4/5 BURTON TAYLOR
TUESDAY-SATURDAY, 7.30PM ‘Babies grow in rubbish,’ states Michael matter-of-factly, explaining how he found a baby on a trash heap, named it Debris and began to care for it. Unlike much of the dusty drama that finds its way onto the stages of Oxford theatres, Debris is a modern play written in 2004 by up-and-coming playwright David Kelly. The play explores the lives of dysfunctional siblings Michael and Michelle, who have a drunken, abusive father and a dead mother. Debris portrays people whose lives are thwarted by their difficult and dysfunctional surroundings. Director Will Maynard has chosen a difficult play, full of lyrical flights and unexpected imagery, and navigates it brilliantly. Despite sometimes tipping into the bizarre or sentimental, the overall result is an intelligently directed, insightfully acted play. This is even more impressive given the inexperienced cast. Michael, played by Matt Malby, has all the nervous, gangly energy of a teenage boy. He really comes alive when discovering the baby; this is awkward teenage tenderness at its most powerful, a deep instinct to protect coming through excellently. Michelle, played by Sarah Milne-Das, is a more balanced character and, although sometimes bland, has flights of anger and fear which are both believable and passionate. Audiences could be bemused by lines like ‘Plant child sucking death through a potato tongue,’ and although Milne-Das does her best, sometimes the bizarre imagery doesn’t quite work. What does, though, is the pair’s poignant relationship as siblings, caught between love and hatred as only siblings can be. This could have been a soap-opera abusive-home scenario, but instead, the play becomes a moving, often surprising, tale of the love and tenderness which can struggle out from tiny cracks in rubbish heaps. By Elen Griffiths

4/5OFS
TUESDAY-SATURDAY, 7.30PM When so many larger-scale Oxford productions play it safe, it’s heartwarming when one sticks its neck out, especially when the risks pay off. Measure for Measure is usually thought of as a ‘problem’ play but its director Pippa Needs has found original and intelligent solutions to its uneasy tragicomic balance. Needs has transposed the setting to the Eastern Bloc’s twilight years, yet thankfully shied away from overly specifying the location. Interpreting the Duke as a Shakespearean Ceau?escu – the Romanian leader who kept control through personality alone – freshens the play’s meditations on authority and reminds us that this is no Solomon we’re dealing with here. Likewise, the news that Vienna’s suburbs are to be ‘plucked down’ conjures up images of the cold concrete slums that still litter the Eastern European landscape. Leo-Marcus Wan is a constant delight to watch as Angelo, exuding an unsettling serpentine energy that enlivens every second he’s onstage. Rather than opting to play him as a vaudeville villain, Wan finds a human side to Angelo’s moral conflict. The best moments are his thrilling exchanges with Isabella. As little more than a virtuous damsel in several different kinds of distress, she is not quite as interesting a character. Nevertheless, in Roseanna Frascona’s hands she has far more vivacity than the writing warrants. These successes are all the more important given how difficult the play must be to pitch. Needs has opted to emphasise its darker undercurrents, but the comedy is clearly there, sometimes to detrimental effect. Liam Wells has good wit and range as Lucio but his (perhaps unintentionally) amusing interruptions would ruin the Angelo/Isabella tension were the two not played so strongly. Few other cast members find the correct balance between making Shakespeare’s dialogue presentable in a modern setting and ‘Ac-Ting’ by ‘Ac-Tors.’ As Escalus, Jack Chedburn is unacceptably flat. More than anything else he seems to be wondering whether he left the oven on, and his scenes drag horribly without the dynamic presence of Wan. Admittedly he wasn’t off book, but he’s going to need a lot of work when Wan and Frascona are so good. It really is an excellently drilled production. Needs is an uncommonly sharp director, with a keen eye for detail and a rare will to explore the full potential of the space. This is that rarest of things: a student Shakespeare show with the nous and daring to breathe some new life into the text. Assuming the Duke, who missed the press preview, is up to standard and that a stage covered in Socialist-Realist posters of Krishna Omkar (for it is he) doesn’t put you off, this should be a cracker.By Max Seddon

