[1] Find a place to play

This really shouldn’t be difficult: after all, you are in Oxford, and there’s a good chance your college has a croquet lawn. Of course, you’ve got to make sure you’ve got the right lawn: for example, in Magdalen the New Buildings centre lawn is the croquet lawn and St Swithun’s lawn is the Frisbee lawn. You don’t want to get those two mixed up in case you end up having to roquet with a Frisbee whizzing through your hair. But that hardship, unlikely though it is, is as nothing compared to what some people go through in order to find the perfect croquet location: croquet has been played on iced over lakes, in Nevada’s Black Rock desert, and even at the South Pole.

[2] Get your equipment

Again, you should be OK here  to borrow your college’s gear. Take care to keep it in good nick, though: competition-standard equipment doesn’t come cheap – for instance, the only set of balls recommended by the Oxford University Croquet Club costs £139 for four, and the set of hoops costs £188. And if you’re buying a mallet, you have to contend with almost as much conflicting advice as when buying a golf club; some of this advice centres on, for example, the relative merits of wooden shafts and fibreglass shafts, but some is a little more obvious – here’s a direct quote from the OUCC website: “For inexperienced players, it is advisable to have a mallet with a relatively wide head to reduce the likelihood of mis-hitting.” If only that could apply to cricket bats, I’d be sporting a two-foot-wide one.

[3] Decide on the rules

Most croquet played in Oxford is Association Croquet, but that’s not to say that other forms of croquet don’t exist. Golf Croquet, in which each player takes turns trying to hit a ball through the same hoop, the winner being the player who manages to hit the ball through the most hoops first, is the fastest-growing version of the game. For a less simple and more strategy-heavy game, you could always try American-rules croquet, in which physical skill counts for less than clever tactics; or, if you find croquet a little bit too easy, you could always try playing it on a bicycle – Bicycle Croquet hasn’t caught fire worldwide yet, but it does have a dedicated following in Graz, Austria.

[4] Learn the lingo

‘Hoop’ and ‘mallet’ are nice and easy, but you should know at least a few more terms. ‘Making a roquet’ is when your ball hits another ball;  ‘running a hoop’ is when your ball passes through a hoop in the correct order; and ‘becoming a rover’ is when your ball has scored its last hoop point. That’s only the start of the jargon, though: ‘Von Schmieder Sweep’, anyone? (It’s a stroke played with the mallet held horizontally with the shaft just a couple of inches off the ground played on a hoop-bound ball lying about a foot behind the hoop which allows you to roquet a reception ball lying further behind the hoop, if you really wanted to know).

Agatha Christie caused a stir when she adapted her Death on the Nile for the stage, altering it nominally to Murder on the Nile, and conspicuously denying the moustach-etted detective his role de force. Fortunately, this production provides the reintroduction of Monsieur Poirot in the form of Matt Lacey, who delivers with estimable gravitas and faultless ‘langue Belgique’.
Quite brilliantly, Lacey’s Poirot combines volatility with an aloofness that allows for the character interaction Christie had so sought. Indeed, these interactions, between the highly innovative minor characters especially, are the source of much of the play’s humour; of particular note is the bohemian-clad Salome Otterbourne (Emerald Fennell) in all her sexual and passionate theatricality. Poirot blushes masterfully at her advances, while Colonel Race (George Carr) fastidiously revels in this build-up to the dénouement.
Grace Overbeke, moreover, is distinguished in her leading role as the ignorant yet manipulative down-on-her-luck American, while her ‘so English’ fiancé Simon Doyle (Jamie Brindley), maintains a manly rapport with the bevy of stylish women on stage. All in all, the play is an energetic mixture of tension and humour, executed by an enthusiastic cast committed to the era of glamour.

Daisy Dunn
Dir. Steve Lomon
Worcester Gardens, 7.30pm

It took an informal chat between two PCs to bring into the open what everyone must already know: the University owns Oxford. From shop-owners to senior Councilors, people who might easily go from one week to the next without stepping foot inside a quad have to tiptoe around our college authorities.

What this leaked transcript  illuminates is the extent to which we treat Oxford like a campus rather than a city. And that collective ‘we’ often tries hard to blind itself to dissent, when it should be open to possibility. Most members of the University are happy to conduct medical research on animals, or at least not to think too hard about it. They should certainly be forced to.

The problem is that Speak is its own worst enemy, targeting students and their beloved sports grounds rather than asking for our support. The second thing they would be wise to consider is a formal denunciation of the ALF – their more radical colleagues in the fight for animal rights.

