Saturday, April 19, 2025
Blog Page 603

Review: Betrayal – ‘all the poise, restraint and subtlety that Pinter’s masterpiece requires’

Alison Porter
-
0
Review: Betrayal – ‘all the poise, restraint and subtlety that Pinter’s masterpiece requires’

Harold Pinter’s 1978 masterpiece Betrayal may be set in a privileged world, but Lloyd’s production (now running at the Harold Pinter Theatre) expertly conveys how betrayal can overwhelm us all.

Pinter’s masterpiece follows the lives of married couple Robert and Emma (Tom Hiddleston and Zawe Ashton), and Jerry (Charlie Cox) – Robert’s best friend, and the man with whom Emma is having an affair.

Famously unfolding in reverse order, the play’s first scene features Emma and Jerry meeting for the first time since their affair ended two years ago, before Pinter takes us incrementally backwards in time, through various lunches and secret late-night meetings, to its very inception nine years earlier.

Despite the play’s setting of affluence (Robert and Jerry are publishers, while Emma runs an art gallery) Lloyd’s stripped back and starkly minimalist production emphasises the universality of these human experiences.

The set, consisting of a mostly blank white wall and a few chairs, acts as a canvas upon which we the audience can project ourselves, the only real remarkable elements being the revolving segments of the stage floor.

Their subtle rotation helps to illustrate both the passing of time (one of Lloyd’s ingenious ways of handling the play’s tricky chronology) and the characters’ emotional stasis or development. This is heightened through Lloyd’s choice to keep all three characters on stage throughout the majority of the play, even though Pinter’s scenes are mostly between two characters at a time.

The third ‘other’ is perpetually there, and they almost insist upon this presence, sometimes stood completely still at the back of the stage, or gradually moving as they almost eerily watch on. And when the name of the ‘other’ is mentioned, a subtle glance from the third party, or a movement of their head, reminds us that the betrayed individual is always very much there.

Ashton’s Emma in particular makes for a compelling ‘other’ in the scenes where she is typically absent. She creeps barefoot at the back of the stage, idly tracing patterns on the white backdrop while in the scene Robert and Jerry share one of their rapid, machismo-fuelled exchanges.

Much criticism towards Pinter takes aim at his depiction of women; however, Ashton refuses to let Emma be submerged in this masculine world. When she asks if she can take both men to lunch, it’s a surprisingly measured and assertive request, and in the final (but chronologically first) scene, her sense of choice and freedom is prominent.

But perhaps no one encapsulates their character’s emotional fluctuations more than Hiddleston, whether savagely attacking his dish of prosciutto e melone during dinner with Jerry, or quietly crying as his darkest suspicions are confirmed, or trying to assert dominance during quick-fire dialogue concerning a game of squash.

This is a role which Hiddleston has supposedly wanted to play since drama school, and you most definitely believe him when you see his eyes start to glisten with tears, visible even near the back of the stalls.

Though Hiddleston does have superb chemistry with Ashton, it is the tension between Robert and Cox’s Jerry which really bites and cuts. In one moment of beautiful timing and with masterful use of the rotating stage, they are positioned in such a way for their paths to intersect and for a burning stare to be shared with each other while Robert, the scene’s ‘absentee’, circles slowly around Jerry who embraces Emma.

It’s these seemingly simple (yet hugely telling) exchanges which make the multiple betrayals feel so raw and cutting. The production abounds in pauses and almost unbearable silences laden with the weight of the unspoken: Lloyd is highly conscious of the significance of what remains unsaid, and all three actors demonstrate remarkable restraint in allowing these silences to run their course.

Much like the third character’s presence on stage even in the scenes where they are absent, the lack of dialogue creates an undeniable sense of presence, pushing the unspoken to the forefront and leaving us to fill in the blanks.

These crushing absences, along with the actors’ spectacular chemistry and Lloyd’s brilliant attention to detail, make Betrayal a triumphant culmination of the ‘Pinter at the Pinter’ venture. This beautifully understated production allows us to see ourselves in every glance, every tear, ending the season not so much with a ‘bang’, but with all the poise, restraint and subtlety that Pinter’s masterpiece requires.

FIFA politics strike again with latest proposal

Guillaume Paugam
-
0
FIFA politics strike again with latest proposal

The FIFA Council, which met in Miami earlier this month, discussed the possibility of increasing the number of countries taking part in the 2022 football World Cup from 32 to 48.

Gianni Infantino, the president of the football governing body, said that such a change, originally planned for 2026, was possible.

This is consistent with the trend set by UEFA, Infantino’s former organisation: the European Football legislating authority increased the number of sides allowed in the Euros’ group stages from 16 to 24.

I believe that the aim to make football more universal is laudable, but the way FIFA does it is wrong and primarily results from its own financial and political considerations.  

To understand the topic better, a bit of history is needed. The first World Cup took place in Uruguay in 1930: although 16 teams were expected, only 13 of the invited sides could make it to Montevideo.

As early as 1934, invitations were abandoned, and qualifying rounds were implemented. 16 remained the number of participating nations until the 1982 Spanish Mundial, where it was raised for the first time to 24. Less than two decades later, it was increased yet again to its current level of 32.

This increase in competing sides parallels a trend of universalisation in World Cup Access: while the first tournaments saw almost no nations outside Europe, and, to a lesser extent, Latin America, involved, raising the numbers has allowed the world’s most popular sporting event to open up.

The rise from 16 to 24 sides, in 1982 coincided, for the first time, with the participation from two, rather than one, African Confederation sides and Asia/Oceania sides, following the wish of the then-FIFA boss João Havelange to diversify the tournament. For Cameroon, Algeria, Kuwait and New Zealand it was their first involvement at this stage of World Football.