Merton College has angered Mansfield and Merton sports teams by announcing the permanent closure of its gym.Rowing teams at both colleges depend on the facilities for their training programmes, but Merton has taken the decision to close the room at the end of Trinity term for health and safety reasons. The decision to close the gym, which is based at the Merton Sports Ground, was taken after consultation with both the University’s Director of Sports and independent health and safety consultants. Tim Softley, the sub-Warden at Merton said, “Considering its legal liabilities, the College has no alternative but to close the facility on a short time-scale.” There are currently no definite plans to provide any alternative facilities for students.Merton JCR and MCR Presidents suggested a series of possible solutions, including the installation of CCTV cameras; additional telephone lines; and strengthening the sign-out arrangements for the use of the facility, to ensure no-one could use it alone. Merton JCR President, Danielle Quinn expressed her disappointment at the decision. “Our two main concerns at the moment are what will be done in the interim, as College hasn’t yet made a firm commitment in that respect, and whether or not they’ll allow Mansfield to use the new facility.“We were surprised that College hadn’t planned to allow Mansfield to use it, considering the level of mutual dependence between the Colleges in terms of fielding teams.” The two Colleges often combine forces to produce joint sports teams.Mansfield JCR President, James Naish, said, “The manner in which the gym was shut is particularly disturbing. If it were not for the Merton JCR President, the weights room would have been shut without any consultation with Mansfield. It hasn’t exactly been the best way of going around things.”
He added, “The College Bursar is looking into the possibility of group membership at Iffley Road University Gyms and expanding gym provision at the Boat Club. I’m confident that a solution can be found – it is only to be hoped that the closure of joint facilities will not be to the detriment of team spirit in future Merton-Mansfield sports teams.”Dan Harvey, a Mansfield rower and one of the many students to be affected by the closure, said, “Closing one of the key training facilities available to the College is bound to have a detrimental impact on Mansfield sport. It is used frequently by many of the College’s sports teams, all of whom will suffer as a result of this action.”  Softley insisted that Merton was doing all it could to find an alternative facility.  He said, “The College is actively and urgently considering plans for a modern fitness room on the main College site, but in view of the need for formal agreements and permissions cannot guarantee to open such a facility within the present calendar year. ” Merton is currently considering the development of a new fitness facility in Rose Lane although the proposed project, should it go ahead, would not be ready for Michaelmas term.

Guy Pewsey talks to Anna Wintour about British fashion, her demanding reputation and the size zero phenomenonThe world of fashion is one of the most, if not the most, changeable industries in the world. Trends come and go, styles ebb and flow, and a single outfit goes from fabulous to heinous in the blink of an eye. And yet, in this fickle industry, there has been one constant: Anna Wintour. The so-called saviour of American Vogue, now in her twentieth year as editor-in chief, Wintour is in the front row of every runway show that matters.Wintour calls from Milan, undoubtedly in between shows. After her recent visit to London Fashion Week, I’m keen to discuss her impressions of this year’s collections at Britain’s only world-class fashion event. Wintour is highly complimentary; ‘I’m constantly amazed by the level of talent there,’ she says, making particular mention of younger designers Chris Kane and Jonathan Saunders. It is the lesser-known names which Wintour sees as London’s strength in comparison with its international competition. ‘I think what’s so great about London Fashion Week – it’s such an opportunity for overseas press and stores to see the new talent,’ says Wintour, ‘and I think that the British Fashion Council could even make more of an effort to make new fashion the raison d’etre.’ Wintour mentions the late Princess Diana as a figure who brought British fashion to the attention of the international press, and suggests that a similar figurehead, ‘someone from the royal family or a prominent politician’, could take more of a leadership role. One can only assume from Ms. Wintour’s track record that when it comes to such instructions, her advice should be taken as law. Her career has seen stints at Harper’s Bazaar, House and Garden, and both British and American Vogue which, in particular, greatly benefited from her Midas touch, transforming what has been described as a stagnant publication into the biggest-selling magazine of its kind. It will come as no surprise that such a feat was achieved through an almost ruthless efficiency, and Wintour seems content to acknowledge that those who may comment on her demanding nature are perfectly correct; ‘I am very demanding,’ she says, but in fashion, nice guys finish last and knowing what you want and how to get it is all part of the job description. Miranda Priestly, the unreasonably severe editor in 2006 blockbuster The Devil Wears Prada, is generally seen as a portrait of Wintour. Nevertheless, Ms. Wintour is comfortable with her reputation, reminding her critics of the dog-eat-dog nature of the fashion world; ‘I can only tell you that I’ve worked with many people for fifteen, twenty years and we’ve survived each other .’Trends on runways across the world are usually limited to the outfits themselves, and yet in recent years it has been impossible to ignore a development concerning the models themselves, the dangerous emergence of the size zero. I ask Wintour for her thoughts, and it is clear that she, perhaps more than anyone else, understands the true hazards of the choice to strive for such a goal; ‘I think it’s a real issue, it’s unfortunate that that these young women aren’t even fully grown yet.’ Wintour personally favours the models who appear ‘vibrant, alive and healthy’, mentioning supermodels Gisele Bundchen and Caroline Trentini as good examples of this healthier type. Wintour is determinedly frank about the size of models; ‘no designer is going to have a girl who’s a size 12 (a British size 16) on the runway’. So what can be done to stop such young girls following in the footsteps of Luisel Ramos, the Uruguayan model who died of self-starvation backstage at a fashion show? Wintour has been vocal in her suggestions, particularly regarding the younger models so popular with designers, and has worked with the CFDA (The Council of Fashion Designers of America) to introduce healthy food at shows and shoots, more favourable scheduling for such models, and the removal of alcohol from areas which underage participants of runway shows occupy. Whether or not such measures will be successful is yet to be seen, but Wintour is hopeful, mentioning this summer’s Olympics as potential motivation for individuals to favour the athletic body before the more emaciated alternative.
Anna Wintour frequently comes under fire for controversial personal choices concerning issues such as the inclusion of fur in American Vogue. On her visit to Oxford though, her main opposition will come from those who find the fashion industry shallow and superficial. Her response is all I have come to expect from our brief conversation; intelligent, defiant and authoritative; ‘Fashion is big business, the biggest business in New York after Wall Street. Last year the fashion industry was worth something like 784 billion dollars, it gives people jobs; it employs 125,000 people in New York alone. It’s a very important global business.’ Whether it’s a matter of being won over by Wintour’s opinions, or stunned into silence by the reputation which precedes her, I, and indeed those who surround her at Vogue, are unlikely to disagree.

