Saturday 5th July 2025
Blog Page 214

Purr-fect Pictures: plans to commission Simpkin portraits at Hertford

0

Hertford College is hoping to commission portraits of the late Simpkins in Sub Fusc to be placed in a prominent position in college. The JCR hopes the portraits will be of Simpkin, Simpkin the Second and Simpkin the Third painted in black, with white chests to resemble the academic dress. 

This follows the motion proposed by Jeremy Pirt to Hertford College JCR. His original idea was to have these portraits in Hertford Hall. However this was, Jeremy Pirt told Cherwell, revised in the JCR based on the conclusion that: “Giving a cat the same honour that is bestowed upon former Home Secretaries, leading figures of the reformation, or our modern ‘glass ceiling breakers’, in the words of our [Hertford] principal, would be offensive to those who have earnt the honour.” 

Aside from the dispute over the precise location of the portraits, the JCR reaction to the motion was, according to Jeremy, “generally positive.” He thinks “Most people loved the stupidity of it all.” 

As Jeremy highlights, “There is something ridiculously Oxford about having, not just a college cat (which is silly enough) but a Dynasty of Cats spanning over five decades!” Having portraits of the late members of this dynasty, “would only add to the ridiculousness of it all.” 

After all, the Simpkin dynasty harks back around 50 years to the early 1970s when the first of these notorious felines was introduced to Hertford. According to Hertford’s website “for many decades” Simpkin has now been “one of Oxford’s most loved and most notorious inhabitants.” They have left “their own indelible marks not only on the college, but also the countless students who have managed to find a way of incorporating cat studies into almost every subject offered here!” 

Jeremy Pirt seconds this: “Simkin IV is a much loved member of college life at Hertford, adding to the friendly homely feel of the place. Who can’t love a fat fluffy cat who invades the library to bring cheer when you’ve been stuck on a problem sheet for far too long!!” 

Simpkin and his ancestors are, and have always been, very much a part of Hertford College and its atmosphere. They have a whole section of the College website dedicated to them, with details of their backgrounds, personalities, temperaments and mischievous adventures around Oxford. It is no wonder the College has now turned to portraits too to celebrate their beloved pets. 

Chancellor Patten shares views on the university in speech admitting new Vice-Chancellor

0

Oxford’s Chancellor, Lord Patten, welcomed the new Vice-Chancellor, Professor Irene Tracey, in traditional Oxonian fashion with a speech given on Tuesday morning. Opening with a summary of Tracey’s impressive academic CV, Patten went on to address academic stakes in the state of the national economy, the ongoing Christ Church College scandal, access and outreach at Oxford, and his belief in academic freedom of speech. 

Patten spoke of the “poor lamentable state” of the national economy and the threat it poses for continuing university research. He said that government promises of funding for further education are insufficient and challenged the government’s “likely” prioritisation of post-16 vocational education. Patten’s vision for Britain’s next “skilled workforce” is premised on a university education, so Oxford must “continue broadening access to able students from disadvantaged backgrounds” as well as “early- and mid-career students”. 

The Chancellor also commented frankly on Oxford infighting. Most recently, Christ Church’s mismanagement of £6.6m attracted a warning from the Charity Commission. Patten hopes the warning will be listened to but made it clear that internal college affairs were a “matter for the colleges themselves”. He also addressed financial disparities between colleges that yield “unequal student experience”. Collegiate differences, big or small, fair or not, however, do not lie within the bounds of Patten’s responsibility but instead with the Conference of Colleges, as the Chancellor took care to point out. He labelled “unequal student experience” as “partly a result of history and luck”. 

This “history” was then unpicked by the Chancellor who gave his view on the purpose of an Oxford education. Patten has a productive desire to turn the University’s reputation away from the elitist “Freemasonry of the clever”, as he called it, and towards developing a “wide, diverse academic community”. The wider reputation of Oxford, however, remains in the hands of those who have gone on to national leadership roles and while Patten says it is not “something of which we should be ashamed”, the current government, whose frontbench is rather exclusively 45% Oxbridge-made, has yet to prove the reputation wrong. 

Patten proceeded with his most extensive section which was on the importance of “liberal values” as a guard against being “colonised by a modish political correctness”. For Patten, protecting freedom of speech is the key to avoiding governmental interference in academic, intellectual endeavours. By his ethos, making a university a “safe space, intellectually”, such as the flippantly-referenced campaign to decolonise maths, is to give in to being minions of the government. Though, after twenty years as Chancellor, some would argue that Patten’s own seat in the university has become too much of a “safe space”. After all, as Patten quoted from di Lampedusa’s ‘The Leopard’, “things have to change in order to remain the same.”

Nevertheless, the speech ended with warmth, wishing Professor Irene Tracey the best for her time to come as Vice-Chancellor. It will be interesting to see how closely aligned Patten’s vision is with Tracey’s as she begins her tenure. 

