Wednesday 27th August 2025
Blog Page 682

Should Philip Green have been named and shamed?

-
0
Should Philip Green have been named and shamed?

Yes – Cecilia Wang

After an eight-month investigation, The Telegraph ruefully published a piece revealing allegations of intimidation and sexual harassment against a business tycoon whom they were prevented from identifying by a court injunction. In a dramatic turn of events, Lord Hain used his parliamentary privilege to name the man as Sir Philip Green.

There was a predictable outcry from Green’s lawyers, who claimed that Lord Hain had disrespected the court injunction. Yet it was perfectly legal for the peer to invoke his parliamentary privilege. Unlike in the US, where the separation of powers means that the Supreme Court holds the ultimate say over matters of dispute, the British political system has a small ‘c’ constitution. Parliamentary privilege is essential here in maintaining the absolute sovereignty of parliament and the balancing of different interests.

Of course, with such unrivalled privilege comes tremendous responsibility. But Lord Hain has only invoked such privileges twice before – once to name arms dealers, and the other to name companies with alleged links to a corrupt former South African president. This is hardly an arrogant man whimsically abusing his parliamentary privilege.

Green’s lawyers were also quick to point out that Lord Hain has links with the law firm hired to make the case for The Telegraph. Yet as a well-seasoned politician, Lord Hain would definitely have anticipated the amount of scrutiny he would face once involving himself in such a high-profile case. Would he really choose to speak out lightly?

With wealth and power, Green appears to be the embodiment of the super-rich who seek to evade the consequences of misdemeanours. The nascent investigation revealed that he had settled with five different individuals using non-disclosure agreements; it looks like Green has used this power to his advantage, preventing victims from speaking out.

Fame affords many privileges but it no doubt comes with responsibility. If Green wants adoration and admiration for his success, he must earn it by leading by example.

No – Josh Taylor

It is always distressing when politicians interfere with the judicial process. We need only look across the pond to Trump’s inflammatory remarks about Supreme Justice Kavanaugh’s hearing to see the troubles this can cause.

Whilst the actions of Lord Hain may not initially seem significant and may indeed appear honorable, what he has done by using parliamentary privilege to reveal Green’s identity is of extreme importance. By releasing this information and defying a decision made by three judges of the Court of Appeal, Lord Hain has symbolically implied both that he is above the law, and people of significant status and questionable morality are below it.

The impartiality of the justice system, and respect for said impartiality, are two of the most important values of any democracy. Lord Hain in a tweet last Saturday tried to insinuate he was upholding these values by saying he was “standing up for human rights against power, privilege, and wealth.”

This is somewhat ironic coming from a peer. Lord Hain isn’t an elected representative so he can’t properly claim, as a Commons MP would be able to, to be speaking on behalf of the people. If he were a member of the lower house, it is likely that the parliamentary outrage at a politician interfering with judicial process would have been much larger, with calls for resignation just around the corner. But even putting that aside, the idea that one can be standing up for human rights by directly defying a court injunction, decided impartially by some of Britain’s top judges, is ludicrous.

Don’t get me wrong, I find Philip Green slimy and insufferable. What he did was contemptable, beyond a shadow of a doubt. But even he, with his plethora of faults (and just like every other citizen of any democracy worth its salt), is entitled to due judicial process, without interference from parliamentary powers. If it becomes commonplace for parliamentary figures to undermine the legal system in this way, it won’t be long before we are living in a country uncomfortably similar to that across the pond.

Why are you wearing a poppy?

-
0
Why are you wearing a poppy?

It’s November, and poppies have started to bloom on the lapels of politicians and the public across the country. The symbols are, much to the chagrin of some, far rarer in our universities. Outside student circles, you are far more likely to hear the question “Why aren’t you wearing a poppy?” than its counterpart “Why are you wearing a poppy?”. We can easily imagine an answer to the first question: “because it glorifies war”.

It’s harder to know what an answer to the second question would even look like. You might say “To remember” or “Lest we forget” – mantras we hear all on repeat as we grow up. Yet this wouldn’t really reveal much about what you wanted to remember, or why you’d want to remember at all. If the recent media outrage at students’ lack of institutional support for Remembrance Day is warranted, then there ought to be a good reason why wearing a poppy is the default. We need a proper answer to the question, “why do we celebrate Remembrance Day?”

