Saturday, May 17, 2025
Blog Page 266

Discovery or Rediscovery?

0

One of the films expected to win big during the approaching awards season is The Lost Daughter, the first film from actor-turned-director Maggie Gyllenhaal. Greeting Netflix on the final day of 2021, it seems aptly placed at the beginning of the new year, considering how central the fact of this being Gyllenhaal’s directorial debut has been to the critical discussion around it. A profile in The Observer by Wendy Ide specifically explored her transition from ‘difficult’ acting roles to ‘lauded Hollywood director’. Critics are suckers for feature debuts, perhaps attracted to the energy that is created when a new voice seems to shake up the status-quo. In fact, the BAFTA, Grammy and Forward Poetry awards all award artistic debuts in isolation. There is a euphoric wonder spun when artists like Billie Eillish and Dua Lipa emerge with albums so assured and confident that they immediately dominate over experienced, veteran creatives, or when debut works with less than universal acclaim are celebrated by the niche who wish to state, ‘I liked them before they became cool’. The artistic debut has always acted as a magnet, in the sense that critics seem to take pleasure from attempting to be the first to celebrate new voices in the field.

In the literary world, one of the most assured debuts of recent years has to be Sally Rooney’s Conversations with Friends. This is perhaps partly due to the fact that it didn’t read like a debut at all. Yes, her voice seemed refreshingly new in perspective and tone, exploring the life of a generation only beginning to be written about. But Rooney’s style is so assured and confident, her characters so audaciously complex, varying on the brink of being unlikeable, that it seems you are reading a much more experienced novelist. As Zadie Smith reflects, “I love debuts where you just can’t believe that it was a debut,” – a fitting statement from an author whose own arrival with White Teeth in 2000 grappled with 150 years of history, whilst exploring themes of family, cultural alienation and religious isolation, a set up that would scare even the most accomplished writer.  Both these authors have since become such a part of the cultural landscape so that it seems odd to think they haven’t always been with us. Rooney’s second book, Normal People, seemed to look in the face of that ‘difficult second album’ mantra and ask the publisher to hold its beer.

Yet, whilst magnets attract, they also repel. Debuts often create an uncomfortable alienation in audiences, where arriving to break down the status quo causes more enemies than admirers. The Daily Mail called Sarah Kane’s play Blasted ‘a disgusting feast of filth’ in 1995. It is now one of the most celebrated artistic debuts in theatre, forcing respected critics like Michael Billington to apologise for being ‘rudely dismissive’ of the play. Here, the debut provided critics with a unique angle of attack, where the Sunday Times snarked that Kane ‘has a lot to learn’; as if believing you can write a play is in some way arrogantly overconfident. To Kane, the notoriety to her arrival as a playwright was as much a springboard as a burden, first performing her fourth play Crave under the pseudonym Marie Kelevdon to distance herself from the notoriety surrounding her work. Throughout the entirety of her all too short career, she struggled to break away from the reputation Blasted had forced onto her.

Moreover, the seeming glorification of the debut seems alien to the actual physical act of artistic creation. Prior to every first film, most directors will have completed countless shorts, most writers countless rejected novels, every musician abandoned songs. The debut is only the first moment the world itself is made aware of the artist, the first time that widespread judgement is invited. It is far more like the arrival of Daphne to the London social scene in the first episode of Bridgerton than a birth of artistic endeavour. The debut lies in the presentation, not in the creation.

In fact, for Gyllenhaal, The Lost Daughter is not a debut but a new beginning, since her experience as an actor is surely long-term work experience for directing. The film is best released at the turn of the year to poetically foreground this fact, a theme frequently found within the film itself as character’s strive for reinvention. Similarly, Kane found a stylistic new beginning in Crave. As such, the new year is a time not of launching something new but of resetting and reconsidering; you can only build on what you have done previously. Like the new year, each new work is a second chance to affect your audience, cast out old themes that seem more stale than exciting. It seems no surprise that Sally Rooney has chosen to focus her latest book, Beautiful World, Where Are You?, on the problems of sudden fame – it highlights that debuts are indeed more indeed problematic for an artist than we often think.

Image Credit: The Lost Daughter//The Lost Daughter Facebook

New Year’s (Movie) Resolutions

0

This is the time of year for promises we may not keep. And we’ve got plenty of movie-related resolutions, whether it’s something we always wanted to see but have never found time for, or a new aspect of film that we want to get into. From contributors from and beyond the Film section, here are some of our movie-watching goals for the New Year…ones which we will hopefully stick to.

Caitlin Wilson 

This year I’m resolving to embrace the short film. I’m a fairly devoted film-watcher – I love carving out time to watch three-hour epics and ninety-minute gems alike, but I don’t always have the time to invest in a great feature. Short films are often under-promoted and under-watched, but the ones I have seen have stuck with me for years. Jim Cummings’ Thunder Road centres one of the best acting performances I’ve ever seen, and Jeremy Comte’s Fauvre haunts me to this day. Several of my favourite directors have also dabbled in shorts – Sofia Coppola’s Lick the Star has been in my Letterboxd ‘to watch’ list for a while now, as has Julia Ducornau’s Junior

Short films are a place for the weird and niche parts of cinema to thrive, where new filmmakers test the waters and veterans explore new facets of their art. So I’m declaring this year my year of the short film. Maybe I’ll even try making one of my own! 

Abbie Nott

My resolution to go in search of new favourite films this year got off to a false start when I put on ‘When Harry Met Sally’ for the definitely-at-least-twentieth time on New Year’s Day. I am a compulsive re-watcher of movies: this is something I thought everyone was guilty of, but it turns out not all of my friends have watched ‘Love, Actually’ enough times to know everyone’s lines – even the ones spoken by the little boy in the octopus costume… 

In 2022, I am going to expand my horizons beyond the Richard Curtis and Nora Ephron rom-com sections of Netflix. ‘Licorice Pizza’, featuring Alana Haim and Cooper Hoffman, is a new coming-of-age movie I want to see, although I am mostly drawn in by the Bowie song in the trailer. I loved ‘tick, tick… BOOM!’, the Jonathan Larson biopic starring Andrew Garfield, so I’m hoping the musicals streak will continue with the new ‘West Side Story’ which I can’t wait to get around to. 

One film I keep hearing about is Spider-Man: No Way Home. I have somehow never watched a single Spiderman film – maybe this is the year that changes and then I can discover if the hype is to be believed! Either way, I hope 2022 gives me a new top-10 film… that was released after 2010. 

Wang Sum Luk

For an editor of the Film section, the list of Important Classic Films I haven’t seen is embarrassingly long—and by that, I mean I saw Jaws for the first time this New Year’s Day. My initial plan of following that by watching Spielberg’s other major films in chronological order was put on hold when I remembered that I still had vacation reading to finish, but I’m finishing my Spielberg-A-Thon as soon as I can.