Image Credit: Coco Cottam

Cherwell sits down with Oxford’s first state educated Vice-Chancellor

0

This afternoon, Cherwell met with Irene Tracey, Oxford’s new Vice-Chancellor. Tracey was formerly Warden of Merton College, and was the Nuffield Chair of Anaesthetic Sciences between 2007 and 2019. A “local girl in every sense of the phrase”, she was born in the JR and grew up in Kidlington, just five kilometres from Oxford. With the exception of a two year stint at Harvard Medical School, she has been in Oxford since going up to study undergraduate biochemistry at Merton.

Between 2015 and 2019, she was the head of the Department of Clinical Neurosciences, with a speciality in the neuroscience of pain. Her office in the University Offices contains a drawing from one of her supervisees which refers to her as the “Queen of Pain”. On the contrary, when we meet her she is personable and very funny, keen to set out her vision for Oxford over her seven-year tenure as VC, the de facto head of the University.

She is also the second woman to hold the post, and the first ever former state school student. She said that “I realised how important it was to others that I was a woman in science and in leadership roles. I feel more comfortable embracing that and recognizing that that visibility is empowering not just to women, but to men too, and for men to realise to support women in their careers. 

“Coming from a comprehensive school background, you know, it’s part of what I’ve done. I’ve been always very celebratory about what a great school it was, with terrific teachers. I’m all about the fact that what I want coming to Oxford is the best and the brightest of the students, irrespective of their background, and I’m not going to be biased in any directions whatsoever. I just want Oxford as we know it, and our message to be out there that if a kid feels that this is the environment for them where they can thrive educationally, then they’re not put off by a misimpression or a misrepresentation of what we are. it’s not setting quotas or anything, because that’s not what we’ve done. It’s just mythbusting a little bit.”

Tracey is ascending to the post in a time of vast educational debate over curricula, “wokeism”, and academic freedom. She describes herself as a staunch defender of freedom of speech, saying that engaging with arguments is an essential part of pedagogy: “when we are teaching you your degrees, we teach you how to look and understand that degree from all different perspectives. So naturally you are engaging with different viewpoints, and that’s partly what you’re trying to do and synthesise when you write your essays or when you’re trying to look and deconstruct a problem. And that’s no different than other things you’re going to do outside of your degree in terms of these issues.”

“I’m just focusing on how best we can equip you and prepare you. You’re arriving [in Oxford] not as the finished product. And we’re gonna evolve you to an independent adult out there in the working place, where you can be comfortable with different points of view; you can be really good and comfortable with how you receive criticism and give criticism, because that’s a big part of what you’re going to be doing in your job. This is a big part of what we do as academics.”

Similarly, Oxford’s university museums have faced questions over the repatriation of empire-era artefacts. When asked what role the University could have in these debates, she said “We have to have those discussions with ourselves and with our departments, with those institutions, and with the students. It’ll be something that I’m sure we will discuss going forward. These are very live issues, and they’re really important ones. And again, people will have different views on them, so these won’t be easy discussions or debates to have, but hopefully we can have them in an intelligent, calm way”. 

In a university famed for its devolved collegiate system, Tracey enthusiastically sets out her vision of the role the central University should play in its governance. She says “I believe in this devolved ecosystem. As a neuroscientist, I know what drives human behaviour in terms of how, how the brain works; having a sense of autonomy and control over decision making really drives motivation […] students rightly get very proud of the ownership they’ve got for their particular college. And that’s great, and I wouldn’t want to ever ruin that.”

However, she continues, “we can make some things just a bit more efficient by doing and having more common frameworks – things which would directly benefit students. So common frameworks around how we are supporting student welfare, mental health provision, policies around sexual harassment, all these sorts of things, you know, where we’re all on the journey trying to do it as well as we can.”

Last year, Cherwell reported on the vast inequalities between different provisions between colleges. Tracey told us tackling these imbalances was one of her key priorities, saying that she was “happy to be held to account. we’re not going to do everything in the first year. This is something that’s not just a student issue. It’s for academics too.” [See front page]

For graduate students, this is especially problematic. Tracey pointed out that while the ratio of undergraduate students was about 70% UK students and 30% international, this figure flips in postgraduate studies. She said that to attract the best researchers from around the world, Oxford had to “we’ve got to be able to offer graduate scholarships to every graduate that gets a place here […] our competitors offer full graduate scholarships if you get a graduate place. So we’re gonna lose people if we can’t do the same”

Collegiate inequality becomes ever more apparent when looking at the levels of mental health and disability support available to students at different colleges, particularly with the centralised Disability Advisory Service and the University Counselling Service under increased strain since Covid. Tracey said that “This is a key area for me to focus on. I’m acutely aware. My experience to date as a College head really gave me insight to that in a way I didn’t see as a department head; the colleges are really dealing with a lot of this […] If you’re a student and you’re at a college that can provide extra support, you know, fine, that’s great. But then what about the kid that’s not?

“I’m absolutely aware of the pressures on the services for the staff working them too. Because you know, they want to give a good service, right. And they’re maxed out. So it’s for both sides that we want to get right.”

