Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 2077

Memorial scholarship to be created after LMH student dies

A scholarship fund for gifted students has been created in the memory of John Ddungu, a Lady Margaret Hall student who died in February.

John Kavuma Ddungu Memorial Trust for Academic and Sports has been created by the mother of the student.

The fund will support talented children from “Britain and all over the world” who “don’t have the opportunity and don’t know the system.”

Gladys May Kavuma explained that she decided to set up the trust in order to honour her son’s memory. She wanted to realize her son’s dream to set up a charity to help children in Africa.

She said to This is Croydon Today newspaper, “Last July he told me that he wanted to set up a charity to help children in Africa to go to school in the UK. He said to me that he wanted deprived children to have the same chance that he had.”

Ms Kavuma revealed has been left “numb” not knowing what caused her son’s death.

She explained, “It hasn’t really sunk in.”

Since Ddungu’s death many messages of support have appeared on his personal webpage.

Ms Kavuma commented, “Reading his Facebook page makes me see how many friends he had and lives he touched.”

She added, “I just need to know what happened to him. I’ve seen his body, which helped because he looked peaceful. I think it will hit me at the funeral but for now I am being strong.”

Ms Kavuma asked all those who attended John’s funeral to make a contribution to the fund instead of bringing flowers. She will need to raise £5,000 to register the charity.
The cause of the death is currently unknown. However, the police are not treating the death as suspicious.

LMH Principal Frances Lannon, speaking through the University Press Office, said “We were shocked and profoundly saddened by the death of John Ddungu, a second-year undergraduate at Lady Margaret Hall. Our thoughts and deepest sympathy are with his family and friends at this very difficult time.”

Sourav Choudhury, JCR President at LMH, echoed Lannon’s sentiments. “John was a universally popular and well liked student within LMH. His death has naturally upset and touched both his close friends and the wider college community. At this difficult time we ask to be allowed to grieve in private.”

 

Bullingdon deny ASBO claims

Members of Oxford’s Bullingdon Club have denied the claims made by a Proctor last month that they have been threatened with Anti-Social Behaviour Orders.

In a speech he made in March, outgoing Proctor Professor Donald Fraser said that the first case he was given during his first week in office was to deal with complaints about the club members’ behaviour during incidents in October 2007 and March 2008.

Residents in Jericho, north Oxford, contacted the Proctors’ office to report that students living in a house near the Phoenix cinema ‘had taken habitually to the drunken braying of ‘We are the Bullingdon Club!’ at 3am.’

According to a transcript given to the Proctors’ office, a neighbour complained but was greeted with what the Times called ‘a well-educated torrent of abuse.’
Fraser added that, ‘the transcript of what they called the wife of the neighbour who complained was written in language that is not usually printed’.

The matter was then referred to the police because the incident did not occur on University property and the Bullingdon Club is not an official University society.

‘After conferring with the Proctors’ Officers, I thought that an ASBO might concentrate the minds of those concerned. I referred the matter to the police, who did mention the word ASBO before awarding the members of the club an ABC – Acceptable Behaviour Contract – that would magically and automatically turn into an ASBO if provoked within six months.’

Members of the club are denying the accusations, which recently appeared in the Daily Mail and The Times.

A 47 year old single mother and Jericho resident told the Daily Mail, ‘They had a party and were chanting again and started throwing glass champagne bottles out of the window. The street was carpeted with broken glass.’
She added that two of the students – Francesco Ciardi and Konstantin von Bismarck – later contacted her to apologise.

Bismarck, a descendant of the Prussian Imperial Chancellor who founded modern Germany, rang the woman up to offer apologies. Ciardi, a friend of Princess Beatrice, apologised in person and offered her chocolates, which she refused.

The two denied being members of the Bullingdon, but admitted that they allowed the club to use their house.
One member denied that they were given the disciplinary orders, saying that the newspapers’ allegations came ‘probably from their more exotic daydreams.’

He added, ‘But then again the Mail recently hazarded to allege that the club members ritually burn bags of cash exceeding £500, which really pushes the borders of insanity.’

While the inner workings of the club remain secret, the same member did comment that, ‘There is no formulaic trashing ritual’ and insisted that breakages ‘are always swiftly dealt with.’

In December 2004, four members of the Club were arrested following the alleged trashing of the cellar of the White Hart pub in Fyfield, an incident that prompted the press to refer to the club’s activities as ‘despicable’ and ‘reprehensible’.

The society was founded in the late 19th century as a hunting and cricket club, but has gained a reputation as an exclusive drinking society. It has made headlines in the last few years due to the prevalence of its ex-members on the Opposition front bench. Conservative Leader David Cameron and Shadow Chancellor George Osborne were both members of the society while students at Oxford, as well as the London Mayor Boris Johnson.

One member added, ‘We are not a bunch of vandalising socialite terrorists.’

The Biggest Gamble in History?