This may also be the year I finally make myself watch those boring foreign art films I’ve always been putting off seeing—yeah, I know the work of Yasujiro Ozu and Andrei Tarkovsky would be valuable additions to my education as a movie viewer, but why sit through a minute-long close-up of a vase when I could go on YouTube and watch fight scenes from a Marvel movie? Hopefully I’ll change that habit, even if I might need to duct-tape myself to my chair to ensure that I don’t start checking my phone while watching Tokyo Story.

Noah Wild

The new year is a good opportunity for reorganisation, perhaps a clear out of things that are now taking up space, left in the attic acquiring dust and beginning to smell of rotting nostalgia. For me, the film equivalent of old comics or never-played CDs is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Whilst WandaVision started off 2021 well for Marvel, providing an energetic series that utilised and subverted its TV format, this energy tailed off as the year went on. Now the saturation of Marvel content is taking up more time in my life than it’s worth. With an episode released on Disney Plus almost every week of the year, alongside four feature films, it seems no one can stay on top of the endless releases, study for a degree or hold a full-time job all at the same time. 2022 may be the year when I make some space on the shelves and walk away from the developing ‘multiverse’ before a new incarnation of Iron Man is ripped out from a solar system different from our own and the whole process starts all over again. Though maybe the Black Panther sequel will forge new ground like its predecessor, and I’ll end up breaking the resolution. In the meantime, I have a stack of unwatched old classics on DVD that need watching before I take them to the charity shop. I’d estimate that it’s about four years since I bought Gladiator from CEX for fifty-pence and at this point I’m starting to feel sorry for it, left there unloved and unwatched.

Artwork by Wang Sum Luk. Image credit: Matej//Pexels, Pexels//Pixabay, ViTalko//Pexels, Hans//Pixabay, Deltaworks//Pixabay, ericspaete//Pixabay, Jonas von Werne//Pexels

New Stadium for Oxford United F.C.

0

After inevitably leaking on social media the day before, Oxford United Football Club released a statement last Monday which finally outlined long-awaited plans for a proposed move to a new ground, with the League One team hoping to complete their relocation in time for the beginning of the 2026-27 season. If final approval is received, a new sporting complex will be built across 45 acres of land on the present site of Stratfield Brake sports ground, located just to the north of the Oxford ring road on the southern fringes of Kidlington. In addition to a modern, technologically-advanced 18,000 seater stadium, which would be by far the largest such facility in Oxfordshire, an illustrative masterplan published concurrently by Oxfordshire County Council reveals plans for adjacent conference, restaurant, and hotel facilities, as well as the possible construction of a new ice rink, which may function jointly as a large-capacity indoor arena.

As with almost every major construction project in the football world, the planning phase is likely to be characterised by complaints, controversy, and aggravation. After two decades of searching and two failed relocation attempts, Premier League club Everton are at last building a modern stadium on the Merseyside waterfront to replace the aging Goodison Park, but have simultaneously contributed to the loss of Liverpool’s UNESCO World Heritage status in the process. Similarly, in the lower-leagues, the likes of Darlington, Barnet, and York City have all suffered drama, delay, and ultimately a fair dose of dejection in their pursuit of new stadia over recent years, despite plans originally being greeted with much fanfare and optimism. Given this, why do Oxford United feel the need to relocate? And perhaps more importantly, do the benefits of moving outweigh the potential drawbacks?

To understand the situation that Oxford United currently find themselves in, it is necessary to sketch out a brief history of the football club. Founded in 1893 by clergymen of St Andrew’s Church in Headington, the U’s have spent the majority of their existence playing under their original moniker: Headington United. Only in 1960 was their name was changed to its present form in an effort to raise the profile of the club, as part of a successful attempt to gain Football League membership via the archaic re-election process. These Headington roots are reflected in the location of United’s spiritual home, the Manor Ground, which stood for more than 75 years on a site between Sandfield Road and Osler Road in the heart of the East Oxford suburb. For anyone unsure of their Oxford geography, this is next door to John Radcliffe Hospital and just over the London Road from the Headington Shark. Despite considerable on-field success during their first two decades as a Football League team, by 1982, the now Third Division club found itself heavily in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy. Fortunately however, salvation arrived in the form of Robert Maxwell, Oxford’s very own multi-millionnaire business tycoon and publishing boss, who famously lived and worked in the palatial Headington Hill Hall. Maxwell was the father of the now notorious Ghislaine, who was herself installed as a club director whilst studying at Balliol aged just 22, and who still retains shares in OUFC to this day.

Almost immediately after taking ownership of the club, Maxwell recognised the limitations of the old Manor Ground, which, despite its great charm and character, resembled little more than a ramshackle collection of stands, terraces, and scaffolding, bolted together like some sort of architectural Frankenstein’s monster. Nevertheless, intense fan-pressure scuppered his ill-advised proposal of a merger with local rivals Reading FC to create the Thames Valley Royals, which in turn prevented the realisation of plans for a new stadium in Didcot for this hybrid team. Instead, with Maxwell’s millions behind them, the “still-in-Oxford” Oxford United flew up the leagues during the mid-80s, and eventually spent three years in the First Division (equivalent to today’s Premier League) during a golden era capped by victory over Queen’s Park Rangers in the 1986 Milk Cup final at Wembley. Sadly for Yellows supporters, these glory days couldn’t last forever, and after relegation back to the second Division in 1988, the future of the club was again plunged into doubt upon the mysterious and unexplained death of Maxwell – reputedly an MI6 and Mossad spy – in 1991 after a late-night fall into the Atlantic from his super-yacht Lady Ghislaine, moored off the Canary Islands. Investigations after his death soon uncovered that Maxwell’s business empire had itself been racking up humongous debts. Scandalously, the late football club owner had only prevented its collapse by thieving hundreds of millions of pounds from the pension funds of his employees at the Daily Mirror. Oxford United were subsequently declared insolvent in the aftermath of this affair, and remained in financial dire straits throughout the 90s until their takeover by London hotelier Firoz Kassam in 1999.

Many of the problems associated with the present-day Kassam Stadium – and ultimately the proposed move to Kidlington – can be traced back to its namesake, who finally oversaw a move away from the half-derelict Manor Ground in 2001. Kassam’s chief motivation for owning Oxford United appeared to be greed, as the hugely-valuable land owned by the club in Headington was almost immediately sold to a healthcare company for £12 million – double the amount Kassam had paid for the stadium the year before. The old site is now occupied by the private Manor Hospital. To replace the Manor Ground, the Yellows started playing at Kassam’s new stadium in Blackbird Leys, on the south-eastern edge of the city. However, from the very beginning it was clear that this was not a match made in heaven. After first overcoming a supposed “gypsy curse” placed on the team by an aggrieved traveller who had been evicted from the site to make way for construction vehicles, it quickly became clear that the new owner had under-invested in the construction and maintenance of the new ground. If anyone reading this has ever had the misfortune of visiting the Kassam (perhaps for your Covid vaccination, or for a JCR committee team building trip to the escape rooms next door – cheers Brasenose!) this should have been immediately obvious. Most glaring is the complete absence of a fourth stand behind the western goal, the result of Kassam’s money drying up as Oxford tumbled out of the Football League in the mid 2000s. Ironically, this cruel omission leaves the Yellows with a uniquely three-sided stadium, despite representing a city famous worldwide for its quads.

