It’s Sunday church day. The Church’s on the water, no way to get there. Funky Sundays.
Blog Page 387
Sunday Boat Ride Funk
In conversation with Normal People Director, Lenny Abrahamson
Normal People is not something we commonly see in mainstream TV. It’s one of those rare phenomenon which manages to hook its audience from the start yet doesn’t rely on gimmicks and bravado to achieve this. In a day and age where there’s so much TV to consume, generally series that do well are glossy, dramatic and heightened in style, where the viewer’s attention is grabbed and held. By contrast, Normal People’s subtle, quiet approach to storytelling remains faithful to the stark prose of Sally Rooney’s book. This is perhaps unsurprising since Rooney had a large role in adapting the book into the 12 part series. This was an intense and lengthy process in which director and executive producer Lenny Abrahamson tells me he played a large part.
Even at this early stage, the creative team knew that the truest way to tell this story was to maintain the simplicity. “I had thought that we would be much more playful with timeline, that we would flash back,” Abrahamson tells me, “But the more we laid things out, we started to see, and therefore trust, that the straightforward telling of the story would hold you.” This idea of trust is one that permeates our conversation – both trust in his own creative choices and in his audience. Fortunately the BBC trusted the team and gave the project the green light immediately. The only stipulation was that the whole book needed to be done in one series – everything else was left to the creative team.
Set in Ireland, the series follows the lives of Marianne and Connell as they move from school in a sleepy regional town to university in Dublin, and studies the progression of their relationship throughout this period. Irish culture and concepts are a key part of creating an authentic setting and one which Abrahamson was anxious not to soften or internationalise. He was concerned that American broadcasters would push them to change fundamental elements, like a softening of accent or change in vocabulary, to make the series more easily accessible to a broader audience. But no one did. Broadcasters in the States had the same trust in Abrahamson, his vision and Rooney’s story as the BBC, testament to how simplicity in storytelling is often the most powerful tool.
Exposing the essence of a story seems to be a hallmark of Abrahamson’s work. Normal People bears his mark in its stark, paired back dialogue and low key action, allowing him to explore character and relationships. While there’s the challenge of ensuring that the silences don’t become one dimensional, lack of conversation or action provides an opportunity to allow events to unfold gradually and naturally. The audience works out issues for themselves, instead of being told what to think. Naturally Abrahamson and his fellow director Hettie Macdonald navigated this challenge with great skill. “It’s about trusting the capacity of the actors,” he tells me, “but also the ability that human beings have to read each other. We do it all the time, we put together very strong pictures of how people are from very little.”
His seemingly innate understanding of the human condition and his profound skill in his craft allow Abrahamson to take these calculated risks, knowing that they will pay off. This is beautifully demonstrated in the handling of the sex scenes. While onscreen intimacy is no longer taboo on TV, the way Abrahamson directs the scenes in Normal People allows us to see into the very souls of Marianne and Connell. There is no holding back in these scenes but their honesty develops the story and the characters. The framing and camerawork in these scenes are beautifully artistic, with Marianne and Connell at times looking as though they’ve been pulled out of a Titian or Rubens painting.
The skill needed to infuse these scenes with added nuance is especially evident in Episode 5, for which Abrahamson is deservedly nominated for an Emmy. Despite previously separating, and dating other people, Marianne and Connell seem bound to return to one another. There are generous stretches of silence towards the end of the episode as Marianne is driven home by Connell, after agreeing it would be unwise “if one of us kept trying to sleep with the other one”. These allow for the quiet, inevitable progression of events leading up to and culminating in them sleeping together. The sex scene which ends the episode solidifies the fact that they have to be together. The choice to add Ane Brun’s delicate cover of “Make You Feel My Love”, as they lie together in bed and as the end credits roll, layers the scene with deeper meaning and allows the viewer to understand the care and mutual respect within their relationship more clearly.