The move to 32 teams further raised the number of teams from outside Europe which, however, remains the main provider with 13 teams. The planned reform, with 48 countries, follows the same logic. Africa, Asia, Oceania, and North and Central America, all see their representation almost double, while Europe and Latin America’s spots also increase – but much less in proportion.  

This looks great on paper but carefully thinking about it reveals a number of issues. The first one is an obvious quality and quantity trade-off, already apparent at the 2016 Euros. It is clear that opening the door to so many teams from all continents, that would not normally be let in, will undermine the overall quality of the competition.

Whether this is problematic or not depends on personal values, and it is not up to me to decide. With the last Euros taking place in my home country, I was well-placed to witness the incredible and unique enthusiasm brought by fans of countries that did not make the cut in the old formula.

However, one also has to admit that the standard of the competition was much poorer than before the reform, with some games exhibiting appallingly low quality at this level. The Wales-Northern Ireland game, a Championship-level fixture if you are feeling generous (which is not even surprising if you look at the squads), springs to mind.

One could argue that this is not the first expansion, and that previous reforms did not harm the World Cup, but the 80’s and 90’s expansion matched a real boom in football universalisation that made such reforms necessary, something which is less evident today.

Moreover, the planned increase is a lot more worrying than previous changes due to its impact on the tournament’s organisation. Indeed, 48 teams is an awkward number that requires an overhaul of the group stages: from groups of four with the top two qualified, the World Cup is moving to groups of three. Yet, the number of teams going through remains the same, meaning that the degree of competitiveness of group games decreases sharply. As such, unlike previous changes to the number of teams, this specific reform undermines the very competitive nature of the World Cup. The question “where does it stop?” comes to mind.

At this stage, you might think that this may be true, but that I am definitely watching football through the lens of a privileged fan, one whose favourite team seldom misses big football tournaments and sometimes wins them (thank you Griezmann).

Why would my pleasure matter, you might ask, if more teams, hence more countries and people, can take part in the giant party atmosphere created by a World Cup? And you would be right. The point here is not to defend the privilege of established teams to partake, but to denounce a reform that in fact will do little to really benefit newer footballing nations.

Very likely, smaller teams will not make it through group stages. 16 teams will come for two games only. Besides the absurdity in terms of organisation (a World Cup requires a huge amount of preparation for a team, even more demanding for smaller teams with fewer resources, that is certainly not vindicated by the perspective of playing two averagely competitive games, seen as training rather than actual competition by the biggest team in the group), it is just illusory to think this will contribute to a country’s footballing development. FIFA might grant more countries an access to the table, but certainly not the right to eat.

What makes a nation improve at football are long-term policies and investments in people and infrastructure. This is precisely what enabled Iceland, a place about as populated as Croydon, to become a footballing nation to be reckoned with (no need to remind English fans). Not being granted an easy right to participate (and most probably lose after two games). Sadly, it seems like FIFA prefers to renovate the facade rather the inside.

Another problem emerges. By making the World Cup seemingly more universal in terms of country access, FIFA reduces the capacity of smaller, or less developed, countries to ever host the world’s most popular sporting event. 32 was already a lot for a country to host. 48 amplifies the problem. It is no coincidence that the 2026 World Cup was attributed to the gigantic geographic trio of the USA, Canada and Mexico, rather than Morocco, unsuccessful for the fifth time at this stage: the infrastructure required to accommodate nearly 50 squads, all the fans and the media will become out of reach for most.

As usual, FIFA’s decision to increase the number of countries in fact only follows the logic of money and politics. Bigger World Cups mean more TV rights and marketing fees. The French Press Agency (AFP) revealed in 2017 that FIFA already expected the increase from 32 to 48 teams to yield an extra 605 million euros for its budget. Electorally, FIFA presidents are elected by all 209 affiliated Football Associations, with each country having one vote, regardless of its size. No wonder why Infantino, who is running again this year, is so keen to please as many smaller FAs as possible with his reform project.

What alternatives are there, then? First of all, FIFA, being the wealthy organisation we know (five billion in expected income over the 2015-2018 period), has the financial power to fund extensive football development programmes everywhere in the World, especially in less-advanced footballing nations. As mentioned above, long-term policies work: countries need to build infrastructure and develop competence. Not all countries are as rich as Iceland, but this is precisely where FIFA should step in. There are so many countries that have the passion, pool of players, and talent to play football, but, due to a lack of resources, are unable to develop the infrastructure to succeed at top international level. Rather than giving these national team players an increased “chance” to maybe play two group games before, most likely, going home, FIFA should invest its money into making smaller footballing nations the heavyweights of tomorrow.

Of course, this is long-term. Meanwhile, FIFA could reform the allocation of spots given to each continent within a 32-team World Cup. Europe, representing 40% of teams in the group stage of the last tournament, and Latin America, with 50% of its affiliated national sides qualifying, dominate hugely. This obviously derives from these continents’ dominance over world football: they have provided all the World Cup winners. Countries from other continents making it to the last four, like South Korea in 2002, constitute rare exceptions rather than regular occurrences. As such, an overhaul of representation quotas would bring the risk of missing potential winners of the tournament, which is probably not desirable. Nevertheless, while massive expansions such as the one from 32 to 48 teams risk letting very average teams in, current repartition rules across continents have the opposite flaw, leaving some very decent non-European/Latin American sides at home, due to the very restrictive number of teams from similar areas being allowed entry. 

As such, without arguing for a perfectly representative allocation of spots, I believe there is room for reform. A team like Ivory Coast, made up of players found in all the top leagues, missed out narrowly due to the restrictions imposed upon the number of teams Africa can send to the World Cup, while sides like Iceland, Serbia or Poland came bottom or second bottom in their groups. It is possible to marginally reform the system to make it fairer, while waiting for longer-term investments to work and balance the repartition of footballing power across the globe, with the ultimate aim being to not have any trade-off between fair continent representation and quality of the football, hence making it possible to more drastically reform the continent quotas. But FIFA’s current desire to increase the number of teams from 32 to 48, fuelled by economic considerations and petty politics, represents the worst of both worlds: lowering the level without giving smaller footballing nations an actual chance to really be important actors in international football.