Between 16 April and 13 May 2009 national elections are being held in India. In what happens to be the largest electoral exercise in the democratic world, a 714 million-strong electorate will vote over 5 phases in 543 parliamentary constituencies spread across 28 states and 7 union territories. The principal adversaries are the incumbent United Progressive Alliance (UPA) led by the Indian National Congress; the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by the Bharatiya Janata Party; and the Third Front – a coalition of regional and communist parties. The main issues are internal security (particularly, in the wake of the Mumbai terror attack and the growing Maoist insurgency), widening socio-economic inequality and regional disparity, rising assertiveness among the majority and corresponding alienation among minorities.

Flawed as it may be, Indian democracy’s continued existence defies historical precedent and conventional wisdom. When they were first held in 1952, Indian national elections were called the “biggest gamble in history”. 57 years and 14 editions later, the only gamble around them remains political and not existential. It is important to appreciate that this diverse country routinely holds reasonably free and fair elections across its vast length and breadth and is interesting to understand why and for whom the Indian electorate votes. As a group which seeks to celebrate India and bring together not only Indian students and students of Indian origin but anyone who is interested in this diverse country, the Oxford Indian Society (OIS) launched its online debate series with a three-week long focus on the Indian elections. It debated the pros and cons of coalition centred politics in the Indian electoral scene, discussed the presence or absence of clear and responsible ideological divide among Indian political parties, and deliberated upon the desirability of left-wing politics and its impact on governance and policy-making.

The OIS debate provoked some searching questions: Historically, Indian elections have tended to be as much about good governance as about identity politics. What should a democracy’s pivot be – aspirations towards socio-economic representation of hitherto marginalised groups or functions towards deliverance of good governance? A zealous pursuit of identity-bound representative character by regional parties and their coalitions has certainly brought them closer to power and policy-making but has also turned Indian politics into a completely amoral business of bargaining for power and benefits. For Indian polity the question that looms large is whether it desires a society derived from the patterns of the exercise of political power or a polity reflective of its varied socio-cultural fabric?

Second, while this so-called ‘battle for egalitarianism’, is being waged using the instruments of electoral democracy, has become the dominant thrust in Indian politics, it is pertinent to ask whether there is room for ideology-politics as opposed to identity-politics in a responsible national landscape? In a parliament of 543 seats, 272 are required for majority. Since 1989 a socially fractious and economically divided electorate has regularly voted indecisively resulting in a fragmented politics of coalitions. The current UPA government is a coalition of 13 parties spearheaded by the Congress with 151 seats while the single-largest opposition party, BJP, has 142 seats. The real power thus lies with the regional parties. Any government then will be a delicate balance act amidst the compulsions of coalition politics.

And finally, on the economic front: Is increased state intervention desirable and if so, then how is it to be financed? Can India abandon fiscal management without reverting to isolationism? How does a developing country with serious resource constraints prioritize spending on alleviating poverty without wreaking systemic havoc? As the largest nation-state in world’s least integrated and most unsettled region, India, as ever, remains a fascinating – in turn exhilarating and frustrating – prospect. On the one hand, it has a growing poor population (400 million), rotten infrastructure, dreadful public services of health and education, cumbersome labour and land laws, and ranks 4th in the list of Asia’s most corrupt nations. On the other, it boasts of the third annual growth rate in Asia over the last five years (behind China and Japan), an increasing employment rate, a healthy forex reserve, a young population (half of them under 25), and fast-growing manufacturing and service sectors (driving the 300 million strong urban, middle class and its consumption boom) – the players of which are now getting world-wide recognition viz. the Tatas. Whether one characterises India as a tiger on a pacy prowl or an elephant on a sluggish grind, the numbers to bolster either image can be bewildering, hence the importance of the coming elections.

The OIS debates archives can be accessed at http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ois/debates.html.

Interview: Serj Tankian

Serj Tankian, the multi-million selling Grammy Award-winning musician, best known for his work with System of a Down, came to Oxford last Wednesday 22nd April to talk to an issue very close to his heart: genocide. Screamers is a film that follows the band, all of whom are descendents of survivors of the Armenian genocide, as they tour and it points out the horrors of modern genocide that began in Armenia in 1915 and continue to the present day.

The screening of the film, put on by a partnership of the University’s Development Office and the Aegis society, gave an opportunity for students to ask Serj and other panellists Raffy Manoukian – London-based philanthropist and donor to the University who helped fund the film – and Professor Theo van Lint – Oxford’s professor of Armenian Studies and Fellow of Pembroke College – their questions in a panel discussion. We caught up with Serj before the event:

Have you had much time to see Oxford?
I’ve been to Oxford before! We actually played about an hour away in Reading over the summer and stayed in Oxford overnight. It was beautiful.

Not spent much time here today then just been travelling?
No we’ve just got here and have been travelling all day. Haven’t had any time to eat- [eats]

Do you know particularly or have any relationship with the other two men that are on the panel with you at the talk: Raffy Manoukian [London-based philanthropist] and Professor Theo van Lint [Calouste Gulbenkian Professor of Armenian Studies and Fellow of Pembroke College]?