The double act that propels the story forward is spectacularly cast by Louise Kiely (Emmy nominated here for best casting). The energy and understanding between Paul Mescal (who’s also Emmy nominated for his performance) and Daisy Edgar-Jones is palpable from their first scene together. Yet there was always the worry that the perfect pair of actors wouldn’t be found. “You’re just hoping that people will come through with that quality that mesmerises. With Marianne it was really difficult, there has to be that vulnerability. You realise that Marianne is described through other people’s eyes in terms that 18-year-old school kids would use. What would that person really be like if you as an adult walked into the room and saw them? That made Marianne a much softer character but in a way where you could see how other people would read her in a different way. So when Daisy came we were so happy.” It was immediately clear to Abrahamson that this pair of actors would work perfectly together. “We got them together and there was that incredible chemistry. People think chemistry means attraction and it doesn’t, it means a creative connection.” It’s this creative energy between Mescal and Edgar-Jones which ensures their completely truthful presentations of the characters and relationships.
Normal People is a truly refreshing dramatisation of young relationships, which are so often treated in a crude, heavy handed and simplified manner on screen. Abrahamson’s incredible insight and skill as a director delicately sets the tone in the first six episodes, which Hettie Macdonald beautifully develops to finish the series. Everything about this project is subtle yet truthful and comes from the heart. It delves into your soul and leaves you questioning whether this pair, who seem made for each other, will be able to weather the difficulties of their imminent long-distance relationship.
Image: Element Pictures / Edna Bowe
Students set up Trans Day of Remembrance memorial
Last Friday morning, a group of students woke up at 6am to set up a memorial in honour of Transgender Day of Remembrance. Elliot Brooke, one of the organisers of this memorial, said the intent “was to honour the trans people who passed away this year”.
Attached to the railings of the Radcliffe Camera, a trans pride flag with the words ‘We Will Not Be Erased’ alongside two large assortments of posters featuring the names of the 242 victims of violence against trans people in 2020 so far. The remaining 108 known victims are unnamed.
Speaking to Cherwell, Elliot Brooke emphasised the significance of this memorial with regards to how the trans community is often neglected, stating: “There was something cathartic, healing and empowering about putting something together that was going to get people’s attention for a community that is often ignored and forgotten.”
For trans and gender-non conforming people, the last year was one of the deadliest on record and a 6% increase in reported murders from 2019. As the statement alongside this memorial noted: “Unfortunately, we must recognise that the true number is likely far greater than 350, as often the death of many transgender and gender-non-conforming individuals goes unreported. In addition, this number does not include trans individuals who may have taken their own lives as a result of the transphobia they face from a society in which prejudice against them is still very much ingrained.”
Since January 1, 2008, the TMM project has monitored reports of transgender murders. Since then, the number of cases recorded reached a total of 3665 in 75 countries and territories worldwide. In the US, 89% of those killed were trans or gender-diverse people of colour.
All of the organisers expressed a sense of solemness and grief they had putting up the memorial. River Deng, another of the organisers behind this and Oxford’s Queer Week 2020, had another message: “This memorial also represents that there are people who care.” He went on to say that this week has highlighted that “trans love is the most important thing to me, out of all this grief and loss our community suffers and will suffer, no matter what, people will come together to love each other”.
The statement at the memorial affirmed the need to “recognise that allowing transphobia to persist in any form, overt or otherwise, renders us complicit in the rising rates of violence against the global transgender community”.
Pax Butchart, one of the organisers involved with this and Merton’s Trans Awareness Week, said to Cherwell that “Oxford is a city that is quite divided on this issue” and went on to say that while “Oxford can be proud of itself this week, it shouldn’t get complacent about how much work there is to be done”.
Image credit: Zachary Elliott
Oxford Christmas Light Festival organisers adapt to meet COVID guidelines
This weekend’s Oxford Christmas Light Festival will look different to previous years, as the event’s organizers trade in large street performances and crowded light displays for online and socially distant offerings compliant with federal lockdown regulations. The festival, which begins today and lasts through Sunday,
“This year’s Oxford’s Christmas Light Festival is an important opportunity for our local communities to share in a moment of uplifting creativity,” Councillor and Cabinet Minister for Culture Mary Clarkson wrote in a statement about this year’s event. “The wonderful ideas and activities being offered under the festival banner mean we can all enjoy the fun and spectacle in our homes and around our local areas.”
