Sunday 12th October 2025
Blog Page 724

Tchaikovsky at the World Cup: Hidden Politics

0

As the FIFA World Cup tournament 2018 drew to a finish with France’s victory, fans across the world briefly reflected on the past few weeks, speculating how their teams’ journeys might have been different with an extra pass here or a few more risks taken there. But a far more serious risk was undertaken by many this summer simply by making the journey to the host country, Russia, whether to watch or play in the tournament: those who identify as LGBTQ+.  Even before the World Cup officially began, the dangers were evident. Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE) produced a guide warning LGBTQ+ fans against openly displaying affection when visiting Russia for the World Cup, whilst various LGBT football societies such as Three Lions Pride received anonymous threats online before even embarking on their visits.

When the London Pride Parade fell on the same day that both Russia and England played in separate quarterfinal matches, it was difficult to ignore the stark contrast in LGBTQ+ rights between the two nations. Russian homophobia has intensified since 2013, when a law was passed condemning “gay propaganda” or any media which portrays a positive depiction of homosexuality. That same year, the Russian Minister of Culture, Peter Medinsky, denied the generally accepted view that Tchaikovsky, a famous Russian 19th century composer, was gay.

Yet in May 2018, English translations of Tchaikovsky’s letters published by Yale University Press revealed overwhelming evidence that Tchaikovsky was gay, evidence which had been previously censored and omitted by Russian publishers. Moreover, many of Tchaikovsky’s biographers had already acknowledged the composer’s sexuality ever since his death, and it is a well-known fact amongst classical music enthusiasts in England that Tchaikovsky was gay.

It seems to me that it may be no accident that the ITV Sport opening credits to the World Cup coverage featured Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake arrangement in an environment of  Russian homophobia and censorship. There is, of course, a large possibility that the decision to accompany the Russian-inspired opening titles with Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake was motivated by socially constructed notions of a Russian musical identity alone. It is true that Tchaikovsky’s music does evoke ideas of Russianness in the way that he is well-known enough for the average listener to recognize the theme’s creator, and thus make the connection with his nationality. However, Richard Taruskin, a musicologist, argues that Tchaikovsky had wished to fight his national identity and that by the end of his life, he was regarded as more universal than national. So the question remains: was his Russian identity the sole motivation for choosing this soundtrack for the opening titles?

Whether coincidental or intentional, what matters is that Tchaikovsky’s iconic Swan lake theme might have meant something to the LGBTQ+ football fans who were at risk of football violence and worse if they dared to hold hands with their partners. I would argue that the decision to use the Swan Lake theme  was a kind and meaningful one, however unintentional this kindness was. For years, Tchaikovsky was censored and treated like a dirty secret, and LGBTQ+ fans were likewise advised to hide their identities and their love. In the face of Russian homophobia, ITV Sport placed Tchaikovsky’s music in the foreground. Playing some Tchaikovsky isn’t the biggest step in the world, but the issues of censorship, homophobia and LGBTQ+ rights were given a small, subtle platform hidden in plain sight. Or should I say in plain sound?

London Pride: Commercialised

4

This year London Pride coincided with the day England beat Sweden in the quarter finals of the World Cup. The pubs of Soho filled with two types of people: the England fan and the LGBT individual, many of whom were in fact the very same person. The mutually exclusive relationship that has been presented in the past is increasingly withering away. At least for a day, football fans were no longer afraid to be gay and gay people were no longer afraid to be football fans.

But this happy scene hides a more sinister truth. On a day to day basis outside of the accepting enclave of Soho, these individuals must hide parts of their identity. As a football fan, a man would be frowned upon walking into the Emirates in the arms of another man. Fans are forced to return back to the closet and agents advise players to remain in the closet.

Beyond the sad reality of the sporting industry, there was a more pressing and visible issue during Pride: its commercialisation.

