Saturday, April 26, 2025
Blog Page 4

Jacinda Ardern to join Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government

0

Former New Zealand Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern will take up a role at Oxford University’s Blavatnik School of Government as a Distinguished Fellow and member of its World Leaders Circle.

The Circle is a global network of former heads of government working to improve governance and pioneer research across the globe. Ardern will join the former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who announced his involvement with the Blavatnik School in January. 

Ardern was the world’s youngest female head of government when she took office in 2017, aged 37, as New Zealand’s third female Prime Minister. She has focused on various environmental and governance efforts since her resignation in 2023, and was awarded dual fellowships at Harvard’s Kennedy School later that year. 

She has previously worked with the Blavatnik School through the Christchurch Call – a political summit initiated by Ardern alongside French President Emmanuel Macron to eliminate terrorist and violent content online.

Ardern wrote on Instagram this morning: “Really excited to be joining Oxford University’s Blavatnik School of Government World Leaders Circle. Oxford has created this bipartisan network of leaders to share lessons learned, and contribute to thinking around the deep challenges we face as a global community. 

“Joining this group will not only provide an opportunity to strengthen these connections, it will give me a chance to work alongside a new generation of leaders – students from over 60 different countries – interested in enhancing governance through empathetic leadership.”

Dean of the Blavatnik School, Professor Ngaire Woods, added: “We are delighted to welcome Jacinda Ardern to the Blavatnik School as a Distinguished Fellow and member of our World Leaders Circle. Her leadership in times of crisis, commitment to public service, and deep understanding of governance will bring invaluable insights to our global community.”

Ardern will visit Oxford in June of this year to give a talk at the Sheldonian Theatre, in conjunction with the release of her memoir, A Different Kind of Power.

Waterstones to relocate from Broad Street site 

0

Waterstones’ Oxford branch on Broad Street is set to close this summer and relocate to new premises on Queen Street. The new store will occupy a space beside Halifax on Queen Street, which has been vacant since Topshop closed its doors in 2021.

The book store’s current site is William Baker House, a Grade II-listed five-storey building on the corner of Broad Street and Cornmarket Street. Scaffolding appeared around Waterstones in February 2025 when, according to staff, roof repairs were being conducted.

A Waterstones spokeswoman told the Oxford Mail: “We are delighted to announce the upcoming opening of an exciting and large new Waterstones shop in the heart of the city on Oxford’s Queen Street, the biggest new Waterstones shop to open for some years. Occupying the former Topshop space, in the busy shopping district near Marks & Spencer, the new shop will be situated across the basement and ground floor of the building. 

“The generous, bright and easy to navigate space will allow for increased space and a larger range of books and gifts for customers to browse. The shop will also have a café, perfect for a break whilst choosing the next perfect read.” 

The news has received a mixed reaction from Oxford students. One undergraduate told Cherwell: “I understand why they [Waterstones] did it [moved the location] but I like the current Waterstones: it is in an historic building, the cafe gives a high view of George Street and the hills in the distance, and it’s convenient having it on the opposite end of the road from Blackwells.” 

Another student told Cherwell: “It’s a bit of a trek to Queen Street from Broad Street so I think this will make Waterstones less accessible for students on the other side of Oxford.” 

Waterstones, a chain which also owns Blackwell’s and Foyles bookshop stores, has 311 outlets across the UK, and in Oxford it has occupied the site at William Baker House since 1998. 

Persuading the public: The play as propaganda

0

The play as propaganda has a long history. From the regime-affirming productions of Hieron, tyrant King of Syracuse, to Lucy Prebble’s play The Effect, we can understand that theatre has consistently been used throughout history to promote ideologies and propound beliefs. In the case of Hieron, he was attempting to promote cultural unity over conquered peoples. Prebble, somewhat less tyrannically, aimed to provoke thought over medical ethics. However, from these examples a question immediately arises: What exactly defines a play as a piece of propaganda?

