Tuesday, May 13, 2025
Blog Page 599

BREAKING: Union boycott campaign to organise protest against Katie Hopkins

The newly established “Boycott The Oxford Union” campaign is planning to organise a protest against Katie Hopkin’s appearance at the Union this Thursday, Cherwell can reveal.

Speaking to Cherwell, the campaign revealed it planned to hold a protest on Thursday, though did not elaborate further.

The boycott organisers also revealed that it planned to encourage next year’s freshers to join the boycott if the Union did not make the changes they have demanded.

The campaign are promoting a petition and an open letter promoting the boycott on Facebook and Twitter.

The organisers accused the Union’s leadership of “attempting to use the dangerous rise of fascist and far right movements around the world to gain publicity and further their own careers.

“We do not see fascism as a spectacle to be exploited for the amusement of the Union’s elite membership.”

The campaign calls for a boycott of all Oxford Union events until the Union agrees to “cease hosting fascists and racists and to remove videos of the following fascist and/or racist speakers from their YouTube channel: Tommy Robinson, Steve Bannon, Marine Le Pen, Mahathir Bin Mohamad.” 

The Union has attracted criticism and protests this year for hosting speeches by Steve Bannon and Marion-Marechal Le Pen, and for a planned event with Alice Weidel which was ultimately cancelled, including a formal letter of protest from the City Council. The Council’s executive board criticised what they described as “the Oxford Union’s pattern of endangering community safety by inviting fascists into the city.”

Oxford East MP Anneliese Dodds wrote at the time that “[t]he Oxford Union’s pathetic courting of publicity by inviting racist after racist is deeply frustrating for local people. Our city is proud of its diversity and yet the Oxford Union seems determined to threaten this.”

The ‘Boycott the Oxford Union’ campaign said: “This term [the Union] are playing host to the far-right commentator Katie Hopkins, who has achieved minor fame by insulting and stoking hatred towards countless oppressed and marginalised groups.

“We pledge to boycott the Oxford Union until it ceases to appease fascism and removes videos of the following fascist and far right figures from their YouTube channel: Tommy Robinson, Steve Bannon, Marine Le Pen, Mahathir Bin Mohamad.”

The organisers did not clarify whether they were planning to organise a protest against Hopkins similar to those which greeted Bannon and Le Pen.

The open letter states that the boycott is addressed not just at the present Union committee, but at a “decades long pattern of inviting proponents of hate into Oxford. The Oxford Union has previously hosted the Holocaust deniers David Irving and Nick Griffin, and the former leader of the fascist English Defence League, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (alias Tommy Robinson). “The Union has ignored repeated and widespread calls from Oxford students, staff and residents to withdraw invitations to such figures.”

Speaking to Cherwell, Union President Genevieve Athis said: “From its foundation, the Oxford Union has placed a high value on the voices of both its members and its guests.

“By inviting speakers that are sometimes considered to be controversial (not only on the right but on the left – for instance Slavoj Žižek in MT18) we aim not only to host them, but to challenge, explore and criticise their ideas.

“The Oxford Union is unique in that far from offering speakers a ‘platform’ from which to lecture its members, it always allows for time for its speakers to be questioned. Far from ‘applauding Steve Bannon’s hateful ideology’, members in the chamber at his talk were meaningfully silent as he entered and went on to pose question after question that sought to interrogate his views, not praise them.

In response to news of the planned protest, Athis said: “I recognise the right to peaceful protest and support this right but I would urge members who feel comfortable doing so to attend the debate so that they can interact with the speakers and see first-hand the discussion about No Platforming, which is so aptly related to this campaign.

“In November, there were some examples of protesters who chose to use violence or verbal abuse to intimidate those who did not wish to join in or were trying to attend the event. The Union supports the right to peaceful protest.

“This term, Katie Hopkins will be one of eight speakers in this Thursday’s No Platforming debate in which any member will be able to challenge our guests on their views, as has happened frequently in the past.

“Far from being a small and self-selectively elite membership limited to those who can afford our membership fee, the Oxford Union offers an access membership at a discounted price (which I myself took advantage of upon joining) and the option to pay in instalments so that we can make the institution accessible to everyone.

“The Oxford Union’s Standing Committee has recently voted unanimously to inform minority groups or societies that signal interest of potentially contentious speakers in order to improve the Union’s relationship with these groups in Oxford. I hope that this step illustrates the Union’s commitment to working with groups who may oppose the views of our speakers, not against them, while not compromising our commitment to upholding the free speech of both our members and our guests, as long as that speech is not promoting hate.”