Regardless, if one can put aside thoughts of the pitiful western fence for a moment, various other aspects of the Kassam are far from ideal. First, the three stands that do exist were built out of cheap, concrete breeze blocks, and retain a kind of brutalist feel, particularly from the inside. Consequently, the place lacks a great deal of character and atmosphere. Furthermore, the Kassam is inconveniently located about 300 yards away from the Oxford Sewage Treatment Works, which brings a whole new meaning to the phrase “crap game of football” when the wind blows in the wrong direction. However, perhaps worst of all is the financial situation, as Kassam still owns the stadium, despite relinquishing ownership of the football club in 2006. For the privilege of playing their 23 home matches per season at this soulless arena, Kassam charges the club’s current owners approximately £1 million a year, a substantial money drain that severely hampers the club’s potential for development on and off the field. To make matters worse, until this season the club made no money from food and beverages sold inside the stadium on matchdays, which represented a considerable loss of income, particularly given the severe lack of places to eat and drink nearby. 

The decision to move away from Blackbird Leys is made even more palatable to many stakeholders by potential plans in store for the Kassam site after the football club vacate it. Firoz Kassam’s seemingly spiteful decision to rent out his stadium to OUFC at extortionate rates is somewhat borne out of understandable frustration, as this land is ripe for property development. Once the football team head elsewhere, it is widely hypothesised that Kassam will sell the land to construction companies for a large profit, enabling the building of potentially hundreds of houses on a new brownfield site. The same fate befell the White House Ground, home to Oxford City FC until 1988, which was also sold to developers by landlord Brasenose College after they evicted the city’s second club from their quaint old premises, which were formerly located behind the White House pub on the Abingdon Road. This therefore is a win-win situation for both Kassam and the County Council, who are currently struggling to deal with perhaps the worst housing crisis in the UK. A 2015 study led by University of Oxford professor Danny Dowling found that the average house price in the City of Dreaming Spires was 16 times higher than the local average wage, a ratio larger even than London. This property price squeeze is the inevitable consequence of limited housing stock in a city whose population is quickly expanding. In 2011, Oxford City Council predicted that at least 24,000 new homes were needed by 2031 in order to tackle this growing issue, however, property developers are increasingly hamstrung by the greenbelt which strangles Oxford, preventing construction on most green space outside of the ring road. Consequently, the potential emergence of a large brownfield site on the edge of the city would be a desirable outcome for both the city and county councils.

Finally, if you contrast my previous description of the Kassam with the blueprints for a new venue at Stratfield Brake, the decision to move becomes even more obvious. Populous, the American architectural firm chosen to carry out the construction, have a strong reputation for building impressive new stadia of comparable size, including Minnesota United’s stunning Allianz Field which opened in 2019 after less than 30 months of building work. This venue includes a safe-standing terrace, steep intimidating stands with potential for expansion, and even its own on-site brewery-cum-pub. Another opportunity arises with the possible construction of a modern ice rink/indoor arena next door to the stadium. Although Oxford United have acknowledged that these are only “indicative plans” that have not been officially submitted, relocating the current ice rink from its present site on Oxpens Road would solve a big headache for the city council, who have earmarked the undeniably miserable Oxpens area (another victim of post-war town planning decisions) for a major £1.5 billion overhaul over the next 15 years. In addition, a large indoor events centre on the new site is likely to be greeted enthusiastically by university bosses, who have long desired a similar such venue to host conferences and other flagship events. Put together, this range of factors suggests that the recent decision to leave the Kassam is a sensible one for most involved.

Having established that OUFC have good reason to move away from their current home, one wonders whether Stratfield Brake is the right location to move to? A cynic would argue that Oxford are merely swapping one out-of-town new-build for another, given that both the Kassam and Straftfield Brake are – as the crow flies – about four miles from Carfax, Oxford’s traditional centre-point. Nevertheless, there are a number of good reasons why a site closer to the city centre would be unfeasible. Most obviously, a quick glance at a map of Oxford reveals that there isn’t too much green space available within the city limits. The only places of any substantial size are Port Meadow – common land which hasn’t been built upon for thousands of years – and various other meadows either side of the Botley Road and the Marston Ferry Road. Here, the clue is in the word “meadow”. Oxford is handily situated at the confluence of the Thames (or Isis) and the Cherwell, and is mostly as flat as a pancake, so these areas flood regularly. Not ideal for a football stadium. Consequently, OUFC have been forced to look exclusively at locations outside of the ring road. Incidentally, my own team Wycombe Wanderers have almost the reverse problem, as pretty much everywhere in High Wycombe is on a steep hill. Wanderers’ old pitch at Loakes Park had an amazing 11 foot slope from one side to the other!

Once it is accepted that the U’s won’t find anywhere to play within the city boundaries, why is Stratfield Brake more suitable than any of the other possible relocation sites around the fringes of Oxford? The key to this answer is accessibility. Unlike the Kassam, which takes a painfully slow 40 minutes to arrive at from the city centre by bus, Stratfield Brake is very well connected to both Oxford city centre and the rest of the country. The buses up to Kidlington from outside the Magdalen Street Tesco travel quickly along the Woodstock and Banbury Roads at regular five minute intervals. In addition, the proposed site is within a ten-minute walk from the new Oxford Parkway railway station, which opened in 2016 and serves passengers travelling directly from London Marylebone. More importantly, the Parkway is only a cheap five-minute journey from Oxford’s central train station, which should make the city centre pubs and restaurants a far more attractive prospect for fans before and after the match, providing a boost for local business. Similarly, Oxford Parkway is also just ten minutes down the line from Bicester, the rapidly expanding Oxfordshire town which harbours its own hospitality industry and a large chunk of Yellows supporters. 

Critically, these regular bus and train links should reduce fans’ reliance on car travel to get to the stadium, which appears to be another major reason behind the county council’s backing of the project. Conservative councillor Liam Walker tweeted last week that the new site will “reduce car journeys and will boost public transport usage”, a message that chimes with recent schemes formulated by the city and county councils, such as the proposed introduction of a Zero Emission Zone (ZEZ) which aims to ban all petrol and diesel cars from the city centre. Nonetheless, if some fans do still feel the need to drive to the stadium, Stratfield Brake is perfectly located next to the A34, A40, and A44, is within 15 minutes of the M40 motorway, and has thousands of parking spaces available at both the Oxford Parkway and Pear Tree park-and-ride facilities.

