Friday 28th November 2025
Blog Page 6

‘Controversial but compelling’: ‘Women Beware Women’ reviewed

Abigail Lakeland
-
0
‘Controversial but compelling’: ‘Women Beware Women’ reviewed

CW: Sexual assault

The Michael Pilch Studio might just have been the perfect venue for Women Beware Women. Intimate and beguiling, the audience were made to feel almost as naked as many characters onstage wanted to be.

I attended the final Friday-night performance of the three-night run. Inside the black-box, pillars were wrapped in ribbon. The stage was styled like a chess board, with red and yellow tiles. Remix Artist Ice Dob’s dubstep intensified an already claustrophobic and charged atmosphere. The space channeled Alice’s Wonderland, inspired by what director Jem Hunter calls the “psychological alterations brought about by opiates”. 

The plot of Middleton’s Women Beware Women (1657) is just as trippy. We meet the beautiful Bianca (Fiona Bestrova) right after she’s eloped with Leantio (Hugh Linklater). When Leantio’s mother (Kate Burke) visits the scheming Livia (Caeli Colgan), Livia forces the mother to bring Bianca over for dinner. Bianca, excited to be free from the house arrest her possessive husband has imposed on her, goes for what she thinks is a tour of the house. Bestrova endearingly conveys Bianca’s childish glee at this prospect. However, while on this tour, Bianca is accosted by the Duke (Sonny Fox). When his attempts to seduce Bianca fail, she is taken by force. 

In Middleton’s text, Bianca’s rape occurs offstage. In Hunter’s production, the assault occurred onstage, thinly concealed by strobe lights and an awkward choice of choir music. I was seated in a position of relative safety: I could only see the actors from a distance, and had no view of their faces. Unlucky audience members had to grapple with far closer proximity to the actors. “I think at that point, I just had to close my eyes”, says an audience member who found themselves with a close-up view of Bianca’s face during the scene.

Immediately following this scene came the welcome refuge of the intermission. When the second half commenced, there were many empty seats. I spoke to various audience members who cited the graphic depiction of sexual violence and the absence of a content warning as contributing to their decision to leave the performance. Whilst there was a content warning for “sexual assault and coercion” in the play’s description on TicketSource, this was absolutely insufficient communication. It would have taken less than thirty seconds to reiterate a content warning at the start of the play, or to make a sign for the door. In fact, there was already a warning sign on the theatre door for strobe lights, which could easily have accommodated a content warning.

The play did showcase some excellent performances. Bestrova beautifully conveyed Bianca’s shift from enamoured ingénue to social-climbing cynic. Linklater embodied Leantio’s controlling nature, delivering dialogue compellingly. Colgan, donning Livia’s widow’s attire, had an almost intoxicating command of the stage. It’s no easy feat to convey the emotional complexity of a villain, especially a villain as nefarious as Livia. Colgan, however, accomplished this magnificently without even breaking a sweat.

Interwoven with the story of Bianca and Leantio is the story of Isabella (Céline Denis). Isabella is unhappily engaged to the Ward (Juliet Taub). In Middleton’s text, the Ward is a foolish, intolerable heir. Hunter, in a genius twist, envisions the Ward instead as a literal fool. Taub dons clown makeup, a crocheted jester’s hat, and jingles a mini-me teddy bear in the faces of audience members. She infused the play with charisma and energy.

Whilst Isabella wrestles with her unhappy engagement to a fool, she simultaneously has an affair with her uncle, Hippolito (Kit Parsons). Not to worry: Livia says that they’re not actually related. Alas, would you believe it, Livia –ever untrustworthy –was lying. Hunter told Cherwell that he wanted the theatre “to feel like a boudoir, and the audience the participants of something very debauched”. Hippolito’s grotesque monologue, in which he confesses his desire for his niece, certainly achieved this. Parsons’ delivery was appropriately conflicted and tormented. Rather than portraying Hippolito as a cut-and-dry pervert, he was conveyed as a lonely and tormented individual.

In an experimental twist on Middleton’s masque, strobe lighting spotlighted raving characters dotted around the chessboard stage. As each doomed character met their end, a red light flared, the same red light that had flared throughout the play whenever lust was consummated with a kiss. Hunter calls lighting designer Michelle Ng “a true professional” and “a visionary”, citing Ng’s work on Yasmin Nachif’s ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore (2024). The circularity of Ng’s visual storytelling was pleasing and cohesive.