A supporter of Remembrance Day might point to the fact that it reminds us how horrible war is, so we think twice before declaring it. In fact, however, Remembrance Day is counter-productive in looking backwards. It makes it easier to limit our distaste for war to memory and to limit that memory to a single day each year. It suddenly becomes possible to adopt an attitude of “That war business was pretty awful wasn’t it?” whilst turning a blind eye to armies wading into another Middle Eastern country. Politicians adjust their poppy while announcing another bombing campaign.

War is happening now all around the world. Pigeonholing it as something from the past which was “really bad but thankfully over now” distracts from the reality of the situation. War is not consigned to the past; seeking merely to remember distracts from the awful reality of the present. Remembrance Day looks back too much: a better way to avoid war would be to look at the present, without setting aside just one day for it.

People often claim that they observe Remembrance Day to honour the dead. This of course seems admirable in many ways. But if people really observe Remembrance Day to honour the dead, then when standing by the war memorial at 11 o’clock, poppies blowing a little in the cold breeze, they ought also to be thinking of the German dead from the First World War. Just like the British, the German soldiers had no control over their fate in the 1910s. They were conscripted to fight in a war about which they had no say. If the British soldiers deserve to be remembered, so do those on the other side. Moreover, so do the innocent civilians murdered by both sides. Do they cross the mind of the person standing at the Cenotaph? It doesn’t seem that people honour the dead equally.

Of course, some would be happy to admit this inequality and say “We should honour our soldiers. They died for us”. This is a nationalistic echo – it’s an assumption that dying for us is somehow more honourable than dying for anyone else. Most soldiers on both sides of the First World War were conscripted. They didn’t die for King and country, for people a century in the future, or for freedom. They died because they were ordered – forced – to go over the top of the trenches into barbed wire and gunfire. They died because they had no choice. There is an equality in the death of the conscripted soldier that ought to be recognised, irrespective of nationality.

Remembrance Day originally emerged as tradition as the bereaved came together to mark the loss of their loved ones. The cathartic effect of these ceremonies must of course have been powerful for those grieving. Everyone there knew someone who had died. This is the best reason for Remembrance Day: it helped people cope with the loss of their loved ones.

There is still a role for this today; soldiers are still killed, leaving behind grieving family and friends. But to make it the default, to make the ceremonies nationalised, televised and impersonal, is to lose the meaningful connection to the dead in a fog of empty duty and pageantry. It undermines the original and best reason for the day itself. Remembrance Day has taken on a near holy status. It is to be capitalised and observed, like a day of worship. You are not to challenge it, you do not question it, and you will not even think too hard about it lest you seem ungrateful. This brand of retrospection requires justification if it’s going to be seen as the default option. War is still happening, so treating it as something to be “remembered” is not only wrong but potentially dangerous.

Remembrance Day has both its roots and soul in personal reflection about loved ones; enforcing observance of Remembrance Day through snide glances and accusations of ingratitude perverts this aim, alienating everyone from the true point of Remembrance Day. Whether or not we observe it, we should all reflect on our reasons for doing so.

The appeal of method acting

-
0
The appeal of method acting

Method acting, where actors go to extraordinary lengths to deliver believable, realistic performances, is a process shrouded in a certain level of mystery and mysticism. In the public imagination, it often conjures up images of actors going to bizarre lengths for a role. Daniel Day-Lewis is perhaps the most famous practitioner of method acting. When playing Chris Brown in My Left Foot, his first Oscar-winning role, he never broke character. He spent eight weeks researching cerebral palsy in a Dublin clinic to prepare for the part, and used a wheelchair for the entire shooting process. He was wheeled around and even spoonfed meals by crew members.

Here, one can understand an onlooker’s bemused reaction. But there is also no doubt that the performance was thoroughly convincing. So, is it a case of “there is reason in madness” as Shakespeare once said?

Method acting originated from the teachings of the Russian theatre practitioner, Stanislavski, in the early 1900s. He famously called acting the ‘art of experiencing’, in contrast to the ‘art of representation’. He did not invent the phrase, but his ideas have since been adopted by followers of the school of thought of method acting. He encouraged actors to create naturalistic performances in contrast to the over-the-top, theatrical style that had been the vogue of the day.

He further elaborated the system with a more physically grounded rehearsal process known as the ‘Method of Physical Action’, in which he asked actors to improvise in a sequence of dramatic situations in the quest of realism.

This idea gained more mainstream traction in the 1930s, as many theatrical practitioners actively adopted and refined Stanislavski’s ideas. Most notably, Lee Strasberg furthered Stanislaski’s method by adding a psychological dimension to it. He wanted actors to utilise their ‘affective memory’ to bring their own life experiences as close as possible to their character’s experiences. Today, this often pushes method actors to seek help from psychologists and psychoanalysts as they research a role.

Strasberg went on to co-found the Group theatre and later ran the Actors Studio in New York City, a school from which many astonishing actors have graduated over the years, including Robert De Niro, Bradley Cooper, Faye Dunaway, Julia Roberts, and the Godfather himself, Marlon Brando.

There is a video online of Angelina Jolie preparing for her role in Girl, Interrupted that would go on to win her an Oscar in 1999. She delivers a transfixing performance as she cries for an agonising length of time before the camera’s impassive gaze. She did so by tapping into her past memories, a favourite technique of Stanislavski’s.

To some, this may seem unnecessary emotional torture – why would anyone willingly go back to some of the darkest moments of their life to have an emotional breakdown on camera?

But this is clearly not shared by the many staunch supporters of method acting. Characters are not always caricatures that can be portrayed lightheartedly. Some of them are dark, or even perverted; others can undergo soulsearching journeys. An actor has to be willing to put up with a lot of emotional trauma to play these roles using method acting, but, given the awards and critical plaudits that seem to follow, many actors would argue it’s a price worth paying.

Method acting can allow an actor to believe their own performance at a much deeper level, selling a more complete performance to their audience. But drawing on their own experiences can also potentially limit an actor’s dramatic range, and goes against the sensibilities of many actors. Many have argued that acting is about stepping out of one’s comfort zone and exploring the universe of someone else; Jennifer Lawrence, for instance, has been outspoken about how acting is ultimately a pretence that should remain within the confines of the set, and her four Oscar nominations speak for themselves.

Yet perhaps there is truth in the idea that suffering produces great art. Day Lewis again stunned the audience with his performance in this year’s Phantom Thread, in which he played an obsessive and controlling dressmaker with a bizarre private life.

Day Lewis’s method-preparation shone through in what he’s publicly declared to be his final film before retirement; he learned to sew for the part, and in the film’s close-ups you can see his thumbs are pockmarked with holes from darning needles, selling an extra layer of realism to the audience. But with this thespian legend stepping out of the spotlight, it’s worth asking how many other actors would put in the same amount of sacrifice for roles that they want to see come into life. While not all great actors have to be method actors (even Hollywood’s sweetheart, Meryl Streep, has spoken out against the practice), there is certainly something magical that occurs through the process and the life it lends to some
characters.

Perhaps acting is not just about presenting entertainment for the audience; for an actor, it can be a self-exploratory journey that reveals new personal depths even to themselves.

History should have no borders

-
1
History should have no borders

Despite efforts to reform, Oxford’s undergraduate History course remains woefully traditional and overly focused on British and European history.

In 2015, talks of rethinking Oxford’s history curriculum seemed to be gaining momentum. In June 2015, in response to a report that stated that “the majority of students felt that the current history syllabus did not provide sufficient coverage on topics such as non-European history nor on themes such as gender”, the Oxford History faculty voted to implement a set of reforms aimed at ‘diversifying’ its curriculum. The department proposed introducing history papers that covered a wider number of geographical areas as well as courses concerning gender and race. This was dubbed a ‘remodelling’ of existing British, European and World history papers.

But how much progress has really been made? Despite curriculum reform, the majority of outline papers (those covering a substantial time-period) continue to focus on traditional British and European history. Though options are available ranging from China to South America, they are much fewer in number and are often only available in a student’s final year. This is a major drawback as students are then far less likely to choose an area outside of Europe to study as they are less familiar with it. Why risk picking an unknown and unfamiliar subject area in finals year when your teachings have so far been focused on issues and events within Britain and Europe?

In addition, these topics are often viewed as ‘off the wall’ bonus courses that are supplementary to one’s so-called ‘core’ history knowledge. Rather than emphasising the benefits of allowing a student to gain an in-depth knowledge of a certain geographical area outside of Britain or Europe, the world history courses at Oxford are often viewed as subsidiary courses focusing on subaltern histories that a student may take if they’re feeling particularly adventurous. These courses do not fit Oxford’s emphasis on British and European historical narratives, which privileges the study of the so-called ‘greats’, and so they exist outside of the established historical canon. This is shameful, as Oxford has failed to create a more inclusive and comprehensive syllabus that emphasizes the importance of so-called ‘alternative’ histories.

To a great extent, this is to do with the type of History academics employed at Oxford. You only have to take a look at the History Faculty’s website to see that an overwhelmingly middle-aged, white and male demographic dominates its academic staff. This type of academic is disproportionately likely to focus on more traditional forms of British and European history. If an Oxford History professor’s expertise is the works of Maccaulay, then the academic is more likely to foster his or her students’ interest in this topic, rather than foster interest in subject areas that seem more ‘distant’. As a result, an in-depth engagement with these areas is not expected or particularly encouraged.

At Oxford, where so much of one’s contact with academics depends on one’s college, this issue of specialisms becomes more acute in less liberally-minded colleges. A student is far less likely to engage with world histories if their tutor is not interested or does not have the adequate expertise in that field. Though the History Faculty claims to be making efforts to diversify, it goes without saying that this problem of representation greatly affects the success of curriculum reform. In order to effectively implement change, historians from a wide variety of backgrounds and specialisms need to be appointed to a greater number of posts, which would allow space for the development of a wider variety of subject areas. The current unequal emphasis on British and European history makes it harder for students to engage comprehensively with other areas of history.

This is not a problem unique to Oxford. Yet as an undergraduate History student at University College London, the opportunity to study a more ‘global’ history syllabus was made more available to me. As a result, I studied topics ranging from the Second Sino-Japanese War to the history of sub-Saharan African civilisations. These opportunities opened my mind to other important historical narratives and alternative ways of thinking that go beyond that of mainstream British and European historical narratives.

Learning about histories outside of the dominant Eurocentric narrative was not a side-project for me. It was a necessity that enriched my understanding of the world and Britain’s position within it. This is an experience that should not just be made available but should be actively encouraged amongst all History undergraduates. Despite calls for change, reforms are slow and have not gone far enough in changing the History undergraduate curriculum in a lasting way. Oxford must do better.

Football blues take Brookes varsity win

Fred Dimbleby
-
2
Football blues take Brookes varsity win

It has been a tough season for the newly promoted Women’s Blues football team. Now playing in the top league in their region, they have struggled to keep up with the pace and talent of their opposition. Unfortunate injuries have plagued the side leaving them bottom of the league without a single point.

But on Friday night, in front a packed Iffley stadium, the Blues regained some of their former glory. Playing against Oxford Brookes, who play in the league below the Blues but have had a much stronger season so far, the side showed their ability for free-flowing and confident football. Oxford could not have had a better start to the match when, within the first five minutes, striker Ella Vickers Strutt was played through on goal stretching the Brookes goalkeeper and scoring in the left corner. The rest of the first half was uneventful and evenly matched with both teams struggling with the speed of the ball in the wet conditions. Despite a number of nervy moments for the Oxford defence, which has seen a number of recent changes, Oxford held firm and went into the break still in the lead.

The Blues were on the backfoot for much of the second half. Brookes dominated possession with most of the game being played in the Blues half. But they struggled to put together a complete move reverting to lobbed balls to the attack when they were stifled by the Blues’ defence. Taiye Lewal and Rani Wermes were especially strong in the midfield showing versatile skill to deny Brookes a chance on goal. When Monique Pedroza came on twenty minutes into the second half, the Blues seemed to gain real momentum. She immediately had an impact, winning the ball in midfield with some stylish footwork before linking it into Wermes who – after a dominant performance which earned her woman of the match – was assured in front of goal and converted to double the lead.

A Brookes goal was inevitable with their dominance in possession and it would come in the last twenty minutes of the game. A lapse in the Blues defence led to a nicely worked goal from the Brookes’ right wing, making it 2-1. But the visitors failed to capitalise on the goal and, despite continuing to put on pressure, didn’t create any more real chances. An uneventful, if slightly messy, last ten minutes brought the match to a close and handed the Varsity trophy to Oxford.

This was an important victory for the Blues both in itself and for the rest of their season. After a number of disappointing results and difficulties with injuries, they finally have a team result that they can all feel proud of. It certainly wasn’t the most assured performance by a Blues team, but they were strong and never really looked in danger of losing. As coach Mark Haning said, “If we are realists, I don’t think we are going to win the league, but its games like this, and the periods of play that we have put together, that are great to see. Those are the bits that we’ve worked on so it’s really nice to see that their hard work has paid off.

“And obviously there’s a lot of prestige in winning this game, so I am just pleased for them that they got this victory. They’ve been building up to give a team a hard time and I think today was it, so they probably peaked at the right time.”

The Blues return to their normal BUCS fixtures next week playing the University of South Wales at home on Wednesday. But, for the moment, they will celebrate a deserved but hard-earned victory on a rainy night in Iffley.

Later that evening, Oxford Men’s side were dominant against a Brookes’ outfit who were recently beaten by the Oxford second team. Goals from Dom Thelen, Zach Liew, Oliver Cantrill and Chris Coveney gave the Blues a 4-0 victory in the Varsity match.

The plight of the struggling high street

Colleen Cumbers
-
0
The plight of the struggling high street

When I started studying in Oxford in 2015 to commence my degree, I noticed a stark different between the city centre and my hometown, Ipswich. For years, shop after shop in Ipswich had been closing and been left vacant. Oxford on the other hand was booming, without a single empty premises in sight. This has changed. They’ve not closed down, but rather moved into the brand-new Westgate Shopping Centre.

I personally love shopping in Westgate. Everything is under one roof, there are places to eat and drink, all the facilities are there, there is a gorgeous rooftop terrace… It is much more practical than traipsing around the city, going to different shops on different streets. Is this laziness? Possibly. Its a marker of the modern age; we want convenience. We expect to have everything at our fingertips. This is why online shopping has become so popular. Rather than searching through racks of clothes for your size, you can simply click a button.

But this comes at a price. High streets up and down the country are suffering with many premises being left empty for years on end. High streets have become full of pound shops and bookies, while big chain stores are moving into shopping centres – often located out of the centre.

In order to save the high street, something the government is considering is a two-tiered VAT system in which people would pay more tax when buying online. The current VAT rate is 20%, but proposals suggest lowering this to 15% for purchases in physical stores, while online purchases would carry a higher tax rate of 22.5%.

Currently, online stores have an unfair advantage as they do not have to pay massive business rates on physical properties and they do not tend to need as many staff. The proposed two-tiered VAT system could level out the playing field as it would provide people with a strong incentive to shop on the high street in order to get the same products for cheaper prices. Colliers International, one of the largest property consultancies in the UK, are the main advocates of the proposed two-tiered tax system. Sometimes dubbed the ‘Amazon tax’, many firms and financial experts, including Colliers International – one of the largest property consultancies in the UK – believe that the higher VAT rate for online shopping could save the high street.

However, is this artificial manner of supporting high street shops really beneficial? Can we really blame online shopping for all of the high street’s woes? The real issue here is that most high street stores are outdated. Nowadays, people want – and expect – a slick service. Stores and brands which are embracing modern technology and innovations are those most likely to survive. For example, clothing store Topshop has trialled augmented reality smart mirrors which allows customers in the store to try on different colours and styles of clothes. Meanwhile, a Nike store in New York has added a treadmill with monitors which simulate various virtual reality locations and mini basketball court, so that customers can see what they’d really look like in their potential new purchases.

Virtual reality, artificial intelligence, holograms and more all provide a much more engaging, exciting shopping experience which encourages people to visit physical stores. Bricks-and-mortar stores no longer cut it: people want clicks-and mortar.

Of course, it is not just the shops themselves on the high street which need to be up-to-date. The town and city centres themselves must also be appealing. Oxford’s Westgate attracts people because it is modern and stylish. Local Councils need to invest money in renovating their town/city centres to make them inviting. Basics such as sufficient and affordable parking, clean toilets, and greater disability access to new interactive features will help keep the high streets bustling.

We cannot fight technological advancements; rather we must embrace them and incorporate them into the more traditional aspects of our society. Online shopping is not an evil that is destroying the high street, but a form of shopping it must operate alongside.

Should Murray have been disinvited?

Cherwell Comment
-
0
Should Murray have been disinvited?

Yes: Hannah Healey

The central argument against no-platforming in universities is a clear one: we should allow debate around controversial topics because it inspires resilience, critical thinking and better-formed opinions.

It is possible to agree with this statement while still supporting the disinvitation of Jenni Murray, by recognising how exploitative it is to treat trans rights as a conceptual issue to debate about.

Murray’s belief that trans women are not “real women” in- validates the identities of millions of people. Statistically, trans people are more likely to suffer from poor mental health and attempt suicide, which is undoubtedly contributed to by their stigmatisation and marginalisation within society.

Suggesting that we should allow the expression of opinions that directly contribute to this issue for our own intellectual stimulation is, at best, irresponsible and exploitative. At worst, it is incredibly dangerous. There are so many divisive and controversial issues within feminism that could provide high-quality, interesting debates without questioning the validity of someone’s identity. Murray’s opinion is representative of a bigoted, rapidly disappearing society, and we should not discuss it just for the sake of generating controversy.

Murray was coming to discuss feminism and history – so it is unlikely there would have been time for an extensive discussion of her opinions on trans women. Instead, she would probably have delivered a speech about powerful women in history which would have excluded the impact of trans women, thereby subtly erasing trans rights without acknowledging her transphobia.

The impact of this would be to perpetuate non-intersectional feminism.

No-platforming Murray does not represent the stifling of controversial opinions. Instead, it serves to protect the rights of trans people.

No: Maya Nerissa Thomas

When I arrived in Oxford last year, I couldn’t wait to engage in heated discussions with people whose ideas would force me to evaluate, question and develop my own. After all, Oxford was meant to be a bastion for rigorous discourse – an intellectual microcosm, where all ideological persuasions were freely expressed in the interest of academic exploration.

Soon however, I learnt that even at the world’s best university, the only views one can engage with are those deemed “politically correct” enough by the now omnipresent Social Justice Warriors, whose “holier-than-thou” attitude justifies them silencing their opponents.

As Secretary of the Oxford University History Society, I was disappointed by the threatening tone with which we were ordered to cancel our Jenni Murray speaker event last week. We aimed to interview her about her historical writing and her role on BBC Radio 4’s Women’s Hour, yet were prevented from doing so because a fraction of her views were considered controversial enough to eclipse her entire career. The point of a speaker event, especially one in interview- format, is to provoke discourse. Yet, if today we are only allowed to have discussions with like-minded people, then I am saddened by the fate of academia.

The last few years have seen the internet become an ideological echo-chamber, which makes inviting a wide range of live speakers to Oxford all the more important. If a speaker’s ideas prove unsavoury, what better opportunity to challenge them than through a face-to-face debate?

Disinviting speakers because of their views strikes me as cowardly. The best way to shut down an argument is to have the courage to engage with it, and “no-platforming” suggests that even at Oxford, our generation is too weak to handle this confrontation.

It won’t be long until even those with moderately deviating views feel too afraid to speak out.

Oxford protests Steve Bannon outside Oxford Union

-
0
Oxford protests Steve Bannon outside Oxford Union

Steve Bannon’s visit to the Oxford Union last Friday was met with large protests by groups opposing the Union’s decision to invite the controversial far-right figure.

Several hundred protesters gathered outside the Union, on St Michael’s Street and Cornmarket Street. Some protestors physically blocked entrances to the Union, leading event organisers and police to significantly delay the entry of Union members looking to attend the speaker event.

Protesters, following leaders with megaphones, chanted slogans including: “No Bannon, no KKK, no fascist USA,” and “Solidarity forever, the Union’s always wrong.”

On the other hand, there were groups reportedly making Nazi salutes.

An hour after the event was scheduled to start, Bannon entered the Oxford Union through its back entrance, accompanied by a heavy police escort. Bannon spoke for over an hour, delivering a prepared speech and fielding questions from both Union President Stephen Horvath and Union members present at the event.

The chamber was not filled during Bannon’s talk.

A coalition of student and local groups, including Free Education Oxford and Oxford University Labour Club organized protests against Bannon’s talk, which was announced on last Wednesday. Last Thursday, the event narrowly survived a motion from within the Oxford Union to rescind the invitation.

Protesters and Union members wishing to attend the event gathered outside the Union throughout the afternoon and early evening. At 4:30pm, half a hour after the event was meant to start, a spokesperson for the Union announced to a crowd outside the Union’s Cornmarket Street entrance that there would be no more admittance to the event.

The announcement was met by cheers from the protesters.

Shortly afterwards, police formed a human chain blocking an opposing protesters’ human chain, creating a small space for police vans to enter behind them. Bannon was swiftly escorted inside from one of the vans by police.

Oxford SU President Joe Inwood, who was present at the protest, told Cherwell: “It is clear that the Oxford Union shouldn’t have invited Steve Bannon in the first place. Clearly, what they have tried to do, which is hold the event, has been hugely disruptive to the local community.

“It’s disappointing that the Union have come so far from the mainstream of student thought and student opinions at Oxford.”

A small group, titled “Support Free Discourse at Oxford”, formed a counter-protest, advocating for the right of Bannon to speak.

Counter-protest organizer Maya Thomas told Cherwell: “We believe that his views are vile…

“[But] I think he should be allowed to speak, because if you don’t allow views to be voice in regulated academic environments, that will push them underground and only exacerbate the problem.”

Union members waiting outside the entrance to the event who were planning to attend the talk expressed frustration with the protest. One anonymous student told Cherwell: “We literally just want to get in… they physically blocked us… you literally would have had to tackle twenty people to get in.”

Another complained that the protesters are “a tiny group of people with a loud voice”.

During the talk, Bannon defended his vision of nationalism, claiming that “ethno-nationalism is a dead end for losers; economic nationalism and civic nationalism bind you together, regardless of your race, regardless of your religion, regardless of your ethnicity.”

He answered questions from the Union President Horvath regarding President Trump’s relationship with xenophobic and racist language, and Bannon’s own controversial statement in 2016 to “unchain the dogs” at former-Fox News correspondent, Megyn Kelly.

Union members in attendance also questioned Bannon on a range of subjects, including the United States’ relationship with Islamic countries and his reaction to the student opposition to his attendance at the Oxford Union.

Talaash interview – a fusion of dance, poetry, and identity

Jeevan Ravindran
-
0
Talaash interview – a fusion of dance, poetry, and identity

Life as a British South Asian can be complicated at times. It can also be incredibly beautiful. Sometimes, it can feel like you don’t really know who you are, especially when you have to deal with elements of your identity that might not be so widely accepted, like religion, queerness, your dress sense – the list goes on. That’s certainly been my experience, and it is clear during my conversation with Sparshita Dey and Simran Uppal, the directors of Talaash, that they’ve also dealt with this emotional rollercoaster of self-exploration and discovery.

Talaash means ‘search’ in Hindi and Urdu. “It’s about trying to find ourselves through poetry – as we go through the poems in the play, we get closer to who we are – we find bits of memory and translate that into a journey of self-discovery,” Sparshita says. It’s a play that isn’t trying to tell a story, but instead trying to take the audience on a journey, and to make them feel something. A mix of poetry, dance and music is used to communicate this feeling, with poetry written by Simran and music and dance arranged and choreographed by Sparshita, alongside Raghavi Viswanath and Madhulika Murali.

There are five poems in all – a mix of original poems and some freely worked translations by South Asian female poets such as the Hindu saint Mirabai and the Mughal princess Zeb-un-Nissa. Through these poets, the play also celebrates the fact that despite the sometimes violent religious divides between Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs across South Asia, they all ultimately share a rich tradition. All these poems are deeply personal for Simran, and seeing them put to music and dance is a new experience. “Seeing other people connect with them with a lot of love – especially Zehra, who does most of the spoken word – it’s made me feel like their sibling. It’s like we’re siblings and we’re cooking together.”

The poems cover everything from hugely relatable South Asian tropes, such as the smells of frying pakora and the sounds of chanting, to very specific experiences, such as finding strength and faith in a Hounslow swimming pool. There’s a sense of reclamation to Simran’s work – ‘Ghazal for Gold’ is a poem which celebrates the colour gold and its use in South Asian tradition – in weddings, jewelry, sarees, in the spices used in cooking. But above all, it’s about taking back the word gold and putting an end to the politicization of people of colour: as Simran says, “We are calling ourselves gold. And we are not apologizing.”

“We all found Simran’s poetry really relatable,” Sparshita says. Her musical and dance direction is wrapped entirely around the poetry. Throughout ‘Ghazal for Gold’, the raag (scale) of Sindhu Bhairavi weaves in and out. A raag in Indian classical music is traditionally associated with a time of day and a mood, and Sindhu Bhairavi represents a mood of nostalgia, a prominent theme in the poem, and it is usually played at the crack of dawn, when the sky too is saffron gold – it’s as if the ‘Ghazal for Gold’ is being literally and musically wrapped in gold.