I Know Raffy really well- I met him because he worked with the BBC on the production behind Screamers. I met him through that and became since then and he’s been very very active in promoting awareness about genocide. In terms of pushing the film as well getting distribution for it and screenings and working with different non-profit organisations he’s done a great job. He’s done a lot to be respected.

How did you get involved with making the film?

I was approached by the film maker Carla Garapedian a number of years ago and she was keen on getting System of a Down involved in making a film about genocide. So I met with her and I was really interested in presenting the similarities of different genocide and holocaust because I see a connection between them all. She was down for that idea which was cool and I thought that the uniqueness of the experience of the Armenian genocide in terms of it being denied by the perpetrators still after 94 years.

Urm, so, we kind of had a meeting of minds and I said OK let me go back to the other guys from SOAD and see if they are willing to participate and they were so we, you know, as a band we didn’t do anything differently than we did on a regular basis: our concerts, our activism, our meetings with congressional delegates. Everything that we do we did anyway we would do anyway with or without the film. We allowed her access so that she could film it and tied that into her story. So the film is really about genocide but it involves the band.

A lot of your song writing is affected by your politicization- how did this politicizing come about?

The hypocrisy of the denial of genocide in a well known democracy was the first spark for my politicization as a young adult and made me wonder how many truths there are out there that are being denied for economical or geo-political interests. Since then I’ve found a lot of others truths or injustices I might say that need shedding of light. So that was the first trigger for me growing up.

Was your primary motivation for making this film to raise awareness of the genocide issues surrounding it?

When I first decided to be involved with the film, one of the primary reasons was to raise awareness of the Armenian genocide another was to raise awareness of the human disease of this genocide in general. I think we haven’t realised the importance of prioritizing the reaction to genocide intervention to genocide as a global society and we still allow different interests to supersede intervention regarding genocide- Sudan being a prime example of our times today and how we- when I say ‘we’ I am primarily referring to the western nations and governments- have not really interfered in a major way.

Like you see Sudan collaborating a number of years back with the CIA and US intelligence on Al Qaeda authorities within the country because obviously Bin Laden had spent a quite a bit of time there and it’s purported that Bin Laden was there after it was known that genocide was going on- this was after George Bush Jnr. called the atrocities genocide within Sudan. So you start to think and think OK I guess for America that meant that fighting terror was more important than helping victims of genocide and that is a prime example of how our priorities are misplaced.

Are any of your songs particularly relevant to the issue of genocide?

System of a Down has two songs that touch upon genocide: one is from the first album we ever made and one is from the last album that we ever made. The songs are ‘P.L.U.C.K’ and the other ‘The Holy Mountains’.

Do you think that you could have been part of such a film if you didn’t have your status as a musician?

I would have wanted to have been part of such a film if I weren’t a musician- I’m not sure that anyone would be interested in asking me though!

So, do you consider it important for musicians such as yourself and Tom Morello to speak out on political issues? Do you think that it is an important voice?

I think every artist has his or her own vision- I think that it is important for every artist to follow that vision. I don‘t think every artist should be political. I think that … I’ve always said that a really great love song is more important than any political song ever written: it can change the world in much more interesting ways than any political song. However, that said, I think that music is a great narration of our times. It’s a great truthsayer of our times.

You listen to Bob Dylan’s music of the sixties and on and you see that it’s a great way of presenting some truths and a great way of fighting injustice and power through the arts. So, I think it’s definitely been part of my vision in life to always, you know, kind of bring certain topics to the forefront- you know, whether it’s through music or through conversation. Every artist has their own vision and I respect that.

Which love songs and political songs do you think are the best ones for conveying their message?

One of my favourite – I don’t know whether you can call it a love song – but one of my favourite songs is ‘Yesterday’ by Paul McCartney as one of those songs that is changing. It is a change oriented type of song. It makes you think back in time but it also paraphrases life in such a beautiful way.
But there are a lot of beautiful love songs. I think more sixties- because that’s when a lot of great lovin’ was going on [laughs]. The Summer of Love and a free and open society. But there’s a lot of good stuff being written today or quite recently.

Are there any up-and-coming bands or those of the past that are particularly good at conveying their political message?

There’s a lot more bands touching upon political subjects today than there were, I would say, six or seven years ago. All I remember is that right after 9/11, certain parties, myself inclusive, Tom Morello [Rage Against the Machine] inclusive were questioning some of the actions that were taken and some of the ‘gung-ho’-ness of the flag-waving involved. I appreciate authenticity and emotion in any type of situation but there was a lot of fear-induced flag-waving going on if that makes sense.

Also reactions that were prevailing: ‘Let’s cut them down’ that kind of stuff- very illogical type of response which I guess is acceptable for a tragedy. However, I don’t think that most people understand that the sources of those tragedies were injustices themselves from elsewhere- that it stemmed from somewhere and it didn’t just come out of thin air as a tragedy. It came as a reaction to foreign policy of the US, Britain and a lot of nations post WW2 and 1 having to do with the Armenian genocide and other topics. There are a lot of things that if we go back in history and look at how we’ve interacted as nations we can see how things are affected by that today.