Controversial but compelling, Women Beware Women showcased some incredible talent. When asked why he chose to stage Middleton’s play, Hunter says that “on some level, strangely, the characters inspire me? The line between taboo desire and queer desire has always felt thin to me.” Right or wrong, it was undoubtedly a performance to remember.

Dominic Sandbrook: “I want to understand the past through the past’s own eyes”

Sophie Price
-
0
Dominic Sandbrook: “I want to understand the past through the past’s own eyes”

Few historians can claim household-name status. Fewer still can boast of podcast audiences rivalling chart-topping musicians. However, typing “The rest is…” into Spotify now summons a miniature empire of spin-offs, politics, money, and film, all descendants of the original The Rest Is History, which Dominic Sandbrook co-presents with Tom Holland. 

However, before diving into the podcast itself, we began with the question at the heart of the show’s success: what does it mean, in the twenty-first century, to study history?

“I’m of a generation,” he says, “where most people did humanities subjects at A Level and then went on to do humanities degrees. They were the high-status subjects, highly prestigious and very desirable. I think part of that was because, in the pre-internet world, university was your gateway to these things.”

He remembers his undergraduate years at Balliol vividly: “If you were interested in English or history, by going to university to do it, especially at a university like Oxford, you would feel that the sort of great doors were opening, and you were being ushered into this exciting new world where you could read up on things that interested you. It would be hard to access that world if you weren’t at university.”

Now, he admits, those gates have widened. “I think one of the things that’s happened now that contributes to the decline of humanities subjects is that people question, rightly or wrongly, whether they need to go to university if they’re still interested in those things. You can listen to podcasts, you can watch YouTube videos, you can do all these things without necessarily having to commit yourself to formal study.” Despite dismay at the decline of humanities study in recent decades, Sandbrook has identified a way to turn this cultural shift into an opportunity. He admits, “The weird thing is, in some ways, that’s probably good for me, because it means people can listen to our podcast.” 

The numbers tell the story of a public that can fall in love with learning, as The Rest Is History now yields over 11 million monthly downloads since its launch in 2020. Yet Sandbrooke is cautious not to oversell what the medium can do. “I’m not so vain as to think it’s equivalent to studying it properly,” he continues. “I just think in a world that’s very digital and much more visual than it used to be, the old humanities subjects are struggling for airtime.” Still, he sees the enthusiasm from younger listeners as proof that curiosity about the past is far from fading. “I hope,” Sandbrook says, “that we’ve restored some of that appeal. We were astonished by how many of our listeners are under 35, teens, twenties, and early thirties. It’s heartening, because it shows there’s still a massive appetite for history, and that people are invested in the study of the past, of what it means to be human.”

Part of that connection comes from the comedic narrative style of the show, which Sandbrook describes using the same plain enthusiasm that has made the podcast so accessible for regular listeners. “We tell history as a story, as a narrative. We’re always thinking, how do we bring people in? Our producers are great at saying, ‘Think about the ordinary listener who’s listening for the first time.’” 

“We actually think it’s fun,” he insists. “I’m not always convinced that every academic specialist thinks of it that way. They sometimes think of it as worthy, which we tend not to do.”

Putting the humour into history is something Sandbrook shares with his younger audience as well in his bestselling Adventures in Time. “Children,” he says, “have an inexhaustible appetite for good stories.” His recent titles transform great historical moments, from Alfred and the Vikings to Dunkirk, into vivid, fast-paced adventures. When I ask how writing for young readers compares to his adult audience, Sandbrook stands up for his child readers and refuses the assumption that writing for children means diluting the material. “You don’t have to dumb it down, necessarily, but basically, treating the stories of history as being good as the greatest stories of literature or pop culture. So I thought, why not write a history book for children? There’s a straight narrative.”

He recalls a striking comment from an editor: “I’ve edited many books in the Second World War, but I’ve never, ever seen one before where I knew that the reader wouldn’t know who’s going to win.” Sandbrook explains how the joy of writing for children is refreshingly pure, from seeing children’s historically themed Halloween costumes on social media to the passion for historical books at World Book Day. “Writing for children is much more satisfying because an adult generally writes to you when they spot a mistake or they want to take issue with something, whereas the child will write to you and just tell you which bit they loved.”

While the show thrives on entertainment and humour, underneath the wit lies a principled commitment to the past as it was lived, not as modern readers might want it to be. “For me, history always comes first, and I don’t believe in using history. I mean, there are two ways that people use history when they write, I think: either as a window looking out at something else, or as a mirror, to look back at yourself and your own society, and using it as a mirror has always struck me as a very boring thing to do.”