It’s time to accept Brexit has failed

Libby Cherry
-
0
It’s time to accept Brexit has failed

Noisy criticism has erupted over the petition to revoke Article 50, decrying it as yet another ugly, anti-democratic manifestation of the zombie Remain campaign, that continues to haunt this nation in the guise of forty-year-old centrist dads and Alexa Chung, spread by the ineradicable disease that is the #FBPE Twitter hashtag.

MPs who dare to speak out in support of such a proposal, including the Conservative, SNP, Lib Dem, Plaid Cymru and Independent Group members who signed Joanna Cherry’s resolution to revoke Article 50 (which was put to the Commons yesterday), have been lambasted as traitors throughout the Brexit process. Signatories have been demonised as fanatics, willing to overrule the current of public opinion in their attempt to turn the UK into the vassal state of the EU without mandate.

Yet our current default position – no-deal – would achieve exactly this, placing us instantly into the position of a petitioning poor relative, accepting whatever crust of a trade deal that the US or the EU deign to offer us while lacking any support from the British people or their representatives. Rather than having revoking Article 50 as the default situation in the event that Parliament failed to negotiate a deal that appealed to all members of parliament, we have instead adopted a self-destructive alternative that seems less to do with putting pressure on the EU to offer us a good deal then blackmailing MPs into accepting a highly inferior political and economic relationship.  

Revoking Article 50 was one of the proposals debated in yesterday’s series of indicative votes, along with EEA/EFTA style arrangement and no-deal. It was practically inevitable that both no-deal and Revoke, as the two poles in this debate, would be nixed. Given that each of the other possibilities for our future relationship with the EU – EEA membership, a customs union, Canada-plus, May’s deal itself – have each ridiculed as ‘unicorns’ by some portion of the House, it is unsurprising that none garnered majority support, resulting in the day ending inconclusively.

Putting aside the fact that the government can completely ignore yesterday’s outcomes, Parliament itself has been stymied. Whatever anyone says, there is still a dangerous risk of crashing out on 12th April despite the Commons having twice rejected it. No-deal has no more mandate than revoking (at the time of writing, a petition for leaving with no-deal attracted just under 590,000 signatures, in comparison to Revoke’s 5,935,000 signatures) and will have real detrimental consequences for the entire population of this country that seems the height of naivety to ignore. 

Like any term remotely related to Brexit, revoking Article 50 means different things to different people. Many of those calling for Article 50 to be revoked are also supporters of a People’s Vote, but conflating the two is a confusion of Brexit outcome and the process by which such an outcome is reached – hence the two were tabled separately yesterday. Personally, I think that any deal that we decide on should be ratified by the British people – whether Revoke/Remain is on the ballot paper or not.

Equally, revoking Article 50 need not require a second referendum: instead, it should be, instead of no-deal, implemented as our default option. Furthermore, while some would like to use revoking Article 50 to give us more time to negotiate a ‘compromise’ with the EU, there is an argument to be made for simply revoking and remaining a member. As pundits keep telling us, we want the government to ‘get on with it’. We have had two years to negotiate Brexit, and we have failed. If we revoke Article 50, it should be a decision to permanently remain. 

This may sound controversial, undemocratic, taboo. This reaction has been created by the narrative that has been sown over the past two years, beginning with Cameron’s initial, perhaps throwaway, mention of the ‘will of the people’ that has served over the last two years to morph our popular conception of democratic principle to mean a fatalistic, blinkered, obstinate adherence to a notion of ‘Leave’ that itself changes meaning from week to week. Even if today’s statistics had not suggested that 55% of peoplewould now vote Remain in a second referendum, in any other situation of proposed change – for instance, in business – if such a change was unachievable, the natural position would always be the status quo. 

Revoking Article 50 after two years of negotiations may sound defeatist. But given that even the series of ‘indicative votes’ yesterday have been branded a “constitutional revolution”, taking back control from the ERG ‘Grand Wizards’, who have been the architects behind the no-deal default, would be an act of strength. Neither, in the event of revoking, would the last two years have been for nothing. Both Leave and Remain voters were chronically ill-informed about the EU and the UK’s current relationship at the time of the initial referendum, that amounted on both sides to a lack of interest in European policy that had always rendered the Union’s actions tainted with accusations of unrepresentativeness.

In our new state of enthusiasm, as the one million marchers proved on Saturday, we are perfectly poised to go back into the European Union with new zeal and urge for greater collaboration. Today’s greatest problems – climate change, migration, populism – transcend national borders, and remaining in the most powerful collaborative bloc on the planet would surely only be a progressive step. 

Let’s get on with it

Will Robinson
-
0
Let’s get on with it

Writing for an audience consisting of the student body of the 4th most Remain city in the country, writing an ostensibly pro-Brexit piece on why the ‘Revoke Article 50’ petition is a waste of time, is not the easiest task. Therefore, I’ll try to avoid making the arguments that the petition-signatories amongst you will be expecting me to make: 

I could frame my argument around the fact that thousands of signatures have come from all over the globe – from the USA, to France, to Russia (no doubt interfering in our democracy again), to Kosovo, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, even to the largely internet-less North Korea – and that, therefore, this petition is broken and should have no bearing over our politics: this is why we register to vote and then do so at a local polling station. 

But I won’t. 

I could frame my argument around the fact that the petition, as little more than an online survey, is intrinsically broken: it is vulnerable to duplicated signatures through multiple email addresses, or to bots (as has happened in extremis with previous pro-Remain petitions of the same ilk)[1]as the site has no ‘captcha’ verification; nor does it for age. Petitions are not good at reflecting the wider electorate – this is why we have proper polling methodologies, with control and sample groups and statistical analysis at one end of the scale, and actual voting at the other.