We’re eventually told that we have one question left; Tracey, in her whirlwind schedule in her first month as VC, has a meeting to get to with the OUP. Asked what her biggest priorities are as head of the University, Tracey says that “in seven years I want to be sure that I’ve been part of making sure that we are still the most attractive place for the best and the brightest students, staff, and faculty to come. And when they do come here, they are operating in a place where they really can have a good quality of working life, but also personal life. Seven years is just about enough time.”

Image Credit: Coco Cottam.

Bernie Sanders, Matt Hancock, and Julia Fox to speak at the Oxford Union in HT23

0

As the Oxford Union enters its bicentenary year, Cherwell can exclusively reveal the highlights of its termcard for Hilary 2023. Ahead of its full release on Friday 13th January, this is what you need to know about the main events.

Bernie Sanders, the United States senator from Vermont, will be speaking at the Union on 25th February. Once a Democrat, Sanders is now the longest-serving independent in US congressional history, but endorsed both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden in their respective presidential campaigns.

Matt Hancock will come to the Union on 2nd February. The former Oxford student was Secretary of State for Health and Social Care during the COVID19 pandemic but lost his job after breaching social distancing rules to conduct an extramarital affair. Hancock’s work towards rehabilitating his image has recently included taking part in the reality TV series “I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!”

Julia Fox, the Italian-American actress best known for her role in the Netflix film Uncut Gems, will speak at the Union on 3rd March. Alongside an accelerating career in the arts, acting, directing, false claims around Fox’s personal life notably led to the coining of Oxford’s 2022 Word of the Year “goblin mode”.

Further notable speakers will include Lindsay Hoyle, Speaker of the House of Commons, and the award-winning actor Natalie Dormer. The Union’s opening address for Hilary will be given by Peter Thiel.

Thursday debates also promise to bring members some highly contested motions this term, with a re-run of the society’s historic King and Country debate set to take place on 9th February. Other debates will be on the topics of Scottish independence and the security threat posed by China, with Michael Gove, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, and Amanda Pritchard coming as notable debate speakers.

Cryptically, the Union has also “hinted” at a special bicentenary debate to celebrate its history as a debating society. Various Union alumni and ex-officers will be invited, with further details to be released closer to the time.

The Hilary ball, on 3rd February, will have the theme “Ice and Fire”, while other socials and events will include a production of “This House” by OUDS in the Union chamber and a collaborations with the Ukraine Society and OxWiB.

The President of the Oxford Union, Charlie Mackintosh, told Cherwell: “I am incredibly proud of the termcard my committee and I have put together over the last few months. I think that this termcard represents the very best of the Union; a huge variety of speakers and events that reflect a great diversity of views and provide countless opportunities for engagement, debate, and discussion. As we enter our Bicentenary year, we cannot wait to celebrate the rich history of the Union and look forwards to upholding free speech for centuries to come.”

The full detail of events on the Hilary termcard will be released at the end of the week.

Dysfunctional: Oxshag to shut down amid controversy

0

In an epic U-turn, the controversial new dating site for Oxford students, OxShag, has chosen to suspend its operation following an abundance of privacy concerns. The website was criticised by students for its database, which consisted of student names, email addresses, and colleges without consent, in order for participants to select up to 20 potential suitors to “shag.”

The creator of “Oxshag” told Cherwell: “Whether or not you choose to believe me, I started this genuinely with the best of intentions. I thought that it would spice up the Oxford casual sex scene (which is underwhelming and/or hard for a lot of people). As a concept, Oxshag isn’t dissimilar from something like Tinder, just a more effective way of matching compatible people together, leading to a more enjoyable experience for everyone.”

“I will admit that I made some poor choices with the initial website, which were not as carefully considered as they could have been and may have been surprising for some. I apologised for this, and after receiving complaints I immediately reworked the website so that you had to opt-in for your name to be listed.”

“But putting it in perspective, your name and college, if not publicly available on the Oxford Search website (which they are for the vast majority), can almost always be found somewhere on the internet. Like seriously, it’s your name and college?! The site was only up for a few hours and the data that was available was seriously unlikely to cause any harm. While this doesn’t excuse the fact that I fucked up, what happened was an innocent mistake that has been blown massively out of proportion.”

“What could have been a fun event has been now ruined by the loud minority. Loosen up a bit, have a laugh, and take life a bit less seriously. I think those who are the most against Oxshag are probably the most in need of it.”

“At the beginning of next term, after a period of reflection (and some more resoundingly mediocre casual sex), I hope attitudes will have changed and I will poll the community to see if people would like me to give this another crack…”

This comes after “Oxshag” received substantial criticism on other student social media forums. The situation with whether or not the site will be reinstated is developing, although the project stated that was initially planned for Valentine’s Day in February. The identity of the creator of “Oxshag” remains anonymous.

