Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 2088

The Recruiting Officer

By
Emily Damesick
-

Four stars

Directing a production at The Oxford Playhouse is no easy undertaking. The subtleties of character which can be conveyed in a studio theatre are easily lost on a large stage. This is perhaps the main fault of Helen McCabe’s production of George Farquhar’s Restoration comedy, The Recruiting Officer. However, the fault simultaneously lies with the play itself, which calls for stock characters to play out this comedy of errors. Despite moments of weakness, Helen McCabe is certainly successful in drawing the audience into the eighteenth century landscape of Farquhar’s Shrewsbury and fulfilling the main function of the play: to entertain the audience.
The Recruiting Officer contains all of the usual features of Restoration comedy – concealed identity, bawdy jokes and a revelation scene which leads to a happy ending. The most popular play of the eighteenth century, Farquhar’s witty dialogue maintains the audience’s attention throughout the plot twists, which is of particular value in a play of this length. At the centre of the story is Captain Plume (Tim Pleydell-Bouverie) who has recently arrived back in Shrewsbury and is attempting to court Silvia (Harriet Tolkein), causing her angry cousin Melinda to intervene, resulting in Silvia’s being removed to the country by her father, Justice Balance (Guy Westwood). In the meantime, Captain Brazen (Rory Fazan) and Mr Worthy (Maximus Marenbon) vie for Melinda’s affections, while Silvia returns to Shrewsbusy in disguise as ‘Jack Wilful’ and Sergeant Kite (Edwin Thomas) disguises himself as a German fortune-teller in order to encourage men to enlist.
Tim Pleydell-Bouverie gives a charismatic and, at certain moments, delightfully camp portrayal of the womanising Captain Plume. Although rather caricatured, his strength of performance helps to carry the play and generate plenty of laughter. Both Sylvia and Melinda are strong characters, although they appear rather affected at times. More could have been made of their quarrels if they had been toned down slightly, introducing a comic disjunction between the polite language in which they address one another, and the antagonistic feelings which lie behind their speeches. The problem for all three actors is that the demand of performing in such a large space means that lines become rather ‘vamped up’ by the need to project, and lose the differentiation of tone which makes a character more believable. However, all three prove themselves worthy of performing in a leading role at the Playhouse. But perhaps the real stars of the show are Edwin Thomas and Guy Westwood, who put in convincing and highly comic performances which help the intricacies of the plot to flow and keep the audience well-entertained.
A well-designed set and use of period costume situates the play in eighteenth century England, and the set allows flexible movement between outdoor scenes in the market place, and the more intimate indoor scenes. The relatively large cast allows McCabe to make strong use of the space of the Playhouse stage, and her crowd scenes are well-choreographed. Thus, the audience certainly finds themselves immersed in the society being portrayed. The public/private dichotomy which is explored is central to the underlying moral of the play, which considers the importance of honesty in a loving relationship. At times, the actors fail to capture the true nature of their character behind the social façade. But even without this subtlety of portrayal, the production is strong enough to engage the audience’s attention, and, what’s more, have them laughing out loud.

A Clockwork Orange

By
Tom Bumstead
-

Chelsea Walker’s adaptation of the dual construct that is A Clockwork Orange, being half a morality tale by Anthony Burgess and half a film by Stanley Kubrick, is one that has set itself a very difficult task. On the one hand it has engage with Burgess’s profound meditation on the nature of free will and the weakness of the human condition; how, if given the chance, we may well choose ‘lashings of the ultraviolent’ or ‘the old in-out’; how desperately we need authority and yet how it will ultimately destroy us, ‘when a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man.’ The novel questions whether morality is a restricting of our brutish desires by the fear of punishment by the state or whether it can be something more profound: located elsewhere. On the other hand it must engage with one of the most visually stunning, or perhaps shocking, pieces of cinema of the twentieth century. It must either play with Kubrick’s imagery, offering a new interpretation of his aestheticization of violence or seek to establish its own aesthetic standards and assert them against the expectations of the audience. The production that could manage all of this would be remarkable indeed; the student production that could manage it all the more so, unfortunately this attempt is hardly remarkable.

I do not mean to say that the play is bad; merely that it takes too much upon itself. There are signs that an attempt has been made to re-imagine the work of Burgess/Kubrick in the creative use of height and space- the scene where the prison Chaplain exhorts the prisoners to reform from atop a block while they alternatively abuse him and abase themselves before him is particularly effective. However the portrayal of the violent aspects of the plot seems awkwardly caught between the stylized ‘ultraviolence’ of Kubrick and the moral shabbiness suggested by Burgess. The rapes and beatings are set to classical music but lack any sense of choreography or suggestive imagery (such as Kubrick’s decision to have Alex beat an artist to death with her own phallic sculpture: his assertion of the art of violence over the art of sculpture) and instead seem to emphasise merely fumbling barbarity. Jacob Taee’s portrayal of the protagonist, Alex, is strikingly good throughout, both sensitive and gleefully evil. However the rest of the cast is somewhat patchy; perhaps partly because they are mostly required to play multiple roles and partly because the subject matter is almost entirely concerned with Alex.