The weekend will consist of a mix of in-person, socially distanced outdoor activities and live streamed performances. Those wishing to see holiday light displays close-up will be invited to walk along a variety of ‘local light trails’ throughout the city. These routes go by the houses of residents who have gone all-out on illuminated decorations. Some participants received the help of a £50 microgrant to aid in the purchasing of supplies provided by event organizers. Residents will also be encouraged to gather with other members of their households for “Doorstep Celebrations” in place of the large-crowd gatherings that the festival usually brings.
The Oxford Bus Company is partnering with local businesses and the City of Oxford College to decorate the top-floor of one of its open-air buses, which will be driving around the city throughout the weekend. Jack FM will provide live updates of the bus’s location to its listeners and offer a live stream of the procession online.
Many performances that usually take place in central Oxford will also be livestreamed, to avoid potential COVID spread through overcrowding and comply with government guidelines put in place during lockdown. Luxmuralis – a fan-favorite event in which light murals are projected onto some of Oxford’s most famous buildings, including the Christ Church Cathedral and Radcliffe Camera – began at 4pm on Friday.
Other streamed events include performances from 28 different dance groups, an arts and crafts tutorial based on lanterns in the Ashmolean’s collection, and a musical concert from local up-and-coming artists.
Many of the weekend’s festivities will honor those on the frontlines of the pandemic, including NHS and other essential workers. According to the press release issued by the Oxford City Council, the tone of the weekend will be “based on thoughts that have very much been with us over the past months.” These include, “The light that moves us forward; Build back better; Green recovery; My community; Real life heroes [and] Being thankful.”
Image Credit: Peter Trimming / Broad Street, Oxford / CC BY-SA 2.0.
Oxford City Council’s new Anti-Racism Charter faces criticism
Oxford City Council’s newly launched Anti-racism Charter is facing criticism from the Coalition of Black Communities and Communities of Colour.
The Charter, which was released on 30th October, said it demonstrates “Oxford’s commitment to being both anti-racist and lays the foundation to advancing equality of opportunity for all ethnic minorities and people of colour in our city”.
Within the Charter, the Council commits to three core actions: first, an annual review of the Charter, including the definitions and a reaffirmation of the Council’s commitment to be an Anti-Racist city. Secondly, the council promises to showcase the talent and achievements of ethnic minorities and people of colour across the city through various events. Finally, the Council will launch an Oxford specific Anti-Racist City Quality Mark that signatories can use.
According to the council, the Anti-racism Charter was written through consultation with different groups and people of colour that have lived experience of racism in the form of seven focus groups.
However, the Oxford Coalition of Black Communities and Communities of Colour (OCCCC) published a statement on the same day as the Charter’s launch, criticising the creation process and the Charter itself.
The OCCCC is made up of eighteen groups connected with the issue, such as BLM Oxford and African Calling, among many others. The Coalition also has multiple student partners, including: Kofo Collective University of Oxford, Oxford University Africa Society, and Oxford University Feminist Society.
In their statement, the coalition argues that the Charter “is not sufficiently representative”. The statement describes the consultation process as less legitimate due to the “exclusion of the lived experiences” of some groups and individuals.
The Coalition told Cherwell “it is blatantly obvious that a number of the Black Afrikan heritage community were not consulted” and noted that “Black African heritage are statistically at highest risk of experiencing discrimination based on skin colour”.
The Councillor Marie Tidball, Cabinet Member for Supporting Local Communities, responded to the OCCCC’s comments in a statement to Cherwell: “We invited a wide range of participants to our focus groups, including representatives from Oxford Coalition of Black Communities and Communities of Colour. Not all chose to take up the invitation.”
Moreover, the she stated that “the breadth of signatories to the charter shows that organisations from across the city are willing and committed” to tackling racism, institutional or otherwise.
However, this is disputed by the OCCCC, who say that “dissenting voices within the Anti-Racist City executive have registered their unwillingness to be used as a rubber stamp endorsement for what they perceive as pre-determined objectives and outcomes.”
In sight of this, the OCCCC requested “a serious ongoing dialogue … in regard to implementing concrete race equality actions it has itself committed to undertake in the here and now”, and question why the Council hasn’t adopted a “concrete plan”, similar to those seen in the McGregor Smith Review (2017) and demonstrated by the Nottingham City Council.
The council responded that “tackling racism and intersectional discrimination is a hugely complex challenge. We don’t expect to get this done in one go”.