Anna Wintour will be coming to the Oxford Union on Tuesday of 7th week

Accurate economic forecasting is almost impossible. JK Galbraith argued that its only purpose was to make astrology look respectable by comparison, while even Alan Greenspan, chair of the Federal Reserve for 19 years, had such little confidence in its use that he preferred to use the Fed’s resources to restore confidence after a market crash than change interest rates based on predictions of future problems.  In this light it is perhaps excusable that politicians failed to pre-empt the run on Northern Rock last year and underestimated the impact of the credit crunch on sub-prime mortgages. The question now is what should be done with the bank, and it seems temporary nationalisation is the answer.The danger of a run on a bank cannot be overstated. In 1929, runs on major banks led to the collapse of the financial system, which in turn led to the most severe recession in America’s history. Clearly the threat in the UK was on a smaller scale, but if the government had not immediately guaranteed the deposits, then the bank may well have collapsed, destroying saver confidence and possibly leading to similar troubles in other high street banks.Nationalisation now will send out the message that the government will not let banks fall or deposits be lost, and such a policy will should prevent runs on banks in the future. This process will undoubtedly cost the taxpayer money in the short term, but if nationalisation is necessary to save our financial system from meltdown and will look after our economic interests, then it is worth the cost.Nationalisation is also the best way to recover as much public funding as possible. Will Hutton, in a detailed analysis, showed that the private sector bids led by a Virgin consortium and the Northern Rock management were totally inadequate in this respect. Both demanded further government subsidy and neither was willing to pay enough money to claw back the funds used to save Northern Rock initially.
Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats seem to be in agreement with the solution that Hutton offers: that the bank should be kept in the public sector until the housing market improves and Northern Rock’s value recovers, so that when it is finally returned to the private sector it may be sold for a higher price than recent offers. Furthermore, there is no question that depositors’ money will be better secured by the move into public ownership, given the government’s promises to that effect and the state’s vast resources. This will be crucial for the restoration of saver-confidence.There are objections to nationalisation. Trade unions fear job losses and shareholders will not be able to make any short term gains. There are fears about the government’s lack of expertise in running a bank. However if job cuts are necessary to improve Northern Rock’s inefficient business model then so be it. Equally, if the government step in to save a company on the brink of collapse (which would have seen an absolute loss in the value of shares), then the shareholders cannot be too angry at the way it has chosen to help their company recover. It was, after all, the fault of shareholders for investing in a badly run company. Finally, the problem of expertise has been overcome by the recruitment of individuals such as Ron Sandler, former head of Lloyds in London, to help run the bank.Nationalisation will quell public fears about the safety of their money and insulate other banks from the threats posed to Northern Rock last year. It also represents the best way to regain taxpayers’ money and secure current deposits. This is clearly the most sound policy, and the ideological objections of the Conservative front bench honestly do not merit consideration.
Alexander Waksman is Treasurer-Elect of OULC.

