Sunday 15th March 2026
Blog Page 3

Oxford Union town hall HT26: Meet the candidates

Cherwell News
-
0
Oxford Union town hall HT26: Meet the candidates

With polls open for the next set of Oxford Union elections on Friday, Cherwell spoke to candidates running to be President in Michaelmas 2026.  Cherwell reached out to all four candidates.  

Catherine Xu, Hamza Hussain, Gareth Lim, and Liza Barkova spoke about the current state of the Oxford Union, their vision for their presidency, and their reasons for running. Liza Barkova was also contacted for an interview. 

Cherwell understands that this term’s election is unlike previous elections, both because of the high number of candidates and because two of them are running independently.

Introduce yourself briefly. 

Catherine: I’m Catherine Xu. I am a postgraduate at Saïd Business School and Treasurer at the Oxford Union. I’ve worked in impact investing, and I’m also involved in community-building at Oxford through running a meditation society and actually running marathons to fundraise for charities.

Hamza: Hi, I’m Hamza, a final year History and Politics student at Christ Church. I previously served on the Union’s Standing Committee.

Gareth: Hello! I’m Gareth Lim, former Chair of Competitive Debating at the Oxford Union and 3rd year Law student at St Peter’s College.

Liza: Hey, my name is Liza and I am a second-year PPE student at Christ Church. I have served on the Union Committee three times, including Junior Appointed committee, Secretary’s Committee, and Standing Committee. 

Why are you running to be President?

Catherine: I’m running because the Union gave me a real sense of belonging when I first arrived in the UK. It was one of the first places where people cared more about what I had to say than what I looked like or sounded like. But lately, I sense many members feel that trust in that vision has eroded, and I want to rebuild that #TRUST.

Hamza: I am running to be President because I care about what the Union is meant to be: a serious forum for debate and advocacy. These are traditions worth defending. Without the Union’s values of free speech, debate, and giving a voice to all, voices like mine and my family’s would never have been heard.

I grew up in a domestic violence refuge, a safehouse for women and children fleeing abuse, and later in social housing in the area with the highest rate of child poverty in the country. From the age of ten, I also acted as a young carer to family members living with chronic health conditions. I have advocated for women and children facing domestic abuse through my fundraising of over £20,000 for the charity Refuge, in an award-winning campaign recognised by its CEO.

Gareth: I’m running because I believe that those who can serve, must serve. If the Union is to remain fit for purpose, it needs a fresh start. I’ve never run in a Union-wide election before, never sent a hack message, and am running as an independent. I believe that my competence, character and commitment make me the best candidate. 

Liza: Why I’m running – I come from a country where free speech is often suppressed by the government regime. The Union was the first place where I found that people truly believe that their opinions can matter on an international scale. That experience made a profound impression on me. The Union has an extraordinary platform, but its success ultimately depends on how well it serves the members who use it today. For me, this election is about INSPIRING a culture that genuinely welcomes all opinions. 

Which manifesto commitment are you most passionate about?

Catherine: The Access Membership Fund. Membership shouldn’t depend on your bank balance. If we’re serious about being a Union for all students, we need a real mechanism to remove financial barriers.  I’ve already begun work on securing early funding and building a structure that can endure beyond one term.

Hamza: Rather than making big promises, I want to focus on institutional stability, especially in light of the Union’s precarious finances. The focus for a Michaelmas President has to be a successful membership drive, which will only be possible with stable leadership and the avoidance of unnecessary drama.

Gareth: Pushing Competitive Debating! Not everyone needs to go to competitions, but the whole point of the Union is to give everyone a chance to sharpen their public speaking and critical thinking skills. Not many people realise that we run free training sessions every Monday at 7pm! (This includes non-union members) Of course, the Union already gives members opportunities to participate in Emergency Debates, but speaking in the chamber for a start can be a daunting experience. At Beginners training, we focus on giving everyone 5-7 minutes where they can deliver their own speech, where their voices are guaranteed to be heard before giving every speaker individualised feedback.  

I spent at least 4 terms coaching our competitive squads and I’ve seen participants grow so much over the course of a term. Students at Oxford are some of the smartest in the world and I think it’s a real shame if we don’t train to let ourselves be heard in the best possible way. 

Liza: I am most passionate about the pledge for financial revival. 

I have a number of ideas for strengthening the Union’s financial structure so that our events have generous budgets while also remaining financially sustainable. This is not a simple task and we cannot perform miracles overnight, but there are realistic steps we can take. One of the most important is building stronger long-term relationships with Union alumni. The Union has an extraordinary network of former members across politics, business, media, and academia. By reconnecting with that network we can both raise funds and create new opportunities for speakers, mentorship, and engagement with current members. Strengthening those connections would be a reliable and sustainable way to support the Union financially. 

What do you like the least about the Oxford Union in its current form?

Catherine: I think for me, it’s the loss of trust. Trust that decisions are made fairly, that concerns are taken seriously, and that the Union is welcoming to all members and not just those who feel entitled to the space. The Union is way bigger than its scandals, but the perceived dysfunction keeps drowning out the good. I want to help fix that.

Hamza: Throughout my time at the Union, I have seen factional politics come before the interests of the members. I am running as an independent candidate precisely because I want to avoid the factionalism that has led the Union to its current position.

Gareth: The Atmosphere. It always seems like there’s something brewing, just in time for the next election. I’ve had members tell me that they feel un-welcome at the Union and so they end up not utilising their membership to its fullest extent. (Which they should! It costs a fortune) 

Part of the reason is that the elections are often decided by Slate Politics and a network of close connections that have been built up over years. It’s really hard to break into that as a new member who just wants to get the most of their membership and it’s easy to feel as though you’re not really involved in the running of the society.

As a candidate who hasn’t run in a union-wide election, who never planned to run for Office and just wants to run the Union from the perspective of an ordinary member. I hope to change that and remove that cynicism.

Liza: What I like least is that some members who run for elections become too focused on winning the election itself and lose sight of what the role of an elected committee member actually is. 

Elections are part of what makes the Union unique, but they should never overshadow the core mission of the society: hosting outstanding debates and speakers for our members. 

If elected, I would try to move the culture of the Union away from internal politics and refocus it on delivering events that members are genuinely excited to attend and participate in. 

What do you admire most about your opponents?

Catherine: Their resilience and commitment. Running for Union president is probably more intense than some public offices so it takes real determination to keep showing up. I may have different priorities and a different style of leadership, but I respect the effort and courage it takes to run. You have to care for the place and be committed. I respect that.

Hamza: Their commitment to the Society and the courage they have shown in putting themselves forward for the Presidency. My fellow candidates have all dedicated time and energy to the Union, and I respect anyone who cares about the Society and is willing to serve it.

Gareth: Their time management skills! When I decided to run for President, I had no idea what I was getting into. Running a campaign is an exhausting, stressful and time-consuming experience. 

I have no idea how some of my opponents are managing to run their slates, focus on their academics and have time for hobbies and friends at the same time. The fact that the other Presidential candidates have done this multiple times is truly mind-boggling, they must have crazy productivity routines.

Liza: I have a great deal of respect for everyone running in this election. 

Catherine Xu has impressive professional experience. She entered the presidential race at a late stage and has demonstrated strong leadership in bringing her campaign team together. 

Gareth Lim is an exceptional speaker and an extremely skilled debater. 

Hamza Hussain has a clear sense of purpose and has devoted a great deal of time to charitable work, which is always important in someone who wants to hold a position of leadership. 

Give an example of one debate and one speaker event you’d most like to hold in your term.

