Monday 7th July 2025
Blog Page 6

Oxford Union town hall TT25: Meet the candidates

0

With polls open for the next set of Oxford Union elections on Friday, Cherwell spoke to the two candidates running to be President in Hilary 2026. Rosalie Chapman and George Abaraonye spoke about their campaign promises, their dream speakers, and their reasons for running.

Introduce yourself briefly.

Rosalie: I’m Rosalie Chapman, a final year Human Sciences student at Hertford College. I’m also a first-generation university student, a Crankstart Scholar, and an Access Member here at the Oxford Union.

I lost my father when I was 3 which left my mum as the sole breadwinner in my family. Growing up in a single-parent and low-income household, I entered this world of academia feeling like an outsider. But it was in that sense of displacement that I found a purpose – fighting for those who often feel unseen, and fighting against injustice. 

Over the years, I’ve poured my energy into the Oxford Union, serving six terms across committees, from Access Committee, Finance Committee to the Governing Body, where I’ve helped create tangible reforms – be it introducing the role of an Anti-Sexual Violence Officer or expanding access membership for postgraduate students. 

George: Hey, I’m George – a second year at Univ. Some of you might know me from basketball, hip-hop nights, or just voi’ing about with my headphones on. 

I’m not the loudest in the room, but I’ve been putting in the work: serving on Standing, Secretary’s, and Library Committees, and helping make the Union run behind the scenes.

Why are you running for President?

Rosalie: I’m running for President because I believe the Oxford Union has the power to be a more inclusive, dynamic, and transformative space. Through my work over six terms, I’ve seen the potential for this institution to lead on crucial issues, but we need leadership that’s committed to pushing past the status quo. 

I’ve worked tirelessly to bring about positive change. I’ve helped arrange nine debates – including on important issues such as Rejoining the EU, Rode v Wade, Euthanasia and on the International Courts. I’ve helped fundraise over two annual Membership Drives, including helping to fundraise £750,000 for the union. 

I expanded eligibility criteria for access membership, meaning more students can buy membership at more affordable prices. Most importantly, I want to take the Union into a future where every voice, no matter their background or privilege, has a seat at the table. 

George: I’m running independently because I believe this Union can be better – less about politics, more about its members. It’s time to reset the culture: less noise, more focus on delivering great events and building a real sense of community.

All year, we’ve watched debates get derailed, headlines spiral, and members feel pushed out or unsafe. And the truth is, a lot of us have just stopped enjoying it. The Union feels more like an episode of Succession than a student society.

I’m running to get us focused on delivering good events for the members. To rebuild trust, restore balance, and bring some joy back into this space. At the end of the day, the Union offers so much to members, but we seem to focus on the bickering among hacks.

What experience do you have outside the Union?

Rosalie: Beyond the Union, I’ve built a track record of leadership and advocacy. As Vice President of the Oxford Student Union, I represented over 25,000 students, driving welfare reforms and policy changes across the University. 

I advised on a University-wide £18 million Supplier Budget and drafted a Responsible Procurement Policy for the University. I also spearheaded the relaunch of the Safe Lodge Scheme, which provides critical support for vulnerable students, particularly women, in need. 

Additionally, I’ve overseen a major student women’s campaigns addressing sexual violence. These experiences have shaped my ability to lead, advocate, and manage large-scale projects – skills I would bring to the Presidency of the Union. Importantly, my leadership has always been defined by leading with my heart – pushing me to fight injustice, expand access and platform marginalised voices.  

George: As a Crankstart Scholar who grew up on free school meals and spent time in special education units, I know what it’s like to feel like spaces like this weren’t built for you. I feel incredibly privileged to be here, and I want to make sure that opportunity not only exists but feels real for others like me. That means making sure people from similar backgrounds feel safe enough to show up, be seen, and thrive.

Practically, I’ve been President of a music society, Vice President of a cultural society, Welfare Officer at University College (YEA UNIV), Events Officer for ArabSoc, and Co-Chair of CRAE. I’ve performed in a student production, helped organise college balls and student events for hundreds, and played basketball for the University and football for my college.

Whether through sports, welfare, or culture, I’ve always focused on bringing people together and creating spaces that are safe, fun, and genuinely welcoming. That’s the kind of energy I want to bring into the Union, too.

If you could only keep one of your manifesto pledges, which would it be?

Rosalie: The Union is for life, not just for your time in Oxford, and that’s why it’s a life membership. If I could only keep one pledge it would be to introduce an online alumni network, so that you can benefit from the incredible mosaic of people that pass through the Union, and offer networking and skills support as we all go forward with our further careers. 

I’m the first in my family to even go to a Uni, so I know how invaluable this would be to me, and I think it would be able to tangibly help so many others. 

George: Fixing the disciplinary process, without question. If we don’t have a fair, independent, and functional system for addressing harm or disputes, nothing else can work properly. It’s the foundation of a safe and accountable society.

Right now, that system is broken. People deserve clarity, justice, and closure, not endless confusion, silence, or delays. And honestly, it’s the root cause of many of the issues that have escalated in the Union over the past year. If we had a process that people trusted, 90% of the problems we’ve seen since last Trinity wouldn’t have spiralled the way they did.

What’s something you would change about the Union?

Rosalie: The Union, I feel, can at times be too in-groupie – a bizarre political society that only a few hacks seem to care about or understand. That’s why I want to change it to be even more open across financial, cultural and geographic boundaries, and it’s why I’m so proud to be running with such a diverse and representative slate, who are striving to make the union more representative, more open, more friendly. 

That’s something I think my dream and I can do, and it’s something that I think would change it for the better.

George: The culture. Right now, too much of the Union feels like a power game. People seem to care more about the next election than simply enjoying the space they are in. I want to bring back the good vibes that made me want to join in the first place – where students come to laugh, to learn, and to breathe

That doesn’t mean compromising on seriousness; it just means not taking ourselves so seriously all the time.

Name something you admire about your opponent.

Rosalie: When I first met George, I was inspired by his kindness and charisma. If anyone had told me when I first met him that he would be running for President, I would have voted for him. In particular, I respect his focus on increasing the Union’s visibility and outreach, and it’s been a pleasure watching him grow since I first met him as a fresher. 

George: Rosalie is experienced, resilient,  hardworking, and clearly cares deeply about the Union. We’ve both put in real hours to keep this place running, and I respect that. Even if we disagree on vision or approach, I believe in giving people their flowers. It takes courage to put yourself out there in a position of scrutiny, and I commend my opponent for being willing to do that.

If you could invite three speakers during your term, who would they be?

Rosalie: Jacinda Ardern, Ursula von der Leyen and Sir Michael Moritz.

George: First, AOC – she’s doing incredible work in the US trailblazing a path within the Democrat party despite her ‘controversial’ views. Second, Dave – one of the most talented men in the UK making music with wisdom well beyond his years. And third, Lebron James – as perhaps the biggest global sports star in the world it is only right we bring The King back to the Union.

What’s one debate you would host during your term?

Rosalie: Designer babies – the Union is at the forefront of debates on issues that will shape the future. I think that in time genetic modification will introduce new class boundaries in society if allowed to develop unchallenged. 

As someone who has had to fight against the existing class structure so hard just to get here, I think it’s an important debate to be had.

George: “This House Believes Oxford is failing its students.” I want us to discuss the cost of rent, mental health crises, culture on campus and why so many still feel like they don’t belong or were sold a dream when they applied. This is meant to be a university of changemakers but when students protest, rather than being engaged with, they’re punished. 

The system is outdated and built for the few.  This debate would be student-led, with Ordinary Members able to give paper speeches. No sugarcoating, just real talk about access, welfare, and accountability. It may be uncomfortable for universities, but it is a necessary outlet for students to voice valid concerns about a global institution.

Anything else you want to add?

Rosalie: My candidacy is driven by my belief in the power of the Oxford Union to shape the future of this university. Through my leadership experience both within and outside the Union, I’ve developed the skills, vision, and passion needed to lead the Oxford Union into a new era – one where inclusivity, diversity, and relevance are at the forefront of everything we do. 

I believe that the Union can be a transformative space for all students. If elected, I will be dedicated to making the Oxford Union not just an institution welcome for a privileged few, but a place where every student can speak, debate, learn, and grow.

George: Just this: the Union doesn’t need another hack. It needs someone who knows when to speak, when to listen, and how to rebuild. I’m not promising perfection, I’m promising presence, purpose, and a plan. 

If you’ve ever felt like this place wasn’t for you… then maybe, this time, it actually can be.

MML Faculty cuts almost half of special subject final options

0

Over 40% of Modern Languages Special Subjects have been cut for those sitting finals next year, with up to eight out of eleven options being cancelled in certain languages. The options for Paper XII are dependent on teaching resources across languages.

Those reading Portuguese are among the hardest hit, as only three out of the possible eleven options are available. One of those options, however, is limited to ten places. Last year, those studying Portuguese were also limited to four out of a possible eleven options. Languages such as Italian, however, have had no cancellations to their original nine options. In fact, Italian have added a new paper on gender and sexuality in modern Italy.

In addition, students reading Slavonic are limited to just four options out of eleven, though two of those will not be taught. Last year, by contrast, Slavonic had double the number of options, and all of them offered teaching. 

Some options have been outright discontinued, including the French Rousseau special subject, as well as others being suspended. Last year, no papers were highlighted to have been discontinued or suspended.

One third year MML student told Cherwell: “Given the ongoing confusion around changes to exams, a decreased choice of special subjects will probably make final year even more difficult for many students.”

Modern Languages students are made aware that Paper XII options are subject to change due to “the availability of teaching resources”, and special subjects are made available one year before examination. The MML Faculty refused to comment on this year’s cuts.

This announcement follows the Faculty’s recent decision to move to in-person, closed book exams due to concerns over AI and plagiarism. The shift in examination conditions will affect the same cohort as the Paper XII cuts, who will be sitting finals in 2026.

Oxford City Council proposes unified Great Oxford Council

0

Oxford City Council have released details on a suggested proposal to abolish Oxfordshire’s six councils and replace them with three new ones: Greater Oxford Council, Northern Oxfordshire Council, and Ridgeway Council.

This proposal was in response to a government request for councils across England to suggest ways to simplify the structure of local government in their regions.The last time local government was reorganised in Oxfordshire was in 1974.

The reshuffling aims to redistribute administrative control to residents. The Greater Oxford boundary closely follows the line of Oxford’s ‘Green Belt’, which spans from Bicester in the North to Abingdon in the South. Currently, almost all of the Green Belt sits outside of the city’s administrative boundaries. The proposal for a Greater Oxford council would give local residents authority over the Green Belt for the first time since its creation in 1975. 

Councillor Edward Mundy, Leader of the Oxford Community Independents told Cherwell that this unification would mean that “residents across the greater Oxford area get a say in the political decisions that impact them and where they live and work.

For a city like Oxford, which is not in a built-up or urban part of the country this loss of local agency could be particularly pronounced.”

The proposed benefits for the county include 40,000 new homes to be built near existing jobs and community facilities by 2040, 40% of which would be required to be council homes if following existing planning policies. The Council also says it would extend public transport routes to reduce congestion, as well as widen the access of leisure and outdoor pools to all Greater Oxford residents rather than to city residents exclusively.

The proposal has met opposition within the county. Emily Kerr, Local Councillor for the Green Party, told Cherwell that this proposal is “simply a non-starter” unless the National Government’s stated criteria for population size changes. Greater Oxford would cover a region with a population of about 240,000 people today, rising to about 345,000 by 2040. The Oxfordshire Green Party voted to oppose an Oxfordshire unitary authority, opting to support the ‘Your Oxfordshire’ suggestion which offers a new unitary authority on existing county boundaries. 

Councillor Mundy also highlighted some disadvantages of the unified council system, but said: “To do nothing and submit no proposal was an option, but that would have effectively given up on Oxford having its own Council, possibly even on the continued public use of our Town Hall.”

Regarding the likelihood of these plans going ahead, Councillor Kerr told Cherwell that she hopes that either decision will “decentralise decision making” but “to a large degree, it will be out of our hands as it is a Westminster decision.”

Independent Councillor David Henwood also told Cherwell his thoughts on the restructuring. A single unitary authority for Oxfordshire would “improve cost efficiency, strategic planning, increase bargaining power and simplify governance” but also “lose local responsiveness, democratic disconnect and transition complexity”. 

He added that three smaller authorities split into rural and city unitaries would provide “better local identity, improve accountability, balance power”, but would also cost more than a single unitary, whilst also causing potential boundary disputes.

The public consultations regarding this proposal will take place in June and July to submit the final proposal to the Government in November. 

Possible delay to Oxford’s only winter ball despite ‘committed’ students

0


Merton College is understood to have asked students on the winter ball committee to consider delaying Merton’s Michaelmas ball in order to allow more time for planning. Despite concerns from the College, the organising committee is “committed” to delivering the ball in November as planned.

Speaking with members of the MCR committee, Cherwell understands that the College are “extremely concerned” that the planning of the ball is behind schedule despite it being over six months away. As a result, the College might vote to cancel the ball in its current form, requiring the organising committee to postpone the ball until Hilary term. 

Merton’s Winter Ball is renowned for being Oxford’s only white tie winter ball. The ball takes place every three years and is organised by JCR and MCR students at the college. Postponing the ball to Hilary would be a first in Merton’s history.

In reply to concerns about the ball’s postponement, the organising committee told Cherwell that: “while it is true that there were some initial administrative challenges, particularly around clashes with college building works, the committee has made significant progress and remains fully committed to delivering a memorable white tie ball. 

“At present, the date of the ball is yet to be finalised, as we continue coordinating with the college and vendors to ensure the best possible experience for attendees. The committee has been hard at work behind the scenes and are assembling an exciting lineup of vendors and entertainment. We are confident that the final result will meet and exceed the high expectations traditionally associated with this event.” 

The College governing body, which will determine the fate of the ball is yet to meet, so no official verdict about the ball’s postponement has been reached. However, Cherwell understands that the College’s provisional calendar for the 2025/26 academic year lists the Winter Ball as taking place in November.

Merton’s last Winter Ball was held in Michaelmas 2022 and included headline acts from the singer-songwriter writer Dylan, as well as Capital FM’s Will Manning. 

According to the committee, tickets for this year’s ball are expected to go on sale over the long vacation.

Merton College was approached for comment.

The Journal of a Chambermaid: The greatest novel you’ve never heard of

0

It is easy to suppose that the greatest authors of the 19th century have all already been discovered. Especially when it comes to French literature, one notices the same names come up over and over again. Yet for every Balzac, Flaubert or Zola, there is at least one author who has been forgotten by history, brushed aside, and reduced to a footnote. That need not mean that these authors don’t have compelling stories to tell which are still relevant to this day. 

A good example of this is Octave Mirbeau. The French journalist was a prolific writer and at the centre of Parisian intellectual life. As an art critic, he was an early supporter of Van Gogh’s and good friends with the likes of Claude Monet and Auguste Renoir. Some of his plays, like Les affaires sont les affaires, were highly successful at the time and are still performed by the Comédie Française today. In 1900, he released his fifth novel, Le Journal d’une femme de chambre, which instantly became an example of the notorious ‘succès de scandal’ genre. Nonetheless, Mirbeau’s extensive work has largely been forgotten over the past 100 years.

It was not until the 1980s and the onset of second wave feminism that Mirbeau and his substantial literary oeuvre began to gain some recognition. But still, even to this day, Mirbeau is rarely talked about, despite having been admired by many peers, including Tolstoy. His books, although in print, are rarely on offer in bookstores. This, to me, is scandalous, because the quality of Mirbeau’s work rivals that of any of his contemporaries. His Journal of a Chambermaid in particular is one of the greatest novels of its time. Its humour and social criticism are as relevant today as they were 125 years ago. 

