Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 2193

Tansey cancels Langham invite

By
Sian Cox-Brooker
-

 

 Union President Ben Tansey{multithumb}
 
Oxford Union President Ben Tansey has withdrawn the Union’s invitation to disgraced television actor Chris Langham, claiming that he doesn’t want “needless controversy.”

Tansey had previously defended the decision to invite Langham after coming under criticism from the child protection charity Kidscape.

Langham had been invited to speak at Frewin Court on 29 May to discuss his ‘vilification’ in the media. The BAFTA-winning comedy actor is best known for his performance in BBC Four comedy “The Thick of It”. He was jailed for ten months at Maidstone Crown Court last September after being convicted of 15 counts of downloading images of children, some of whom were as young as eight.

He spent three months in prison but was released on appeal in November.

Tansey said that he had “literally spoken to hundreds of people to gauge their thoughts on Chris Langham speaking at the Union,” and that the issue had been “considered seriously”.

He added, “we’ve put together a great termcard, the committee has worked very hard to make it an exciting term and we do not want any needless controversy. We do not want dissidence to take over the forum.” He described the decision as a “purely functional” one.

Tansey had previously been criticised by child protection agency Kidscape who called the invitation a “publicity stunt” and “very disappointing”.

However, Chief Executive Michelle Elliot has now commended Tansey for his decision. She praised the way the Union had “looked at the arguments surrounding the invite, reconsidered the issue and were not afraid to admit that they made a mistake.

“It is very interesting, as Kidscape had never called for the Union to revoke the invitation.”

She continued, saying that it was “important for victims of such crimes that the perpetrators are not given a platform to explain or justify their actions for their own ends and means.
 
“Hallelujah for common sense!” she added.

Earlier Tansey had defended the original decision to invite Langham. He said that the invitation had not been extended for the publicity value but for the debate the talk would provoke. He stressed that he had never intended for the speech to be a chance for Langham to justify his conduct.

He said, “it’s not going to be a platform for him to turn up and defend his actions or to make his conviction out to be something else. We understand that he is a [criminal], he has gone to jail – he has done that.”

Tansey had explained that the debate would be dealing with the judicial system and its role in society, “a principle of liberal democracy, where once you have done your time you are absolved. At what point do we turn around and say [to criminals who have served their time], ‘Yes, you are member of society again’?”

He added that he thought that the vilification of sex offenders in society was an interesting point for debate, but stressed that he had had reservations about the debate from the beginning due to the message it might send out to those affected by the issue.

Despite the cancellation, he said, “the debate itself and the reasons itself for the invite are valid and I think people do recognize that.”

Several students have expressed disappointment over the cancellation of the invitation. One Christ Church historian, who wished to remain anonymous, questioned the Union’s decision, saying, “I understand the controversy surrounding the issue and the fact that the Union do, eventually, have to take a stand over something, but I feel that they have tried to make their point over the wrong issue.”

He suggested that the time to revoke a Union invitation would have been more appropriate two terms ago and questioned whether downloading child pornography is morally worse than being a Holocaust denier.

However, Tansey said that the press reaction to the invitations extended to Nick Griffin and David Irving last year influenced his decision. He said, “having looked at Luke’s term in Michaelmas, we have learned that not all PR is good PR. We obviously did think about the message this invitation was going to send.”

Chris Langham could not be reached and his agent has refused to comment on the matter.

Oxford tops league table again

By
Henry Clarke Price
-

Oxford University has come top of The Good University Guide’s national league table for the sixth time in seven years.

 

Vice-Chancellor John Hood said: "Oxford’s top position is the result of the commitment and enthusiasm of our outstanding scholars and students, assisted by committed administrative and support staff."

 

The University also came first in the subject tables for Geology, Middle Eastern and African Studies, Music and Politics.