Image credit: Oxshag.com

Confessions of a Theatre Kid: Debunking The Myth

The theatre kid: you know them, and chances are you don’t love them. In school they could be found passionately singing Hamilton at the back of the bus or practising choreography for All That Jazz (guaranteed to be too risqué). Their proudest achievement will most likely be the magnum opus that is their GCSE drama-devised piece. Many theatre kids seem like a walking, talking performance, and they beg the question – why are you like this?

More specifically, where did you learn it all from? 

The show-biz-kid is a well-established archetype of 20th century media; musicals such as Sondheim’s Gypsy, which premiered in 1959, focus on stardom obsessed mother Rose, and her daughters whom she raises for a life of stardom. Set in 1920’s America, the story illustrates the interdependence of poverty and performance, detailing the struggles of children given no other choice but to perform in order to feed themselves and their families. This narrative, in which performance is a necessary evil for young people with no other source of income (and their fame-hungry caretakers), was popular throughout the world wars and great depression. In Noel Streatfield’s enduringly charming novel Ballet Shoes (1936) the stage is simply a way to put bread on the table- any side dish of stardom is just a perk, and often framed as a distraction.  

But the genesis of the contemporary theatre kid trope undoubtedly starts with Fame, the 1980 film which captured the imaginations of a generation of future performers. This movie, TV and musical phenomenon cast the young performer in a new role – money was now being given up, all in the pursuit of Broadway glory. The modern theatre kid doesn’t just want stardom, they need it more than air to breathe, and this element of unbridled (at times slightly disturbing) passion is the defining characteristic of our contemporary performing kid. Set in an electric New York and focusing on every brand of performing arts teenager, from uptight ballerina Hilary van Doren (Antonia Franceshci) to all-round star Coco Hernandez (Irene Cara), Fame had something for all. Tamara Rojo, current artistic director of the English National Ballet, remembers in The Guardian the impact the movie and its spin off TV adaptation had on her younger self, training to be a ballerina in a small Spanish town; “It was mind blowing – but it wasn’t true to life.” True to life or not, the theatre kids of fame inspired countless careers, my mother’s among them, and in turn mine perhaps. The irony was not lost on me when, decades later, I was set to perform in the musical adaptation of Fame, now in my fourth year of training at a professional dance school. The cinematic circle had truly been completed. The only catch, perhaps, was that after countless hours of training, years at a boarding school I had begged to attend, and way too many leotards, I had decided to give it all up. Ultimately, the harsh reality of being a theatre adult did not appeal to me anymore. Once I graduated, gone would be the somewhat light-hearted atmosphere of my training- the reality of performing life, the endless cycle of audition and rejection I had grown up glorifying, was something that wasn’t going to wait in the wings much longer.

Distance from my performing persona certainly gave me space to ponder what the theatre kid really is. In a recent conversation with a friend, we talked about our experience at school. She was insistent that we were definitely not the annoying show kids that pop up so often in media nowadays (Netflix’s 2018 show Everything Sucks! went as far as making the drama club into a group of terrorising, Shakespeare-obsessed bullies). I was convinced, however, that we were probably annoying in a different way. As a dancer, your peer in the studio is simultaneously your best friend and your worst enemy, the person whose shoulder you cry on when you don’t get the part- and the person who got the part instead of you. While a mature performer’s first aim should be to work with the people around them, not against them, the doctrine of the theatre kid to pursue stardom above all else often leads us to glamorise toxic working environments. Then again, I’ve never witnessed a ballet class reach Black Swan levels of tension- Darren Aronofsky’s 2010 film is an intoxicating exploration of obsession and competition, but it is worth noting that ballerina Nina Sawyer (Natalie Portman) is more a vehicle for exploring these themes than a universal portrayal of a  dancer’s lifestyle. Think fewer tutu-wearing murder sprees and more side eyes before you’re about to perform a solo, an unpleasant experience but decidedly less deadly.  

Despite my friend’s insistence that no, we don’t fit the mould, surely the essence of the modern theatre kid is inclusion of all? Glee (2009) certainly set out to prove this with the message that not only is show choir a home for all ‘misfits’, it can also bring out the best side of the most unlikely of performers. Having a soft spot for the occasional showtune didn’t automatically turn you into the insufferable twin of Rachel Berry – although one should always be wary of the risk. Despite its now infamous cast drama, Glee’s message, its satire and warm embrace of all walks of high-school loser proved wildly popular, and the show earned 19 Emmy nominations for its first season.

Although I love the show myself (in a manner not dissimilar to Stockholm syndrome) there’s much to find fault with in Glee. The moment that stands out to me as one of the most cringe-inducing is Mr Schue’s proclamation in season 1, episode 7 that “You’re all minorities… you’re in the glee club”. This problematic and relentless framing of the theatre kid as marginalised or an ‘underdog’, while it may be true in some cases, misses the fact that the arts are propped up by privilege. Although people may be fond of calling the theatre kid a loser, in most cases they are a rich and white loser, systemic advantages which vastly outweigh any bout of high school unpopularity. A distinctive plot point which Glee’s early seasons stress is that all these kids are in a boring, poor town in the middle of nowhere, also known as Ohio – yet once college comes around, it’s apparently easy for most of the cast to pack up and move to New York, living an apartment as unrealistically beautiful as Monica’s in Friends.