Last term, there was a motion put to Oxford University Student Union amounting to a condemnation of the actions in Gaza. This provoked fierce debate amongst colleges as to whether it was the place of the student union to put forward a strong opinion on political issues- do you think that Student Unions should?

Most activism has started in universities. Historically, you look at the sixties, seventies, eighties, and I think university students are at a prime age and period of cognisant recognition of the world around them to be able to stand up for things and still have the youthful romanticism necessary to not be sceptical enough to actually put in their time and efforts to do so. I think that it is a very promising thing.

I don’t like sceptics of activism; we have plenty of it ourselves in what I do and what Tom Morello does- people saying ‘why should we listen to you you’re musicians and not foreign policy experts. I say I’m a human being beyond my particular job description and I happen to be involved in a number of things that include American foreign policy and I read a lot about that and I have so for the last 25 years so that doesn’t make me an official expert but I’ll sit down with an official expert and I’ll have a good repartee, you know?

Is there anything else that you think is particularly important to say in relation to Oxford students?

I went to university myself – I didn’t go to Oxford [laughs] but I went to Southern California University. It was a time of growth of the mind. I personally don’t think that you learn anything constructive in University. I think what you learn in University is to allow yourself to learn. I think that that’s what you learn. You learn to be open to things and to allow things to enter your mind without critically cutting it down and that openness to learning. You’ll retain some of the knowledge obviously but I think the average is about fifteen percent if at all. I certainly don’t remember anything that I learnt from my business degree in college except maybe a few quotes or something like that from funny professors if anything.

But I think it’s important, though, to have the community where you’re able to communicate with other people about things happening not just domestically but around the world and having like I said the lack of scepticism to be involved in standing up for what you truly believe in.

Interview: Serj Tankian

Serj Tankian, the multi-million selling Grammy Award-winning musician, best known for his work with System of a Down, came to Oxford last Wednesday 22nd April to talk to an issue very close to his heart: genocide. Screamers is a film that follows the band, all of whom are descendents of survivors of the Armenian genocide, as they tour and it points out the horrors of modern genocide that began in Armenia in 1915 and continue to the present day.

The screening of the film, put on by a partnership of the University’s Development Office and the Aegis society, gave an opportunity for students to ask Serj and other panellists Raffy Manoukian – London-based philanthropist and donor to the University who helped fund the film – and Professor Theo van Lint – Oxford’s professor of Armenian Studies and Fellow of Pembroke College – their questions in a panel discussion. We caught up with Serj before the event:

Have you had much time to see Oxford?
I’ve been to Oxford before! We actually played about an hour away in Reading over the summer and stayed in Oxford overnight. It was beautiful.

Not spent much time here today then just been travelling?
No we’ve just got here and have been travelling all day. Haven’t had any time to eat- [eats]

Do you know particularly or have any relationship with the other two men that are on the panel with you at the talk: Raffy Manoukian [London-based philanthropist] and Professor Theo van Lint [Calouste Gulbenkian Professor of Armenian Studies and Fellow of Pembroke College]?

I Know Raffy really well- I met him because he worked with the BBC on the production behind Screamers. I met him through that and became since then and he’s been very very active in promoting awareness about genocide. In terms of pushing the film as well getting distribution for it and screenings and working with different non-profit organisations he’s done a great job. He’s done a lot to be respected.

How did you get involved with making the film?

I was approached by the film maker Carla Garapedian a number of years ago and she was keen on getting System of a Down involved in making a film about genocide. So I met with her and I was really interested in presenting the similarities of different genocide and holocaust because I see a connection between them all. She was down for that idea which was cool and I thought that the uniqueness of the experience of the Armenian genocide in terms of it being denied by the perpetrators still after 94 years.

Urm, so, we kind of had a meeting of minds and I said OK let me go back to the other guys from SOAD and see if they are willing to participate and they were so we, you know, as a band we didn’t do anything differently than we did on a regular basis: our concerts, our activism, our meetings with congressional delegates. Everything that we do we did anyway we would do anyway with or without the film. We allowed her access so that she could film it and tied that into her story. So the film is really about genocide but it involves the band.

A lot of your song writing is affected by your politicization- how did this politicizing come about?

The hypocrisy of the denial of genocide in a well known democracy was the first spark for my politicization as a young adult and made me wonder how many truths there are out there that are being denied for economical or geo-political interests. Since then I’ve found a lot of others truths or injustices I might say that need shedding of light. So that was the first trigger for me growing up.

Was your primary motivation for making this film to raise awareness of the genocide issues surrounding it?