 

More from The Independent

Varsity heartbreak: interview

By
Jack Pitt-Brooke
-

 

 

 

 

As impressive as Oxford’s fighting spirit was, it only made defeat harder for
the first year Queensman, who said "it was gutting to lose having come back
from behind three times, especially after we had a period at 3-3 where we were
dominating". It took Oxford a while to find their feet, something Kelly
attributes to inexperience: "The fact that eight out of our starting eleven
were making their Varsity debuts probably accounted for our nervous start, but
after we settled down we played some good football".

 

Kelly played on the left wing, where he impressed with his vision and passing
range, scoring Oxford’s second equaliser. He declared himself "thrilled to get
a goal", but made clear that the team was most important to him.

 

Despite this year’s dissapointment, Kelly is confident for 2009’s Varsity match,
saying: "as Martin [Keown, OUAFC coach] pointed out after the game we’re only
losing two or three of the squad of sixteen next year, so we should come back a
much stronger and more experienced side next year having taken part in this
game."

Remote-controlled love song

By
Liz Bennett
-

An Oxford scientist, Professor Gero Miesenböck, has made female flies produce the male courtship song using remote brain control.

 

The brain control techniques, which Miesenböck pioneered 3 years ago, use a laser to trigger certain actions. The ‘song’, which flies make by vibrating a wing, is never produced by females, so the findings indicate an astonishing similarity in male and female fly brains.

 

“Anatomically, the differences are so subtle,” Miesenböck told the Telegraph, “How is it that the neural equipment is so similar, but the sexes behave so differently?”

 

Researchers suggest that fly brains may have a ‘master switch’ that determines male or female behaviour.

Stepping back from the bitchy brink…

By
Aldate
-

It looks like a new lease of life is to be breathed into Oxford Media Society this term, with a couple of good speakers already lined up in the form of John Witherow (Editor of the Sunday Times) and Nick Davies (of Flat Earth News fame).

But it’s going to have to host something a bit more exciting than speaker meetings if it wants to distinguish itself from the Union et al. Aldate would like to see workshops in law, new media, and perhaps even regular shorthand classes.

 

Imagine how thrilling* the OxStu/Cherwell rivalry could become if it were extended to competitive speed writing…

 

 

*insert pinch of salt here 

A castle in the air

By
Roberta Klimt
-

 

‘Some day my prince will come,’ may have been Snow White’s anthem, but it is a fair assumption that at least some rather more earth-bound ladies share her sentiment, if not her falsetto warble.

We may not all be on the brink of empoisonment by a snaggle-toothed old crone with a shiny red apple, having escaped from a woodsman who’s told us to come and frolic in his glade while actually intending to cut our heart out and feed it to our psychotic step-mamma – but there are elements of life from which everybody feels they need rescuing, and it is an all-too-compelling prospect to think that a fine-looking member of the opposite sex, spring in his step and song in his heart optional, will be the one to do that. 

This does seem to be the central tenet of most fairy stories, and even Hans Christian Andersen or the Brothers Grimm’s darker offerings far more often than not take as their premise the existence of true love, albeit fatal on occasion, between characters.  So when we hear the phrase ‘fairytale romance’ it might be worth asking ourselves if its use to describe an affair between two human beings just the preserve of the unrealistic and excessively imaginative, or might it actually hold sway in this day and age too?

  While not all of us may subscribe to the views of the embitteredly entitled Facebook group ‘Disney gave me unrealistic expectations about love’ (I prefer ‘The Beast can lock me in his tower any day’, but call that a personal perversion), few of us can claim utter immunity to the allure of a handsome prince galloping up on his steed (or, like, his bicycyle) to save us from whichever piece of adolescent angst we happen to be suffering at the time.  Of course, Disney princesses usually have slightly more than essay crises to worry about – whether their dress will be pink or blue, for instance, or whether their mousy friends will be able to make their ball gown to the design’s exact specifications – and their princes are consequently more heroic, but the impulse is the same.

We shy away from it, probably (or at least those of us not looking to be roundly condemned for ignorance and misogyny might do) but it is a blessed thought to be able to abdicate responsibility even for a time, and to know that if we happened to prick our finger on the spindle of, say, a particularly sneezy kind of cold, then our very own Prince Philippe might charge up to our staircase with some Lemsip and maybe, if we’re extra lucky, a tuneful rendition of ‘Once Upon a Dream’.

