Sunday 12th October 2025
Blog Page 720

McQueen Review – “an example of masterful documentary film-making”

Skye Humbert
-
0
McQueen Review – “an example of masterful documentary film-making”

An example of masterful documentary film-making, Ian Bonhôte’s film McQueen follows the famous designer’s journey to popularity, his highs and lows, and what made his creations so successful.

The feature length film combines old interview tapes with thematic and artistic graphics, while showcasing some of McQueen’s most momentous designs, catwalks and career choices. As the son of a teacher and taxi driver, with one O-level in Art, McQueen began his career as a tailor’s apprentice, Anderson & Sheppard, then working his way through fashion schools and other employers in the industry. McQueen was always revered as a master in creating an impeccably tailored look. By the end of his career, McQueen had worked as the chief designer at Givenchy, while at the same time cultivating his own label, and thus producing about 15 collections a year. McQueen became infamous for bringing theatre and spectacle to his catwalks while simultaneously incorporating new technologies to create a kind of dark and fantastical world.

His influence on the fashion community cannot be understated. At the same time, his personal life, as an openly gay designer dealing with drug abuse and depression, illuminates the pressures and failings of the fashion world.

In light of Kate Spade’s suicide in June 2018, it seems more important than ever before to speak about mental health within the fashion community. The documentary explores the lead up to McQueen taking his own life – the loss of his mother, the pressure of his work, and most notably the loneliness he experienced within his popularity. McQueen’s disturbing themes and haunting designs have been thought of as visually expressing the mental difficulties he faced throughout his life. The documentary is direct about his death, and doesn’t shy away from the subject. It’s easy to see how the fashion world can become overbearing and crushing. With the glamorous yet fickle cover of luxury and beauty, it is important to be aware of what is ‘faked’ in the name of publicity and acknowledge the true difficulties involved not only in entering and but also in sustaining oneself in the industry.

McQueen’s designs reflected the turmoil and darkness he felt inside. The most striking aspect of McQueen’s career are his catwalks/fashion shows. Much of the documentary centres around a few of his most famous collections and how they’re presented. Unlike the standard, long black runway with 20 or so models filing through, McQueen created a narrative and drama. The models would be asked to move in creative and unnatural ways, bringing the clothes to life. The themes surrounding the catwalk were always intended to enhance the collection’s voice. His most notorious catwalk, VOSS SS/2001, placed an enormous glass box in the middle of the show. At the end, the walls of the box smashed to the ground, revealing a naked model on a chaise longue, surrounded by moths, wearing a gas mask to obscure her face. Alexander McQueen once commented: “God, I’ve have some freaky shows”.

With McQueen setting the bar for all emerging designers, one has to wonder if we’ve seen anyone make such an impact? Of course, the usual fashion houses are grabbing and losing our attention every season, but very few individuals have made such a name for themselves. McQueen reminds us of the raw potential of fashion, in that it’s an incredibly emotional art form: and art is exactly what McQueen created.

Released in June 2018, McQueen is a moving exploration of the isolation that comes with talent and success. This film is for those hoping to see both a showcase of the spectacular work of McQueen combined with a compassionate account of the arduous life behind it.

Welcome Freshers!

Cherwell
-
0
Welcome Freshers!

Dear Freshers,

You’ve done it! That results day envelope which has been the cause of sleepless nights, anxious pacing, and stomach churning has turned out to be a source of huge relief. You’ll doubtless be fielding praise from adoring relatives and friends – enjoy it, you deserve it. But, this is far from the end of the road – the next few years promise to be some of the most exciting of your life.

In the meantime, buckle in for two months of anticipation while you eagerly await to join us here. The post-results period can be anti-climactic and watching your other friends slowly disappear off across the country throughout September is not always fun. We would say that living vicariously through friends’ social media during this time is almost mandatory, as Facebook and Instagram become dominated by wave after wave of gap yah snaps and messy freshers’ pics. Try to resist the urge to do the infamous ‘Fresher’s UK Tour’ however – you’ll need all the rest you can get before October.

But if your reading list, college family letters, and those endless emails from Student Information aren’t a large enough dose of what’s to come at Oxford, watch this space! Keep Off the Grass will be supplying you with exclusive content up until your first day, with tips on fashion, freshers, and food. Look out for our printed publication which will be issued in your Freshers’ pack in 0th week and (we hope) will give a comprehensive run-down of the year ahead, condensing the life lessons of erstwhile freshers from Lady Margaret Hall to Regent’s Park.