But I won’t.

I could frame my argument around the fact that the petition was started by an extreme supranationalist Europhile (alleged to have described how she would murder the Prime Minister, and to have discussed how to purchase legal guns and their modification to cause maximum damage to take to the Commons…),[2]and that this is just another example of Remoaners not accepting democracy and blah blah blah… 

But I won’t. 

I won’t frame my arguments around these points not because they are not legitimate, and not because they are necessarily bad (although they’re not great – looking at you number three) but because even if all were true in the fullest extent, it would be churlish to deny that this petition is remarkable: it is remarkable that the website has repeatedly crashed under the weight of traffic it has received;[3]that approximately a tenth of the eligible electorate of the country has signed it (if we are to take the 6 million figure entirely at face value); that it is the most popular in the history of the Commons Petitions Committee.[4]There is a large socio-political force that sits behind this 6,000,000 figure. That is undeniable, regardless of how questionable the nature of the petition and its signatures may be.

So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that all (or very nearly all) of the 6 million signatures thus far are those of adult citizens of the United Kingdom, fully eligible to vote in a hypothetical referendum or General Election should there be one tomorrow (please no), and that none of these people have signed more than once. 

Either the petition to revoke Article 50 is a total waste of time, or it is something far more sinister. It is a waste of time if its sole purpose is to convey to Parliament the sentiment of its electorate. The basic point here is that there is a colossal cognitive dissonance in assigning so much credence to an online survey, and simultaneously so little to the result of an historically large national referendum that dwarfs the petition in any game of numbers. 

Furthermore, the supposedly vast momentum behind the petition is illusory. The polling data of the last couple of weeks – which does represent the British electorate in its geographical, political, social and economic diversity – tells an entirely different story to the one told by the petition. Petitions, by their nature, can only be echo chambers – agreement is all that can be measured. There is no ‘I disagree’ box you can sign instead. So for this petition, volume alone is not enough, particularly given that its signatories are almost demographically identical to the Remain vote of 2016.[5]The petition tells us nothing new: plenty of people, at least 16,141,241 at recorded peak, wanted to be in the EU – these signatories are the (minority) hardcore of that vote.

Indeed, an Opinium poll of 21/03/19 found that public opinion is shifting quickly towards a ‘No Deal’ outcome as opposed to any extension of Article 50, by 46% to 39%.[6]ComRes, also on 21/03/19, found that leaving the EU in any shape or form has a 15 point lead over remaining, 50%-35%.[7]Polling is no perfect science, but as measures of reflecting shifts in the mind of the nation’s electorate go, polls are competing in the 100m finals at the Olympics, and petitions can’t work out which shoe goes on which foot. Extraordinary as 6 million signatures is, it means nothing for majority public support for revocation – the polls say the opposite.

If we ask ourselves what this petition wants, surely, as members of a liberal democracy, we must conclude that this is the extent of it. A methodologically-corrupt poll. A waste of time. 

What else could it be? 

The petition demands that Article 50 is unilaterally revoked, and that the UK remains a member of the EU. Thus, to sign it is to explicitly call for the vote, cast by the British people (a lot more than 6 million of them) to be cancelled. There is no getting around this simple fact. 

The petition is not a plea by the pro-Remain lobby for Parliament to vote on revocation, nor that we give it another go: to rehash the arguments about whether or not we should be a member of the EU, and then let the people of this country make their final decision on the matter (no, for real this time, no take-backsies, we promise!). It simply demands that we remain in the EU. End of story. Pitiful and perilous as it was, the argument for a second referendum could be justified. This demand cannot. Every signatory of this petition rides roughshod over the vote of every single citizen of this country that did their civic duty in June three years ago. 

To simply remain in the EU would be to deliberately and totally ignore the result of the largest democratic exercise in our history, nowhere near the turnout at any past (or almost certainly future) General Election. This alone would be wrong, but there is more. 

The result of the referendum of the 23rdof June, 2016, was a vast anti-establishment movement: it was made by the voice of the disenfranchised people of this country, in deindustrialised, coastal or rural areas, hit harder by austerity and EU regulation of fisheries and agriculture than anyone in the home counties can imagine. Leave-voting territory is lightyears away from the economic, social, political and media bubble of the South East, and it rejected that status quo. To fail to heed this vote, made for the ‘right’ reasons or not, is to betray the backbone of the nation. 

And yet this seems neither here nor there to the middle-class intelligentsia of the South East (disclaimer: this may make me a class traitor), because it did not go their way. In any other scenario, Oxford students would be falling over themselves to defend the voice of leave voters, as those hurt by the country’s imbalance of social, political and economic power and in media influence. Shame they voted the wrong way.

To those of you that think the best way to remedy this battle cry, this Eurosceptic aberration, this silly mistake, or however you see it, is to simply ignore it – best of luck to you. Sign away.

Given that the density of the petition’s signatories perfectly geographically match that of the 2016 vote to remain,[8]it rejects that vote and nothing more. ‘Remain supporters support Remain!’ – what a headline. These are not Leavers ‘seeing the light.’ This is not the North East coming round to Guy Verhofstadt, the ECJ and Chuka Umunna’s brand of “cheese and biscuits”[9]neoliberalism. Revocation would solve nothing of this mess in the long or short term, and it would lead to the root cause (of which Brexit is but a symptom) becoming immeasurably worse for the pro-Remain political classes’ agenda than it already is; if they think otherwise I’d like to know what they’re smoking [insert Lib Dems joke here]. 

Either this petition is a waste of time – a failed poll – or it is a cold, conscious choice to tell a great number of people of this country that their vote does not matter, and that by extension, neither do they. It doesn’t matter if this is the intention, this will be the consequence. Surely it must remain the former, and not become the latter.