When I first decided to be involved with the film, one of the primary reasons was to raise awareness of the Armenian genocide another was to raise awareness of the human disease of this genocide in general. I think we haven’t realised the importance of prioritizing the reaction to genocide intervention to genocide as a global society and we still allow different interests to supersede intervention regarding genocide- Sudan being a prime example of our times today and how we- when I say ‘we’ I am primarily referring to the western nations and governments- have not really interfered in a major way.

Like you see Sudan collaborating a number of years back with the CIA and US intelligence on Al Qaeda authorities within the country because obviously Bin Laden had spent a quite a bit of time there and it’s purported that Bin Laden was there after it was known that genocide was going on- this was after George Bush Jnr. called the atrocities genocide within Sudan. So you start to think and think OK I guess for America that meant that fighting terror was more important than helping victims of genocide and that is a prime example of how our priorities are misplaced.

Are any of your songs particularly relevant to the issue of genocide?

System of a Down has two songs that touch upon genocide: one is from the first album we ever made and one is from the last album that we ever made. The songs are ‘P.L.U.C.K’ and the other ‘The Holy Mountains’.

Do you think that you could have been part of such a film if you didn’t have your status as a musician?

I would have wanted to have been part of such a film if I weren’t a musician- I’m not sure that anyone would be interested in asking me though!

So, do you consider it important for musicians such as yourself and Tom Morello to speak out on political issues? Do you think that it is an important voice?

I think every artist has his or her own vision- I think that it is important for every artist to follow that vision. I don‘t think every artist should be political. I think that … I’ve always said that a really great love song is more important than any political song ever written: it can change the world in much more interesting ways than any political song. However, that said, I think that music is a great narration of our times. It’s a great truthsayer of our times.

You listen to Bob Dylan’s music of the sixties and on and you see that it’s a great way of presenting some truths and a great way of fighting injustice and power through the arts. So, I think it’s definitely been part of my vision in life to always, you know, kind of bring certain topics to the forefront- you know, whether it’s through music or through conversation. Every artist has their own vision and I respect that.

Which love songs and political songs do you think are the best ones for conveying their message?

One of my favourite – I don’t know whether you can call it a love song – but one of my favourite songs is ‘Yesterday’ by Paul McCartney as one of those songs that is changing. It is a change oriented type of song. It makes you think back in time but it also paraphrases life in such a beautiful way.
But there are a lot of beautiful love songs. I think more sixties- because that’s when a lot of great lovin’ was going on [laughs]. The Summer of Love and a free and open society. But there’s a lot of good stuff being written today or quite recently.

Are there any up-and-coming bands or those of the past that are particularly good at conveying their political message?

There’s a lot more bands touching upon political subjects today than there were, I would say, six or seven years ago. All I remember is that right after 9/11, certain parties, myself inclusive, Tom Morello [Rage Against the Machine] inclusive were questioning some of the actions that were taken and some of the ‘gung-ho’-ness of the flag-waving involved. I appreciate authenticity and emotion in any type of situation but there was a lot of fear-induced flag-waving going on if that makes sense.

Also reactions that were prevailing: ‘Let’s cut them down’ that kind of stuff- very illogical type of response which I guess is acceptable for a tragedy. However, I don’t think that most people understand that the sources of those tragedies were injustices themselves from elsewhere- that it stemmed from somewhere and it didn’t just come out of thin air as a tragedy. It came as a reaction to foreign policy of the US, Britain and a lot of nations post WW2 and 1 having to do with the Armenian genocide and other topics. There are a lot of things that if we go back in history and look at how we’ve interacted as nations we can see how things are affected by that today.

Last term, there was a motion put to Oxford University Student Union amounting to a condemnation of the actions in Gaza. This provoked fierce debate amongst colleges as to whether it was the place of the student union to put forward a strong opinion on political issues- do you think that Student Unions should?

Most activism has started in universities. Historically, you look at the sixties, seventies, eighties, and I think university students are at a prime age and period of cognisant recognition of the world around them to be able to stand up for things and still have the youthful romanticism necessary to not be sceptical enough to actually put in their time and efforts to do so. I think that it is a very promising thing.

I don’t like sceptics of activism; we have plenty of it ourselves in what I do and what Tom Morello does- people saying ‘why should we listen to you you’re musicians and not foreign policy experts. I say I’m a human being beyond my particular job description and I happen to be involved in a number of things that include American foreign policy and I read a lot about that and I have so for the last 25 years so that doesn’t make me an official expert but I’ll sit down with an official expert and I’ll have a good repartee, you know?

Is there anything else that you think is particularly important to say in relation to Oxford students?

I went to university myself – I didn’t go to Oxford [laughs] but I went to Southern California University. It was a time of growth of the mind. I personally don’t think that you learn anything constructive in University. I think what you learn in University is to allow yourself to learn. I think that that’s what you learn. You learn to be open to things and to allow things to enter your mind without critically cutting it down and that openness to learning. You’ll retain some of the knowledge obviously but I think the average is about fifteen percent if at all. I certainly don’t remember anything that I learnt from my business degree in college except maybe a few quotes or something like that from funny professors if anything.