Overall, I would say, a valiant effort at a difficult task but anyone familiar with the film and/or the book will leave disappointed; anyone unfamiliar with either may well enjoy this production but would get more out of the originals.

 

A new approach to dealing with fringe critics, and a must-read

By
Nick Coxon
-

One of the most interesting things about political commentary in the United States is that the more you move away from the ‘mainstream’ print press and network TV, and into the worlds of cable news and talk radio, the more polarised everything becomes. Political issues are rarely black-and-white, there are shades of grey. Not so on cable news and talk radio.

Take the stimulus. Obama signed it on Tuesday. You’d expect that a reasoned observer would argue neither for its absolute correctness or absolute wrongness, for it is neither absolutely right nor absolutely wrong to most in the political spectrum. Economists and politicians from left and right may have varying degrees of agreement with both the concept and the details of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, but extremely few would argue that it’s 100% perfect or 100% imperfect.

Except that doesn’t work in a world where ratings are all important and largely dependent on the interestingness of broadcast content, because this sort of graded analysis doesn’t persuade the average viewer or listener to tune in in primetime. And so much of the commentary you see on US cable news or hear on talk radio takes big issues like the stimulus as admitting of binary judgment — the stimulus is either ‘transformative’ or ‘catastrophic’. It is not merely ‘strong/weak in parts’, but ‘communist’, or (my personal favourite) ‘un-American’. Issues are framed in these ways because it’s these sorts of judgements which are most conducive to the biggest, most watchable arguments. This is why Rush Limbaugh has (it is believed) just signed a contract that will make him the highest-compensated broadcaster of all time: because the polarised diatribe he engages in is, to many, required viewing.

All this presents a challenge for mainstream politicians, particularly those in government. The challenge for successive administrations has been this: how do we deal with these marginal crazies, who many watch and agree with, but who many more consider to be extremist ranters. (Limbaugh is one in particular who, judging by his approval ratings, is hated by many more people than he is loved by).

The orthodox approach has been that employed (with varying degrees of compliance) by multiple previous White House teams, chiefly the Democrats: that of ‘freezing out’ the crazies. By not responding to the spurious commentaries from the fringes of the political spectrum, the hope is they will not receive any more recognition than they merit. The view taken, in essence, has been that the Limbaughs/Coulters/O’Reillys/Hannitys of this world are so far off the mark that to respond to them would only provide them with unwarranted recognition — the oxygen of publicity.

But this new White House is taking a new approach: attack them, but in such a measured, reasoned, calm manner as to give the impression that the ranters are just that — loudmouths with little interest in the nuanced realities of political discourse.

Note this clip. It’s Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, responding to this from Rick Santelli, a CNBC contributor. Santelli is not, admittedly, in quite the same league as Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh when it comes to fringe opinion. But his rant — and it’s hard to describe it as anything else — got a lot of play and attention. So Gibbs responded. He was not afraid to admit that he’d watched the clip of Santelli “a lot over the past 24 hours”. He rebutted his argument, but also subtly eviscerated Santelli’s credibility. Watch for the line, “I think we left a few months ago the adage that if it was good for a derivatives trader that it was good for Main Street. I think the verdict is in on that.” Gibbs shows precisely what the Obama strategy has been these past weeks, towards many of the more vocal and extreme opponents of the administration. He responds, substantively, and at the same time gives a clear impression about personality: that the detractors are out of step with real people (here he draws attention to Santelli’s former occupation as a “derivatives trader”), whilst the administration is in line with the feelings of “Main Street”. The same is true of his tone, and of Obama’s. It’s calmness is intended to provide sharp contrast with that of the detractors.

This is the new approach, and it’s interesting and different. It came about in the wake of Daschle’s withdrawal. It was then that Obama took to the road to sell the stimulus, and started fighting back against critics (for example in the clip I linked to here). It’s part of a strategy to take Obama’s popularity out for a ride, to see what it can do. Not chafing against his established image of a cool, professorial figure — the ‘comforter-in-chief’ as some have (rather awkwardly branded) him– but rather using his clear oratorical power and personal persuasiveness, and the skills of his top staff, to respond to those who had enjoyed relative freedom from rebuttal.

—

I normally dislike the intrusiveness of labeling articles as ‘a must-read’, but this brilliant piece is worth a look. Rahm Emanuel is not only the White House Chief of Staff (often thought to be the second most powerful person in Washington after the President), but he’s turning out to be a particularly powerful holder of the job. What’s more, he’s got a certain Malcolm Tucker-ish quality.

6th Week: Obscurantism

By
Oskar
-

Frankly, no one’s going to give two hoots, or even one and a half, about this week’s releases. It’s not a vintage week. Sorry. The next two should be much, much better.