Despite these outstanding transportation links, one group that could potentially be disenfranchised by the proposed move to Stratfield Brake are the thousands of longstanding supporters living in Oxford’s extensive south-eastern suburbs near to the Kassam, including the traditional working-class areas of Littlemore, Blackbird Leys, and Rose Hill. As mentioned already, these parts of town are poorly connected to the city centre, let alone Kidlington, and these fans may soon face much longer journeys to watch their beloved team in action. Fortunately however, some of this consternation should be offset by the anticipated 2028 reopening of up to four passenger railway stations along the Cowley Branch Line of the old Wycombe Railway, which was closed during the short-sighted Beeching Cuts of the 1960s and is currently used only for freight services from the BMW-Mini factory in Horspath. This long-awaited infrastructural project should greatly improve access to central Oxford from these areas. Furthermore, by moving towards Kidlington, the football club exposes itself to a new support base of Oxfordshire dwellers living outside of the city itself (who account for 78% of the county’s population). This statement particularly applies to those residing in the Cherwell district, which contains multiple large settlements across north eastern Oxfordshire, including Banbury, Bicester, and of course Kidlington.

Finally, perhaps the last major hurdle to overcome for supporters of this move is the issue of building on greenbelt land. As mentioned previously, Oxford is completely encircled by the greenbelt, which aims to prevent the coalescence of settlements and urban sprawl into the surrounding countryside by restricting building work around the edges of the city. Damningly, the land at Stratfield Brake was bought by Oxfordshire County Council in 1937 for the sole purpose of retaining green space in the small gap between Oxford and Kidlington. For this reason, the Oxfordshire branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) have already voiced their opposition to the proposals, with a spokesperson claiming that it was “unlikely that [the development] could be justified”, citing inevitable harm from “associated traffic impacts” and the prior existence of “significant pressure from housing development”. In contrast to the CPRE which lacks real influence, a more powerful potential opponent to these plans are the Liberal Democrats, who control a large proportion of the county council and who represent the Stratfield Brake area with the Member of Parliament for Oxford West and Abingdon, Layla Moran. Rightly or wrongly, the Lib Dems’ recent successes in parliamentary by-elections have been at least partly attributed by some commentators to a Not-In-My-Backyard approach towards greenfield developments. Nevertheless, in what clearly represents a huge boost to the relocation campaign, the Oxford Liberal Democrats stated on Thursday that they “warmly welcome this proposal [to move to Stratfield Brake]”, perhaps swayed by the potential emergence of a prime brownfield site when the club leave the Kassam. The Lib Dem statement therefore attests to the considerable political will for this project to get the go-ahead.

Overall, Oxford United’s plan to leave the Kassam Stadium in favour of a new site at Straftfield Brake is well-founded, and could provide major benefits for the club’s fans and owners, the county and city councils, and perhaps the university too. Controversy and disapproval are inevitable with major construction projects, particularly when sports teams are involved, but on balance, the Stratfield Brake proposal appears to offer hope of a much brighter future for Oxford’s leading sports team.

Richard Rogerson/ CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The Magic of the Cup? – A weekend of historic upsets shows that football’s oldest tournament is still alive and kicking

0

There’s been a lot of talk about the FA Cup over the past few years.  A rise in squad rotation from top teams and declining attendances at the highest level have led to many questioning whether the world’s oldest tournament has lost its magic.  Any doubters need look no further than last weekend’s third round results to see that the magic of the cup is very much still alive. 

For the last 150 years the fabled trophy has been lifted above the heads of the eventual winners at grounds across the UK from the Kennington Oval, to Crystal Palace, Old Trafford, the Millennium Stadium and of course both the old and new Wembley’s.  Those historic moments of glory will always be remembered and make the headlines come the end of the season but the glitz and glamour of cup final day are just one part of what makes this competition so special and so unique.

Many fans are simply unaware of the scale of the competition.  For most, it begins on the fantastic spectacle that is third round weekend in January when clubs from the top two divisions enter the hat.  For the vast majority of sides though, the long slog to Wembley begins right back in August.  736 sides enter the hat and there are six preliminary and qualifying rounds to navigate before a club even makes it to the ‘First Round Proper’.  Most never will but there is an undeniable magic to the fact that a game involving two non-league clubs at your local football ground in early August is a part of the same competition that culminates in front of 80 000 at one of football’s greatest grounds in May.

The romance is key to the importance of the cup but truly what makes it so vital is the financial windfall that it brings to clubs away from the top end of the footballing pyramid.  Now more than ever lower league and non-league sides are in financial distress across the country, reeling from the wrecking-ball of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Without the TV deals of the top divisions to fall back on and with little to no governmental support, the cancellation of seasons and lack of gate receipts risked decimating the grassroots game. 

One cup run can change all that.  One cup run and one televised game can transform the fortunes of a non-league side for years to come.  Aside from TV deals, a third-round win is worth £86 000.  That might be peanuts to Premier League giants but for a side like Kidderminster Town who triumphed over Reading last week it is game-changing.  The £160 000 they have already earnt from the competition this season opens up a world of possibilities from new training pitches, to changing room refurbs, to physio tables and a new bar. Plymouth Argyle’s trip to Stamford Bridge alone in the Fourth Round will earn them £1 million.  Whilst top clubs are rotating squads and complaining about cuts in prize money, those at the other end of the pyramid are desperate to take whatever help they can get.

This year, after last season’s third round was played out behind closed doors, felt like a return to the old days and yet again served up countless historic upsets.  It all kicked off on Saturday afternoon with the three-o’clock kick-offs.  Kidderminster Town of the sixth tier served up perhaps the biggest shock of the day when they stunned Championship side Reading with a 2-1 comeback win.  This was eclipsed only by the stunning result at St. James Park where the world’s richest club paraded their new star signing Kieran Trippier and a full-strength side only to fall to a 1-0 defeat at the hands of League One strugglers Cambridge United.  Elsewhere non-league’s Boreham Wood comfortably beat AFC Wimbledon 2-0, League Two Hartlepool swept aside Championship Blackpool and Nottingham Forest strode to a famous 1-0 win over Mikel Arteta’s Arsenal under the Sunday night lights at the City Ground.  

These results might be forgotten in a couple of weeks by the casual Premier League fan but for those involved the memories will be timeless and for the average non-league player who has to work several jobs just to pay the bills, the chance to play in front of tens of thousands at a Premier League ground is once-in-a-lifetime.

So, next time you find yourself lamenting the fixture congestion crisis facing your favourite team as it tries to juggle five competitions at once just remind yourself which one was there first and why its magic very much lives on.