But I think it’s important, though, to have the community where you’re able to communicate with other people about things happening not just domestically but around the world and having like I said the lack of scepticism to be involved in standing up for what you truly believe in.

Corporate Decapitation

Corporate responsibility. The word ‘corporate’ has its roots in the Latin ‘corpus’, meaning body. I hate to start an article with a point about etymology, but bear with me. The idea is, presumably, that such an organisation is like a body, and thus individuals in such organisations, particularly the higher ups, take responsibility for the actions of others, and notably for the actions of the body as a whole.

This makes sense, to a degree. Certainly, if we take the example of the subject of my last article, Sir Fred, it would seem appropriate that he should be held responsible for RBS’s contribution to moneygeddon (to borrow a phrase from Charlie Brooker) – he had a direct impact on RBS’s direction, leading to its current predicament, hence why he’s out on his ear, even if he’s not particularly uncomfortable.

Or take Bob “not so quick” Quick – prancing into No.10 with secret documents practically stapled to his forehead. Idiot. He clearly deserved to get the chop – 30 years of service or not, we simply cannot set the precedent that our chief counter-terrorism officer can do something like that and keep his job.

But in Britain, we don’t stop there. If the body corporate stubs its toe, for some reason, we seem to think that the responsible thing to do is to chop off its head. We practically clamour for it – it seems like every week the red tops (Cherwell excepted) are demanding the resignation of somebody or other, be it for daring to have a private life, or, more likely, for the failings of one of their employees. Think about the series of stories regarding data losses by the government – at this point, it’s fair to say that we do seem to have a systematic issue with data security, and indeed it seems reasonable that heads should roll. That wasn’t so obvious at the time it all started, and yet as soon as the stories broke, there were immediate calls for the resignation of Cabinet ministers, individuals who didn’t seem to bear any clear relation to the morons who thought that a seat on the DLR was an appropriate storage location for their laptop/data disc/sex tape.

You can see why we do it – we want to avoid embarrassing incidences, and if the people in charge are likely to lose their jobs, we’d hope they would run a tight ship. But there are limits to what is realistic. We seem to expect our executives to have  hive-mind like control over their subordinates; but, perhaps in spite of said executives perspective on the matter, their subordinates are not ants. They are people, and people make mistakes, act dishonestly, and cannot be expected to be controlled on all occasions.

I’d suggest that we might want to rethink our current position, for a couple of clear reasons. Firstly, if we continue to decapitate corporate bodies like so many Tudor brides, we are going to encourage the sort of executive paranoia that has bosses stalking their employees on facebook. When we (eventually) enter the real world, we presumably don’t want to enter a work environment where our employers feel the need to graft a GPS locator to our scalp, so lets not give them a reason to. Beyond personal privacy, it’s also just bad for business – this sort of approach encourages excessive micromanagement, and that isn’t helpful.

Secondly, it is clearly bad for government. Look at the Cabinet – our convention of ministerial responsibility requires that the members of the Cabinet must (at least publicly) agree with everything the government does. Would it be so disastrous if the Secretary for Work and Pensions had a dissenting opinion over an element of foreign policy? Why do we need to fire perfectly capable ministers for having their own opinions? Certainly, if they are genuinely disrupting the government’s work, they should go, but that they should be afraid mention a single instance of disagreement with the totality of government policy is surely not constructive. Given the limited executive talent available to governments, we can ill afford to be despatching ministers left right and centre.

It’s not particularly exciting, but we should keep our heads, and let a few more organisations keep theirs.

 

 

Iwu found to be in breach of OUSU standing orders

An internal complaints committee has ruled Lewis Iwu to be in breach of OUSU’s standing orders.

The Complaints Board has judged, “The OUSU President to be….in continuous breach of standing orders” and advised that, “a motion of censure should be strongly considered by council.” The Board is an internal committee dealing with members dissatisfied with their treatment by OUSU.

The complaint made was in regards to “the lack of transparency in the running and management of OSSL and their dealing with OUSU.” Richard Hardiman, OUSU’s Strategic and Financial manager, has refused to divulge OSSL’s financial accounts and reports on request.

The Student Union’s Standing Orders, however, state that, “The Chair must report to the first council of each term the activities taken by OSSL during the previous term, as well as presenting Internal Financial Accounts for that term.”
The complaint was submitted by Ben Britton, MCR President of St Catherine’s. College. He said he was “concerned about the lack of transparency in both sets of accounts”, pointing out that accounts are “seeming transparent in OUSU, but smoke and mirrors in OSSL.”

This was the second complaint this year with regards to the financial transparency of OSSL.

However, OUSU’s 7th week council has not upheld the complaint.

Lewis Iwu, OUSU’s president, spoke in opposition to the ruling. He said, “Because [OSSL] is a company it is therefore governed by company law. We cannot make any actions which we feel will effect the company or its employees negatively….OSSL ruled that it would undermine the company, if we were to provide termly reports to council.”