Instead, the group persists in its aggressive and unreasonable tactics. But Speak fought for and won its right to be unreasonable last term when the University failed to prosecute its famous activist leaders Mel Broughton and Robert Cogswell. Ever since, counter-organizations like the student-run Pro-Test, as well as further attempts by the University itself, have failed to stop their demonstrations, and the antagonism rumbles on day after day in the Science area.

Until now, Speak seemed to be fighting a slowly losing battle. Provocative tactics were being met with less and less indulgence. As a passer-by, it’s easy to let ‘Stop the Oxford Animal Labs’ fade into background noise.
But this week’s embarrassing revelations by the police will prove to be their best chance yet. The bullies have suddenly become bullied, and added to the unreasonably forceful language of the police is the undemocratic clout of the University’s name. The police seemed eager to please only the University and Oxford’s ‘impressed’ response to the arrests is both highly embarrassing and damaging. We heard of the police’s ‘draconian’ policies and their aggressive desire to ‘take bodies’: a product of Blair’s target-lust to which the University is also notoriously prey. But it seems that the University have ultimately failed in their mission to steamroller over those who dare to speak out. If Speak is wise – and for reason’s sake we can only hope they aren’t – the group will play the victim now, and court rather than challenge the student body.

But a warning must also be extended to Pro-Test tag-alongs and the rest of the student onlookers. This tape provided an unusual and strangely satisfying insight into two police officers’ attitudes. But in general, we can’t know what goes on behind the closed doors of Wellington Square or St Aldates Police Station. What we can do is re-evaluate our attitude towards ‘townies’ and learn to think as individuals towards other individuals, whatever the official line from the all-powerful University. Otherwise, we can hardly be surprised at Town’s blatant antagonism towards Gown, in a situation where power falls so heavily on one side.
Willa Brown and James Rogers

The Canterbury Tales is quite a project to undertake, and this production is somewhat ambitious.
One thing that struck me was the conspicuous absence of even a semblance of actual sexuality, a theme that is supposed to be prevalent and even excessive in all of Chaucer’s tales. This is particularly lacking in some of the female roles, where any attempts at supposed seduction are a little naïve.
Hillary Stevens, seen twice in roles of ‘temptation’, is more like a child experimenting with high heels from a dressing up box than an object of obsessive desire. Similarly, Johanna Deveraux’s Wife of Bath was more like a children’s television presenter than a scrumptious harlot. As a whole, the adaptation is good, and the language flows – comprehensive to a modern ear but maintaining an air of restoration.
Having evidently drawn heavily on the recent adaptation by the RSC, this play is a mildly amusing with a few inspired moments. If you like perky theatre, it works.

Kate Antrobus
 
Dir. Harriet Bradley
Magdalen Gardens, 7.30pm

Fans of new writing have a veritable dramatic feast at the Burton Taylor studio in seventh week, and they should not be disappointed with Max McGuinness’ Up the Republic! A rhyming political farce which claims to have no agenda of its own, this play should be avoided by staunch Communists, those who have yet to become jaded, and Jacques Chirac, should he be considering attending a student production this week.

The play centres on Georges Duclos (Nicholas Bishop), the mayor of a blighted Parisian suburb during the 2005 riots. It quickly becomes clear that Duclos has abandoned the Communist roots that won him his position in favour of pleasing the majority, neglecting the poor and a little light embezzlement on the side. The major conflict is introduced in the form of Bridgette Papon (Harry Creelman), Duclos’ Fascist ex-wife determined to unseat him, all the while wearing tight leather trousers and displaying her, ahem, décolletage. With the assistance of her lover, Charles Dupont (Paul Clarke), the Chief of Police, Bridgette devises a plan to alienate Duclos from the minority vote using the law against the wearing of religious symbols in public in order to become mayor herself. With the help of Nathalie Weil (Sophie Siem), a sympathetic headmistress, Duclos must attempt to win back the Muslim vote.

Although some of the references are a little dense for the layman, politics students will appreciate the satire of these not-so-distant events, although the general decrying of government, politics, and the banning of headscarves in schools will be clear to even the least politically aware.

The dialogue is sharp and, in places, laden with puns and sexual innuendo, although it rarely strays from its major themes of the corrupting nature of power and the weakness of men. The characters, for the most part, move well and with good energy and the ending is amusing, especially in that it seems to have been snipped neatly from The Simpsons.

There are some very nice touches: Duclos’ speech after he is encouraged to ‘re-brand’ by Nathalie is almost painfully reminiscent of many politicians’ humiliating attempts to be perceived as ‘cool’ by the young and ethnic minorities. His sudden, obsequious and hypocritical support of multiculturalism on Bastille day is cringingly hilarious as, with a reggae band playing the French national anthem, he declares that “imposing our Western ideals is, like, totally unfair.”