Glasvegas – Flowers and Football Tops **

This is meant to be their best song, right? Which is why we’re meant to listen for five whole minutes? Someone’s dead son and that. I like the first thirty seconds of ambient noise, they’re very nice. After that it’s a bit less interesting, not particularly coherent or logical. A bit like a clan of highland warriors marching in big boots round a colossal labyrinth, calling to each other when they get lost. There’s a certain grace, solemnity, funereal grandeur…but as a single it’s a bloody mess and frankly far too self-important.

Beyonce – Halo *

So, after the rather attractive ballad that was ‘If I Were A Boy’, she follows up with another dancefloor banger in ‘Crazy In Love’ fashion, right? Wrong wrong wrong. It’s another ballad, only less affecting, less catchy, generally less. Bad move.

Tilly and the Wall – Pot Kettle Black **

Quite an old song for a single release, but still. This wants to be ‘Standing In The Way Of Control’ mixed with a scuzzy garage riff, like a punkier White Stripes. This means it’s altogether less fun than that silly ‘Beat Control’ single they came out with last term. Except that one and a half minutes in, a juicy fat synth and aerobics shout-out breaks in, incongruous and diverting as a streaker at a sporting event. It lifts the song from dirge to mediocrity. Which is something, I suppose.

Eugene McGuinness – Fonz ***

The wunderkind is back. Like James Yuill or frYars, he’s used to experimenting with the meaning of ‘singer-songwriter’. This time around, he’s decided it means binning the beats, and making like a generic guitar band, circa 2003. Some spectral falsettos and chirrupy lead guitar add interest to the choppy guitars and tight rhythms, making for an impressive enough, lean little song.

Polly Scattergood – Other Too Endless *****

This torchsong begins like Sinead O’Connor’s ‘Nothing Compares 2U’, slowly building with a sultry beats and reverb-guitar arrangement, leaving plenty of space to notice her remarkable elocution. ‘I will always bring you lots of do you good soup because I am kind’, she sings, and you don’t believe her for a second – she’s clearly angry really. And at times the anger threatens to boil over. But it never quite does. The song comes first. Real (or wonderfully acted) emotion. Great dynamics. A naggingly insistent melody. A spiralling climax. Scatter very good indeed.

Something Old, Something New

Various Artists – £3 mp3 albums

Amazon have added a new raft of exceptional deals, from the new Lily Allen album, to the slightly older Santogold, and Burial’s brilliant Untrue. True classics available include Five Leaves Left, but you don’t need me to tell you about that…

Florence and the Machine – iTunes live EP

If you’re fed up of waiting for a proper release, suck on this for size. Less a filling meal than a humbug, it’s a fine temporary stopper from the girl with the biggest gob.

As I said, next week will be better…

Political issues a step too far for OUSU?

By
Ian Bhullar
-

Ian Bhullar

Keble

 

OUSU should not take a stance on political issues and go beyond its purely representative role. This is a common view that has been repeated in opposition to the motion condemning Israel’s attack on Gaza, and it is a view that is simply wrong. I exclude stances on political issues like top-up fees, which aim to improve our lot as students, but this is about students expressing views on things that do not directly affect them. This is what we do when taking issue with the University’s investment policies-a stance that is generally accepted because it relates closely to us as students. Yes, we speak out partly because it affects us, as the University uses the name of our community in support of companies with which we might disagree. But our justification is that we seek to change something bad which is happening because of this body’s actions.
In a similar vein, it is our seeking to change a horrific situation that motivates us to take a stance on Gaza: the starting point is our desire to take action on an external problem, not just the fact that it affects us personally. Issues like Gaza may not have this same direct link to us, but if we have the tools at our disposal to make the slightest difference, then perhaps we are obliged to use them.
Of course, OUSU should represent all its members’ views, and this is difficult when it is engaging in the political arena. One problem we face is of letting a minority feel threatened by the majority’s position.
To this end, especially in a partly identity-based argument like that of Gaza, we need to get facts right and accept that no motion will ever get a consensual response. Even if we think that the issue of Gaza is too complex to bring to OUSU, there are many political issues which will not cause a similar perception of alienation. In the early 1960s the NUS was a major component in the Anti-Apartheid Movement.
The capacity of the combined SUs to motivate a body of concerned citizens is extremely powerful: talk of a students-for-students policy is selfish when there are people who may benefit immeasurably by our collective speaking-out. We have at our disposal a body with the power to make people think about human rights abuses and unethical actions perpetrated by our leaders-and we have a responsibility to use it.