P.S. At least 11,400,000 more signatures, all of them verified, and then maybewe could take this petition seriously. Just kidding! Sitting on the sofa and following a link you see on Facebook to click a button is not equivalent, in any sense, to getting off your arse and going to vote, nor is a single polling day to an online petition open indefinitely 24/7. Frankly, if Article 50 was to be revoked, I’d almost be more annoyed by the fact that this petition got its way, than by the democratic vacuum it would create.

Everyone has had enough of this farce. Let’s just get out, deal or no deal, and get on with the rest of our lives. Revoking Article 50 means years more Brexit chat – I for one cannot be bothered.

[1]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36640459?SThisFB&fbclid=IwAR3i-h78JqDArEKbYN30dbLD_nfSFrgzCArt_T8ipoCMEYiBUGuSArn_X-Q

[2]https://order-order.com/2019/03/22/revoke-article-50-petition-creator-threatened-may-discussed-buy-legal-guns-take-commons/

[3]https://twitter.com/HoCpetitions/status/1108711030736199686

[4]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/24/brexit-petition-to-revoke-article-50-reaches-5m-signatures

[5]https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1109511517551112198

[6]https://www.opinium.co.uk/brexit-blame-game/

[7]https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Daily-Express_Brexit-and-VI_March-2019_updated.pdf

[8]https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1109511517551112198

[9]https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1108460589398016000

Student “asked to leave” after bringing her toddler to Oxford talk on “Women and leadership”

Amelia Horn
-
0
Student “asked to leave” after bringing her toddler to Oxford talk on “Women and leadership”

The talk took place on Tuesday 26 March at the Sheldonian theatre. The speaker, Julia Gillard, was the first woman to take up the position of Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister in Australia. She served as Deputy from 2007 until 2010 and then as Prime Minister from 2010 to 2013.

Nuffield Department of Population Health, which is part of the University, organised the event. The full title of the event was: “Women and leadership – fighting for an equal world.” Julia Gillard’s commitments include serving as a patron of CAMFED, the Campaign for Female Education.

In a post on Facebook, Ania Kordala stated how she had allegedly emailed ahead to ask the organisers if she could bring her toddler, “putting the request” in the ‘Special Requirements’ box available to those signing up. The event’s host, Professor Valerie Beral, directed through her Personal Assistant Sarah Atkinson, responded: “Unfortunately, babies and toddlers can not attend.”

Allegedly, Ms Kordala decided bring her child along anyway “to see what they say at the door.” In a second Facebook post written shortly after the event, she said: “I was lucky to meet my college principal and ask her to back me up, which she did do so they let me in.

“They pick a seat for us, the talk is about to start, and I’m so excited and relieved.”

Ms Kordala reported that after her toddler “babbled”, “a lady from technical crew” approached her and told her she “needed to leave.” According to the student, she left the room to talk to the woman, who then “would not let her back in”, and she was told “her friend could get her stuff [which was left in the room where the talk was taking place].”

Reportedly, the “technical lady’s” reasoning was that Ms Kordala and her child were sat “right next to the video camera man.” However, she allegedly offered to “go to the other side of the room so the camera doesn’t pick up [the toddler’s] babbling” and was told: “No, you need to leave the premises.”

Head of the Nuffield Department of Population Health Rory Collins told Cherwell: “A student brought her young child to the lecture held yesterday in the Sheldonian Theatre, and I personally ensured that she was allowed to bring the child into the building. It is definitely not appropriate that she was later asked to leave with her child.

“We encourage students and others with families to participate fully in events run by the Department.

“In future, we will make sure that all staff working at our events are aware that families are welcome.”

Principal at Green Templeton College, Professor Denise Lievesley, told Cherwell:

“On arriving as a guest at the Sheldonian theatre to hear Julia Gillard I met one of the Green Templeton students, Ania Kordala, with her toddler. 

She reported that she had been refused entry.  I explained to Ania that I had no official role but that I would see what I could do. 

I spoke to Professor Rory Collins of the Nuffield Department of Population Health, asking if Ania and her child could be admitted.  He agreed wholeheartedly, and he and I went outside together to ensure that she was able to enter. 

As far as I was aware this was satisfactory, so  I am very sad to learn that Ania was subsequently asked to leave.  I was unaware of this. 

Green Templeton College prides itself on supporting students with families, and it is especially inappropriate that this happened at a wonderful talk by Julia Gillard about significant gender inequalities which still exist in our societies.” 

Ania Kordala said: “As we are walking out of the building I hear the room filling with applause as Julia Gillard enters the stage and starts talking. About women in leadership. About equal rights and opportunities.

“Later on, the University of Oxford and Nuffield Department of Population Health will congratulate themselves on organising such an event and being at the forefront of a fight for equality.

“The talk will be watched many times and probably also receive media coverage. But this is just one side of the story.

“The other side of the story is a student parent who wanted to be a part of the talk. Who literally fought her way into the building despite being told ‘no.’ Who made it inside and got kicked out almost immediately after. Who is outside the building while everyone else is inside.”

Speaking exclusively to Cherwell Kordala added that “The fact that I was asked to leave is one thing. How it was dealt with is another.

“It was not only rude, the message was – We’re ruining the event, our presence is a problem, and the sooner we disappear the better.

“Even when I was already in the corridor and nobody could hear my daughter, there were 3 or 4 people impatiently waiting until I gather my stuff and pointing me to the door. I had to remind them I had a buggy, go get it, (carry up the stairs with a toddler in one hand and buggy in the other) and then ask to leave via an accessible entrance and not the staircase.

“I was so mad I was hardly talking, I was just pointing to the where the buggy was and where the accessible entrance was.