Looking forward to seeing you all in Bridge!

Fin and Libby ? xx

Let’s Talk About: Medicine Resits

Anonymous
-
1
Let’s Talk About: Medicine Resits

Revising a third of my course wasn’t exactly how I was planning to spend my summer, but unfortunately that’s what happens when you don’t meet the pass mark. This seems perfectly fair, unless (as is the case for me) you’re being made to revise because you missed the pass mark by 1%.

Obviously, the pass mark is there for a reason. One might argue that it is somewhat arbitrary, but at the end of the day the Oxford University Medical School is training the future doctors of the NHS. Unlike in other subjects, where the content taught may be less relevant to a future career, it’s really rather important that we know the bones of the skeleton, for example, or the basic science behind breathing and gas exchange. For those of you lucky enough not to be familiar with the way in which medical students are examined, we have two types of exam: written and multiple choice. If you don’t score highly enough on the written exams, you’re called in for a Viva Voce examination. The point of these oral exams is to make sure you know the topic(s) you didn’t score highly on sufficiently, without making you resit the entire paper. This is useful because in many cases students make one or two small yet significant errors which sabotage their performance, and there are only a few topics that need retesting.

I believe I can confidently speak on behalf of the entire student body when I say that Vivas, as they’re known colloquially, can be a godsend. So long as you pass, they can save weeks (if not months) of revision and stress during a period otherwise intended for relaxation and recuperation. With this in mind, it would make sense to also arrange Vivas for those who didn’t quite do well enough in the multiple choice papers (as I understand it, this was the case until 4 years ago). Of course it would be more time consuming, as each exam covers 20 topics as opposed to 3 in their written counterparts, but one would think that the Viva Voce examiners would only need to assess the very lowest-scoring topics in order to confirm that the student in question had a reasonable knowledge of their course. Furthermore, Vivas would only be necessary for those students near the pass/fail border, which past examiners’ reports indicate would be a rather small number.

I’m not suggesting the pass marks ought to be lowered (this year’s was 69%), but resits ought to be a last resort. No one wants a doctor who scraped 40% in their first year exams, but time is a precious resource, and the time of those who just failed to reach the bar set for them shouldn’t be wasted re-memorising information that won’t be relevant for years to come.

Failing an exam is one thing, but realising you’ve failed by one mark is infuriating beyond words – especially when that one mark results in the loss of two thirds of your summer. While Oxford may be ranked the best university in the world for medicine, the department certainly isn’t infallible. We only need to look at the recent breach of the General Data Protection Regulation that the department experienced, which resulted in a list of the full names of the candidates called for vivas being sent to the entirety of the first year cohort to see that blunders are most definitely made. As with any organisation, they’re capable of making mistakes, and I believe the removal of Vivas for multiple choice exams is one of them – one that cuts deep for those of us who were a hair’s breadth away from success.

Top Australian universities beat the Russell Group for economic influence

Angus Brown
-
0
Top Australian universities beat the Russell Group for economic influence

Top universities in Australia wield as much as 30% more economic influence than the UK’s leading grouping of research universities, according to a recent study.

Recent analysis found that the “Group of Eight” (a collection of Australia’s leading universities) injected the equivalent of £37.9 billion into the economy in 2016, roughly £4.7 billion per institution.

The Russell Group, by contrast and despite having 24 institutions, contributed only £3.6 billion per institutions, or £86.8 billion across the group, in the same period.

Group of Eight universities are thought to benefit from their larger size than British universities, taking in an average of 18,000 students compared to around 11,000 at the average Russell Group university.

Ian Jacobs, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales (a Group of Eight member) commented that “The Go8 is an intense economic driver, even compared to the Russell Group, which is one of the most pre-eminent in the world.”

However, Jacobs, a former vice-president at the University of Manchester, admitted that it would be “unwise” to “read too much” into side by side comparisons, though argued that they suggested “the Go8 is perhaps more impressive than we have thought.”

Dr Gavan Conlon, the leader of the education team at London Economics who conducted the study, argued that the results were distorted by certain “natural advantages” in Australia, including its relatively closed economy.