That said, there are those who quite straight-facedly condemn Disney for the relationship paradigms with which it presents us, and would say the same of any fairy tale, for that matter, which might strengthen the idea of a damsel in distress needing to be rescued.  Attempts have been made in recent years to redress this, we can see from films like Shrek or the recent, brilliant, Enchanted, and to show heroines just as gutsy and capable as any of their paramours might be.  In fact, both Shrek’s and Enchanted’s handsome princes are sappy fops, whose courtly blandishments and gilded attire make them less capably chivalrous than risibly girly.

But this is not really progressive so much as it is pretending to be so, because all that both of these films do is then provide us with another hero, yes less conventionally attractive, but no less worthy of the heroine’s love nor less capable of saving her, and then propound the message that it’s what’s inside that counts.  But I cannot have been the only one who was disappointed at the end of both Shrek films when the ogre and ogress passed up the chance to be transformed into humans, and look not only absolutely normal, but actually quite hot.  I can’t help but think that this means we would rather fairytales were not too updated, did not too unequivocally redress the age-old premise that, as one of my friends assures me, there’s a lid for every pot.

Possibly the most instructive, and one of the most touching, fairy tales has to be Beauty and the Beast.

Whether you prefer the fuller, and more disturbing, original legend (Belle has sisters?  And a back-story?), or the film version (and I maintain no cinematic experience matches the glee one feels at hearing a couplet such as – ‘She glanced this way, I thought I saw, / And when we touched she didn’t shudder at my paw!’), this story is both romantic in that slightly shameful, bordering-on-the-excessively-patriarchal way, and a genuine lesson for us all.  Belle has brown hair (not to impugn those naturally blonde fairy tale fans), she likes reading, she’s got sass, and it’s her capacity for pity and love – neither of which are intrinsically girly qualities – which means she chooses to stay Chez Beast and save her father from imprisonment.  When Gaston blunders his way onto the scene (don’t get me wrong, he’s amazing too, with such lines as, ‘I’m especially good at expectorating…’), we are struck by his inelegance when compared to the Beast, his lack of intelligence and sensitivity, even though of the two of them, he is not the one with horns, fangs and a dubious quantity of body hair.  Oddly, then, the Beast is both Belle’s heart’s victim and its torturer, her rescuer and the person from whom she needs to be rescued, and someone she saves as much as ever he saves her; and this is probably a far apter evocation of most modern-day relationships than any of us might initially think.

Women may not always wear the breeches in fairy tales, but there is no harm in a modern gal delighting in the froth and frippery of it all – especially not when the real world has thus far failed to furnish you with a prince of your own…

Magdalen reaffiliate to OUSU

By
Henry Clarke Price
-

Magdalen College voted by 98 votes to 28 on Tuesday to reaffiliate to the student union.

 

The college has been disaffiliated since Trinity Term 2007. 

Happily Ever After…

By
C2
-

Dig out your fairy tales and dressing up boxes and let your imagination run wild with silks, sequins and props fit for a princess to make your loveliest dreams come true.

Photographers: Derek Tan and Daniel Rollé
Stylists: Kate Shouesmith, Xaria Cohen and Sam Bradley
Models: Roseanna Frascona, Miranda Gilbert and Eliza Preston

Dress by Coast £125

Cardigan by Zara £39, Scarf by Accessorize £12

Mask by Celebrations £4.99

Dress by Debenhams £50, Skirt (on as cape) Whistles £89

Dress by Monsoon at Bicester £35

 

Gay gay gay

By
Peter Bowden
-

 

Gay gay gay. Gay, gay, gay, gay, gay. Are you listening yet? Are you laughing so hard your ribcage is blasting itself into splinters over passers-by, like a mirthly nailbomb? No? I’ll repeat it. Gay, gay, gay.