 

Tom Greene

Worchester


Lewis Iwu has voiced his frustration that the majority of students are ignorant of what OUSU does. Whilst some strides have been made to rectify this, OUSU will do itself no favours if it continues to persist with wasting everybody’s time by entertaining political motions. The defeat of the motion to condemn Gaza last Thursday is significant for OUSU’s wider role in student life. The idea that OUSU can act as a mouthpiece for the political opinion of the students of Oxford is absurd.
On an issue as complex as the crisis in the Middle East, a body as diverse as a university will never have a coherent opinion on the issue. If this motion had passed, it is inconceivable that it would have done so unanimously, or in reaching an anywhere near consensual status.
The motion is also practically useless. For all Iwu’s achievements as president of OUSU, solving the crisis in the Middle East will never be one. The obvious counter to this is that there still remains a moral duty to express condemnation of despicable acts-such as those in Gaza. Yet, this moral expression is not- and has never been – OUSU’s role. For instance, the reason that no motion was put forward to condemn September 11th is presumably because it would be inappropriate and high-handed. That St. John’s JCR should be able to make any progress with a problem that fifty years of international diplomacy has failed to master seems to me to be patently ridiculous. However, that judgement aside, there are a plethora of atrocities that OUSU pays no attention to and this is exactly how it should be. If it really is OUSU’s responsibility to condemn every unjust act in the world then Iwu is surely wrong to condemn our confusion on this particular controversial issue-it certainly wasn’t in his manifesto.
My belief that politics has no place in OUSU is not because of the accusation that those opposed are politically apathetic. Organisations exist in Oxford within which debates about Gaza should take place. OUSU should make sure they are not one of them. By ruling out any political aspect to their existence, they could both clarify their role and improve their image. The motion was defeated on Thursday only after 41 different votes on moves to vote; I cannot think of a more pointless way to spend an afternoon.

An Oxford Union

By
Sarah Ventress
-

A Blue, a First or a husband? It’s accepted that you have to get the first two while you’re still at University. The third, you might assume, would develop over time. Indeed, the average age of marriage in Britain has increased by around 5 years since 1961, to 30 for men and 28 for women. However, for some students the reality of having a husband or a wife happens when they are still at Oxford. For couples Jenni and Nathaniel Fenton, and Kathryn and Nathan Burden, the university experience is somewhat different than for the rest of us: for them, student life is also married life.

Jenni Fenton (née Norman) is 22 and met Nathaniel Fenton at the beginning of her second year of Chemistry at Corpus Christi. ‘Nath was going into his third year studying Maths at Mansfield. We were both working for the International Welcome, a Christian Union event, meeting international students as they arrive from the bus station.’

Jenni and Nath began going out soon afterwards, and were talking about the possibility of marriage fairly early on in the relationship. ‘I had just got out of a relationship and wasn’t keen on going into another serious relationship unless I knew it was right,’ says Jenni. ‘All through that Michaelmas term I was praying for guidance about this. But I am a strong believer that there is such a thing as the right person.’

Many people might argue that that’s all very well, but why not wait? Jenni responds that there was no reason to do so. ‘We already knew that we were right for each other, so there was no reason to hold back.’ The couple hadn’t been living together before the marriage, in accordance with their Christian beliefs about pre-marital sex. Did this temptation have anything to do with their decision to marry so young? She acknowledges that ‘the temptations were clearly there, but they were not a factor in us deciding to get married. I had always considered marrying early. My mother married at 22, and in fact, Nath’s younger brother got married before he did.’

Jenni and Nath got engaged a year into their relationship. ‘My parents were delighted,’ she says. ‘My friends were very happy for me. If anyone around college was surprised, no one said anything negative about it to my face.’ They were married in the summer of August 2008, just after Nath completed his studies in Oxford. They now live together in East Oxford, where Nath has a job, while Jenni completes her last year. ‘We live like a proper married couple. As I’m a 4th year chemist, I have a similar 9-5 schedule to Nath, and we both come home to our house in the evening.’ They have joint bank accounts and share everything in their first home.

Jenni feels that marriage has unfortunately become a ridiculed institution in much of society, due to factors like the increasing divorce rate. ‘I find this really sad, because for me, marriage is a real joy. To be committed to someone for ever, through thick and thin, is an amazing thing. Especially as a girl, I think we need security, and marriage is a part of that security. Girls don’t guard their hearts enough.’

While most students spend their second year at Oxford rejoicing in light of a year free of exams and planning ways to get horrendously intoxicated, Kathryn Burden was planning her wedding. She married Nathan Burden at the Royal Marine’s Museum in her hometown of Portsmouth in August 2008. She is 21 and is a Music finalist at Worcester College. Her husband is a year older and is studying Natural Sciences at Reading University. They live together in housing for couples, provided by the university, with Nathan commuting three times a week to Reading.

They met at Christian camp when Kathryn was 15, ‘we didn’t particularly like each other, but for some reason we started talking afterwards… He asked me out a week after my 16th birthday which was funny because my mum had told me not to have a boyfriend until I was 16′. When I enquired more about the role her family played in her decision to marry, Kathryn explained that they were entirely supportive and any reservations they had were resolved when she and Nathan explained why marriage was so important to them. ‘We both were brought up as Christians and our parents placed quite a lot of importance on marriage, for example saving sex for marriage. It’s a gift from God. They just didn’t want it to affect our experience of university life’.