Every restaurant and shop along the route of the Pride parade had clad their exterior with the rainbow Pride flag. Aware of the spending power of the LGBTQ+ community, these companies were understandably keen to get behind the idea of Pride. But this was not evidence of support for the legitimate concerns of LGBTQ+ individuals, but instead was an attempt to extract as many pink pounds as possible.

Companies care only notionally about LGBTQ+ equality and are happy to support it when it is likely to benefit them. Although the shops of Regent Street were covered with rainbows, as soon as one gets the train to Romford, Redbridge or Richmond the scene changes. Shops are no longer donning the rainbow. This is because it is not the cool (or commercially sensible) thing to do.

These scenes show the way in which capitalism attempts to exploit and commercialise Pride.

If shops such as Starbucks and Nandos wanted to make a difference they would fly rainbow flags from their restaurants in countries where being gay is illegal. I doubt there is a pride flag flying proudly from a Starbucks coffee shop in Saudi Arabia, or from a Nandos in Dubai. This is because to do so would be commercial suicide. They would almost immediately be shut down by the police authorities. Even if they weren’t, certain customers might think twice before buying a Starbucks frappe or a half chicken medium.

Pride should not be railroaded by these companies trying to make a quick buck from the prejudices and discrimination that LGBTQ+ people have faced for centuries. Instead, if these companies want to make a genuine difference they should advocate for LGBTQ+ rights not only in the UK (where admittedly we still have a long way to come), but in those countries and communities where homosexuality is seen as a crime worthy of death.

As such, if these companies do decide to raise a flag, a massive responsibility falls upon them not only to advocate for LGBTQ+ individuals globally but also to ensure equality for LGBTQ+ individuals employed within their organisation. There is a rainbow ceiling that exists in many corporate environments, with LGBTQ+ individuals continuing to face barriers to executive and senior roles. Companies have a responsibility to ensure that LGBTQ+ individuals within the organisation can progress as their heterosexual counterparts can, whether or not they are flying the pride flag.

With this commercialisation of Pride lies another issue. Pride clothing ranges are produced in countries where being gay is illegal. The BBC, for instance, revealed that H&M produced its Pride range in Turkey, China, and Bangladesh: three countries where it is illegal to be gay. A male factory worker, employed by H&M, might produce a ‘love is love’ t-shirt, but he still could not return home to another man without fear. For that factory worker, his love of another man would be devalued, demeaned, and viewed worthy of death.

Yes, companies such as H&M may be creating employment in these regions. But, in making these Pride ranges, they have charged themselves with an additional goal – promoting LGBTQ+ equality and rights. Through producing Pride shirts in countries where it is illegal to be gay, they are rubbing salt in the wounds of LGBTQ+ individuals.

If these companies want to make a real difference, inconspicuously producing Pride clothing in these countries is not the way to go about it. They should be providing ‘safe spaces’ at work for LGBTQ+ individuals, boycotting the government and threatening divestment from these countries. As multinationals, these companies have immeasurable power on the world stage. This is particularly true when their annual revenue is greater than the GDP of some countries where it is illegal to be gay.

These companies have an opportunity to champion a change and as customers, it is our right to ask for this change. We shouldn’t accept empty rhetoric and tokenism for the sake of making money. We should demand real tangible change, and if this doesn’t happen, Pride should be reclaimed from the overbearing corporate presence that pervades the event.

New course in algorithmic trading at Saïd

0

Oxford’s Saïd Business School is introducing a new online course in Algorithmic Trading this July, which, in its blending of traditional behavioural economics and technology, claims to be “the first of its kind worldwide.”

The technique works through using algorithms to replicate patterns in behaviour, and using the resulting estimates to make investment choices, removing human bias and emotion altogether.

Although algorithmic trading has been used for some time, its dominance in financial sectors is growing, and is estimated by the School to account for 20% of hedge funds.

The course is aimed at finance professionals looking to evaluate opportunities and invest in firms that use algorithmic trading.

As well as the convenor, Professor Nir Vulkan, programme participants will also hear from leading academics in the subject and industry professionals, such as Martin Leuck, Director of Research at Aspect Capital, and Susi Gorbey, director of quantitative strategies at Tudor Capital Europe.