The term propaganda often evokes connotations of tyrannical government, press censorship and blatant political messaging. These ideas are clearly represented in some works focused on specific regimes. For example, after Mao’s revolution many propagandist plays were performed, such as The White-Haired Girl, which criticised exploitative landlord classes, and Dragon Beard Ditch in which communists save the characters from neglectful and corrupt government officials. However, this kind of propaganda was rarely effective. The idealisation of the communist government was immediately recognised as just that, an idealisation, unrelated to and unappreciative of the real problems people faced. 

The actual definition of propaganda according to Oxford Languages is ‘information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view’. This definition complicates matters somewhat. Take Nazi Germany’s emphasis on staging the German ‘greats’. Repeat performances of Kleist’s Prince of Homberg, Beethoven’s Egmont and Mozart’s Don Giovanni filled stages across the Third Reich. However, these plays and operas are not in themselves ‘biased’ or ‘misleading’ nor do they promote the Nazi ‘political cause’. Could the case therefore be made that this was not propaganda? Probably, but perhaps not very well. The key lies in the term ‘repeat’. The constant staging of the classics of German theatre, and only German theatre, meant there was an emphasis being placed on the ‘greatness’ and ‘superiority’ of German culture throughout history. The frequency of these performances was the Nazis’ attempt to prove the truth of their Aryan ideology and consequently it amounted  to propaganda. Similarly, in Fascist Italy plays tended not to be overtly propagandist. Instead, theatre generally emphasised classical Roman themes as a way of demonstrating the greatness of Italian culture and previous Roman imperial ambition. It is noticeable both the Nazi and Fascist regimes did not use overtly propagandist plays to support their message. Rather the careful selection of plays which promoted patriotic sentiments and the context in which they were performed led to a more subtle political manipulation, encouraging citizens to buy into the political ideology of the governments.  

We have seen how plays can be overtly propagandist and contextually propagandist. However, plays can also be shaped and re-interpreted to support certain political messages. In Laurence Olivier’s 1944 adaptation of Henry V, Olivier cut key scenes from the play such as the beheading of Richard of Conisburgh, Henry Scrope and Sir Thomas Grey; Henry’s threat to rape Harfleur; and the massacre of French prisoners at Agincourt. Each of these scenes cast doubt upon Henry’s honour and nobility, which Olivier did not wish his performance, dedicated to ’the Commandos and Airborne Troops of Great Britain’, to reflect. Instead, Olivier stuck to a portrayal of Henry as noble, virtuous and valorous, idealising the warrior and supporting the war effort. Plays, therefore, can be manipulated by interpretation to hint at certain messages, messages which their authors may never have intended.

Returning once more to the original definition of propaganda, it is interesting that there is no reference to government. Could it therefore be argued that individual playwrights produce propaganda plays, supporting their own political beliefs? Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, ostensibly about the 1692 Salem witch hunt, is in fact a stunning indictment of the McCarthy trials. This fits within the definition of the propaganda play. Miller presents his own political views through the allegory of the Salem Witch trials in a biased light, never considering alternative views about the Second Red Scare. But why was this propaganda play successful, when so many other overtly political plays failed? One reason is its allegorical nature. The political messages aren’t being shouted in the audience’s face. For a play to be effective propaganda the audience members cannot be saying “oh another propaganda play”, there needs to be subtlety. However, perhaps the main reason, the reason which makes all successful propaganda plays, is that the play tapped into the ongoing fears and anxieties surrounding the McCarthy trials. It voiced concerns which people felt but were too afraid to express. The play not only allowed audiences to feel connected to the thoughts and ideas of the characters on stage, but also to each other. 

Theatre and propaganda have gone hand in hand for millennia, although with varying degrees of success. The most successful propaganda plays are both subtle and relatable. They must reflect ongoing anxieties and problems faced by their community, creating a shared sense of “yes, I feel that too” across the audience. When used in this way, plays have the power to inspire people, showing them they’re not alone in their beliefs and empowering them to stand up and fight.

Cambridge rowers barred from Boat Race allege ‘desperate’ Oxford intervention

0

Three Cambridge rowers have been told that they cannot compete in this year’s Boat Race due to a new condition on eligibility which, it has been alleged, was influenced by the Oxford camp. The PGCE course, or Postgraduate Certificate of Education, has been deemed insufficient as academic backing for those taking part in this year’s race, set to happen in just under a month’s time on 13th April. 

Three PGCE student rowers have been affected: Matt Heywood, Molly Foxell, and cox Kate Crowley. Heywood posted a statement on his Instagram, claiming: “OUBC [Oxford University Boat Club] challenged the eligibility of PGCE students this year and the subsequent decision has ruled myself and two other athletes ineligible.

“It’s safe to say that this decision doesn’t align with any values of sportsmanship or race spirit that I have known in rowing, and that I feel disheartened by the wider implications of this decision on my future vocation.”

The reaction to the controversial decision has been just as fierce elsewhere. In a statement published on Instagram, Imogen Grant, former Cambridge rower and Paris 2024 Olympian, wrote: “As you can imagine, I’m seething. This is an insult to teachers everywhere and a desperate ploy from Oxford to gain an upper hand in the most slimy way”.

Kate Crowley has also spoken out online, saying: “it is absolutely gutting to have the race that you’ve dreamed of doing for years taken away from you, without getting any say in the matter. I haven’t come to terms with it yet, and I’m not sure that I will”.

Both universities agree to a third-party adjudication from The Boat Race Company, that itself has “no involvement… with any third party”. The Company released a statement today, asserting that: “We sympathise with any athlete disappointed with the crew selection for The Boat Race. This is an extremely competitive process and there are strict (publicly available) eligibility criteria for being considered for a place in a crew.

“Those criteria are jointly agreed by the two competing Clubs, with no involvement from The Boat Race Company Limited (BRCL) or any third party. Similarly, both Clubs agree to the existence and ultimate authority of an independent Interpretation Panel to provide rulings on any disputes, or to clarify rules where necessary.”

Ringers – elite athletes, often Olympians, brought in by either side – are an historic part of the Boat Race; those around to watch the 2019 race might recall the inclusion of a 46-year-old James Cracknell, a two-time Olympic gold medallist with honours at Sydney 2000 and Athens 2004. As such, the movement to ban three Cambridge rowers reinforces an uncomfortable precedent of pettiness that has come to be so common between the two clubs before race day. Sometimes called ‘the row before the row’, this year’s dispute is arguably a new low. 

OUBC have been contacted for comment.

Jesus JCR calls for reversal of College’s lease agreement with Barclays

Jesus JCR have released a statement calling for the “immediate reversal of Jesus College’s lease agreement with Barclays Bank”. The move would see the bank, which has been alleged by campaigners to provide substantial loans to companies linked to the conflict in Gaza, move into the Cheng Yu Tung Building on Cornmarket Street. 

The statement follows an “extraordinary” JCR meeting held at 6:30pm on Saturday 15th March, just hours before the end of full term. 

Minutes of this meeting viewed by Cherwell reveal concerns among the student body that Barclays’ “egregious ethical practices” should not be endorsed by the College through a lease agreement. Research reports on such practices by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, it was claimed in the motion, have found Barclays to be “facilitating genocide”. Barclays already provides banking services to Jesus. 

Unease surrounding Barclays Bank’s alleged links to investment in fossil fuels was also expressed. 

A statement on Instagram cited research from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign holding that the bank provides billions of pounds of loans to “nine companies whose weapons, components, and military technology are being used by Israel in its attack on Palestinians”. The JCR motion, included in the social media post, passed by 73 votes to 13, with seven abstentions. 

Jesus College, in response to the motion, told Cherwell: “The College can confirm that Barclays Bank will move from its current premises on Cornmarket to a ground floor retail unit in the Cheng Yu Tung Building later this year, and it welcomes communication with any Jesus student who wishes to express their views on this decision.

“The College remains focused on delivering its academic mission. The income received from the tenant will enable the College to invest in its strategic priorities, for the benefit of everyone in its community. The College will continue to engage in constructive dialogue with the bank on its ESG policies, and other issues important to the student body.”

A spokesperson from Barclays told Cherwell: “We provide vital financial services to US, UK and European public companies that supply defence products to NATO and its allies. Barclays does not directly invest in these companies.” 

They also said: “Barclays is committed to providing the finance to meet current energy needs while financing the scaling of clean energy, delivering against our target to facilitate $1trn of Sustainable and Transition Finance by 2030.”

Something is rotten in the state of San Andreas: Grand Theft Hamlet in Hertford

0

‘Hamlet: “O’, that this too too solid flesh would melt, thaw…” [Throws grenade at helicopter. Explodes. Hamlet’s pulverised body is thrown backwards by the implosion.]’

Don’t quite remember this scene from the bard’s masterpiece? You won’t forget it after watching Pinny Grylls and Sam Crane’s spectacular docu-drama about the staging of a production of Hamlet inside the game of ‘Grand Theft Auto Online’ during COVID. On International Women’s Day this year, Hertford alumnus Pinny Grylls returned to her old college for a showing of the film, and to answer the many questions she knew the audience would inevitably have. 

Welcome to the world of Los Santos – a city miraculously like its Californian homophone – where guns and random acts of violence are the norm, and no-one knows who anyone really is. It’s also a city of beauty, with aching sunsets and perfectly-rendered verdure. 

In lockdown, all too many people with too much time on their hands found something like solace in video games. Open world games provide the opportunity to live a life of vicarious freedom: to see sights, travel, meet others, and, of course, blow things up. Equipping an avatar allows for the anonymity needed to forge a new identity, and escape the ennui of looking at the same four walls, day in, day out. The entire conception of Grand Theft Hamlet – beyond just its dialogue about staying sane during lockdown – brings back COVID claustrophobia, the need to find ways to keep occupied.

On the face of it, it’s unreal. For anyone who’s not been exposed to ‘Machinima’ (a somewhat hideous portmanteau of ‘machine’ and ‘cinema’), the idea of trying to create a cinematic work inside a video game may sound comic, bizarre, or even hopeless. Yet Pinny Grylls is clear that the artistic potential of video games is immense. She admits to not enjoying gaming, but the worlds that they offer are – in some cases quite literally – boundless. This artistic potential finds full and fabulous expression in Grand Theft Hamlet, which takes a play already obsessed with performance and facades, and goes above and beyond in exploring the verbs ‘to act’ and ‘to play’. It’s impossible to tell what’s scripted and what’s not – everything flows effortlessly and naturally: a testimony to Grylls’ skill in editing and shooting.

The simple conceit is that two friends, Sam Crane and Mark Oosterveen, inspired by stumbling upon a huge amphitheatre in-game, decide one day to stage a production of Hamlet inside GTA Online. With the help of Pinny Grylls, who acts as cinematographer, they go through the digital world of Los Santos trying to enlist willing recruits. Calling upon friends and strangers from the internet alike, they slowly begin to assemble a rag-tag bunch of performers, using the audio function to chat, and various emotes to enact their characters.

As a viewing experience, it’s remarkably funny. The surrealness of watching 90 minutes of in-game footage does wear off, and at times you even feel something like emotional connection to the pre-programmed movements of the various players, until you’re intentionally brought back to awareness of the absurdity of it all. The film effortlessly moves between languid conversations between Sam and Mark as they move through the world, plotting how to get more actors and solve difficult staging problems, and scenes from Shakespeare’s play. 

One of the most comedic moments of the film comes early on, not long after Sam and Mark have found their amphitheatre, and formed a loose plan. They are, as all of ‘the cast’ is throughout the film, interrupted by some other players who greet them in the usual friendly way of GTA: with blows and bullets. Prompted into action, Mark and Sam proceed to voice-over the opening scene of the play (with the sentries discussing their night’s watch), with a hysterical contrast to the contents of the screen. Whilst chaotically firing machine guns at the insurgents, they report to Horatio no disturbance during their watch, and calmly say that it has been a peaceful evening (as the violence continues to unfold). 

Other reenactments of the play are also impeccable: Hamlet’s sixth soliloquy (“Now might I do it”) sees the protagonist steadfastly training a gun on the kneeling Claudius; the Ghost’s first appearance to his son sees a huge zeppelin appear in the night’s sky, topped with a fluorescent ghost mask-wearing character, exactly as Horatio speaks “look, my Lord, it comes”.

As well as the dedicated cast, other gamers come and go. A shy man, whose ‘skin’ (the appearance) is that of a green dragon with a distinct rear, not wanting to play a character but clearly very attached to the show, appears in and out of narrative, acting as a loyal protector to the actors – he ensures that the final performance is safe by flying above in a huge military jet. 

The non-playable characters (NPCs) also have an essential role. Their automated dialogue and preset sayings feature variously as hilarious, prescient, and poignant. In one of my favourite scenes of the film, whilst Hamlet recites the ‘What a piece of work is a man’ monologue, Pinny zooms in very close to the faces of some aged and bewildered NPCs. As we hear “How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving, how express and admirable”, the bedraggled NPCs look confusedly around, perfectly contradicting Hamlet’s words in seeming to be utterly devoid of reason and faculties.

But these words are not just an exaltation of human reason; it’s said in one of Hamlet’s darkest hours, and follow: “I have of late, (but wherefore I know not) lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition; that this goodly frame the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory.” Indeed, whilst the film is oftentimes raucously funny, it is also a serious reflection of the difficulties that come with social isolation. Mark is at times very like the morose protagonist: we learn that he’s living alone, without friends or family, and the tediousness of being isolated in the same place is sure to make everything seem like a “a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours”. 

Thus the ending, in which everything comes together, and the play really goes ahead, is a moment of exhilaration and joy (and incredible staging), but it’s also bittersweet. After it ends, the play may be over, but life goes on.

UN judge studying for Oxford DPhil convicted of enslaving woman

0

A United Nations judge studying for a DPhil at Oxford University has been found guilty of modern slavery, witness intimidation, and immigration offences at Oxford Crown Court. The prosecutors alleged that Lydia Mugambe, who also served as a High Court judge in Uganda, held her victim as a slave in Brasenose Drive, Kidlington, just a few miles north of the city centre. 

The victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, worked as an unpaid maid and nanny whilst Mugambe studied for a DPhil in law at Pembroke College. In the College’s 2021 MCR Freshers’ Guide, when asked what advice she would give to new students, Mugambe said that they should “live in the moment”.

The jury heard evidence that the victim worked from 5am to 10pm doing school runs, making dinner, and putting Mugambe’s children to bed without compensation, as Mugambe kept her passport to prevent her from leaving the UK. It was also alleged that Mugambe pressured the victim into dropping the charges against her.

According to the evidence, the then Ugandan Deputy High Commissioner, John Mugerwa, sponsored a visa for the victim to work at the embassy, which he was entitled to do as a diplomat, after agreeing with Mugambe that she would work for the judge as a slave instead. In return, Mugambe agreed to use her influence to assist Mugerwa with legal troubles back home.

The jury unanimously convicted Mugambe of conspiring to facilitate the commission of a breach of UK immigration law by a non-UK national, requiring a person to perform forced or compulsory labour, and conspiracy to intimidate a witness.

An investigation was also launched against Mugerwa. However, he could not be charged, as the Uganda government refused to waive diplomatic immunity, which protects him from criminal proceedings in the UK.

Mugambe has served as a judge for the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals since 1st July 2024. The Mechanism serves residual functions for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, including conducting investigations and prosecutions against war criminals who were not apprehended during the existence of those tribunals. Mugambe’s term is scheduled to last until 30th June 2026.

During the arrest, Mugambe repeatedly claimed that she too holds diplomatic immunity by virtue of her appointment to the Mechanism. According to Thames Valley Police, any immunity was waived by the Office of the United Nations Secretary General.

Mugambe matriculated in 2020 to read for a DPhil in law at Pembroke, where she served as treasurer of the College’s Middle Common Room. Whilst she was a student, Mugambe was also involved with the Oxford Human Rights Hub, whose mission is to “strengthen and develop international human rights law through the exchange of knowledge and best practice”.

Reacting to the news, one current Pembroke student told Cherwell that he was left “shocked and surprised”, adding that it was “completely unexpected” something like this could happen at Oxford.

Commander for Oxfordshire, Chief Superintendent Ben Clark said: “Lydia Mugambe is an extremely qualified lawyer, a Ugandan High Court Judge and a UN Criminal Tribunal Judge.

“Mugambe used her position of power as well as her knowledge of the law to take advantage of the victim, ensuring that she would become her unpaid domestic servant.

“I want to appeal to anyone who is a victim of modern slavery or suspects that modern slavery is being committed to contact Thames Valley Police. We will listen and we will help you.”

The Oxford Union does not believe that Taiwan’s future lies in reunification with China

0

Last night the Oxford Union voted against the motion “This House Believes that Taiwan’s Future Lies in Reunification with China”, with 190 members voting in favour and 239 members voting against.

Prior to the debate, members in the chamber were heard discussing in Mandarin that, because the voting procedure was likely filmed, they must vote “aye” when they leave the debate. 

Opening for the Proposition was Director of Sponsorship Nuzaina Khan who argued that reunification is inevitable, but it can be a strategic choice rather than a submission. She said: “A future cannot lie in something that is inherently unstable – cannot lie in war, isolation, and empty Western promises… Be cautious, stories about underdogs are only inspiring if they lead to victory.”

The Opposition began with Secretary’s Committee member Yeji Kim, who makes a passionate appeal to the values Taiwan embodies. “Taiwan’s future is up to its people, who have time and time again chosen democracy, rule of law, and freedom,” she said to a round of applause. Kim continued: “If the logic is that the same people should be in the same country, then different people should be in different countries. By that logic, China should set East Turkistan free.”

Next up in Proposition was Professor Daniel Bell, Chair of Political Theory with the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong. He poked fun at how the Union term card listed a different Daniel Bell who sadly passed away 2011. His speech was a truly cryptic one, for he supposedly asked ChatGPT to predict Taipei-Beijing relations between 2025-2050. Bell described to the chamber a whirlwind of developments including “President Musk”’s decision to make friends with China and its subsequent reforms. The good news, finally, was that Taiwan reunited with the mainland in 2043 because they were so happy with the mainland’s progress, despite how “the men’s national football team continued to underperform” – the chamber roared with laughter at this.

Second in Opposition was the self-proclaimed “Minister of Propaganda” Leo Buckley. Buckley painted a picture of a “small island standing against a malicious and expansionist empire” and revealed that he was discussing Britain in the early World War II. He evoked Churchill’s speech “We shall fight on the beaches”, delivered at the very dispatch boxes Buckley spoke at, and listed China’s expansion projects in Xinjiang, Tibet, and South China Sea to draw a parallel. Buckley continued: “[The CCP] even suppressed comparisons of Xi to Winnie-the-Pooh, while here at the Union we relish in comparing our presidents to panda bears” – to chuckles from said president. 

When Buckley urged people to try asking DeepSeek AI about Tiananmen Square or China’s human rights, an audience member tried it and showed the result to another audience member, who gasped.

Then Dr Kerry Brown, Historian and former First Secretary of the UK Embassy in Beijing, spoke for a vote of abstention, as he supports neither Proposition nor Opposition. Brown advocates for maintaining the status quo: “The current situation is very ambiguous but has avoided outright conflict – in this one crucial respect, the One-China Policy has worked”. In response to a point of information on how sustainable the One-China Policy is, he said “forever”.

Speaking third in Proposition was Dr Jason Hsu, former legislator-at-large in Taiwan’s parliament. After an appeal to democratic values, citing studies that less than 10% of the Taiwanese people support reunification, Hsu delved into rational cost-benefit analysis. He argued conquest is difficult and would leave Taiwan in ruins with an “ungovernable resistance”. “What good would it do for China to absorb Taiwan?”, he asked, “Nothing.”

Next was the strongest Proposition speaker, vice-president of the Centre for China and Globalisation who opened with “I’m Victor Gao from Beijing, and I’m very happy to be with you”. He described his former role translating for President Deng Xiaoping as the first highlight of his life – to much applause – and that speaking at the Union was the second highlight. His tone then turned stern as he objected to Kim’s previous wording: “There’s no East Turkistan in this world, it is an illegitimate term. This is not a pub, you must be careful with terms. I would hope Oxford-educated people can figure that out.” This was met with both applause and booing in the audience.

Gao took a historical approach to argue that China has never been destroyed or interrupted for 5000 years of its history. When questioned on Mongols and Manchus in points of information, he responded that Mongols never imposed their culture, and Manchu emperors became champions of Chinese culture. Drawing on his Yale Law School background, Gao argued that the matter of Taiwanese secession must include mainland voices, just as a hypothetical California secession would need three-fourth of all states. He ended by proclaiming that the audience – and Nancy Pelosi – will live to see reunification.

The fourth Opposition speaker was Nathan Law, a Hong Kong democracy activist with a HK$1m (£100,581) bounty for his arrest. He accused Gao of spreading CCP propaganda, and recalled a joke on social media platform Weibo: “You have freedom of speech in China, but you only have it once.” He was immediately met with heckling from the audience, and the president had to remind people of decorum. 

Law said that tonight he had heard “big-boy politics” and “bully always wins”, but “sovereignty should always be a human-centred discussion, so where is the Taiwanese people in the Proposition’s argument?” He argued that “forced annexation” will be a repeat of Hong Kong, where “I saw my friends go into jail, I saw the newspaper I read getting disbanded.” Law closed with an appeal for the international community to support Taiwan.

Budget-friendly backpacking for students: Travel destinations & easy visa guide

For students, backpacking is almost a right of passage. However, it can come with a hefty bill and complicated visa requirements. For some, this can make the dream seem almost impossible. 

However, there are plenty of countries that are great options for those on a lower budget and those who want to avoid the unnecessary complications of being accepted into the country. 

With that in mind, here are some of the best budget friendly and easy visa destinations for students. 

Thailand 

Thailand is one of the most popular destinations for backpackers because it is very inexpensive. Accommodation, food, and transportation are all incredibly affordable. Local beers are just over £1, a meal for two at a mid range restaurant is around £20, and a one way ticket on local transport can be as low as 60p. 

As Thailand is such a popular place to go, the tourist infrastructure is fantastic and there are plenty of things to see and do. 

You can also stay in Thailand for tourism purposes without a visa for 30 days. If you plan on staying longer than 30 days, you will need to get a visa. Luckily the requirements for Thai visas are simple and the process is easy to follow. 

Vietnam 

Vietnam has some breathtaking locations that make for a memorable trip. Not only is it a beautiful country, but it’s pretty cheap. 

Vietnam is actually less expensive than Thailand. A local beer will set you back just over 60p, a meal for two at an average restaurant is around £18, and a typical one way ticket on public transport is just 25p. 

You can also visit Vietnam as a tourist for 45 days without the need for a visa. If you’re looking to stay longer, getting a visa isn’t too difficult. 

Cambodia

Cambodia is a wonderful country with stunning beaches and mesmerising temples. Filled with culture, it’s definitely not one to miss out on. 

Cambodia is ever so slightly more expensive than Thailand and Vietnam, but only marginally. It’s still an exceptionally affordable place to visit. Local beers are around 70p, a meal for two people typically comes in at around £22, and the average one way ticket on local transport is just over £1. 

You will require a visa to go to Cambodia and tourist visas are valid for 30 days.

Make your visa application simpler

If you’re travelling across multiple countries, using a visa service such as OnTrailVisa can make the process considerably easier to manage and save you heaps of time. It will also help reduce your costs, since you’re less likely to have applications rejected, which can become expensive. 

Don’t let budget stop you

If travelling is your passion, don’t let a lower budget limit your explorations. There are plenty of destinations, particularly in Southeast Asia, that are ideal to visit if your budget is on the smaller side. 

What Tate’s case tells us about student sexual violence

0

TW: sexual violence, abuse, human trafficking

If watching the news as a law student is bad, watching it as a woman is usually worse. Recent coverage of Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan leaving Romania has reignited conversation around their offences and failures of the criminal justice system to support victims. Stepping back from their case highlights a broader cultural neglect of sexual violence, including in the context of campaigns here in Oxford.

Andrew and Tristan Tate are British-American influencers known for their online content centred on masculinity and misogyny, with Andrew expressing that he is “absolutely a misogynist”. After first being arrested in 2022, the Tate brothers left Romania despite being charged with rape, human trafficking, and organised crime. Why prosecutors approved their request to travel is unclear, though the country’s anti-organised crime unit has committed that the two remain “under judicial supervision”. Politicians calling for criminal investigation in America or extradition to the UK complicate the situation further along jurisdictional and ideological divides.

The complexities of their legal status aside, it is the reaction to their at least temporary ‘escape’ that reveals deep concerns. Most articles on their departure end with victim statements, putting victim-survivor concerns secondary to the geopolitics and litigation questions at hand. The British women alleging they were abused by Andrew Tate said they felt “retraumatised” by him leaving Romania. But where are their views in the legal plans and political debate?

Survivor and campaigner Ellie Wilson recently called attention to the powerful’s neglect of victims. She posted on X that the absurdity of Donald Trump – who has been found liable for sexual assault – becoming president was somehow overshadowed by him “facilitating the escape of a man awaiting trial for rape and human trafficking.” It was confirmed that Trump’s special envoy spoke to the Romanian foreign minister about the Tate brothers, reinforcing Wilson’s idea that abusers “have each other’s backs”.

Concerns about a culture of impunity are echoed here in Oxford. Speaking to Union Treasurer-Elect Rosalie Chapman, she highlighted the concern that the Tate brothers’ departure sends “a bleak message to survivors of sexual violence” and reinforces victims’ fear that “power and money can shield abusers from real consequences”. Inaccessibility of justice for victims predates the Tates, but this “adds to the sense that justice is something reserved for those with privilege”.

Chapman recently brought private business to the Union to create the position of an Anti-Sexual Violence Officer on committee. Prior to the cancel culture debate this term, her speech called the rule changes “both necessary and overdue”. She asserted that the training and support to fight sexual violence was needed given it is a “pervasive issue amongst the university and student spaces”.

The SU Welfare Survey in 2024 found that one in five women who responded had experienced unwanted sexual behaviour, analogous to national statistics about gender-based discrimination and violence. The reports on Student Welfare and Support Services also raise concerns about the institutional capacity to provide support. In the 2022-2023 report, wait times for the Sexual Harassment and Violence Support Service increased, potentially discouraging victims from accessing help.

Reported cases, however, are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to tackling sexual violence. Offenders escaping justice might leave survivors thinking that reporting is futile, encouraging a culture of staying quiet. Campaigners also emphasise their fear that a lack of accountability potentially vindicates figures like Tate. Chapman argued that Tate’s supporters can use this as “proof of his innocence”, building on his existing “influence over young men”. Police in the UK have expressed concern that influencers like Andrew Tate are contributing to the misogynistic radicalisation of boys, alongside British schools sharing that pupils are increasingly expressing that they admire Tate.

Narratives glorifying abusers while ignoring or even villainising victims is the problem here, and it is not isolated to the Tates. Recently concerns about the invitation of Dizzee Rascal to the Union were raised by Oxford Feminist Society given he was convicted of abusing his partner in 2022. Their post criticised “platforming and welcoming this violent offender” and speaking to Cherwell, FemSoc raised that the Union showed an “apparent lack of internal ability” to cancel the invitation or recognise the controversy publicly.

Misogyny needs public visibility, but action seems to face institutional resistance no matter the scale. Chapman shared her hope that the new Union position would be “a small but necessary step” to not just address the rhetoric but bring real change. She called for a culture “where survivors aren’t just believed but actively supported”, which is not the case currently in a “world that keeps giving men like Tate a microphone”.