I was eager to understand how Kathryn and Nathan combated the curiosity regarding who they might meet when beginning life at University. She said, ‘we were engaged before we got to university so there was already that stability and commitment, so I guess while there’s always that feeling of not having been with anyone else, other people go through five serious relationships and end up heartbroken so we’re just really happy and grateful.’ Half moved and half freaked out by just how happy Kathryn seems to be, I tried hard to unearth some sort of buried desire she may have to live life like an average student by asking her if there’s a single thing she secretly wishes she could be doing. She laughs and says, ‘not at all, really’. Fair enough then.

The only time I sense hesitation from Kathryn is when we talk about the impact being married has on her social life which of course must be huge. ‘It’s different in that when your friends come to visit you, there’s two of you there. But I go to College every day to make sure I see my friends and it’s just really nice having a house and being able to invite people round for meals’. Upon hearing about Kathryn’s plans, she admits her friends uniformly thought she was crazy, but in a positive way. ‘Obviously, my Christian friends were less surprised than the others and a lot of my friends just aren’t in the same place but everyone gets excited about a wedding anyway and wedding dress shopping is amazingly fun!’

I asked Kathryn if she was ever worried about changing too much during her time at university and the effect that could have on her marriage. She replied, ‘because we’ve been together so long, we know that as long as you communicate, you can work through change. Actually that’s one of the best things about being together so young as opposed to when you’re 30 and already so established in your own life – we’ve got to grow together. He loves the me that’s underneath, inside, and he’s really helped that to come out and encouraged it – I haven’t lost anything, I’ve just gained so much’
Kathryn hopes to be a music therapist and Nathan has applied to do post-graduate medicine, ‘but we’re open to whatever God wants us to do and one day we’d like to have a family. Four children.’ She giggles, adding, ‘and maybe one day we might be missionaries, I don’t know.’ She goes on to say, ‘our passion for God is what I anticipate will keep us together. We both know that God is first in our lives and that we come second so we’re both heading for the same goal and that’s really binding.’ Prompted by the word binding I ask her about her ideas on divorce. ‘It’s not encouraged as you can imagine, but if it was to happen we wouldn’t be outcast. However we look upon it as not even an option. We believe that marriage is for life, it’s an institution that binds in the eyes of God so it is sacred in that way and your commitment to each other is just really important.’

Despite the fact I had met with Kathryn to talk to her about her marriage, the first time I heard her refer to her husband I had to stifle the urge to say, ‘sorry… your who?’ Marriage at this age is an alien concept to most students, though by the time I had finished meeting Kathryn, it seemed a lot less weird. She is in a loving relationship, is fulfilling herself spiritually and was most importantly, really happy. While I cannot help but be sceptical about divorce not being an option, and about the dominating role religion has played, I also don’t feel it is my place to criticise the brave decision of two young people in love who are going to try their best to stay in love forever. ‘Being married is really cool. You get to be with your best friend all the time! And it’s so nice, knowing that if you have an argument it’s going to be fine because whatever happens we’ll always be there for each other.’