Some types of algorithmic trading, such as high-frequency trading, are considered to amplify systemic risk in financial markets. Recently, a Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) report warned that “firms need to do more work to identify and reduce potential conduct risks created by their algorithmic trading strategies.”

Speaking to Cherwell, Vulkan said: “Our programme explains the difference between various categories of funds, both high- and low frequency trading, leaving participants with an understanding of what might crash markets and what is potentially dangerous, and therefore what to avoid.”

Peter Moores Dean at Saïd Business School, Peter Tufano, said: “Research suggests that some professional careers might be challenged as technology rapidly transforms markets, institutions, and business models…[our course] will help entrepreneurs and executives future-proof their careers as they navigate the changing landscape.”

Oxford Entrepreneurs have also taken similar steps to incorporate technology in the face of increasing reliance on machine-learning in business and finance.

Ilona Budapesti of Oxford Entrepreneurs, told Cherwell: “Digital literacy and digital numeracy are non-optional skills for the current generation of knowledge workers.

“This is why Oxford Entrepreneurs incubated the 1 Million Women To Tech program this year that runs a yearly #SummerofCode to improve digital literacy, and #WinterOfData to improve digital numeracy of women of all ages and abilities.”

Although Algorithmic Trading is only currently being offered as 6-week online course, Vulkan suggested that it may be extended to the MBA programme if there is enough demand.

He added: “I personally would love to extend this offering to all our students, including undergraduates.”

“Studio 54” is an era’s “Paradise Lost”

0

Success can be so staggering that we fall. The Boom bust, the ship sank, and Paradise was lost. We yearn to return. Which is why we have Studio 54: The Documentary (2018): 100 minutes of access to “the definitive nightclub in New York City,” “the Mount Olympus of the disco world.” Open only thirty-three months, the club came to symbolise 1970s’ American hedonism, the pursuit of pleasure at 125-beats-a-minute. With interviews from owners, regulars, and promotors, Studio 54 attempts to recapture a moment as fleeting and devastating as Caesar’s Rome.

“There are only two people who could have told this story,” says Ian Schrager, Studio 54’s co-founder, “Steve and I.” He means his partner Steve Rubell, who died in 1989. The film begins with the founders. “They had an intuitive understanding that they were getting out,” says Norma Kamali, a fashion designer and Shrager’s ex. But from where? They were getting out of “openly mobile,” “ambitious,” “middle-class” families. They met at university, Shrager serious and studious, Rubell the social butterfly. “Brooklyn made me hungry,” he explains in an old interview. “I’d visit these estates and I saw how people were livin’.” This is no “rags-to-riches” story. We have two comfortable and ambitious social-climbers. Tyrnauer wastes twenty minutes pretending this is interesting.

Which may be the point. We have to wait to get in. The opening night, in 1977, was a ‘mob-scene.’ Hundreds of invitations were sent out to America’s jet-set. They came. “They invited the people,” explains a regular, “that everyone else wanted to be in a room with.” Mick Jagger and Tina Turner; Elizabeth Taylor and Truman Capote; Blondie, and Liza Minelli… “It was the beginning of the age of celebrity” says Shrager. “We were there at the right time, and we rode it for all it was worth.” A publicist was paid to fuel the press: “$500 for the cover of the Daily News. […T]he cover of the New York Post would be an additional $500,” she explains. “Anything that happened there was on the cover of the newspapers… Everyone felt they had to be there, or they were missing out.” The film shows shots of the hopeful, a congregation of coats and cold shoulders, a ringed finger tentatively raised to the doorman. “If you look at the photographs,” a journalist observes, “it’s more a slightly hopeful throng of people… it’s like the damned looking into Paradise.”