Catherine: As someone who’s worked in social impact and venture capital, I’d like to host a serious, solutions-focused climate debate: ‘This House believes decarbonisation should be framed primarily as an economic strategy rather than an environmental obligation.’ On speakers, I’d love to invite Sir Ronald Cohen. He’s widely regarded as a pioneer of impact investment. I think he represents a model of leadership we all can learn from: leveraging ambition and resources to help deliver real-world change. 

Hamza: One debate I would love to host is ‘This House believes the British education system is not fit for purpose’. The Union is a student society and should tackle issues that directly affect students.

A speaker I would really like to host at the Union is the Oscar-winning actor Riz Ahmed. I admire his reflections on diaspora identity in Britain.

Gareth: So many possibilities! I’ve always wanted to host a good philosophy debate that tackles the cynicism of our times. Not to mention we have access to so many good speakers for such a topic right here in Oxford.

Debate: ‘This house believes that Morality is Objective.’ 

In terms of speaker events, I LOVE Cunk on Earth.  It would be cool to bring Diane Morgan to the Union. I can’t decide if I would like her to remain in character for the interview though…

Liza: For a speaker event, I would love to host Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase. As one of the most influential figures in global finance, he has played a central role in shaping discussions around financial regulation, economic stability, and the future of global markets. An event with him would provide students interested in business, finance, and public policy with valuable insight into leadership and decision-making at the highest level. 

For a debate, I would be interested in hosting a motion such as “This House Believes there is a better solution to government than democracy” which explorespolitical polarisation, and declining trust in institutions are putting pressure on democratic systems and raising questions about their ability to govern effectively in the 21st century.

How will you make the Union a more welcoming environment for ordinary members?

Catherine: By making the Union easier to enjoy without needing to be a “hack” or insider. That means: no more pre-debate disruption, more women speakers, and more events that feel social and accessible for members who want community, fun, mentorship, or opportunities and not just late-night politics. Think a play in the Chamber, alumni socials, and networking that ordinary members can actually use!

Hamza: Members care about interesting speakers and events that run smoothly. They do not care about factional politics. I believe the best way to create a more welcoming environment is to ensure governance is about the Union and not political manoeuvring. Members pay for events, not infighting. They deserve value for their money.

Gareth: To be Seen! The winning candidate for this election will be the President in MT 26. Michaelmas is arguably the most important term as it sets the tone for the rest of the year and for many members’ first term in Oxford. In that vein, I intend to hold as many Office Hours as possible to let members know that I’m willing to hear and understand their concerns. I think it’s especially important to have a President who’s willing to walk the ground and engage with ALL members. 

It’s just as important for a President who is capable of speaking clearly and confidently to communicate the Union’s direction to its members and to put their foot down when things get unwelcoming. As the 5th best speaker in the World, I believe that I have the requisite skill-set to give a confident and welcoming image to the Union.

Liza: First, we need to improve how the Union is perceived publicly. Members do not want to feel that they are walking into an institution constantly surrounded by scandal. We should actively highlight the positive work of the Union our debates, our speakers, and our intellectual culture which will naturally attract more members and participation.  

Second, communication matters. Members should know what is happening at the Union and feel invited to attend, rather than feeling that events are designed only for a small group of insiders. I would appoint more liaison representatives who could help publicise events across different communities and colleges and try to bring in more members who tend to be less involved. 

What will you do to protect members of the Union from racism and abuse, and make the Union a welcoming space for all members?

Catherine: Racism and harassment have no place in the Union. Free speech must go together with member safety and dignity. I’d strengthen trusted reporting routes, ensure fast and fair investigations, and make sure the Union actively supports members who face abuse, so the burden doesn’t fall on the person being targeted.

Hamza: As a British Pakistani, I am fully aware of the consequences of racism and how members of this Society can be unfairly targeted as a result of it. I believe that everyone, especially elected members of the Society, should be held to a high standard and be accountable for their words and actions. No one should be subject to personal abuse, intimidation or harassment.

During my time, concerns about racism in the Union have been raised repeatedly. Statements and motions alone are not enough. Members must have confidence that reports will be taken seriously and dealt with fairly. What is needed is a change in culture, led by the President, which creates mutual respect and understanding, allowing all members to participate fully in the Society.

Gareth: I intend to never work with racists or those who work with racists and to make strong statements condemning those who engage in such statements. This is a free speech society and members are entitled to their views, but that doesn’t mean that I’m not entitled to mine that I will never work with racists. 

This one really gets my goat. The Union has mired itself in scandal and declared itself racist umpteenth times but nothing ever changes! It all strikes me as deeply performative and tokenistic. 

The core issue is that many (not all) elected officials feel the need to get votes from those who hold problematic views to get elected. So they refuse to take a firm stance when it is absolutely the right thing to do. I don’t have this issue because I’m running as an independent and frankly don’t care enough to win future elections to sell my soul for it. That way, as president, I need only listen to my conscience and the members. 

On a separate note, it’s so important to nuance condemning those who do wrong and ruining people’s lives. I’ve seen first hand how quickly we smear those who might have spoken out of turn. This is, at the end of it all, a student society. We need to condemn those who do wrong, support those who do right, leave young people with the chance to grow and move on. 

Liza: Racism and harassment have absolutely no place in the Oxford Union. 

Racism must be called out clearly and without hesitation, even when doing so may be uncomfortable. At the same time, we need systems that allow concerns to be addressed properly within the institution. 

However, this also means ensuring that reporting processes are clear, transparent, and taken seriously, so that members feel supported and confident that complaints will be handled appropriately. No member should feel that the only way to achieve change is to expose issues through the media. 

Anything else you might like to add? 

Catherine: Elections shouldn’t be about drama: it should be about whether members can trust a candidate to make the Union work. I’m running to rebuild #TRUST: financially, culturally, and practically. I want [to] make the Union feel worth joining again.

Hamza: I chose to run for President because not doing so would be a disservice to those growing up in circumstances like my own who were not afforded the same opportunities that brought me here.

Gareth: Yes! You should vote according to who you believe is the best candidate and not what someone else told you. At some point either today or tomorrow (whenever this interview is released), you might be inundated with messages from those running for elections asking you to vote for them and those on their slate. If your friend is running, you should support them with everything you’re willing to give. But you should never vote for someone else just because your friend tells you to vote for them. Read ALL the Manifestos. 

I believe that my organisational experience, character and fresh perspective make me the best candidate for the Presidency. I hope to have your vote, but will be just as happy if you let your own voice be heard through your ballot! 

Liza: I have stood through many things that happened in the Union and have seen its effects and consequences. What I found is that the culture of the Union is built around the people who contribute to it. Together with my team, I want to inspire a culture of integrity among its people, I hope that the institution as a whole can improve as well.

Find the candidate’s manifestos here: 

Long Manifestos: https://bit.ly/40H03FE
Short Manifestos: https://bit.ly/4b9KOtY

Questioning the nation’s obsession with ‘Love Island’

Charlie Bailey
-
0
Questioning the nation’s obsession with ‘Love Island’

Introducing myself on the Cherwell Instagram page, I claimed that the Culture section is “about the media you consume outside of your degree”. For this to be true, it’s only fair that I dedicate an article to my occasionally borderline addiction to reality content. This article shamelessly considers the arguments for and against Love Island. 

My personal motivation for watching reality TV is definitely comfort: there’s something reassuring about the way the extremely familiar plotlines are edited to seem shocking. Unlike certain TV dramas which release a handful of episodes at a time, reality TV producers churn new seasons out once or twice a year, thereby removing the element of choice. I also like how they become a talking point – the final instalment of this year’s season of The Traitors, for example, drew 9.4 million viewers, and provided a point of debate amongst friends for months before that. 