Dave Gunn/ CC BY-NC 2.0 via Flickr

Pig transplants: the science behind the dilemma

David Bennett is perhaps a name you’ve heard quite frequently since the last week or so. On the 7th of January 2022, he became the first man in the world to successfully receive a transplant of a pig’s heart. The eight-hour-long operation took place at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore, USA, and the success was viewed by some as the beacon of light for the future of organ transplant surgery. 

Though the surgical breakthrough was the first-of-its-kind, xenotransplantation, the goal of transplanting animal organs into people, has been pursued by scientists and doctors alike since more than 60 years ago. It was the summer of 1940, when Peter Medawar and his wife, Jean, and eldest daughter, Caroline’s peaceful Sunday afternoon was broken by a plane crashing violently just 200m away in a garden. Although the pilot survived the crash, he suffered horrific burns.

A zoologist by training, the Oxford researcher Medawar was conducting studies on which antibiotics were best at treating burns. For the pilot who just crashed, doctors soon came to Medawar for help on deciding what medications to use. During a time where the war left many airmen in agony with much of their skin incinerated, while medical advances such as blood transfusions and antibiotics were able to prolong their lives, there was no way of actually treating these burns. And when the doctors transplanted healthy skin from one person to another to cover the burn-wound, it was all destroyed soon after. 

At the time, the doctors believed it to be merely a matter of skill that the skins were destroyed – the cutting and sewing were yet to be perfected, but Medawar saw something more. Through tireless experimentation with 25 rabbits, he grafted pieces of skin from each one onto every other one. 625 operations on 25 rabbits later, he showed that skin could not be grafted between different rabbits. More interestingly, during the second round of grafting, it turned out that the rejection happened even faster than during the first transplant, indicative of an immune reaction. Fundamentally, Medawar and his team showed that transplantation can be successful as long as the immune reactions can be stopped. 

Fast forward to a few decades later, in the 1960s, chimpanzee kidneys were transplanted into some human patients, but the longest a recipient lived was nine months. Then in 1983, a baboon heart was transplanted into an infant named Baby Fae, who died 20 days later. In order to increase the chance of a successful transplantation, scientists looked to gene editing and cloning technologies to genetically alter the organs so that it’s less likely to be rejected by the patient. Specifically, pigs are often chosen over other primates for organ procurement because they are easier to raise and their organs are able to reach adult human size in just around six months. 

Before the pig’s heart was transplanted into David Bennett, Revivicor, a regenerative medicine company that provided the pig’s heart for surgery, made 10 genetic modifications to the organ. Firstly, 3 genes were knocked out or inactivated, including one gene that encodes a molecule which would cause an aggressive human rejection response. Then, the growth gene was inactivated to stop the pig’s heart from growing further in size after it was implanted. Finally, six tweaks were made to the pig’s heart as additions of human genes: two anti-inflammatory genes, two genes that promote normal blood coagulation and prevent blood vessel damage, and two other regulatory proteins that help tamp down antibody response, says the Science magazine.

Despite the initial challenges, scientists are hoping that its success will enable them to give more people animal organs. However, if Bennett’s success were to be replicated, regulators and ethicists will need to define what makes a person eligible for a pig organ. For instance, most people waiting for kidney transplants can be put on dialysis, and organ harvesting from animals raises animal welfare concerns. PETA, the non-for-profit organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, warns of the mistreatment of animals as “warehouses of spare parts”, citing protocols documenting that baboons and macaques were caged alone, subjected to multiple major survival surgeries, numerous biopsies, and repeated blood draws in clinical trials for organ transplantation. Furthermore, in these days of the pandemic, all of us are only too aware of the very real danger of transmitting unknown viruses during such a procedure, as pigs often carry zoonotic and other infectious pathogens that could be introduced to the human patient.

Image: Ben Salter / CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Humanness in AI: the Turing Test and a technology based on deception

For a long time in the 20th century, the possibility of a ‘computational machine’ being sentient, or in effect human, remained only as a distant philosophical hypothesis. Nevertheless, these philosophical discussions apply now more than ever – at a time where increasingly integrated technology is blurring the line between reality and the virtual world.

From the conception of a ‘computational machine’ in Alan Turing’s 1936 paper, the idea of human-like computing became central to the field of Artificial Intelligence. In 1950, Alan Turing proposed the following ‘imitation game’ – now commonly known as the Turing Test –  to explore what is the essence of being human. The game is played by three agents – two contestants A and B, one being a human and the other a machine, and a human interrogator C. Without the interrogator seeing the contestants, C may ask any question to A and B, which they will respond via typewritten communication, in order for C to distinguish between the man and the machine. The interrogator is allowed to put questions to the person and the machine of the following kind: “Will A and B please tell me what they think of this Shakespearean sonnet?”, or “What is the result of 29345 times 5387?”. The objective of the machine is to try to cause the interrogator to mistakenly conclude that it is the human, and the objective of the person is to assist the interrogator to identify the machine. 

In his paper, the ‘imitation game’ was presented as a sufficient condition for the confirmation of genuine intelligence in the machine. In other words, Turing believed that if the machine were able to answer any such enquiries to a satisfactory degree as to fool the investigator, then we should admit that the machine has achieved genuine intelligence. In addition, he noted that machine-intelligence may work in ways vastly different to our own, so the Turing Test should not be treated as a necessary condition for machine intelligence. 

Since then, the development in chatbot technology illustrated issues and ‘loopholes’ with Turing’s formulation of machine intelligence. As early as 1966, one of the earliest natural language processing programmes, ELIZA, appeared to have displayed characteristics that were enough to pass the Turing Test, but upon closer inspection, the proclaimed chatbot therapist is no more than an act of trickery using techniques such as pattern matching and brute force regurgitation. 

So perhaps chatbot AI isn’t quite the genuine machine intelligence Turing had in mind, but no doubt passing the Turing Test is still an important first step towards achieving true machine intelligence. As such, we ought to be more than careful to resolve the ethical dilemmas building towards machine intelligence at every step of the way. Without genuine semantic understanding of the language output, AI ethics is particularly difficult to navigate when it comes to chatbot technology.

In 2016, Microsoft launched its own chatbot, affectionately nicknamed ‘Tay’. Tay was a twitter bot that was supposed to interact with users on Twitter and learn from those interactions. From Tay’s initial friendly and positive debut on twitter, internet trolls quickly spotted a way of exploitation. To manipulate her algorithm, trolls started attacking the chatbot with languages filled with misogyny, racism, and other hateful content to see if she would imitate them. She did. Within 24 hours, Tay descended from posting tweets such as “humans are super cool” to generating antisemitic hate speech.

More recently, Alexa, Amazon’s voice assistance, made headlines after it told a 10-year-old girl to touch a live plug with a penny. The suggestion came after the girl asked Alexa for “a challenge to do”, and in this instance, the dangerous challenge was one that began circulating on TikTok and other social media platforms about a year ago.

