By Jeremy KellySo far this season the Oxford college premiership has produced 137 goals in 35 games. Contrast this with the 241 goals in 209 Barclays premiership games and the open, attacking nature of our college game stands out. It may be true that there is less need for caution, there are no million pound contracts on the table, there are no Sam Allardyces to formulate tactics and that blunder in the big game will only lead to light hearted abuse in the pub, not death threats.High flying, high scoring Worcester will take some beating after opening an imposing 6 point lead before Christmas, a convincing campaign that included a 5-1 drubbing of 2nd place St Anne’s. The reigning champions have based much of their success on a prolific attack that has netted 8 more times than any other team in the league. No less than 7 of their players have scored a brace or more this season, a sure indication of a team with strength in depth and a variety of tactical attacking options to outwit opponents. Combine this with a back 4 that Blues coach Martin Keown would surely be proud of, the 7 goals scraped past them being a league low, and it would appear that Worcester are just too good. What does remain to be seen however is if they can banish their Cuppers nightmare, 3 lost semi-finals and a lost quarter-final in 4 years, and achieve the double that would confirm their dominance of college football at present. Newly promoted St Anne’s have impressed and are the only team to have beaten Worcester this season, no mean feat against a side that have lost just 3 of their last 38 league encounters. No doubt they will regret a sluggish start that saw 2 losses in the opening 3 games and betrayed teething problems in the higher division. The fitness of striker Jacob Lloyd will be crucial to continued success. His 8 goals in 7 starts has identified him as one of the leagues top players and puts him in contention for the golden boot. With games against the bottom 3 in their next 4 matches St Anne’s have a real chance to scare Worcester but with both matches between the two having already taken place they are relying on a couple of shock results. Any slip ups of their own will surely prove fatal to their chances. Teddy Hall have finally woken from their early season lethargy to produce some recent fine results, although they will need to improve in they are to dethrone Worcester and not doze off again as they nearly did in their scrappy win over Lincoln at the end of November or their laboured cuppers victory on penalties over 2nd division Univ. If they can replicate the strength of their 5-0 win over Jesus against Worcester on Wednesday, easily the pick of this weeks games, we are in for a treat. Teddy Hall also look good to challenge for the Cuppers trophy that they relinquished last year and will be hoping for a favourable draw in the third round. With a game in hand over most of the others Wadham are in a great position to challenge for 2nd even if the top spot would appear too distant. Like St Anne’s they are a newly promoted side in the top half of the table, something that implies a pleasing fluidity to the college league structure and should give encouragement to the 1st division sides contesting the promotion spots. Wadham’s high position is a testament to their consistency. Anomalously for such an exciting league, games involving Wadham haven’t provided a surfeit of goals, a tribute to an all chemistry back 4 who have bonded well together but perhaps a indication that they lack that final touch upfront. We shall have learnt much more about Wadham in a fortnight’s time as they encounter Worcester and St Anne’s in their next 2.Unbeaten in 6 Oriel have the potential to big the big climbers in 2008. Although these results have come against struggling sides and Cuppers teams from lower divisions their 4-1 opening day win over Teddy Hall shows their explosive potential if everyone is firing. A major concern however will be their recent record of throwing away leads and will still be smarting at Brasenose’s last minute equaliser at the end of Michaelmas. New find themselves just 2 points away from the relegation zone but comfortable wins over each of the bottom 2 should reassure them and wins in their upcoming fixtures against Lincoln and Brasenose would surely ensure their re-appearance to the top flight come October. Knocked out of Cuppers by a rampant Worcester there is a danger that the side could end up the season simply treading water. Hopefully the inspirational presence of free scoring captain Robin Cantwell and his personal quest for the golden boot (he is joint top with Lloyd on 8) should keep them pressing on. Despite being unbeaten through October Brasenose find themselves in a inglorious relegation scrap. Between them and Jesus, with whom they are level on points, they have been the more impressive, winning the encounter between the two 4-2 and were only narrowly edged out in recent games against Wadham and Teddy Hall. With some tough fixtures in the next few weeks their game against Jesus late on the season is already shaping up to be a tense relegation decider. Having picked up just 1 point and perhaps more ominously scored just 1 goal in their last 5 games Jesus will desperately be looking for a way to resurrect their season. A porous defence that conceded 11 goals in 3 days towards the end of last term will also take some bolstering. A well earned draw against Wadham in their last game does however indicate they deserve to be playing at this level but they will need to replicate that sort of performance in the second half of the season that sees them with a tough draw. 5 of their 8 games are away, and they still have Worcester to play twice. The Derby County of the Oxford premiership, Lincoln are left playing for pride. Their lowly league position is somewhat surprising given they have twice scored three goals in league matches this season (they lost both) and they helped produce the most extraordinary match of the season, a 5-4 Cuppers win against a Christ Church side who are going strong in the first division. However they have not produced the balance that other sides have and will probably have to go back to the drawing board in division 1 next season.