Naturally, reality TV takes many forms, its less family-friendly iterations being romance shows (Love Island, Love Is Blind, Ex on the Beach to name a few). Especially in an environment like Oxford, where philosophical conversations are genuinely commonplace, watching these shows feels like a bit of a contradiction. As a 15 year old, gleefully discussing last night’s recoupling the next morning at school felt normal. A few years on, I’ve realised that it’s impossible to see these shows uncritically, and wondered if they can legitimately be seen as dangerous. My instinct to rely on them for comfort becomes questionable.

Shows like Love Island profess a commitment to contestants’ mental health that constantly falls short. Where The Traitors makes bumbling members of the general public complete tasks against each other, Love Island sees highly aestheticised young people compete for each other’s affections, with far more painful results. During each episode, ‘drama’ erupts, and scenes of women crying after the news that their partner of six days wants to ‘explore other options’ are accompanied by dramatically crescendoing soundtracks. Inevitably, the situation resolves itself, the contestants go to bed, and the cycle begins again. 

Recently, these formulations have begun to seem increasingly sinister. Last summer’s season (series twelve) saw a particularly high number of viewers and a particularly high number of Ofcom complaints. In the context of a media landscape where voices like Andrew Tate’s are becoming more popular, certain Love Island scenes start to feel slightly chilling. The season highlighted the ability of articulate older men to encourage lost younger men to turn to misogynistic modes of seduction. Viewers noted how contestant Harry Cooksley, the eldest in the villa at 30, made it his personality not to commit to any of the girls. He spoke about them in largely objectifying terms and jokingly ‘taught his ways’ to younger contestants such as Harrison Solomon. Solomon’s behaviour ( breaking ties with contestant Lauren Wood shortly after sleeping with her) in turn led to 221 Ofcom complaints  in response to a single episode. No action tends to be taken by Ofcom in relation to the comments;: the watchdog argues that Love Island is beyond criticism because it does not frame the men’s behaviour in a positive light. 

Reality TV as a genre does not always create such controversy. I’d say Love Is Blind is viewed as a much more humorous, wholesome version of the show, in which contestants’ external appearance is (rightly), deprioritised. When it seems to be creating harm rather than good, there is an argument that Love Island needs banning altogether. 

The issue with this statement is that it is not directly the fault of the show that the men act that way. Love Island survives because of its high viewership. Its popularity has intensified rather than decreased now that short-form content is so popular: influencers make careers out of dissecting each episode. The producers receive almost 100,000 applications per season: while complaints continue, young people are still keen to get involved. Producers have become more creative with how they find contestants, going as far as to walk up to people in nightclubs. This tells us that people see themselves in the contestants and romanticise what the show could bring them. The ideals it represents are therefore ones that resonate with today’s youth.

Someone once joked to me that Love Island is a social commentary; given its huge popularity, I think this has validity. In context, they were justifying watching a show that is framed as such a ‘guilty pleasure’. Perhaps it retains its standing because it is in fact familiar – it magnifies the relationship worries that young people feel day to day. If the show’s misogyny is so apparent, we should assume not that the producers encourage it, but that these are attitudes towards women which are acted upon every day in society. If a man behaves this way on camera, one worries about how they talk behind closed doors. As much as we’d like to see reality TV as a falsified ‘bubble’ in which feelings are expressed in their most extreme form, the intensity of emotion expressed on Love Island can reveal how young people see relationships. Any superficiality within that is an issue wider than the show, and one which needs addressing. 

On Afghanistan, Ukraine, and honorary degrees: Christina Lamb is a story-teller like no other

Conor Walsh
-
0
On Afghanistan, Ukraine, and honorary degrees: Christina Lamb is a story-teller like no other

Christina Lamb started her career as the Cold War was ending. She saw the fall of dictatorships in eastern Europe and Latin America, and the end of apartheid in South Africa. “It felt like things were going in the right direction”, Lamb tells me. But in all her 38 years as a foreign correspondent covering countless conflicts –  from Libya and Iraq, to Afghanistan and Sudan – “the last few years have been the busiest”. Reflecting on Ukraine, she said: “I never imagined that I would be covering major land war in Europe.”

Lamb always had a passion for storytelling. She came to the University of Oxford in 1983 to study Chemistry at University College, a course “which I hated”. Smiling over her menu at the Queen’s Lane cafe, Lamb tells me that, initially, she was unable to change subjects, “but after the first year exams they were quite happy for me to switch”. 

Cherwell was a big part of Lamb’s time at Oxford. She edited Arts and News before becoming the paper’s Editor-in-Chief. Lamb initially wanted to switch to Philosophy, Physiology, and Psychology (PPP), but her tutors presented her with an ultimatum: she could switch to PPP, but only if she stopped her work at Cherwell. “It seemed wrong”, Lamb says. “Part of [going to] University is doing other things and I didn’t see why I should have to give it up.” So she changed to Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) instead. “PPE didn’t care that I was doing Cherwell.” I’m sure our current editor can attest to this.

Of her own admission, “I didn’t know anything about journalism when I came here. I was always interested in stories but not really the news”. But an invite to Cherwell’s infamous cheese and wine parties (an event of the 1980s which I personally believe should be revived) introduced her to the student paper. “Different editors spoke and talked about what they did. I thought ‘I really like writing and I’m really curious about people’ so it seemed like something that I wanted to do.”

When I meet with Lamb she is visiting Oxford to receive an honorary Doctorate of Letters as part of a special ceremony to mark the Chancellor’s first year in office. Lamb was the first in her family to attend University, so, for her, attending Oxford was “already very special”, and when she was contacted about an honorary degree she was “astonished”.

Lamb gave me a snippet of her recent travels before returning to Oxford. “My life’s kind of crazy”, she says. In the weeks before the ceremony she had been reporting from Iran, Ukraine, and the Chad-Sudan border. It was whilst reporting in Ukraine, only a few days ago, that she realised she didn’t have anything to wear to the ceremony’s black-tie dinner.

But, as luck would have it, she was returning to her car in Kyiv after visiting Maidan Nezalezhnosti (also known as Independence Square) when she spotted a green dress in a shop window. “Within ten minutes I bought it”, she says, “but it felt very odd because I’m in a war zone carrying all my body armour but now I’m also carrying this designer dress”. Such is the life of a busy foreign correspondent.

Reflecting on what the honorary doctorate meant to her, Lamb tells me “sometimes you feel like ‘what’s the point of doing this?’ You’re taking a lot of risks, putting other people at risk, and it doesn’t feel [like] you’re making a difference.” So, for Lamb, Lord Hague’s recognition of her work was “particularly special. It was kind of recognising all of those people that I write about – that it meant something”.

When Lamb first graduated she thought she was going to be a novelist: “My plan was to spend a couple of years doing journalism, preferably abroad, so I could have some adventures and make a bit of money. I wanted to rent a garret where I could write my novels.” But what started as a weekend invite to a wedding in Pakistan became the beginning of a life-long career.

Lamb fell in love with Pakistan and moved to Peshawar, near the Afghan border. Several newspaper editors said they would be interested in articles featuring Afghanistan, which was under Soviet occupation at the time. The conflict was covered mainly “by freelancers because it was considered too dangerous to be done by staff”.

She quickly learnt that Afghans are amazing storytellers. “So many of the people that I met were totally illiterate, but they have this great oral tradition.” Lamb said she was “fascinated and I thought, ‘I can’t actually make up stories like this – these are really interesting’. I’ve been a journalist ever since, telling other people’s stories. I feel very lucky”. Lamb has visited Afghanistan dozens of times since, earning a reputation for her focus on the effects of war on women and the use of rape as a weapon. 

Initially she didn’t think she was doing anything differently. But, after a while, she became more conscious that, in her words, “there weren’t many people writing about women”. She wondered “why is the paper only full of pictures of men? Why aren’t we writing about women? They’re half of the population and actually in a lot of these war zones they are the ones trying to protect and educate children. We should be writing about what happens to them”.