Bishop is excellent as the shady politician, portraying a good mix of greasy compulsiveness and quiet desperation. Similarly, Bridgette, for all her posing and pouting, is delightfully devious. The relationship between the two, both as political foes and former lovers, comes across well. The dynamic with their collaborators, Nathalie and Dupont respectively, is less strong however. Siem plays the passionate schoolteacher with a touch of hysteria and Clarke, playing a character named for a washing machine, is at times no less clunky and laborious.

The use of rhyming couplet adds an interesting element to the piece. It is quite subtle, reminding the audience of half-forgotten nursery rhymes and chants from the schoolyard. Though it struggles a little at times and can detract from the dialogue, the juxtaposition of the childish and the supposedly adult world of politics really underlines the farcical and charming nature of this play. However, I’m not entirely convinced that, as the advertising proclaims, this play is ‘enough to make Lenin spin in his grave’. Up the Republic! focuses much more on the weakness of one man rather than the weakness of Communism as a political position. Nonetheless, it is enjoyable, something of a lesson in French politics, and, for the lads, it also contains a rather fit bird.

Monique Davis
Dir. Max McGuinness
BT, 9.30pm

America has changed from the champion of international order to its antagonist. Bush has rejected the idea that a set of strong international institutions, built on a set of common agreements about values and the rule of law, is good for America and the world.  

First came the unilateral abandonment of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty so that they could complete testing and then build the first stages of a ballistic missile shield.  There are many problems with this, aside from the fact that the technology doesn’t work. It is preposterously expensive; it does not protect against terrorist attack (the most likely kind); and it is strategically destabilizing. That is a quartet of problems that should have doomed it. But the core message America sent in ditching the treaty it is that their commitments are valid only so long as they are also convenient. The Russians have recently used the proposed first phase construction in Poland as the basis for saying they will not observe their commitments under the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.  What goes around comes around.

The Administration then announced that they would not sign the treaty establishing the International Court of Criminal Justice.  The ostensible reason for this was to avoid “rogue prosecution” of American soldiers by those who might wish the US harm.  This is, on its face, preposterous.  The standards of the Court were specifically rewritten to respond to US concerns over precisely this issue. Once again, the message is that the US will accept no limits on its power.

Then, in an almost offhanded way, the Administration simply rejected the Kyoto Treaty.  Among European countries this was, along with Iraq, the most shocking step.  Absolute and unilateral rejection was far outside the range of what informed observers thought would be the US response.

Next the Bush Administration asserted that the Geneva Accords were not binding on US treatment of detainees – and this has only put coalition soldiers at greater risk.  

Finally there is the National Security Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. This paper reasserts the right to preventative war, but a more dangerous element of that same paper was called to my attention by an article in Foreign Affairs by George Perkovich. 
 
One weapon of mass destruction – nuclear – is fundamentally different from chemical and biological weapons, which are absolutely outlawed. The core treaty regulating nuclear weapons is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968. And the core “deal” of that Treaty is that all state signatories agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons and the five nuclear states agreed, over time, to reduce and then eliminate their own nuclear arsenals.

But now the Bush strategy calls for assuring US nuclear superiority indefinitely. In order to do this the US will necessarily abrogate its commitments under NPT, including the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the commitment to eventual elimination. In short, in the most dangerous area – nuclear – the Bush radicals have asserted the right to abrogate the Treaty that has worked so much to the benefit of the US. The inevitable consequence of this action will be violation by others, making the world a vastly more dangerous place.

For those Americans who believe in a rule of law at home (including protection of civil liberties) there is real risk and real work ahead.  But it is in the international arena where the radicalism of this Administration poses a direct challenge to the world’s security. America will pay heavily – in security, in economic well-being, in their long-term leadership – if it allows this Administration to make the country a rogue state not bound by treaty and unconstrained by the decent opinion of mankind.
Sam Brown

Sam Brown was the Ambassador of the United States to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Beginning our evening in Worcester, we thought we’d reached bar Mecca. We were greeted by a beautiful patio area; absolutely perfect for a quiet drink on a summer’s evening. Once inside the bar continues to impress. Though subterranean, its high vaulted ceilings and good lighting make it feel warm and inviting. Always busy, the ambience in Worcester is great, and with the whole place decked out in college paraphernalia we could see exactly why one resident described it as having “a communal atmosphere that lends itself to debauchery”. However, let outsiders beware. We found the barman, Tony, to be a good contender for Oxford’s most irascible man. Put simply: be here with friends from Worcester, otherwise you’ll struggle to get served at all.