Although I was fortunate enough to receive a full scholarship for my training costs, many are not so lucky, and it remains seriously worrying how many young people miss out on any contact with the arts because of their socio-economic background, and plot points that gloss over the fact are undermining. The characters in Ballet Shoes may have reluctantly performed to earn a wage, but nowadays you need one to even begin. Pointe shoes can cost over £100, and to even be in a position to buy them in the first place a young dancer must have years of experience, which demands more than just passion- it costs a lot of money or a small miracle. The arts undoubtedly bring people together in inspiring ways, but it’s naïve to suggest that this means social hierarchy and socio-economic disparity are  therefore abolished in the theatre world, although media often falls into the trap of suggesting so.

This blind spot caused Glee to fall short when touching upon the heavier moments of the theatre kid’s life, particularly in its later seasons. The show was fond of dredging up intensely serious topics (from bulimia to suicide), mentioning them for an episode, and then forgetting about them forever after everyone gathered in the auditorium to sing a song which vaguely spoke to the subject matter at hand. Perhaps the most hilarious depiction of performing arts struggles I’ve seen mishandled is in The Next Step (2013)- although it is admittedly children’s TV, even my younger sister would laugh at the scene in which a character is inspired to simply *not be poor* anymore after a dancing angel visits one of her classes. Yes, that really happened.  

What’s next for the theatre kid’s tale? Personally, I would welcome a bit more realism. Of course, it’s always fun to see the over-the-top, flamboyant posse of musical loving kids on screen – but many performing arts-centred tales tend to frame the serious threads of their stories clumsily at best. In shows such as Tiny Pretty Things (2020) complications such as abusive teachers and eating disorders are relegated to side plots, with a sensational murder as the centre piece. In reality, these are the main concerns of professionals working today, especially in the wake of Me Too. The disturbing reality of abuse in the dance industry was made clear in 2018, when the prestigious New York City Ballet company was exposed as harbouring a cesspit of misogyny stemming from its ‘boys club mentality’ that went unchecked for decades. Alexandra Waterbury, the first woman to speak out, discovered a group chat between male members of the company in which they would swap sexually explicit photos of their partners without their consent.  In an industry that prides itself on being so loud, the façade of harmony makes it almost impossible for marginalised voices to be heard.

The reality of a life in the performing arts is certainly not all doom and gloom – a whiff of hairspray sometimes makes me nostalgic for the exhilarating backstage chaos of opening night, the comradery of performing alongside friends after weeks of gladly spent blood, sweat and tears. I would definitely miss the tap dancing, piano playing, ballad belting misfits that pop culture has become so fond of in recent decades if they were to disappear from my screen.  However, perhaps it’s time that the media dedicates itself to unpacking the problems that define the performance industry in the real world, instead of shying away from them. A quick Les Mis rendition in between scenes is always welcome, of course.  

Image credit: Kyle Head on Unsplash

Looking ahead – Cricket in 2023

0


2023 promises to be an exhilarating one for English cricket. As in 2019, fans will be treated to a home Ashes series and in October the return of the Cricket World Cup in India. 

England will arrive in India as double-world champions having conquered the T20 scene in thrilling fashion in November of last year, thanks to a composed knock from test captain Ben Stokes, whose heroics in the 50-over final in 2019 will remain etched in English memories forever. England, as one of the top forces in white-ball cricket for the last few years, will be among the favourites for the title. Emerging stars like Harry Brook backing up the experience of Butler’s squad are a testament to the depth of white-ball cricket in England. 

Standing in their way will be India, buoyed by home fans who will be begging for a repeat of 2011 when Dhoni hammered a 6 to win in front of the adoring fans in Mumbai. However, despite having some of the finest talents to have played the game in recent years, this is a team that has faltered in major tournaments. Suryakumar Yadav, Bumrah, and Jadeja will do what they can to provide Kohli’s apotheosis, but failure in the Asia Cup and demolition by England in the World T20 are signs that this team could be less than the sum of its parts. 

Top-ranked New Zealand will want to avenge the final of 2019, but to do so they will need to continue firing on all cylinders. The Australians have the depth and the firepower, but such traits can leave them with selection headaches and unbalanced teams that falter when the top order doesn’t bring runs. This could, once again, be England’s year. 

Speaking of the Australians, they arrive in the summer for one of the most hotly anticipated Ashes series in memory. After the embarrassment of last winter England are reborn under Ben Stokes and coach Brendon McCullum. Their new approach to test cricket – “Bazball” – has picked the England team up from its dire depths to a stunning run of victories. Their ultra-positive approach has yielded blistering victories and in Rawalpindi, a win that seemed impossible to create out of the most lifeless of surfaces. Everyone has bought into the approach that, whilst carrying risks, has paid off massively. 