 

In a poll taken of 500,000 twats last Wednesday, the word ‘gay’ was voted the funniest thing in all our pungent world.

If I sound bitter, it’s deserved. Next week I’m replaced by a duck, because they’ve taught it to type ‘gay’ for crumbs. Satire’s dead, they said. What people want these days is ‘gay’ in spangled spades. For my new job, I’m reluctantly redubbing Woody Allen’s Manhattan, with every third word as ‘gaylord’ (the other two: ‘you’re a’). Oh, and the Empire State building’s replaced by a whopping great pink cock. In tights. I wrote to Channel 4 with a show idea: I’d come on stage for two hours wearing a tiara, and a sandwich board with ‘GAY’ in foot-high letters. They said thanks, but no thanks. Wonderful idea, they replied, but Alan Carr already does that weekly. Maybe you could add a bra?

A friend leaves themselves logged into Facebook. Ten minutes later, everything about them is ‘gay’. Status: they like bumhole! They’ve founded the ‘I like bumhole’ society! They’ve invited us all to a ‘massive gay orgy’! Because gays like bumholes! And gay is funny, geddit?

I’m not in the business of indiscriminate insults, but sometimes I get angry. So here goes: if you do this, there is literally zero justification for your lives. This is not a joke. You are a walking argument for abortion – not just that, but for extending the time limits to, oh, thirty years? Forty?

Let me make my point now, so then I can berate you further. On a scale of comedy, ‘gay’ is as cutting-edge as a blunt dodo. Irony is no excuse. When you use it, what you’re saying is ‘I’m a gurgling, witless tosser with a pre-natal sense of humour’. I’d give both eyes for a GPS box-cum-suicide-belt that popped when these people entered the postcode. You probably think I’m still joking; I’m not. This column: no joke. Seeing them locked in a coffin full of bees, and cannoned into the sun? I’d laugh.

I’m all in favour of free speech, just like I’m in favour of the freedom to drive a car. But I’m not in favour of the freedom to drive cars into skipping schoolkids. By the same token, freedom of speech ends the moment it’s used by idiots. We need a new system, but IQ tests just won’t do it. So next week: the duck. Gay, gay. Gay, gay, gay. Gay. Laughing yet? Die the fuck off.

The power of 10: Liveblogging Pennsylvania

By
Billy Kenber
-

02:49 – Popular vote | 42% in and it’s 55-45 Clinton. Lots of
discussion about the popular vote. Due to the way in which delegates
are distributed it is all but impossible for Hillary to catch up with
Obama in the delegate count and so catching up in the popular vote is
her only hope. The problem here is that there is some doubt over which
votes count. Michigan (where Obama wasn’t even on the ballot) and
Florida were both stripped of their delegates for moving their
primaries before February 5, but it is very much in Clinton’s interest
for these votes to count. One point that is worth bearing in mind is
that even if after tonight (and including those 2 heavily disputed
states) Clinton manages to move ahead in the popular vote it will still
be very difficult for her to stay there after the nine remaining
contests.


02:37 – Trust | In a sign that the Bosnia scandal might have
hurt Senator Clinton more than has really been acknowledged, Fox has
some interesting data on the issue of trustworthiness. Just 56% of
voters polled in today’s primary believe that Clinton is trustworthy.
That’s against Obama’s figure of 68%. On the subject of recent attacks
Fox reports that the majority of Voters blame Clinton for ‘unfair
attacks’ and most of those voted for Obama – no data on that though.
Finally 25% of Democrats who voted for Clinton tonight don’t think she
will be the Democratic nominee. Just 5% of Obama’s supporters don’t
think he will succeed in Denver at the national convention. Hillary is
leading 55-45 with 31% of the vote in.


02:27 – Speeches | There’s a bit of doubt at the moment as to
who will speak first this evening. Traditionally the loser goes first
but Obama is currently on a plane to Indiana which would make that a
little tricky. Hillary is reportedly scheduled to speak just before
10pm eastern (ie. in time for the evening news).