Its narrative centres around Célestine, a witty young woman who works as a domestic servant in the household of the Lanlaire family. In her diary, she records the idiosyncrasies of her bourgeois employers as well as of the people around her. She is the constant object of male desire, yet she is able to use this to her own advantage. The resulting image is that of a sexually empowered and independent woman. In the end, she escapes her position as a chambermaid by going to Cherbourg with the brutish gardener Joseph, a bittersweet end at a time when social mobility was out of reach for many domestic servants. 

If the novel is so good, why has nobody heard of it? I believe this has to do with the way that we perceive literature today. People like to place authors within a literary canon that is subdivided into movements. It is easy to label Balzac a ‘Realist’, Zola a ‘Naturalist’ or Hugo a ‘Romantic’. Yet when it comes to Mirbeau, none of these labels easily fit. He stands out from the Symbolist and Decadent currents popular during his time, and this inability to place Mirbeau within the literary landscape has contributed to his disappearance from textbooks and literary journals. 

However, there are other elements that make the novel unconventional and subsequently less attractive in the eyes of some literary critics. On the one hand, Mirbeau’s characters in Le Journal d’une femme de chambre are mostly caricatures who, through exaggeration, enable Mirbeau to introduce both humour into the story and underline his political commentary. On the other hand, the novel’s plot focuses on an independent working class woman who, whilst very critical of the people around her, has insight limited to her immediate environment rather than society as a whole. The novel’s detractors have thus sometimes argued out of pure prejudice against a book whose female narrator makes them uncomfortable. 

I would advise everyone to pick up a copy, if they can. Especially those who have access to the French original, who will find it to be both an entertaining and eye opening read. We live at a time in which people are rediscovering voices from the past previously misunderstood or silenced. The best way to support such authors is to read their works. Who knows how many lost Balzacs or Zolas we might uncover in the process.

Oxford University drops disciplinary case against OA4P protestors

0

Disciplinary proceedings against the 13 student protesters that were arrested at a sit-in last year at Wellington Square were dropped by the University on Wednesday, Cherwell can exclusively reveal.

The students were facing suspensions of “indefinite length, fines, and formal warnings,” as stated in a letter seen by Cherwell sent to the protesters by the Proctor’s Office in late April. The letter accused the protesters of “colluding” to “cause significant disruption” to University “activities and members of staff”.

The chair of the Student Disciplinary Panel (SDP), barrister Laura Hoyano, who was tasked with deciding whether or not to uphold the Proctor’s recommendations for disciplinary measures, announced on Wednesday afternoon that the case would be dropped on “procedural grounds”.

Cherwell understands that the statutory deadline between the initial hearings, which were held in early October, and the referral to the SDP is six months, but it was exceeded by 22 days. The chair of the SDP also noted that the case initiated by the proctors lacked the expected procedural rigour, and that the students’ reputation had been damaged as a result.

The Senior Proctor initially in charge of the investigation, Thomas Adcock, was notably removed from the case after allegations of conflict of interest were made against him. He had co-signed a statement authored by Irene Tracey condemning the sit-in on 23 May 2024. The University declined to comment on this matter.

Irene Tracey, the Vice-Chancellor of the University, was cross-examined by two King’s Counsels, Bryan Cox and Henry Blaxland, who were representing the students under investigation at the hearings this morning.

A University spokesperson said: “The student disciplinary process is confidential and the University will not comment on ongoing procedures or their outcome.”

Bridget Kendall on interviewing Putin, the Russia-Ukraine war, and her path into journalism

0

Bridget Kendall was the BBC’s correspondent for Moscow in the pivotal period covering the collapse of the Soviet Union. She shares her insights on interviewing Putin, how she predicts the Russia-Ukraine war will end, and advice from her own journalistic journey, which started as a student at Oxford.   

Cherwell: What’s something that you had to learn living under the Soviet Union? 

Kendall: When you have a totalitarian society, people live on two levels. Their public persona is very reserved, and they don’t smile on the streets. Almost as though to compensate for that, in their private lives they are very warm and have a completely different view of life.  

Many were quietly very frustrated with the regime. When children would go to kindergarten, parents would have to say “there’s things that we talk about at home, and then there’s this world where you talk about Lenin and Communism, and these worlds don’t mix.” So, from a very young age people were made to exercise doublethink. This goes for all totalitarian societies, but it’s very important for understanding what Russians think about Ukraine. In Soviet Russia, people had to go into “exile in my head”, as one man told me after protests were suppressed in 2011. People would have thoughts in their head and share them with their close family, but not with the outside world until circumstances changed – the same goes for Putin’s regime. People have thoughts in their head and share them with their close family, but not with the outside world until circumstances change. 

There were people that swallowed communist propaganda, but for lots of other people, it was like being bilingual: you could choose which way you were going to be. This can create a sophistication of thought which can make some people in the West appear somewhat naive, because we only have one level and don’t have to make those choices. So this was a humbling wake-up call to me. 

I went to a provincial town and in those days, there was enormous deprivation in the provinces. You couldn’t get meat and vegetables, so you lived on a very restricted diet. It was interesting to live in a country where people thought of themselves as European, and were very literate, but lived in such deprivation. Most people also couldn’t get basic clothing. I realised that those that had nice clothes were exactly the ones I shouldn’t trust; they had parents in the party who allowed them to get these highly prized imported goods. My youthful assumptions of judging people by their appearances were turned on their head. 

Cherwell: Do you think this internal resistance that some people feel, as shown by [Alexei] Navalny’s funeral, could be enough to overthrow Putin? 

Kendall: Putin has pressed a button of fear, of oppression. The protests in 2011, and when Gorbachev lifted the lid, are telling examples of how people would speak out and would take to the streets if they had the chance. But this probably won’t happen until Putin goes. 

This is about history, but it’s also about geography. Most people haven’t been anywhere except Russia. You can access the internet, and the borders aren’t completely closed unlike in Soviet Times, but surprisingly, even though Putin hasn’t done a complete clampdown, people feel he’s done enough for them to stay silent. They feel isolated – people have retreated into their own little worlds of trusted friends with which they can speak frankly. 

Cherwell: You’ve interviewed Putin twice; what was that like and how did he come across? 

Kendall: When he walked in you barely noticed him, he was a short man and didn’t really have any presence at that point. He had been president for less than a year and hadn’t yet acquired this aura of absolute authority and fear. In the interview, there were two Putins: the ex-KGB man who spoke eloquently on foreign policy and nuclear weapons, and who was pretty fierce when he’d bore you with his blue eyes, and then Putin when we asked a series of personal questions about his family life. To his credit, he answered them all, but came across not totally sure of himself.  

Five years later, I was asked to conduct a similar interview. This time, there was just one Mr Putin: the tough presidential figure who felt he could control everything; a little bit cocky; a little bit annoying; a little bit heartless. This was partly because the economy had grown and he’d brought some stability. He’d been ruthless in Chechnya and had raised state pensions, so he felt he was on a roll. It was interesting to see how he’d grown into the role: this was a man prepared to be ruthless. 

At one point he turned the interview on me. Someone asked why he’d turned the gas off in Ukraine to punish it for the Orange Revolution [a series of protests in Ukraine in 2004-05]. He leant back in his chair and simply asked me: “How much are those pearls around your neck?”. I just replied, “That’s a very unexpected question”. We had a bit of banter, but eventually I told him. He then said, “well you wouldn’t sell them to me for just 5 kopeks would you”. I realised that he was trying to make a heavy-handed analogy with the gas prices in Ukraine; that you shouldn’t sell gas to Ukraine for nothing. 

Something else that feels very relevant was that a man from Ethiopia asked what Russia was going to do about racism in Russia. Putin responded, “Well, when Russian women go abroad, they’re treated like prostitutes”. This is a typical ploy inherited from the Soviet Union; analysts call it ‘whataboutism’: “What about the way Russians are treated?”. I asked Mr Putin if there was anything he wanted to say to this man, thinking he might want to apologise. He said, “No, he’s probably a criminal anyway”. He didn’t seem to care that this was going public. If he came across as tough and brutal, that rather suited him. 

Cherwell: What are you expecting from Putin in the next few weeks and months? [This interview was conducted on Monday 12th May, before Putin had refused to meet with Zelensky in Turkey].

Kendall: I think he’s playing for time. He doesn’t want to fall out with Trump, and wants a reset of relations with the US, the lifting of sanctions, and some collaborative deals. But on the other hand, they do definitely have the upper hand in the war, and he doesn’t want to give Zelenskyy what he wants. What they want is a compliant leader in Ukraine so they can bring it back into Russia’s orbit. 

The other thing is that Putin has decided that the new enemy is Europe. In the last few weeks, they’ve shifted their propaganda. For years Russia has portrayed the US as the big enemy who wanted to destroy Russia, with Europe weakly tagging along. 

Suddenly, the US has changed, and Trump is offering a new policy. There have been some telling articles from the FSB [the Russian security service] declaring that ‘Eurofascism is back’ – their argument being that Europe is the fascist enemy, whereas America is now labelled the ‘land of the free’, as is Russia, so it’s a startling change of tune. 

Cherwell: So do you see Russia forming an alliance with America? 

Kendall: Trump can go hot and cold, and so is an unreliable ally. Russia can hope that more advisers will be hired who see collaboration with Russia as an opportunity. But the Russians will understand that democracies are inherently mobile: that America is an opportunity that might not always be there. Although, Russia’s biggest ally is China, whom Trump is very focussed on as a strategic opponent, along with North Korea and Iran. At the same time, he wants to make deals with everybody, so we’ll see how that pans out. 

Cherwell: What does Putin want as an ideal outcome out of the war with Ukraine? 

Kendall: He wants a ceasefire, for Russia to keep the territory it’s got, to hold new elections, and get a new leader of Ukraine who is subservient to Russia. Look at Georgia as a model. Russia has kept South Ossetia and the current Georgian government understands that keeping peace with Russia keeps their own country stable. It’s a bullying tactic. I don’t know if it will work in Ukraine, as he’s tried to put in [Viktor] Yanukovych before. Ukraine has been through so much that any leader put in by Putin might be quite a poisoned chalice to the electorate, but I’m not sure Putin thinks that. 

Cherwell: And what about an ideal outcome for Ukraine? 

Kendall: A truce to stop the fighting without the territories being recognised as Russian, with rebuilding funded by Europe and America. And living to fight another day.  

The fact that Trump doesn’t want to keep arming Ukraine to the hilt, the fact that they’re running out of fighting men, and Putin enlisting North Korean fighters to the end means that it’s hard to see that it’s a good option for Ukraine to keep fighting. 

Cherwell: Were there any new discoveries you made when compiling your book on the Cold War? 

Kendall: We did the Vietnam War from the point of view of the American soldiers and the Afghanistan War from the point of view of the Russian soldiers. One of the things that stuck in my mind was how similar their experiences were. There was a fight for survival that people at home didn’t understand, and both groups felt very ostracised after the war. It was interesting to see these two superpowers engage in wars abroad and their soldiers sharing similar journeys.  

This is particularly relevant for today. By the end of the Afghan War, far too many Russians’ sons were coming back in a zinc coffin. People then blamed the Soviet state. I thought this would be a reason why Putin would not go to war with Ukraine. How wrong was I. He is prepared to withstand a lot of criticism and be brutal.

The protests over the Afghan War were also about living conditions. People were frustrated and could see that the party had special shops and cars. Putin is more attentive to the people, hence these handouts [efforts to recruit soldiers with financial incentives]. Putin has also seen the war as an opportunity for importing substitutes, moving to a more developed economy that makes their own goods.  

You have to remember that people’s tolerance for deprivation in Russia is quite high. In the Afghan wWr, it took 5 years for the feeling that ‘this has gone on long enough’ to filter through to the villages. We’re not 5 years into the war. I don’t know if Putin has made this calculation too – if he will be facing that problem in 2027. 

David Cameron also stopped the war in Iraq after 5 years. I don’t know if there are any studies on how long it takes war weariness to creep in, but that was something the research this book made me think about. 

Cherwell: What was your career pathway from being a student at Oxford to becoming BBC correspondent for Moscow? 

Kendall: I worked for Student Radio Oxford. I then went to Moscow afterwards as a research student, and it was clear that Brezhnev was about to die. I set about meeting as many people as I could who had known him. I came back from Moscow with quite a broad view of what was going on in society below the radar. 

Coming back to the UK, I was advised to apply for the BBC, and I applied to a couple of their trainee schemes. I didn’t apply for a journalism scheme because I didn’t think I had the journalism experience. To my surprise I got to the shortlist of two of the schemes, but I didn’t get either one. They said I was too old – I was 26. However, the head of the World Service said they thought they should have taken me. They felt so strongly about it that they’d found some money for me to do a training scheme with them. I was immediately put on current affairs programmes, having to churn out stories in six hours – it was incredibly stressful. I felt very ill-equipped, but you just stay up all night reading and try to brief yourself. After a few months I realised that I really loved this.

In 1985, when Gorbachev came in, he started reaching out to the West. The World Service would say to me, “You speak Russian, so you can find some Russians to interview”, which was very easy to do because the Russians had been briefed by Gorbachev to speak to and charm the West! They then said they were going to enlarge their bureau, so I was made correspondent in 1989. Then, the person I was supposed to join was kicked out, due to a spat involving [Oleg] Gordievsky being revealed as a spy for the West. So I ended up going to the Moscow bureau on my own in 1989. It’s quite something to go from no experience to having to field the hottest story on the planet. I did think that the challenge would be that people would think that Russia was opening up and that this was a constant good news story, but there were signs already of backlash from nationalists. My problem would be managing expectations from my editors and audience: this wasn’t all going to plan. What I didn’t expect was the fall of the Soviet Union – I didn’t expect it to be quite so brittle. I thought I would be reporting on a slow return to the norm in the Soviet Union – a rather depressing story. Instead, it was the most amazing story.

On the 19th August 1991 I was rung up saying that there’s a state of emergency, telling me to go to the office, and within hours Gorbachev had been arrested. It was just amazing. The first thing I wondered was “is this really a coup?”. The Soviets were masters at declaring something that wasn’t true. But I really knew this was happening when I turned on the television and saw the newsreader who had been sacked under Gorbachev was back. He made a short announcement, and then they played Swan Lake, which is often what they play when a Kremlin leader dies or is replaced. So I thought this must be real. Then someone called me saying there’s tanks going towards the Kremlin, and then I knew it was real. 

Cherwell: What was it like being a female journalist in Russia? 

Kendall: There were very few female BBC journalists at the time. Soon people realised that this was a fast-moving situation, and they needed people who spoke the language, and that trumped being an experienced male correspondent! Before long there ended up being a lot of us in Moscow from The New York Times, and El País, but we all felt united rather than divided as a cohort of journalists. 

Once, at a meeting with the Soviet foreign ministry, the minister said, “And now let’s have a question from one of our dear lady journalists”. They asked a woman from El País, a fantastic journalist who always had tough questions and fantastic scoops. We saw his expression of being hit below the belt; he hadn’t thought a woman would come up with something quite so poignant.

Cherwell: What’s one piece of advice for aspiring journalists when writing or interviewing? 

Kendall: To follow your passions, travel to interesting places so that you’ve got interesting things to say. It might also give you the opportunity to do things you wouldn’t necessarily have the chance to do in the UK. 

You’ve got to show commitment to journalism – you need a portfolio, so start a podcast or a blog. Be able to turn your hand to other formats: a publication might send you somewhere to do a podcast or radio and take pictures, so you might as well learn to do it. This will also give you a landscape for what you like doing.  Lots of people think they need to fill the gaps in their CV, but what’s really important is doing what you’re passionate about and getting the most out of it. That’s what gives you depth.  

Corpus Christi clash with Cotswolds village over housing plans

0

Plans by Corpus Christi College to build a home in a Cotswold village have been criticised by dozens of local residents. The College has applied for permission to construct a two-storeyed barn at the site of The Saddlery, a stables in Kineton in southwestern Warwickshire. 

The plans include timber doors and glazing that will be set partly on the existing footprint of the building. However, despite plans for the new structure to have an “agricultural character”, locals have expressed fears regarding its effect on the pastoral area. 

In particular, Temple Guiting Parish Council stated in a consultee comment on the plans: “[T]he proposed house has an overbearing presence, out of proportion to the site and the other houses in the hamlet.” On plans to create a small pond outside the property, the Council added: “[T]he location would not allow wildlife to survive as it would be in the shade and very close to the house.”

27 separate objections have been made to the plans on the Cotswold District Council website. One commenter said: “It is no small fact that the land has been rented by the same family for nearly 40 years and it is without a doubt a benefit to the village of Kineton.” Another concurred: “While we appreciate the need for housing generally, there are many other sites more suitable in the surrounding area that don’t involve losing this important asset in our community.”

Villagers also claim that the stables have served as a community centre for locals who keep their horses there, and that many first learnt to ride horses whilst visiting them. They note also that schoolchildren from both Cheltenham and Gloucester with intellectual disabilities and special educational needs have come to The Saddlery over the years to visit its ponies, ducks and chickens.

Some have also contended that the land in question could be put to better use if it were converted into new affordable housing.

The officers of the Cotswolds District Council have nonetheless recommended that scheme be approved. They claim that the proposal conforms with local and national policies and that it would not damage protected areas of land or negatively impact the region as a whole.

Over 1,000 sign open letter calling for University to drop disciplinary proceedings against student protestors

0

Over a hundred Oxford students, staff and local campaigners gathered at the Careers Office on Tuesday afternoon, calling on the University to drop disciplinary proceedings against thirteen student protestors arrested at a sit-in last year. An open letter making the same demand has garnered over 1,000 signatures.

Protestors gathered from 12.30pm outside 56 Banbury Road, at which the first day of the students’ disciplinary hearing was underway. They carried banners from the student organisation Jewish Students for Justice, and from several local trade union branches. One banner read: “Students, you make us proud! free Palestine! Shame on this uni!”

The sit-in in question happened on 23 May 2024, at the University Offices in Wellington Square. Seventeen protesters from Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P) entered the offices, demanding that the University agree to meet with them.

A statement issued by the University at the time called it a “temporary occupation”, saying students had committed a “violent action that included forcibly overpowering the receptionist.” An OA4P statement in response refuted accusations that the action was violent, and cited CCTV footage which contradicted the claim that protestors had “physically handled” a receptionist.

The seventeen protestors were arrested on suspicion of aggravated trespass. They were all later further arrested on suspicion of ‘affray’, which means “the use or threat of violence to another which would cause a normal person present at the scene to fear for his personal safety”. One was also arrested on suspicion of common assault.

In August 2024, Thames Valley Police told the seventeen that no further action would be taken against them, at which point the University Proctors’ Office began its own disciplinary proceedings. Thirteen of the protestors are Oxford students, and have been summoned to a Student Disciplinary Panel (SDP).

The SDP will decide whether to uphold the Proctors’ recommendations for disciplinary measures. These include “suspensions of indefinite length, fines, and formal warnings.” The open letter states that the disciplinary process has been “opaque” and involved the use of “racist language”. Specifically, it claims that one University employee associated the keffiyeh, a traditional item of Palestinian clothing, with terrorism.

This claim was repeated at the rally, at which multiple students, faculty members, and local activists also spoke to attendees. The parent of one of the sit-in participants expressed support for his son, saying: “They occupied Wellington Square Office because Oxford University is complicit in genocide”, and called the SDP a “phony court.”

A spokesperson from Oxford Stop the War Coalition, which helped organise the protest, told Cherwell: “Oxford University has an endowment of nearly £9bn, and we know for a fact, that which is open for the public to look at, they’re invested in arms companies and they have partnerships with Israeli universities that are supporting the Israeli military as it conducts war crimes that amount to a genocide.”

One sit-in participant no longer at the University also said to the crowd: “I do not trust this University to give my student comrades a fair hearing.” A sit-in participant leaving the building on a lunch break told the rally: “It is not a question for [the University] of justice […] They are not interested. What they are interested in is silencing protest.”

A speaker from Jewish Students for Justice (JSJ) read out a message from the author Michael Rosen, an Oxford alumnus and professor of children’s literature at Goldsmiths University. The message supported the sit-in participants: “It seems that the University has judged them guilty before they’ve defended themselves at a hearing.” Rosen has been an outspoken advocate for Palestine. His poem “Poem for the Children of Gaza” was read out by another JSJ speaker.

Other speakers at the rally included members of the Oxford Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Oxford University and College Union (UCU). 