Katie Hopkins has been contacted for comment.

Boycott campaign: Union using far-right to “further their own careers”

0

A campaign to boycott the Oxford Union has been launched in response to the Union’s decision to host far-right speakers, most recently Katie Hopkins.

The campaign are promoting a petition and an open letter promoting the boycott on Facebook and Twitter.

The organisers accused the Union’s leadership of “attempting to use the dangerous rise of fascist and far right movements around the world to gain publicity and further their own careers.

“We do not see fascism as a spectacle to be exploited for the amusement of the Union’s elite membership.”

The campaign calls for a boycott of all Oxford Union events until the Union agrees to “cease hosting fascists and racists and to remove videos of the following fascist and/or racist speakers from their YouTube channel: Tommy Robinson, Steve Bannon, Marine Le Pen, Mahathir Bin Mohamad.”

The Union has attracted criticism and protests this year for hosting speeches by Steve Bannon, Alice Weidel and Marion-Marechal Le Pen, including a formal letter of protest from the City Council. The Council’s executive board criticised what they described as “the Oxford Union’s pattern of endangering community safety by inviting fascists into the city.”

Oxford East MP Anneliese Dodds wrote at the time that “[t]he Oxford Union’s pathetic courting of publicity by inviting racist after racist is deeply frustrating for local people. Our city is proud of its diversity and yet the Oxford Union seems determined to threaten this.”

The ‘Boycott the Oxford Union’ campaign said: “This term [the Union] are playing host to the far-right commentator Katie Hopkins, who has achieved minor fame by insulting and stoking hatred towards countless oppressed and marginalised groups.

“We pledge to boycott the Oxford Union until it ceases to appease fascism and removes videos of the following fascist and far right figures from their YouTube channel: Tommy Robinson, Steve Bannon, Marine Le Pen, Mahathir Bin Mohamad.”

The organisers did not clarify whether they were planning to organise a protest against Hopkins similar to those which greeted Bannon and Le Pen.

The open letter states that the boycott is addressed not just at the present Union committee, but at a “decades long pattern of inviting proponents of hate into Oxford. The Oxford Union has previously hosted the Holocaust deniers David Irving and Nick Griffin, and the former leader of the fascist English Defence League, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (alias Tommy Robinson).

“The Union has ignored repeated and widespread calls from Oxford students, staff and residents to withdraw invitations to such figures.”

Speaking to Cherwell, Union President Genevieve Athis said: “From its foundation, the Oxford Union has placed a high value on the voices of both its members and its guests.

“By inviting speakers that are sometimes considered to be controversial (not only on the right but on the left – for instance Slavoj Žižek in MT18) we aim not only to host them, but to challenge, explore and criticise their ideas.

“The Oxford Union is unique in that far from offering speakers a ‘platform’ from which to lecture its members, it always allows for time for its speakers to be questioned. Far from ‘applauding Steve Bannon’s hateful ideology’, members in the chamber at his talk were meaningfully silent as he entered and went on to pose question after question that sought to interrogate his views, not praise them.

In response to news of the planned protest, Athis said: “I recognise the right to peaceful protest and support this right but I would urge members who feel comfortable doing so to attend the debate so that they can interact with the speakers and see first-hand the discussion about No Platforming, which is so aptly related to this campaign.

“In November, there were some examples of protesters who chose to use violence or verbal abuse to intimidate those who did not wish to join in or were trying to attend the event. The Union supports the right to peaceful protest.

“This term, Katie Hopkins will be one of eight speakers in this Thursday’s No Platforming debate in which any member will be able to challenge our guests on their views, as has happened frequently in the past.

“Far from being a small and self-selectively elite membership limited to those who can afford our membership fee, the Oxford Union offers an access membership at a discounted price (which I myself took advantage of upon joining) and the option to pay in instalments so that we can make the institution accessible to everyone.

“The Oxford Union’s Standing Committee has recently voted unanimously to inform minority groups or societies that signal interest of potentially contentious speakers in order to improve the Union’s relationship with these groups in Oxford. I hope that this step illustrates the Union’s commitment to working with groups who may oppose the views of our speakers, not against them, while not compromising our commitment to upholding the free speech of both our members and our guests, as long as that speech is not promoting hate.”


HCNC beat HCAFC 11-5 in charity netball game

0

Hertford’s netball club HCNC beat the college men’s football club HCAFC 11-5 in the inaugural intra-college netball match up. The game was organised by sports officer Josephine Bellman in order to fundraise for the worthwhile college charity Herford for the Homeless.

Both Hertford teams had gone their respective league seasons unbeaten, making the game was seen as a way to settle the friendly rivalry. HCAFC had often claimed they would be able to beat HCNC in a netball match, despite many members of the team having never played before and not even knowing the rules. Sunday of 1st Week therefore provided a perfect opportunity for a showdown and saw the men’s football team try to live up to their own hype.

After a brief review over the rules, the teams stepped on to the court. About 30 fans had made the treacherous journey to LMH, but were fortunately rewarded in finding Pimm’s on sale in aid of Hertford for the Homeless. HCAFC’s tactic of long balls quickly proved unsuccessful. After at least 5 over-a-third rule violations in the opening quarter, goalkeeper James Nelson finally switched to playing it out from the back. The first quarter was very competitive with a high tempo, and after some netball newbies let out their frustrations (“there are so many rules!” one player was heard shouting) both teams settled into their strides.

The quality of the play was high, even in spite of the fact that some members of the football club had never played before. The boys quickly caught on and this meant that going in to the first break, the score was level at 2-2.

After the break tensions remained high and with the rules ironed out Harry Jackson-Smith and Aisha Cooper engaged in a tense battle of the centres. Jude Lewis, last year’s HCNC captain, maintained a calm head in commanding the defence which proved difficult for the football team to breach. Even after a couple of replayed balls, and more than a few footworks (another debutant decried being penalised, arguing it can’t have been footwork as it “didn’t touch my foot”) HCAFC kept in touch with HCNC.

It was still even at the half way stage, with first years Luca Ignatius and Erik Haraldson chipping in to take the score to 5-5. Despite her obvious height disadvantage, HCNC goal attack Hayley Birks twisted her way around the towering Oliver Gardner and James Nelson to put the netball club in control. After a few goals in quick succession, HCNC made it 9-5 at the end of the penultimate quarter.

HCNC continued to dominate the game in the final quarter and were able to extend their lead, with Rachel Choi, Becky Andrews and Birks bringing the final score to 11-5 for the Netball Club.

The event proved to be a great success, raising around £60 for Hertford for the Homeless. The atmosphere was very positive and exciting, and will perhaps pave the way for future intra-college sports match ups. HCAFC were gracious in defeat, and the win filled HCNC with confidence going into netball cuppers later this term.

Hertford for the Homeless was set up by former JCR president Jude Lewis and former welfare officer Kez Smith in 2016. They are a student-led action group aiming to support local charities that tackle the immediate effects of homelessness. Hopefully, this even will lead to others like it – where the enjoyment of sport can be combined with philanthropy in the summer term.

Lady Pat R. Honising: Out-Of-Depth Anon

Dear Agony Aunt,

I’ve been at Oxford for nearly two years now, and I am only just going to my first ball this weekend. I’m so nervous and need some serious help navigating my very first time!

Many thanks,
An out-of-depth Anon.

Dearest Anon,

You have nothing to worry about – rest assured, you’re in safe hands. Ball season is rapidly consuming Oxford culture, and you’re not the only first timer at this black-tie rodeo. You’ve seen the countless Instagrams, profile picture bumps, and Facebook events with generic buzzwords that would be better suited in the reject pile of the Apprentice team naming process – now the time has come for you to experience it all yourself. Don’t sweat it, just sit back and listen and soon you too will be the Prom King or Queen that you only everdreamt of.

With Ball season fast approaching in the next coming weeks, I can only hope for your sake that you are all sorted in the outfit department. Shame on you if you haven’t exploited every Nasty Gal 50% off day for the last month for a bargain ball gown, or even scoured every last “Soooomuch cheaper than RRP! Really don’t want to say goodbye to it!” Depop listing. Amazon Prime may have to be your best friend for that last minute “I fancy something a bit different” bow tie or pair of heels that will definitely not last the evening. Either way, looking good is the key to feeling good, and snapping up that last-minute bargain will get you far, kid.

There’s also the cut-throat business of how to get a ticket for a big ball. Do you wake up with enough time to have you finger hovering over four different smartphones in the hope of snagging an early bird affair, or do you risk buying one for double the price from a someone on Oxtickets with a super quirky facebook name that shows just how interesting they are? No matter how much you relate to Cinderella, the closest thing you’re getting to a Fairy Godmother is the nice barista at Pret who occasionally gives you a free coffee.

You would’ve thought that from here on in it would be plain sailing, but oh no my child: let’s get you ready for the big day itself. Obviously you’ll need to make the most of that £100+ ticket somehow, and what better trade-off is there than using it as an excuse to take a whole weekend off your much more expensive and arguably more memorable education!

Getting ready can absolutely be a whole day job if you make it one. Once you’ve spent approximately six hours doing your hair, makeup and getting ready, you’ll still inevitably be late, either by your own doing or having to get the already disgruntled taxi driver to turn around because classic Kate has only gone and forgotten her wristband again.

If you’ve all managed to get there in one piece with the knowledge of the whereabouts of at least half your friends and a nice selection of golden hour pictures stashed in your Instagram drafts, you’ve only gone and made it! It’s all you from here on in, relax and go with the cripplingly expensive flow.

Have an absolutely cracking evening of standing in assorted queues for watered down glasses of cava and “bottomless” cupcakes until they run out at 9:45, and don’t forget to party like it’s 2009 to the dulcet tones of whichever Year Six Disco Headliner they’ve managed to get hold of!

Have a ball,

Lady P. xoxoxo

Shame, shame, we know your name

0

I haven’t called either of my grandmothers in ages. I did not read half the stuff I was supposed to either last term or the one before. Almost every essay I’ve handed in lately I was embarrassed to read over the next day in front of someone who’s dedicated their life to pursuing that field. Further to that, I haven’t read a book for pleasure in months– I thought you had a “passion for literature”? I don’t drink enough water. I haven’t supported my friends at events they’ve put a lot of time and effort into; I said I was too busy but maybe I could have made time for them. I still can’t really apply eyeliner and I didn’t go for a run yesterday – I drank two glasses of wine and ate a rocky road at eleven o’clock at night instead. I still haven’t bought my dad a birthday present; part of me is hesitant to spend so much money all at once. Didn’t stop me buying ball tickets. Never remember to bring my keep cup so sea turtles drift into my imagination, choking on the lid to my americano. I got stupidly drunk for no real reason last Saturday (read: Sunday was a complete write-off on every front) and I still have no idea what I’m doing on my year-abroad. I’m being slow applying to jobs because the idea of receiving one rejection email after another fills me with dread, panic and shame.

Shame, shame, we know your name. Jungian analysts call it “the swamp land of the soul”. Sometimes thrust upon us by less than nice peers but once you get past school and most people stop being freakishly unkind it’s mainly self-flagellation. And there are so many things to feel guilt and shame over.So many responsibilities to not fulfil and goals to fall short of. And it’s one thing focusing on how you’re not up to the mark in your personal life. But then you can just watch the news and have example after example of how we are failing other people and our planet. Eat a banana that isn’t Fairtrade and the words of a marginalised and underpaid labourer you saw in a documentary in year 10 echo in your head. I don’t like to think on my carbon footprint, I’ve spent too much time in a plane to breathe easy with a clear conscience when I know how much pollution and strain this has caused. The other option is to just not to watch or read the news– but then feel ashamed of your ignorance of current affairs. What a choice!

I suppose there’s always just Being Good and Doing the Right, Responsible and Mature Thing. But human history is essentially a tale in how we mere mortals just cannot always do what we know will benefit us and others. It boils down to long-term payoff versus short term release– the marshmallow test that lasts your entire life. The constant battle between the person you think you should be and your inner four-year old. Except unfortunately or not, we’re not leading the lives we did when we were four and the greatest challenge we might have faced was saving pudding until we’ve eaten our greens. We’re all spinning a couple of plates: degrees (seemingly obviously not certainly not always), relationships, trying to not smoke, making ourselves partake in things which will ‘help our CVs stand out from the crowd!’ or trying to keep some semblance of health and fitness rather than eating cake for breakfast 5 days a week. And keeping up a strong front against all of these creeping weaknessesis surely impossible. I find that as soon as you prioritise one, it’s “good-bye Vienna” to the others. Do some considerable work, then simultaneously binge on strawberry laces. Go for a run, neglect an essay. Put on a play, distance yourself from your friends for weeks.

It’s even more fun when you get other people involved. “X’s essay is so much better than mine” or “Your brother’s so much nicer than you are” or “Q did an internship in Peru over the vac – you just stayed in bed expanding your knowledge on astrology via Instagram, watching The Office and sado-masochistically thinking how fucked you were going to be for next term (aka now) unless you did some work.” Let me tell you friends, I’m feeling the shame now. Let’s not even get into pretend people like models, lifestyle vloggers or whoever else can’t shut up about their perfect body, life and soul.