While these occasions of ethical violations were resolved by their respective tech companies as soon as the issues were found, other subtle nuances in AI design can also have a huge impact on ethical considerations. Intelligent or not, the convenient assistance service brought to us by chatbots cannot be denied. Recent research by the University of Florida revealed that whether it is a well-implemented AI or a real person, high scores of ‘perceived humanness’ when interacting with virtual assistants on online retail platforms led to greater consumer trust in the company. 

However, this brings into question the ethicality of a technology based on deception. Google’s voice assistant, Duplex, sparked controversy in 2018 when it fooled many shop-owners after successfully booking restaurant reservations and hair salon appointments in a distinctively human-sounding voice. The technology itself may be harmless enough, and the audience live at the tech launch sure felt ‘in on the joke’, but, equally, the voice assistant could have achieved the same goals during launch through some other more honest and transparent ways. If the Google developers tested the hypothesis ‘is this technology better than preceding versions or just as good as a human caller’ instead, they would not have had to deceive people in the experiment.

As technologies continue to evolve and develop, possibly there will come a day when genuine machine intelligence as Turing had envisioned will be achieved. But ultimately, despite the theatrical value of chatbots passing the Turing Test, I believe the most important criteria for any technological advancements should be based on improved performance and better user experience, rather than its ability to deceive.

Image: geralt / CC Public Domain Certification via Pixabay

Timothée Chalamet’s ‘Wonka’ to resume filming in Oxford

0

Oxfordshire County Council have issued notices confirming that filming of the upcoming film Wonka starring Timothée Chalamet will resume in Oxford this February.

December saw crowds of fans gather on Catte Street in the hopes of catching a glimpse of the Oscar-nominated actor as he left Hertford College, which the crew was using as a base to film around Radcliffe Square.

There had been plans to film on Merton Street in December, but this has been rescheduled to February 15th and 16th. Filming will also take place on Catte Street and New College Lane on February 16th and 17th. Traffic restrictions will be in place on Broad Street from 6am to 10pm on February 16th to allow filming to take place.

Wonka, which is scheduled to release on March 17th 2023, is expected to depict the life of the famous fictional confectioner prior to the opening of his chocolate factory. Alongside Chalamet, the star-studded cast is set to include Oscar winner Olivia Colman, Sally Hawkins, alumnus of The Queen’s College Rowan Atkinson, Matt Lucas, and Matthew Baynton.

Image: Maximillian Bühm/CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Rhodes Scholar withdraws after ‘false’ claims of poverty

0

A Rhodes Scholar who claimed that she had grown up in the foster system has lost her scholarship after an investigation revealed that she grew up in a middle-class family and attended a $30,000-per-annum private school. 

In November 2020, Mackenzie Fierceton was one of just 32 students to be awarded the Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford. The Rhodes Scholarship, which is the oldest and perhaps most prestigious global scholarship programme, pays for Oxford University fees as well as providing an annual stipend to successful applicants. According to its website, the Rhodes scholarship seeks students who display outstanding intellect, character, and commitment to service. 

Fierceton has made various comments about her experiences in care, claiming to have been “bouncing around the foster care system throughout my life” and referring to herself as “low-income”. When her scholarship was announced, an article in The Inquirer celebrated her success, describing her as “a first-generation, low-income student and former foster youth.”

An internal investigation by a Rhodes committee concluded that Fierceton, who is a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania, had “created and repeatedly shared false narratives about herself” for the purpose of serving her “interests as an applicant for competitive programs”. 

On November 23rd, Penn received an anonymous email, which cast doubts over Mackenzie’s true identity and background. 

A subsequent investigation by The Rhodes Trust found that for the first 17 years of her life, Fierceton was raised by her mother in a wealthy community in Missouri. She did spend time in foster care, but left the system after less than a year. 

Fierceton has since withdrawn from the Rhodes programme. However, she maintains that she told no lies. Mackenzie claims that she suffered parental abuse: she told police in 2014 that her mother had pushed her down the stairs, after which she was hospitalised for 22 days. However, all charges against her mother, Dr Morrison, were dropped, on the grounds that they were “based on false information”. Although Fierceton claims that the Trust is attacking a “survivor” of abuse, her position as a victim of abuse is contested by Penn.  

In a lawsuit filed last month, Fierceton accused the University of Pennsylvania and Trust investigators of victimising her. 

Fierceton’s legal defence centers around an alleged ‘cover up’ of the death of a former Penn student. She claims that the investigation into her personal history was intended to discredit her as the key witness in a wrongful death lawsuit filed against the University of Pennsylvania. 

In January 2020, Fierceton suffered a seizure on campus, and she alleges that it took over an hour for first responders to reach her. She believes that this delay was caused by the unsafe and inaccessible infrastructure of Penn’s campus buildings. Subsequently, she attempted to determine whether the death of her classmate, Cameron Driver, which occurred approximately 16 months prior to her seizure, was due to a similar delay. Penn denies this claim.

After Fierceton drew this issue to the attention of senior administrators and provided details of the alleged failures displayed in both medical emergencies, the lawsuit states that she had to be “discredited and buried” by the university. She claims that the university conducted a ‘sham’ investigation, following which they forced her to voluntarily decline her Rhodes scholarship, threatening to withhold her master’s degree and even send her to prison if she failed to comply. Her defence claims that, as part of the plan, a senior Penn administrator authored a secret letter to The Rhodes Trust expressing ‘serious concerns’ about Fierceton’s credibility. Penn denies this claim. 

In her complaint to Penn, Fierceton has issued a notice of preservation of evidence, demanding and requesting that Penn “take necessary action to ensure the preservation of all documents, communications, … items and things … which may in any manner be relevant to the subject matter of the causes of action and/or the allegations of this complaint.”

In Penn’s response to the complaint, the University declared that “every objective and careful reviewer of the facts in this case – including the Rhodes Trust, Penn’s Office of Student Conduct, a faculty committee from Fierceton’s graduate school at Penn, and a hearing panel consisting of faculty and students from other Penn schools – concluded that Fierceton had not been truthful.”

The University of Pennsylvania told Cherwell: “We are disappointed that Mackenzie Fierceton has chosen to file a lawsuit, especially after she has received so many opportunities at Penn. [Sic.] There is no basis for Ms. Fierceton’s claims. We are confident that Penn and the individuals named by Ms. Fierceton as additional defendants will be vindicated in the litigation.”

The Rhodes trust shared the following statement with Cherwell: “We can confirm that Mackenzie Fierceton withdrew her candidacy from the Rhodes Scholarship and is not a Rhodes Scholar.”

“Rhodes Scholars are selected on the basis of a powerful set of core criteria which include ‘truth … devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak.’  We strive constantly to ensure that the Trust’s policies and procedures uphold these values and that our selection process is robust and fair.  We provide training resources for selectors on a wide range of topics, in order that applications are assessed diligently and without any form of bias. If concerns arise about an individual application, we review the matter carefully and give the applicant multiple opportunities to respond and share information.”