In terms of accumulating runs, England bear a potent middle-order; Root, Stokes, Brook, and Bairstow. A decision is needed over the gloves; do they go for Foakes, or use Bairstow, freeing up another spot in the team? The openers show frailties that too often see Pope walking out in the early overs, and the bowling attack needs to see a well-balanced mix of experience and youth. Anderson and Broad should play, but not necessarily together. Robinson has improved dramatically, Wood and the returning Archer bring much-needed pace, whilst Woakes and Potts have wicket-tacking knacks. 

Facing up to “Bazball” with relish are the Aussies, strong as ever under Pat Cummins, having demolished the Windies and South Africa. England’s attack must find an answer to the Smith and Labuschagne question (last time it was knock them out), whilst also dealing with an in-form Head, a developing Cam Green and a scary Aussie attack. Along with the big trio, there are murmurings about Lance Morris, bowler of 95mph rockets. And if Boland comes along, which he surely will, England may well be all out before you can say “Build the man a statue!”.

As with any home Ashes series, it’s sure to be much more exciting than one in Oz. England have a wonderful chance to regain the Ashes. The Aussies have their own style of dominance. Strap yourselves in.

Image: CC2:0//John Sutton via Geograph

Dating site for horny Oxford students slammed for privacy violations

0

A new dating website, “OxShag,” aimed at offering University of Oxford students a “casual shag,” has sparked outrage among the student body. The site has raised data protection concerns for using student information without consent and has since been reported to University of Oxford IT Services.

Prior to a recent change, the dating site worked by asking users to input their Oxford email addresses, and then selecting up to 20 people they’d like to “shag” from a dropdown menu. Privacy concerns arose after the names and colleges of everyone who is on the University of Oxford internal email system appeared on the OxShag database. This included all students and tutors, as well as some mystifying names, including “MCR Bike,” or “Gardens.”  

The information on this database is available within the public domain on the “Searching University of Oxford” website. However, this use of the data is forbidden under section 8(h) of the Ownership, Liability and Use terms which states that it is forbidden to “store personal data derived from the website.” 

This format sparked anger among the student body, with one student telling Cherwell: “What’s so insidious about this situation is the layers of danger there are. This is a public site with the information of all students and staff, which includes freshers who are still minors, people belonging to the asexual or religious communities (I myself am Muslim), past victims of sexual assault now brought into the sphere of their abusers, and staff members (as if encouraging student-teacher relationships is ever a good idea). The thought of people having seen my name and imagined me in a sexually compromising position has left me feeling deeply violated and uncomfortable.”

OxShag told Cherwell: “I didn’t realise people would take issue with having their names and colleges listed, but this was my bad, and I apologise for the oversight. After I received complaints I immediately took the website down and reworked the structure of it so that people’s names aren’t publicly available.”

OxShag have changed to an “opt in” system, where participants first enter a “sign up” stage where they are encouraged to enter potential suitor’s Oxford’s email address. That person is then sent a “generic email” letting them know that someone has requested they sign up. Then, the participant can select up to 20 people from those who have signed up.

After the matching deadline, the site will then notify participants of how many matches they received. The site will only send out notifications of successful matches, so non-mutual matches will not be disclosed. Participants must then pay a fee of £1 (reduced from £3) to receive the names of mutual matches, which are set to be sent out on Valentine’s day. 

Some students have insisted that the change has not gone far enough. Another student told Cherwell: “Even though they’ve updated the website so you can only see names of people who have opted in, that information was still shared originally without our knowledge or consent and that could be leaked by the creator.”

Furthermore, the current system could still be a threat to data privacy. For example, a potential data breach could occur if the data was accessed by an unauthorised third party. This is a real concern for some students given that at present, the identity of the creator of OxShag is unknown. 

One distressed student told Cherwell: “OxShag is inherently a nightmare in multiple forms. Not only is it a GDPR nightmare, because one sole person has claimed to gather a digital empire, and then use it against its students, but it is also a welfare problem. None of the students gave their consent to this forum, and it is cruel to profit off of this in this way. It feels manipulative.”

Despite the GDPR concerns, the creator has outlined the ways in which data will be used on the OxShag website: “I (the creator) have access to all selections. I need this to match people together. However, the matching process is done with code and I will not individually look at who anyone selects. Your data is stored in a Google Drive and will not be shared with anyone. All information will be deleted once Oxshag has finished.”

Image Credit: oxshag.com

Christine McVie: Fleetwood Mac’s rock ‘n’ roll romantic

0

I had just hit send on my English coursework (three cheers, finalists) when I got a text from my brother consisting solely of a screenshot of a news headline. Christine McVie, Fleetwood Mac’s vocalist, keyboard player and longest-serving female member, had died that day. 

As an unashamedly passionate Fleetwood Mac devotee (recently informed of this fact once again by Spotify Wrapped), and knowing far too much about the lives of its members as well as their music, this one hit home. As I write, I’m glancing up occasionally at a picture of Christine I’ve cut out from a newspaper and temporarily stuck on the wall. Striking eyeshadow, platinum-blonde 80s hair and a suave smile: there she stands in all her glory. 