We know what shame is there for – to make us better because sometimes we can’t ignore it. But, I think it’s been put into overdrive in a lot of us, and (yes I’m going to say it) particularly for women. Women are obviously under a lot more pressure to look nicer, look sexier, be sexier (but then also definitely don’t!) etc… but also to be nicer, more affable, or to look after their family or friends and be a Good Person. Or at least it seems that way to me. But using your shame up on things like not producing your best essay ever this week, forgetting to run an errand, sleeping with that person or embarrassing yourself at Bridge one week? That is wasting a valuable resource. What shame is really there for is when we are really, truly messing it up: when we intentionally and significantly hurt another, don’t make the most of our lives and opportunities (in a real substantial way, not just for beating ourselves up over the fact we don’t meditate enough) or when we over-indulged to the point of self-destruction (think heroin rather than VKs). With notable exceptions, which is when you’re really supposed to feel ashamed, mistakes like that aren’t often made.

Theodore Roosevelt said, “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds.” This is essentially an appealing way of saying “well at least you’re trying”, which is worth far, far more than we give credit and is not synonymous with every Oxford student’s fairly recent enemy, failure. We feel shame because we’ve set ourselves difficult target, often the impossible. You can’t save the environment or do every piece of work well with absolute success. Sorry. But this critic who points out where the doer of deeds “could have done them better” is mainly that voice in our head. And it’s what stops us from getting into the arena and keeps us instead thinking “I’ll do it when I’m perfect and when I stop eating too much, working too little, spending too much and eating vegetables too little” or whatever else fills us with shame. And if your critic called Shame is working overtime and you’re feeling weak, guilty, self-indulgent, selfish, and lazy, why not call in its colleague who might have been slacking lately and why don’t you think of the times you have smashed it (even if it was in your ever-more distant glory days as a sixth-former) or are smashing it still. Or better still, if someone else’s voice of praise has gone AWOL then be it for them. Even if it’s in a really subtle way like complimenting them on something in a slightly more profound way than saying you like their shoes. And then they (and probably then you) can enjoy the opportunity to feel, for however long, proud.

What does it take to be an actor?

On the surface, the question seems impossible to answer. Firstly, the method one actor employs may seem anathema to another actor. Take method acting: while hailed as the ‘Holy Grail’ by the likes of Daniel Day-Lewis and Al Pacino, the method is decried by none other than Meryl Streep, the most Oscar-nominated actress in history. What works for one may not work for another.

Secondly, the interpretation and perception of a character are undeniably subjective. Actors disagree with directors. Different auditionees give vastly divergent readings. The audience don’t see eye to eye with the cast. When Ian McKellen, at his most expressive, took King Lear’s deluded words literally – ”I am every inch a king” – on the London stage, his own feeling of unprecedented liberation was juxtaposed by the tangible discomfort in the eyes of some of the audience.

Answering this question leads us to a tangled web of seemingly unresolvable differences. To give a single clear, unifying answer would be to commit the cardinal sin of thinking that one can put the inexplicably nuanced desires and fears, love and hatred, tenderness and stubbornness, goodness and evil of billions into one box. It would be to make the ego-satisfying declaration that all of us, by virtue of being human, can be reduced to the same analysable psyches.

The point of a great performance is to create a believable alternative world to reality – we know it’s fictional, but still want to believe in it. We may even fantasise about the unseen moments of the characters’ lives and become emotionally invested. From on-screen fantasies such as Game of Thrones and Harry Potter to works which aim to convey realism such as The Bicycle Thief and 400 Blows, no matter how outrageously imaginary and other-worldly or authentic and harrowing, the audience are drawn to emote with the characters. The actors, while physically embodying the character they portray, convey a different personal history, psyche and life to their own.

The setting of the performance matters, but is not of paramount importance – as shown by modern interpretations of Shakespearean plays. Take the recent adaption of Antony and Cleopatra at the National Theatre whereby Agrippa is played by a woman in a business suit. We know that an Agrippa in Antony And Cleopatra in the historic period of ancient Egypt would not be wearing something akin to a modern-day police uniform. Nevertheless, the spirit and soul of the character come alive; the stern facial expression and upright stance convey her military background, whilst her tender moment of embrace with Anthony’s aide reveals her affection for an old friend. One may not relate to all her emotions or agree with all her decisions, but one believes that she is Agrippa in the same world as Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra. One believes in their universe.