The play is also an assertion of queer identity, and about taking back some of the queerness present in South Asian tradition, which has been particularly repressed in recent years – although the legalization of homosexuality in India in September marks a shift in attitudes towards queer people. The concept of being genderqueer and free from the binary, explored in the poem ‘Ardhanareeshwara’, also isn’t new. 

“It’s about reclaiming spirituality, and recognising that formal religion has pushed queer people like me out. I’m using poetry to take it back for myself in my own way. It’s about listening to the positive and negative voices in our heads, accepting both, and watching those voices transform,” Simran says. Sparshita adds, “We’re all longing to be ourselves, but something is stopping us. And people aren’t binary – we’re sliding scales.”

Dance is used to represent this multifaceted identity – traditional classical dance forms such as Bharatanatyam and Kathak, from the South and North of India respectively, are fused together and contemporary Western dance is thrown into the mix. “We’re using these fusions, because as people, we are fusion – we’re a mix of South Asian and British and we shouldn’t have to choose one or the other – because both sides have shaped who we are, and we’re just searching for ourselves.” The contemporary music in the play reflects this search – a haunting solo of ‘Shallow’ from the film A Star is Born, and Tamil song ‘Naan Yen Piranthen’ (Why Was I Born).

“The way that we directed this was like a jam session for poetry, dance, music,” Sparshita says. “Nobody just went into this play and did what I asked them to do and nothing else. Every single person has put a bit of themselves into this play. It’s not just mine and Simran’s – its everyone’s.”

Simran comments, “Doing this, making this with this community of queer artists, BAME artists, female artists of colour, you have this wonderful feeling of being your own person, and being your own person fully, but also being a part of a community. Being a part of that community – I don’t want to say it’s amazing, or there’s nothing like it, but there really is nothing like it.”

Talaash is at the Michael Pilch Studio from Thursday 15th November to Saturday 17th November.

Union seeks legal advice over financial transparency rules

-
0
Union seeks legal advice over financial transparency rules

The Oxford Union has refused to show members a detailed record of its expenditure including receipts, despite appearing to be mandated to do so by its own rules.

The decision raises concerns about the ability of members to properly scrutinise Union officials. Rule 63(b) ofthe Oxford Union dictates: “All income and expenditure records will be available for inspection by any member by appointment with the President within ten working days.”

Since the 2nd October, Union members affiliated with Cherwell have repeatedly requested a detailed breakdown of the Society’s audited accounts for the 2016-17 financial year, without success. Emails sent to the Bursar’s account sometimes met with no reply for two weeks.

President Stephen Horvath told Cherwell that the rule in question “has not quite kept pace with modern auditing practices.” This is despite receipts being shown to Union members on request as recently as 2011.

The Union now says it has sought legal advice which will support its view that the “all income and expenditure records” of Rule 63(b) means simply the audited accounts – despite Rule 63(a) already allowing members access to these accounts without need for an appointment.

Union officials have also expressed concerns about the implications of new EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) legislation as a reason to deny requests for financial transparency. However, the Union also refused Cherwell’s request last year – before GDPR legislation had come into effect.

In 2017, Cherwell contacted the Financial Director of a major UK law firm for their opinion. They disagreed with the Society’s interpretation that “income and expenditure records” only refers to the audited accounts.

Instead, Rule 63(b) should allow for a detailed breakdown of income and expense claims. They told Cherwell that it would be “very hard to argue” that Rule 63(b) just meant audited accounts, “as if that was the intention there would be no point in adding 63(b) as 63(a) would suffice”. 63(a) allows any member to view the audited accounts without an appointment.

In a statement to Cherwell, Horvath said: “We are awaiting the return of our audited 2017-18 accounts from the auditors, and will then be able to provide further information.

“The Bursar has repeatedly arranged for members to see detailed breakdowns of our income and expenditure. We are awaiting a formal legal opinion from our solicitor on what records we can legally publicise, beyond those records which we have already shown. We expect to receive this opinion by the end of this week.”

This is not the first time the Union has come under fire for appearing to not adhere to its own rules regarding its financial transparency.

The Oxford Student used Rule 63(b) to request access to the full 2008-09 income and expenditure records in 2010, after initially being refused access to the full receipts.

At the time, Simon McIntosh of consultancy firm Grant Thornton said: “Bluntly, records of expenditure do include expenses claims and all that goes with them.”

1...681682683...2,519Page 682 of 2,519

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