The open letter ends: “We demand that the University drop the proceedings of its unjust imitation court and commit to fulfilling OA4P’s urgent demands for disclosure, divestment, and reinvestment. In making these demands, we stand unequivocally for the right to protest, freedom of conscience, and above all—for a free Palestine.” It has been signed by forty-one anti-war, environmental, and Palestine solidarity groups, as well as hundreds of Oxford students, faculty, and members of the public.

The Stop the War spokesperson told Cherwell: “We today, there’s over a hundred and thirty people I just counted, support the students, they say it was right to protest, and the University’s wrong to discipline them while they haven’t looked at their own house, and looked at their ties to the war crimes happening in Palestine.”

Also on Tuesday, an open letter from “Concerned Jewish Faculty at the University of Oxford” was issued. It called on the Vice-Chancellor, Proctors, and University Chief Diversity Officer Tim Soutphommasane to drop the disciplinary proceedings. It warned the University against using “supposed threats to Jewish safety” to “demonize the movement for Palestinian rights

and to criminalize lawful protest and expression.” It called the University’s stance “needlessly hostile, punitive, and adversarial stance”, and urged the University to sever financial and institutional ties with Israel.

Last week, former Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott  issued a statement in support of one of her constituents, a student facing disciplinary proceedings for their role in the Wellington Square sit-in. Abbott said: “It is neither fair nor reasonable for a university to treat principled protest on urgent moral and humanitarian issues as misconduct warranting punitive measures.”

In a statement, the University told Cherwell: “The student disciplinary process is confidential and the University will not comment on ongoing procedures or their outcome. 

The Oxford Cinema & Café: A profile

0

The opening of The Oxford Cinema & Café marks a new chapter in Oxford’s cinema scene: a move further towards independent cinema. Of the four central Oxford cinemas – Curzon Westgate, Phoenix Picturehouse, The Ultimate Picture Palace (UPP), and The Oxford Cinema – there is now an even split between independents and franchises. Located on Magdalen Street, the new cinema is in the very heart of central Oxford and, tickets being currently only £4.99 plus an online booking fee, it is in prime position to thrive where, seemingly, the Odeons did not.

Originally known as the Oxford ‘Super’ Cinema, the venue had its grand opening on New Year’s Day, 1924, screening the silent film The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. In 1930, the cinema introduced Oxford to “talkies”, showing The Broadway Melody, which took home the second ever Academy Award for Best Picture. Having undergone countless name changes, including Super Cinema, ABC, Cannon and MGM, the cinema will have been remembered by most as an Odeon. A Grade II-listed building, the venue was vacated by Odeon in 2023, just over a year before the company left Oxford completely by closing their cinema on George Street in January 2025. Whilst the building on George Street is reportedly to be demolished in order to make way for an aparthotel, the Magdalen Street cinema has found a new lease of life.

As is to be expected with the opening of a new business, the cinema has not been without teething problems, primarily regarding sound in the auditoriums. Nevertheless, sitting on the balcony in the quite enormous, theatre-inspired screen one for the first time is an unforgettable experience. A further benefit to the immense scale of the screen is that it boasts approximately 650 seats across both floors, which, given its position tucked away on Magdalen Street, is very impressive.

Given that The Oxford Cinema has only two screens, as does the Phoenix Picturehouse, it is only able to run a limited slate of films. For the most part, the cinema’s film schedule is made up of the latest blockbusters (currently Lilo & StitchKarate Kid: Legends, and Ballerina), supported by a few smaller films. Though there is not a massive emphasis on foreign and auteur films, that is not to say that they are neglected. The cinema also holds events, such as a special screening of the drama documentary thriller Comrade Tambo’s London Recruits, followed by a Q&A with the director.

In the modern age of technology, a good app is essential for attracting customers (especially young students). Despite having only recently opened its doors, the cinema already has a very user-friendly app, Oxford Cinema, which can be downloaded on the App Store. It is rare that new apps work exactly as expected, but this appears to be an exception. Notably, however, there is no option to select where you sit, which means that arriving in good time to secure the best seats is a must if a screening is particularly busy. Thankfully, the app provides users with the remaining capacity of the screen, so this should not be a problem.

This is all without mentioning the other side of the business: the café. Quaint, well-furnished, and friendly, the café is the perfect place for the obligatory post-film debrief and Letterboxd review. It is even equipped with chessboards so you can challenge your friends whilst you make your next cinema plans.

So, where does The Oxford Cinema & Café find itself in the tumultuous world of cinema in Oxford? For those who miss the low prices and central location of Odeon George St., this new cinema is perfect. Ticket prices are just as low (if not lower) than the other Oxford cinemas and its position puts it within easy walking distance of most colleges. For those who prefer to support independent cinemas, such as the UPP and the Phoenix Picturehouse, which, although a subsidiary of Cineworld, manages to maintain the impression of independent cinema, The Oxford Cinema is a great new option. Finally, those who frequent the Curzon or venture all the way to the Vue at the Ozone Leisure Park to watch the latest big hits, will find that the new cinema caters to their wishes at a very reasonable price.

In short, Oxford’s newest cinema is certainly worth a visit before the end of term. Open seven days a week, The Oxford Cinema is the perfect place to escape from the stress of exams or the impending long vacation and immerse yourself in film.