He added, “This is why this information has not been released by previous business managers as it is against the law.”

Another member of the council added that this ruling “would hurt OSSL…it could reveal sensitive management information about other companies relating to when the deals are done.”

However, some accused Iwu of basing his defence on “murky interpretation of company law”.

Company law states that directors should act in the interest of the shareholders, and as shareholders, the Executive Body of OUSU could have full right to ask for the presentation of termly accounts of OSSL.

Thus, the release of OSSL’s accounts would not be against the law.

Ben Britton commented, “what appeared to occur was that the law was possibly misinterpreted for the purpose of failing the Complaints Committee ratification, and it seemed that OUSU Officers presented an ill considered case to Council, in breach of their duties to uphold the rights of all Students of this University.”
Another member, who wished to remain anonymous, said, “To give the complaints committee no notice that there were legal issues and then throw legal stumbling blocks in council reeks of an attempt to pervert the course of democratic discourse.”

He added, “As a student, I find it outrageous that these attempts by Lewis to block full transparency in all financial affairs are allowed to continue.”

Iwu did not comment as to whether his defense was viable. He replied, “Company Law clearly states that the directors need to act within what they believe to be the best interests of the company. The OSSL directors agreed that releasing management accounts would hurt OSSL’s relationships with clients, many of who require confidentiality, and would also hurt our reputation. I sought advice from the University which also concurred with that view.”

Man jailed after Bodleian bomb hoax

A man has been jailed for 8 months for pretending to have planted a bomb in the Bodleian Library.
Steven Thomas, 34, phoned the Oxfordshire police from a public call box and told them there were “incendiary devices set up in the Bodleian.”
Thomas, a resident of Headington, called the police from a public phone box on Cowley road on 24th November and told them to evacuate the library.
The police did not evacuate the Bodleian after receiving the call. They traced the number to the phone box and found Thomas there 20 minutes after the phone call had been made.
The prosecution, Clare Tucker described how the arresting officer found him. “His speech was slurred, he was unsteady on his feet and the officer could smell intoxicating liquor.”
His defence, Lucy Tapper, said, “The call seems to have been ill thought through and not really a genuine attempt.”
Tapper said of Thomas, “He is someone who is academically gifted and musically gifted.”
He was given his eight month sentence on 17th April by Recorder Guy Hungerford.
Thomas had alcohol and drug problems. He claimed that he was suffering from paranoid delusions and could hear voices in his head telling him to do bad things in order to be punished.
Thomas, of Awgar Stone Road, in Wood Farm, Oxford, admitted communicating false information with intent.
One first year student, who also suffers from paranoid delusions, said, “There’s a fine line between malingering – pretending to be suffering from delusions – and actual paranoia but if the symptoms he describes are true, prison will not be helpful; he needs to be sectioned.”
Thomas said that the incident had been a cry for help.
The University declined to comment on Thomas’ sentencing, but did say that they have plans in place if an evacuation were to be considered necessary by the police. They run regular fire drills.
The terror threat at Oxford is considered high by the police and University. Recorder Hungerford said of the Thomas case, “This kind of thing can only add to the public’s anxiety.”
However, one PPEist at Magdalen who said: “I’d never considered the University to be at particular threat before – a drunk and delusional man is not something I’m going to be losing any sleep over.”
Threats to University buildings in the past have chiefly been directed towards its controversial animal research facility. Police have had to deal with arson attempts at the site. University Buildings have also been evacuated before due to a false anthrax scare.

The grass is always greener…

Trinity Term: a summery haze of afternoons spent languidly out on the lawns, the gentle lapping of the river against the side of an ambling punt. Long days followed by long nights locked troglodytic in one’s room as finals and prelims creep ever-closer.
As the clichés shake off dust for yet another year, I ask readers: who among us would pass up the chance to be a stereotype for the evening? And what could be more quintessentially Oxford than turning up, pitching one’s rug, unclipping one’s woven picnic basket, quaffing its contents, and enjoying first-rate student drama, whilst the sun sets gently over the spires and towers of Oxford? Yes, I am talking about that stalwart of aestival festivities: the Trinity Lawn Show.  
The Merton and Magdalen shows are generally considered to be the biggest and for time immemorial, Oscar Wilde and Shakespeare have been the playwrights of choice for our al fresco thespians. Tradition, you might have noticed, sticks fast in Oxford, and accordingly this year’s programme of lavishly eye-catching costumes and received-pronunciation includes Love’s Labour’s Lost at Merton, and All’s Well That Ends Well, performed against a backdrop of Edwardian splendour in the Magdalen College President’s Garden.
An adaptation of Waugh’s  embodiment of Oxonian life, Brideshead Revisited, is also coming to Oxford. Astoundingly, this will be the first time our dreaming spires have seen a production of it, so dig out your favourite Aloysius lookalike, adorn yourself with a scarf tossed jauntily over one shoulder, and get ready to see the hallowed lawns and gargoyles of blissful Oxford transformed, before your very eyes, into the hallowed lawns and gargoyles of blissful Oxford!
Such is the mythology and protocol surrounding these unique productions that the lawn play is something budding actors and directors aspire to do. But for all the joviality and light heartedness that characterise these shows, serious work and thought underpins each line. It is all too easy to overlook the obvious difference in acoustics between theatre and garden, and losing words in amongst the hedgerows and the chaises longues is a real risk.
So expect actors who have thus far successfully restrained their inner Brian Blessed to erupt magnificently into glorious fountains of camp.
The highlight of each performance is undoubtedly the gala night on the last Saturday of the run. I will warn you all now though, tickets sell out incredibly quickly, primarily because the chance to drink champagne, nibble canapés and don black tie in an exclusive setting at a non-exclusive price is an offer few can refuse.
So keep your eyes open for news, as these romantic and rosy-coloured summer nights spent chuckling at fellow students who strut around in period costume are the cherry atop a sumptuous Oxford cake of which everybody will want a bite.