Does the actor also believe in the same thing as us, the captivated audience? Does the actor have to? A great actor’s power lies in their ability to transform themselves, adapting convincingly to their role. Daniel Day-Lewis famously (or infamously depending on your perspective) spent time in a wheelchair for his Oscar-winning role in My Left Foot. Similarly, when preparing to play a blind character in the Oscar-winning The Scent of A Woman, Al Pacino pretended not to see anyone. Putting aside the potential detrimental effect on the actors and potential inconvenience to those around them, method acting seems to have its own merits.

However, staying in character throughout the rehearsal process is not necessary. When Laurence Olivier played Oedipus, for example, he did not have to believe himself to be the ancient Greek King who accidentally murdered his father and bedded his mother. He did not actually feel the urge to blind himself after the shocking discovery. But the audience believed him. In fact, in attempting to define Greek tragedy, Aristotle made the case that the point of tragedy was for the audience to experience collective pathos for the hubristic characters as a form of spiritual cleansing. So, what did the actor actually believe in in that space and time? The raw emotions? Or was he able to convey emotional devastation without actually experiencing it?

The audience reads emotions from a variety of sources: the flicker of an eyelid can convey uncertainty; a slightly bent back reveals insecurity; a smile sparks joy. Brain waves and stimulations in the nervous system may hardly resemble the emotional feelings that go through our heads and hearts; nevertheless, they are the scientific cause of them.

On the other hand, a famous saying runs in the acting world: ‘less is more’. It could be that the actor simply has to be a blank canvas, as it were, to let the audience project their ideas upon. An example would be Kristin Scott Thomas’ towering performance in the second run of Peter Morgan’s The Audience. She barely moves from her original position at the start of each scene. The audience can detect minimal facial expressions apart from the measured, stately one that puts her Queen Elizabeth II above the political ploy of her ministers. Despite this understated performance, the audience cannot help but magnify her every minute emotion and thought. In minimising movement, she maximises the emotional impact of what would otherwise be an unrelatable, untouchable, and incomprehensible character.

As well as the presence of actor and character in a single body, there must be a dialogue between the various figures sharing a stage. Acting is, at its core, the manifest expression of empathy, between fellow performers as well as character and interpreter. Each night, at the start of the 2016 Barbican production of Dr Faustus. The two rival leads would alternate playing Faustus and Mephistophilis depending on whose match burnt out first. Playing off each other and tesselating as performers was a novel challenge each rendition.

It is undeniable that acting is a holistic experience, encompassing everything from the physique to the psyche. But does an actor’s own personality impact the performance? Is confidence on stage a prerequisite or does neurosis itself provide a form of motivation? Does openness in life translate into expressiveness on stage? What about shy actors, or alcoholic actors who still manage to function on stage?

Ralph Fiennes admitted to being reserved in real life, yet has managed to deliver exceedingly charismatic performances on stage with unparalleled vocal ability: for example, his memorable delivery of Hamlet’s ‘To be or not to be’, presented with his back to the audience.

What is it that drives actors? Is it the desire to entertain, to explore or to provoke? Tom Hiddleston, winner of the Evening Standard Best actor award, told ‘The Guardian’ that private vulnerabilities fascinate him. Is it a situation of each to his own?

Perhaps the answer to these questions lies in accepting its very unattainable nature. One does not give up on the effort to deliver a good performance; one simply accepts all the weird and wonderful elements that come from different actors, which enrich each performance. “The world is your stage” – there is a bit of an actor in each of us.

“Isolated” Union Secretary resigns

0

The Secretary of the Oxford Union, Amelia Harvey, has resigned her post. She will be replaced by the first member of the Standing Committee, Spencer Cohen.

Her resignation comes a few months after Harvey assumed the position in March for the duration of Trinity term. Harvey cited “personal reasons” as the cause for her decision, in a letter seen by only her and the President, Genevieve Athis.

Speaking to Cherwell, Amelia Harvey stated: “I have resigned due to a combination of personal reasons and external pressures. As the Secretary does not work with their campaign team and instead works with the team elected in the previous term, it can be very isolating and difficult to develop a positive working relationship with the other officers.

“Given my personal circumstances and experience thus far, resigning was the best option for me.”

Cherwell understands her departure has come amidst rumours of tense relationships between committee members and that Harvey had been the subject of bullying, according to sources close to the ex-secretary. In response, Athis told Cherwell: “The reasons which she gave to me are private and for her to disclose.

“We take bullying extremely seriously at the Union and there is an official complaints process if someone wishes to take action against another member.

“Personally, I feel that myself and the Secretary had a good working relationship and I wish her the best of luck in the future.”

Harvey, a graduate student at Kellogg college, had previously served as Access Officer in Hilary term. Harvey was elected as Secretary came as a member of the “Together” Slate, who took all four officerships in the Hilary Term Election, awarding victories to Brendan McGrath, Mahi Joshi, and Shining Zhao.

The print version of this article claimed that Rai Saad Khan had won an election in Hilary Term as a member of the “Together” Slate. In fact, the individual who won this election was Mahi Joshi.

Living Wage scheme launches with only Campion Hall on board

0

A new scheme for accrediting local employers who pay the Oxford Living Wage has launched with Campion Hall the only University employer on the list.

A spokesperson for Oxford City Council, which launched the scheme, confirmed that no other college or PPH applied for accreditation, although they would have accepted Blackfriars had they applied.

An investigation last year by the Oxford University Living Wage Campaign found that Campion Hall and Blackfriars were the only Colleges or PPHs to pay the Oxford Living Wage, which is currently set at £10.02 an hour.

Labour Councillor Martyn Rush told Cherwell that student campaigns at St. Hilda’s and Wolfson made campaigners “hopeful of progress on these fronts soon”.

“However, I do agree with the leader of the Council, Susan Brown, in her recent comments that this situation should be a lot better”, he continued.

“All of our Universities and Colleges in the city – all 44 Colleges/PPHs, the Uni itself, Oxford Brookes and Ruskin should constitute an ‘Oxford Living Wage Zone’ for its staff, and that is our vision as a City Council.

“More broadly, the Council believes the Oxford Living Wage is the minimum needed to live sustainably, and with dignity in this city.

“Oxford is one of the most expensive cities in the UK and the Oxford Living Wage is necessary to keep people out of poverty pay and to tackle inequality in our city, it’s the keystone in the arch of solving a lot of social justice issues in our city.

“The University and its Colleges absolutely should be leading on that, and we as a Council need to continue making the case and students need to apply greater pressure in their Colleges.”

A report last month by Good Food Oxford and funded by the City Council found that the government-recommended healthy diet would cost an individual £41.93 per week in Oxford, compared to the £25.97 per week it is estimated would be available for an individual earning the National Living Wage to spend on food.

Oxford was recently classed the least affordable city in the UK, with average weekly rental prices at £121.15, much higher than the national average of £87.68.

Councillor Rush told Cherwell: “I believe we are the only local authority in the country to have its own Living Wage rate, and its own accreditation system.

“We’re very proud of that and believe it’s a big step forward to having more take up as it provides an awards system and extra incentives for employers, as well as letting citizens and students know who is doing the right thing – and who isn’t.”

Scholarship launched to help “break down barriers” for Muslim students

0

A new scholarship will award up to £10,000 annually to 24 students, paid for by the Children of Sheikh Abdul Rashid and Fahmida (COSARAF) Charitable Foundation. The £300,000 support and mentor programme for underprivileged Muslim students will cover both tuition fees and living expenses.

It was launched at St Anne’s College on Friday. Other institutions are also involved with the programme, including any Cambridge college and the University of Warwick. Both graduate and undergraduate students will be eligible for the award, which will be made each year over the next three years.

They will also have access to a personal mentor and a tailored leadership support programme, paid summer internship at a leading charity and ongoing support from COSARAF.

COSARAF Charitable Foundation chairman Haroon Sheikh said: “One of our core objectives is to enable young people to realise their potential and this ground-breaking programme seeks to remove barriers to Muslim applicants to leading universities, increasing their participation and helping them to make a difference within their communities.

“However, the scholarship goes a lot further than merely boosting personal outcomes.

“The awards will provide long-term support to develop leadership within UK Muslim communities, fostering long-term integration and cohesion.”

The scholarships were launched by MP and St Anne’s advisory fellow Rosena AllinKhan, and Tom Ilube, who topped UK’s 100 most powerful people with African or Afro- Caribbean heritage.

Haroon Sheikh added: “We are pioneering this comprehensive support programme for Muslim youngsters who, traditionally, must contend with a whole host of barriers to higher education on top of the already stiff competition for all applicants.”

St Anne’s College principal Helen King QPM, said: “From our founding as the Society of Oxford Home-Students, in 1879, St Anne’s has always actively widened access to an Oxford education.

“This heritage became enshrined in our firm purpose to create a diverse and inclusive community and we want to be the destination of choice for the brightest and best students, including those from underrepresented groups.

“Being one of the founding colleges for such a dynamic package of practical benefits is another key tool in ensuring their continuing involvement here.”

According to the Oxford University Islamic Society, Muslims comprise 7% of the UK population, but only 0.5% of Oxford students. In COSARAF’s press release, the charity said: “Muslim communities are significantly over-represented in the UK’s most disadvantaged communities.

“46% (1.22 million) of the Muslim population lives in the 10% most deprived and 1.7% (46,000) in the 10% least deprived Local Authority Districts in England, based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation measure. Muslim women in the UK are more likely than all other women to be economically inactive, with 18% of Muslim women aged 16 to 74 recorded as “looking after home and family” compared with 6% in the overall population.”

For more details, visit cosaraf.org

Women in Sport: OUWAFC President Charlotte Rougier

0

Cherwell speaks to the outgoing President of Oxford University Women’s Association Football Club Charlotte Rougier. Rougier is a third-year Maths student, who played for OUWAFC’s second team for two seasons before becoming President and progressing onto the Blues team in her final year at Oxford.

CB: How long have you been playing football?

CR: I’ve been playing casually with my family and at school since I was 8 years old. I got the opportunity to go to the World Cup in South Africa in 2010 and play in a mixed tournament there. This made me want to play football properly and I joined a club in London. However, playing football at university level has been an entirely new experience: it’s amazing to benefit from great facilities, coaches and to play alongside some of my best friends!

CB: How much success has the club had this season?

CR: The Blues had a tough season this year: we suffered many serious injuries at the beginning of the season and were in the best Midlands BUCS league playing against some excellent teams. However, we won Brookes Varsity in November which was one of the highlights of the year. We unfortunately lost against Cambridge in the Varsity game in tough, windy conditions, but the improvement towards the end of the season means that we will go into the next season with confidence. The Furies, the 2nd team, won their Varsity which concluded a successful season for them: they secured their spot in the same league for next year despite having a squad with many players who only started playing university football this year.

CB: Do you think you, as a female sportsperson, have ever been treated differently than a male in the same position would have been?

CR: I feel that, sometimes, some people do not take women’s athletes as seriously as they take men’s athletes. At the end of the day, we all have the same passion, we all invest a lot of our time into training, and we all fight as hard to win on the pitch. The amount of progress that has been made in Oxford football thanks to the work of the past presidents is fantastic: all our events are double-headers now where men’s and women’s teams play on the same day at the same location, and the attendance this year was always good for both men’s and women’s matches. At professional level, the improvement is obvious too, with some of the big clubs recently investing a lot of money into women’s football, and with records of attendance at women’s football matches being regularly broken. There is still room for improvement but I’m very optimistic about the future and I can’t wait to see what women’s football will be like both in Oxford and around the world in 10 years’ time!

CB: What is the best part about doing sport at Oxford?

CR: I think that we have amazing conditions in which to play sport in Oxford: there are many sports grounds in the city centre that we can reach in less than five minutes on a bike, we get access to some great equipment, and we train with fantastic coaches. Most importantly, it’s one of the best ways to meet people that share the same passion as you do through almost daily training sessions and weekly minibus journeys and socials! There’s also something for everyone with a wide variety of sport and a good range of levels.

CB: Do you find it hard to balance doing sport and work?

CR: Although I’ve had to do my problem sheets several times on the minibus or after coming back from socials, I’ve become very organised and I’ve never missed a training or a match because of my work. I can’t even think for one second what Oxford would be like without sport: I hate the thought of being stuck in the library all day long, so playing sport has been a perfect break from my studies. It clears my mind and it means that I am more efficient when I work.

CB: What has been your favourite moment of this season?

CR: Brookes Varsity was our first win of the season and the event sold out which made it extra special – these whole club events make you realise that it’s not just about playing football but also about sharing the same passion with amazing teammates. I would also like to mention the Cuppers’ Final where I played for Hertble: I think that women’s college football is one of the biggest sport successes in Oxford as so many girls are involved and are keen to play and progress. It was incredible to see many fans coming to Iffley and cheering for their college in the women’s final.

CB: Does being President have its perks?

CR: It was fantastic to be co-President of the whole football club this year: it makes you think thoroughly about how to develop women’s football and get more people interested and involved in it. The role does have it perks: I got to see Barcelona play twice in the Champions League and travelled there in March for a Women in Football Trip organised by Santander. I also got to meet Ada Hegerberg, the first ever women’s Ballon D’Or winner.

CB: Which sporting event are you most looking forward to this year?

CR: I’m super excited about the women’s world cup happening in France this summer. England has a very solid team and the interest in women’s football is bigger than ever so it should be a fantastic event!