She tells me that she feels “heartbroken about what’s happened in Afghanistan”. For Lamb, the withdrawal of Western troops in 2021 was inevitable, but “it was the way that it was done, so precipitously” which was problematic. “It will be five years this summer since the Taliban took over… I don’t hear anybody talking about Afghanistan and I find that difficult to understand”.

Life in Lamb’s field isn’t easy. “I basically see the best and worst of humanity.” But, she remarks, “in most places you find really inspiring people.” For Lamb, Ukraine is no exception. “Ukrainians get annoyed about this now”, she says, “because everyone goes on about the resilience of Ukrainians. It’s probably irritating for them. But it is true”.

During Lamb’s most recent visit to the war-torn nation, the temperature hit a staggering -21 degrees celsius. But in a country where “a lot of people don’t have electricity”, people “want to show that they’re having a normal life”. Lamb described busy restaurants, theatres, and discos.

Unlike much war reporting, Lamb’s work often focuses on life away from the frontline. In Ukraine this is partly because “you can’t go anywhere near the frontline now because of the drones”. But in general, Lamb is keen to emphasise that war isn’t all about combat: “People often think there’s war and everything stops. But in fact people still go to work, get married, have babies, and go to school. All of that still happens.”

Our meeting coincides with the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and I was keen to hear Lamb’s thoughts on how things have changed. “Four years is a long time”, she remarked, “people are very tired. Every night there’s air raid sirens and your sleep is constantly broken”. She added that “people don’t particularly see an end” to the war. “Nobody believes that Putin has any interest in peace.”

Setting her teacup down gently, Lamb’s expression became particularly serious. She emphasises that “the nature of war has changed enormously which is something I think people don’t necessarily understand. They’re still thinking of how war used to be with tanks and guns, and it’s not. It’s a totally high tech drone war”.

Although the trenches which stretch along the frontline make it “kind of look like the First World War”, there are also “people sitting there with joysticks, almost like a computer game. It’s just very different. It’s how warfare will probably be in the future. We’ll have a lot to learn from Ukraine and it’s changing all the time”.

Whilst Lamb describes Ukraine as “extremely different” to any war that she’s covered before, some things don’t change. “Like most of these wars”, Lamb tells me, “women and children are often the victims”, and Ukraine is no different. She says that “we have seen Russians using rape as a weapon” and “domestic abuse increasing because a lot of the men fighting are often traumatised and sometimes take that out on their loved ones.

“Even if the war were to end today, which would be wonderful, there’s so much destruction and trauma. Nobody really knows what it will have done to the children to have gone through this. It’s hard to be very positive.”

With the conflict entering its fifth year, I was interested in how Lamb keeps stories like Ukraine alive. As she laments, “most of what I write is very depressing. You can’t keep endlessly depressing people or outraging people”. 

So what do you do? Lamb admits that “it isn’t easy”, but “that’s our job, to find ways to make people interested”. Throughout her career Lamb always used to think of her mum as her reader “because she was somebody who didn’t know that much about the world. So I would think ‘is this something that would interest her, make her read something?’ Why should she care about Afghanistan, for example?”.

In order to keep stories alive, Lamb tries to approach them from different angles. When writing about Gaza, she got in touch with Gazan students who held offers to study at UK universities. “We sort of campaigned for them”, she said. “I went and spoke to some of them and it was a good way of writing about what was going on… if I’d just written a story about the horrors of Gaza some people might have just switched off.”

We live in an unprecedented era of conflict. There’s never been so much fighting this side of the Second World War. So I was also interested in how Lamb chooses which conflicts to cover and which stories to tell. “Sometimes something happens and so we sort of have to go. If someone’s just invaded a country or something – then it’s just reacting”, she says. 

Other times, “like with Sudan, we haven’t reported on something for ages so it’s good to go there and see what’s happening. I feel like that about the West Bank at the moment. I’ll probably go there fairly soon because there’s been all this focus on Gaza, but the situation in the West Bank is also shocking. I went and did something maybe 18 months ago but it’s been a while now and it’s gotten worse”.

One of the many things that Lamb has learned over the past 38 years is to “never go anywhere thinking that I know what the story is”. 

Of course, sometimes “people will say ‘where are you going? What’s the story?’”, but “I always think when you get on the ground, it’s there that you know”. Fortunately, Lamb reflects, “my editor is very supportive”. But she notes that that’s not always been the case. “I’ve had struggles in the past”, she says, “when I started there were very few women doing what I do”.

Reflecting on her career and the changing dynamics in global politics, for her, “it does feel like a different time”. She notes that “things that we’ve been used to – assuming that the United States was our trusted ally – we can no longer assume”. She describes being “at the mercy” of the White House with few people having any idea of what’s coming next.

“Sadly we’re seeing a lot more autocracy, a lot of democracy being rolled back”, she says. “It doesn’t feel like the world is in a good place.” But despite these turbulent times, Lamb emphasises the importance of having “confidence in doing what you believe in”, telling me we shouldn’t be “pushed into things because you feel that’s what society expects of you”. 

With a nod to her own journey, she remarks: “I just really believed that I could write and that I would find interesting people to write about. Everybody has a story. It’s just a matter of having the patience to sit and listen, to care.”

War within earshot: A year abroad in Jordan

Sofia O'Casey
-
0
War within earshot: A year abroad in Jordan

“I think there’ll be a war. Perhaps we’re all going to die”, my Arabic teacher announces as the engine-roar of an American fighter jet causes the walls to shudder.The class erupts with a loud, anxious laughter.

“It’s okay, we can all die together!” she says with a grin, giggling at our shock. Normally, she teases us for our absences or tardiness. She is kind and maternal, sometimes bringing us biscuits or dates. Today, her tone surprises me.

Coming to Amman for my year abroad brought the usual culture shock: new weather, new rhythms, new social codes. What I hadn’t expected, however, and what even frightened me at times, is the ambient inevitability of conflict that permeates daily life.

We are nothing if not in a bubble at Oxford. We use the word “crisis” to refer to writing our essays last-minute. Last year, during term time, my life revolved around my work. The gravest things that could possibly happen to me was that I could sleep through a morning rowing outing, perhaps I’d turn in an essay late, or forget to return a library book. I stopped checking the news, simply because I had the privilege of being too busy for the outside world. Here, I hold my breath as I read the headlines each morning.

At the time of writing, Trump had been threatening American military intervention in Iran for several weeks. Due to its precarious location between the two conflicting nations, the result is an invasion of Jordanian airspace – the country being dragged, against its will, into a proxy war for the second time in under a year. The last time this happened, I was preparing for my Prelims when my year abroad plans had been thrown into the air without warning.

Last June, Iran and Israel engaged in a brief and intense exchange of direct and proxy strikes during the Twelve Day War. Shrapnel fell in Jordan and air raid sirens blared, while the glow of American, Israeli, and Iranian missiles could be seen from rooftops across the Jordanian capital all the way to Beirut. I felt certain that I wouldn’t be coming to Amman as I had originally planned – but when the war ended on only its twelfth day, I was reassured by both classmates and tutors that everything would be fine. Fast forward to the present, and my entire cohort is currently studying in Jordan.

The first time I heard an F-15 jet was last October. Some classmates and I were sitting on a  street-side balcony in Downtown Amman, tasting Knafeh – a sweet, syrupy, Palestinian dessert – as the warm autumn sun shone down on us. Then it came. Though I had never seen a plane fly so low, low enough to darken the entire street with its shadow, the sight of it was nothing compared to the horror of the sound.