Interview: John Redwood

By
Joe Shapiro
-

The Right Honourable John Redwood rises to make his Union speech with infinite confidence. He talks authoritatively, without notes, on the causes of our economic woes. I find it extremely hard to maintain my grip on left-leaning values and not to succumb to his extreme right-wing message. His powerful voice fills every corner of the Chamber with resounding gravitas. Frequently he is interrupted by applause, and occasionally by counter-arguments which are swiftly dealt with. Experts on the opposing side soon stop taking his points of information for fear of looking foolish. This is John Redwood, intellectual giant of Conservatism and one of the founders of the Thatcher revolution.
Speaking to him afterwards, Mr. Redwood tells me that he considers his work as Thatcher’s chief policy advisor as the finest achievement of his career.
‘My greatest triumph was taking privatisation to Margaret Thatcher and finding a leader who had the courage to do it. It has transformed the big industries in Britain in a way which has created lots of jobs and prosperity and it has not been reversed by the Labour government.’
Mr. Redwood has been a Fellow at All Souls and written numerous books on economics. With this in mind I refrain from meekly pointing out the mass unemployment Thatcher’s policies caused, confident that my single year of economics studies will not match up to his decades of expertise. I move on to less contentious ground. As a stalwart of the right for many years – the Yorkshire Post called him the ‘Pol Pot of privatisation’ – I ask what the most formative elements have been in shaping his political views today.
‘Growing up in a country that had been gravely damaged by bad government, high taxes and mistaken leadership. ‘
Mr. Redwood also cites the moment his parents bought their own home and left their council house behind as a pivotal turning point. It inspired him to see to it that others could do the same – hence his influence in Thatcher’s ‘Right to buy’ programme. Despite coming from a relatively poor background, he managed to secure a place studying history at Magdalen. What does he think have been the biggest changes in Oxford since he was an undergraduate in the late sixties?
‘Well I think the culture here is richer, it’s more dedicated to high academic standards than when I was here. That makes it better in many ways and I’m always very impressed by what I see when I come here.’
Struggling to imagine Mr Redwood grinding a drunken path through Shark End, I ask what he did with his free time at Oxford.
‘I tried all sorts of things. I went to a lot of drama productions since I’m a great lover of English literature and English theatre. I helped put on a production at Magdalen. I wrote a bit, I spent a lot of time messing about in boats during the summer. I think I spent every evening out doing something.’
Every evening? Perhaps an odd night out at Risa (or its sixties equivalent) was on the cards then. One might have expected Mr. Redwood to have devoted himself the specious glamour of the Union, the thankless drudgery of OUSU or at least the utter irrelevance of the JCR. But no, like many Oxford-educated political heavyweights – Blair and Cameron among them – Mr. Redwood avoided the greasy pole of student politics like most of us avoid that dancing pole at the Bridge. Perhaps not a good sign for the Holts and Iwus among us. Mr. Redwood had some simple advice for our beloved hacks on how to become a successful politician: ‘Follow your instincts.’ Unless of course your name is Roche, in which case, don’t.
Besides, Mr. Redwood had no need for student intrigue. He launched himself into the real world of politics at twenty-one as Oxfordshire’s youngest ever councillor. Since then he has served as Thatcher’s senior advisor, Secretary of State for Wales and in numerous shadow cabinet positions. He currently chairs a Conservative Economic Committee, yet his views on social policy seem somewhat out of step with Cameron’s Compassionate Conservatism. Since he has voted in support of capital punishment and opposed lowering the homosexual consent age, I ask if he ever feels out of touch with mainstream British society. Our conversation takes a rather sour turn as I get a blank look and a blunt answer. ‘No I don’t.’ An awkward pause before he goes on. ‘I think you’ll find those votes were cast some time ago.’ Yet the death penalty vote only took place in 1994, and the one concerning homosexuals five years later. I sense a distinct embarrassment about his voting record, possibly borne of a reluctance to appear distant from the new Conservative image.
Another aspect of Mr. Redwood’s past which he’d probably rather forget dates back to 1993 when he was Secretary of State for Wales. In a televised conference, he was filmed inaccurately miming the words to the Welsh national anthem. No doubt his subsequent word-perfect recitations were the work of some hasty lessons by Welsh colleagues. His frequent portrayal in the media as one of Star Trek’s Vulcans (a result of his resemblance to Mr. Spock) is understandably not a subject he warms to. When I raise it he responds only that ‘I think the joke’s run rather thin.’

Mr Redwood’s latest book examines the significant decline in Britain of party membership and election turnout. I wonder why students today are generally the most apathetic group in the country.
‘Well I think they got very disenchanted with traditional party politics in Britain for a variety of reasons. I think they feel the parties are too spun – too homogenous and probably don’t have the ability to do as much as they would like to do once they get into power, so students feel let down by them. Students now I think are more interested than my generation in picking up a campaign and working with a lobby group rather than working within the traditional party framework.’
Yet Mr. Redwood is optimistic that the old days of party-based student activism are not over forever.
‘I think you may find that interest gets rekindled and is much stronger in the next general election because with the state of the world economy there are very big issues around that people will want to express a view on. Things may well change.’
A result of that change may well be Mr. Redwood’s party back in government after the next election. Whatever you think of his politics, it would be impossible not to come away from an encounter with this man without feeling deeply impressed by his natural authority, formidable intellect and fierce Conservative passion.

 