Joshua Glancy has a whinge about the bingeAsk yourself a question. How many great nights out have you had in Oxford which didn’t involve drinking? By drinking I mean getting drunk, smashed, twatted, having an apocolashtastic time…. you get the idea. Conversely, how many times have you had a really good time at an Oxford club or bop stone-cold sober?What is wrong with us? We spend our days solving fiendish equations or grappling with philosophical constructs amidst classical grandeur. Yet once or twice a week many of us reduce ourselves to slobbering wrecks, stumbling along the sidewalks, vomiting in toilets, being thrown out of clubs, fighting, shouting and generally being obnoxious. All this is achieved via copious amounts of beer, wine and vile tasting tequilas, vodkas and sambucas. It is no coincidence that Law Soc is the most popular society in Oxford. Not many of us are that interested in mooting; it’s the cocktail bins and free champagne supplied by ever-generous law firms that attract the thirsty hordes. It actually seems that the smarter one dresses for an occasion, the higher the likelihood of getting smashed. Black tie events begin with wine and witticisms but end in extreme intoxication. At the college balls we put on our glad rags and pay at least £70 for a ticket, yet once the formalities of dinner are dispensed with the evening takes a familiar turn. The next day is spent reconstructing hilarious drunken anecdotes, feeling sorry for oneself and addressing with great reluctance the inevitable work pile-up as our bodies slowly recover from the substance abuse of the night before. The cost is not just academic but financial – the mysterious disappearance of notes from the wallet, the unintentional £10 minimum drink rounds. How many of us would have genuine budget problems if it weren’t for the £30 or more we spend on alcohol per week? Of course, this generalisation is unfair. There are those who drink in moderation, and many to whom the joys of alcohol-induced mental retardation hold little appeal. Yet amongst the party-going circles in Oxford – the societies, the sports teams and the social clubs – drinking on a night out is expected, non-participation frowned upon. Attempting to go out sober in such environments leads to calls of ‘man the fuck up’ and ‘get it down you’, or my own particular favourite chant of ‘down or gay.’ What is disconcerting for many is the normality with which such behaviour is viewed. We have become immune to our own absurdity. I remember during my own Fresher’s Week being regaled in the JCR by a jaded second year medic with a story of how he had measured his own liver at the end of his first year to gauge the ‘massive’ effects of his drunken antics. No one else appeared distressed by this puerile bombast, so I nodded along. Now of course, I am wiser. I no longer believe drunken medics capable of analysing their own livers.Here we arrive at the issue of what the national press gleefully refers to as ‘Binge Drinking.’ Having established that the lash train has pulled into our station, we must ask ourselves why we feel we must behave in this fashion. What does it say about us? If you take the sound advice of Jeremy Clarkson, ‘Binge drinking is good for you.’ What he loves most is ‘Really getting stuck in. Hosing back the cocktails until the room begins to swim and my legs seem to be on backwards.’ Beneath the inflammatory demagoguery that represents your average Clarkson article, there might be a point here. He highlights the group affinity that stems from a night out together, from being hung-over together. The promise of a big night can act as a motivation to get through the week; the act of getting drunk with your friends a release of tension and frustration – especially at Oxford. With large workloads, smug friends at other universities going out every night, small and unimpressive clubs and a rather ominous 40 years at a desk rapidly approaching, a night of reckless abandon and alcohol consumption is understandable. If anyone has ever tried attending a bop sober they will have noted it looks like a scene by Hieronymus Bosch, and in all likelihood they left fairly quickly. Given that those are the only college parties available, what choice do we have if we wish to attend and enjoy such an evening? Much of what we do here is both diligent and virtuous. Surely there is nothing wrong with setting aside degree and career every once in a while and having some fun?  Cicero tells us ‘Let some allowance be made for a person’s years, let youth be allowed greater freedom. Let not that severe and unbending reason always prevail; let desire and pleasure sometimes triumph over reason.’ I’m with him.Of course, Cicero himself had a strong commitment to virtue and action, and meant such distractions to enhance our everyday lives rather than subsume them. Occasional reckless abandon is justifiable, but let us not become members of the ‘cult of the lash.’ Let us not forget how to communicate with members of the opposite sex without slurring our words, or that friendship is much more than simply getting drunk together. Let us not venerate the vine. Issues such as alcoholism, physical damage and serious financial and academic difficulties are not to be sneered at. So the next time someone shows off to you with a liver damage story, consider how fucking stupid they sound, and you will have gone a long way towards solving your binge-drinking problem.