He elaborates carefully, conscious of how charged this terrain can be in academia, “I don’t want to hear about a writer’s prejudices or the concerns of his own time, particularly. I know those are inescapable to some degree, but as much as possible, I want to understand the past through the past’s own eyes, and that’s definitely what I try to do.”

“If somebody said, ‘Oh, you’re a politically biased writer,’ I would be gutted, because I definitely don’t see myself that way.” For Sandbrook, history may be about the fun and the facts, but the pull of the story itself is what matters most, not the spectacles that the present day might try to slip onto it. 

One detail that frequently catches listeners off guard is the depth to which Sandbrook and Holland immerse themselves in the material, undertaking all their own research to craft narratives that unfold across multiple episodes. His weekly research routine, he jokes, would be familiar to any Oxford undergraduate, laughing about “fifty-two essay crises a year”, finding the podcast not so different to the research he did as a history student. “I loved doing my degree, I loved the fact that having written my essay, the tutor would say |next week we’re doing X, here’s the reading list, off you go.” And I genuinely like going to the library to get the books out, because I’d be like, ‘I can’t wait to find out about this. I’m looking forward to it.’”

“I’m telling the story in my way, and getting somebody else to do that for me would never work. The result is that I think the show feels fresher and more authentic because we’ve genuinely done our own reading.”

Curious about whether the podcast’s trademark camaraderie ever masks classic academic dispute, I ask about the trickiest kinds of historical mysteries: the ones that can only end with “we’ll never know.” He shakes his head. “Not so much the controversial ones where nobody knows what happened, but sometimes we definitely disagree about bad characters, because we generally try to follow the most recent scholarship on something, and we generally tend to agree.”

Narrative confidence, however, does not shield him from the unpredictability of the present. Of The Rest is History – Rest is politics 2024 US election crossover, where he alone guessed the outcome correctly, he remains matter-of-fact. “It was 50-50 in the polls. So it wasn’t exactly like it was going to take great insight to pull that one off. I think some of the people on that panel were thinking with their hearts rather than their heads. And I just thought, I didn’t want him to win, I was gutted that he won, but I didn’t think Kamala Harris would, you know, inspire as much enthusiasm as my fellow panellists did.”

Discussing recent events in politics can be a reminder of how challenging it is to write about the recent past. Sandbrook’s speciality as an academic historian lies in the late 20th century, with books such as Never Had It So Good on British history in the 1950s-1960s and more recently White Heat, which takes readers through the 1970s. As the decades inch closer to recent memory, he describes how “It’s much harder to stand back and be reflective about it. You don’t quite know how the story will play out in the end. You’re very invested in it, personally, in a sort of partisan way, often. I think it’s hard sometimes to see the wood for the trees. The closer you get to the periods where you were kind of politically mature, where you could vote, for example, it becomes very hard to divorce.” He reflects on this quietly for a moment before adding, “I don’t think historians can ever be objective, but I think any claim to neutrality would be… well, it becomes much harder.”

Before we part, Sandbrook returns to a note of reflection that takes us back to the beginning of our conversation about why we study the past. “It’s very easy in an academic context, especially at a very high-powered university like Oxford, for the study of one of the humanities to become a bit desiccated and to become very dry, and sort of the scholarliness of it to almost drive out enthusiasm. Remembering why you first fell in love with the subject, usually when you were a schoolchild, is really, really important. Keeping that sort of innocent enthusiasm for it.” For someone who has spent decades convincing the public that history is neither dry nor distant, it is a fitting final note. 

The rest, as they say, is history.

Oxford junior doctors take part in nationwide strike

Archie Johnston
-
0
Oxford junior doctors take part in nationwide strike

Resident doctors working at Oxford University Hospitals (OUH), including the John Radcliffe Hospital, have joined the British Medical Association’s (BMA) national strike. The walk out concludes today, after lasting for five days.

The BMA, a professional organisation and trade union representing doctors, called for a strike ballot earlier this month over  concerns about pay and a lack of training posts. The organisation states that pay for first-year residents is down 20.9% since 2008, when inflation is taken into account. This is based upon calculations using the Retail Prices Index (RPI). According to emails obtained by Cherwell, the organisation is asking the government to increase pay for first-year doctors from £18.63 to £22.69 per hour. 

The government disputes that first-year resident doctors’ pay has fallen this much, arguing that resident doctors have received the largest pay rise of any public sector employee over the last three years. Unlike the BMA, the government uses an alternative measurement to calculate inflation, the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), which is used more widely than RPI and viewed as a more reliable measure. According to calculations using CPI, the government finds that doctors’ pay is fair. However, the Nuffield Trust think tank suggested that even when measured by CPI, resident doctor pay has fallen by 5% since 2008.

Apart from pay, the BMA also aims to draw attention to the lack of training posts available to new medical school graduates. They note that 20,000 doctors have been left without a training post this year. 

A fourth-year medical student at Oxford University told Cherwell that some specialty training posts have 50 applicants per place, making it difficult for doctors to enter the specialty they are interested in. They said that doctors are dissatisfied with studying for six years, only to be “badly paid for a job you don’t want to do”. They objected to the points-based system used for applications, which leads to medical students feeling pressure to try and get research published, or to find extracurricular opportunities while still in medical school.

Earlier this month, Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pledged to make 1,000 more spaces available for this academic year’s application window. He also stated that the Health Ministry would start paying mandatory examination and membership fees.

The BMA stated: “What has been offered so far still leaves thousands of resident doctors without a role this year, and the Government seems determined to cut pay even further next year.”

In a letter sent directly to resident doctors on 5th November, Streeting stated: “The enormous financial pressures facing the country mean I am not able to go further on pay.” He claimed that the government “wants to work constructively” with the BMA. 

However, speaking at the NHS Providers conference, an assembly of NHS managers, Streeting accused the BMA of “cartel-like behaviour” and repeated a claim he made in the letter that “there isn’t a more pro-doctor, pro-NHS health secretary or government waiting in the wings”. The BBC called it “arguably his strongest attack on the BMA to date”.

A resident doctor told Cherwell: “Left without a commitment to a multi year deal to achieve full pay restoration, with a return to real terms pay cut for 2026-27, and without a proper plan to ending the specialty jobs crisis, there has not been enough from Streeting or the government to convince me that our concerns are being adequately addressed and I am therefore on strike.”

The NHS estimates that the five-day strike will cost the taxpayer £240 million, as consultant doctors who cover strikes are paid higher rates. Felicity Taylor-Drewe, Chief Operating Officer at OUH, said: “As always, our top priority during this planned industrial action is ensuring patient safety while maintaining the highest standard of care. We are committed to keeping disruption to a minimum, and we have measures in place to ensure the safety and welfare of our patients and our staff.

“However, with industrial action reducing the number of resident doctors we have working in our hospitals, there will inevitably be a knock-on effect and patients may experience longer waiting times, particularly in our two Emergency Departments at the John Radcliffe and Horton General Hospitals.”

The Oxford Medical Students’ Society did not respond to a request for comment.

Oriel’s Rhodes exhibition is not enough

Ti-Jean Martin
-
0
Oriel’s Rhodes exhibition is not enough

I have two connections to Cecil Rhodes and the controversy surrounding institutions’ memorialisation of colonial figures. My grandfather won a Rhodes Scholarship almost 70 years ago, and it was at Oxford University that he met and married my grandmother. More recently, my last years of secondary education saw controversy over my school’s statue of its founder and benefactor, Royal African Company shareholder Robert Aske.

What to make, then, of Oriel College’s recent attempts to contextualise Rhodes’ legacy? An exhibition, first shown at the college and now at the University Church, features sculptures by Zimbabwean artists of the Chitungwiza Arts Centre representing “a figurative or semi-abstract reflection on the impact of Rhodes’ colonial wars on the people of Zimbabwe”. The works are thought-provoking examinations of the past, centred around competition winner Wallace Mkhanka’s Blindfolded Justice.

Yet The Rhodes Legacy Through the Eyes of Zimbabwean Sculptors disappoints. It fails to address both Rhodes’ crimes and the influence of his money over modern Oxford, trivialising previous efforts to do so. Colonial figures’ names are immortalised across the city in buildings, statues, and portraits, ignoring their bloody legacies. Oriel, and the University, must act further against this culture of convenient forgetfulness.

Rhodes graduated from Oriel in 1881, later leaving some £300 million in today’s money for the establishment of scholarships that facilitated the study of Bill Clinton, Edwin Hubble, and Kris Kristofferson, amongst others. His money also shapes Oxford’s modern identity through his memorialisation at Oriel, Rhodes House, and beyond. Yet the origin of this wealth was far from innocent.

As founder of the British South Africa Company and chairman of the De Beers diamond company, Rhodes spearheaded ruthless and exploitative colonisation of southern Africa. The 1893 and 1896–7 wars against the Ndebele and Shona peoples, which the exhibition discusses, killed an estimated 20,000–25,000 people. The Battle of Shangani alone killed 1,500 Ndebele – Rhodes’ response to this was: “The shooting must have been excellent.”

The wealth that helps fund the University is inextricable from these atrocities. Beginning in Cape Town in 2015, the Rhodes Must Fall (RMF) movement sought to address Rhodes’ memorialisation by campaigning for the global removal of his statues. RMF soon gained solidarity in Oxford but, after a “listening exercise,” a commission decided to retain the High Street statue. In 2020, a crowd of over 1,000 protested outside Oriel, and the college initially voted for relocation. The college then changed course, citing difficulties altering the Grade I listed building amidst threats by alumni to withdraw a potential £100 million in donations and gifts.

Instead, Oriel adopted a policy of “retain and explain”. Contextualisation, supported by public figures such as historian Mary Beard to avoid the supposed erasure of the past, was a compromise preferable to continued ignorance. But it has produced only a small sign outside Oriel’s High Street entrance, mentioning “exploitation of minerals, land and peoples” as the source of Rhodes’ vast wealth.

Oriel’s exhibition is cited as the continuation of this policy, but its portrayal of Rhodes’ actions and the RMF movement are trivialising and disrespectful. Appearing to present itself as the closing act of discussion around Oxford’s involvement in Empire, it discourages the bitterly needed conversation about the continued use of Rhodes’ name and wealth.

This is not to belittle the work of the sculptors, which Chitungwiza Arts Centre chairman Tendai Gwarazava described as a “crucial step towards healing and reconciliation”. The four pieces are poignant reflections on imperial oppression and the silencing of Zimbabwean voices. They cover themes such as labour exploitation, enforced Christianisation, and the abuse of women.

By contrast, the exhibition’s attempts at contextualisation are symbolic rather than critical; the gravity of Rhodes’ crimes is defined in vague terms. The posters supposedly explaining RMF accuse student activists of naivety, “unnerving the University”, and “failing to recognise the extent to which the institution was changing” through an increasingly diverse student body. 

But diversity does not absolve Oxford of colonial complicity. Cecil Rhodes’ legacy is an issue that needs to be addressed through participatory discussions on his influence over the University. These must centre the voices of nations that suffered under the Empire. They must plainly expose the harm Rhodes caused, and end the exclusion of those opposed to his glorification. 

As the 2015 Rhodes Must Fall petition stated, this memorialisation is “an open glorification of the racist and bloody project of British colonialism” – one that must be addressed through properly historicised contextualisation. Critical evaluations of Rhodes’ legacy with the placement of the statue in a museum, for example, would be infinitely preferable to this exhibition’s unwillingness to address the uncomfortable legacies of Oxford’s imperial past. 

Even if Rhodes’ statue does not fall, the University must confront who he was, what he did, and where his money came from.

The exhibition is at the University Church of St Mary the Virgin until 7 December.

Arrests made at Defend Our Juries protest

Conor Walsh and Arina Makarina
-
0
Arrests made at Defend Our Juries protest

At least eleven activists were arrested on suspicion of Section 13 of the Terrorism Act at a protest in Oxford this afternoon, which criticised the UK government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group. The protest, which took place outside of the Clarendon Building on Broad Street, is part of a national campaign by the activist group Defend Our Juries who oppose “the corrupting of UK law by corporate interests”.

The protest appeared peaceful, with protesters sitting down, waving Palestinian flags, and holding signs which read “lift the ban” and “I oppose genocide”. 

Activists from Defend Our Juries were accompanied by other protesters, including members from Extinction Rebellion (XR) Oxford and the Oxford Climate Choir. The protesters also sang songs, including: “One, two, three, four, occupation no more. Five, six, seven, eight, Israel is a terror state.”

A member of the choir told Cherwell that they found the proscription of Palestine Action “outrageous”, adding that “they’re a completely peaceful direct action group”. He emphasised that “it’s a slippery slope. If this continues, all the other peaceful action groups can be prescribed as terrorists. People are being carried away by the police in front of our eyes – it’s just so shocking.”

The national campaign, named ‘Lift the ban’, will see protests in 18 towns and cities across the country between 18th and 29th November, including in Oxford. In an Instagram post ahead of the campaign, Defend Our Juries described the protests as the “most widespread mass civil disobedience across the UK in modern British history”. 

Another protester on the steps of the Clarendon Building told Cherwell: “I’m here because I disagree with the proscription of Palestine Action. There are so many things wrong with this…I just had to add my voice, I couldn’t stay quiet.”

Palestine Action is a proscribed terrorist organisation under UK law, and supporting such an organisation is a criminal offence.

In October, a Home Office spokesperson told BBC News: “Palestine Action has conducted an escalating campaign. This has involved sustained criminal damage, including to Britain’s national security infrastructure, as well as intimidation, alleged violence and serious injuries.”

The spokesperson added that those who support the group will “face the full force of the law”.

Thames Valley Police have been approached for comment.

The best Quod in Oxford: Dining on the High Street

Beatrix Arnold
-
0
The best Quod in Oxford: Dining on the High Street

A landmark of the High Street, Quod boasts an opulent facade, its name reminding me of my doom on the way to my Latin lectures. And so, when they extended an invitation to review the restaurant, I welcomed the chance to dispel its previous negative associations. On a gloomy November evening, its warm lighting was appealing, and through its glass doors and tall windows, an atmosphere of upmarket ease, simultaneously intimate and spacious, promised a luxurious dining experience. From the moment we were received into the restaurant’s ambient interior, it was clear that we were the youngest ones there by at least 20 years. 

Quod offers its diners a range of European dishes, priding itself on the quality and freshness of its ingredients. The wine list was extensive, and rendered null and void the few pretensions at sommeliership I thought I’d picked up through college formals. I chose a red wine (at random) to pair with my starter. The menu was reassuringly seasonal, with dishes showcasing autumnal vegetables and fruits. We ordered the goat’s cheese and beetroot salad and the roasted red pepper soup, each of which showed thoughtful curation in their flavour profiles.

For our mains, we both chose the ricotta and squash ravioli, swimming in a rich sauce of sage butter, and topped with pine nuts. The pasta was undoubtedly fresh, and texturally perfect. It had just enough bite to counteract the soft filling, avoiding the all-too-common mistake of mushy squash. The dessert menu similarly did not disappoint. We ordered the vanilla cheesecake with roasted plums, and the chocolate pot with orange creme fraiche. The cheesecake had a brulée topping, providing the perfect contrast to the creamy texture. The pairing of chocolate and orange is classic for a reason, and the crunch from the hazelnut praline complemented it well. The cocktail menu covers all bases, from dessert cocktails like an espresso martini, to lighter, champagne-based drinks. We seized the opportunity to try such ostentatiously chic drinks, choosing a French 75 and a Manhattan – they came complete with citrus twists which would have made Tom Cruise proud. 

The display of fresh oysters, the pristinely uniformed waiters, and the candlelit table setting imposed an atmosphere of haute cuisine that was, admittedly, rather undercut as we gossiped over our cocktails. When we propped up our phones to take a picture, two drinks down, I suspect that we were met with a few disapproving glances. I felt I couldn’t quite live up to the role of the refined gourmet which the setting seemed to demand. Quod is, by virtue of its elevated quality and even more elevated price point, an occasional restaurant. By that I mean I would only go if someone else is paying. But should the opportunity arise, I’d be more than happy to cosplay once again as a fine-dining connoisseur.

What we ate:

Roasted red pepper, tomato & basil Soup (£8.95), Soft goat’s cheese, beetroot, & walnuts (£10.95), Ricotta & squash ravioli with sage & pine nut butter (£18.95), Vanilla cheesecake with roasted plums (£10.95), Chocolate pot with orange crème fraiche (£10.50), Manhattan (£15.50), French 75 (£16.00), Red wine (£10.50 a glass). 

Never safe again: Consent and the college campus

Anonymous
-
0
Never safe again: Consent and the college campus

CW: Sexual assault; mention of suicide.

When you walk into college on the first day, you experience community, a sense of stepping into belonging. Consent talks are delivered between icebreakers; there’s a seemingly endless cycle of club nights and coffee trips for people to get to know each other. Everyone is a fresh-faced student still caught up in the thrill of introductions and discovering the people who will shape the next years of their lives.

Fast-forward to Week Three: a Saturday night where I had my consent treated as a non-factor and I came frighteningly close to taking my own life. In the days and weeks afterwards, the world of Oxford seemed to warp. Sleep when it came brought nightmares. Waking up felt like being thrown back into a body that I no longer trusted, a body with new scars, both mental and physical, that no longer felt like mine. The harm was not isolated to one night. It seeps into every day after, into the silences, into the laughs, growing into a cacophony of unbearable levels. In Oxford, where history is preserved in stone, my own life felt shattered beyond repair.

