Friday 18th July 2025
Blog Page 715

Oxford student activists condemn London Pride

1

Oxford student groups have slammed the decision to allow “transphobic” activists to march at the head of this year’s London Pride Parade.

Oxford SU, Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society, the Oxford SU LGBTQ+ Campaign and the Oxford SU Women’s Campaign led condemnation with a joint statement on Monday. Further criticism has since been levied by students on social media against Pride’s organisers.

Activists criticised the fact permission was given for “a hate group of eight women…bearing transphobic and trans-mysoginistic signs,” calling for “cisgender lesbians to form a separatist movement,” to “lead” the parade.

In their statement, Oxford SU and Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society said such events suggested that Pride in London “condoned a hostile, trans-exclusionary atmosphere at an event where trans people should be able to celebrate their identities in safety.”

Organisers claimed that the group was permitted to march the front due to “safety” concerns pertaining to hot weather, but that they did not agree with the group’s message. They claimed that “sadly, we could not forcibly remove the group” but did “move them to an area far in front of the official parade…to separate them.”

However, Oxford campaigners argue that this is part of a wider pattern of behaviour at the London Pride event in recent years. Pride in London, they claim, has engaged in “historical bi-erasure” as well as “ace/aro-erasure” (asexual and aromantic), and suffers from “recurrent transphobia.” This highlights the enduring “cis privilege” within the Pride movement.

Criticising organisers’ justifications, the statement added: “A hate group should under no circumstances have been permitted to march in the parade.”

According to the Oxford campaigns, the “hate group of eight women” also distributed “leaflets opposing trans-friendly reforms to the Gender Recognition Act” and called for a ban on trans-women from women-only spaces.

The same group also reportedly attacked what it claims is a tendency by “transactivism [to] erase lesbians.” One member argued that “men are saying they are trans, they are lesbians and they pressure lesbians to have sex with them.”

In a statement to Cherwell, Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society said: “The OU LGBTQ+ Society condemns the participation of a transphobic and trans-misogynistic hate group in the parade of London Pride, and the failure of the organisers to prevent their participation.

“We are distressed to see that transphobia is still so prevalent within the LGBTQ+ community, with it not only permitted at London Pride, but also given a place at the forefront of the parade.

“For members of Oxford’s trans community to attend London Pride, some for the first time, and be greeted with signs and shouts that they’re a threat to the community and that their identities should not be respected or even tolerated, was deeply upsetting.

“The welfare of trans members of our society is of paramount importance to us and we send our solidarity to anyone who was affected.

“We must not seek to replace our history with latent transphobia under the guise of free speech, but to foreground the trans activists responsible for this important day.”

Such condemnation comes at a time when London Pride has already been roundly criticised by LGBTQ+ activists. Peter Tatchell has argued that limits placed on the number of attendees were tantamount to “discrimination”.

Tatchell and others have also criticised the Parade for being too dominated by corporate sponsors, rather than its radical activist roots.

Pride in London did not respond to Cherwell’s request for comment.

Buffet breakfasts should be sent back to the kitchen

1

A buffet breakfast isn’t a normal breakfast. People try things they wouldn’t dream of having at home – whether it be coffee and tea or three different types of eggs. It can be seen as a challenge to try as many dishes as possible. But at the end of it, guests are often left feeling lethargic and sluggish.

To begin this unusual meal, we have to be admitted by the breakfast bouncers and shown to our table, passing the food on our way. Which seems rather pointless because as soon as we sit down we immediately get up and head back to the buffet – bums hit chairs for mere moments.

After returning with our food, we attempt to finish the plates of yoghurt, fruit, omelette and pastries that surround us, only to fail and head to the orange juice jar to refill our oddly small glass.

Whilst fiddling with the nozzle handle on the juice jar (is it up or down?), a basket of cake, often a dry attempt at lemon drizzle, catches our eye. The adding of this final plate to our little mound of crockery not only makes us feel bad for the people doing the washing up but tips us over from satisfaction to lethargy.

This staple part of a hotel stay can be as important as the room or the service, often being the last thing guests experience before they leave. And yet, we are frequently left feeling sluggish.

The buffet’s spectacle convinces us that the volume of food compensates for the drop in quality. Two questions then: why do we feel the need to eat in such a voracious manner? And, rather than a buffet, shouldn’t hotels focus on a small selection done well? The former is probably best answered by value for money, curiosity and our lack of self control. The latter, is answered through the remarkable case of Ariyasom Villas in Bangkok, Thailand.

This boutique hotel, which is tucked away at the end of Soi 1 Sukhumvit, holds a modicum of serenity unknown to the rest of the city. Its simplistic décor echoes the tradition of Bangkok’s not too distant past. Thankfully, this simplicity is reflected in its food.

Guests are given a menu from which they can order as much as they like. There are blueberry pancakes, eggs benedict, porridge and a full English.

Despite the richness of such dishes, the kitchen maintains a freshness that doesn’t weigh the stomach down. The pancakes, for example, are darker and more savoury than their American cousins, the sweetness coming from the maple syrup and the fresh berries. The baked beans are a combination of kidney, black and pinto beans in a light tomato sauce, rather than the sugar-coated ones we are used to. The result is a meal that leaves you feeling light.

This isn’t to say that there is no gain from the rich tastes of buffets. We all enjoy the novelty of being able to eat as much as we want. But a quality is lost with a buffet, whether that be the warmth of the food or the freshness of taste.

Now, there are drawbacks of a la carte. For starts, the cost of producing food ad hoc is much higher than mass-producing a buffet. This is in addition to the cost of extra staff needed to serve the food. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t the best option from the guests’ point of view.

Having a menu gives guests the time to pick what they actually want. Instead of just seeing something and taking it to their table.

A la carte also means that dishes maintain their proportionality. Rather than drenching our pancakes in maple syrup leaving them sodden, each mouthful can be comprised of the optimal proportions of ingredients. Of course, chefs don’t always get this right, but they are usually better at it than the average person who’s faced with endless choice.

There are, perhaps, more pressing issues for the human race, but if hotels learnt a thing or two from Ariyasom Villas the world might be a more palatable place.

Why I won’t be protesting Trump

0

The Sun is the only media outlet to have interviewed Trump so far on his UK visit. As the President of the United States of America, Trump had his pick of the media crop, but he chose a 40p tabloid. The paper that a YouGov poll suggests that 52% of people consider to be fairly to very right wing, is well-known for expressing xenophobic and homophobic attitudes in the past, not to mention its less than exhaustive efforts to get rid of page 3. Through choosing The Sun, Trump has chosen to voice his opinions in yet another echo chamber, much like the scores of yes-men he surrounds himself with daily.

So far Trump has made a lot of noise it what was never going to be a quiet trip across the pond. He’s already questioned Theresa May’s fragile position as the head of state and proven himself typically bashful in destabilising the careful balancing act that she has constructed, and then reconstructed, following numerous resignations.

He revealed in his interview that he thinks Boris Johnson would make a more effective Prime Minister. Boris’ resignation appears to be laying the paving stones for a leadership contest, and Trump’s comments are quite clearly meant to aggravate the situation further. In his already packed schedule, he also found the time to accuse Sadiq Khan of causing the increase in terrorism and crime in the capital.

Of all the pies that he stuck his infamously short fingers into however, none were larger than that cooked up at Chequers. When it came to that ever-so-simple issue of leaving the European Union, he said to The Sun: “I actually told Theresa May how to do it, but she didn’t agree, she didn’t listen to me”.

Theresa May was right to ignore Trump’s advice, whether we agree with her on policy or not.

In fact, she should not be afraid to publicly dismiss Trump, not just on the issue of Brexit, but on more of his what he spouts where his input is neither asked for nor required. This seems unlikely however. In all the photographs of his trip so far, he and Melania appear comfortably confident on foreign soil, whilst both Theresa and Phillip May both seem slightly awkward and uneasy on what should be terra firma. They are visible cautious of preserving this ‘special relationship’, while Trump places little concern on decades of cohesion and mutual respect.

The rationale for our decision to leave the European Union was that we did not want our country to be externally governed by unaccountable foreign politicians, so let’s not now sign over our sovereignty to Donald Trump. This is what will happen if Theresa May puts courteousness over country.

Yes, we should be protesting, but rather than kicking up a fuss over Trump’s visit, we need to protest for clarity at home. The outcome of the Chequers talks provided us with little insight of what the final deal with the EU will look like, despite the vote to leave happening two years ago now.

We should be protesting the lack of confidence our leadership has, as well as Theresa May’s own unwillingness not only when it comes to challenging Trump’s wrecking-ball approach to foreign leadership, but also the over-inflated egos of her own Conservative backbenchers.

We must ask why we are protesting a democratically elected foreign head of state, but why we did not bat an eyelid as the future of this country is decided behind closed doors. We have become consumed by a herd mentality: fashionable protesting for the sake of protesting, while the biggest issues affecting this country remain unchallenged.

This type of organised disapproval will serve only to further inflate one man’s already over-inflated ego. Like a baby, Trump appears to thrive on the attention, regardless of whether it’s good or bad. Knowing that thousands of individuals have left work, missed school or paused Love Island to protest his visit will make his head grow even bigger. We should not give him this pleasure.

Review- V&A’s Frida Kahlo: Making Herself Up

0

Art can be, and is, appreciated for its own aesthetic value. Frida Kahlo’s paintings are works of art in their own right, smooth serene self-portraits imbued with traces of surrealism and magical realism. However, it is clear that in her almost obsessive interest in painting the self, and the ways in which that ‘self’ is presented, lies a story. The V&A’s retrospective, Frida Kahlo: Making Herself Up, narrates the life and motivations of the pioneering Mexican artist through a collection focused upon the possessions of Kahlo herself, discovered in 2004 in her home in Mexico where they had been locked up since her death fifty years before. The exhibition proves the age-old adage ‘art imitates life’ to a startling degree: the way in which Frida Kahlo presented herself, her clothes, hair, jewellery and make up, in her paintings tell a personal story of heritage, politics, heartbreak and pain.

Magdalena Carmen Frieda Kahlo Calderon was born in Mexico in 1907 to a German father and a mother of Spanish and Italian descent, and this blend of heritage and culture, evident in her full name, was to have a profound influence on her style, both sartorial and artistic. Although she wore garments which reflected her parents’ nationalities, her preferred style, which reached iconic status through her paintings, was Tehuana costume, the dress of a tribe from the Oaxaca region in Mexico. The style formed the basis of her wardrobe for her entire life, and in the sartorial symbol of the matriarchal Tehuana society Kahlo found appropriate metaphor for her own sense of independence.

The statement was not only social however, but also political. Her husband was celebrated US artist Diego Rivera, and during the height of his fame, she dabbled in contemporary American fashions. However, when Diego was sacked from his commission decorating the walls of the Rockefeller Centre, New York, in 1933 for including a representation of Lenin in his mural, Frida firmly and irrevocably reverted to traditional Mexican dress in defiance of the political slight. In the final room of the V&A exhibition, twenty shop-dummy Fridas, complete with plaited hairstyle and high cheekbones, model the artist’s outfits. It is a riot of colour and pattern, yet the essential composition, of short sleeveless blouse and full skirt, remains the same throughout. Photographs, sketches and paintings by the artist line the walls, echoing the exact same outfits displayed.

Frida Kahlo’s clothes were not only about the messages they exhibited, but also the pain they obscured. She suffered from Polio as a child, and the disease left her leg deformed and gangrenous. This she hid underneath her full skirts and with shoes with heels of different heights. When her leg was amputated in 1953, she had a prosthetic leg fitted (displayed in the exhibition with a high red leather boot, embroidered with green dragons, still laced on.) Such ostentatious footwear would hardly have been glimpsed under her skirts, yet similar approaches to under garments can been seen in her corsets.

These were moulded out of plaster and fitted to her body, designed to hold together her spine, shattered by a near-fatal crash in 1925 which also crushed her pelvis and impaled her womb. The thick white straps can be seen in her tortured self-portrait, The Broken Column. The loose Tehuana dress hid these structural necessities from the world, yet Frida decorated them intimately. Flowers and Soviet symbols (Kahlo was a lover of Trotsky’s during his exile to Mexico) adorn the plaster busts, and, most heartbreakingly, an unborn foetus, a tragic reminder of Frida’s miscarriage in 1933.

A friend once described Kahlo with the words ‘she lived dying’, and her fashion choices are testament to this pain. She took to painting during her recuperation after her accident, lying on her back and painting her reflection. She remained bedridden for intermittent periods throughout her entire life, and had a mirror fitted into the canopy above her bed so she could continue working: her invalid condition became her subject matter, and her body her canvas. Her pride in her appearance remained unaltered, and she always dressed elaborately even if confined to bed.

She distracted from the visible manifestations of her polio and broken bones with heavy gold jewellery, several rings on every finger, and elaborate hairstyles, plaits piled high on her head and interwoven with bright flowers. Her rings and earrings are on display in the V&A, alongside her favourite Revlon lipstick and black eyebrow pencil, which she used to emphasise her iconic monobrow. Her style was a curious blend of femininity and androgyny, something she noticed early on, admitting ‘in general, I have the face of the opposite sex.’ In an early family portrait by photographer father Gustav Kahlo, she appears amidst hordes of sisters and grandparents dressed in a sharp suit, masquerading as a young man.

Photographer friend André Breton once described Kahlo, in a throwaway comment, as ‘a ribbon around a bomb.’ Viewing the intimate and powerful collection at the V&A, which so successfully combines biographical material such as photographs, films and letters, with Frida’s own clothes and jewellery and their direct pictoral representations, the statement takes on new meaning, speaking of hyper-femininity and androgyny, flamboyance and concealment, beauty and pain. It communicates the vast importance of Kahlo’s life experiences and the extent to which they dictated her style and appearance. In turn, such choices directly and completely impacted her emotive and intimate work.

Frida Kahlo: Making Herself Up is on at the Victoria Albert Museum, London, from 16th June until 4th November

Lagerfeld: Too comfy in Chanel?

0

Crazy couture season has come around once again. While some designers continue to turn art into fashion and fashion into art, Lagerfeld at the house of Chanel has followed the footsteps of its fashion cousin Maria Grazia Chiuri at Dior in a particularly subdued collection. After 35 years at the brand, has Karl gotten too comfy in Chanel?

Up close the pieces contain the usual painstaking beading, crystals and subtle expensive details, but the overall effect is decidedly dull. Essentially the collection became a mass of ‘classic’ Chanel suits in grey, a grey kind of blue and some tweeds. Most likely drawing from the prominence of its iconic features i.e. Chanel No.5 and the iconic logo, the collection was somehow ‘finding its roots’ again. The Chanel suit is an infamous part of the brand, but haven’t we seen this time and time again? There appears to be a strange need within many of the older fashion houses to constantly define their look based on when the house was first created. This, to me, seems backwards. A sense of fashion history and respect for the original designers certainly has its place; but a haute-couture collection that is effectively read-to-wear only highlights a lack of confidence in the brand’s ability to reinvent the Chanel woman.

Where is the blame to lie? Lagerfeld has designed for Chanel since 1983; his name being as synonymous with the brand as Coco Chanel herself. When one investigates the reception of his collections over the years, he’s consistently called out for playing it safe – his 1960 spring collection was described by Carrie Donovan as “clever and immensely saleable ready-to-wear, not couture”. Seems like history repeats itself.

Chloe, Gucci and Givenchy have all employed new fashion directors for their brands in the last 3 years. The expectation: fresh looks, fresh creations, fresh ideas. There is always a buzz in the industry when someone new is brought in. How will they put their own personal mark on the brand? What direction are they taking things? Unlike her predecessor at Givenchy, who rarely referenced the labels’ archives, Clare Waight Keller looked to original sketches to influence her work. At Gucci, Alessandro Michele, a virtually unknown designer, took over in 2015, turning the Italian brand, very much set in its ways, into a playful, sartorial and luxurious success.

If we got into a severely detailed study of their collections compared to those before, I’m sure we’d find the changing impact of these houses far more exciting than Chanel. Of all the brands, only Chanel could get away with so little criticism – Lagerfeld has made his mark, for sure, and I’m in no way begrudging respect or celebration but now I find myself asking: what’s new?

We might wonder why Lagerfeld has been so successful at all these fashion houses he’s worked in – Chloe, Fendi and Chanel. The stability and consistency of his work must be a businessman’s dream. When designing both haute-couture and ready-to-wear, one can only imagine the constant battle between the designer’s creative vision and being able to sell to the masses. Often at the mercy of money, brands have been in and out of disrepair due to the ability and vision of its creative director (or at least they get the blame). The balance of innovative fashion and appealing to its customers is not an easy task – how often do such creative minds also acknowledge the limitations of practical work?

Then again, perhaps Chanel is no longer cut out for fashion forwardness? Huge applauds to AW18 collections from Valentino and Guo Pei, epitomising the variety of shapes, themes and colour that haute-couture allows. Although falling at different ends of the spectrum, with huge billowing cloaks in satin prints and block colours from Valentino compared to the structured black laced, wiry underskirts from Guo Pie, the brands showed compelling innovativeness in designing for the modern woman. Sure, Chanel epitomises luxury and beauty, but the stakes are getting higher. Their collection relied on appealing to its staple; its classic silhouettes and its chic, elegant inoffensiveness. Is this a by-product of a lack of change in society’s fashion needs? Perhaps this stagnation is being reflected by these older fashion houses – nothing is forcing them to do better. Either way, I think Chanel has stopped competing.

Of course, I am aware of my (still) very limited knowledge of the fashion world; I’m sure that the next season of haute-couture will see everyone doing subdued collections, or maybe grey suits are just in again. I hope this is not the case. Chanel needs to freshen up (with something other than Chanel No.5). Whether that means letting Lagerfeld leave with dignity or come under fire a little more, let’s hope the brand can continue to succeed where is always has…but in a new way?

Oxford students protest outside Chequers

0

Oxford students attracted national attention as they protested outside Chequers as part of the anti-Brexit youth group Our Future, Our Choice.

The Prime Minister met with cabinet officials at the Buckinghamshire manor house this week to decide on the government’s vision for the country after Brexit.

The students bore a banner emblazoned with the words: “Your Brexit deal screws our future. Explain yourselves.”

Prior to the demonstration, OFOC members had sent invitations to cabinet ministers to meet the group. None of them were accepted.

Co-founder of OFOC and St Peter’s College student, Will Dry, told Cherwell: “A recent poll showed 80% of those aged 18-24 want to Remain. It’s a figure this government has no time for – evidenced by every cabinet minister’s refusal to meet or debate with our group. Hence we felt we had to track them down to Chequers and deliver our message there.”

Speaking to Cherwell, first-year History student, Dominic Brind said: “From the 4 am wakeup to the day spent under the hot Buckinghamshire sunshine, Our Future, Our Choice’s demonstration at Chequers shows the lengths that we went to to have our voices heard.

“After every single member of the cabinet rejected or ignored our request for a meeting to discuss the impact that Brexit will have on young people, we decided to take our message to them. Stitching up a calamitous Brexit stance in the Jacobean stately home, they refused to answer our cry for them to ‘explain themselves’ to us and an entire generation.

“This is why young people especially, many of whom did not have a chance to vote in 2016, need a people’s vote on May’s Brexit deal. Given the overwhelming anti-Brexit stance of our generation and Oxford students, the government’s blithe refusal to engage was telling.”

Principal of Hertford College and co-author of Saving Britain: How We Must Change to Prosper in Europe, Will Hutton, told Cherwell: “I think the view of young people in the month’s ahead is going to be critical: it is their future in jeopardy.

“Innovative and peaceful demonstrations in western democracies have a long and honourable history of effecting change. OFOC seems to me firmly within that tradition.”

Oxford students also took part in the demonstration at Labour Live in June alongside For Our Future’s Sake, another anti-Brexit youth campaign group whose spokespeople include Amatey Doku, the NUS Vice-President for Higher Education.

Both groups form part of the People’s Vote campaign, which is calling for a referendum on the final Brexit deal.

Richard Brooks, chief communications officer for FFS, told Cherwell: “Stunts alone won’t change Brexit or make a People’s Vote happen, but are a useful way of showing how strongly young people and students feel about Brexit.”

More public engagement has been promised by all anti-Brexit groups before October, when the government hopes to finalise the final EU withdrawal treaty for the UK.

Email blunder reveals names of 1st year medics on pass/fail borderline

0

The Medical Sciences Division have apologised for an “administrative error” which led to the names of students required to sit additional first-year exams being emailed to all first year medics.

The examination timetable was meant identify students by their candidate number, but instead a document (labelled “for tutors”) showed a list of their full names of those required to return for verbal “viva voce” examinations.

Medical students are asked to return to Oxford after Prelims to attend these exams if they have fallen just below the pass level in a particular topic, on which they are then questioned. If candidates perform successfully, they can be awarded a pass for that section.

A University of Oxford spokesperson told Cherwell: “An apology was sent to all affected students as soon as the mistake came to light. The Medical School is taking steps to make sure this type of incident does not happen again.”

In the email to students, the Medical Division noted the need to offer candidates “the maximum amount of notice” before the viva as the cause of their mistake.

Oxford Medical Students’ Society said in a statement: “We have become aware of what appears to be an honest mistake on the part of the medical school, with regards the viva list for first-year examinations, which may have some distressing consequences for some students.

“Oxford MedSoc is not involved in the setting or marking of any medical school examinations, nor any other part of the medical course at Oxford, but would encourage anyone affected by this to contact our dedicated welfare reps, Aoife Lyford and Charlotte Rose, in full confidence.”

One first-year medical student student told Cherwell: “I am disappointed by their blaming of the mistake on our requirement for knowing about vivas as soon as possible, when checking the attachment on an email takes three seconds.

“But ultimately it was just a mistake, and I think some people are blowing this out of proportion.”

Speaking to Cherwell, another medical student condemned the faculty error as both “dumb” and “mean”.

This is not the first time that the University has compromised candidates’ anonymity. In October last year, University administrative officials accidentally revealed the names of the nearly 500 Moritz-Heynan scholars, after students were CC’d rather than BCC’d into a group email.

In January this year, Hertford College also shared the personal information of 200 unsuccessful candidates through a similar error in email procedure.

‘Whitney’ is a documentary in search of its lost soul

0

A good documentary is like a good magic trick, it takes elements of the real world that you’re familiar with, and uses sleight of hand to present those elements in a brand-new and scintillating way. The choice of subject matter, and the style in which it’s presented, are absolutely everything. A bad documentary and a bad magic trick have elements in common too. The behind-the-scenes machinations may be distractingly overt, the constituent elements too familiar or poorly presented, or the style may clash with the subject matter.

Whitney is not a bad documentary, but it possesses enough of the hallmarks of one to keep it from being a particularly good one. Forcefully directed by Kevin Macdonald with the blessing of Whitney Houston’s estate (the first time they’ve granted such permission since her untimely death in 2012), the film chronicles her life from childhood, moving through her rise to fame in the 1980s before her personal and professional decline and tragic passing in the 2012.

A documentary’s most persuasive presentational tool is its editing, and there’s some fleeting fun in the sheer filmmaking verve of some of Macdonald’s sequences. An early success montage practically weaponises the Kuleshov effect as historical events, famous contemporary faces, close-ups of money and hints towards Houston’s future drug use are cut between snippets of her music videos and her singles consistently reaching #1 on the charts. A later montage is similarly used to illustrate her downfall, intercut with scandalous tabloid headlines and literal explosions from contemporary war footage.

The problem with this editing technique is that, as fun as it is, it’s headbangingly obvious, amateur-level filmmaking. Macdonald is a better filmmaker than that. It’s the tip of an iceberg of irritation. One particularly annoying example of Macdonald’s manipulative filmmaking occurs during an ostensible ‘revelation’ in the narrative, wherein it is imparted that many of Houston’s relatives became paid employees as part of her entourage. Previously during the introduction of an interviewee, a subtitle would appear to illustrate how exactly they were related to Houston: “Brother”, “Family Friend”, etc. After it is revealed that many of these figures were, at one time, her employees, their subsequent re-introductions would be subtitled “Brother, Employee” etc, for the remainder of the film.

Macdonald’s attempts to nudge the audience to consider the nuances of Houston’s life come off as an insistent shove which proves extremely grating, even amidst the refreshing candour of the interviews themselves.

The film fails to offer any justification for why it’s being made now, or even at all. It’s no hardship to be reminded of Houston’s extraordinary talent, but the film offers no new information or insight into her life that a skim read of her Wikipedia page wouldn’t reveal. Previously unreleased home video footage of her real-life disposition offers food for thought, but most of the talking heads simply speculate exactly as we, the public, have done for years; why exactly was she so self-destructive, how was it allowed to continue, and why did nobody intervene?

There are small flashes that hint towards a better version of this documentary, one that focusses more on her music and demonstrates how the heights of her superstardom were inextricably linked to her downfall. But such a documentary would have to dig beyond the conjecture of family members who have a legacy and themselves to protect. The whole documentary ultimately feels disappointingly hollow, unable to surmount the absence of Whitney herself. Even a semblance of Houston’s self-analysis would have been welcome; she was often refreshingly frank about herself, and glimpses of that could have been extremely effective in heightening the tragedy of her failed potential.

Despite these foibles, it’s not an unenjoyable watch. It’s never less than engaging – Houston herself was a luminous screen presence and her family and friends similarly light up as they reminisce about her – plus there’s a real kick of nostalgia to reliving her greatest hits which can’t be denied. I think the reason this review comes off far more negatively than I felt while watching it is because Houston deserves a far better monument to her life and talents than this film. Despite my love for Whitney and my continued sorrow for her tragic later years and inauspicious passing, the film didn’t make me cry, and that says a great deal. Like with a fumbled magic trick, I remained unmoved.

Oxford honours academic who fled Nazis and succeeded Tolkien

0

Professor Eric Gerald Stanley, a renowned authority on Medieval Literature and successor to Tolkien, has been honoured across Oxford after his passing aged 94 last month.

Acknowledged by many of his peers as one of the 20th century’s leading scholars in his field, Stanley was a long-time editor of Oxford’s “Notes and Queries” and a prominent contributor to the Oxford English Dictionary.

Andy Orchard, Oxford’s current Rawlinson and Bosworth professor of Anglo-Saxon, descried Stanley’s work as “prodigious in its scope and scale and impact”. Professor Lynda Mugglestone, another colleague,  remembered his encouragement of her own work.

Upon hearing of his passing, one of Stanley’s students said: “Oxford has lost an irreplaceable link to the best of its history, to a time when students earnestly believed in the capacity of ideas to change the world.”

They added: “Eric modelled the unlimited potential of imagination in everything he did.”

Having fled from Nazi Germany with his parents in 1934, Stanley was admitted to University College in 1941. He taught at the University of Birmingham and Yale University before being elected a fellow of Pembroke College in 1977.

At the same time, he was appointed Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of English Literature, a position previously held by J.R.R. Tolkien.

Stanley’s published works include The Search for Anglo-Saxon Paganism (1975) and In The Foreground: ‘Beowulf’ ( 1994). He also worked extensively for the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), though he was never a member of its staff. Stanley first participated in its work in the 1940s, when the dictionary came up for revision in the 1990s he played a key role, eventually coming to inspect all entries of Old or Middle English origin.

A friend and peer of eminent figures like Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and Harold Bloom, Stanley was well-known for being well-dressed and for making fast friends wherever he would go. He and his wife would take annual trips to Italy by car, a tradition which he continued alone after her death.

Pembroke College flew their college flags at half-mast on the 21st and 22nd June in his honour.

Gary Lineker – ‘the media scrutiny is far more intense compared to 30 years ago’

1

fI talk to Gary Lineker the day before he leaves for Russia. Organising an interview has been complicated because of his bewildering schedule, but he manages to free up some time for me to talk to him. If you cast your mind back to that point, it was a time of cynicism. Far from thinking that ‘football is coming home’, England fans were already preparing themselves for yet another disappointment. We were not expecting a tournament fraught with excitement. It has already been a World Cup which has mirrored our wider context: completely unpredictable and constantly changing. As England make their final preparations for their round of 16 match against Colombia, I look back at the transcript of my interview with Lineker.

The England team

What would you say a good tournament would look like for England?

“I think if we got to the quarters that would be a really good effort. It is a long time since we actually won a knockout game in a tournament so if we could do that, that would be a reasonable performance. If we do get to the quarter finals then I don’t know but that would be a good effort.”

Is this England team any different to previous teams, or have we just got more cynical about football?

“No, I think we have just entered a period where we are not introducing enough world class players over the last 12 years, or players who would be close to world class. So, we are going through a bit of a tough phase where we have not had enough world class players to really compete at this level. This squad is inexperienced and the expectations, because of that, are low. I think we have the youngest team in the tournament and fewer caps than any other squad. I think expectations are relatively low for this one and probably quite rightly so. But we have a plethora of really good talent coming through and certainly in two years’ time, or four years’ time, I think we will be very competitive. But this squad, while we have some talented players, is still a little while away from what teams have had in the distant past. There is a bit of light at the end of the tunnel from some of the players coming through and they will benefit from the experience of playing in the team. Perhaps the fact that expectations aren’t too high means they might surprise us.”

This generation of footballers are paid more and have larger advertising contracts than in your day. Do you think they still care as much about playing for the national team?

“Oh yeah, I think they still care a lot. I think sometimes because they haven’t performed so well, media people in this country put it down to a lack of effort: that they don’t care much and it’s all down to the quality of football. But I am absolutely positive that the players what to be on what is the biggest stage of all. Yeah, of course they still care.”

Media speculation

Media speculation in the run up to the tournament has been mostly cynical and negative. Even after a 6-1 win against Panama, which saw a team unity foreign to England teams of the past, The Times ran with a headline in their sports section of ‘Hmmm…did we score too many’. The headline was written in jest but some media coverage has been less playful. The coverage of Raheem Sterling’s tattoo showed a crueller side of some parts of the British media. Lineker himself is no stranger to negative and harsh media coverage – The Sun once called for his sacking from the BBC because he was a “leftie luvvie”. I ask him about the effect that this type of coverage could have on the players.

Has the media scrutiny intensified in comparison to when you were playing?

“Oh definitely, it’s definitely intensified. There are now more televisions, more magazines, more radio stations, and there’s more games shown on television so people are more aware about the players. So that intensity is naturally greater because of that. The media is far more intense in its scrutiny compared to what it was 30 years ago – that is for sure.”

Do English players get it worse than in other countries?

“No I think it is the same everywhere, it’s massively importance to the Spanish, the Brazilians, the Argentinians, the French so it’s no different. What is different in our country is the tendency to focus on footballer’s private lives. That’s being ever thus and I have never quite understood why we have that insatiable interest in how people are behaving. That’s the one difference.”

Was the Raheem Sterling reporting part of that?

“Well that’s the exact type of thing. I can’t quite understand why there have been so many negative stories and most of them are non-stories about Raheem. He’s a young man who has a terrific work ethic and has proved it in season and out of season. I never quite understood the negativity that some segments of the press direct towards him. The best way to put that right is performing on the field, which he has certainly done for his club. Four years ago, he was a very young kid and he actually had a number of really good games. He’s one of our best players and I guess it always helps if he plays well. Confidence is always a massive help with national sports.”