It likewise notes earlier in the statement that “the beginning of a process to understand the multi-layers of racism and discrimination so that we can deliver the change that we all want to see in the city – including overcoming institutional racism”.
Read the full OCCCC statement here. Read the Oxford City Council’s press release for the Charter here.
Image credit: SJPrice / Pixabay
Oxford study reveals the effect of lockdown on disadvantaged children
A recent study run by five leading UK universities, including the University of Oxford, suggests that the development of young children from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds has been disproportionately affected by lockdown compared to children from wealthier families.
The study follows the UNICEF projection just before 10th May this year that “an estimated 116 million babies will be born under the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic”, giving rise to the prospect that a very large number of children will be missing out on important enrichment opportunities as restrictions continue.
It is generally understood that the first 1000 days of an infant’s life are the most critical to development. As Alex Hendry, one of the leading Oxford researchers in the study said in a press release to the University: “Children depend on high-quality interactions to support all aspects of their development.”
Socialisation with other children is also crucial and the cancellation of most group activities as a result of the coronavirus means all children below school-age are missing out. Amongst other things, participation in day cares, play dates, and pre-school preparatory programmes allow adults to gauge possible issues in the development of individual children by comparing them to one other. This in turn facilitates early intervention, something that is not possible under the current state of affairs when all parents are monitoring their children individually.
The Social Distancing and Development Study is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. It surveyed 500 parents of children under the age of three to understand how their experience has been altered by lockdown.
The study had two major findings. The first was that 90% of parents reported an overall increase in the amount of time they spent with their children and the number of enriching activities they were able to fit into a day. The second was that 75% also reported an overall increase in their children’s screen time, something that is generally understood to be unhealthy for very young children.
However, although these findings might indicate most children are being engaged in more enrichment opportunities than they otherwise would be, this increase is substantially lower for disadvantaged children. Moreover, these same children have experienced a greater than average increase in screen time. Sally Hogg, Head of Policy and Campaigning at the Parent-Infant Foundation, said: “This research demonstrates, yet again, that babies in families from more disadvantaged communities have been impacted more by the COVID-19 crisis. The crisis has been difficult for most people, but has had a particular impact on families without the resources to buffer its impacts for their babies. Sadly, too many of our young children live in poverty, poor housing and without stimulating toys and books at home.”
Dr Nayeli Gonzalez-Gomez, a researcher from Oxford Brookes who leads the SDSS project, has two recommendations to rectify this inequality: “In the event of continued local lockdowns, it is vital that disadvantaged families are given extra support to promote children’s early development. Access to communal outdoor spaces and shared resources such as libraries should only be restricted as a last resort. This extra support will take the form of the one-off Baby Boost fund that will enable local communities to provide for their most vulnerable children.”
The full paper titled ‘Not all babies are in the same boat: exploring how socio-economic status, parental attitudes, and activities during Covid-19 lockdown affect early executive functions’ is currently under peer review.
BREAKING: University reports drop to 40 cases this week, lateral flow tests for all students confirmed
Oxford University’s testing service has confirmed 40 cases of COVID-19 among students and staff for the week 14th-20th November, with a positivity rate of 17.2%. This marks a drop of almost 70% in the number of new cases compared to last week’s 126, as well as a substantial decrease in the test positivity rate compared to last week’s 30%.
While cases increased almost linearly in weeks 1-3 this term (with close to 200 new cases confirmed each week), new case numbers began falling in weeks 4 and 5. However, the number of tests conducted in these weeks was down almost 50% compared to earlier this term, while the test positivity rate reached record highs. This week marks the first substantial drop in the positivity rate to half of its peak at 34% in week 4.
Current University guidance is that students and staff should not get tested unless they have been asked to or they display symptoms of COVID-19. The University’s white paper states that “one of the challenges the University faces is staff and students with no COVID-19 symptoms asking for tests unnecessarily”.
The approach when sending students home for the winter vacation is different, however, and the University will provide tests to all students before they leave. In an email to students, the Vice Chancellor confirmed that “Colleagues across the collegiate University are working hard to ensure that we will be able to offer two lateral flow tests to all students in 8th week so that you can safely travel home for Christmas confident that you will not be endangering the health of your family and friends.”
