusions about the nature of the ‘gay gene’.

As homosexuality has become more accepted in recent years, one might have expected a decline in the number of forced mariages (and fornications) and thus a reduced chance of inheriting any ‘gay genes’. The notion of inheritance poses a problem – how could such a gene persist in the population so that people are effectively born gay? The change in the number of in-the-idiomatic-closet homosexuals is unknown, thus we cannot make any conclusive statements. All we can say is that, if for any reason we suspect this mythical gene may be troubled by the thought of finding its way into the next generation, science offers many solutions to its predicament.

Ever since Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene made the case for genes as elements whose sole purpose is to maximise their own chance of being passed on to the next generation, most biologists have adopted an attitude towards evolutionary conundrums that assumes genes are the basic unit that natural selection acts upon. The consequence is that we can think of a ‘gene’ as a character leaping (often invoking intercourse) from one oddly-suspended platform (a generation) to another on the screen of a newfangled games console (the environment) of your choosing… Not the perfect analogy, but hopefully you get the idea. The point is this: in every individual of every organism there are genes and each of these genes wants nothing more than to make it into as many of the next generation as possible.

To the non-geneticist the idea of a ‘gay gene’ may be difficult to fathom. Indeed, if homosexuality is in any way inherited, it is unlikely to be due to just one gene and it may well be that the trait is influenced by the environment.

There are examples of animals that display homosexual behaviours as a matter of course and some of these cases may even suggest a sound evolutionary reason for some humans to be gay.In the bluegill sunfish, three different mating strategies exist among males. The ‘parentals’ mature slowly and invest time and effort into both looking good (they are brightly coloured in the breeding season) and courting the females. The ‘sneakers’ however, do as their name suggests – they mature quickly, invest the most in sperm and sneak between parentals and females when they are mating to fertilise as many of the female’s eggs as possible as she releases them. Finally, the ‘satellite’ males use a more bizarre tactic – they grow up to look like females and, while mimicking them, can come between parentals and their real female mate and fertilise the eggs, while the parental is fooled into continuing to mate with both – presumably thinking he’s got lucky and has two females at his disposal. These tactics are not unique to this species either – while most prevalent in fish, female mimicry exists in many taxa and sneaking behaviour is commonplace throughout the animal kingdom.

The ways this applies to homosexuality in humans are two-fold. Firstly, it is conceivable that homosexuality first evolved as a tactic for getting closer to females – a theory that has the potential to ruffle some politically correct feathers. This may only explain how the behaviour initially arose – perhaps later the genes controlling the traits mutated as homosexuality became sustainable for some other reason. There is another way this hypothetical ‘gay gene’ could avoid extinction – X-linkage.

Like baldness in men, a ‘gay gene’ may be something carried down the maternal line so that the females can still pass the gene on to their offspring without being gay themselves. This pattern of inheritance may even account for the notable discrepancy between the number of gay men and les

bian women in the population (about double the percentage of men than women according to NATSAL data).

Alternatively, the bluegill story may simply be a lesson for us – in our search for an explanation we should take heed of the tendency for evolution to produce behaviours that are ‘by-products’ of something else. No one would argue that the parental male chooses to mate with the mimic in that he ought to be trying to maximise his offspring by mating with the true female – but animals do not act directly on evolutionary concepts. A male bluegill sunfish does not ‘know’ he wants to make baby fish – he just ‘feels’ compelled to mate. It is quite simply possible that a gene that is important for some other function produces homosexuality as a consequence – which was in our ancestors and is still neither detrimental (except in that it prevents reproduction) or advantageous (except in that it is the by-product of something useful). The two cancel out so that the gene persists.

Many other potential explanations exist that are beyond the scope of this article. What is exciting is that we may soon have an answer. DNA sequencing has revolutionised genetics and given rise to the biologist’s playground that is genomics. Anyone reading this who hoped for ‘straight’ answers will now be disappointed by both the cringe-worthy pun and the inconclusive nature of the above. However, the point is not that there is a scientific answer currently available, but rather it is work in progress and, far more importantly, that a genetic basis for homosexuality is neither totally out of reach nor a logical impossibility.

 

Fake fresher offers "coaching"

Camilla Turner
-
0
Fake fresher offers "coaching"

Last week Cherwell broke the story of an LMH fresher who faked 10 A-Levels and fabricated a personal statement to gain a place at Oxford. Now it has emerged that the student was also offering tutoring for Oxbridge applications.

Around the same time that he begun studying at Oxford,the student became involved at a high level with the website “Sucedo”, a company which sells coaching, tuition and advice to prospective Oxbridge applicants.

The Sucedo website boasts that the fresher is the only candidate who scored 100% on the TSA [Thinking Skills Assesment], a claim that the LMH Admissions Office have refused to verify. Sucedo offers to arrange an question and answer session with the student about the TSA, which it promises will be an “informal session” where “your questions decide the content”.

Sucedo is a relatively new company, set up in June 2009 by Alexander James McPherson. The Sucedo website claims that its users will benefit from being taught by past or present Oxbridge students.

But the current Company Director, 24 year old James Meller, is not an Oxbridge alumni, but a graduate from Manchester University.

The site charges £200 for a mock interview, £320 for a “Skills” package, and £950 for the fully blown “Meet and Greet” experience, where applicants would be accompanied to their interviews by Sucedo representatives. Elsewhere, Sucedo offers “hundreds of USD” to anyone who refers Cambridge or Oxford applicants to them for coaching.
Sucedo told the Telegraph in November 2009 that it had seen a “massive upsurge” in demand for help to pass admissions tests, particularly from state school students.

Owen John, the LMH JCR Access & Academic Affairs Officer, commented that companies like Sucedo are “a big concern to the College. It is not in their interest to have students who have had the best preparation, but are not necessarily the best. The one thing [Sucedo and other companies] cannot give you is the raw ability that Oxford is looking for. The case of [LMH student] shows that just having the right techniques for interviews and admissions test can’t get you through the degree.” Fresher’s school Headmistress described his academic record as “strong but not outstanding”.

The Sucedo website warns, “We’re here to see you succeed in the long-term…We’re not here to give you shortcuts that will make life difficult further down the line.”
A spokesperson from Oxford said, “Oxford has one of the most rigorous selection processes for students applying for undergraduate study in the country. All tests must satisfy a range of criteria before they are used for selecting students.”

Oxford takes an uncompromising stance towards companies like Sucedo, “The University does not endorse any commercial coaching activities related to the selection process – we are always keen to let candidates know that there is free advice and guidance available direct from the University, with sample aptitude tests available to download and practise.”

Owen commented, “It’s a sad fact that when someone like [the first year student] is prepared to lie himself into a University place he doesn’t deserve, he will sometimes get away with it. Had he hoped that he’d get through an entire degree course at LMH without having met the entry requirements then he was quickly proved wrong.”

On the penultimate day of Michaelmas term, the pupil was asked to see the Dean, who told him to leave LMH with immediate effect while the evidence against him was reviewed. So far this term, he has not returned.

OUOTC accused of insensitivity

Rebecca Ratcliffe
-
0
OUOTC accused of insensitivity

Oxford University Officer Training Corps (OUOTC) have been accused of insensitivity, following their ‘Officers and Zulus’ themed fancy dress party last week.

The themed party concluded a series of training sessions focusing on the military tactics utilised by the British in the 1879 Zulu Wars and was an extension of the ‘military history’ syllabus due to run throughout Hilary term.

The invitation announcing the event stated that “the evening’s aim is to celebrate the martial prowess of both sides in the campaign”.

Yet the event has sparked much controversy within the Oxford University community.

In an email before the party, OUOTC advised attendees, “In order to avoid sullying our good name, please refrain from using body paints (you know what this means in practice).”

One member of Lincoln College was shocked by the party. She stated, “It strikes me that there may be something a teensy bit offensive about a group of future British Army officers (who all happen to be white, by the way) dressing up as a group of colonial invaders and the ‘savages’ they defeated.

“This sort of thing horribly trivialises not only another nation’s culture, but also the oppression and subjugation of that nation as a result of British colonialism.”

Others labelled the theme as ‘lacking in taste’, comparing it to Prince Harry’s infamously ill-chosen Nazi costume. A second-year English student argued, “For cadets to dress up as colonial soldiers, in order to attend a party- it’s just really disrespectful. Of course that’s going to cause offence.”

Attendees defended the party, arguing that it was thematically related to the day’s educational activities.

Patrick Page, a member of OUOTC and student at St Benet’s Hall commented: “I don’t think there is any question that the OTC were celebrating some sort of colonial victory. If it were, I certainly would not have gone.”

Captain Christian San Jose of OUOTC added that the group were interested in examining the Zulu wars from an “Entirely military viewpoint as opposed to political or moral, we were looking at the military tactics used by the British infantry.”

He conceded, “We’re not so naive that we are not aware that there is potential for offence and we made note to cadets that they should exercise restraint and that fancy dress should not emphasise any political undertones.”

“People get offended about all sorts of things”, he added. “There wouldn’t be any point in not holding the evening in case we offended people. I certainly didn’t hear any complaints about it from within the OTC.”

He suggested the possibility that those criticising the party may simply be trying “to get at the OTC” but stated that complaints probably came from people who “weren’t at the evening and had no understanding of what our aims were.” 

1...2,0452,0462,047...2,515Page 2,046 of 2,515

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley