Saturday 16th August 2025
Blog Page 652

Today’s Union impeachment vote: what you need to know

Angus Brown and Libby Cherry
-
0
Today’s Union impeachment vote: what you need to know

Today Union members will be able to vote to impeach the Librarian, Brendan McGrath. The poll will be open until 8.30pm.

The ballot reads: “We the undersigned hereby wish to impeach the Officer, Brendan McGrath (Librarian, Oriel College) on the following grounds: abuse of office, and the deliberate subversion of the expressed will of the Membership and the Rules of the Society, for his own electoral benefit and contrary to the fundamental principles of democracy upon which the Oxford Union was founded.”

The motion to impeach McGrath, which was brought following the resignation of Ray Williams as the Union’s Chief of Staff last Thursday, concerns McGrath’s decision to ask the Returning Officer, Liam Frahm, to review the validity of last term’s “Trial Slate Ban”. Frahm subsequently ruled the ban invalid, triggering Williams’ resignation.

In his resignation speech, given at the end of the debate “This House Believes that Margaret Thatcher was a Hero to the Working Class”, Williams said: “it had shocked me that our Librarian had seeked [sic] to subvert the express will of the membership, conning potentially dozens of other candidates to satisfy his desire for the presidency. I cannot continue to serve as Chief of Staff in these circumstances.

“I thus support the impeachment of the Librarian which is being brought before the Standing Committee as I speak.”

This triggered the impeachment process, beginning with a petition requiring the signatures of 150 members to move forward to a vote of the Union’s membership. The petition received the requisite number of signatures amongst allegations by McGrath that a number of signatures had been acquired through improper means.

McGrath now stands accused of having both abused his office in order to further his own ambitions within the society and of having sought to subvert the will of the membership in overturning the trial slate ban.  

The Union’s Senior Access Officer, Brian Wong, resigned earlier today on the grounds that the overturning of the slate ban was “yet another attempt to subvert the expressed will of the Members.”

In his resignation letter, he wrote: “Today, Members will be going to the Poll to reject the self-serving and undemocratic behaviours that have characterised the Society’s Elections for too long. They are our constituents, and should always have the final say. That’s the only fair solution. That’s the only fair procedure in line with the ethos of the Union – but perhaps incongruent with the zeitgeist of our times.”

In an open letter posted on Facebook, McGrath said: “Last term, a motion was debated to impose a trial ban on slates. Some rules, however, such as those governing slates, are entrenched such that they need to be debated at greater length and with more publicity than usual. The motion didn’t do this, so was procedurally invalid.

“This issue first came to my attention when one of last term’s Officers bragged to me about knowing that the slate ban was invalid, and, after significant research, I approached the Returning Officer, Liam Frahm, to request clarification.

“After his own independent investigation, the Returning Officer deemed the ban to be invalid, thereby overturning it.

“I have been shocked by the tactics the supporters of the motion have employed over this last week. I have seen a lot in my time at the Union, but never imagined that I would be subjected to personal attacks, humiliation and abuse for the sake of a student society.”

The entirety of the letter can be viewed on Facebook.

Students have come out in support of Brendan on Facebook, asking peers to “Stand up to Toxic Politics: Vote No.”

The results of the poll are expected to be announced this evening.

Restaurant Review: Peppers

Darius Parvizi-Wayne
-
0
Restaurant Review: Peppers

I’ve come to realise that a common trope in my reviews is a tendency to praise the simple, traditional, and altogether not overly obnoxious aspects of food in this city. Throw out your quinoa salad, deconstructed oysters, and tahini that you swear you got from Borough Market because you are just that cool. Ok, I may be going a bit over the top: I like Borough Market; quinoa doesn’t deserve its own Instagram page but it’s surprisingly tasty; and I can stomach oysters. But the attitude cultivated by social media seems to suggest that this is all we, so-called generation Z, eat: avocado, sourdough and maybe an egg if you’re really pushing the boat out. Not true: sometimes I, a guy as Z as it gets (is that right?), just fancy a really fucking big burger. There truly is only one place in Oxford such a desire can be fulfilled: Peppers.

Minus the heroin and Ewan McGregor’s hallucinogenic dreams, Peppers looks like something out of Trainspotting. Or perhaps more 1980s Brick Lane. Anyway, it’s a bruttish building, with ugly, red block letters emblazoned on the front. Good. No mood lighting designed for bloggers to peer over their meticulously constructed food is a welcome relief. The crowd is also different in Peppers. No yummy mummies – they’ll surely be in Opera Café having a latte with extra soy milk. Also there are few families – the homeliness of Mamma Mia or Branca will be far more suitable for them. Instead, Peppers attracts those with little time on their hands and big appetites. 

At this point you may be envisioning Peppers to be a sort of prison, beyond the realms of normal society. Well you’d be wrong. Peppers, in fact, embodies everything great about this little, funny city. Perhaps the finest thing is the level of owner-to-customer trust. In a time where turnover is paramount and communication is mostly virtual, nothing beats a genuine smile and a friendly exchange. In this respect, Peppers is in a different league compared to most restaurants in Oxford. Don’t have the immediate cash on you? Feel free to pop to a cash point while your burger is on the grill. Ordered a drink with your food? Slide beyond the counter and take your pick. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were allowed to grill the burger yourself. 

Peppers harks back to a lost era. An era when chefs would see their food eaten and could take real pride in the gratitude of the eater. Now, their work is probably manipulated into a ‘spread’ for an ‘influencer’s’ page, with 90% of the food left untouched, ordered solely for aesthetic motivations. Don’t get me wrong – food is art, and the visual element is certainly important. But when the foundation of the art appeals to the eyes more than the nose and tongue, something has gone seriously wrong.

No such problem here. Peppers couldn’t care less about presentation. Peppers probably doesn’t even know what presentation is. Instead, the first hint of upcoming delight comes from a smell of meat, vinegar and salt that smacks you upon entry, and then wafts among customers who squeeze into tiny chairs, often chatting amongst one another. Think school common room, with far superior food and less BO.

Then the food arrives and you know when it arrives because every element is gargantuan and comes wrapped up in paper in a rudimentary manner that no modern restaurant would dareto replicate. Indeed, you have to come to Peppers hungry. Really hungry. Think Five Guys offers a lot of chips? Think again. Then you bite into it and everything is perfect. Juicy, tender meat, a soft bun and crunchy lettuce and onions – fantastic. You can also choose any sauce you wish. I like sweet chilli and mint and yoghurt. Weird, I know. Nonetheless, it works: everything balances out and sets the stage for that enormous slab of meat. All this, with chips, and a drink, for £7.50 at lunch is beyond a steal.

So there you are, sauce dripping down your hands, surrounded by psychedelic posters, smiling because you forgot that in this strange, strange world, simple pleasure can still be found in a place like Peppers. 

Recipe: Sweet Nachos

Emma Hawkins
-
0
Recipe: Sweet Nachos

Ingredients
6 Small flour tortillas (diameter no more than
14cm)
2 tbsp Butter, melted
1 tsp Cinnamon
100g Caster sugar

For the toppings (all optional):
50g Mini marshmallows
50g Milk chocolate
50g White chocolate
35g Chopped hazelnuts
200g Double cream, whisked to soft peaks
50g Salted caramel sauce
200g Strawberries, hulled and chopped into
chunks
100g Raspberries
20g Popping candy

Method

  1. Preheat the oven to 180˚C. Brush a baking
    tray lightly with the melted butter.
  2. Place one tortilla onto a chopping board and
    brush lightly with the melted butter. Place
    another tortilla on top of the buttered one
    and brush it with butter. Continue with the
    others until you have a stack of buttered
    tortillas.
  3. Take a large knife and cut the pile in half.
    Then cut each half in half again, and repeat
    twice more so you have 8 tortilla stacks.
  4. In a bowl mix the cinnamon and sugar.
    Separate the tortilla stacks so that each chip
    is a single layer and arrange the chips on the
    buttered tray. Sprinkle the chips with the
    cinnamon sugar so each one is evenly coated
  5. Put the chips in the oven for 6-10 minutes,
    until they’re crisp and slightly brown.
  6. To check if the chips are done test the edges
    to see if they are crisp and dry. The middle
    may be slightly softer, but they’ll crisp up as
    they dry. Once the crisps are done place them
    to one side and leave them to cool.
  7. Meanwhile, break up the two chocolates into
    chunks and put into two separate heatproof
    bowls. Place each over a pan of water on a
    medium, heat and leave to melt gently.
  8. Begin to assemble the nachos by scattering
    half the chips on a plate or baking tray lined
    with baking paper (whatever you want
    to serve it on). Drizzle with a little of the
    chocolate, and scatter with nuts, strawberries,
    caramel sauce and marshmallows. Pile the
    rest of the chips on top in a pyramid shaped
    pile. Top with the rest of the marshmallows
    and strawberries. Dollop the cream in blobs
    around the stack, drizzle with the rest of the
    caramel and chocolate and top with the rest
    of the hazelnuts and popping candy. Serve
    with any ice cream or sorbet you wish.

Alternatives:
Tropical – Make the nacho chips the same way
as above, but without the cinnamon. Then top
with chopped mango, pineapple, coconut chips,
whisked vanilla cream, dark chocolate and passion
fruit.
Banoffee – Top the cinnamon chips with maple
syrup, whipped cream, chopped banana, chocolate
chips and pecan praline (made by mixing pecans
with caramel and adding a pinch of salt. Leave to
cool on baking paper and then break up into small
pieces).

The Power of ‘No’ Make-up

Sarah Williams
-
0
The Power of ‘No’ Make-up

Open up Instagram right now, and it isn’t necessarily clear that ‘no make-up make-up’ was the beauty trend of 2018.  From the ubiquitous summer festival panic over non-biodegradable glitter, to the classic ‘Love Island’ look –hair extensions, a tan,  and in some cases cosmetic surgery – looks that deviate from ‘natural’ are clearly here to stay.

So why have the mysterious phrases ‘glass skin’ and ‘serum layering’ crept into both our vocabularies and our feeds, to compete with the triple-cut-crease and the art of the contour? Why did designers from Brandon Maxwell to Tibi head for minimalist makeup on the Spring 2019 runways?

It could be a backlash against extensive, hour-long make-up routines. Not likely, though, when achieving the healthily-oily, luminescent ‘glass skin’ takes at least half an hour. Indeed, many skincare influencers, boasting cupboards overflowing with Mario Badescu, Glossier, and Egyptian Magic, have routines just as extravagant as many make-up gurus – Google ‘rose quartz facial roller’ for some simple evidence.

Some have suggested it’s about individuality –brands which sell the minimalist make-up look, such as Glossier and Flesh Beauty, both frequently refer to the consumer directly in their marketing: Glossier’s perfume is simply called ‘You,’ whilst Flesh Beauty, launched only in June 2018, boasts the tagline ‘Our favourite colour is you.’

In contrast to contouring kits and lip plumpers, these strategies promise us that we’re good enough just as we are. They help us not to build a new version of ourselves, but rather to make what we already are just that tiny bit better.

But there’s a catch. Sure, brands themselves are catering to diverse audiences – 40+ foundations is more the norm than the exception now, and I was overjoyed, as I expect many were, to finally find a drugstore foundation that actually matched my skin tone last summer.

I worry, though, about the nature of the minimalist make-up trend in general. Google is somewhat coy about what a trend actually is, defining it simply as a ‘fashion’, and the latter as’ a popular or the latest style of clothing, hair, decoration, or behaviour.’ But it seems to me that the defining feature of a trend is that it is something concrete, something we can point to and say ‘That’s it, that right there is what I want to have, to look like, or to do.’ There’s a sense in which this is always going to be exclusive.  A trend is necessarily one thing, not everything. And in the case of minimalist make-up, this trend is still encouraging us to look one particular way.

In the bigger picture, this is no better or worse than any other trend – simply, something that, for a time, if fashionable.  The minimalist make-up trend, just as much as the full face, is an invitation not so much to come as you are, but to come as you would rather be. That’s something which, in today’s perfection-demanding world, we ought to remember.

How To Make Friends and then Kill Them Preview – ‘promises to be entertaining and unsettling’

Jacob Ridley
-
0
How To Make Friends and then Kill Them Preview – ‘promises to be entertaining and unsettling’

Perhaps the most refreshing thing about Coningsby Productions’ How to Make Friends and then Kill Them is that, unlike so much student theatre, it avoids political posturing and trains the spotlight squarely on its three characters. Asked why he chose Halley Feiffer’s 2013 play (which has never been performed in Europe before), director Charlie Rogers drew attention to Feiffer’s claim that the play is feminist because it depicts women behaving awfully and viciously onstage in a way which is often only the province of male characters. The focus is duly on the behaviour and the interpersonal dynamic of the central trio – not the overblown canvas of recent American politics, or the play-hijacking hijinks of Brexit. Written for performance in a black-box theatre, How to Make Friends and then Kill Them is a natural choice for the Michael Pilch Studio, as Rogers also points out – and suitable for the unfussy minimalist treatment it receives at his hands, and those of set-designer, Deshna Shah.

The black comedy covers, in ten-minute snapshots, the lives of sisters Ada and Sam, from age 9 to age 27. Ada is an ambitious self-proclaimed beauty, obsessed with musical theatre and with herself; Sam is sensitive and draws pictures. Their permanently offstage mother is an alcoholic, and the resultant rot has set into the two girls some time before the play begins; Ada casually asks Sam to bruise her arm, but has a horror of hugging, and the other kinds of physical interaction that her lonely, needy sister is pining for. They play childish games, in which Ada’s self-centred lust for performance and Sam’s craving for personal contact are run against each other – and exposed as mutually exclusive. Ada meets a new friend, Dorrie, and begins to torment Sam with her preference for the newcomer; then she fails to make it into college with Sam and Dorrie, and crumbles. Sam, exploiting her new dominance persuades her sister to drink, begins to turn the psychological tables on her, and things start growing fascinatingly unpleasant. The fast-paced succession of scenes ensures the sequence of episodes keeps its momentum – which for the girls onstage, as they age in leaps and bounds, increasingly comes to seem fatal.

In some ways the play’s exploration of dysfunctional sisters resembles Marilynne Robinson’s wonderful novel Housekeeping (1981) – except her sisters weren’t as dysfunctional as these, and Feiffer pulls no punches in condemning a recognisably contemporary malaise. Her foul-mouthed schoolchildren slip into the language of broken modernity – ‘Stop asking me to validate you!’ Ada shouts at her sister more than once – and Dorrie is given the vocabulary of child therapy to describe her very funny roll-call of mental and physical (and probably invented) problems. Saraniya Tharmarajah, as Dorrie, particularly excels here. Her array of marvellously grumpy expressions and strange ‘therapeutic’ breathing noises are a virtuosic comic performance. Imogen Front is ideally cast as Sam, her small, sorrowful face conveying first crippling self-doubt and then a disturbing hardness; as Ada – the play’s nearest to a Blanche Dubois figure – Simone Norowzian exhibits maturity and charisma, and the deepening sense of damage which is key to this dark three-hander.

Rogers and his committed cast present this unusual play (produced by Lewis Roberts) with a sense of urgency but without gimmicks, in what promises to be an entertaining and unsettling European premiere.

Trinity email leak exposes sensitive information to JCR

Eve Webster
-
0
Trinity email leak exposes sensitive information to JCR

Cherwellhas been alerted to a mishandling of information at Trinity College after a private e-mail discussing findings on the treatment of BAME students on campus was mistakenly made public.

The e-mail, which the Trinity JCR President accidentally sent to a mailing list of all JCR members rather than to the college President, disclosed the results of a poll issued to all undergraduates.

12 of the students surveyed identified themselves in the survey as either “Black/African/Caribbean/Black-British” or “Mixed/Multi-Ethnic”.

Of the 12 students, who would comprise approximately 4.1% of the Trinity undergraduate population, 9 reported having “faced any specific issues or incidents” at Trinity with regards race or ethnicity and 5 said that worries or issues about race have a detrimental effect on their mental health, the e-mail claims.

The e-mail also notes that a complaint was made by a member of the JCR to the president describing a specific incident taking place at Trinity and requesting that the encounter be on the record with the JCR committee.

The complaint has subsequently been sent to Trinity’s approximately 290 JCR members as a result of the mistake.

The breach was quickly noticed and unintended recipients of the e-mail were sent a follow-up apologising for the mistake and asking them to delete the message.

When asked to comment, the president referred to the incident as an example of “human error” writing: “What has happened was a human error in a private email context where an email was accidentally Trinity email leak exposes sensitive information to JCR sent to the wrong mailing list; this is very regrettable but not a voluntary breach of confidentiality.

“Gladly, no students were mentioned by name in this email. Additionally, the numbers from the survey cited in the email in question were inaccurate.

“This incident has sensitised the JCR committee, including myself, to be more careful with our email conversations. I have also urged the committee to turn on the “undo sending” option in outlook and have done so myself.

“It is top priority of Trinity College JCR that every student feels welcome and cared for at Trinity.

“To this end, we are surveying our members to understand how to better support them and feeding this information back to college in order to work together on improving the culture and support provision at Trinity.”

Speaking to Cherwell on the subject of inclusivity, the Trinity College Communications Department said: “As a small collegiate community, it is our top priority at Trinity to foster an environment in which everyone feels comfortable, welcome and respected.

“We want students to feel empowered to come forward if they encounter instances of behaviour that work counter to these values so that we can continuously work to ensure that every single member of our community feels warmly included and that Trinity lives up to its values.”

Record turn-out for SU elections

Libby Cherry
-
0
Record turn-out for SU elections

Anisha Faruk has been elected President of the Oxford University Students’ Union on a record turnout, with 4,792 ballots cast.

Faruk, former editor of the Oxford Student beat candidates Ivy Manning and Ellie Milne Brown to become President of the Students’ Union. She won the vote in a final round contest against Manning.

The new record beat the previous best set in the Michaelmas Term 2013 election, where 4,494 votes were cast.

Faruk’s slate, Impact, saw 3 of its 5 candidates for senior positions elected, with Neil Misra taking the role of SU Vice President for Graduates and Ray Williams taking SU Vice President for Access and Academic Affairs.

Amber Sparks and Roisin McCallion, both running on the Aspire slate, took SU Vice President for Women and SU Vice President for Welfare and Equal Opportunities, respectively.

The election was held to elect the SU President, 5 Vice Presidents, 3 Student Trustees, 6 NUS delegates, and RAG National and International Charities.

A number of independent candidates were elected to the SU. Matthew Judson was elected independently to be a student trustee while Zehra Munir, Jim Brennan, and Rashma Rahmany all won successful independent bids to become NUS delegates.

Kathryn Husband, Olivia Railton, and Arya Tandon were also elected as NUS delegates, while Alexander Kumar and Grace Davis have been announced as Student Trustee.

Oxford Gatehouse and KEEN Oxford were voted RAG national charities, and Meningitis Now and Beat (Formerly Eating Disorder Association) are RAG international charities.

‘No-platforming’ could be illegal, government warns

Ben van der Merwe
-
0
‘No-platforming’ could be illegal, government warns

New government guidance warns that universities may be in breach of their legal obligations if they cancel events due to protests.

The report, produced by the government’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, states: “[Universities] have a legal duty to protect freedom of expression for their members, students and employees and for visiting speakers.”

Universities that cancel speakers due to planned protests, on the grounds of security concerns, could be found in breach of the law if they cannot later show that they took all practicable steps to increase security.

The report also clarifies the legal limits of universities’ free speech duty, stating: “Freedom of expression can be limited by law if necessary, for example, to prevent crime, for national security or public safety, or to prevent unlawful discrimination and harassment.”

These exceptions are strictly qualified, applying only to speech likely to constitute a civil or criminal offence. Criminal speech includes incitement to violence, incitement of racial, sexual or religious hatred.

Speech may be exempted from protection if it constitutes harassment or discrimination. This includes speech that “has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that person.”

However, the guidance clarifies that such considerations must be weighed against academic freedom: “Students’ learning experience may include exposure to course material, discussions or speaker’s views that they find offensive or unacceptable, and this is unlikely to be considered harassment under the Equality Act 2010.

“Also, if the subject matter of a talk is clear from material promoting an event, then people who attend are unlikely to succeed in a claim for harassment arising from views expressed by the speaker.”

The new guidance also clarifies the duties that student unions (SUs) have towards free speech. Unlike universities, most SUs are not public bodies and therefore do not have any direct duty to protect free speech under British or EU law.

However, universities may be indirectly accountable for the actions of their SU, and in particular are expected to ensure that SU premises are not denied to any speaker because of their views.

The report follows a 2017 inquiry, prompted by media reports, into free speech on university campuses.

The inquiry found that “while restriction of freedom of expression was not a widespread issue, there were concerns around increased bureaucracy, and potential self-censorship from students on campus as a result of the Prevent duty guidance.”

The new guidelines focus heavily on the issues of ‘no-platforming’ and ‘safe spaces’, with just two pages of the 54-page report devoted to potential conflicts between Prevent duties and free speech.

NUS Vice President Higher Education Amatey Doku said: “The Joint Committee on Human Rights in Parliament found that there was no widespread problem with freedom of expression at universities, and issues such as regulatory complexity or bureaucracy and reported self-censorship arising from the Prevent Duty were as much of a concern as the small minority of cases repeatedly cited in the media.

“Students’ unions are required to ensure freedom of expression is upheld within the law: they are adept at doing so and support many thousands of events each year.

“However, as the guidance rightly notes, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute and students’ unions and universities must balance that right with other legal duties. We were pleased to input into the drafting process in order to help identify where confusion can arise and to dispel some of the common myths around students’ union activity.

“We hope that this guidance is read not only by universities and students’ unions but by anyone looking to understand or comment on freedom of expression in higher education – so that the future debate is informed and balanced, and ceases to be characterised by both misconception and exaggeration.”

President of the Oxford Union Daniel Wilkinson said: “The Oxford Union continues to affirm our commitment to free speech. In a moment of polarisation and an ever-increasing echo chamber effect, it is crucial to make sure that we are having the difficult conversations and engaging with the widest possible range of viewpoints.

“We at the Oxford Union are proud to have a history of holding space for speakers and debates which both challenge that which we take for granted and highlight the most pressing issues of our age.

“Creating a home for these discussions is the work we hold dear; it is our responsibility both as students and as citizens.”

Oxford SU VP Welfare and Equal Opportunity Ellie Macdonald told Cherwell: “Oxford SU is happy to see guidance that offers support on helping the safety of students on campus as well as promoting free speech.

“The guidelines encourages students to have their views challenged and scrutinised which is widely positive however we must not forget that a clear line that exists between rigorous academic debate and discrimination.

“Oxford SU would like to see clearer articulation of this in University policies moving forward.”

Sir Michael Barber, chair of the Office for Students, said: “I welcome this important and timely guidance. Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished values, and our higher education system should be at the forefront of its promotion and protection.

“A key part of a quality higher education experience should be that students confront and debate opinions and ways of thinking which may be different to their own.

“This guidance ensures that universities and student unions are clear on their responsibilities, allowing them to ensure that our higher education system remains a place where passionate but civil debate thrives.”

Alistair Jarvis, Chief Executive of Universities UK, said: “Although there is little evidence of a systematic problem of free speech in universities, there is a legal duty on the higher education sector to secure free speech within the law and it is important that universities continually review their approaches.

“This new guidance provides a useful tool that will help universities balance the numerous requirements placed upon them, including student safeguarding responsibilities, and supports their significant efforts to uphold freedom of speech.”

The university have been contacted for comment.

Union Slate-Gate!

Angus Brown
-
0
Union Slate-Gate!

Members of the Oxford Union have called for the impeachment of Librarian, Brendan McGrath, following calls for his removal by former Chief of Staff Ray Williams, who resigned on Thursday night in protest of the Union’s decision to overturn the trial ban of slates.

Slates, the groups in which members of the Union stand for election, were banned in Michaelmas this year after a lengthy campaign. They were reintroduced in 2015 as part of a package of sweeping changes to the Union’s electoral rules, and are banned in the Cambridge Union.

McGrath raised an objection to the Union’s RO last Friday, calling for a ruling on whether the trial slate ban was invalid because the manner in which the ban was enacted was not of significant seniority in the Union’s rule-making process to overturn the 2015 rule reintroducing slates.

On Thursday afternoon, the Union’s Returning Office, Liam Frahm, issued a ruling in which he said that: “On Friday 1st February, Brendan McGrath, the Librarian, officially requested a Ruling into the validity of the trial ban on electoral pacts from MT18.”
“Having investigated the Librarian’s allegations, I can firstly confirm that the MT18 Motion was passed without either Rule 67(b)(iv) or Rule 67(b)(v) being invoked.”

He continued: “Having consulted the MT18 Standing Committee Minutes and unequivocally knowing that no requisition was posted, this Motion did not have special attention applied to it.

“Therefore, the Motion holds executive seniority of (3) as special attention applied to it. Therefore, the Motion holds executive seniority of (3) as outlined in Rule 73(A).”
He therefore concluded that “Having established a conflict in the rules, Rule 73 requires that precedence is granted to the rule with greater executive seniority.

“Therefore, as executive seniority is determined by the method by which the Rule is introduced and the HT15 rule was passed with greater seniority than the MT18 rules change, Rule 73 requires that the HT15 rules change take precedence over the MT18 private business motion that introduced rule 33e is ruled invalid.”

Rule 73 says “In the event of a conflict over a decision concerning a particular policy or the implementation of a particular policy, or concerning amendments to the Rules or Standing Orders, and the Rules and Standing Orders are otherwise silent, the following shall take precedence in the following order of seniority:
(1) A Poll of Members as under Rule 47(f);

(2) A Private Business Motion at a Public Business Meeting to
which Rule 67(b)(iv) or Rule 67(b) (v) applies;

(3) Other Private
Business Motions at a Public Business Meeting or any Special Adjournment Motion, as under Rule 45;

(4) A Private Business Motion at a Private Business Meeting;

(5) The Returning Officer, for the purposes of their duty only, as defined in Rule 32(e) only;

(6) A motion of an Ordinary or Emergency Standing Committee;

(7) A motion of a Vacation Standing Commit-
tee.”

This means that the previous trial slate ban is no longer in place, and the changes made last term (including the provision for a poll of the members on getting rid of slates next term) are rendered invalid.

The Returning Officer also ruled that changes made to Rule 33 last term are also invalid, and that a number of rulings in response to the trial ban will now need to be reissued by the Returning Officer.

Williams, who was the initial proposer of the trial ban, earlier issued an objection to the Returning Officer’s ruling invalidating the ban, but this was rejected.

Ray Williams told Cherwell: “‘I would never criticise someone for merely running on or forming a slate in an election where that is legal and expected.

“The problem comes when someone tries to dupe everyone into following one set of agreed upon Rules and then blindsiding them. That’s neither fair play nor is it democratic and for me that was one dodgy Union move too far.”

In his resignation speech, Williams declared that “it had shocked me that our Librarian had seeked [sic] to subvert the express will of the membership, conning potentially dozens of other candidates to satisfy his desire for the presidency.

“I cannot continue to serve as Chief off Staff in these circumstances. I thus support the impeachment of the Librarian which is being brought before the Standing Committee as I speak.”

Williams then formally tendered his letter of resignation to the President, before exiting the chamber.

In Williams’ resignation letter, seen exclusively by Cherwell, he said “When you offered me this position, I was honoured to accepted, [sic] believing you to be, as I am, firmly committed to reform and progress in the Union.

“I had previously believe [sic] that the best way to bring about change was from the outside, but under your Presidency, I thought things would be different.

“However, the recent action of the Librarian, as reported to the press, does not only fly in the face of the democratic principles upon which the Oxford Union was founded, but also risk doing enormous damage to the Union as an institution; the relationship between its Committee and Membership; and its enduring reputation.

“I have always been a believer that slates, although not wrong in principle, in recent times at the Union have degenerated by ambition and betrayal, and have toxified our elections.

“Last Trinity, I was incredibly proud to serve as a Member of Standing Committee – elected on a manifesto pledging to push for the abolition of slates. After months of effort, we passed a trial ban last term – yet the actions of the Librarian have robbed the Membership of the promised Referendum that was due to occur.

“Given the circumstances, I cannot in good conscience continue to serve as Chief of Staff. Therefore, please accept my letter of resignation, effective immediately.

“I am confident that despite my departure the Standing Committee and Senior Appointed Officials will be more than capable with ensuring the smooth running of this term’s events, which the Membership deserve more than anything.”

The Oxford Union Brendan McGrath have been contacted for comment.

Numbers Review – commendable but difficult to feel nuance

Cesca Echlin
-
0
Numbers Review – commendable but difficult to feel nuance

CW/TW: Discussion of mental health problems and eating disorders. 

‘Jack has 931 friends on Facebook. He weighs 75 kilos, has a body fat percentage of 11 point 4 and the longest he’s gone without eating is eight and a half hours.’

Numbers by Alex Blanc is a piece of new writing on at the Pilch this week that explores the mental health of an individual through the ‘numbers’ that come to define us – our weight, height, calorie intake, amount of instagram likes or even the price of items we regularly purchase.

The plot follows Jack (Henry Waddon), who becomes increasingly absorbed in a rigorous gym and clean-eating regime. The first half of the play traces how Jack’s obsession turns toxic, and how in the process he pushes away close friends Brianna (Abi Harindra) and Darren (Hamish Venters). The second-half of the play paints a more hopeful picture of mental health, as Jack attempts to get himself back on track alongside the equally as problem-ridden Michael (Louis Cunningham).

Numbers draws attention to crucial issues. For a start, there are nowhere near enough narratives in popular culture that examine how mental health and masculinity intertwine, and in this way Numbers focuses on a pertinent topic. In line with this, I am glad to hear that the profits from Numbers will be donated to the hugely important mental health charity SANE. The play was particularly successful in its exploration of masculinity during a scene in which Jack recounts a story from the night before to his female friend, Brianna, and then to his male friend, Darren. The dialogue continuously switches back and forth between his conversation with Brianna and his conversation with Darren, and with these switches Jack’s tone shifts utterly from that of concerned vulnerability to laddish bragging. Staging at moments like these was effective, with Jack positioned in between Brianna and Darren, thereby pulled between these two conflicting sides of his identity. Later in the play we are reminded of the devastating effects of this clash between mental illness and masculinity, as Jack reminds us of the fact that, in the UK, suicide is the single biggest killer of men under 45.

Waddon provides a particularly compelling central performance as Jack, his performance studded with physical tics that reveal Jack’s consistent nervousness. A significant portion of the script consists of Jack addressing the audience directly, and Waddon did well to keep the audience engaged during monologues, displaying impressive variety in his acting. Harindra, Venters and Cunningham should also be commended for their supporting roles, providing unique counterpoints to Jack’s story and illustrating the fact that mental health affects everyone in totally different ways.

Numbers was extended by writer Alex Blanc from a ten minute piece to a two-hour play, and this becomes increasingly evident as the performance goes on. At times the narrative dragged a bit, and I believe the text could prove more effective if it were shorter. The main issue I had with the play was that it opened up multiple channels of thought, yet I was left with unanswered questions. What did Jack do for work? Where were his family? How old was he? These questions seem very literal – questions that needn’t always have answers provided by a two-hour play. Yet, issues arose because some aspects of the plot were more developed than others, which led to some confusion on my part. For example, Brianna’s situation at work was consistently touched on, but by the play’s end her emotional and mental decline felt barely explained. Equally, I had doubts about the function of Michael in the second half.

Ultimately, I think the script was too ambitious – it sought to do too much, and as such left the audience with loose ends. The script was at its best when it focused on Jack’s own journey, and I only wish we could have looked into his character’s background and personality with greater complexity. Amongst the barrage of numbers, it was difficult to feel the story’s nuance.

Numbers touches on intensely important issues. Whilst I commend Mercury Theatre’s production and encourage others to see it, I find myself wishing that it retained a sharper focus.

1...651652653...2,518Page 652 of 2,518

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