“We are deeply committed to our Legacy, Equity and Inclusion action plan. We are proud of the ever-more global and diverse cohorts of Scholars we support, and of the many contributions they make to the diversity and excellence of Oxford’s post-graduate population.”

Image: Bryan Y. W. Shin / CC BY-SA 3.0

OULC invites MP with links to Chinese spy

0

The release of the Oxford University Labour Club term card has revealed the inclusion of Barry Gardiner, an MP with close connections to Chinese spy Christine Ching Kui Lee.

In a highly unusual public move, MI5 issued an alert about Ms Lee’s use of donations to “establish links” between the Chinese Communist Party and British political figures. While Ms Lee was connected with all major political parties, donating £5,000 to Liberal Democrat Sir Ed Davey and receiving a Point of Light Award from then Prime Minister Theresa May in 2019, these are dwarfed by her interactions with Barry Gardiner.

Mr Gardiner received more than £500,000 from Christine Lee over 6 years, which was mainly used to pay staff. Further evidence of the close personal connection between the two was revealed by the inclusion of Ms Lee’s son on that staff, as well as a call from Ms Lee a week before the MI5 alert to inquire after the health of Gardiner’s elderly parents in law.

While insisting that the Chinese agent ‘gained no political advantage’ from him, he did admit to discussing Labour policy with her, though it was “not in great detail”. Gardiner also stated that he had been “liaising with our security services for a number of years” about her and they had “always known, and been made fully aware by me, of her engagement with my office and the donations she made to fund researchers in my office in the past”.

Faced with the accusation he had been a “cheerleader” for China in an interview with Sky News, Gardiner highlighted his past criticisms of the Chinese government, such as on climate change issues and human rights concerns. However, the connection between the former Shadow Secretary of State and a foreign agent who lobbied for Chinese interests in nuclear technology has raised eyebrows; particularly due to his guiding role in Labour’s energy and trade policies as a frontbench MP under Corbyn.

In light of this, many of his prior comments have come under renewed scrutiny, and no doubt will continue to do so now that Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng has ordered an inquiry. This could be uncomfortable for Mr Gardiner, who has made some controversial statements about China in the past. These include when he deplored “the escalation of violence between protesters in Hong Kong and ordinary people in Hong Kong”, a comment that led to The Guardian accusing him of being a Chinese apologist.

Mr Gardiner’s defence of continued Chinese involvement in Hinkley C nuclear power station and his criticism of the government’s steps to ensure that it could prevent the sale of French firm EDF’s stake in the project to prevent it falling under Chinese ownership have also come under renewed questioning.

The OULC told Cherwell: “OULC invited Mr Gardiner to speak before this investigation was made public by MI5. While we are concerned to learn of the large sums given to him by Christine Lee, we believe that it would not serve accountability in this case to simply disinvite him from our event. We hope that Mr Gardiner will still appear at the club, and we will be able to question him robustly about the nature of his relationship with China and Christine Lee. While we by no means excuse Mr Gardiner’s behaviour or exceptionally poor judgement, we also note that other large donors, such as Rosemary Saïd and Lubov Chernukhin have donated close to £2m each in the last 20 years to the Conservative Party, with lower scrutiny about the intentions behind their donations. We are continuing to monitor the situation and will review our decision if MI5’s investigation, which Mr Gardiner is co-operating with, turns up any new information.”

Image: Rwendland / CC BY-SA 4.0

“I don’t believe in a redemption arc for Perez Hilton” : Perez Hilton in Conversation

0

Perez Hilton is saying sorry.

17 years since the rise and fall of his controversial blog, this near-universally loathed gossipmonger turned businessman and doting father of three is now offering a heartfelt apology to those he believes he has hurt.

But are we ready to forgive him? And does he care if we don’t?

There was a time when this once significant contributor to the cultural conversation was everywhere, fanning the flames of celebrity discourse wherever he went. Some loved his ‘tell-all’ approach to celebrity gossip. Most despised his vitriolic take-down of those in the limelight. Everyone knew his name.

Perez Hilton, or Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr as he was known before taking on his infamous alter ego, helped to usher in a new age of celebrity gossip. In doing so he became one of the most hated men in the world. 

“Nobody was doing what I ended up doing,” Perez tells me at the beginning of our call, “the celebrity magazines back in 2004 would just use their websites as a landing page to get people to sign up for subscriptions to the print edition. They wouldn’t break news on their sites.” 

Perez revolutionised the model, creating a blog that allowed him to break news in real time. At the press of a button he could report the latest celebrity scandal, offer up his opinion on the most recent faux pas or fashion mishap.

The way he spoke about celebrities also differed from his contemporaries. He recalls a time when celebrity discourse centred around their relatability. Magazines like US Weekly, led by pioneering figures such as Bonnie Fuller, would post photos of celebrities taking out the trash. The overriding message was that these people were just like us.

“That never interested me,” Perez tells me.

Instead he drew from the British tabloid model, known for its bite.

“The British press can [be], and often is, extremely vicious,” he tells me, “I’m sure Meghan  Markle would agree. Or Caroline Flack.”

According to Perez’s vision, celebrities weren’t just like us. They were much worse.

And so whenever there was a celebrity slip-up or an infamous fall from grace, Perez was there, ready with a salacious headline and a scathing take.

It was this radical choice of content that made Perez a household name, at least among the celebrity obsessed. His notoriety skyrocketed in 2007, which he terms “the Year of the Girl Gone Wild.” The year of Brittney Spears’ breakdown, Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton’s very public court dramas, the release of Kim Kardashian’s sex tape, 2007 was a gossip’s dream. 

The chaos that ensued in Hollywood, paired with Perez’s biting commentary, was a winning combination. Perez made celebrity gossip enticing. And addictive.

“I pandered to people’s basest instincts, their DNA,” he tells me, “Most everybody I know, if they’re driving their car and they see a car crash, they’re going to slow down and look and see what happened. That’s just who we are as human beings. We’re curious people.”

In the heyday of his online empire, Perez controlled the narrative of Hollywood. The heroes and the villains, the victims and the vixens, the crazies and the Brittneys, he was ruthless. Nobody was left unscathed.

His early blog posts are difficult to read now. There’s a scathing post about Lily Allen that reads Lily Allen + Motherhood = Disaster!!!, accompanied by an image of the singer, cigarette in hand. Perez has drawn a coughing baby onto Allen’s stomach. In the final line, he asks “Can’t you stick to intoxication instead of moving on to procreation?” Jennifer Anniston is frequently referred to as “MANiston”, with cruel remarks about her appearance and relationship status. Amy Winehouse is a “crackhead” and a “wino”. Most of his targets were women.

Spears was a particular favourite. Unflattering paparazzi photos of the singer are plastered across the blog. One caption reads: “this mess is still in self-destruct mode.” Another shows an image of Heath Ledger, posted shortly after his death. The caption reads: “why couldn’t it be Brittney?”