Fleetwood Mac has a long history, its style ever-evolving and musicians coming in and out. By far their most well-known lineup, comprising Mick Fleetwood, John McVie, Christine McVie, Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks, recorded and performed periodically from 1975 until 2018. A union forged in musical heaven, the harmony of the members’ creative relationships simply could not carry across to their romantic ones. It was amidst breakups, bitterness and boozing that the iconic Rumours exploded onto the scene. Frequently hailed as the greatest breakup album of all time, its eleven tracks weigh heavy with grief, rage, triumph and yearning, bearing an emotional energy that has resonated with millions. Though many see the saga of Stevie and Lindsey’s broken relationship as the backbone of the album, the songs of Christine McVie shine just as brightly. Charged with hope and joy, aching with romantic wisdom, they are the songs of a woman who has lived and loved. 

Christine McVie held the band together. She often appeared the calmest and most aloof onstage and in interviews (and also, I hasten to mention, one of the best wearers of jeans out there). She wrote and performed an enormous variety of songs, from gut-stirring ballads that made John and Mick weep offstage (see Songbird below) to heart-soaring, earworm-worthy promises of a better tomorrow (Don’t Stop). Her low, lilting, silky contralto was the perfect complement to Stevie’s guttural rasp and Lindsey’s higher-pitched vocals, but also moved listeners as a solo voice, and continues to do so. 

Christine was surrounded by music from an early age. She was classically trained, discovered the blues through a Fats Domino song, and in 1967 joined the band Chicken Shack. Meanwhile, another blues band, signed to the same record label, was touring: this band was Fleetwood Mac. Christine met the bass player, John McVie, and they married in 1968. In 1970 she joined Fleetwood Mac as its first female member; five years later the band welcomed struggling LA-based musicians Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks after losing their guitarist, Bob Welch. This Anglo-American mix of male and female talent had rarely been seen in rock and roll. Fleetwood Mac was definitely on the way to stardom. 

However, being in the same band together meant that the McVies’ marriage had begun to fray. In a 2019 BBC Four documentary entitled Fleetwood Mac’s Songbird – Christine McVie, Christine confessed the difficulty of this period in her personal and professional life. ‘To write songs about each other and perform them. How it ever happened I’ll never know.’ 

While Lindsey and Stevie’s tempestuous relationship famously continued to fuel their music for decades after Rumours, Christine wrote and performed in a manner more subdued and restrained, but never short of masterful. Her elegance, poise and sense of fun resonate in every song. From her earliest work her individuality and vocal skill is evident, including her (sadly unsuccessful) solo album Christine Perfect (1970). Though I believe that every one of Christine’s songs are deeply worth their while, I’ve picked out just a few: an ensemble I think captures the range and depth of emotion and talent. 

I’d Rather Go Blind (Chicken Shack, 1969) A cover of Etta James’s ballad. At 1:28, turn it up: you’ll hear magic.

Keep on Going (Fleetwood Mac, Mystery to Me, 1973) Although this bassy number was composed by guitarist Bob Welch, Christine was the lead vocalist. Funky, bluesy, nonchalant, she’s gonna keep on the way she’s going. 

Over My Head (Fleetwood Mac, Fleetwood Mac, 1975) Fleetwood Mac’s first album with its new lineup reached No. 1 in America. Slow and smooth, accompanied by a gentle but complex guitar line.
Your mood is like a circus wheel
You’re changing all the time
Sometimes I can’t help but feel
That I’m wasting all of my time.

‘You Make Loving Fun’ (Fleetwood Mac, Rumours, 1977) Buoyant and zestful, Christine wrote this one about Fleetwood Mac’s lighting director, Curry Grant, whom she was seeing after her breakup with John. 

Songbird (Fleetwood Mac, Rumours, 1977) Hear the first few chords and your surroundings are guaranteed to melt away. The band usually saved ‘Songbird’ for the encore, leaving Christine alone onstage with a grand piano. She said that the song, words and all, came to her in the middle of the night, and in the absence of recording equipment she had to stay up playing it until morning so she wouldn’t forget it. 

Got a Hold on Me (solo, Christine McVie, 1984) 

I’ve been in love
And I’ve lost
I can count the tears
But I can’t count the cost.

Reminiscent of the positive, forward-thinking hits of Rumours, this solo venture is an absolute joy. 

Everywhere (Fleetwood Mac, Tango in the Night, 1987): Twinkly and sparkly, this is one everyone knows. I’d recommend listening to the version from the band’s live album, The Dance (1997), in which Christine works musical magic with her voice and three maracas. Bouncing to the beat is a given. I’ve put a link here for convenience. Go on… 

After The Dance concert, Christine left the band and moved to Kent. She performed onstage with Fleetwood Mac a few times afterwards, finding that the quiet life perhaps didn’t suit her after all, as she admits in the documentary. Fleetwood Mac was her band, and she was its beating heart. In a statement issued after her death, the band called her “the best musician anyone could have in their band and the best friend anyone could have in their life.”