“I have been lucky to have a supportive PI, an amazing co supervisor, and a great family friendly group. I have attended lectures with my daughter before (one on Athena Swan in DPAG, but not only) and even a Christmas carols service in Keble College chapel. There had never been an issue until yesterday. She normally either sleeps through the event or plays with books. If she starts disrupting the event or cries, I leave.

“If you’re organizing an event after 5pm, especially if the event is about equality, women in the workplace, try and organize it in a child friendly place, or offer a crèche service for the event. We don’t stop being interested in the world just because we are parents.”

The University, and event host Professor Valerie Beral have been contacted for comment.

Review: The Duchess of Malfi – a brave and ambitious move

Imogen Harter-Jones
-
0
Review: The Duchess of Malfi – a brave and ambitious move

Notorious for being bloody and demanding, John Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi (1612) is not an obvious choice for an amateur group to perform. However, York Settlement Community Players (of which Judi Dench was a member in the 1950s) proved largely up to the task. With a pared down plot and modern dress, Sam Taylor (RSC and National Theatre actor) directs an accessible, fast-paced and engaging rendition of the ultimate Renaissance revenge tragedy in the intimate studio space of York Theatre Royal.

At the heart of this play are the themes of class and men’s control over women – their lives, finances, sexuality, relationships. While Antonio, confidently played by David Phillipps, is cast as a romantic class warrior, his received pronunciation and smart attire – equal to that of the rich brothers, the Cardinal and Duke – obscured the class distinctions underlying their animosity towards him. That said, however, their interdict against marriage is absolute, irrespective of social status. The Renaissance imagination presented the Duchess, played in an understated manner by Amanda Dales, as a ‘lusty widow.’ Her secret remarriage to her lower-class steward Antonio, against her brothers’ will and below her rank, made her culpable of excessive sexual desire and deserving of death.

The relationship between the titular Duchess and Antonio was convincing. However, the sexual politics were somewhat lost with the ‘forbidden lovers’ element being overemphasised to a Romeo and Juliet level.  While this interpretation liberated the Duchess from the sexist ‘lusty widow’ label, at times she seemed too passive – a far cry from the radical warrior of patriarchal sexual liberation and self-determination, who was so intimidating to her over-controlling brothers that they killed her. Dales’ scenes of imprisonment, torture (both physical and psychological) and death by strangulation on stage are her most stoically impressive, with the famous line, “I am Duchess of Malfi still,” asserting her right to exist independently in a quiet, self-possessed manner. Music was masterfully employed in the aftermath of the Duchess’ murder by strangulation on the orders of her psychotic twin brother (Ferdinand, the Duke), as he slow dances with her corpse to The Beach Boys’ ‘Don’t Worry Baby’. The carefree, psychedelic, daydreamlike quality of The Beach Boys’ music was sharply juxtaposed with the nightmarish tragedy of the scene presented on stage. The dissonance was positively chilling: the most haunting, powerful moment of the play.

Ferdinand’s incestuous desire for his twin sister the eponymous, but individually anonymous, Duchess was strongly realised. Uncomfortably close touching, inappropriately sexualised dancing and lecherous looks hinted at Ferdinand’s dark sexual feelings. In his scenes of madness and grief after his orders to kill his sister are acted upon, Harry Revell came into his own as Ferdinand. He dominated the emotional heart of the play, although his character was in the running for the hotly contested title of the most morally reprehensible. He commanded the attention of the audience whenever he was on stage. Revell’s demeanour revealed the true psychopathic nature of the brothers and their obsessive desire to control their sister’s sexual autonomy. However, while the portrayal of Ferdinand as a warped incestuous monster explained his actions, those of the Cardinal were less clear. Furthermore, the Duchess was portrayed almost too innocently and Ferdinand’s madness excessively accentuated. This lost some of the layers of interpretation, particularly men’s domination of women to preserve their own power for power’s sake.

Despite the play’s clear place within the canon of Renaissance tragedy, there were lighter, comic moments in The Duchess of Malfi, most notably in the form of Bosola, the servant spy placed by the brothers in the Duchess’ court. Maurice Crichton’s frank Yorkshire delivery and ease of command of the language accentuated the sexual innuendo. Whilst Bosola is frequently compared by literary critics to Iago, YSCP’s interpretation allowed for a more human, emotionally fraught and complicated antagonist to emerge.  

Sadly, the final scene was distinctly underwhelming. In a culmination of betrayal and violence, everyone dies, whether by kissing a poisoned bible or by being stabbed. Webster has set the scene for an orgy of bloodletting akin to Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs, but the lack of any blood or visual effects to suggest the horror was anticlimactic: there’s only so much that writhing bodies alone can convey. Whilst a tight budget may have restricted this scene, creative alternatives could have been employed to give more weight to this horror of mass murder.

As an amateur dramatic performance, this was impressive. As with much regional theatre, the main shortcomings could have been overcome with a bigger budget. Nevertheless, this production proves that regional amateur dramatics can still be ambitious, confident and relevant. Whilst the manifestations were extreme, the underlying motivation – men’s control over women’s lives – makes the play pertinent for our times.  

Oxford donor suspends giving amid opioid legal scandal

Sam Millward
-
0
Oxford donor suspends giving amid opioid legal scandal

The Sackler Trust, a donor to the University of Oxford since 1991, has put all further philanthropic donations on hold due to its implication in the US opioid crisis.

Dame Theresa Sackler, Chair of the trust released a statement, saying that “The Trustees of the Sackler Trust have taken the difficult decision to temporarily pause all new philanthropic giving, while still honouring existing commitments.”

This comes after the National Portrait Gallery and the Tate Group both announced that they would no longer accept gifts or donations from members of the family.

The Bodleian Sackler Library, as well as the Sackler Keeper of Antiquities at the Ashmolean, are funded by the $11 million the University has received from the family.

In addition, a University lecturer and teaching fellowship in the Earth Sciences are supported by the family’s donations.

The same statement reaffirms the Trust’s support for the Sackler family, eight of whom are named in a lawsuit by the Massachusetts’s Attorney General. Purdue Pharma, and 17 associated individuals are accused of using deceptive practices to push addictive drugs, that led to fatal overdoses and the evolution of the opioid crisis.

The Connecticut and Ohio Attorneys General also have cases against Purdue and the Sacklers, along with hundreds of others brought in U.S. courts.

Oxford University stated, in April last year, that it would not reconsider donations from the Sackler family, despite their involvement in the production of the addictive opioid.

A court ruling states: “They [the 8 Sackler family members] directed deceptive sales and marketing practices deep within Purdue, sending hundreds of orders to executives and line employees.

“From the money that Purdue collected selling opioids, they paid themselves and their family billions of dollars.”

More than £60 million has been donate to UK organisations since 2010. Since that same year, the Centre for Disease Control estimates that 243,678 have occurred as a result of opioid overdoses.

Huawei boss alleges Oxford faced “interference” in decision to cut ties

Ben van der Merwe
-
0
Huawei boss alleges Oxford faced “interference” in decision to cut ties

The decision by Oxford to suspend financial ties with Huawei in January was the result of “interference”, company director William Xu has alleged.

Oxford announced a suspension of new partnerships with the Chinese technology giant in January after the Trump administration accused the company of acting as a vehicle for Chinese state espionage and violating US sanctions on Iran.

The decision to suspend donations was taken on the 8th of January, the same day that Chancellor Chris Patten asked the government for advice on University policy towards the firm while giving oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

A spokesperson for Oxford University confirmed that the decision to suspend donations was taken on the same day that Patten made the request to the committee, but denied that the former event was influenced by the latter.

Giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in January, Oxford Lord Patten said the University was “really live” to the concerns expressed by US government.

A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell at the time that Lord Patten’s comments were “applied to the higher education sector in general and he does not have specific concerns relating to Oxford.”

Responding to concerns expressed by a Conservative MP that China was seeking to exert influence in British universities, Lord Patten distinguished between the “legitimate” influence operations of organisations like the British Council and those of organisations like MI6.

Lord Patten called for greater guidance by the UK government on collaboration with foreign entities such as Huawei: “I also think that, without in any way suggesting that universities should get agreement from Government about what research to do or what research collaboration to allow, it would be very helpful if there was more agreement within Government about what is acceptable, and if there were a point of contact in Government to which all universities can turn.

“I read the papers and I read about views on Huawei. I am no expert on 5G or these issues, but if the Government have anxieties about a company, it should be possible for a university, if it is being offered research collaboration with that company, to ask somewhere in Government what is happening.”

Speaking to the Hong Kong-based Apple Daily, Huawei chairman William Xu said that the suspension has had little effect, and suggested that the University will seek to resume ties soon: “Although [the universities] think co-operation is win-win with Huawei, they are temporarily suspending co-operation”.

Xu revealed that the company’s invests $300 million annually in foreign universities. “Our collaborations with universities, especially in basic research, not only will not stop, but will increase,” he predicted.

Seeking to allay concerns that Huawei exerts malign influence in universities, Xu told Apple Daily that more than 80% of Huawei’s investment in US universities are donations with no strings attached.

The company director said: “Huawei does not need results and ownership. Huawei does not require students to enter Huawei after graduation. We are completely open-minded.”

Oxford University and Lord Patten have been contacted for comment.

From Paris with Love

Clare Tierney
-
0
From Paris with Love

“I want to take you out to dinner and talk about your year abroad.”

We went to Noodle Nation on Gloucester Green, Trinity 2018. James and I had only known each other three weeks, and quite honestly the idea that we might try and continue what we had barely begun confused me. No one wants long-distance and if they do, it’s often because they will have their mind distracted by the novelty of travelling to a new place. I was the one exploring Europe, not him, and yet he seemed keen to contemplate the possibility. I wanted us to each be safe – not sorry – and I had heard the sorrowful tales of those who had tried without succeeding. Neither of us deserved that. Least of all him, this kind, caring, breath of fresh air of a man soon to be tackling English finals. We parted ways, respectively not letting on how deflated we were left feeling in the other’s absence.

Summer in Paris and I was subconsciously compensating for my loss of an ideal companion. With Tinder. It taught me a lot and, pardon the innuendo, filled a gaping hole left by the aforementioned ideal companion. That I don’t want someone in their 30s, that I want someone who respects me, that I need someone who isn’t just looking for a novel ginger and English native to tote around the city. Having said that, the French-speaking opportunities that the app presented to me were unmissable. I embraced them between sobbing sessions at my intern’s desk. 

Oxford, throughout this time away, has remained my centre of gravity. When everything’s foreign it throws you off balance and only the comfort of friends and a familiar environment can give you back your stability. Noughth week Michaelmas saw me back visiting those who, before too long, would be retreating to their revision caves. James was no exception, and we spent the weekend interrogating each other about the dating-related escapades that had gone on in both England and France. I remember having to disguise my frustration because all I wanted was this man to myself, for him to be off the swiping market. He seemed unfazed by my cross-Channel tales.

I failed to mention that mid-September when I was passing through London, James did a four-hour Oxford Tube round trip to see me for just two hours. My grandma had died earlier that day and I spent my journey to Gatwick in tears because I had lost James too. But I had a necklace that got me thinking, maybe, if this guy is prepared to give me a cross bought on holiday in Greece, he likes me? A phone call on October 9th confirmed my shaky suspicions and I was literally shaking. Shaking before, afraid of rejection and shaking after in disbelief. Quite rightly, he had made the point that I seemed to enjoy the single life in Paris, the city of love. It could have been the dissuading factor, but it wasn’t. James was himself in la ville d’amour only eight weeks later. By January he had met my family and he has just left Lisbon where I am spending phase two of my year abroad. Almost six months and going strong, I am a staunch proponent of trying to make it work if you feel there is something there to surmount physical separation.The next time we see each other, it will be a year since we first met.