The sound of an F-15 is unmistakeable. In fact, I have been counting them. I used to hear them once a week at the very most. Now, I hear them at least three times a day. Even now, as I write, I hear one flying overhead. As they rip through the air, I think: “Keep going. Pass us by.”

Until a few days ago, I did not know the sound that would come next. I only hoped for the engine’s roars to fade away. On the 28th February, the US and Israel launched missile strikes on Tehran. In retaliation, Iran struck American military bases across the Middle East, including Jordan. Sitting on my bathroom floor, air sirens blaring, feeling the ground lurch with the crashes of intercepted planes, I was not certain they would ever stop.

On the 2nd March, Jordan announced partial airspace closures. I read this news in my break before class. Around half an hour afterwards, the air raid sirens started again and I had to take shelter in the library. Sat on an office chair between the bookshelves, away from the windows, I felt some of the biggest crashes yet. They were close enough for me to hear the ambulances racing to the scene.

I decided to go for a swim after the ‘all clear’ alert. Even though the women’s pool is underground, around my sixth lap, I began to hear the unrelenting crashes of intercepted missiles once more.  I dove beneath the water and sat at the bottom of the empty pool. Silence. Between the unwavering air raid sirens, the continuous crashes of missiles hitting the ground, the low thunder of American jets racing to Iran, and the near-constant patrol of the Jordanian Air Force; with my breath held and my eyes closed, I realised just how long it had been since I had the pleasure of hearing nothing at all. 

A few hours later, I booked a flight home for 4th March. Almost all flights out of Jordan have been cancelled. My flight cost me over five times more than I would usually pay. I have spent every penny I have saved, but I need to get home. At the time of writing, I have no idea if this flight will be cancelled too.

In Oxford, war is only ever theoretical. It is something discussed in tutorials, analysed in essays, and debated in the Union chambers. Here, it is infrastructural. When my teacher jokes that we might all die together, we laugh. Beneath the laughter, there lies recognition. She has lived her entire life within earshot of other people’s wars. I have not.

I think of my other teachers here in Jordan: one of whom is a Syrian, who spent three years in prison, where he was beaten for opposing his government. He and his wife – also a teacher of mine – are here because Jordan is the safer alternative. Like millions of others, they did not come by choice. I think of my grammar teacher, an elderly Jordanian woman, who called her sister fearfully when two jets interrupted class within minutes of each other. I think of my late father, an Iraqi who assumed an Irish name when he came to the UK to better integrate – and, I suppose, to forget. In our house, the news would play on a continuous loop. Now, I understand why.

A large part of my decision to study Arabic is owed to my father’s passing. Having now experienced life in the Middle East, including its wars, I now understand him far more than I ever could have anticipated.

When I arrived in Oxford, we began learning Arabic from Al-Kitaab – the standard textbook used in universities. One of the first words we were taught was “United Nations”. We could barely introduce ourselves, yet we were already pronouncing the language of international diplomacy. As the chapters progressed, the vocabulary darkened: “to decapitate”, “bullets”, “martyr”. I remember finding it faintly comic, as though the syllabus had skipped the banalities of daily life and leapt straight into the Security Council. We laughed about it then, a group of slightly overwhelmed first-years conjugating verbs relating to political violence. Only later did I learn that Al-Kitaab was originally designed for American diplomats. Its vocabulary no longer feels random. Just two days before the first US and Israeli strikes on Iran, American officials were describing recent negotiations as constructive and promising. As jets pass overhead and air raid sirens interrupt class, I am struck by how quickly the language of diplomacy collapses into the language of violence. The same textbook that teaches us to say “peace negotiations” also teaches us the verb “to be killed”.

I used to think of safety as an invisible constant, something so guaranteed it did not require acknowledgement. Now, I know it is a privilege – and a fragile one at that. I no longer scroll past headlines. The past few weeks, I have read them with the uneasy knowledge that they may determine whether I would remain here, or whether my year abroad would once again be suspended mid-air. I do not feel safe in Jordan anymore. The FCDO now advises against all but essential travel to Jordan and all Oxford students are now required to evacuate the country. In the worst case scenario, we are simply returning home to the UK. My teachers are not afforded this same privilege.

That said, Jordan is so much more than its geopolitics. Despite being so far away from Oxford, I really was beginning to feel at home here. In the early evening, the city softens; the swallows arc between the concrete rooftops, the call to prayer folds into the hum of traffic, and the hills glow pink under the sunset. Amman is erratic and sprawling, but it is alive. Shopkeepers press extra sweets into your hand. Taxi drivers insist on conversation. Strangers offer directions before you have even asked. The people possess a kindness that persists through the worst, regardless of what passes overhead.

Life continues with a startling normality. My teacher still brings biscuits. My classmates still complain about homework. Downtown Amman still smells of cardamom and diesel and sugar syrup. There is Knafeh to be eaten, exams to revise for, birthdays to celebrate. The jets pass overhead, and someone inevitably rolls their eyes and says, “again?”.

We continue conjugating verbs.

Home Furniture News: Latest Trends, Reviews & Design Inspiration

External Contributor
-
0

Whether you’re refreshing a tired living room, sourcing materials for a bespoke commission, or simply keeping an eye on what’s shaping the world of interiors, there has never been a more exciting time to follow the home furniture industry. From sustainable sourcing to the resurgence of handcrafted joinery, the sector is evolving rapidly — and we’re here to keep you informed every step of the way.

The Rise of Sustainable and Natural Materials

Sustainability is no longer a niche concern — it has become a defining force in how furniture is designed, manufactured, and sold. Consumers are increasingly asking where their pieces come from, what they are made of, and how long they will last. This shift has put natural materials such as solid oak, reclaimed pine, rattan, and linen firmly back in the spotlight.

Furniture makers across the UK are responding by moving away from flat-pack, composite materials and investing in longer-lasting, responsibly sourced timber. The result is a market that prizes longevity and craftsmanship over cheap convenience — a trend that benefits both the environment and the end consumer.

Interior designers are also taking note, specifying natural stone surfaces, hand-fired ceramic handles, and woven textiles as part of schemes that feel considered rather than clinical. The idea is not simply to decorate a room, but to curate a space that will age gracefully.

Colour Trends: What’s Dominating British Interiors Right Now

After years dominated by grey and off-white palettes, colour is making a confident return to British homes. Deep forest greens, warm terracotta, and navy blue are appearing on sideboards, upholstered chairs, and kitchen cabinetry alike. These richer tones work particularly well alongside natural wood finishes, creating spaces that feel warm, layered, and personal.

Softer earthy tones — think raw linen, beeswax yellow, and dusty sage — continue to hold strong appeal for those who prefer a more restrained approach. The key shift is that neutrals are no longer expected to be cool or stark; instead, warmth and texture are now the priority.

For furniture makers and retailers, this means a growing demand for custom finishes and bespoke colour matching. Customers want pieces that feel unique to their home, not pulled from a generic catalogue.

The Craft Revival: Bespoke Joinery and Made-to-Order Pieces

There is a palpable revival of interest in traditional craftsmanship across the furniture industry. Dovetail joints, hand-carved details, and mortise-and-tenon construction — once considered old-fashioned — are now being celebrated as marks of quality and authenticity.

Small independent workshops are thriving as homeowners seek out pieces that cannot be replicated by mass production. Bespoke kitchens, fitted wardrobes, and one-off dining tables are all areas of significant growth. For tradespeople operating in this space, having access to the right materials, tools, and finishing products is absolutely essential.

Platforms such as CWorkshop are well positioned to support this community, offering a broad range of products and services tailored to furniture makers, interior designers, and general builders who need reliable access to quality trade supplies and specialist resources.