For you, there’ll be no more crying 
For you, the sun will be shining.”
(Songbird

Christine McVie, 1943-2022

Image credit: Raph_PH/CC BY 2.0 via Flickr

“A thrilling look into disjunctive relationships”: Fêtid Review

Following their debut production last term, a gripping rendition of Jez Butterworth’s Mojo, Nocturne Productions have come back with as much flair as ever with their new dark comedy thriller Fêtid, written and directed by Max Morgan and performed at the Michael Pilch Studio in 6th week. Serving up a delicious concoction of dysfunctional families, dark humour and exquisite, home-grown courgettes, Fêtid takes us into a world where vegetables are perversely valued above human relationships as the residents of a village get ready for their annual fête.

The opening of the play, when the characters quietly tend to their respective allotments accompanied by a gentle guitar serenade from Faye James, affords an idyllic image of pastoral life in a countryside town. This is very much the calm before the storm; we quickly discover from the first few scenes of the play that this rural simplicity and the residents’ initially endearing concern for their allotments actually hides a more disturbing reality, wherein relationships are deteriorating, tensions run high, and most of the town is unhappily decaying like an uprooted vegetable.

Will Wilson’s set appropriately transformed the Pilch into an allotment, complete with a green turf laid across the floor, and a wooden shed at the back of the stage, with mellow lighting contributing to the ostensibly peaceful mood of the town. In the second part of the play, an aged scarecrow of sentimental value to the townsfolk is placed inside the shed, peering eerily out at the audience as though to say that the town’s golden days are long gone.

The 8-piece cast is stellar in their portrayal of their characters, and the interactions between them, rife with bubbling tension, are compelling to watch. Lily Carson as Sue and Juliette Imbert as Polly both aptly and energetically portray women who are not afraid of confrontation, stressed in equal measure by the organisation of the upcoming fête, and by the upheaval in their family lives.

Tom Pavey delivers a natural performance as Jim, Polly’s ex-husband, skilfully making the audience doubt his intentions towards his partner Yvette (Edie Critchley). Likewise, Critchley is apt in her depiction of the anxiety of the ‘other woman’, as her attempts to keep herself steady disintegrate into feverish doubt.

A highlight of the play was the warmer, more intimate conversation between Anna (Avania Costello) and Chris (Milly Deere) about Chris’ parents, Jim and Polly, and their youth, which provided a welcome exchange of real tenderness and understanding amidst the turmoil of the other relationships. Costello as Anna provides an element of maternal compassion towards Chris, soft-spoken in her delivery and gentle in her demeanour. Deere expertly handles the role of the angsty teen, playing by turns an insolent daughter and a girl who is genuinely affected by the continuous strife between her parents, managing to keep the audience sympathetic towards her.

Reverend Leaky, played by Samuel King, is particularly entertaining, functioning as a figure of comic relief throughout the play with his unhelpful mediatory interjections. Indeed, the smattering of jokes within the dialogue makes the play watchable and entirely engaging; it steers itself with ease away from the trap of becoming too bleak, maintaining a level of light-heartedness alongside the handling of more serious themes.

Cormac Diamond’s performance as Mark is a paradigm of this balance. He convincingly moves between enthralled fascination with his vegetable patch to inebriated clumsiness and rage; the audience is both amused and repulsed as he drunkenly utters sweet nothings to his “hand-cultivated” courgettes. Mark’s fondness for his vegetables is uncomfortably sensual, whilst he is noticeably less attentive towards his wife Sue, who laments that Mark’s “entire world orbits around the f*cking cucumbers.”

Whilst the play’s most violent moment, Polly’s attack on Jim, is effectively climactic, it felt slightly rushed; a longer build-up to this act of violence would have been more fitting, to better develop Polly’s motivations and thought process in the seconds before she strikes. Nonetheless, the repercussions of Polly’s act are palpable and poignant, causing Jim’s memory loss and serving as the catalyst for Chris’ permanent departure from the town. 

With Yvette having left as well, it appears that relationships, between partners, parents and children, have disintegrated beyond repair – except for Jim and Polly, who, in a twisted way, seem to have grown closer, with Jim blissfully unaware of Polly’s attack on him. The explosion of the shed – scarecrow and all – in a haze of simmering red light is an effective symbol of the destructive instability of the townsfolk’s relationships with one another.

The play’s ending leaves us wanting to know what is to become of the residents of this town. One thing is for sure – their vegetables will continue to be well-tended, no matter how neglected their personal lives may be. The play’s final line, Jim’s suggestion to Polly that “we could replant this [onion], I reckon” brings home the idea of the villagers’ misplaced priorities; in the face of their unravelling lives, they can only hope to desperately keep control over the one thing they can – their vegetables. Morgan’s multi-faceted script offers a combination of dark comedy and depth which keeps the audience consistently intrigued. The interactions between characters are handled sensitively and perceptively, and the actors bring this script the nuance and energy it deserves, making Fêtid a thrilling look into disjunctive relationships and the impact they have on those affected.

Image credit: Coco Cottam