In the wake of the #FreeBrittney movement and a re-evaluation of the way we treat those in the public eye, how does he feel about the words he wrote?

He pauses for a moment, before tentatively saying, “I think that is clearly lacking in compassion. At the time I was saying what a lot of people were thinking. That and many others were unnecessarily cruel and I was being purposefully hurtful. This is why I don’t believe in a redemption arc for Perez Hilton.”

“I knew at the time what I was doing was wrong and I didn’t care. I did it anyway because I was being rewarded for bad behaviour. Like you see now with Jake Paul or Logan Paul. They’ve both been cancelled numerous times, but in 2021 Jake and Logan Paul are bigger than ever, making more money than ever, and being rewarded for their continuous bad behaviour. It’s as if I created the blueprint for the Paul brothers,” he says. 

Perez likens his obsessive reporting to an addiction, previously stating in an interview for BBC HARDtalk in November 2020, that “I was a full blown addict. And while my drug of choice was not drugs or alcohol, I was fully and severely addicted to attention.”

It’s an addiction his followers shared. “When Brittney Spears was at her wildest, people were glued to my website” he writes in his 2020 memoir. This was a two-way relationship. Perez Hilton didn’t exist in a vacuum. Even now, as I read his old posts, I can’t help but feel compelled by the narratives he constructs. There’s something very clickable about his portrayal of celebrities on the verge of a public breakdown.

Why does he think we found his content so irresistible?

“Because it makes your life seem wonderfully boring,” he tells me, “everybody’s life is messed up. Like I said, nobody is perfect. But when you are reading these wild, shocking stories, regardless of whatever drama you have, you might say…well, at least I’m not so and so or at least I’m not that person ….”

There’s a certain hypocrisy, Perez notes, in the way we respond to celebrity gossip.

“Let’s say there’s an Adele phone hack and photos or sex videos of her leaked. A lot, if not the majority, of people online are going to be looking it up to try to see that,” he tells me, “and even some of the people that might secretly look it up, publicly, they will criticise any outlet for publishing it and criticise any person for viewing that content.”

Perez reached a turning point in 2010 following an altercation with the manager of the Black Eyed Peas, Polo Molina. Molina punched Perez, after he used a homophobic slur against will.i.am. Documenting the incident in his memoir, Perez writes: “‘I need to make some changes,’ I said to myself. I really meant it.” After years of online cruelty, Perez’s reign of terror had finally come to an end.

It would be remiss to claim Perez has been incident-free in the years following. Though he maintains any mistakes he makes nowadays do not have the same malice behind them.

“Since 2010, I have made mistakes, but it’s never been my intention. My thought process has never been…I want to say something really bad about so and so. Or do something really terrible to get a reaction out of them or the public. Back to the addiction issue, it’s a constant struggle. I absolutely sometimes lapse back into old Perez. I should probably sit and think about things more often but this does not excuse my behaviour,” he tells me.

Speaking to Perez, the impression he gives is one of genuine repentance. He speaks openly about his past mistakes and takes accountability for them.

“I’m not trying to erase my past. I’m not pretending it didn’t happen. For me, I think that shows how awful I was back then. And that’s who I’m not anymore,” he says.

“I carry not just regret,” he tells me, “but also deep shame.”

He can understand why people find it difficult to believe his remorse, but this won’t stop him from apologising.

“That is one of the many things that I can and do to try and clean my karma of the past and of the present because I still make mistakes,” he tells me.

But what does this mean for the people he hurt? The irreparable damage he did?

“I don’t necessarily think that apologising is enough,” he says candidly.

“I will apologise sincerely if I believe I did something wrong and when I don’t, I won’t apologise for it. I’m not sorry for everything I did,” he continues.

What isn’t he sorry for?

“I’m not sorry for creating something out of nothing,” he replies, “Nothing was ever given to me.”

Perez also remains unrepentant for a recent TikTok scandal he’s been embroiled in. Perez was banned from the platform in December of last year, after a comment he left on a video TikTok star Charli D’Amelio had posted. In the video, D’Amelio, 15, is shown dancing in a bikini to a remix of Brockhampton’s Sugar. Perez met with backlash from D’Amelio’s extensive fanbase, after questioning whether the dance was appropriate, given the sexually explicit nature of the lyrics.

“I’m not sorry about that. At all,” he says when I bring the incident up, “because I was not slut shaming anybody. I was not body shaming anybody. I was not even trolling.”

“Me asking [if it was appropriate] is not inappropriate. Me asking that is not bullying. A year and a half later, I think perhaps what I should have done differently is directed that question at her parents, like ‘is it appropriate that her parents haven’t deleted this yet?’”, he says. 

D’Amelio’s fans retaliated. Some made videos attacking Perez. Perez’s provocative response to one such video, commenting “all these videos are getting me hard”, came under fire. The creator of the video was a minor.

“I don’t regret that either. A, I didn’t know that girl was a minor. B, that person had made multiple videos attacking me. So instead of responding with hate, I responded in a dumb, shocking way. I thought it was better than saying something negative to this person who had made so many videos hardcore attacking me.”

I can understand the sentiment, though I question whether it’s ever wise to cause such outrage for the sake of it.

“I have nothing to lose or nothing to win,” he tells me, “In the minds of people, they view me a certain way, that’s how they will always see me and, like I said, I still make mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes.”

But isn’t the usual response to at least feign some sense of shame in the face of cancellation?

“Here’s what makes me different,” he interrupts, “Most celebrities that are getting hate will ignore it. I always engage. If you go to my Twitter today, and you scroll down, and yesterday as well, you’ll see I retweet the hate. I was doing the same thing on TikTok. I engage because I know that doing that will get even more attention.”

So he’s fine playing the villain in the eyes of his critics? 

His response is characteristically provocative. “I never said I was fine with it, but I will continue to play that part until I don’t have to anymore. I don’t have ‘FU’ (“Fuck You”) money in the bank.”

Perez is committed to staying in vogue. And, for the large part, he has. While many of the names associated with him have faded into obscurity, his has endured. This is, he claims, due to his self-professed “unhealthy work ethic”. Recalling an earlier comment about the Paul brothers, I can’t help but feel as though there might be something else at play. Perez has gone to lengths to apologise for his past; the question of forgiveness is another matter.

“I don’t even need to be forgiven because I still have a career, and I’m still making money, and I’m still chatting with you right now,” he tells me, “Whether people like it or not, Perez is forever. I’m not going anywhere.”

To be forgiven is to be forgotten. Perez isn’t ready to let that happen. And, with our commitment to cancelling him, our collective outrage at every scandal he embroils himself in, and our morbid curiosity to see what comes next, neither, perhaps, are we.

Image Credit: Harry Kidd

Perez’s line of CBD gummies are available at MyTrue10.com.