 Jonathan wanted to conduct very early – at just 11 years old he was trying it out on his own. ‘You can imagine the embarrassment when one’s parents find their son conducting to a wall’ he said. Luckily for everyone he’s moved on since then and is now starting his final term as the musical director of the university’s second orchestra. Did he have any advice for people interested in just starting out now? ‘If you find that you are not getting the opportunity to conduct, invent your own’, he said, adding that most conductors have to start out by creating their own ensembles. In his own Oxford debut, Jonathan accidently cut out half his peice. ‘I didn’t realise I had made the mistake until I had sat the choir down, walked back to my seat and the tenor next to me gave me a nudge and said “do you not like the second verse?”. This then became my excuse for skipping out the repeat.’ Something that really impresses him is ‘sheer variety and class’ of classical music at Oxford, calling it ‘absolutely fantastic’, in both quantity and quality. He seems to view it as an almost public duty for students to take advantage of it, ‘whether you are classically minded or not.’ He clearly enjoys making music too, dubbing it ‘a refuge from the stressful life of tutes, lectures and essays.’Jonathan will be finishing his tenure with a performance of Rachmaninoff’s 2nd symphony and Elgar’s Violin concerto this term. He’s also trying to finish off with a football game between the Philharmonia and the University Orchestra. I asked Jonathan what his question would be if our places were reversed. ‘I’ll have to think about that one,’ he said ‘but I’ve always been intrigued to know just how much the conductor actually does affect the performance’.  by Michael Bennett

Oxford student hopes to turn Big Brother stay into Turner prize art piece 
While most Oxford students are fretting about collections, 21-year old finalist Amy Jackson has an arguably more frightening experience before her. She is one of twelve housemates on “Big Brother: Celebrity Hijack.”
 Amy is currently being watched by millions of viewers as she and her fellow housemates complete a series of absurd tasks while under instruction from celebraties including Matt Lucas, Paula Abdul and Kelly Osbourne, who challenge the candidates to do whatever they are told through an earpiece.
 The format is a continuation of previous Big Brother series, only this time all candidates are aged 21 years or under and have been chosen for being especially gifted and ambitious. Amongst them are politicians, fashion designers, musicians, Olympians, entrepreneurs, and Amy – a conceptual artist and student of fine art at Oxford’s Ruskin School. Her talents and acheivements include having won the Geoffrey Rhodes Prize for the highest first-year exam results and playing several instruments.
When asked if she would like to apply for a place on Big Brother, Amy thought it would be “a bit of fun”, says her boyfriend Tom, also an Oxford student. “But then she got further and further in the process and was eventually asked to be a housemate,” he says. Tom says she went into the house as she saw it as a “once-in-a-lifetime experience” that she could not turn down. And so, last Thursday, along with 3.2 million other viewers, Tom watched her move into the house to begin her Big Brother experience. “It is so strange watching her on television, especially to see her chatting away with the likes of Ian Wright,” he said.