In Trinity and Beyond

For those keen to start watching immediately, Noughth week offers a ‘powerful evocation of the British sex trade’ in the form of Edinburgh Fringe sell-out A Thousand Pieces, at the North Wall Arts Centre.  For another light hearted start to Trinity, there’s Manon at the New Theatre, by the darkest of ballet choreographers, Kenneth MacMillan.
First week’s highlights will include an angry King Lear at the OFS. Then there’s His Dark Materials at the Playhouse.  A triumph when it appeared at the National in 2004, we are excited to see how it transfers to Oxford. Bear the Imps in mind too,  still at the Wheatsheaf on Mondays from First week.
For Second week there’s Betrayal by Harold Pinter at the BT: inspired by his affair with Joan Bakewell, it’s considered one of the Nobel Prize winner’s greats. In the late slot, a production of The Little Mermaid, based on the Anderson fairytale, plans to divide the audience with a fishing net! And at the OFS we have Fatboy, the tale, naturally, of Fatboy and his wife Fudgie and their rise to become king and queen of the world… Sunday also sees the Experimental Theatre Club’s annual Playday  – a place for people to put on plays in a ‘safe environment’. Sounds ominous.
Third week will be offering us All’s Well that Ends Well at the Magdalen Garden Show, one of the great delights of a sunny Trinity.  This years stars such as Roseanna Frascona and Hannah McGrath will light up Shakespeare’s blackest of comedies. Then there’s Collaborations at the Playhouse – four contemporary dances, based on John Donne’s ‘no man is an island’. The Oxford Revue also infiltrates the Playhouse on the Monday of this week.
At the Keble O’ Reilly Much Ado About Nothing is being shown in a ‘pretty madcap’ way, going from cafe, to street, to quad.  One insider told the Cherwell that they plan to ‘parade around Keble gardens and juggle whilst improvising Shakespeare with rubber ducks’.  Right.
This week has clearly been deemed crazy week, for Twelfth Night at the OFS will include performers breaking into slow motion and transfixed in dust, made, we’re told, out of light.  And the BT has The Love of the Nightingale with an all female cast playing around with stuff from Greek myth and elsewhere.
Fourth week: Even the directors call The Pitchfork Disney (BT) a warped play. And from the description it sounds it: ‘twenty- eight year old twins locked up in their home eating chocolate and sedatives’. But at the Keble O’Reilly this week we will be considering profound questions in This is India, which looks at cultural collisions as British Sara settles into a family in India.
Fifth week has A Real Doll at the BT. This is the sex doll, Alicia, who becomes the companion of Jeffry until an electric shock brings her to life. He discovers that love cannot be ordered from the internet. Then there’s the great Renaissance play The Changeling at the OFS, showing Beatrice as she succumbs to the assassin De Flores. For all you Disney aficionados, The New Theatre has Beauty and the Beast this week.
Having languished with English for five whole weeks, Sixth week is a chance to change into French by watching Phèdre at the BT.  The Cherwell’s going to tell you all about watching plays in foreign languages soon – so watch this space! This week also has Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus at the Keble O’Reilly – ‘Ugly hell, gape not! Come not, Lucifer!’
 The OFS has Tick Tick Boom, a musical presenting a composer falling into oblivion, while Oriel Arts Week heralds a production of The Spanish Tragedy, a bloody and darkly comic play by Thomas Kyd. In Seventh week the BT offers Caroline Bird’s Uncivil Partnership about a female string quartet playing at an unconventional wedding. But it is the Keble O’Reilly which finally offers us a play by Trinity Term’s patron saint, Oscar Wilde: Lady Windermere’s Fan.
 Last week we burnt books with Doctor Faustus, this week we shall drown them with The Tempest by acclaimed director Asia Osborne.
Krishna  Omkar returns to Merton‘s garden show for Eighth week with Love’s Labour’s Lost, while Tim Hoare and Matt Ryan will certainly offer us something splendid this week with Trojan Women. The final week of term is not likely to slide away quietly amid our exhaustion.