I don’t know how many times I said the word “no” that night. All I know is that two is too many, and the 40 repetitions recorded in my diary entry are a testament to the desperate rhythm of a voice that was never heard.The power, or impotence, of words was laid bare for me that night. I managed to text the three letters of SOS to one of my best friends, in the drunken, misguided hope that she could come in guns blazing and save the day. Someone I had previously called a friend characterised my response as regret. That word stuck with me. I did not regret saying no, I regretted the world that allowed my “no” to be ignored, the system that treated my voice and consent as negotiable. To refer to this as regret is to twist the story, denying reality, agency, and accountability.

I remember the realisation: someone is having sex with me. Yes, I was there, but I felt detached, like a bystander to something awful. I thought about running, but I was confused – how could someone I trusted, someone I called a friend, be doing this? Surely if I just played along, everything would be okay? I blamed myself, and whether right or wrong, part of me always will. Should I have said no differently? Should I have stopped them with force? These are questions that will always haunt me.

With me, as with many people, alcohol was never the villain; to blame actions on it is to deny agency and responsibility. With words as simple as no, and with an issue as fundamental as consent, intoxication cannot be used as an excuse. Drinking culture does not make consent harder to navigate, only easier to ignore. In the Oxford bubble, alcohol is a strong character, flowing through every social, every formal, every predrinks. It fuels many connections, friendships, and memories. But it also allows people to hide behind it. To shrug off what they have done. To pretend that crossing a line was out of their hands. For me alcohol was in the room but was not the reason. The reason was someone that chose not to listen. That’s not intoxication, it’s indifference to humanity.

The next morning brought yet more confusion. I had been sworn to secrecy the night before, yet rumours soon spread amongst our friends. Something as fundamental as the negation of my consent cannot be treated as a casual story to fill the gaps in conversation. So, I did the only thing I could: I stood there, silent, shaking. Even now, I sometimes get a question, a message, a half-knowing look. And still, I cannot answer. So here, in this article, lies my answer, the one that words over a pint could never express. Sex without consent is never acceptable, and the knowledge that some can see it otherwise, even within the same four walls as me, repulses me.

I’ve heard the experience compared to being locked in a cage with a wild animal. Even if you know you are likely safe, once someone has shown they are capable of such harm, life in college becomes precarious. You know they are not hunting you. But they have proven they can damage you. Every day becomes a highly emotive game of unintentional cat and mouse, in which every corner you walk around, however beautiful and however much you are enjoying the moment, turns into an alien land, associated with violence, not positivity. Every familiar face blurs into association: those who know and those who don’t. I understand now, as I understood then, that opening up to others, even if it breaks me to speak, is at the same time one of the hardest and most important things I will ever do.

The most important part of this article, however, is not about me. It is about all the Oxford students who have experienced sexual harassment, as many as half according to a 2023 survey. Living life as a statistic is strange, but each of those people are far more than that. A large proportion of our university population lives under the inescapable hold of fear and unease, knowing that safety here is conditional, fragile, and often dismissed. We are told this place is built on tradition and excellence. But behind the gowns and Latin phrases lies a reality far less romantic. When so many students know what it is to have their boundaries ignored, it is not an isolated issue, a single story, but a culture, a rot we cannot ignore.

If the University insists on taking pride in its historic facades and dreaming spires, it must also face the nightmares endured in their long shadow. Here I want an Oxford that I am proud of, and that I can love. But that cannot happen until it is an Oxford that can feel safe again for me, and most importantly be safe for everyone.

I must end with a very simple message. That help is there if you seek it out. The first step is always the hardest, but please take it. Have the conversation. Send the message. Life does get better, and however long it takes there is a way through. Please, if you are on the fence, grasp the hands reaching out to you – there are good people around that will help. I wouldn’t be here today without the support of incredible friends and professionals, and I never want anyone to reach the point where they feel that they will never be safe again.

Sexual Harassment and Violence Support Service

University Independent Sexual Violence Advisor (ISVA)

Cherwell Mini Cryptic #7 – Is This The Real Life?

Zoë McGuire
-
0
Built by Zoë McGuire using PuzzleMe"s crossword puzzle maker

Not scary enough for you? Last week’s mini cryptic has you covered.

Are cryptics just fantasy? Why not try this week’s mini crossword.

Follow the Cherwell Instagram for updates on our online puzzles.

For even more crosswords and other puzzles, pick up a Cherwell print issue from your JCR or porters’ lodge!

Cherwell Mini #24 – Daily Double

Ameya Krishnaswamy
-
0
Created by Ameya Krishnaswamy with the online cross word maker from Amuse Labs

This week’s mini is by Ameya Krishnaswamy.

Still thirsty for puzzles? Why not try the last mini:

Follow the Cherwell Instagram for updates on our online puzzles.