When we launched our campaign against ultrasonic alarms (more popularly known as ‘mosquito boxes’) we hoped that many people would share our sense of concern that young people could be targeted in this way. Many people did. But looking at the several thousand people who joined in website debates on the BBC and elsewhere, it’s equally clear many people reckon the alarms are an acceptable response to antisocial behaviour. We think that is profoundly wrong – so let me step back and explain.Ultrasonic devices emit an irritating high-pitched sound that is inaudible to most people over the age of 25, but almost unbearable to young ears. They are used to deter young people from ‘hanging around’ shops and businesses because they simply won’t be able to stand the noise.A group of young people from Corby were so concerned about the use of these alarms in their home town that they created their own pressure group: Buzz Off. ‘I’ve never heard a noise like it,’ said Lewis Davison, 17. ‘It’s like a really high-pitched noise and, if anything, it feels like it’s inside your head. Even when you’ve walked away from it, you can sort of still hear it in the back of your head and you don’t know if you’re still hearing the same one or whether another one’s kicked in.’The main aim of Buzz Off’s campaign, which is now being supported by the National Youth Agency, 11 Million (the office of the Children’s Commissioner) and Liberty, is to get all such devices – and there’s reckoned to be some 3,500 of them around – switched off. But most importantly, it’s also about persuading councils and police forces that there are far more effective methods of tackling anti-social behaviour. Given the nature of the alarms, it’s hard to blame the majority of law-abiding young people if they feel discriminated against. It’s not surprising if it leads to further alienation from the community they live in, or if it pushes them into other potentially unsafe areas. But this is not a simplistic ‘we know our rights’ campaign.The whole point is to continue to involve all sections of the community in developing more effective ways of preventing anti-social behaviour – that’s what the Corby group are doing with their local Groundwork project and that’s why we are supporting them. Charmain Warren, 21, is an eloquent spokesperson for the group and she put it like this: ‘We want to make clear that we’re not doing this campaign just because we’re young people and we don’t like the sound of these devices. We’re working towards stopping all forms of anti-social behaviour. Alcohol may be the biggest factor in causing anti-social behaviour and certainly the mosquito devices aren’t going to solve that.‘Also, they have a very limited range so if you’ve got someone intent on crime all they’re going to do is move down the road and do it. We want to work with councils, with the police and with the older generation as well as other young people to tackle all anti-social behaviour. After all, we don’t like going to the shops and being intimidated by troublemakers either.’Yes, these devices are discriminatory. Yes, they are an affront to human rights. But furthermore, we believe that they offer no solutions to the problems they purport to tackle and will ultimately be proven to be counterproductive. We can and must do better.
 
Fiona Blacke is the Chief Executive of the National Youth Agency.

So, two sets of Oxford students have shared the title of this year’s ‘Idea Idol.’ To even hold an annual competition for business innovation, with judges, a set format and patronising cash prizes, seems to be getting this whole entreprenurial thing off on the wrong foot.  The real innovators will be out there scamming pensioners and dodging taxes, rather than wasting their time (and, subsequently, money) on a stuffy competition. The dearth of actual ideas is painfully plain: one of the winning entries seems based on milking a profit from the NHS by selling them an unwieldy substitute for existing hygiene, while the other winner’s business plan beggars belief: “I’m a smart guy. I know other smart guys and I’ll have a good team around me.”Based on the successful pitches, it appears the whole idea is not to identify a need and address it, but to create the false impression of a problem. It may be naive to expect budding businessmen to want to do good, but surely more naive still to assume that the world has no dilemmas left to solve. You can’t even blame the self-serving young ‘entrepreneurs’ – one was criticised by a judge thus: “You think you’ve found a solution, but really you’ve identified a problem.” That student was the only runner-up whose pitch sounded vaguely ethical, or even useful.This blissful western, capitalist belief that good can  be achieved by seeking a profit has surely been debunked often enough. Trickle-down economics? Yet the gap between rich and poor still widens. Entrepreneurs doing enough social good through the job opportunities they create? Then why does Bill Gates feel the need to publicise his charitable donations and celebrity-endorsed ‘good works’? Perhaps the worst thing about this Idea Idol is its blithe indifference to this truth. One runner-up was quite happy to expect punters to pay to join a philanthropic site and run it as a profit-making venture.This competition is, in its way, a crueller thing than the rabid, red-toothed capitalism of American legend. Its very laziness, its assumption that any old idea will do if it gets a half-decent marketing job, is terrifying. Of course, the system’s already there, and Oxford students are free to try to exploit it – but could they not try a little harder? The utter lack of female finalists has been bemoaned in some quarters.  Would the suggestion that this is a good thing – that it shows women have a greater degree of compunction – be too crass a gender generalisation? Or can anything be too crass, in so rapacious a context?