Smart Storage Solutions for Modern Living

As more people work from home and living spaces are asked to perform multiple functions, intelligent storage has become one of the most sought-after elements in contemporary furniture design. Ottomans with hidden compartments, wall-mounted shelving systems, and modular units that can be reconfigured are all seeing strong demand.

Designers and makers are rising to the challenge by incorporating concealed joinery, pull-out mechanisms, and integrated cable management into their pieces. The goal is furniture that is entirely practical without compromising on visual appeal — a difficult balance to strike, but one that defines the best work being produced today.

For smaller homes and urban flats in particular, multi-functional furniture is no longer a compromise. It is a considered design choice that reflects how people actually live.

What to Watch: Key Developments in the Furniture Industry

Looking ahead, several key trends are set to shape the direction of home furniture over the coming year. The circular economy is gaining real momentum, with more brands offering repair services, take-back schemes, and refurbishment programmes as alternatives to disposal. Upholstery revival is another area to watch — reupholstering existing pieces rather than buying new is becoming a popular and environmentally conscious choice.

Technology is also beginning to play a greater role, with augmented reality tools allowing consumers to visualise pieces in their homes before purchasing. For retailers and designers, this is changing the way products are presented and sold online.

Finally, the integration of biophilic design principles — incorporating natural light, organic shapes, and living plants into interior schemes — is influencing furniture design at every price point. The boundaries between indoors and outdoors are becoming increasingly blurred, and furniture design is evolving to reflect that.

What Are the Latest Innovations in Stomach Cancer Treatment in Germany?

External Contributor
-
0

Stomach cancer is a highly malignant tumor with over 1 million new cases each year and about 770,000 deaths. The 5-year survival rates depend on stage and type of tumor and are averaged around 30%, making it a really aggressive malignant tumor. That’s why it is important to detect this kind of cancer early and choose the appropriate treatment plan. Receiving treatment for stomach cancer in Germany​ means that patients have access to advanced technologies, innovative surgical procedures, and an experienced multidisciplinary approach.

Standard Options for Stomach Cancer Treatment in Germany​

Stomach cancer treatment in Germany is based on modern international guidelines that make accent on precision, advanced technology, and the use of the latest scientific research in their everyday practice. Here are some of the main treatment options you can undergo in Germany:

  • Surgical intervention. It is recommended in the early stages when the tumor is localized and can be removed completely. Subtotal or total gastrectomy, depending on the tumor’s size and location. In Germany, they use minimally invasive or robotic techniques for better precision, faster recovery, and fewer complications.
  • Chemotherapy. This treatment can be helpful both before and after surgery. It’s used for stomach cancer treatment Germany, and is effective in shrinking tumors and stopping the metastases from growing when the tumor is sensitive to that specific drug. But it can have intense side effects like weakness, vomiting, hair loss, and overall health decrease.
  • Radiotherapy. It’s rarely used, mostly in cases when the tumor cannot be fully removed. It can lower symptoms like bleeding or pain.

Stomach cancer alternative treatments in Germany

As a patient, it is in your best interest to access advanced, highly specialized care like immunotherapy with dendritic cells and interventional radiological procedures. These treatments are designed to improve survival rates and reduce side effects. It is a new hope for patients with complex conditions and at advanced stages.

Dendritic Cell Vaccination for Gastric Cancer

Dendritic vaccines are made with a specialized cell type called dendritic cells. They have been shown to stimulate T-cells to target malignancies, thereby resulting in a highly localized cell attack, reducing systemic side effects. This therapy is a great option for patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer, providing an effective way to slow disease progression, target metastases, and improve overall life expectancy.

HIPEC (Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy) for Stomach Cancer

HIPEC is a surgical procedure that starts with careful removal of all visible tumor sites in the abdominal cavity (cytoreduction). It is then followed by administering a heated chemotherapy solutioninto the abdomen. Heat helps to improve chemotherapy drug absorption by the tumor and increases its effectiveness against cancer cells. This allows to reduce overall toxicity to the rest of the body. For suitable patients, HIPEC provides a real opportunity for long-term remission and is often the only chance that can significantly improve survival.

PIPAC (Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy) for Stomach Cancer

Treatment of stomach cancer in the fourth stage in Germany usually involves PIPAC, a minimally invasive surgical procedure that sprays chemotherapy as an aerosol during laparoscopy, targeting microscopic tumors missed by standard therapies. PIPAC offers improved drug diffusion and tissue penetration and is paired with minimal toxicity.

Comparison between standard and innovativetherapies for cancer of the stomach

 InvasivenessSide effectsRecoveryLevel of personalization
Standard Treatment MethodsOften invasiveMore systemic and severeLong rehabilitationModerate (based on stage and imaging)
Innovative Treatment MethodsMostly minimally invasive or localizedGenerally, fewer systemic effectsUsually quiq come back to daily activitiesHigh (based on genetic profiling and tumor markers)

Booking Health – your access to advanced stomach cancer therapies

Booking Health is a reputable company that provides access to leading medical consultants who develop personalized, advanced treatment plans at international clinics, including ones in Germany. Patients are offered therapies like advanced immunotherapies, including dendritic cell vaccination, and innovative chemotherapy options, like HIPEC, PIPAC, and TACE. 

The company provides: 

  • Involvement of a leading expert in the field 
  • Tailored treatment plan to your specific situation 
  • Travel arrangements and help with all documentation

With Booking Health, patients worldwide can access new cancer of the stomach treatment in Germany​, achieving excellent tumor control and maintaining a high quality of life.

The essay and its long history in Oxford

Naima Aden
-
0
The essay and its long history in Oxford

In 1811, a student at University College published a pamphlet including an essay titled ‘The Necessity of Atheism’ that he later distributed to the Heads of Oxford Colleges. The student, after disputes with the Master of University College at the time, was “sent down” on the grounds of “contumacy” (disobeying authority). This student was Percy Shelley. 

Famous more for his poetry than political views (and for his wife Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein), Shelley’s time at Oxford was short, defined by his anti-religious stance. The pamphlet argues that belief in God rests neither on direct experience, sound reason, nor reliable testimony, and so there is no rational basis for belief at all. It is no surprise then, that the exclusively protestant Oxford University took issue with this particular use of free speech. 

It is not the content of Shelley’s essay that we must draw lessons from, but the structure. The essay is an essential element of university teaching and, for those of us studying humanities and social sciences at Oxford, it seems to be the foundation of our learning. The average student in these subjects at Oxford will write one to two essays a week, 2000 words long. But the essays we write, and the process of reasoning we follow, are arguably far-removed from the process of the essay produced by Shelley. They are more technically perfect, but also more sterile. Essays here are fixed; we all follow the same structures, word counts, and department-mandated reading lists. Great for displaying understanding of a subject, in theory. 

But consider the average writing process of the Oxford student: First, an attempt to plough through a seemingly unending reading list. You will begin each week with a desperate desire to get through it, that slowly diminishes as the week goes on. Following this, developing a thesis to defend, struggling to find the balance between subject jargon and the literary standard of writing you try to maintain. Next, begin to write, and aim for a perfection that is entirely unreachable. It is because of this that you desperately may turn to A.I. (made oh-so-much easier with the university’s rollout of free ChatGPT), or essays handed down from college parents and friends. Finally, hand in and brace yourself for critique in an imminent tutorial.

And so, it is the perfectionism that brought us to this place that becomes our downfall, as you scramble to produce something that looks coherent, rejecting the idea that the essay should be a personal form of learning. 

If students aren’t learning from the essays they spend 40+ hours on weekly, often the only form of assignment in one’s degree here, it is worth assessing whether the Oxford essay truly has any merit. 