For even more crosswords and other puzzles, pick up a Cherwell print issue from your JCR or porters’ lodge!

Protesters removed by security as dozens disrupt ex-Israeli PM’s Oxford Union appearance

Cherwell News
-
0
Protesters removed by security as dozens disrupt ex-Israeli PM’s Oxford Union appearance

At least three protesters were arrested as part of a demonstration disrupting former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s address at the Oxford Union this Sunday afternoon. A group of around 60 activists gathered outside the buildings on St Michael’s Street, chanting and blocking access to the main entrance, leading to the event being delayed by an hour. 

The activists were arrested by Thames Valley Police on suspicion of aggravated trespass after climbing over the wall into the Union, while three more activists were removed from the chamber by Union security. Around 25 police officers were present outside throughout the protest.

During the talk, in which Olmert discussed Israeli internal affairs and military operations, the protesters could be heard from outside the debate chamber where the talk was taking place. Several activists inside had their hands painted red and were yelling “shame” and “lies”. They were later removed by security upon request of the President Moosa Haraj, in accordance with Regulation 51(a) of the Oxford Union. 

The President told the activists to wait until the questions would be taken from the audience. Olmert replied to protesters saying: “If you will not be too hostile, people in Israel will think you’re not against me. Be against me and it will help me at home [sic].” 

The three activists who were removed from the chamber, all members of the Oxford Union, told Cherwell that they were “shoved out” of the chamber by security, and that police officers attempted to arrest and handcuff them on suspicion of aggravated trespass, before the Oxford Union security confirmed that they were all Union members.

An Oxford Union spokesperson told Cherwell that “it is categorically false that they [the activists] were shoved out, and video recordings of the event confirm this”. They added that “after 30 minutes” of the protesters “interjecting and abusing the forms of the house”, they were “respectfully” escorted out by security.

Before the talk began, around 60 pro-Palestine protesters had gathered outside the Union. By around 4pm the gates to the courtyard were blocked by protesters, interlinking arms to not be removed. The protesters’ chants included “Union, Union, you can’t hide, you’re whitewashing genocide”. 

Police officers told protesters they “may need to use force to restore access to the building”, but ultimately the back entrance on Cornmarket street was used to allow Union members to enter. Around 15 officers with bicycles created a barrier on Cornmarket street to allow members to queue outside while Union security checked membership cards. Cherwell understands that no bag checks were in place outside of the chamber until the first activists were removed.

The protest was organised by Oxford Schools 4 Palestine, in collaboration with Oxford Action 4 Palestine (OA4P) and Youth Demand Oxford. Most of the 60 protesters present on St Michael’s Street were students at the University. The protesters were joined by drummers and activists from Oxford Stand Up to Racism.

The majority of police officers moved away from the Union to hold back a dozen counterprotesters with Union Jacks and St George flags. Following that, pro-Palestine protesters moved to block the entrance of the building and climb over the wall. 

During the event, Olmert was questioned on his role in Operation Cast Lead, an Israeli military offensive in January 2009 which resulted in over 1,400 Palestinian and 13 Israeli deaths. He said: “1,400 Hamas fighters were killed and unfortunately some others might have been killed too, with civilian populations being used as a human shield.”

Ehud Olmert was the Prime Minister of Israel from 2006 to 2009. Serving as a Prime Minister, he was engaged in the 2006 Lebanon War and a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip, in response to Hamas terrorist attacks. Olmert served 16 months of a 27-month sentence for a string of  corruption cases, including accepting bribes from real estate developers as the mayor of Jerusalem and bribery and obstruction of justice as a trade minister.

While Olmert defended Israel at the start of the war, 19 months since its start he has been critical of Israel’s action in Gaza, calling its government a “criminal gang” and its blockade of Gaza a “war crime”. Olmert had already visited Oxford in Hilary Term 2024, giving an address to Oxford Speaks and the Oxford Diplomatic Society.

An Oxford Union spokesperson told Cherwell: “Disagreement is intrinsic to the Oxford Union’s commitment to upholding free speech. As such, we remain committed to hosting speakers whose views may be subject to disagreement, not to endorse those views but to challenge them in an open forum. Platforming a speaker does not equate to supporting their positions – it allows those positions to be questioned and held to account by instrumentalising our tradition to debate and disagree.”

As part of their commitment to free speech, the spokesperson emphasised to Cherwell that the Union also hosted the former Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh earler this week.

1...567...2,547Page 6 of 2,547

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by Jamie Ashley