02:20 – Ending it | How can Senator Obama win this? That’s the
question the analysts are currently pondering. According to one
Democrat analyst Obama should have been more negative in his attacks on
Hillary: I quote, he should have ‘taken a bat to her head.’ The
problem with negative attacks is that they push up the negatives of
both candidates. The bigger issue is whether this will matter in the
November. Will negative attacks now come back to haunt candidates
later? Essentially no-one is sure though the pundits are tending to
take the view that candidates shouldn’t be too worried about November
in terms of their negatives now.


02:09 – McCain | According
to Fox News the McCain camp has released lashings of praise on Hillary
for her victory in Pa. Clearly Republicans are happy to see the
Democrats keep going at it, leaving McCain free reign to start his
general election campaign unscathed. There’s no doubt that the long
Democratic primary season has harmed both of the remaining candidates
with slides for both in polls against McCain in a general election
match-up. The recent negative tone of the attacks between the two
canndidates hasn’t helped matters either.

However, it is easy to
read too much into this. There’s no doubt that when the Democratic
Party finally picks a nominee he, or she, will recieve a bounce in the
polls. With the general election so far off at this point projected
match-ups against McCain have limited use and the real cost of this
prolonged nomination contest won’t be clear until general election
campaigning really gets going. For the moment however there is no doubt
that McCain is happy to let the two candidates attack each other.

With 10% of precinct results in Hillary leads 55-45.


02:04 – CNN | In
a slightly amusing sidenote the rally for Hillary in Pa. has CNN on, a
network which hasn’t yet called the state for Clinton, and so there’s
no celebrating there yet.


01:56 – Tumbling numbers | With 5% of the raw vote now in Hillary is now leading 53% – 47%. MSNBC have joined Fox News in calling Pa. for Clinton.

Over at Politico.com Ben Smith has posted
an early bit of spin from the Clinton campaign. They’re pushing the
suggestion that Barack should have delivered a knock-out blow given his
financial dominance and delegate lead, and the fact that he hasn’t is
an indication that he would struggle in November in the big states.
This is a line which Hillary surrogates are already pushing on the
cable networks and is something we’re likely to hear more of in the
next few weeks.


01:46 – Fox News calls | Murdoch’s
network has called for Hillary. Of course it’s the margin that matters
so don’t go to bed just yet. Still less than 1% of the vote in so
the call is on the strength of exit poll numbers.


01:36 – Horse race | Fox
have relucantly given their top line number – Hillary is leading by 6
points in their exit poll. But, they note, they are ‘very worried’
about the numbers and in the past Barack has done better in exit polls
than in the final numbers. If that’s the case it could be a good night
for Hillary. And finally some raw vote numbers: with less than 1% in
(literally about 2,000 votes) Hillary is winning 67% to 33% for Obama.


01:27 – Top line numbers | In
an unusual move Fox News are refusing to release the top line numbers
from their exit polls claiming that it would be misleading to viewers.
They certainly have a point. Fox exit polls predicted a Barack victory
way back in New Hampshire and the network was left looking silly by the
end of the night. Drudge continues to report figures of 52-48 to
Clinton. Oh, and I should probably add that John McCain has won the
Republican primary. Of course, everyone else on the ballot dropped out
of the race over a month ago.


01:23 – Finance | Still
no results so there’s time to consider one of the big factors that
Hillary will need to address in the next couple of weeks. Money. In the
last month Obama has spent $30m against Hillary’s $20m but the overview
is even worse for Clinton. Her campaign is $10m in debt while Obama has
a larger warchest for future weeks. If she’s going to keep going she’s
going to have to start bringing in more contributions, and fast.


01:12 – Montgomery County | Bad
news if you were planning on heading to bed early. Officials have said
that Montgomery county, the third largest in the state, will not have
any results until 10 est. (aka. 3am). The networks are going round the
pundits at the moment churning over the exit polls without really
saying anything. Everyone’s waiting for the first results to come
through.