The word essay comes from the french verb essayer. Michel de Montaigne is said to have coined the term, and in his seminal work Essais demonstrates this unique writing practice. Montaigne writes essays on numerous topics, not as authoritative explanations, but in an ‘attempt’ to deconstruct and understand the topics. Covering ground from government andpolitics to religion and nature, all the essays have a sense of self fashioning and self discovery. The manuscripts are filled with the barely legible annotations of Montaigne, crossed out over and over. Montaigne himself said that he wanted a medium to assess the contents of his mind, leading to the outcome that the essay was to be a living, breathing document – collation of the human mind, with its tenacious facets.  The essays have a distinct lack of structure, and Montaigne’s stream of consciousness means they read more like diary entries. They are refreshingly personal. 

Contrast this with my weekly essay, which is structured purely around my understanding of others’ understanding of the topic. No merit is given to students whose ‘attempts’ feature themselves so clearly. Rather it is knowledge of the literature (and control of those never ending reading lists) that is most rewarded. It is also clear how contrary the perfectionism of the Oxford student writer is to the original form. Montaigne’s whole point of writing was to lay himself out in all his fallible glory, as he proclaimed in his writings: “My defects will here be read to life.”

The essay has never been so impersonal. It is this impersonality that means we cannot use these pieces of writing to achieve the aims once set out with them. Shelley’s essay is made strong through the combination of a deeply personal viewpoint and the critical analysis that this entails. ‘The Necessity of Atheism’ (and essays in their truest form) are clear ‘attempts’ to explore an idea or notion from his head onto the page. It is the product of the laborious activity of self-analysis, questioning, and critiquing, and an attempt to convey this final, highly personal product to readers. 

If one is to consider that Shelley was writing some 200 years ago in this same institution that we are in, what may he think of the essay now? More perfect, yes, in knowledge of the topic, but always following some guide. The structure of the essay seems set in stone, but also, the ideas that we draw on too have become set in stone. A response to the rigid system of essay-writing in Oxford, no doubt.

I can’t help but wonder if it is the nature of academia that ‘voice’, and therefore ‘self’ is only something awarded to those senior enough. You must earn your right to speak here, in this place of inquiry and knowledge-seeking. This idea shouldn’t be further from the truth when you consider the political impact of the essay – something so revolutionary. 

It was the lack of rules and boundaries of the essay that gave it such power to become something so great. With an accessibility that grew exponentially with literacy rates, the essay became a medium of immortalising any and all forms of discourse that recorded and reflected human and societal development. Literary discourses, philosophical discourses, scientific, personal, and religious discourses. The essay allows you to trace the origins of one’s thought and the development of their ideas. The essay retained this ability for most of its existence. Provocative, introspective, more akin to diary entries on random topics than anything that we would credit as essay worthy now. This is exactly what made them revolutionary. The essay allows you to delve into the furthest corners of your mind, and to come up against the limits of your critical capacities until you are forced to evaluate, and re-evaluate. In the process of writing an essay, a writer is forced to take a position, and to assess this position constantly, until they reach a level of surety that makes ideas worth conveying to the masses. 

It was in the 20th century that essayists showed this the best. Against the backdrop of international societal uprooting – decolonisation, women’s rights movements, and civil rights movements – the essay gave an intellectual voice to those from whom the West had never listened to before. And it is here, in the 20th century, amidst all of these struggles, that the essay as a tool of dissent becomes most apparent. Edward Said coupled political discourse on occupation and the Palestinian cause with his personal feeling of alienation, and gave the basis of contemporary immigration discourse. bell hooks’ deeply personal essays on her life gave scholarly birth to intersectionality. Baldwin’s Notes on a Native Son is blistering when he says “I had discovered the weight of white people in the world”. The plainly descriptive sentences he uses not only affirm his lived experience, but are able to solidify them while staying far away from the structures we use today. Entire branches of Western progression of society towards this space of plurality of thought that we occupy can be traced by the remnants of people’s innermost reflections, and the essay was the best medium for them to do that.

I suppose we have become disenfranchised. The prescribed nature of the Oxford essay shows little aside from the stagnation of Oxford as a birthplace for ideas. The weekly essay should be a place for exploration, and tutorials a chance to think aloud and arrive at new conclusions. In practice, both function as a performance. You will learn quickly that it is better to sound confident even when you are unsure, to speak fluently rather than tentatively, to cite rather than to speculate. Over time, the aim is no longer to discover what one thinks, but to demonstrate that one has mastered what has already been thought. 

Hierarchy plays a crucial role here. Voice, in Oxford, is something to be earned. Students are encouraged to efface the first person, to speak through the language of others, to defer to the canon before daring to intervene. There is a logic to this: scholarship demands rigour, humility, precision. But the effect is the loss of selfhood, the fingerprint of authorship, the very thing that once gave the essay its force. Oxford it is not bestowed upon you, but rather postponed. Does it come when you get your scholar’s gown? When you get the first class honours? The right to say I arrives later, if at all. Until then, you must speak cautiously, or not speak at all.

This is a far cry from the conditions under which the essay first gained its political power. Shelley did not write ‘The Necessity of Atheism’ as a rehearsal for authority. Montaigne wrote primarily to uncover his own fallibility. Baldwin, Orwell, Said, and hooks all wrote to give name to a novel experience that deserved recognition. In each case, the essay was a tool for a greater purpose.

Today, at Oxford, the essay is stagnant. The structure remains, the guiding principles unchanged. What has been lost is the sense that writing might still be capable of unsettling the place in which it is produced. Perhaps that is the final irony. At an institution that asks its students to write essays every week, we are closer than ever to a form that once celebrated personality, and groundbreaking ideas – and further than ever from imagining that our own writing might do the same.

Image Credit:

OURFC crush Cambridge to sweep Varsity 2026 

Sophi Hayes-Hoyle
-
0
OURFC crush Cambridge to sweep Varsity 2026 

Stepping out onto the field carrying the weight of a historic rivalry is one thing; winning the battle is another. Yet that is exactly what Oxford’s Blues did last Saturday. 

As the 141st Varsity match commenced, the stakes held more than just quantitative significance, but pride, tradition, and most importantly, bragging rights. A meeting of sunshine and rain, of young and old, of past and present, culminated in a staunch victory for both the Women’s and Men’s teams. 

Oxford’s Women’s team defended a four-year streak of titles, winning by a dominant margin of 52-8. Captain Chloe-Marie Hawley elicited audible awe from the crowd as she led the Dark Blues to victory with a kick of razor-sharp precision. Despite their rocky start, Oxford’s women recovered diligently to command the field, displaying a mixture of possession and determination in the first fifteen minutes which culminated in the game’s first try. Hawley, foreshadowing an afternoon of calculated conversions, brought the score up to 7-0. As the crowd proclaimed: we had not yet seen Cambridge score a try. 

DPhils, undergrads or internationals: whoever was on the pitch, regardless of their stage in the academic ranks, age or background, was this day united in one goal. Backed by history, alumni, and friends and family from far and wide, Oxford knew they had one job – shoe the tabs – and shoe the tabs they did. 

A score of 19-0 at half-time had Cambridge’s prospects looking bleaker than the grey skies enclosing Stone X stadium. Cambridge was to find no silver lining in the second half – only the boisterous glee of navy-lined blazers. Sophie Shams scored Oxford’s fourth try, followed by a trusty conversion from Hawley to make the score 26-0. In response, a rapid solo-run from Cambridge’s Esther Makourin gained Cambridge their first try of the game. The scoreboard read 26-5. Nevertheless, as the sun peeked through the clouds, it was clear the Dark Blues would succeed in foiling the tabs’ bright hopes. Oxford wasted not a moment to react; the second half was simply a consolidation of defeat. Spurred on by a Dark Blue war cry, the beating drums could only remind Cambridge that time was running out. A final score of 37-25 would seal Oxford’s victory for yet another year.