Does that kind of press coverage have an impact on the players or can they leave it on the plane?

“Well I am sure he will get it out of his minds come the World Cup but it doesn’t help – no one likes to have it. The stress that comes with it is something that you could really do without as a player and you don’t need the added stresses, you just want to focus on the football and your game. But I am sure that the management team within England will make sure that that is the case and that it won’t affect him or any of the other players.”

You have obviously had some scrutiny as a pundit as well as footballer, The Sun calling for you to be sacked being an example of that. Did that affect you?

“No not overly, I mean sometimes it can be frustrating. But with things like that at least it does give you the right of reply whereas before social media that was frankly pretty impossible. So, it does give you the chance to do that and obviously they can take things too far, but it has never really perturbed me. We know there’s agendas involved sometimes when they disagree with your politics, they can tend to get overly personal. We are all allowed different opinions unless they disagree with you.”

Russian controversy

This tournament has not just been about football though. Although there has not been recent controversy, the location of the World Cup has caused tension. Within the first week of the tournament, Mo Salah had been criticised for accepting honorary citizenship from the Chechnyan leader and Peter Tatchell had been arrested for protesting the oppressive treatment of LGBTQ+ people by the Russian government.

In terms of the tournament more generally, how are you feeling about being in Russia in the midst of a tense political situation?

“There is always something prior to a major tournament. We had it four years ago in Brazil with demonstrations about the amount of money that was spent on the stadiums, demonstrations because they were going through tough financial times there. South Africa also had protests for different reasons. So, there is always something prior to a World Cup but once it starts everyone focusses on the football. Once it actually kicks off, it will put behind all the other stuff and the political climate especially in Russia. It’s a football tournament and ultimately once it starts that pretty much all it will be focussed on. Hopefully, hopefully there won’t be anything else outside of the game.”

So you wouldn’t take the Boris Johnson line that this is the chance for Putin to propagandise and cover up abuses through sport?

“I wouldn’t take Boris Johnson’s line on anything. I mean every country that hosts the World Cup will obviously take advantage of that situation in some way. But this is a football tournament and there is only so much you can do in terms of scoring political points. It’s basically about what happens on the pitch.”

How have you felt about covering this World Cup?

“I love the World Cup –its always exciting. It’s a huge stage and we’ll probably get the biggest audiences that you will get on any TV programme. Especially if England start to decently and get to the knockout stages, we will get huge viewing figures and that is exciting. We have a great coverage team, we got some great pundits who have all played at the highest levels. For us it is not quite the same as playing, but it is our biggest stage that we ever do TV shows from.”

What’s it like making that transition from football to commentary like some of your commentators have done recently? Is that a tough shift?

“It’s a different skill but these players have done it at the top level and they understand the game pretty well. It’s a different skill getting that across to viewers but I am sure that the new boys will be fine with the change. It will take two or three games to get a feel for the analytical side and explaining that to an audience. So naturally, it’s a first and I am sure that they will be nervous. They are in at the deep end, it’s a World Cup as a first time.”

Twitter life

Lineker doesn’t restrict himself to football nowadays. Twitter has enabled him to add political punditry to his CV and he is known both for his political commentary but also his constant disagreement with hired agitator Piers Morgan.

Talking about your life now. You’re obviously active on social media and twitter, is that something that you are enjoying?

“I do enjoy it, I enjoy it for all sorts of different reasons: following people that I find interesting, the immediacy of news on twitter, and obviously it’s a big platform when you have a lot of followers. It is a different way of expressing your views on opinions on all things, but for the next month it will be predominantly football obviously.”

It’s also been somewhere that you have got into spats with other prominent people like Piers Morgan for example, are those personal arguments or are you slightly playing around there?

“A bit of both really. I have a few disagreements with him but if we all agreed with each other, life would be fairly dull. Occasionally it can be a bit of fun, and at other times things are quite irritating. At least it does give you the chance to put your opinion and your views and try to argue a point.”

England won their last World Cup fixture against Colombia 2-0. It was such a significant match that Kirsty McColl, of ‘Fairytale of New York’ fame, wrote a song about it. England fans have already begun the nail-biting process of preparing for a knockout match and will be questioning whether it will ever really return home. But Lineker seems to have confidence in the side. He realises that this is a group of players who are young, humble, and genuinely excited by the competition. Long gone are the days of English players who seemed bored by the greatest football stage on earth. Whatever happens in the upcoming matches, this tournament has been a success and a renaissance for English football. The players are approachable, the manager is genuine, and England fans are finally hopeful. Lineker says that a good result for England would be a place in the quarter finals – only time will tell whether his wishes come true.