Entrance to Studio 54 was granted on the timeless truth that beauty is power. Outside stands Rubell and the doorman, raised on stools, coordinating a survival of the fittest. ‘He would split up couples’, a journalist laughs. “He would say to the girl: ‘You’re really beautiful, you can go in, but your boyfriend has gotta go home and change into a cotton shirt.’” The occupations of the ‘normal’ people, the demigods, reveal the same. The interviewees are make-up artists and hair-stylists, designers and photographers — people who understand that looks were legitimate currency.

“I remember getting past the doorman” says Sandy Linter. She looked a cross between Madonna and Tinker Bell. “[It] looked like almost a runway and it was mirrored.” The camera pans down the corridor. There’s a blurred, beating sound, like dancing under lakes of glass. When we’re | Out there dancin’ | On the floor | Darlin’ “I just remember hearing the music and I threw my coat-“ And I | Feel your body | Close to mine “There was a rush to get to the dance floor, just a rush.” We’re given the first shots of the club, caught on film. Vertical lights, like red hot bars, cast the dancers in a blood orange glow. Away with the sound are swept anxieties and proprieties, unleashing nudity and promiscuity, indecencies and obscenities. “I was wearing lingerie and heels,” says Linter. “I could go to dance floor and dance with every body. I’d float on the dance floor and dance with all my friends.” She pauses. “I mean, I didn’t know them, they didn’t know me but they didn’t care and I didn’t care — that’s how we danced at Studio.”

There was no need to care. Originally an opera house in the twenties, and later converted to a TV studio, the building was designed to create another world. “There was a theatrical quality to the place,” says one regular. “It was an experience, touching like pretty much all of your senses.” In a night would be sunsets and sunrises, snow, wind and fog. A tornado would tear up the dance floor around 1:30am. “It’s a visceral business,” explains Shrager. “You have really no discernible product except the magic you create.” It was Shrager who was the “genius,” the one with “magical ideas” — the opera’s very own phantom, the wizard of Oz. Audience became participants, dancers performers. “Everybody who worked there knew they were cast members” explains the manager. “We were putting on a show.” We see photographs of stockings, snakes and sparklers, powdered parlour maids with feather dusters. Harlequins, harps, and leopards, banquets with human heads on platters, bar tenders in bow ties, bowler hats and boxers. As the Talent Coordinator Karin Bacon states, “anything could happen. And it did.”

It was a fantasy of freedom. “It’s where you come when you wanna escape,” says Michael Jackson. “When you dance here you’re just free. You just go wild.” They talked of “sexual permissiveness,” “swinger clubs” “free love,” the fetish, Playboy and Penthouse – this whole side of American life that gushed forth when the pill finally blew the lid off. “[E]ven if you weren’t promiscuous or sleeping with someone different every night,” says a journalist, “you felt like you could.” Sex was in the air, on the balconies, in the bathrooms. “There were mattresses in the basement,” a regular confides. “I went down and slept with a lot of people, a lot.”

You were free to be whoever you were. Studio embodied a moment of cultural fusion.  “ This. Was. Revolutionary,” explains the musician Nile Rodgers. “Everybody was fine with everybody else’s culture.” Once inside, Studio was a haven for inclusion and acceptance.

The era ended with the rise of AIDS. “Everybody was getting sick,” says Norma Komali. She’s choking up. “It was frightening and, if I’m still emotionally affected by it, the loss was profound.” We are shown Studio’s dead — men of Michelangelo visions, the living, grinning, vested Davids. Half the set-designers, half the bartenders, the boys that painted, are no longer with us anymore. “The impact these people had on the community,” explains Komali, “on New York City, such an incredible loss culturally. It changed everything.”

“You have to remember at that time AIDS wasn’t a disease,” says Rubell’s brother. “It was a condemnation, so Steve wouldn’t let me tell our parents.” It was concealed at the time: “Rubell died this morning from complications of hepatitis,” we see newsrooms report, died of “liver failure” or “septic shock.” “Mrs Rubell said to me,” says the club’s press assistant, “‘Why didn’t Steve ever get married?’ and I realized then that she never really knew that he was gay.” It was “part of that time,” she says, a time of covert crisis and spectral sons.

Often, falls are more fantastic than the fame. Many films are made for the sake of their ends. We wait hungrily for the death in the bunker, the family shot in their beds. Studio 54 tries to imitate a similar drama. Half the film retells its closure, the film’s final hour. But Studio 54 is a simple, predictable story. It was the “success,” says Shrager. “The success went to everybody’s heads.” We hear of tax evasion, a “gigantic skimming operation.” “Drugs [were] hidden at Studio 54,” says the prosecutor. It comes as no surprise. We’ve seen Rubell in a make-shift coke coat, container of “money and drugs.” The hour is summed up in one fell sweep: “It’s human nature,” says Norma Komali. “It’s the way life is.” Studio 54 fizzles out, fascinated with a fall at the expense of what we have lost. For Studio 54 was an era’s very own Paradise Lost.

The UK’s education system is unfit for purpose

0

“Education, education, education” was the rallying cry of Tony Blair’s Labour government at the turn of the millennium. It promised a sharp injection of funding into the sector but more importantly, for education to have a superior position in the government’s agenda. Twenty years on, now with the opposing party in government, the education story that dominates headlines is the dire reality of cuts and teacher shortages. The prosperity envisioned in the late-90’s for the education sector does not appear to have come to fruition, and critics of Blair’s government contend that it was never even present.

Governments since Blair have pushed education prominently in their policy. The most recent shake-up has been Theresa May’s drive to reintroduce grammar schools. Her proposal was met with vehement opposition from educational charities and specialists who upheld the argument that grammar schools are severely harmful for both the pupils who do not pass the 11+ and those who do. This is because selective schooling encourages the marketisation of education that obliges schools to compete with each other, ultimately obscuring what should be the prime focus: their pupils.

The unpalatable consequences of selective schooling have just been revealed by a report published in response to the conduct of St Olave’s, a grammar school in South East London. The school hit headlines late last year after the Guardian exposed its unlawful practice of denying pupils entry to Year 13 if they did not meet the school’s imposed grade threshold of three grade B’s. The report outlines how the school had put the “institution above its pupils” and that its policy had “crossed into negative territory”, affirming that in a school, the institution is always the pupils and that their welfare should be the utmost priority. These findings are by no means exclusive to St Olave’s, or indeed grammar schools. Striving for high attainment no matter what the cost is becoming the harsh reality of the British education system. UK government agenda is becoming increasingly destructive to education, which is clearly highlighted by the case of St Olave’s, where parents of the students described their children as being treated as “collateral damage” in the pursuit of the top grades.

In a similar vein, the recent revelation that top fee-paying schools are evading the new ‘tougher’ GCSEs which have a 1-9 scoring system by having their students take comparatively easier iGCSEs is illustrative of the same grade-obsessed approach to education. Schools that employ such policies are doing so to prevent their students from being the ‘guinea pigs’, an opportunity that is not available to all schools as the iGCSEs have been removed from the government’s approved list of qualifications for state schools. The education system has become a game in which the elite have the upper hand; our education system should not be susceptible to being played, or in fact need to be played in the first place.

But this is by no means a recent phenomenon. The recent report on St Olave’s and news of top private schools evading mainstream GCSEs are just recent events in the worrying trend that education is taking. It reveals a system in which the goal of academic attainment has become the blinding rationale and so fails to sufficiently provide for students. Both examples are symptoms of the nationwide worry that British students are falling behind their European and global counterparts. Such concern stems from the fact that levels of educational achievement are directly linked to national economic prosperity. The government are acutely aware of this and so have placed undue emphasis on league tables in an attempt to boost attainment, the basis upon which headteachers are made to resort to drastic and illogical measures.

By no means is the system of education necessarily broken, but it is taking an unsavoury direction. It would be flippant to suggest that league tables should be ignored entirely, but their current unrelenting influence must be controlled. Accountability of schools needs to be derived from factors alongside high academic performance, for instance student welfare, moral practice or even reason. The two cases I have outlined demonstrate how schools and headteachers are currently being pressurised into scheming behaviour which primarily harms the pupils, who ought to be their first priority. Our education system now must reaffirm what values it holds central so that schools are able to deliver an education fit for purpose.

Worcester College building shortlisted for Stirling Prize

0

Worcester College’s Sultan Nazrin Shah Centre has been shortlisted for the UK’s best new building of the year.

The £9 million theatre and conference centre is in the running for the 2018 Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Stirling Prize – the most prestigious award for architecture in the UK.

The Sultan Nazrin Shah Centre is a single story, 120-seat building containing a lecture theatre, a dance studio and seminar rooms designed by Níall McLaughlin Architects. The centre is named after Nazrin Shah, an alumnus of Worcester College and the eldest son of the Sultan of Perak in Malaysia.

Provost of Worcester College, Sir Jonathan Bale, said: “Having won the regional award as southern England’s Building of the Year, we knew we were in with a shout, but when you’re up against a billion pound Norman Foster project you don’t exactly hold your breath!”

Sir Jonathan noted that the college was “thrilled to be nominated,” and was personally “especially pleased” as he himself had the idea of designing the auditorium in the style of an Ancient Greek amphitheatre.

President of RIBA, Ben Derbyshire, said: “It doesn’t go unnoticed that half of the buildings were commissioned by UK universities, suggesting that parts of the higher education sector value the importance of improving the quality of their buildings and estates to reward and attract students, staff and visitors, and to make a positive contribution to their local area.

“It’s encouraging to see clients who recognise the broad range of benefits that can be achieved by working with skilled and resourceful architects, and I hope more public-sector organisations will follow their lead.”

Derbyshire added: “In these challenging and turbulent political times, we must celebrate how the UK’s architectural talent can help to improve local communities and their quality of life.”

The Sultan Nazrin Shah Centre will be competing with six other new buildings in the UK, including the Tate St Ives art gallery in Cornwall, a nursery school and a cemetery.

Britain is too desperate for affection

0

Watching the news last weekend made me cringe. Anchors, commentators and politicians were all frantically worried about our ‘special relationship’ with the United States. They were so anxious that they squirmed at any indication that President Trump would not place us in our own special box.

Many desperately suggested that the ‘special relationship’ will endure despite Trump’s meddling, citing the relationship between diplomats and security agencies as being more mature.

And then there is Theresa May, a Prime Minister who has no limit to the amount of disrespect and condescension she will suffer for the sake of this relationship. Whether it be the travel ban, climate change or the separation of children from their parents at the border, Theresa May has either said nothing or muttered a lack lustre condemnation.

Not condemning these transgressions wholeheartedly reduces the UK’s authority in the world as an advocate for human rights and individual liberty. It took the Prime Minister over four months to publicly rebuke the President for leaving the Paris Climate Agreement, and even then it was indirect and contained in a broader speech. The delay led to the German Foreign Minister implying the UK endorsed Trump’s decision. This is just one example of subservience to the US making us look weak.

On top of this, grovelling at the United States’ feet will only make this supposedly mutual relationship worse. No one likes a needy partner, friend or colleague. As we all know, repeatedly asking for friendship or desperately seeking affection merely pushes people away. The United States does not want a weak ally and our whiney obsession with the ‘special relationship’ only makes us look insecure and paranoid.

It is a sad state of affairs when global politics has to be compared to the playground, but that is the world we live in. The kid who accepts being pushed around and falls at others’ feet rarely makes real friends. This is especially true when the top dog is a petulant bully who preys on the weak.

Rather than standing up to the bully, Theresa May desperately wanted to be his friend. Flying straight to the White House following Trump’s inauguration and offering him a state visit was, to put it simply, tragic.

The playground shows us that desperation is never the way to make friends.

After all, successful relationships are built upon mutual respect. For that to occur, the UK must start respecting itself. By not responding to blatant disrespect by another country (whoever they are) we sacrifice our values and dignity. For the United States to take us seriously, we must first take ourselves seriously. That means we cannot be paranoid about not having our hand held on the world stage.

At a time when we are feeling our most vulnerable, we must resist the urge to cry for help.

This is especially true when Donald Trump is President. Trump responds to flattery and strength. He will always want deference and spectacle but he will respond best when this is backed up by a steely eye, a firm word and an incessant handshake. Emmanuel Macron understood this as soon as he took office. His management of Trump has been most skilful.

Now, this isn’t to say that we don’t want a good relationship with the United States. Of course, we do. It would be short-sighted, proud and self-indulgent to think we were better off without them.

But constantly voicing our concern about a ‘special relationship’ is counter-productive. That is precisely the point.

At the end of a press conference last week, Donald Trump said, “I would give our relationship the highest level of special”. In his following sentence, he told the Prime Minister that she should listen to his advice on Brexit. Whilst Trump may say the relationship is ‘the highest level of special’, he still feels comfortable publicly telling the Prime Minister what to do.

A less needy and more confident approach might change that.

Government threatens Oxbridge with sanctions over access

0

The Government’s new higher education regulator has threatened Oxford University with sanctions if it fails to improve access outcomes.

The Office for Students (OfS) has demanded both Oxbridge universities follow up on a proposed “robust evaluation” of current spending on bursaries for undergraduates from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The two universities were among only three higher education institutions given specific conditions for admittance to the new list of registered higher education providers. The OfS said it had “concerns” about Oxbridge’s financial support and “high levels of spend” on students.

The regulator’s predecessor, the Office For Fair Access, has previously expressed doubt about the effectiveness of Oxbridge bursaries.

The OfS’ Director of Fair Access and Participation, Chris Millward, told Times Higher Education that both universities would be vulnerable to sanctions and fines if they do not meet previous promises of improvement by the time evaluations of progress are submitted next February.

Millward said: “If you look at the evidence on access on whatever measure, you see that Oxford and Cambridge have the biggest challenge, and so for that reason we set the highest expectations in relation to their plans and the activity they say they are doing to deliver to improve equality.”

He also noted: “They have for some time continued to invest a very substantial proportion [of widening access spending] in bursaries for students, and that’s not wrong necessarily, but what we really do need to know is [whether] the investment they are delivering will deal with the big challenge they have around access.”

A spokesman from Oxford University told THE that bursaries, hardship provision, and tuition fee reduction were “encouraging disadvantaged students to apply to oxford and helping them thrive in their studies here”, and said that the university was “well ahead of February’s deadline” for a full evaluation.

The only other educational institution to have conditions placed on its registration with the Office for Students was the Royal Northern College of Music.

Fashion brands must end their wasteful behaviour

1

Fashion and waste: a match made in hell. Burberry has made the headlines this week as the latest brand to meet criticism for its excessive waste. It has been revealed that over the past year, Burberry has destroyed goods worth over £28million, meaning that in the past five years, the company has destroyed goods worth a total of more than £90million. But even more alarming is the method of destruction, namely burning. Burberry is far from being the only brand whose unwanted products meet this end, which raises both ethical and environmental questions.

You’d be hard-pressed to find brands willing to donate their unwanted items to charity, as a manager of Abercrombie and Fitch reportedly said several years ago. ‘Abercrombie and Fitch doesn’t want to create the image that just anybody, poor people, can wear their clothing. Only people of a certain stature are able to purchase and wear the company name.’ A common reason brands give for destroying their unsold products is that they do not want them to be stolen or sold at a cost less than their worth. Luckily, not all brands take this approach: Temperley told The Times that they either give their unsold goods to the charity Women for Women or sell them at their discount store in Bicester village.

The ethical questions only touch the surface when you consider the environmental impact of burning clothes. We hardly need reminding of the devastating effects of global warming, but whilst individuals are being encouraged by the government to walk or cycle to work rather than drive, big brands get away with burning millions of pounds of clothing, causing irreparable damage to the environment. Granted, Burberry did say that they use incinerators which allow them to trap the energy, but this still cannot be considered anywhere near as environmentally friendly as if they were willing to give their clothes away to charity or sell them at lower prices. Indeed, many big brands do not even have end of season sales, which would be a clear and easy way for designer brands to reduce the volume of unsold clothes.