The crowd was on their feet, beer cascading, as the whole team pelted towards the centre, supporting even their injured players towards the celebrations. Having also clinched Player of the Match, Hawley rejoiced as her teammates hoisted her into the air, their glossy trophy reflecting the now-streaming sunlight as well as the jubilant crowd.

Victory may have appeared easy for the Women’s Team, but as the horns blasted, the Men’s 3pm kick-off at StoneX would prove just how much perseverance is demanded of these players throughout their 80 minutes on the pitch. 

The Men’s Varsity Match was an edge-of-the seat affair. Oxford’s early lead of 5-0 was established by Will Roddy, powering towards the corner in a fast-paced start. Cambridge won a penalty soon after to equalise, courtesy of an aggressive Oxford scrum. Even scores would be a recurrent theme of the match: Cambridge’s Danny Collins reinforced a try from James Wyse to establish a Cambridge lead of 7-5, before a penalty taken by Oxford’s George Bland levelled the field to 10-10. 

No one was left wondering whether these walls could talk: the stadium stands were brimming with navy and turquoise blue. Alumni and supporters alike had a lot to say from the sidelines, with one heckling his own side from the stands. His uninhibited accusation of uselessness proved a feat of tough love, however, prompting a solo-dash from Oxford’s number 11, Wolfe Morn, in a narrowly-missed try. 

Soon enough, Oxford retook the lead. A try just before half time from Harry Pratt pushed the score back up to 15-10. Half-time respite did not hinder Roddy’s efforts; the forward proved his indispensability with a hat-trick soon after the second horn had blown, galvanising Oxford into a lead of 20-10. A sudden shift in weather brought no change in fortune for the tabs. As the clouds parted, however, Harry Bridgewater pulled through, converting Josh Hallett’s run to the line. The score read 27-15. 

Hungry for more, Roddy claimed his fourth try of the afternoon. Bridgewater provided the conversion once again, stepping up to the plate for a score of 37-18. Cambridge, credit where it’s due, refused to quit even in the throes of the game’s last quarter, with their persistent efforts edging them up the scoreboard. But Oxford’s defence stood firm, holding them up at the halfway line, and 37-25 is exactly where the numbers remained as Oxford notched a sweep of the Varsity Matches. Penning his name in the history books, Roddy was crowned Player of the Match for a formidable individual performance. 

Tears of victory attest to the sport’s poetic brutality: the battering and bruising of the game is not divorced from its deep sentimentality. The heavens split, casting a spring afternoon’s surprising sunlight over the rainbow seats of StoneX stadium. Pent-up pre-Varsity nerves purged themselves amidst the celebrations as players confronted their own place in history: some lamented the loss of team members in years to come, while others mourned their final dalliance for the Dark Blues. An uncertain future is, however, what keeps us coming back, year after year, to watch this historic rivalry unfold once more. 

The Varsity Matches of 2026 belong to OURFC.

Corpus Christi College unveils its first female portrait

Lucy Pollock
-
0
Corpus Christi College unveils its first female portrait

Corpus Christi College recently unveiled the first portrait of a woman to hang in its hall since the College’s foundation in 1517. The portrait, which depicts the College’s President, Professor Helen Moore, is also Corpus Christi’s first portrait painted by a woman. 

Professor Moore became the college’s first female President in 2018, shortly after its 500th anniversary. Corpus Christi began admitting women as graduate students in 1974, and started admitting women undergraduates in 1979. Moore became a Fellow in English at Corpus Christi in 1996. 

Professor Moore told Cherwell: “Being painted by an artist of Miriam Escofet’s standing was a great privilege and an experience I will never forget. Corpus was eager to enhance the visual diversity of the Hall as our most public space, and the portrait was designed with its final setting in mind.”

Miriam Escofet is a Spanish painter and graduate of Brighton School of Art. Her previous work has been selected for the BP Portrait Award exhibitions in 2009, 2010 and 2012 as well as the Royal Society of Portrait Painters’ annual exhibition. In 2020, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office commissioned Escofet to paint a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II.

Escofet told Cherwell: “It feels like a huge honour and very special to be [sic] the first woman artist to paint the first female portrait to hang in the Hall since the College was founded. Not only the first female portrait, but a portrait of the first woman President of the College. There is a lovely symmetry to that. 

“I truly believe in the power of art to shape our imaginations and sense of reality, so I hope that this portrait, in its own very modest way, will act as an ambassador for the achievements of women and be inspiring in some way.” 

Discussing the process of painting Professor Moore, Escofet told Cherwell: “It is always a compliment and an honour to be chosen to paint someone who is so eminent in their field; they invariably show a curiosity and respect for the creative process, which is very conducive to a good outcome. The time spent with someone during sittings gives me a vital insight into their personality, which is always a key component of a portrait.”

Oxford meets Hackney meets Mexico City: Bigfoot reviewed

Nancy Robson
-
0
Oxford meets Hackney meets Mexico City: Bigfoot reviewed

 4 Stars

This term, stumbling home from Indie Fridays or on a pilgrimage to Tops Pizza, I kept noticing this decidedly cool bar a little way down the Cowley Road. With fairy-lights strung across its wooden terrace and ‘Bigfoot’ scrawled in playful letters across the glass, it seemed slightly out of place in central Oxford. If anything, this kind of idiosyncratic concept and DIY glamour belongs firmly in Hackney. But I’m a Londoner at heart and, as if I hadn’t already been tempted enough, discovering their £5 Margarita Wednesdays sealed the deal.

Even on a dreary evening in February, the place is buzzing, but we manage to squeeze ourselves around the last empty table outside. The crowd is young and surprisingly fashionable for Oxford – there are no college puffers or quarter-zips in sight. Inside, the Hackney theme continues: mid-century modern furniture, plants hanging from the ceiling, and beanies as a seemingly compulsory uniform. Oh, and plenty of Bigfoot memorabilia. But the place is saved from suffocating in its own coolness by its laid-back atmosphere, the friendly waiters and scruffy charm.

The menu itself is simple but mouthwatering: four different types of tacos, five varieties of margaritas, and a few eclectic beers on tap. They have a whole menu of chasers for these, but I’m here for the margaritas and won’t let myself get distracted.

When it arrives, the watermelon margarita is just as pink as I’d hoped it would be. It tastes like summer and, more dangerously, not at all alcoholic. The standard one is a slightly classier affair, one that strikes the perfect balance between bracing and refreshing. These people know how to make a margarita.

In the name of journalistic integrity, we decide to order all of the tacos. For me, the standout of the night is the carnitas – the rich flavour of the braised pork perfectly balanced by the lighter notes of pickled red onion and pineapple. I’m less convinced by the chicken taco, the flavour of which is dominated by the chipotle mayo, but it is not unenjoyable.

I have (I hate to admit) a childish aversion to mushrooms, so I leave the oyster mushroom taco to the others, all of whom promptly inform me that it is their favourite. Apparently, the umami of the miso glazing and gentle spice of the jalapeno sauce is enough to make you forget you are eating an actual fungus.

The final taco is decidedly less familiar, but this is serious research we’re undertaking, so it’s cactus time. I’m really not sure what to expect but am more than pleasantly surprised to discover that cactus has the texture of pepper. If it has a distinctive flavour, it’s masked behind the cheese, jalapenos, and salsa, which are already a match made in heaven.

The tacos are definitely on the smaller side, and by the time you’ve eaten an entire meal’s worth, the cost does begin to mount up. But if you want to unwind, drink some filthily good margaritas and feel like you’ve escaped Oxford for a few hours, then Bigfoot might be the place for you. 

1234...2,574Page 3 of 2,574

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by Jamie Ashley