No need for envy, though, because as every good Oxford student would, she has taken her work with her to the Big Brother house. Her current project is called “Clean Removal”, and involves taking items of household waste, cleaning them and mounting them under glass with the label ‘Removed for Cleaning.’ Not satisfied with waste alone, Amy considers Big Brother itself to be a piece of art. “Being in the house has a lot of scope for being an endurance art piece”, Amy recently told The Times. “Somebody’s experience in Big Brother could win the next Turner Prize.” She might have a real chance: Mark Wallinger, last year’s Turner Prizewinner, filmed himself walking in a gallery dressed in a bear outfit.
Michael Archer, Head of Oxford’s Ruskin School, reacted with mixed feelings to Amy’s Big Brother adventure. He said, “We acknowledge it as a perfectly legitimate way in which a contemporary artist might choose to practice.” He said that reality TV was one of many features of contemporary culture that made “new creative spaces available” and rendered Amy’s decision for Big Brother “understandable.”
And even if the reality show does not get Amy the world’s foremost art prize, if she manages to stay in the house the longest she might end up £50,000 richer. Nevertheless, even if she wins neither jackpot nor Turner Prize, plenty of fame and popularity is likely to come her way. Boyfriend Tom is already very proud. “I miss her but it’s great how well she’s coming across in the house.”

It's a tough time for stage, because much of the 'cultural funding' usually set aside for theatre is being cut back. The Arts Council, which often backs smaller productions, is going into slash-and-burn mode. This means cuts in funding for  non-mainstream drama productions, who normally rely on its support – tenuous at the best of times – to go ahead.Drama festivals, perhaps not as popular as the notoriously hedonistic tented music festivals, are nevertheless a great place for new talent and quirky theatre. The National Student Drama Festival, which runs in March this year, has just had its annual £52,000 budget cut entirely. Not the sort of news to instill confidence. Yet despite this lack of funding, it looks set to be as brilliant and innovative as always. Another one to look out for this year is Latitude, held in Suffolk (July 17th -20th) and now in its third year. The festival features up-and-coming theatre, comedy, burlesque and poetry, besides its main musical attractions. Latitude has gained recognition for its cultural richness, helped along by comics like Bill Bailey and Dylan Moran and performances of Nabokov and Shakespeare plays. Last year’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream was brilliantly comic, while a conceptual piece, based on fairy tales and staged in the woods, was truly terrifying.This year also sees the modest beginnings of the new Kingston Theatre in London. Based on the layout for the original 1587 Rose theatre, where Shakespeare and Marlowe performed, there are plans for the theatre to be linked to Kingston University and used as a base for two residential drama companies. It opens for business on January 16th with a production of the play Uncle Vanya.Of course, mainstream theatre is still thriving, with productions like The History Boys and War Horse set to return once again as popular yet relatively erudite fare for theatre-goers. Noël Coward's plays are in the limelight this spring, with The Vortex playing in the Theatre Royal Bath and then the Apollo. With Felicity Kendal playing the lead, this production is sure to receive a lot of attention. So I thought I’d get in first. The National Theatre is also focusing on Coward, staging Present Laughter, and also two of his shorter dramas, The Astonished Heart and Still Life, as part of its 'Platforms' project. And quite honestly, given the snowballing prices of cinemas and clubs, a revitalised slice of vintage Coward should be required viewing for the average Oxford student…And finally, the question that is resounding over the boards of the stage world: now that Darcey Bussell has retired, who will fill her role as Principal Ballerina? Ballet has received a lot of attention lately as the national papers are awash with interviews with the diva ballerina; who will be next to steal the limelight?by Ellen Griffifths 

Guy Pewsey discusses prostitutes, children and Richard Dawkins with Russell Brand.Russell Brand is late. Forty five minutes late to be precise. Union officials claim that Russell is feeling a little unwell, but I’m growing impatient regardless. And I’m not alone. I am sitting in the front row of the Union’s packed debating chamber, surrounded by hundreds of people who have come specifically to see a face which every individual in Britain cannot help but recognise due to the massive coverage his many projects, including comedy, acting, presenting, and now writing, have received. Looking around the room, it is clear that many usually scruffy individuals have made an effort to look good for Brand, and when his arrival is announced a flurry of both men and women quickly make sure their hair looks okay. For that is Russell’s appeal; unkempt yet stylish, coarse yet loveable, a beacon of style to men (according to GQ at least) and irresistible to women (the cast of St Trinians, in which he recently appears, were warned about Brand’s ways before shooting started). At long last he strolls in to thunderous applause, bright eyed and smiling widely, sashaying in a careless manner not dissimilar to the walk of a Disney Princess.And so it begins; almost an hour of spontaneous musings, physical comedy and a book reading, covering his dismissal from MTV for dressing up as Osama Bin Laden on September 12th 2001, and a rather unfortunate incident when he spat in the face of a new girlfriend. After the performance – and performance it assuredly is – he leaves the chamber with long strides, casting a look of glee back at his audience.‘Where is that girl who asked the question about celibacy?’ I’m now standing next to Russell, surrounded by a swarm of fans. Casting my mind back to the chamber, I recall the pretty blonde who he is referring to. ‘You mean the girl in the dress?’ I answer vaguely. His head tilts as he adopts a primary school teacher tone of voice. ‘Now now, is that her name?’ I am unsure how to reply, but Russell continues regardless, ‘I suppose that’s quite nice really’ he says, ‘to the two of us she will always be the girl in the dress.’ I laugh politely, although I’m actually a little uncomfortable. He turns to me as if he has suddenly realised that I don’t belong in his group, then looks me up and down. I hold my breath, unsure what to expect; ‘Well then,’ he pauses while I stand silently terrified, ‘aren’t you a fine young specimen?’ He doesn’t stop there; ‘And what a fine head of hair you have.’ He ends with a purr, an actual purr. ‘Not as fine as yours though I’m afraid’, I answer. ‘Well, there’s time to do something about that’ Russell says with a wry smile. With this we are called upstairs.Although Brand plays the role of clown in most scenarios, it’s clear that he is more intelligent than many people give him credit for. He has just returned from a quick detour to view a photograph of Einstein’s visit to the Union, and while we talk he signs copies of his autobiobraphy My Booky Wook, which he insists is not one of the many celebrity stories on the market written by a ghost writer, insisting that he feels the same way about his book as others would do about their children. The reference to parenthood brings me to a particularly interesting part of his life, when his father took him on a fatherson expedition to the Far East where the two slept with prostitutes in their shared hotel room. I ask if experiences such as this have put him off having children, and he answers instantly; ‘I want to have children very much, I love children. Your parents try their best, don’t they?’ He seems not to harbour any bitterness, and has spoken earlier in the evening about his fondness for his mother. ‘I prescribe to the Larkin view of parentage. You know, “they fuck you up your mum and dad” and all that but you love them anyway.’ Russell pauses from signing for a moment and we continue. I had read earlier that day that Brand considers his style to be that of a Victorian pimp, an S&M Willy Wonka, so I was eager to question him on his perceptions of style. His look has championed the cause of the metrosexual, and I ask him how if he likes having his own sense of fashion borrowed by others. He pauses to construct his answer. ‘I like the idea of mimetics. I think Dawkins coined the phrase.’ He looks at me expectantly but I have no clue of what he’s talking about. I resort to a wistful nod and he continues. ‘Like the coordination of ideas or something, so if I can spread the idea of a hairdo then why not?’Of course, with the platform that enables Brand to display his style comes the inevitable press spotlight. ‘I try not to read the papers’ he says, ‘but it is affirmation to see yourself abstracted into a tabloid form, made into a ridiculous cartoon that could never begin to capture the nuances of the human character.’ He stops to remember a name. ‘Was it Lang that talks about the mirror phrase?’ Once again, I have no idea, and he shrugs and chuckles.The newspapers, magazines and organisations which sometimes abuse his privacy often ‘reward’ him with trophies; some welcome (Vegetarian of the Year, Most Stylish Man of the Year) and others less so (The Sun’s Shagger of the Year). ‘You do get objects’ he explains, ‘but I give them all away.’ I ask what the Shagger of the Year award looked like, and he grimaces. ‘It was the front page of The Sun newspaper with a picture of me on that I’ve never particularly liked.’ I ask where it is now. ‘I gave it to Jonathan Ross as a matter of fact. You struggle to get rich people gifts, you never know what to give them, so why not a portrait of you pictured on the front page of The Sun with the phrase “Shagger of the Year” emblazoned on the top?’ His criticism of Ross’ wealth is heavily veiled by the cheeky schoolboy tone in which it is delivered, a technique perfected by Brand. I tell him that my mother, a big fan, thinks he is the second most intelligent man on television. He interrupts – ‘Stephen Fry?’ I nod, and ask Russell what he thinks about him. His answer is suitably flamboyant. ‘I love him, I think he’s beautiful.’ I wonder if he minds not being first in my mother’s considerations, and he is resilient in his acceptance. ‘Oh no, there’s no shame in coming second place to Stephen Fry, unless it was in a straight nose competition.’
Interview courtesy of the Oxford Union

John Marshall comments on US politics. Hilary Clinton’s tearful episode a day before the New Hampshire democratic primary appears to have reignited her camp gain. With some pollsters putting principal adversary Barack Obama ahead by ten points this left many wondering exactly what had happened.Are Americans really that capricious? Despite the notorious unreliability of US opinion polls, this result implies a sea change in active popular sentiment. Large numbers said that they decided on the day. Although polls fairly accurately predicted Obama’s vote share, Clinton appeared to take the vote of every independent and some committed to third place candidate John Edwards.The dramatic shift of many independents to Clinton signals the success, but mostly the failings of current American politics. Voter interest in politics is unusually high – the American people seem to be responding to the rhetoric that America needs change. This turn will likely support more responsible and responsive government.However, serious questions must be asked when a tearful moment from a presidential candidate is credited with winning a potentially pivotal election. This moment is symptomatic of the prevailing image politics that has replaced substantive policy debate. Personally, it is Senator Edwards’ (poorly funded) vision that most significantly differentiates the candidates, yet focus among democrats centres upon the Clinton/ Obama battle. Both are ubiquitously surrounded by boards and signs containing ‘change’; while both Clinton and Obama proffer similar views on moral issues like abortion and gay marriage, the key issues of foreign and economic policy are a more fundamental concern. Characteristic of the post-2005 Democrats, their apparently separate visions for change are vague and predominantly negative in that they argue simply against Bush’s conduct on Iraq, Medicare, social security and the high income tax cuts. Against this backdrop, it is unsurpising that issues of competency and personal charisma take hold among voters in an age that can now relay images of Clinton near breakdown on televised, 24-hour news and internet sites within seconds. When we speak of more interest in this election, this is where it is directed.Considering the reality of the policy junctures concerning Iraq, Medicare and social security, the US needs to publicly discuss its direction. When a brief chink in Clinton’s usually controlled and austere image apparently causes an almighty electoral rupture, supporters of democratic politics must worry. Clinton’s dramatic New Hampshire success admits turnout approximately double the state’s primary average and serves to illuminate the extent of the recent national democratic deficit. Although all democrats should support increasing turnout, and the greater legitimacy that such results confer, nationwide US primary turnout hovers around ten percent. It will surprise nobody that those who do vote are not a representative bunch.Given the low levels of active participation, a pivotal moment such as the potential destruction of Clinton’s campaign or the long-awaited demonstration of ‘real’ emotion (depending on how you see it) mobilising a wave of support among a minority can induce drastic consequences. This seems to be what happened in New Hampshire where the influx of the undecided and habitual non-voters (suggested to comprise many single women) finally swayed by Clinton’s outpour rushed to the poll booths to give Clinton ten percentage points more than expected and thus secure the victory that now reinvigorates her campaign.The rising interest and participation in what may prove to be one of America’s most significant political years in recent memory is to be commended. But this should not conceal the threatening and thinly-veiled problems that lurk underneath.

By Louise Collins and Cassie Lester3  stars. The News Café is not the ideal place for recuperation after a heavy night’s bopping. Devoid of comfy sofas and lazy armchairs, the bright, airy interior is better experienced when one is feeling more resilient. News Café is however definitely suited to a quick break from shopping with friends or a quiet solo coffee to remind yourself there is a world outside Oxford. The wall-mounted televisions continually flash news headlines and the wall racks contain everything from magazines to foreign language newspapers; good for a study break if you’re still feeling up to learning about the outside world after collections. Free from the hysteria of Cornmarket’s coffee-chains, and unpretentious in its style and approach, the News Café is however a place in which a good caffeine hit is to be had and offers a broad selection of meals, from cooked breakfasts to heavy lunches. We had a late breakfast of toast and a smoked salmon bagel; both were tasty and prompt, although the toast came with miniature plastic packets of Marmite, jam etc that weren’t quite sufficient. Prices are comfortably mid-range – £2.10 for toast with marmite or marmalade, £4.75 for a smoked salmon and cream cheese bagel. More importantly the cafe charges £1.60 for a decent coffee and £4.90 for a full breakfast with a vegetarian option, and the standard of both food and drink is both good and generous. Service too was efficient, with friendly and attentive staff. Give up on the New Year’s resolutions early this year and embrace the full English fry-up and obligatory newspaper with open arms.

Michael Sweeney comments on Oxford's attitude towards academies.The news that Oxford and Cambridge have decided to snub the government’s initiative to forge greater partnerships between universities and city academies will no doubt compound negative public conceptions of the universities’ snobbery. When combined with static entrance figures for its state school intake, which continues to make up below half of undergraduates, it’s clear neither institutions are doing themselves any publicity favours. One question few are inclined to ask, though, is whether the university should be concerned with these things at all.Doubtless, it all comes down to money. “City academy” is the euphemistic name for struggling schools that need major cash injections and some extra TLC, so secretary of education John Denham’s appeal to universities to twin with their local academies is essentially a bail-out request. Clearly, added funding is not the answer to all of societies ailments, but where teachers cannot contend with the multitude of problems that spill into the class-room from working class estates, it is usually the only way to obtain the required services.Denham wouldn’t put it this way, of course. At a conference in October he cited universities’ ‘educational expertise’ as the key to improving schools problems. Really? You would hope they were pretty good at running a nine hundred year old intellectual factory with 40,000 members, but whether they are well placed to decide what to do about Wayne’s disruptive behaviour is left to the imagination. The truth is that such partnerships will result in the university hiring experienced secondary school heads to deal with schools on individual bases -which means, yes, more money.The job of a university is to produce people who are well qualified to contribute to society. It is not to fix societies problems. That is why the university is right to keep its cash. It is also the reason that Brown’s government should stop pressurising Oxford to do something about its admission figures. Isn’t it obvious that the reason fewer state school educated students attend this university is because fewer of them are capable of doing so? Not surprisingly, sending your son or daughter to Eton or St Paul’s does tend to make them better educated, and so better equipped to succeed at admissions.The problem is that politicians are looking too high up the educational ladder. The only way to help state school students is to help their schools, and the way to help schools is to help working class estates, not just by alleviating crime and antisocial behaviour, but also by assisting programmes like Sure Start.Thankfully, the university seems to realise this, so their inevitably unpopular decision should be commended.