01:00 – Polls close | Fox
has some early exit polls and things look really good for the New York
senator. Clinton is winning amongst seniors 2:1 ‘better than normal for
her.’ Clinton has won amongst Union households in a big way – 16 points
vs. the 5 point victory she normally manages. Obama has won 92% of the
black vote and 58% of the under-30s which isn’t as strong as he usually
manages. Obama has two-thirds of urban voters but is struggling with
independents: tonight they are split down the middle but Obama usually
dominates this category.


00:58 – Geography | Fox
are listing the Obama strongholds. In the east of the county
Pennsylvania county is the big one. The size of turnout there will be
crucial in deciding how much of the vote he can claw back. Clinton will
be picking up big numbers in Pittsburgh in the west and in the rural
areas in the centre.


00:49 – Obama takes off | 11
minutes till polls close (I’m holding out for some kind of dramatic
sweeping graphics from Fox at that point) and it’s time to answer the
first reader question of the night. Tom asks whether the fact that
Obama has already left Pa. for Indiana signifies that Obama has lost by
more than he expected. That seems unlikely – polls are too confused and
contrasting at this stage for him to really know and it’s simply an
established tradition for candidates to leave a state before polls
close if they know they’re going to lose. The big question tonight
remains how big Hillary’s victory will be. The big question for the
remainder of the nomination period is Indiana but more on that later.

If you’ve got a
question, a comment on the recent wave of attack ads or just feel like
musing on the returns be sure to comment in the box below.


00:45 – Exits | Drudge
has Hillary 52-48 which would be pretty catastrophic for the Clinton
camp but don’t go to bed just yet. Drudge doesn’t provide any raw data
and exit polls haven’t been great at predicting much of anything thus
far.

On another note, whilst
analysts are talking about Hillary being in trouble if she wins by
fewer than ten points her camp has already sworn to carry on. They have
however admitted that she needs to win Indiana in two weeks time.


00:38 – Game time | Fox
News have rebranded their ticker for tonight’s fun and games. As I join
them the discussion is focused around Hillary’s comment on Iran. On a
talkshow earlier today Clinton said that (and I’m paraphrasing here)
‘if Iran is foolish enough to attack Israel we will obliterate them.’

Meanwhile exit polls are up on the Drudge Report but there are many floating around with wildly different results.


19:20 – It’s
been a while but here we are at yet another primary day in the race for
the Democratic nomination – make that the 18th day at the polls to be
precise.

Some 77 days after
Super Tuesday we still find ourselves without a Democratic nominee and
tonight could change that. Pennsylvania’s 188 delegates make up the
largest number held by any of the remaining states and given the
demographics if Hillary fails to win here its game over for the New
York senator. The polls
however suggest this is unlikely – Hillary is anything from 5 to 10
points clear at the moment. The key figure, most commentators seem to
agree, is 10. This is the margin Hillary won be in demographically
similar Ohio on March 4th and if she doesn’t win by this much again
Obama can claim to have fought back in an area which should be prime
Clinton territory. A few weeks ago Senator Obama was 16 points back and
with the notorious unreliability of polling in this election cycle
anything could happen.

Results from Pennsylvania will be in shortly after 1am when polls close and I’ll be back then with all the action.

In the meantime why not post your predictions below and here are some links to tide you over:

One enterprising YouTuber has mashed together debate footage and the Sarah Silverman spoof ‘I’m f-ing Matt Damon’ to create ‘I’m f-ing Obama’

Hillary Clinton has dropped Osama bin Laden into a newly released advert, leading to accusations of fear-mongering:

Hillary’s been in more trouble just this morning by threatening to ‘obliterate’ Iran.

The Guardian cartoonists have had some fun at the candidates’ expense.

And even though the Republican race was settled weeks ago John McCain has been doing his best to keep in the headlines. Today’s New York Times gives
him a headline, but perhaps not the kind he was hoping for. The article
alleges that McCain used his office to help a friend – a wealthy real
estate developer: A Developer, His Deals, and His Ties to McCain

1...2,1922,1932,194...2,443Page 2,193 of 2,443

Explore

Follow us

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