Given it’s distance from all civilisation, Hugh’s was going to have to be outstanding to justify our long walk up the Woodstock Road. The bar itself is absolutely huge, very modern looking and has plenty of comfy couches. We were also impressed by the bargain prices (£1.55 for a Carlsberg). Still, there’s nothing extra special on offer behind the bar. That said, the pear cider is worth a try. Sadly the place is so big that it struggles to ever seem busy. So is it worth the trek north? Probably only if you fancy the exercise…

Most college bars are pretty similar to look at, but in it’s own crazy way, Somerville really stands out. Decked out in a bright red with black and white murals of the seven deadly sins on the wall, the décor is striking to say the least. If you can drag your eyes away from all this, there’s the fun of free table football, and a TV next door on which to watch the real stuff. Somerville is also home to it’s very own cocktail, the ‘stone cold Jane Austen’ – a sickly sweet mix of cider, southern comfort and wkd, with a name almost as bizarre as the place itself.

So what are you doing this summer? A rickshaw run across Mongolia? Spraying Moet over sun-kissed buttocks in Monaco? Ridding yourself of sins by meditating in a mountain-hidden Nepalese monastery? Possibly, but for most of Oxford’s little dynamos, the curricula vitae are being beefed up with three to ten week corporate whore internships. Whether you’re banking, journo-ing, law-ing, advertising, politicking or accounting, the Fleet Street Mafia and Canary Wharf Glitterati have well and truly contract-bound us.

Great, we all think. We get the dosh, the brownie career points, and the persistent cold from seventeen air-conditioned hours every day; they (the Goldman Sachs, News Internationals, Saatchis and PwCs) get your blood, sweat, tears and twenty-one years’ worth of well-crafted brain for summer (and, they hope, for life). But is that it? Are we simply going to build up CV points, work our ways up the ladder and then retire happily ever after? I’d say three quarters of Oxford’s population are actively socially conscious. More of us than ever are creating sophisticated networks dedicated to social good, preparing for Masters and PhDs in social policy and human rights law and are actively pursuing careers in social enterprises (for-profit businesses whose main aims are for socially benefiting causes).

A prime example of Oxford Social Enterprise is Batiq – where Oxford students get paid to mentor Korean children over internet webcams to encourage cultural exchange and English language usage. Then there’s AIESEC, which co-ordinates community-building work experiences in different countries. Last term the Idea Idol competition held by the Oxford Entrepreneurs gave first prize to a group which assisted the blind with a revolutionary sensory glove and stick. And let’s not forget the whole plethora of fundraising activities which are taking place across Oxford to raise awareness and funds, from the Hands up for Darfur Ball to the RED fashion show. Plans are also underway to build the “Oxford Hub”, a centre for all charities and NGOs to meet, share knowledge and expertise. Oxford is certainly moving in leaps and bounds, all in the spirit of “the golden age of philanthropy.”

Don’t get me wrong – I think it’s great to go into the corporate world – a world whose vitality revolves around its aims of efficiency and waste-cutting. Indeed, what better opportunity is there to practise these ideas?  But after embellishing our skills portfolio in the City, perhaps we should give something back by sharing our expertise with charities.

Smruti Sriram
Smruti Sriram is Treasurer of the Oxford Union.

British academia voted yesterday to boycott cooperation with universities in Israel in protest of Israel’s presence in the Occupied Territories. Though the vote at the first meeting of the University and College Union passed by a majority of 158 to 99, several prominent members were opposed to the decision. General Secretary to the Union, Sally Hunt, said, “I do not believe a boycott is supported by a majority of UCU members, nor do I believe that members see it as a priority for the union.” The UCU vote coincides with similar pressures from within Israel, as four Israeli academics called yesterday for the government to lift bans on Palestinian students. In a letter to the defence minister, the presidents of Ben-Gurion, Hebrew, Haifa and Technion universities, wrote, “Blocking access to higher education for Palestinian students from Gaza who choose to study in the West Bank casts a dark shadow over Israel’s image as a state which respects and supports the principle of academic freedom and the right to education.” Education Minister Bill Rammell said, “The UK government fully supports academic freedom and is firmly against any academic boycotts of Israel or Israeli academics. Whilst I appreciate the independence of the UCU, I am very disappointed.” “I profoundly believe this does nothing to promote the Middle East peace process,” he added. Meanwhile, In another vote yesterday, the UCU rejected the Education Minister’s guidelines for professors to inform the government of suspected Islamic extremism among students. Rammell said, “There is evidence of serious, but not widespread Islamist extremist activity in higher education institutions.” Hunt commented, “Universities must remain safe spaces for lecturers and students to debate all sorts of ideas, including those that some people may consider challenging, offensive and even extreme. The last thing we need is people too frightened to discuss an issue because they fear some quasi secret service will turn them in.”

Semi-Final – 5th Week
 
Winners: Jesus
 
Jesus

Hertford