This follows trials of lateral flow tests on student volunteers at Merton College and St. Hilda’s as part of the government’s “Operation Moonshot”, aiming for regular mass testing to reduce the spread of the virus. The Lateral Flow Immunoassay Test (LFIA) requires individuals to take a swab of their nose and throat and insert it into a tube of liquid for a short time, with a result provided after 20 to 30 minutes. They are aimed at potentially supplementing, rather than replacing, the standard use of RT-PCR (reference test polymerase chain reaction) tests.
Today, results for the of the phase III trial of the Oxford Vaccine, ChadOx (ChAdOx1 nCoV-2019) were announced, suggesting a composite efficacy rate of 70%. The efficacy was 90% for people who received a half dose of the vaccine followed by a full dose. For those who receive two full doses of the vaccine, the efficacy rate was 60%. None of those who received the vaccine became seriously ill or required hospitalization.
The vaccine has advantages that make it easier to use than competitor vaccines whose phase III trial results were released last week. It can be stored at fridge temperature, allowing it to be distributed more effectively than the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, which need to be stored at freezing temperatures. Oxford’s manufacturing partner, AstraZeneca, is preparing to make three billion doses worldwide. The Oxford vaccine, at a price of around £3, also costs less than Pfizer’s (£15) or Moderna’s (£25) vaccines.
In an email to students and staff this morning, the Vice Chancellor Louise Richardson congratulated Professors Andrew Pollard, Adrian Hill and Sarah Gilbert and the 280 members of their teams. While celebrating the results, she also emphasised that “we still have some difficult times ahead. It is not yet time to relax, to travel and socialize or to mourn properly those we have lost.”
The University has implemented a four-stage emergency response, depending on how wide the spread of Covid-19 is. The current status is Stage 2, which allows the University to operate “in line with social distancing restrictions with as full a student cohort as possible on site”, with teaching and assessment taking place “with the optimum combination of in-person teaching and online learning”. A Stage 3 response would imply “no public access to the University or College buildings” and “gatherings for staff and students only permitted where essential for teaching and assessment to take place”.
In Conversation with Rebecca Black
Hey this sucks, but you’re gonna’ be famous.
While not the worst thing Rebecca Black would read about herself that year, these words would come to mark a turning point in her life when she opened up her laptop one fateful day in March 2011. That was the day she went from being Rebecca Black, the teenager from Anaheim California, the drama nerd with an unapologetic love of performing and Glee, who had struggled with cliques and bullying in the past but was starting to feel at home in her school’s musical theatre department, who had finally found the place where she belonged, to Rebecca Black, that kid from the Internet.
Black was just 13 when Friday was released. The song had been written for her by producer Patrice Wilson and released by his production company – ARK Music Factory, a short-cut for aspiring musicians with parents willing to fork out $4,000 to give their kid the pop star experience. The video itself is a heavily autotuned portrayal of teenage awkwardness, a day in the life of Black as she celebrates the end of the school week with her friends. It feels like a 30 year old man’s attempt to render the complexities of the preteen years; the result is uncomfortable. It was supposed to be a harmless venture that would allow Black to sing inside a real recording studio and perform in her very own music video.
And for the first month after the song’s release it was harmless, racking up a few thousand views and a handful of comments, most of which had been left by supportive friends and family. But after featuring on Tosh.0, a popular blog ridiculing Internet culture, Friday went viral. And the Internet had a lot to say about it. Ranging from the concise ‘this is shit’, to the hurtful ‘she has a horrible voice and she is ugly’ to the abusive, ‘kill yourself’. While some came to her defence, these voices were quickly drowned out by the consensus of the masses – that Friday was the worst song ever written and Black deserved everything she got. The video currently has 3.8 million dislikes on YouTube.
Everyone had something to say about Friday at the time, with the exception of Black herself, who recalls trying to “shut out that part of (her) brain”, the part that fully engaged with the abuse she was receiving, too “fed up in (her) own little world of 13 year old insecurities” to comprehend what was happening.
This reads in her interviews at the time: the then 13 year old Black smiles opaquely as adults read hurtful comments to her. In one late night show, the audience cheers when Black says that the comments “really don’t bug (her).” They admired her resilience, the way this plucky thirteen year old took death threats and incitements to suicide on the chin. “It felt easier to try to get myself to feel nothing than to feel hurt,” she says.
“I was just trying to show that I could have a sense of humour about it and be in on this joke,” she says. In her Rebecca Black Reacts to ‘Friday’ video, there’s a moment around the three minute mark where Black exchanges a pained look with her audience as she cringes at her creation, inviting herself in on the joke she had previously been excluded from.
What strikes me most isn’t the vitriolic reaction she received from the public, but rather the way these interviewers make no attempt to shield her from it. In an interview with ABC, a journalist reads out one particularly nasty comment – “Friday is the worst song I’ve ever heard in my entire life, even deaf people are complaining,” – with no real understanding of the effect this might have on a young Black. They framed her story in a very specific way; she became a cautionary tale for a digital age.
“I don’t think that the world had as much responsibility in the way they treated children,” she tells me, “it will still so fresh at the time that people didn’t really know what to do with it. Anyone who had this crazy, out-of-nowhere attention, you weren’t a person. You were a spectacle.”
Through the intense media coverage and the successful YouTube channel she launched in 2011, Black is in the unique position of having thoroughly documented her teenage experience. At the click of a button, she can revisit her life at 13 in all its pimply, insecure glory. I wonder if this is a blessing or a curse.
“It’s pretty weird,” she acknowledges, “it stays in the void. It wasn’t too long ago that for some reason I was going back and having a look at old videos on my channel and I think what strikes me the most is seeing the parts of myself that were trying to put on such an act.”
[Watching the channel], “I do feel for the younger version of myself that was hurt, who felt like she couldn’t even say that. I wish I would have known when I was younger that it is 100% okay to admit that you are hurt and that is so much better than trying to pretend you are not, because then you start essentially gaslighting yourself.”
“What I did wasn’t necessary something that was so, so wrong. It was weird, and it was strange, and definitely not this beautiful piece of art that I look back on. But I was a kid, and I was trying something new, and there is an innocence in that that I think was lost at the time.”
This self-awareness has come to characterise her career in the years after Friday. In 2013, she collaborated with Dave Days to produce Saturday, the official sequel to Friday. Saturday is more assured than its younger sibling, complete with the odd tongue-in-cheek homage. One shot shows Black eating her cereal from a bowl that reads: ‘GOTTA HAVE MY BOWL.’
It shows an ability to self-parody lacking in most 16 year olds. “I think that I have progressed much quicker in the aftermath of Friday because of the severity of the situation,” she tells me, “Saturday was in that self-aware space to not only being able to have fun with it, but also take it back for myself.”
It was during this time that Black filmed a video with Shane Dawson that recently resurfaced. The video saw Black and Dawson make what many have deemed a tasteless and insensitive joke about the Holocaust during a game of charades. Black apologised in a recent tweet, saying she was “deeply ashamed” of her involvement. Her fans quickly came to her defence, citing her visible discomfort during the interaction, as Shane, attempting to guess the word written on Black’s card, makes a series of sexualised suggestions: “Big vagina. Khloé Kardashian’s vagina”. Black was 16 at the time, Dawson was 25.
Another recording of him referring to Black as the girl “with the huge tits” has also come to light. The two are still friends, but she recognises that Dawson “definitely could have done better. And he should have done better.”
While Black is able to sympathise with “how tough it feels to have people define you by something you did when you were younger”, it’s still an uncomfortable topic for her. She struggles with the comments he made. “I don’t know if there’s a lot I have to say right now,” she admits, “I’m still dealing with it and still trying to understand.”
Nine years after Friday and a lot has changed. Now she has bangs, and a career that in no part resembles the one the Internet would have predicted for her in 2011. Her musical persona has shed all traces of her younger self – the self-congratulation of My Moment, the naivety of Person of Interest. Her recent single, Sweetheart, is an edgy, sexy revenge tragedy condensed into four minutes. The song washes over you as you witness Black transform from doting housewife to femme fatale teaming up with her girl gang to murder an adulterous boyfriend.
Part of this musical transformation is down to her self-development, though it’s also due to Black’s more established position in the industry. She struggled to assert her voice in the immediate years after Friday. She recognises that for young women especially “there are still people who are trying to push those voices down.”
“It’s something that I’m still working on. Of course, as a teenager, as a young person, as a young woman, I’ve got taken advantage of, whether people knew what they were doing or not, and that’s alright. Unfortunately it just happens. The best way that I have learned to work through that is to just know my own power and that’s something I didn’t know for a long time. And I probably still have a lot to work on.” Black now enjoys “100% control” of the content she produces.
Her music taps into a zeitgeist I didn’t know existed until I followed her on Spotify, deftly exploring the anxieties and dreams of a generation that’s only just started to carve out a space for itself in the cultural landscape. “I want [my music] to represent the world that we actually live in today as young people, as queer people, as Gen Z, everything happening in our current climate,” she tells me. She credits the honesty of her work to her recent coming-out as queer. Her aim is to provide queer representation that she didn’t have growing up. “I’m really making that a priority with my platform,” she assures me.
After years of being cast aside, Friday has earned its place on Black’s concert setlist. She recalls a recent concert playing at a college to a crowd of her peers. “Every single person knew every single word to that song and they screamed it louder than you ever could have imagined,” she tells me, “it was fun. There was no meanness in it.” For Black, the song’s “innocence has been found again.”
“I had this idea that I had done something so wrong for so long and that was what was hard to forgive myself for but now I have been able to realise that there wasn’t really anything so wrong about it. I see myself as a 13 year old who was just trying to have fun and try something, born out of something that she really, really loved. So in that case there’s not much to forgive myself for – and that is forgiveness itself.”
Black was one of the first, and perhaps the most successful, person to come back from public shaming. Her refusal to fade into the background has meant that we have been forced to acknowledge the way we treated her nine years ago. The same generation that ridiculed her is now asking for her forgiveness. Is she ready to give it? “One hundred percent. I will always accept people reflecting in their own ways, looking back and learning from it, and moving forward in a positive direction.”
As our conversation draws to a close, I ask Black how it feels to know that Friday may always be the first thing that comes up if someone googles her. She pauses for a moment, searching for the right response. “I have made peace with that, and that’s okay.”
And finally – kicking in the front seat, sitting in the back seat- is she happy with her decision? She laughs.
“Always and forever, I never cared.”
Image Credit: Bia Jurema
Automatic Facial Recognition – A gaping hole in data privacy legislation?
Fingerprints, retinal scans and blood samples – the digital age has extended our perceived identity into data that can be analysed and stored. This data can be a powerful tool for government authorities, who must formulate preemptive and reactionary measures to protect citizens. While it is always reassuring to see someone protected due to a successful measure taken by a legal authority, we have to consider the question: at what cost?
In December 2017, Ed Bridges “popped out of the office to do a bit of Christmas shopping”. That was the first incident where his identity was captured by the Automatic Facial Recognition (AFR) software currently being tested by the South Wales Police Authority (SWP). The next time was at an anti-arms peace protest, within a large gathering. This particular technology is far more sophisticated than a normal surveillance camera, which allows the police to simply monitor public areas. It essentially creates a biometric map of an individual through the surveillance equipment. A numerical code of the faces of each person passing by is created and stored as a unique identification that the individuals don’t have access to.
The police claim that the technology scans multiple faces in crowds, comparing the data to their ‘watchlists’ to find a match and thus track criminals. Liberty, the human rights group supporting Bridges, believes that there is no regulation on what determines these ‘watchlists’ and when the SWP can exercise the use of AFR. It also argues that there is no accountability regarding the storage of all this private data, which has been taken without consent.
The two opposing arguments were discussed in the case brought by Mr. Bridges against the South Wales Police Authority, in the Queen’s Bench Division on 11th August 2020. The court held – on the first ground of appeal regarding ‘no interference with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights’— that “AFR is a novel technology” and that the Divisional Court ignored the deficiencies in the current legislative framework; too often the questions of “who can be placed on the watchlist” and “when AFR can be deployed” have been left to the discretion of individual police officers. Even lawyer Gerry Facenna (on behalf of Britain’s information commissioner) admitted that a legal framework needed to be drawn up for the AFR, and that the current rules are “all a bit ad hoc”. So a lacuna in the legislative framework was recognised and may lead to more comprehensive legislation.
There remains a question of how urgent this issue is, if the authorities essentially just took a picture. Alongside the obvious breach of the human right to private life, the issue with this technology is that it makes a very specific biometric map of your face. The specificity makes it analogous to a blood sample or a retinal scan; this private information is very closely linked to our sense of autonomy and privacy and should be within our control. This software, alongside the setting up of sufficient AFR cameras, would allow police authorities to completely track your whereabouts without you even noticing. Unlike the location you can turn off on your phones, this system would continue tracking you with or without your permission. This demonstrates an urgent need for legislation that will ensure that we can still retain our privacy and dignity.
This may seem like another instance where courts balance out security interests against privacy, but I believe this technology has pointed out a gaping hole in the data privacy legislative framework. We have legislation protecting our unique identification factors and personal data. Simultaneously, we allow the surveillance of our activities in public areas in the interests of security. This technology lies on the cusp of personal data and general surveillance, making it very hard for the law to pin it down and regulate it. This legislative gap also indicates how the law develops after technology, when they should be developed in parallel. For example, there was a 10-year lag between the creation of YouTube and a coherent legislative framework like the GDPR being created. As technology advances, we lose track of the vast amounts of data being stored and our ignorance prevents us from protecting our data in the future.
The Bridges case has brought the age-old fight between security and privacy to the forefront and it will contribute to the future of privacy in the UK. The Data Protection Act, 2018 and the Convention provide some hope in finding a balance. But finding the right balance is crucial to avoid further exploitation through personal data collection; the future is bright, until we stop paying attention.
(Image credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Face_Recognition_3252983.png?fbclid=IwAR33bay4KUL6hJbZcif3lzHyvajzCdj0OXX9_tJuPsIORQoUliL9_2MwAkA)
Lateral flow tests accurate enough for community use, Oxford University and PHE announce
New rapid coronavirus tests are accurate and sensitive enough to be used in the community, Public Health England and Oxford University have announced.
The lateral flow tests allow samples to be processed without laboratory equipment and on site, producing results in just thirty minutes. Importantly, the tests are able to detect asymptomatic carriers who could potentially be spreading the disease without realising.
Pilots of the tests have been launched across England, including a city-wide programme in Liverpool. Since the rollout of mass testing, which includes the use of lateral flow tests, 700 cases where an individual was asymptomatic have been discovered. Currently swabbing must be done by trained professionals at a designated testing site. However, given that the tests are easier to use and analyse than traditional methods, scientists are now investigating whether it is possible to introduce self-testing.
The research was conducted by Public Health England’s Porton Down laboratory alongside the University of Oxford. Initially forty tests were developed, nine of which were judged to advance to a full evaluation. Six of these tests have now successfully reached the third part of a four-stage assessment, with the most advanced, Innova, being used in the Liverpool trial.
Data so far shows that just 0.32% of tests give false positives. This was lowered further to 0.06% when conducted in a laboratory setting. Overall, the tests were successful in identifying over 75% of positive cases of coronavirus. Crucially, several of the tests have proved effective in catching those with high viral loads, who are the most infectious carriers of the disease. Swifter identification of such individuals should prevent the spread of the disease in the population.
Sir John Bell, Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford University, said the trials showed the part lateral flow tests could play in defeating coronavirus.
“The data in this validation report demonstrates that these inexpensive, easy to use tests can play a major role in the fight against COVID-19. They identify those who are likely to spread the disease and when used systematically in mass testing could reduce transmissions up to 90%. They will be detecting disease in large numbers of people who have never previously received a test.”
However, other leading scientists have questioned whether the tests are accurate enough to be useful. Professor Sebastian Johnson of Imperial College London said: “This single test will not be good enough to say you are almost certainly negative, as its sensitivity is not good enough, especially in the hands of the general public.”
Professor Jon Deeks, an expert in coronavirus testing, agrees: “It is basic epidemiology that tests which miss cases like Innova are not fit for use to rule out disease – such as is needed to decide whether students are safe to travel home at the end of the year.”
“I am really concerned that people are not given information to understand what the results mean. A negative test indicates your risk is reduced to between one quarter and one half of the average, but it does not rule out Covid. It would be tragic if people are misled into thinking that they are safe to visit their elderly relatives or take other risks”.
Image credit: Vesna Harni / Pixabay