Protecting the weak

By
Joe Shapiro
-

Trying hard to avoid my usual slurp, I politely sip my tea from a delicate china cup. Baroness Cumberlege sits across from me, her armchair dwarfing her slight frame and Tory-blue suit. She speaks with a soft yet resolute conviction about her time chairing the Cumberlege Commission. This was set up in 2006 to review the efforts of the Catholic Church of England and Wales in stamping out child abuse by members of the clergy – an issue which has plagued the Church for decades. I am keen to find out what has been achieved, and why such measures were necessary in the first place – one might have expected a holy Church to be free of such horrendous actions.
The stereotype of the paedophile Catholic priest is well known and frequently depicted in the media. A case of a sexual abuse cover-up by the clergy, particularly if the scandal reaches the higher echelons of the Church, is always going to make a good headline. Of course the impression of priests this stereotype gives is highly exaggerated; not every priest is a child abuser any more than every Muslim is a terrorist. Yet the concept of the paedophile priest is not entirely fabricated by a deceitful media. There were twenty-one convictions between 1995-2001. Clearly there is at least a small fire amid all this smoke, and I begin by asking the Baroness why she thinks these problems were not dealt with as soon as they occurred.
‘Well I think in the Catholic Church there’s been something of a dilemma between the issues of forgiveness and how that relates to the consequences of what’s happened. There was a feeling that if you forgave somebody that was the end of the story, without really considering what the consequences were for the individuals who had been abused. Over time there was a realisation that that this is not right, and therefore with great courage the Church said we’ve really got to address this issue. We need training, and indeed now bishops get training in this field, and it needs to be addressed in a comprehensive way.’
The Church has been heavily criticised for the actions of some bishops who simply moved an abusive priest to another parish rather than report them to the police. Such behaviour often resulted in more young victims. Perhaps this permeating tradition of Catholic forgiveness can explain why these bishops acted in this way. Personally I find this hard to accept. Bishops are intelligent men who know that forgiveness is not a substitute for justified criminal prosecution. It seems that the desire to avoid further scandal was the over-riding factor in not reporting priests, and for this a small minority of bishops have a lot to answer for.
A common theory as to why it should be the Catholic Church, as opposed to any other faith, which seems so susceptible to these problems puts the cause down to the required celibacy of Catholic clergy. Does the Baroness think this approach holds the answer?
‘No I don’t. I don’t know about the Jewish or Muslim faith, and whether it’s going on or not, whether they’ve sought to detect it or sought to address it. However I’m afraid it does go on in the Anglican Church. They’ve been confronting these same issues as well but just haven’t been receiving the same degree of publicity.’
The Cumberlege Commission was a follow-up to the 2001 Nolan Report, which suggested a range of reforms to improve the methods by which cases of abuse are detected and prevented. The Baroness’ Commission found that while progress had been made since Nolan, there needed to be a more united, ‘one Church’ approach. Why had this not happened already?
‘Well the Catholic Church has not only diocese (administrative areas) with bishops in charge but it also has a number of religious orders. The last time we counted there were four hundred and twenty different religious orders, and all of them do their own thing to some extent. This presents a challenge in implementing the real consistency that we felt was necessary in policies, strategies and practice when dealing with child abuse.’
Achieving consistency ultimately requires a centralization of the structures used to protect children. Whereas Nolan’s recommendations had often been implemented or not depending on the activism of individual bishops, the Cumberlege Commission wanted comprehensive reform across every diocese. What does this mean in practice?
‘Since we felt that child protection should be at the very heart of the Catholic Church, all that it does and thinks about, we recommended a new organisation – the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission, which would be at the heart of the Church. Sitting on this Commission would be bishops and leaders of religious congregations, but with a lay majority and a highly respected independent chairman. They would set the strategy for protecting children and have a say in disciplinary procedures. In addition to that we suggested that the existing organisation, which is the Council for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults, needed renaming and rebalancing. This wouldn’t do the discipline but it would do a lot of the teaching of people in this area. It would work with the parishes, it’s in the parishes that these problems arise, and we wanted to make sure that there was a real outreach – a spreading of good practice. All the good teaching that needed to happen would be done by this other organisation.’

A very real issue in this whole situation is what to do with priests that have been accused of abuse, but not yet proven guilty. There has been a strong feeling amongst some clergymen that priests have been treated unfairly. Quite rightly they are often removed from their parish after allegations are made, but may then be left in limbo for an indefinite period. Even if the charges are false, the priest’s career may be ruined, forever humiliating him for a crime he did not commit. Naturally the safety of children is paramount, but the Baroness tells me how this should not mean an utter disregard for the lives of (possibly innocent) priests.
‘The last thing we were very determined to do was to ensure that while we respected the needs of those who’d been abused, whose lives had been wrecked, where the trust had been broken, we wanted to ensure that there was fairness to those who’d been accused. We felt that some of the procedures that were different in different diocese were not being fair to priests and indeed the bishops were very worried about that. And so we introduced a review mechanism, openness, transparency, fairness, respecting human rights, a new process, and that has been adopted by the Church. A review has already been called by one of the bishops who just wants to make sure that the priest has had a fair hearing.’

As damaging as the issue of child abuse has been for the Catholic Church of England and Wales, it has been worse for the Church in the United States. The diocese of LA recently paid out $660 million to around five hundred victims of abuse dating back to the 1940s. I wonder if the Baroness thinks a similar gesture would be appropriate in the UK.
‘Well the Catholic Church is working with its insurers to see whether that is necessary. Up to now no compensation has been paid in terms of a monetary settlement.
‘I think one has to think through the consequences very carefully. When we talk to those who’ve been abused they aren’t after money. They’re after recognition of what had happened. They wanted the perpetrators to be sorry for what had happened. They wanted to ensure that it wouldn’t happen to other people.’
Under the watchful eyes of a dozen portraits of old Popes and Cardinals that adorn the walls of the Oxford Catholic Chaplaincy, Baroness Cumberlege speaks of the victims of abuse with boundless compassion. She tells me of a sobering two days on the Commission, when her sole task was to meet these people who still carried the mental scars of their ordeal.
In a thoughtful silence I place my empty china cup on the coffee table. For everyone’s sake, I sincerely hope that the Baroness’ reforms will be effective, and that the Catholic Church can finally close the book on this dark period of its history.

 

Catz up the ante in title challenge

By
Matthew Evans-Young
-

It would be fair to say that both teams approached this game with their minds on different things. Second placed Catz, with three draws from their last 4 league games, needed to get back to winning ways if they were going to put any sort of pressure on runaway Premiership leaders Teddy Hall. Anne’s on the other hand, after a fairly average season by their standards, find themselves languishing mid-table, with any chance of a title challenge
or relegation dogfight long since gone. This may be why they seemed disinterested for much of the match, although they may well have been looking ahead towards their hotly anticipated cuppers semi-final match against St. John’s on Friday.

It was due to this difference in attitudes that Catz ran out as fairly comfortable winners, building their way into the game and dominating in the middle of the pitch. This, coupled with a lacklustre Anne’s performance, meant that although the game never really got going, there was only ever going to be one winner.

Anne’s were clearly suffering from absences in some key positions, notably between the posts. Several times in the opening exchanges goalkeeper Poole showed his inability to deal with even the simplest ball. Their attack also seemed to be relatively one dimensional, with the giant figure of Ed Border providing their main outlet for attacks. The number 9 was dominant in the air for the entire 90 minutes, but just didn’t have the support.

But Catz could also boast their own man mountain up front, in the sizeable figure of McNaughton. The striker looked the most dangerous player on the pitch in the early stages, with surprising nimble feet and an ability to hold the ball up well.

As the half wore on, Catz became more and more assured in their possession, flighting through balls over the top to test the Anne’s defence. It was from one of these that they were finally able to trouble the scorers, with Anne’s failing to track the run of O’Brien, who collected the ball midway inside his opponents half, before calmly slotting past the keeper.

After half time, things only got better for the home side, their movement and passing stepped up a gear, and they moved the ball fluidly from one end of the pitch to the other. Their second goal was a well taken header from Kiln, and from then on it was plain sailing. St. Anne’s, with their minds elsewhere, played out the match with little enthusiasm.

Catz will be pleased with the win. ‘We played them off the park’ enthused O’Keefe-O’Donovan, and they certainly made Anne’s look quite ordinary, which doesn’t bode well for their cup pretension.

New order in cuppers

By
Nick Jardine
-

As the final remnants of an incongruously snowy scene were wiped away and replaced with the more familiar canvas of mud and turf known to Oxford’s rugby pitches, the first round of Cuppers got underway with a match that showed both the beautiful and unsightly side to the game. The splendour on this occasion was provided in spades by a New College side, playing well above their fourth-division status. The ugly element came at the game’s climax, when St Peter’s winger suffered a badly broken leg, a far from fitting conclusion to the spectacle.

Judging from this performance, it is highly appropriate that New are sponsored by Oxford’s grottiest haunt, Bar Risa. With a backline as potent as a quadruple-vodka-coke, and a pack with more beef than a post-club kebab. Peter’s, on the other hand, were ragged and rattled as they struggled to cope with their fired-up and well-drilled opposition.

Cuppers always allows stars of the university side to showcase their talents, and New were notably boosted by the presence of Blues’ fly-half, Ross Swanson. Fittingly, it was Swanson who crashed over for the first score, after a quickly taken penalty on Peter’s five-metre line. His successful conversion was added to minutes later by a coolly slotted penalty, pushing New out into an early ten-point lead. Second-year Swanson is undoubtedly a great strength for the New College side, with his skill as a player and ever-increasing experience from playing with the Blues and previously representing England Under-18s likely to ignite a lift-off through the divisions for New. But this was far from a one man cabaret. New, in their red and black stripes were akin to fifteen Dennis the Menaces, causing all sorts of mischief for their below-par opposition. They soon crossed the white-line again as Shaun Nash broke through an attacking line-out to cap a sumptuously worked set-piece.

A crucial slip in attention meant that Peter’s, wearing shirts as loose as their floundering defence, were punished by winger Owen Gallagher, as he touched down in the corner twice before the break. New, twenty-seven points to the good at half-time, were looking impressive; a different species entirely to their struggling league side.
The second half followed much in the same vein. The hosts, seemingly perpetually camped in enemy territory, saw Nash bundled in for a try by the rest of the swash-buckling forward pack. Minutes later, Swanson, supporting a break-out from defence, turned on the gas, and managed to round two covering defenders.

Sadly, the aforementioned end to the match was undeserved; either for New, or St Peter’s, who despite being far from their best, had shown plenty of pluck and fight; their pugnacious nature often denying their opponents on several potential scoring occasions. New, however, will want to build on this superb performance and demonstrate the same discipline and commitment as the competition reaches its crescendo.

1...2,0872,0882,089...2,447Page 2,088 of 2,447

Explore

Follow us

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2024 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy