Monday 13th April 2026
Blog Page 419

In Conversation with Dick and Dom

Izzy Tod
-
0
In Conversation with Dick and Dom

When our Zoom call connects, Dom has his arm wrapped around the back of Dick’s chair. The pair are sitting in a normal-looking front room with muted green walls, dark wood furniture and a healthy plant in the far-left corner. A metaphor for a pair of grown-up kids finally grown up? Maybe not. In the middle of the room there is a giant DJ mixer covered in flashing LEDs set up in the space where the sofa should be.

‘We have an online gig tonight,’ Dick tells me.

 ‘We’ve been trying to get really good at DJing,’ adds Dom, ‘just practicing and practicing and practicing so that we can broaden our DJing not just to the student scene, but to other places too. Creamfields maybe. […] I think it surprises people that we can do this, they don’t expect us to be able to do that kind of thing, they just expect us to be able to shout BOGIES.’

 The game, like the double act, needs no introduction. Anyone who watched Saturday morning TV between 2002 and 2006 is familiar with the unparalleled joy of yelling “BOGIES” in public places to your parents’ and teacher’s dismay. Throughout our conversation, I’m half expecting one of my flat mates to barge into the room and yell it down the webcam.

I ask if they ever feel disappointed that they are only associated with BOGIES and their other Bungalow shenanigans. ‘No, not at all. We’re incredibly proud of it.’ says Dom. ‘I want to know what it feels like again. Working on Dick and Dom in da Bungalow (a phrase which they both invariably pronounce as one word ‘dickanddomindabungalow’) was this complete synergy of a group of people moving forward together. It was like an army. Everyone was in sync with each other. Everyone knew exactly what the next person would do. The sound person was in sync with the light person who was in sync with the camera person who was in sync with the director and the floor manager.’

‘And there wasn’t even a script,’ Dom continues, ‘there was just a list of bullet points and the kids were given complete free reign. Everything was off the cuff. […] And all you had to do was ask a kid “What’s wrong?” or “Why are you upset?” and all of a sudden someone would be playing sad violin music. The lens would go out of focus. The lights would suddenly go blue and you’ve got this complete shift mood compared to a second ago. And then just as quickly it would all go back to normal. It was so special, and I’ve only seen it done on a few different shows.’

Back when Dick and Dom first started at the BBC in 1996, the kid’s TV slot was 3 hours long and would receive about 5 million views every day. Nowadays, they tell me, you’re lucky if you can get 70,000. I ask them what they think has changed.

‘The rule book has got bigger,’ replies Dick, ‘you wouldn’t see a program like dickanddomindabungalow on TV anymore, which is really sad, because it was something different, anarchic and unique at the time. […] Everything nowadays is produced properly into well formatted TV shows. Kids do still have free reign to make their own content, but they’re making it on YouTube instead. It’s a shame they can’t do that on TV.’

‘Everyone worries too much these days,” adds Dom, “back then there was definitely a kind of revolution: there was Chris Moyles doing the Breakfast Show, there was TFI Friday with Chris Evans. […] Then suddenly it all clamped down. I think it was around the time of the Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross controversy, I think that was when the rule book got bigger.’

 In 2008, Russel Brand and Jonathan Ross prank called Andrew Sachs BBC Radio 2, leaving rude messages on his answerphone about Brand’s relationship with Sachs’ granddaughter. 18000 complaints were made to Ofcom and both Brand and Ross were suspended from the BBC. The affair led to a huge public debate about public service broadcasting and a much stricter set of regulations at the BBC.

 ‘Dickanddomindabungalow’ has been subject to its own fair share of critical attention. Dick and Dom received complaints that ranged from the pair’s inaccurate use of grammar to appearing near-nude on the show. Dom was once criticised by Ofcom after wearing a t-shirt with the slogan ‘Morning Wood’ and Dick received numerous complaints following a skit in which he gave birth to a dozen babies covered in creamy muck muck.

‘When we got complaints like that, we pushed it harder to try and generate some more. There were groups of mums out there who were trying to get together to get the program taken off air,’ says Dick, with a proud smile. ‘And we were the second program in the history of children’s TV to be mentioned in the House of Commons. A lot of people think the BBC took us off air, but it was our decision in the end. We felt it was best to leave while the show was at its peak.’

But in many ways, Dick and Dom have never really left the Bungalow. During our conversation, I come to realise that for them, all of history exists on a timeline that runs from ‘Before The Bungalow’ to ‘After The Bungalow’. Every story they tell me is invariably framed by its proximity to the golden era of ‘dickanddomindabungalow’. This time between 2002 and 2006 was a unique moment in history when their lives consisted entirely of baby races, musical splatues and creamy muck muck. There’s a lot to be nostalgic about.

During their early years (a time described to me as ‘4 or 5 years Before The Bungalow’), Dick and Dom worked on separate projects for the BBC and lived together in a basement flat share in London. They tell me how it was home to many (self-proclaimed) legendary parties for the TV stars of the early 2000s.

‘We used to have these big old-school vinyl decks and big speakers,’ explains Dick. ‘People used to say: “Have you ever been to a Dick and Dom party?”, because people would always end up in a right mess. Chris Moyles would be face-down over there, Alex Davis face-down over there. It was all going on. […] The landlord upstairs used to find it hilarious.’

 ‘I don’t think he found it hilarious at all,’ interrupted Dom. ‘He phoned us up once asking us to turn down the music because his pot plants were leaping all over the floor. And then we had the audacity to ask him to stop his kids running around at seven o’clock in the morning.’

 Eyes wide and leaning forward in their chairs, Dick and Dom launch into story after story about their memories of what can only be described as their own real-life bungalow. ‘We used to just go into the kitchen, a bit drunk, and just start having food fights, completely trashing the kitchen,’ says Dick. Without missing a beat or seemingly noticing that it was his other half who had spoken, Dom continues: ‘And when I say food fights, I mean proper food fights. […] Literally every single thing that you could find in the cupboard. I’m talking eggs on the ceiling…boxes of eggs…flour everywhere…ketchup. It was an absolute tip.’

 ‘But we’ve grown up now. The party days are over,’ says Dom, somewhat unconvincingly considering their evening plans consisted of a D&B gig for Sunderland and Nottingham Trent universities.

‘The TV relationship is all based on our real-life friendship,’ explains Dick. ‘It’s no more than that. And I think the fact that we’re still best mates after 25 years is a testimony that you can’t forge onscreen relationships. We know many double acts who have tried to stay friends just to keep the career going – but it ultimately falls apart. We’ve been through our own personal problems over the 25 years, it’s impossible not to have ups and downs, but we’ve always been there to support each other. And we’ve gone through our lives together, not just our careers together. It’s been a great 25 years. And we’ve got many more ahead.’

 I ask them what fans should be expecting next from Dick and Dom. ‘We have ideas,’ replies Dick, ‘it’s been a bit bad over the last year, you know, a bit different. Last March we were booked up to do loads and loads of stuff. Our podcast Cash for Chaos was going to be made as a TV pilot, but all that stopped and everything in our diaries was cleared out; all the festivals, all the live tours, everything. It’s been weird transitioning into this online area. We’ve been coming up with as many ideas as we can for when everything reopens to come back with a bang. Because I think everyone’s going to be ready to party.’

After we hang up the call, I’m left feeling nostalgic for the world that they described, a world full of food fights, house parties and Saturday morning TV. But my overriding impression of Dick and Dom is not their sentimentality or even their devoted friendship, it is the total seriousness with which they speak about their career. Although I would still be hesitant to accuse the pair of behaving like full-blown grown-ups, their knowledge of TV broadcasting is insightful, and they speak about the last 25 years of pop culture with profound clarity. DJing and podcasting are not clumsy side hustles for Dick and Dom, they are deliberate strategies to recapture an ageing fanbase; because Dick and Dom have never really given up on their mission to bring happiness to a generation of kids who, somewhere along the line, turned into adults. 

Protestors gather in support of traveller communities in Oxford city centre

Matthew Schaffel
-
0
Protestors gather in support of traveller communities in Oxford city centre

A protest was held in Oxford City Centre on International Romani Day, on the 8th of April, to highlight the impact of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill on Traveller communities. Organised by the group Oxford Stand Up to Racism, the protest took place in Bonn Square, opposite Westgate shopping centre.

The group claims that “The new bill will make trespass a criminal offence, and give police new powers to seize Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller homes and possessions. Courts will have new powers to impose fines and imprisonment for trespass when there are not enough sites provided for people to stop legally.”

Julie Simmons, a spokesperson for Oxford Stand Up to Racism said to Cherwell: “Thursday 8th April was International Romani Day and Stand Up To Racism was organising events around the country to draw attention to the challenges and discrimination Roma, Gypsy and Traveller communities face, and how this will be worsened by the proposed Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. The measures outlined in the PCSCB will further compound the inequalities experienced by Gypsies, Roma and Travellers, needlessly pushing people into the criminal justice system.”

“The bill will make it nearly impossible for families without a site to live on to, for example, keep their places at school or to attend medical appointments. Already Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities have life expectancies between 10 and 25 years shorter than the general population. This bill will further exacerbate the inequalities.”

“An enforcement approach to addressing the number of unauthorised encampments overlooks the issue of the lack of site provision – there is an absence of places where Gypsies, Roma, and Travellers are permitted to stop or reside. There are other solutions to managing unauthorised encampments, such as negotiated stopping, whereby arrangements are made on agreed permitted times on stopping and to ensure the provision of basic amenities such as water, sanitation and refuse collection.”

“The definition of a Gypsy or Traveller in planning terms requires proof of travelling – without that people are not assessed as needing a pitch or get planning permission, but will essentially be prohibited from travelling by the new law – effectively outlawing a centuries old way of life.”

“Stand Up To Racism, along with many other organisations, believe the government is stoking racism and people’s ability to protest against this with the PCSCB, and this is why we are supporting the next national day of action on April 17th against the bill by joining other groups to protest in Bonn Square at 2 PM.”

During the second reading of the bill in Parliament, several Conservative MPs defended the bill’s measures against Traveller communities. Sir Paul Beresford, the MP for Mole Valley, said at the debate on the 16th March:

“My constituency has a number of legitimate Traveller sites. The relationship between the settled communities and the so-called Travellers on official sites is generally harmonious. Surrey County Council and Surrey District and Borough Councils are in the process of setting up a transit site, with facilities, for Travellers. All this is very different from the frequent illegal Traveller invasions. Surrey has had hundreds of these incidents, and my constituency has more than its fair share. Over recent years, the numbers of these illegal land-squatting camps have increased.”

“If access is inhibited by barriers, gates or any form of obstruction, they are broken down or removed, and generally damaged. The Travellers then squat on-site regardless of the ownership, be it common land, parkland, farmland, private land or even a school playground. I note that a number of Members are opposed to change and would prefer that this remained a civil matter. That approach has been an absolute, abysmal failure, with considerable financial loss to the local community or landowners. The legislative change criminalising this type of illegal camping is exceptionally welcome and has been long awaited. It is for the protection of local people – my constituents.”

Christian Wakeford, the conservative MP for Bury South also spoke at the same debate: “Traveller encampments, especially the unauthorised ones, cause distress to residents such as those on Kingston Road in Radcliffe in my constituency, who often thought that the encampment had more rights than they did. They saw extreme antisocial behaviour such as their fences being used as a toilet or being stolen for fires, and they actually feared for themselves. I went and met them several times during the summer, because there was not just one encampment; there were two. It is about time we supported our residents and said that we are not against Travellers, we are just against unauthorised Traveller encampments.”

Image Credit: ceridwen / Bonn Square and war memorial / CC BY-SA 2.0

Music for springtime

Flora Dyson
-
0
Music for springtime

‘CITY GIRL POEM’ – Twilight Prince, Nicholas Britell

Upcoming artist, Twilight Prince, samples his poetry to the backdrop of Nicholas Britell’s score to ‘If Beale Street Could Talk’. His poetry, which centres around empowerment and spirituality, is a breath of fresh air in an increasingly chaotic world. Twilight Prince gives us a sense of well-needed perspective on the world that is: “larger than the last meal you ate/ better, it’s never up for a debate”. ‘CITY GIRL POEM’ suits mindful moments and brings two minutes of peace.

‘The Hardest Part’ – Olivia Dean

For some, lockdown has been a period of introspection and growth, a feeling captured by Olivia Dean. She encapsulates a development to emotional independence in her mellow tune, with loss portrayed as natural rather than worthy of grief. The pared-down introduction and first verse may seem melancholic, yet an emotional shift is captured in the progression from mellow verse to bouncy chorus. Although minimalist in its instrumentation, Dean’s tone conveys a feeling of self-worth we should all strive for and makes her album highly anticipated.

‘Golden Slumbers’ – The Beatles

Lennon-McCartney’s synthesis of lullaby and rock ideas in ‘Golden Slumbers’ is the consolation we need right now. Isolated vocals in the song’s opening line “once there was a way to get back home” present a relevant sense of emotional vulnerability experienced by many this winter. The song immediately changes tone when we hear Ringo Starr’s drum fill and provides the antithesis to the previously peaceful lullaby which eventually returns. Lennon-McCartney contrast feelings of consolation and pain in a structural synthesis enabling the song to become a powerful emotional outlet. Reflecting rapid emotional change, which many can relate to during lockdown.

‘Moment in the Sun’ – Sunflower Bean

This song exudes summer nostalgia and excitement for the coming season through its happy-go-lucky feel, playful guitar riff and repetitive carefree phrases. For now, though, it is perfect for days that surpass ten degrees as it sparks inspiration and hope for months after lockdown.

‘Levitating’ – Dua Lipa, ft. DaBaby

Start your day off with this dance track and you can’t go wrong. Though Future Nostalgia was released a year ago, Dua Lipa’s hits are incapable of ageing. Her repeated, powerful introduction to the chorus charges energy throughout melodically simple, yet incredibly catchy refrains. The breakdown, in which vocals are isolated then burst into another chorus, channels excitement for the hotly anticipated summer club scene.

‘SUPERBLOOM’ – MisterWives

The triumphant title track of MisterWives’ 2020 album has an unstoppable sense of confidence. It celebrates overcoming obstacles and can be applied to feeling that we: “deserve congratulations ‘cause [we] came out the other side” of a winter lockdown. 

It builds from mellow vocals and jazz piano accompaniment to powerful chords in playful variations of texture. The song reaches a polyphonic climax between vocals, chorus and saxophone in the final chorus which conquers self-doubt and leaves nothing but positivity.

Listen to the playlist on Spotify @cherwellmusic.

Image credit: Tim Hill from Pixabay 

Vaccine Distribution: EU vs UK

Matilda Gettins
-
0
Vaccine Distribution: EU vs UK

Back in April 2020, the number of COVID-19 deaths in the UK reached over 350 people per million – about twice as high as those in the EU. Media outlets in the UK and US quickly came to present the EU, and in particular Germany, as an example to follow in the crisis. The Guardian wrote ‘UK must learn from German response to COVID-19’, while The New York Times asked ‘A German Exception?’

One year later, the roles have switched. As the main priority becomes an efficient and rapid vaccination campaign, the EU is falling behind. While the UK and the US have administered over 57 COVID-19 vaccine doses per 100 people, the EU states have administered an average of just 20 per 100. The EU dilemma can be understood as two separate problems; a lack of vaccine doses, and a failure to administer acquired doses.

covid-vaccination-doses-per-capita-1

With decision processes in the complex European Union requiring more deliberation than for an individual member state, it took the members of the EU’s executive until June to decide upon the $3.2 billion joint pot for vaccine purchases. The first deal with pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca was signed in August – months after the UK and the US. Antonio Guterres, Secretary General of the UN, has criticised this competitive “vaccine nationalism”, calling instead for more international solidarity.

Deciding on collective budgets seems also to have lead to more frugal outcomes; the US vaccine program had a $10 billion budget, while the UK is estimated to have spent around $12 billion. This may have made bargaining simpler; Benjamin Natanyahu speculated that part of Israel’s success lay in the fact that they “didn’t quibble about [prices]” – the country has now administered over 118 doses per 100 people. When making these comparisons, it must be remembered that many member states spend substantial amounts on vaccination campaigns outside of the EU budget.

It also took the European Medical Association (EMA) longer to approve vaccines. It was three weeks behind the UK in approving the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and took a month longer to approve the AstraZeneca vaccine – by far the cheapest out of all vaccines available. Some countries decided to go their own way, provoking internal conflicts. Hungary authorised both the Russian vaccine Sputnik, as well as the Chinese Sinopharm. 

In many EU states, the AstraZeneca vaccine suffered from an inferior reputation as soon as it was released for use. Multiple countries authorised it only for the under 65 year-olds, following concerns about lack of trial data for older age groups. This led to scepticism about the vaccine’s efficacy. In Germany, thousands of people did not turn up to appointments if they knew they were going to receive an AstraZeneca jab. Local authorities also hesitated to use the vaccine, and many doses remained unused.

To make matters worse, multiple member states temporarily suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine over concerns surrounding blood-clotting. The EMA responded by reasserting the vaccine’s safety, but public trust in the vaccine remained further tarnished. According to a poll by the Elabe Institute, only one in five French people trusted the vaccine, while almost three quarters of Germans said they would let themselves get vaccinated with it, according to a study conducted by Forsa. On the Italian island of Sicily, up to 80% of people offered the AstraZeneca vaccine refused it due to safety concerns.

The New York Times suggests that strict adhesiveness to vaccination campaign plans may also have had a detrimental effect. Most nation states prioritised clinically vulnerable groups, meaning that high age groups were to be vaccinated first. In combination with the effect of the non-authorisation of the AstraZeneca vaccine for the 65 and overs, this led to vaccination delays. 

Additionally, EU member states were more reluctant to adopt the British strategy of extending the interval between jabs. This measure was taken to increase the proportion of at-risk-people having received the first jab. In the EU, a higher relative proportion has received the full dose, but a lower total amount.

Finally, organisational complications and inflexibility may also be at fault. In Germany, multiple elderly people struggled to sign up for the vaccine. Initially, this required not only an email address, but an email address per person, which many lacked. Unlike in the UK, there have been vastly fewer reports of surplus vaccines being administered to young people once priority groups have been vaccinated.

BREAKING: University releases new guidance for returns

Cherwell News and Investigations Section Editors
-
0
BREAKING: University releases new guidance for returns

The University has sent out updated guidance to its students in light of the announcement that students on non-practical courses that were not already exempt will be unable to return to teaching until the 17th of May. Students have been asked to remain at their term-time address if they return to Oxford unless they have a legal reason to do so, in line with government guidance. This comes after PresCom has asked the Conference of Colleges to consider implementing a standardised self-certification policy under which students would be able to self-certify for returns.

Students studying non-practical courses may be able to return if it is “necessary to support the continuation of [their] studies”, including preparing for in-person examinations. Students may also be able to return if they lack access to appropriate study facilities at home, or need to return for safety reasons – including wellbeing and mental health. The updated guidance says that students can request to return “even if [they] have previously applied and were not given permission”. The University has also highlighted that “if you do return to Oxford, current government guidance then requires you to stay at your term-time address throughout the term unless you have a legally permitted reason to leave.”

Exams that are already planned to go forward in-person will be going ahead, and the University has highlighted that for students with these exams, “preparing to take part in-person assessments is a valid reason for returning to Oxford.” Over 30 exams are planned to take place in-person in Trinity, although 15 of these remain subject to confirmation in light of updated government guidance.

The suspension of the residency requirement for Trinity means that international students who choose not to return to Oxford may continue to study in the remote. This advice applies in particular to students from ‘red list’ countries, and the University and colleges will not “routinely meet the costs” of PCR tests and quarantine costs, which currently stands at £1,750. Students on the red list have been advised “to take advantage of the residency exemption, unless you have substantial in-person teaching commitments.”

Oxford SU have also released their response to the announcement, stating that they are “continuing to call on all colleges to allow students to ‘self-certify’ and return to Oxford if exemptions apply to them.” The updated statement also condemned the government, stating that “We recognise that students have made considerable sacrifices this year and we are extremely disappointed the Government have decided to leave students in these uncertain conditions when their final exams are rapidly approaching.” The SU went on to call on the collegiate University “to fill this vacuum of leadership,” as well as highlighting the work of JCR presidents in lobbying for students. 

The SU went on to outline their response to the University’s updated policies, stating “We are pleased that students will be able to request to return even if you have previously applied and were not given permission. We hope that in reviewing these applications, colleges will view students through a lens of compassion and empathy, as we believe that too many students fell through the cracks last term.” Colleges are expected to release their own updated policies and communication over the “next few days” if they have not do so already.

16/4/21, 10:28 – updated to include the SU’s statement. 

Image Credit: Yoonsuh Park via Unsplash

Students speak out against new government guidance for universities

Sasha Mills
-
0
Students speak out against new government guidance for universities

On Tuesday, the government confirmed that students on non-practical courses and those not included under current exemptions would not be allowed to return to in-person teaching until the 17th of May, as part of step three of the reopening roadmap. This comes after mounting uncertainty around University returns after it was initially believed that government guidance would be delayed until after the Easter holidays. Cherwell has collected the opinions and testimonies of students on the updated guidance.

Katie Bowen, a student at the Queen’s College, told Cherwell: “It’s beyond frustrating. When we weren’t allowed back for Hilary, we could see the figures rising and the reasoning behind staying at home. But now, when beer gardens, zoos, theme parks and so much more are open, it’s just ridiculous that we can’t return to uni. This government claims education is a priority but it very clearly isn’t.” 

James Green, a Classics and English student at Exeter College, told Cherwell that he believes that “the stark absence of any detailed statistical explanation for the decision published on Tuesday makes an utter mockery of the ‘data, not dates’ maxim the government have repeatedly fallen back on this year.” 

“In the context of the relaxations which went into force on the 12th, delaying widespread student returns until May 17th suggests nothing short of a disregard for the value of higher education, and will seem completely illogical to those of us who experienced the rigour of a COVID-secure university in Michaelmas. For most of us freshers, this is the second time that the government has played fast and loose with our education in under a year, after the A-Level fiasco back in August.”

Debora Knut, a Spanish student at Trinity College, told Cherwell: “I haven’t been back at Oxford since Michaelmas Term of 2019, because I had to suspend my studies due to a brain tumour diagnosis and just as my suspension ended students weren’t allowed back by the government. I really miss it. It took a huge toll on me to not only go through the aforementioned diagnosis but to then be isolated from my peers. I’ve now been allowed to return on welfare grounds, but it was embarrassing and painful to have to mull over my personal issues so that they could be presented as a petition just to be able to be at Oxford.” 

“I am so lucky that I was not interrogated and my reason for returning was handled sensitively, but I know this isn’t the case for many people across colleges. Having to bare your soul in exchange for being at university (and sometimes even being rejected after doing this) is so unfair. The fact that we pay fees should be enough reason to be back. Lateral flow tests are readily and frequently available to students which means we are able to be safe, making it that much more frustrating that the government seems to care so little about us.” 

Anvee Bhutani, a Human Sciences student at Magdalen College, told Cherwell: “As an international student it seems like the government has led us on for a year now with the prospect of returning to normalcy and in-person teaching, but their own poor decisions have inhibited these plans from coming to fruition. I believe we should not at all be mandated to pay the full amount for university considering the short duration we went back for.” 

“To me, it is especially unfathomable that I have to pay £27k for what someone described well as a ‘glorified book club’. Even though I’m able to be back in college, a lot of my friends are not able to be [and] I’m losing out on the experience of going to events, being part of societies, interacting with people.”

“Oxford is obviously limited with what they can do and is bound by government guidelines, but given they have the closest contact with students, it was expected that they would put the weight of their big name and legacy behind lobbying the government. Unfortunately, this has not been at all done, and despite this fact, the University is continuing to hold us to the same academic standards. We have once again been made scapegoats in a decision that is hugely disappointing.”

Daniel Dipper, a student at Magdalen College, told Cherwell: “I know I have been lucky that I’ve had a good set of tutors who have been responsive to my emails, I’ve been able to work with online learning, and I’ve had generous financial support from my College which has helped me to purchase the academic books necessary for my course. I know [that] compared to many other universities we are lucky in the financial resources some Colleges are able to afford.”

“However, the pandemic has still massively disrupted my learning, led to me knowing few people at university very well, and has meant I have spent more time in a tiny room in my childhood home than I have at university. I’ve had COVID-19, it was terrible, and I still to this day suffer the debilitating effects of this disease, and I know some lockdown measures have been needed to conserve healthcare capacity and save lives, but university students just haven’t been on the government’s radar. I am pleased universities are now part of the roadmap, however, they should always have been – universities must not be forgotten in this way again.”

Kwabena Osei, a student at Corpus Christi College, told Cherwell: “Having previously understood the importance of preventing a huge spike of COVID-19 within the student community, I fail to understand the justification behind the Government’s actions. It is hypocritical to allow large department stores to reopen fully, yet prevent in-person teaching (that happens on a much smaller scale) from taking place.”

“Students this year have already had to sacrifice so much – and I feel at this point a £9,250 price tag hard to justify given the scale of disruption. Returning on the 17th May leaves roughly 4 weeks of in-person teaching, and with many students having exams at the end of Trinity, the short amount of time left in the academic year only adds to the pressure caused by insufficient online teaching, a lack of access to resources, and little support from the University” 

Connie Claxon, the JCR President of Worcester College spoke to Cherwell on behalf of the ‘Our Turn to Return’ campaign, whose petition for returns has now reached over 10,000 signatures.  “The news that students on non-practical courses cannot return to university until 17th May has been absolutely devastating for students. Why is it that students can now go to a zoo or theme park but we cannot return to university which we pay over 9 grand a year for?” 

“Allowing all students back to university would not result in the mass migration of students that the government seems to be implying because 76% of students were already living in their term-time accommodation last term, it is only the final 24% that has been left out once again. We have launched a campaign called Our Turn to Return and a petition that is now at nearly 10,000 signatures and with enough support we really hope to be able to turn this dreadful decision around.” 

A spokesperson for the Oxford SU told Cherwell: “‘The recent government announcement is disappointing for many students as once again the government has failed to prioritise students and recognise the significant challenges so many students are facing.” 

“We are working with the University of Oxford and its colleges to understand the implications of the announcement and are calling on the University to update students as soon as possible. We remain concerned about the inconsistency about how the government guidance, particularly around exemptions to return, is being applied by colleges and we continue to lobby for colleges to allow students to make their own decisions about whether they fall under the exemptions and to facilitate student’s return as requested.”

Image Credit: Matthew Waring via Unsplash

Alternative media: how are we getting our information?

W A Whitten
-
0
Alternative media: how are we getting our information?

Cast your mind back to the summer of 2007, when the iPhone had just been released, the recession had not happened yet and the idea of getting news from something like an app on your phone was nowhere to be found. That was fourteen years ago. Things change and the way we choose to find information about the world and current affairs is constantly changing too. Facebook and Twitter offer information in short snippets, major newspapers have their own apps, YouTube allows somebody to watch ‘news’ when it pleases them. We no longer need to wait around until the ten o’clock news comes on. So, what are we using, and are they any good?

YouTube has become a platform for both reporters of and commentators on news and politics. I am personally a big fan of TLDR news, in all honesty going to them far more than I do actual old school media outlets, such as the ten o’clock news or the papers. They allow me to pick and choose the topics I want to hear about and view things when I want, unlike TV news which has specified times. This opportunity for choice is an option our grandparents were not given. Mostly though I just like the way they present, addressing the issues individually and as a topic rather than just a headline. This, in my eyes, is the positive side of YouTube news; these are the people successfully attempting to keep up with expected standards of neutrality.

There is a dangerous side to YouTube news as well. On the 15th of March 2019, fifty-one people were killed at a shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, along with another forty injured. According to a report by The Royal Commission of Inquiry, the shooter often accessed extremist material on Youtube. The danger with sites like these, such as YouTube is that the content creators are largely unaccountable, unlike those in the traditional media who are held to higher levels of scrutiny by the courts and legal systems. TLDR are in the minority maintaining the same standards as traditional media. See the likes of Ben Shapiro and Stephen Crowder and their videos. The problem with such sites is that they can allow people to outlet views that are not supported with any real or reliable data.

Twitter is another major source of many people’s information that has arisen during the past two decades.It is a source of both news and personal stories. Many of us use it to see what is going on and to see what the opinions of people are. Yet Twitter is an echo chamber that does not represent the population at large.Twitter’s users are younger which means the political views of the younger demographic are being platformed the most. In the UK over 50% of the nation voted to leave the EU, but if your only news source was Twitter this would likely seem entirely impossible. Though there are micro echo chambers within Twitter which do not follow the standard views for users, these are only small groups. In my questioning of a few people, some said they used Twitter to hear about news stories, and then went on to read about them further elsewhere. This is fine, this is safe. But to use Twitter as a primary source for information and news is dangerous. Twitter’s nature as an echo-chamber can lead to certain opinions appearing more widely supported than they are.

Many people, myself included, use Facebook as a source for news. Lots follow the pages of more traditional media outlets such as The Guardian or Financial Times on Facebook, or even Cherwell. Likewise, this is a legitimate use of social media; Facebook alerts us of the stories, and then we go off and read the articles from the Facebook pages which we would otherwise find on apps or the websites of the media outlets. This is similar to how many of the people use Instagram: they would find stories on the platform the same as people do on Facebook and the stories which interested them they read up on further. However, the 2020 election shows that Facebook most certainly does not avoid the issues that both Twitter and YouTube have. The unfounded QAnon conspiracy theory, that Donald Trump was secretly fighting a ring of paedophiles in the highest ranks of the United States, was largely to be found on Facebook, and other such far-right ideologies use the platform as their hub. In January, Mark Zuckerberg announced that  Facebook is stopping recommending both civic and political groups. He stated that Facebook wished “to make sure the communities people connect with are healthy and positive.” The fact is that on Facebook these communities are often not healthy and are often misleading. 

It is quite surprising that memes have become a form of political exchange and currency. We have all seen memes about Boris, and about both the 2016 and 2020 American elections. These are less a source of political information but, rather, a source of influence. Memes have become like the modern poster; they are not a form of information presentation but are rather a way in which viewpoints can be presented to seem commonplace, grab viewer’s attention and spread, and thus one person can create a meme that appears to be supported by thousands. Furthermore, WhatsApp has accentuated the spread, particularly amongst the older generation. 

On the 20th of October 2020, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez live-streamed Among Us on Twitch (an online streaming site)  which received 400,000 views. Recently, Twitch has seen a shift in its most popular videos, with the chat section overtaking the gaming section as the largest. Twitch has seen the rise of figures such as the political commentator Hasan Piker, who gave a constant stream on twitch over the election period, which at its height had 225,000 viewers. Of course, those watching such streams tend to be younger, with the average age of a Twitch user being in their late teens and early twenties. Research by Cambridge University has suggested that getting younger voters engaged in politics can lead to a lasting impact on later elections as the voters are caught younger. The Obama election caught onto this, placing ads in games on Xbox live in both 2008 and 2012. Hasan Piker believes he is popular because he is more relatable and down-to-earth than the standard news anchor. Unlike the mainstream press, those on Twitch are free to show their biases, and thus where they lie on the political spectrum is clear to see and that allows a viewer to react to the information appropriately. Twitch has yet to see the dangers concerning political information that Facebook and Twitter have concerning radicalisation and misinformation, but it will come as the audience for political information on the streaming service grows.

Are these sources of information good ones? As aforementioned, it is not surprising that people are turning to these new forms of information gathering. They are suited to and adapted for the viewer. Twitch really demonstrates why these sources of news and information are becoming more popular. Because people are social media anyway, YouTube and Twitch are the standards of our generation much like TV was to the generation before. As we spend hours each day on these sites, it makes sense that we turn to them for information, as we are there anyway. We have access to all the information we could ever want on our phones, so these new forms of media and information are not only new but are the new normal. However, until they are regulated more carefully the dangers associated with using them will persist, so use them, but be careful in their use. Facebook, Twitter, Twitch and YouTube are great sources of information and will become the main ones for many of us. This in itself is not a negative; technology adapts, and the way people live their lives adapts with technology – but so must regulations and laws. If these are to be sources of our news and information, then they must be held to the same standards as traditional sources of news such as newspapers and TV news.

Image Credit: CartridgeSave via Flickr & Creative Commons.

Let Normal Programming Resume: Coronavirus Passports Won’t Solve Anything

Charlie Aslet
-
0
Let Normal Programming Resume: Coronavirus Passports Won’t Solve Anything

The government continually finds bizarre new ways to tackle the pandemic. We were singing ‘Happy Birthday’ to our hands when other countries were plunging into lockdown. We were urged not to wear masks when anyone could see that they were effective. We were all ushered out of pubs and restaurants at 10 pm into a crowded stream of revellers all dumbfounded by government incompetence. At least we didn’t have France’s 7 pm national curfew?

Now, in the latest curious piece of policy, the government looks set to introduce passports for people that are vaccinated. Yes, failing to learn from the disasters of the NHS Test and Trace system, which has gone over budget by £15 billion, the government seems willing to squander many millions more on something that they claim will only be a temporary measure. If they decide to implement the vaccine passport, however, it will probably take months to complete and won’t be nearly as useful as government boffins have imagined.

Undoubtedly, even the Test and Trace App was a failure. It was first reported to be in development in March 2020. Boris Johnson told parliament that it would be in place by June 2020. In June 2020, the first prototype for the app was abandoned (£10 million down the drain). It was not until September that the app came out, and by then it was only used for 2 months before the November lockdown and the tier systems were put in place. By the time the vaccine passports are put into place, I wouldn’t be surprised if we had moved on to the next pandemic.

But I am not only wary that the vaccine passports will become a black hole for government resources. Every other day Rishi Sunak seems to pull shiny coins from behind his ears to fund Covid expenditure. Government spending has ceased to have any meaning. But vaccine passports will also provide people with a false sense of security. It was only recently that Boris crushed people’s hopes of a normal Easter, reminding us that the vaccines are not 100% effective. What then would the vaccine passports guarantee? If two people cannot safely mix indoors now who both have had the vaccine, why will this change with a piece of paper proving it?

Though it is clear that people want a sense of security from the government. 58% of British people support the introduction of the vaccine passport system, even when the vaccine rollout is still ongoing. These rates are relatively lower in younger people – 45% of young people support the introduction of vaccine passports whilst people are being vaccinated, rising to 60% once everyone has been vaccinated. Clearly, I am swimming against the tide.

This age division has been a common theme during coronavirus. The young had to make sacrifices for the old. This was the unescapable reality. But now, instead of rewarding the young, vaccine passports would further penalise them. It will be the octogenarians going wild in Spain’s party cities. The young will have to sit this summer out, as the last, clinging to the mantra that ‘there’s always next year’.

The role of the government should not be to indulge people’s sense of insecurity or germaphobia. The role of the government should be to return the country to a state of normality, now, as coronavirus recedes. The government’s carte blanche of ‘anything to get out of this’ must be abandoned. The means no longer justifies the end in a post-vaccinated society.

Government tactics to increase lockdown compliance were emotionally manipulative. ‘Can you look them in the eyes and tell them you’re helping by staying at home?’ People felt guilty even for doing things that were completely legal in lockdown. I’m sure many were afraid to leave the house. Now the government has to deal with the consequences of the fear they engendered. This begins by ensuring no new restrictions are introduced after 21st June.

I personally am not too fussed about personal liberties. Let’s face it, I didn’t do much with my liberties when I had them. But after a year inside I have started to care more about them. I do not think that it is too much to ask to have a meal in a restaurant without having to present credentials. Baroness Chakrabati, whom I have often strongly disagreed with in the past, has a point: ‘It’s one thing to have a passport to travel internationally, that is a privilege, even a luxury, but participation in local community life is a fundamental right’.

Of course, I can see where the desire for vaccine passports comes from. The government are incentivising the population to get a vaccine. This is particularly relevant to groups who are less likely to take the vaccine if not required, namely the young and certain minority groups. The government hope to reverse the spread of disinformation by compelling people to get a vaccine. But this will not solve the problem. As David Archard, chair of the Nuffield Council on Biotechnics, argues, it is more effective to counter disinformation with accurate information. Any form of government compulsion will engender mistrust.

It might also be of use to reopening travel. It could allow vaccinated people into countries with low levels of vaccination, reducing the risk of spreading Covid upon arrival. But this seems unlikely. The government has already introduced a ‘traffic-light’ system for travel even if you are vaccinated. Our government and governments around the world do not want to allow new Covid strands into their country, immune to their vaccines.

I’m sure many will consign this as overly pessimistic or unhelpful. The government says that we will need to learn to live with the virus, but surely after a year we have appeased it for long enough? The way to rehabilitate society is not by curtailing more of the country’s freedom. The risk, so low now with vaccinations, should be left to the individual. Let normal programming resume.

Image Credits: Creative Commons – “Doctor or nurse filling a syringe with Covid-19 Vaccine” by wuestenigel is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Checkmate or blunder? Adapting “The Queen’s Gambit” for the musical stage

Beth Ranasinghe
-
0
Checkmate or blunder? Adapting “The Queen’s Gambit” for the musical stage

CW: substance abuse.

Contains spoilers for the Queen’s Gambit.

In the year of multiple lockdowns, tracksuit bottoms and face masks (not the liquid spa kind), Netflix gifted us with an array of series to cosy up to. Tiger King graced our devices, keeping us busy researching ‘did Carole kill her husband?’ for a good six months. Yet, little did we know that by the end of those six months, the orphan-turned-chess prodigy Beth Harmon would stun us with her intellectual, addictive personality in The Queen’s Gambit. Netflix’s adaptation of The Queen’s Gambit, Walter Tevis’ 1983 novel, became one of the more unexpected critical and commercial successes of the year. Over 62 million accounts viewed the seven-part series from creators Scott Frank and Allan Scott in a month, thus earning its title as Netflix’s most-watched limited series to date. Following its television success, The Queen’s Gambit is set to be adapted as a musical. Can such a show which touches on sensitive, complex topics ever be successfully adapted to the euphoric world of musical theatre?

Adaptations on Broadway are not a rarity. The likes of Legally Blonde, Shrek and Mean Girls all fall under this category – but can we say that these were successful adaptations? There is a noticeable difference when we see songs wedged into already built storylines. The songs feel almost forced as if they only have one purpose which is to mould to the already established story arc. Arguably, adaptations deny composers of their artistic freedom to create innovative, inspired music since they themselves are not involved in the story-building process. From a music al standpoint, I personally find the above adaptations to be deficient, lacking that spark found when both story and song are sculpted together.

In adaptations, music has an instrumental role (excuse the pun), where it merely aids the plot as opposed to making the plot. Compare such adaptations to the likes of West Side Story, where we see the composer, lyricist, choreographer and writer work hand-in-hand to produce art based on the original concept of modern-day Romeo and Juliet. The dances, songs, lyrics are beautifully incorporated into the storyline that is being built alongside it: the score matches the emotion of the lyrics which are as passionate as the dancing which reflects the potency of the story. All four elements of the musical have equal force. Perhaps it is time for Broadway to abandon adaptations and produce more original work, given the recent decline in the quality of adaptations.

The Queen’s Gambit explores the life of Beth Harmon; an adroit chess player – an intellectual and high-stakes game, but not a game renowned for its visual excitement. Despite this seemingly simple narrative, the plot’s scope stretches extensively, following themes of substance abuse, addiction, suicide, autism, feminism and queerness. Following her mother’s suicide, orphaned Beth is taken to Methuen Home, where tranquillising medication is routine in disciplinary practice, prompting the beginning of an elongated struggle with substance abuse. It is here that she also develops a propensity for chess. Both her natural skill and drug-induced state enable her to visualise chess games. Beth’s adolescence also explores the trials of marital toxicity, withdrawal symptoms and alcoholism. Furthermore, the theme of feminism runs parallel to Beth’s success in chess as she consistently surpasses men at their own game.

Several members of the autistic community have agreed that Beth Harmon is a richly rendered portrait of Autism. It is important to acknowledge that we cannot fully contemplate how Beth’s addiction manifests without also considering the fact that she is arguably an undiagnosed autistic woman living in the mid-twentieth century. While Beth’s autism may not be the focus of her story, it is clear to see how it impacts her relationships. Beth has two central relationships: her addiction and her talent. After a devasting loss in her sport, Beth plunges into a days-long drug and alcohol binge. Although, during a final in Moscow, we see the peak of her ability and struggles, as, with the support of her friends, Beth is able to visualise the game without the use of any substance. This final moment carries with it a double entendre: a victory against her chess rival as well as a step towards overcoming substance abuse.

Recent theatrical performances are not merely a pleasant watch but have a clear aim: evoking a response in the audience and prompting conversations about relevant topics. Dear Evan Hansen discusses topics of suicide and mental health; Waitress draws attention to abusive relationships. Heathers’ heavy, satirical tone explores some of the most serious social issues faced by young people in America, such school shootings/bombings and suicide.

We can conclude that the successful integration of serious topics into musicals is indeed possible. It remains uncertain, however, as to whether this could be the case with The Queen’s Gambit. It would be impossible to address each of the issues brought up above in such a short space of time whilst also giving each issue the weight it deserves. If the writers choose to address Beth’s autism, in a sensitive and authentic manner, they must address the community that will be receiving this portrayal. There is also the risk that in addressing the darker themes of substance abuse, addiction, suicide: will such themes become trivialised, or worse, glamorised?

The challenge of making these topics more accessible whilst avoiding belittling the severity of each topic is risk-ridden. Can Beth’s story really be addressed appropriately in the space of 150 minutes? It appears that the writers are left with two options. Should they go broad and shallow: a depiction of the heroine, briefly touching on all darker themes at the cost of creating a complex character? Or, alternatively, go narrow and deep, revolving the musical around only her chess journey at the cost of renouncing some of Beth’s defining character traits. Both options have their setbacks: the former has repercussions on the success of the musical, the latter having repercussions on Beth’s now diminished character, as communities, once included in Beth’s story on Netflix, are now excluded from the stage debut.

Stage rights to the novel have been acquired by the entertainment company ‘Level Forward’. It is worth mentioning that this company has produced films on sexual harassment and assault including the musical Jagged Little Pill focusing on similar issues. They are also responsible for ‘the most controversial play on Broadway’ according to Vox, Slave Play, which explores the impact of racial identity on both sex and personal lives of couples. So, we may retain some hope for the musical adaptation of Queen’s Gambit, given the company’s experience of handling weighty topics.

It can be argued that musicals are capable of addressing heavy topics carefully and with nuance as they have done in the past. However, the complexity of Beth Harmon begs to differ – her character demands specific compassion that a musical adaptation may not be able to provide. I remain unpersuaded that The Queen’s Gambit concerns a girl merely floating up the chess ranks, generally unchallenged and almost entirely unrestricted by gender. Nor am I convinced that her depiction throughout the story can be described as ‘steadfastly serene’ and I am disappointed that her complex character has been so easily reduced to her skill for chess. This diminished perspective of Beth Harmon, I believe, is sadly the only perspective from which a somewhat coherent musical can be formed. The Queen’s Gambit is the story of competition, control, addiction, being a woman in a world dominated by men, trauma, autism. To adapt such a complex series into a musical would be to severely undermine the weight of each of these topics and in turn, the production would do no justice to the character of Beth Harmon and the communities she represents.

Image Credit: Charis Tsevis via Flickr & Creative Commons.  

PresCom ask that colleges allow standardised self-certification to return

Charlie Hancock
-
0
PresCom ask that colleges allow standardised self-certification to return

The Committee of JCR Presidents have written to the Conference of Colleges to request that Colleges adopt a standardised approach which students to self-certify their eligibility to study in-person. The letter comes after the government confirmed that students on non-practical courses would not be able to return to campus until May 17th.

A parliamentary petition opened as part of the Our Turn To Return campaign has gained over 8,500 signatures, thus nearing the threshold at which the government will respond. The petition highlights that school students have been able to resume their studies in person, while university students would have to continue studying remotely.

Colleges have a degree of devolved power to shape their returns policy, which PresCom argued creates an “unfair application system across the whole University”. While some colleges, like St Edmund’s Hall, allow students to self-certify whether they meet the requirements to return, others require students to submit evidence to a Dean, Senior Tutor or panel to get permission.

“As adults from a variety of backgrounds who have all faced different experiences of the pandemic, students themselves are at best placed to decide if returning is the most appropriate option for them…As representatives of our JCRs, we know of circumstances where students have not wanted to disclose particularly sensitive information (despite the confidentiality of the process) which created a barrier preventing some students who nonetheless need to return for the sake of their wellbeing.”

The letters asks the Conference of Colleges whether they “considered the implications of returns policies with regard to Equality”. According to the Office for National Statistics, nationally 76% of students returned to term-time accommodation during the spring term. PresCom emphasised that students from lower-income backgrounds would “suffer the most from these inconsistencies as their affluent peers are able to enter into short-term leases in cases of rejections”.

PresCom continued: “We hope that all Heads of Houses share our opinion that a consistent approach across all colleges in processing student returns is the most equitable solution, and should be adopted as soon as possible. Given the importance of the upcoming term for Finalists and other students sitting exams, it is imperative that there is a consistency between colleges’ interpretations of the government guidance to ensure that degree outcomes are a product of one’s own efforts, and not which college you attend.”

PresCom had previously written to the Universities’ Minister, Michelle Donelan, urging her to provide guidance on when students would be able to return to university.

Image: Tetiana SHYSHNIKA via unsplash.com

1...418419420...2,578Page 419 of 2,578

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