Other studies also suggest that the Russell Group makes a greater contribution to the economy through revenues generated by teaching and learning activities, which could total as much as £20.7 billion a year, compared to just £2.78 billion from the Group of Eight.

Dr Conlon said that he had been surprised by the “spillover effect” of research from the Group of Eight, commenting that the “multiplier” of 9.76 for its research spending (the amount generated for every pound spent) was higher than expected. Money spent on research by the Russell Group, meanwhile, had a multiplier of just 5.5.

Although many universities have commissioned their own studies of economic impacts, most have only considered the impacts of their expenditure, and Dr Conolon argues that more sophisticated analyses like his own should take into account the universities’ wider economic impact.

Witch Hunt Review – ‘Dizzily funny writing and disastrous hair’

Susannah Goldsbrough
-
0
Witch Hunt Review – ‘Dizzily funny writing and disastrous hair’

“I’m toxic, crazy and a womanizer!” announces men’s rights activist Tommy Neck (Alistair Inglis) in a saliva-spraying Glaswegian growl. “Those are also, in my opinion, Britney’s three best songs” he adds conversationally, without missing a beat. And so Witch Hunt, penned and performed by three recent alumnae of the Oxford Revue, blasts into life, a hot mess of politically-charged and gloriously weird gags.

Crammed into a narrow room upstairs at the Grassmarket Centre on a late-night billing, it falls entirely to the three performers to generate an atmosphere. And they do a brilliant job, nailing a series of increasingly weird and whacky jokes that peck away at the political absurdities of today’s world, through heavy accents and sweat-slicked wigs.

Over the course of an hour each actor delivers three or four distinct roles. The unquestionable stand out is Derek Mitchell’s Dawn Mackintosh, a cringing, simpering play on all the Sarah Palins of America – part-time bible class teacher and full time homophobic horror show with a 60s perm. As the show progresses, her daughter’s lesbianism (“I’m a Christian, and I love you… but I also worship, like next-level adore vagina”) and her own sexual frustration sees her smile stretch increasingly taut and her outburst become ever more funny. In one scene she interrupts a TV chef’s lasagne demonstration to squeak, ‘I get my lasagne sauce from a jar. One time, I found a baby bird in it!’ with the horribly misplaced merriment of someone on the verge of nervous collapse. By the end of the scene, so is the audience (from laughter, not nerves).

Meanwhile, Kathy Maniura’s obnoxiously self-satisfied, scarf-wrapped and cigarette jabbing J.K. Rowling is busy reminding everyone just how rich she is (“so rich, so rich”, for anyone wondering) and entering the world of professional politics with the breathy announcement that “Filch is… a Syrian refugee!” Inglis pulls off a head-spinning double gender flip as Tommy Neck, who is himself in disguise as a feminist figurehead of the SNP. The moment his cover is accidentally busted by a Robbie Williams ringtone, because “only a middle aged heterosexual man would cry at Angels”, formed one of the best jokes of the show.

It’s not the finished article, yet. Witch Hunt needs a bit of a rethink when it comes to plot and structure. The threads hang together a little loosely, a little over-elaborately – do we really need the gay fascist EU President Milosz, the central character who ties all the others together, but who we never quite manage to meet? And I wasn’t entirely convinced by the final minute effort to wrap the show up in the theme of witches – J.K. Rowling… get it? It felt a bit last ditch, as though the writers had suddenly realised that the connections between American evangelicalism, Glaswegian men’s right activism and children’s fiction aren’t all that obvious. But all it requires is it a bit of careful rejigging, because, at its heart, this sketch show knows exactly what it’s doing. That is, plucking away at a few of the ugliest threads of life in 2018, and playing them for every laugh they can get. With a few lizards thrown in. Because this is late night Fringe comedy, after all.

Scholars’ gowns should inspire, not intimidate

-
1
Scholars’ gowns should inspire, not intimidate

It’s been over a year since students voted to reject an OUSU motion proposing a ban on scholars’ gowns. The arguments for and against the ban are well-versed. Rather than rehashing these old arguments, I’d like to engage in a moment of introspection. Why is it that scholars’ gowns make some of the rest of us feel inadequate, or insecure?

I don’t mean to dismiss the issues raised by those in favour of a ban; they were legitimate concerns, although unlikely to be solved simply by abolishing the gown. I think, however, that a large degree of the criticism surrounding scholars’ gowns comes down to feelings of resentment. It’s this we should address.

One of the greatest challenges at Oxford is adapting to an environment in which all of your peers are at least as smart as you are. We’re all Oxford students, we’re all (ostensibly) very smart, and a lot of us probably came from schools where we were used to being counted among the best and brightest. Suddenly being plunged into a world where you’re just one in thousands can be hard, and a lot of us struggle with imposter syndrome at the first sign of difficulty. If we aren’t the best, what are we doing here? Why aren’t we more like those with scholars’ gowns? Should we be here at all? Many of us wrestle with these questions, myself included, and I don’t seek to invalidate those feelings.

That having been said, it isn’t the university’s job to answer them, especially if they must scrap centuries of tradition to do so by removing these gowns. It’s tough to adapt to an environment in which you’re not necessarily the highest performer but learning to accept this truth is a vital part of maturing, and indeed learning.

I don’t have a gown. I only have a few friends who do, and I won’t pretend that I’m not jealous of them; there’s a competitive part of me that wants to be the best and is frustrated by this visible evidence that I’m not. But the difference between us is that I know they’ve earned it and I haven’t. With a little self-awareness, I can’t help but acknowledge that in my own case, I haven’t worked as hard as they have, and I’m perhaps not quite as talented as them either. That’s not an easy thing to come to terms with, but I’ve ultimately got no right to demand that they downplay their achievements to cater to my feelings.

Scholars’ gowns aren’t about the people who don’t have them, they’re about rewarding the excellence of the people who do. An incredible and admirable amount of hard work and talent go into earning them, and it’s only fair to recognise that in some way. The success of a few of us doesn’t mean that the rest of us don’t deserve our places at Oxford, and it shouldn’t be viewed as a snub – a commoner’s gown is the default for the majority, not for an underprivileged minority. It’s ridiculous to act as though we’re being treated as second-class members of the University community because we aren’t being rewarded in the same way as students who have performed very highly. Our equality as students is not contingent on the uniformity of the gowns we wear.

I asked a friend of mine who’d recently received his gown what he thought about its criticisms. Did he view us differently now that the long sleeves had potentially gone to his head? Of course not. At the end of the day, a gown is just an outfit and the person wearing it is just another student. Gowns, he argued, are about continuing centuries of tradition and celebrating achievement; they’re not designed to make people feel insecure, but rather they are “something to aspire to and challenge oneself to get”. Maybe you could argue that we should just be aspiring for the best grades possible, not an oversized coat, but you’d be missing the point – the gown is a visible symbol of success and a reminder not to get complacent. How we react to it is a personal matter, not one for the university.

The reality of life is that not everybody gets to be the greatest. This fact can be tough to accept, but ultimately our inner feelings are our own: it’s up to us to confront or ignore them as we see fit.

Premier League Predictions 2018/19

Hamish Venters
-
1
Premier League Predictions 2018/19

With the Premier League season now fully underway, it’s high time predictions were made, bets placed and heated debates had. My top six is predictably made up of the familiar names, but perhaps not in the order you’d naturally think:

  1. Liverpool

Although I am no fan of Liverpool I cannot escape the fact that they were pretty good last year and will be even better this season. When at their best they can beat City, they have shored up the centre of midfield, and if their new signing, Alisson Becker from Roma, works well their goalkeeping issues will be solved too. They’ve spent big recently and I expect it to pay off.

  1. Manchester City

If they prove me wrong and win the league, I won’t be remotely surprised. However, recent history has proven that title defences are difficult and rarely successful. Moreover, their only major signing has been Mahrez, who plays in a position where they have an embarrassment of riches already, and who for my money does not influence games consistently enough. Whilst Guardiola is a good enough manager to ward off complacency, I think they are in danger of standing still as Liverpool improve.

  1. Tottenham Hotspur

At the time of writing they have made exactly no signings, which is about the level of ambition I’d expect from Spurs. Nonetheless the team they have at the moment is a talented one, and they are a safe bet for top-four this year. Spurs will likely not win a thing if they remain at their usual level of form and are unlikely to change this track record until they display something in the way of ambition.

  1. Chelsea

I should probably declare an interest and admit I am a Chelsea fan, so I’ve put them up here far more in hope than expectation. Chelsea are an unknown quantity this year, and having been mediocre at best last season, they’ve had an abysmal summer. The board’s dithering over Conte has left Sarri far too little time to implement his style of football, whilst Hazard and Courtois want out. Whilst not impossible, fourth would represent an exceptionally good return on a shambolic few months, which makes Chelsea sound depressingly similar to their north London neighbours.

  1. Manchester United

I’m really looking forward to watching them this year, because Mourinho’s third-season syndrome seems to be taking hold. He has been boorish and ill-tempered throughout a torrid pre-season, he’s alienating a dressing room which is tired of his bad moods and pretty soon the board will have had enough too. Signings have not been good enough to make up the difference with City, but the major problem they have is that José will self-destruct and get the sack. As a Chelsea fan, watching a Mourinho meltdown from the outside looking in is a rare occurrence. I will savour every moment.

  1. Arsenal

Say what you like about Arsene Wenger, but for a long time the squad he worked with at Arsenal wasn’t very good. It was very much his fault, but his squad was of poor quality and it remains of a similar standard under Unai Emery. Their new signings will offer little entertainment and I doubt that they will produce anything of note this season.

As for the bottom three sink sides, these three sides won’t be able to handle the pace and quality of England’s top flight this term, and I expect to see all of the below struggling as the season goes on:

  1. Southampton

They were pretty dreadful last year, making their survival look much harder than it actually should have been. Moreover, they’ve kept Mark Hughes as manager, which is frankly nothing short of a death sentence. I’m not expecting much.

  1. Crystal Palace

For the past four seasons they have performed survival heroics by bringing in a new manager halfway through the season, but this year I expect their luck to run out. As it stands they haven’t lost their star player, Wilfried Zaha, but it’s likely they will, and if they do it will surely be the blow which, at long last, sends them to their doom.

  1. Cardiff

Wolves’ relationship with Jorge Mendes has allowed them to build a team that will almost certainly be good enough to survive, whilst Fulham have spent big and, in my opinion, well. This makes Cardiff the most likely contenders to go down of the promoted teams, and their modest acquisitions this summer will not make their season any easier.

Women’s Super League:

Despite all the commotion over changes to the structures of women’s football (and who wouldn’t feel for poor Sunderland, having been relegated two divisions, after finishing a creditable seventh last season), I don’t think it will actually do very much to change outcomes at the top of the division. It will be a two-horse race between Manchester City and Chelsea, and I reckon Chelsea will come out on top, yet again. Until Manchester United are in the competition, this duopoly seems pretty safe. However, expect the Red Devils to make quick progress; Casey Stoney is an astute appointment as manager and the club are said to be investing as much as five million.

Exclusive: Oxford employed monk convicted of child sex abuse despite ban

Oscar Baker
-
3
Exclusive: Oxford employed monk convicted of child sex abuse despite ban

This report contains a description of sexual assault.

The University of Oxford and St. Benet’s Hall employed a monk convicted of child sexual abuse for twelve years, despite a government ban on his working with younger undergraduates, Cherwell can exclusively report.

Father Bernard Green, a member of the Faculty of Theology, tutored at a total of seven Oxford colleges and PPHs between 2000 and 2012, as well as serving as a Director of Studies in Theology from 2004.

Green was banned in 1996 from teaching and working with “young persons under the age of 19” by the Department of Education (DfE). This followed his conviction in February 1996 on one count of indecent assault of a child under the age of 14 whilst at Ampleforth Abbey and College, which used to run University Permanent Private Hall, St. Benet’s.

The Benedictine monk, who died in 2013, was dismissed from all St. Benet’s roles in 2012, when a case review by bosses “revealed that he had been barred from teaching under 19s by the DfE,” according to last week’s report on Ampleforth by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA).

But Inquiry evidence, seen by Cherwell, also shows that the then Abbot of Ampleforth and former St. Benet’s Trust Chair, Father Cuthbert Madden, knew of the nature of Green’s ban as early as 2006. Father Bernard continued as a Tutor for another six years.

The outgoing Master of St. Benet’s Hall said “it is a matter of deep regret” that the Hall had “any part in what happened”. He said the St. Benet’s “of today is a very different place,” citing “fundamental changes in leadership and oversight that took place in 2012.”

Cherwell can also report that the University of Oxford too failed to realise Fr Bernard’s ban during a 2005 disciplinary investigation into the monk for harassment of a 19 year old male undergraduate. After having been found to have committed serious misconduct, Fr Bernard received a final written warning at the time.

Green began his work at Oxford in 2000 while still on the Sex Offenders Register. It is also revealed that University authorities found indecent images of children downloaded on his computer in a 2013 investigation.

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford told Cherwell the revelations of this “important report” were “deeply troubling,” and that it was “looking into the points raised.” It stressed that “the welfare of our students is an important priority.”

One source close to St. Benet’s told Cherwell: “I struggle to see why St. Benet’s acted in this way. It is a source of great pain that they seem to have put avoiding possible harm to the Ampleforth name ahead of the pastoral and welfare needs of students.”

Another source said: “This is a dark moment for Oxford University, it is a case of real negligence, turning a blind eye to a convicted abuser on multiple occasions.”

A member of Oxford University also told Cherwell: “The fact that the University did not dismiss Fr Bernard in 2005 after the incident (of harassment) is astounding.

“But what is more disturbing is that the University allowed a predator of this nature to work there in the first place, considering he was convicted in 1996. Added to this, the investigation was clearly not strong enough to root out that Father Bernard was actually banned [from working with young undergraduates] for the entirety of his [preceding] time at Oxford.”

This week’s report by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse details years of sexual abuse at Ampleforth College, a Roman Catholic public boarding school run by the English Benedictine Congregation.

In November 1995, Fr Bernard abused a 13-year old pupil at the Yorkshire school, known only as RC-A97. He entered a boys’ dormitory where the pupil was sleeping and “fondled his genitals.”

Pleading guilty in February 1996, Fr Bernard was sentenced to two years’ probation, compelled to attend a sex offenders treatment programme, and registered on the Sex Offenders Register for five years to 2001.

A Department for Education letter in August 1996 established that “on the grounds of misconduct Bernard Green should not be appointed or employed…as a teacher or worker with children or young persons.” Such a “worker with children or young persons” is, the letter reads, a person “whose employment brings him regularly into contact with persons who have not achieved the age of 19 years.”

A 2006 email between Fr Cuthbert Madden, then Abbot of Ampleforth and current St. Benet’s Trust chair, and monastery lawyer Andrew Dawson, shows St. Benet’s knew of the nature of Father Bernard’s ban six years before he was dismissed.

Dated May 20 2006, Fr Cuthbert writes to Dawson: “You will recall that we discussed Fr Bernard with Barry Honeysett and he said that he should not have contact with anyone under the age of 18.

“You can imagine my surprise, then, when I found a letter (this week) from the Department of Education and a Employment, dated 1 August 1996, which reads: …the Secretary of State…has directed…that on the grounds of misconduct Bernard Green should not be appointed or employed…as a teacher or worker with children or young persons.”

Fr Cuthbert adds to lawyer Dawson: “You will be aware that Father Bernard has been working at St. Benet’s Hall for some years now. How does that sit with this letter?”

He notes in the email: “There has never been any question raised about this being illegal/not permitted but the university is starting to tighten up its regulations and are even doing comprehensive CRB checks – I am amazed that they have not already done so…”

During December 2017 hearings at the Inquiry, Fr Cuthbert told panel members of his 2006 discovery: “That was a surprise to me. I hadn’t realised that. Age 19, some people going to university are still aged 18 and not 19.”

He added that it was decided to make “arrangements to be absolutely sure that he had no contact with people under the age of 19.”

Fr Cuthbert also noted at that then St. Benet’s Master, the Very Rev Fr Leo Chamberlain, “made some kind of risk assessment, if memory serves correctly…”

Father Leo was headmaster at Ampleforth at the time of Fr Bernard’s sexual assault on the 13 year old pupil in 1995, reporting this abuse to statutory authorities at the time.

One source has questioned how, given his previous responsibilities at Ampleforth, Fr Leo could not have immediately known about the nature of Fr Bernard’s ban when he became St. Benet’s Master in 2004.

They told Cherwell: “Fr Leo seems to have chosen convenience over right…While we do not know what his motivation was, given the incident in 2005 (the harassment case) it beggars belief that he did not either insist on Green leaving or resign in protest.”

Asked whether he initially knew of the 19-year-old provision to Fr Bernard’s ban, Father Leo told Cherwell: “No I did not know that, nor did the Abbot at that stage. It was in the paperwork, but he hadn’t found it. When he did find it, he acted, no dark plots. It is a serious matter, which we take seriously.”

Fr Leo also told Cherwell: “The IISCA hearing makes it clear that the under 19 provision came to light after Abbot Cuthbert’s election, so must have been 2005-2007.

“Once the provision was known, I would then have had to check that the ages of undergraduates tutored by Fr Bernard were not under 19.”

It was another six years after 2006 before Fr Bernard was dismissed from his roles at Oxford following a new review of his case and ban. This was triggered by the fact St. Benet’s was then run by an educational trust that also ran a school a hundred miles from Oxford.

In August 2016, Fr Cuthbert Madden himself temporarily stood aside as Abbot of Ampleforth. He was interviewed under caution by North Yorkshire police, who were investigating complaints by four former pupils of indecent assaults in the early 1990s.

A spokesperson for Ampleforth, speaking on behalf of Father Cuthbert, told Cherwell: “As I’m sure you’ll know, in line with civil and ecclesiastical protocols, Fr Cuthbert Madden OSB has temporarily stepped aside from his responsibilities as Abbot of Ampleforth while appropriate Church protocols are being carried out relating to unfounded allegations concerning historical events.

“He will not resume his duties at Ampleforth until these are completed, so it would not be appropriate for him to comment on your questions at this time.”

In a statement to Cherwell, the outgoing master of St. Benet’s Hall, Professor Werner Jeanrond said: “It is a matter of deep regret that the Hall had any part in what happened in those years, a period which predates the fundamental changes in leadership and oversight that took place in 2012.

“The St Benet’s of today is a very different place. It is run by a separate Trust and far-reaching changes have been made to its governance, operating procedures, oversight arrangements, and to the make up of its staff and student community. While these cannot expunge the past and its failings, they do give us confidence for the future.”

The 2005 University disciplinary panel was convened to investigate Father Bernard following an accusation that he harassed a 19 year old male undergraduate at a 2005 JCR picnic on Port Meadow, while serving as St. Benet’s Director of Studies in Theology. The complete conclusions of this panel were kept confidential at the time, but Fr Bernard was given a final written warning.

According to the Independent Inquiry, the Panel, led by Magdalen Law Fellow Dr Katharine Grevling, concluded that it “did not interpret [Father Bernard’s] touching as a sexually-motivated contact and whilst very concerned at the verbal comments, accepted [Bernard’s] explanation for making them.”

Speaking of this 2005 University disciplinary panel, Fr Leo told Cherwell: “My view, following this, was that St. Benet’s was a small place, Bernard a priest and not just a tutor, and that the situation would be unworkable.

“So I asked for his withdrawal. Abbot Cuthbert, newly elected, chose to stay with the panel recommendations.”

Fr Bernard Green tutored at colleges including Keble, Trinity, Worcester, St John’s, and Corpus Christi as well as St. Benet’s. He was a member of the University Theology faculty, a Joint Chairman of Graduate Seminar in Patristics and, from 2004, Director and Acting Director of Studies in Theology at Benet’s and Christ Church (between 2004 and 2005) respectively.

A spokesperson for the University of Oxford told Cherwell: “The revelations of this important report are deeply troubling and we are looking into the points raised by it.

“The welfare of our students is an important priority for the University and we regularly review our safeguarding code of practice and pre-employment screening guidance.”

This article was corrected 13/08/18 to reflect the fact Fr Cuthbert Madden has not been St. Benet’s Trust chair since he stepped aside in August 2016. This position is currently held by Sir Ralph Waller.

Oxford City Council proposes renaming St Clement’s ward

Isabel Morris
-
2
Oxford City Council proposes renaming St Clement’s ward

Oxford City Council has proposed changing the name of St Clement’s ward to Bannister in memory of Sir Roger Bannister, an Oxford athlete and former Master of Pembroke College who passed away in March.

The proposal comes as part of the council’s review of city wards, which began last November.

Source: The Local Government Boundary Commission for England

The ward in question – which is surrounded by the wards Holywell, Churchill, and Bartlemas – includes the Iffley Road running track, where Bannister became the first person to run a mile in under four minutes in 1954.

After winning a gold medal at the 1954 Commonwealth Games, Bannister went on to become a leading neurologist and served as Master of Pembroke College between 1985 and 1993. He was knighted for his services to sport in 1975.

Bannister was also conferred the Oxford Freedom of the City in 2004 and is an Honorary Fellow of both Exeter and Merton Colleges.

Councillor for St Mary’s ward and Green Party member Craig Simmons proposed the name change as a way of honouring Bannister. His party’s original proposal to the Council and Boundary Commission was to rename the extended St Mary’s ward, but the Labour-run Council made a counter proposal which instead applies the Bannister name to a re-shaped St Clement’s ward.

Simmons told Cherwell: “I had the great pleasure of meeting Sir Roger Bannister on a number of occasions and, following his death earlier this year, it felt right to further honour his contribution to the City of Oxford.

“The opportunity came when the City was asked to by the Boundary Commission to review its ward boundaries. The area currently known as St. Mary’s Ward, which I represent along with Councillor Dick Wolff, includes the north edge of the running track on Iffley Road. It needed to grow slightly to accommodate demographic changes – and it seemed obvious that the streets to the east of the running track should be included.

“This expanded ward needed a new name and, as it wraps around the running track with Bannister Close at its heart, it seemed an obvious choice to name it after Sir Roger.

“Of course, as an eminent neurologist, his contributions to modern medicine extended well beyond his relatively brief time as an athlete and I hope that this small contribution to his memory is seen within this wider context.”

Simmons added that there was a “good chance” the ward would be renamed. However, he worried that renaming St Clement’s as opposed to St Mary’s made less sense geographically and community-wise because people in St Mary’s associate much more with Iffley Road, their main route into Oxford.

Council leader Sarah Brown confirmed that the name of St Clement’s Street (A420) would not change as part of the new plans.

She added: “It’s a really important tribute to a lovely, lovely man who deserves the honour.

“I suspect lots of people in the city don’t know which wards they live in, but we try to reflect, with the ward names we choose, the local area in some way.

“I hope he would understand this is a small way the city can honour that connection with him and it seems entirely appropriate considering this area includes the track in which he made that absolutely astonishing historic achievement.”

Five Women Wearing the Same Dress Review – ‘an unusual choice for the Fringe’

Ela Portnoy
-
0
Five Women Wearing the Same Dress Review – ‘an unusual choice for the Fringe’

A play of bitching, bragging and bawling, Five Women Wearing the Same Dress is the story of five bridesmaids at a wedding. As the piece progresses, the women uncover secrets, treacheries and lies in a psychological mishmash of strong emotions.

This was an unusual choice for the Edinburgh Fringe. It was the first show I have seen at the Fringe that is over one hour long, and the only show I have seen with a programme longer than a single sheet of paper. It also took more than five minutes to clear the stage (which is quite the luxury!) due to the large and detailed set.

For a play of such length and ambition, the actors engaged the audience well. The dynamics between the women was absorbing; I got the sense that all the cast were good friends and were all on the same level as actors. The play had enjoyable dynamic contrasts – alliances shifted, friendships were formed and broken, and the general flow was good.

Interestingly, none of the characters were straightforwardly likeable except for Lucia Proctor-Bonbright’s Mindy, who I found to be the only easily relatable character. In addition to a believable accent, her characterisation was bubbly, sincere and sustained. Other stand-out performances came from Lucy McIlgorm and Pheobe Mallinson.

While the relationships between the women were evocative, the story was hard to follow. I did not get a sense of a clear plot, and much of the dialogue seemed to just be gossip between the women. Besides this lack of forward motion, the overall atmosphere of the production was cohesive. The set was elaborate and ambitious for a Fringe production, but suited the play and had impressive attention to detail. However, the costumes appeared cheap and ill-made, even if they fit well with the general aesthetic.

Overall, despite a length incongruous to the Edinburgh Fringe and an unclear story-line, the acting in this particular ex-Oxford production is its strongest asset.

1...719720721...2,526Page 720 of 2,526

Support Student Journalism

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

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

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

Website by Jamie Ashley