Donations aside, it’s time that brands start recycling the fabric from their clothing. Burberry said that it has donated 120 tonnes of leather to Elvis&Kresse to turn into accessories. A step in the right direction perhaps, but reducing waste in the first place would be a more simple method. Burberry did point out that the reason they have so much waste this year is because their beauty department has been bought over by Coty, so it can only be hoped that in an era when we are more environmentally aware, big brands will seek to reduce their waste in decades to come. However, as Tim Jackson, head of the British School of Fashion at the Glasgow Caledonian University in London, said to the BBC, big brands are in the undesirable position of wanting to reduce their waste but not wanting to upset shareholders by selling their unsold stock cheap, which could devalue the brand. Still, the criticism from the media and public at least suggests that consumers have high expectations that luxury brands will simply have to meet in the future.

Love Island’s connection to World Cup fervour

0

It’s easy to be envious of the contestants on the ITV2 show Love Island. They have scored a free holiday in a gorgeous villa, their time is spent flirting, gossiping and sunbathing, and if successful they walk away with a boy/girlfriend, and a potential £50,000 jackpot. Not bad for eight weeks work.

But they are missing out. Back home, temperatures are hitting 30°C day after day, the Conservative party are in the thralls of a fratricidal conflict, and England reached a World Cup semi-final. It’s been a summer of great entertainment, and it could have been much more exciting.

26 million viewers tuned in to England’s fateful semi-final game against Croatia, whilst during the penalty shout-out versus Columbia viewing figures peaked at 23 million. And this doesn’t even account for the mass viewings that goes on in pubs, at big family gatherings in a cramped living room, and desperately unlucky fans who have to follow the game on their phones.

World Cup fever had well and truly gripped the nation, yet Southgate’s triumph became a Hobson’s choice for some, as when Love Island and England were on television at the same time, a difficult decision emerged. Did you choose to watch Harry Kane break the back of the net with another goal, or watch Megan break another heart?

As the stereotypes go, such a dilemma ought not to occur, as the viewership demographic for the World Cup and Love Island should be distinct, surely! Football has the associated beer-drinking culture, patriotism and raucous behaviour: a preserve of bawdy (and potentially harmful) masculinity? Equally a shallow and image-obsessed reality TV show which gamifies making and breaking relationships – is this inherently something geared towards women? It is evidentially not that simple.

For starters, these stereotypes don’t work. Football is England’s national sport, a rare chance for all of us to complain, be miserable and have our heart’s broken in disappointment at the same time and for the same reason. At the beginning of every tournament we think it is coming home, but it never is.

Does this heartache sound familiar?  We all shed a tear for Laura when Wes brutally dumped her, and when another friend went behind her back to steal a kiss from her man. Losing in a penalty shout out can be just as gut-wrenching as having a potential romantic partner snatched away from you.

The same is true for the pantomime villains of both sport and love. We all revelled in our hatred of Adam, just as we have made despising the Germans a part of our national culture when it comes to football. This is why a collective sigh of relief was exhaled when both Adam and der Mannschaft were dumped out of their respective tournaments.

So it seems that Love Island and the World Cup aren’t so different. In relationships we are all a bit like Dani. We have been scarred by past experience, but hopeful that this one will be different, that this time we have triumphed. This is why she is so popular: she is relatable. And this is also why England’s run at the world cup gathered such attention: England fans, just like Danni, had always been powered by an overwhelming (and probably naive) sense that this is their time to win.

Just like the 1986 World Cup song (infinitely better than the Lightening Seeds’s ‘It’s Coming Home), love has got the ‘World in Motion’. We are obsessed with love, be it sporting or sexual, romantic or patriotic. This is why both the World Cup and Love Island are public sensations that will stay with us, even if Georgia won’t.