I still struggle with accepting that someone is willing to make the effort for me and likewise with missing someone who should be so much closer geographically. FaceTime is your friend and handwritten letters sent by snail-airmail add tangible romanticism to the every day. I am a naturally trustworthy person, and this is, of course, key. But losing my (proper) relationship virginity while abroad has meant adding more of the unknown to what is already strange and unfamiliar. It feels natural to be with James and yet so unnatural that ‘being with’ should be little more than words on a page and calls dependent on Wi-Fi connection. In spite of this, we both agree (and what a cliché this is) that if we can do this, we can do anything. We have had a head start on others whose relationship must withstand unsynchronized graduations. Oxford to London is certainly much easier than Lisbon to Oxford.

Virtue or reality: defending the white saviour

Aine Kennedy
-
0
Virtue or reality: defending the white saviour

Last Monday, MP for Tottenham David Lammy was being berated on Twitter as the cause of cold tea, overboiled eggs, and an £8 million drop in donations to Comic Relief. Such was the fallout from his highly publicised spat with ‘Strictly’ darling Stacey Dooley. Lammy had accused Dooley’s appeal, and the accompanying Instagram shots posing with doe-eyed African toddlers, of sending “a distorted image of Africa which perpetuates an old idea from a the colonial era”. Everyone from the Daily Mail to the founder of Wikipedia sprang to defend both Comic Relief and the Great British Public; even the Guardian ran the entreating headline, “Can’t we finally accept that some ‘white saviours’ really want to help?”

The irony of this torrent of righteous indignation was lost on the alleged ‘white saviours’ and their supporters, whose personal affront grew to eclipse both their charitable endeavours, and the opinion of the politician who had criticised their depiction of his fellow black people.

Lammy was demonised for raising the very issue that Comic Relief had acknowledged, and vowed to correct, in 2018. CEO Liz Warner responded to accusations of ‘poverty tourism’ in a Guardian article entitled ‘Comic Relief to ditch white saviour stereotype appeals’, vowing that “you won’t see a celebrity standing in front of people talking about them… you’ll see people talking for themselves.” Yet Lammy’s comments on the unresolved nature of this problem were framed as “egotistical posturing” and “manufactured indignation” – charges surely more applicable to the chorus of reproach that tried, in all seriousness, to blame him for £8m worth of public tightfistedness.

This is not to say that his stance is without flaws. Writing in the Spectator, Remi Adekoya acknowledged the negative perceptions of black people encouraged by such appeals, and the issue for black people in the west of association with “a poor and unsuccessful continent”. While these portrayals can also sustain a racist-colonialist narrative of an Africa incapable of self-governance, Adekoya argues that these issues are secondary to the fact that the poverty broadcast to the world is real, concluding that “(this) suffering is more important than my image.”

The issues raised by the debate are pertinent to attitudes about charity both at Oxford and for individuals. Social media, and a fairly left-leaning student environment, have made it easier than ever to engage with voluntary organisations online. This is, of course, to be welcomed, enabling donations and increasing awareness in a manner unimaginable before the internet; nonetheless, it has also led to the rise of altruism as accessory. With one click, a well-meaning Facebook user can announce to their whole news feed that they are ‘going’ to a protest or fundraising event, whether or not they actually attend. They can share a video or donation link, which will ornament their profile and receive likes from their friends. These gestures not only provide a false sense of moral achievement, but factor into social media presence and digital reputation, in rather the same way that Ed Sheeran’s image might benefit from a jaunt to Liberia. Ricky Gervais’ 2009 sketch about faking an African appeal in a TV studio strikes an alarmingly close comparison: “Why would I go to a country that you need injections for when I can just do it here? I get the publicity, they get the cash- everyone’s a winner.”

Such unintentional virtue signalling is by no means restricted to the online realm. Student journalism brings an increased level of personal attention- and reputational gain- to the promotion of good causes. Thus, it carries the same dangers of potential complacency and self-congratulation that compromise the altruistic nature of gestures on social media. The glut of articles denouncing such matters as climate change, fascism, and the like are surely well-intentioned; however, they exist in an echo chamber, as it is hard to imagine any dissenting opinions being uttered in polite Oxford company, let alone published in the Cherwell.

Journalism and social media activity of this nature are typically motivated by a desire to bring attention to a good cause. This is a wholly admirable urge: charities cannot function without public awareness and support, but in the age of the internet, promotion of others is increasingly entwined with promotion of oneself, to the extent that it is becoming a social tool.

A charity’s ‘brand’, rather than the cause it represents, can come to dominate its public image, for example through association with particular events such as club nights. This is not to detract from the benefits of ‘grooving for a good cause’; however, it is a concrete example of how altruism is increasingly acquiring a social function. After a thinly-attended club engagement, one Pink Week organiser noted balefully that their organisation “isn’t really one of the cool charities at Oxford. We just don’t have Solidaritee’s clout.”

Even the most cynical, self-serving effort, by what the Guardian termed “egomaniacal monsters in cargo pants”, might help to raise awareness or money, which can translate into real benefit, regardless of the motivations that produced it. And celebrities are a sure-fire way of bringing in funds: Red Nose Day’s star-studded telethon format has raised over £1bn in its 30 year history, with £71m taken in 2017 alone. Ed Sheeran crooning duets with orphans of Ebola is a tear-jerking theatricality, more camera-friendly than the “local heroes and heroines” that Comic Relief had promised to foreground. It is for charity executives to decide whether depicting anonymous, skeletal children with a Hollywood voiceover, bereft of dignity and presented as a spectacle, is worth the financial benefit this approach can produce.

1...602603604...2,485Page 603 of 2,485

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 James Ashley