Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 74

Captain’s Corner: OUAFC

By
Jessica Cullen
-
Image Credits: Jessica Cullen via OUAFC

Cherwell spoke to the new Blues captains at OUAFC, Iona Bennett and Roza Bailey who co-captain the women, and Harry Way who captains the Men’s team. 

When did you start playing football?

R: I think I was five and I joined the local boys team.

I: I was probably the same age and I played for grassroots tea with my sister for a bit and then for some centers of excellence.

H: Yeah, pretty much from as young as I can remember, playing for my local team at five or six.

What drew you to football specifically?

R: Teamwork – I loved how it was always winning as a team, sharing moments, and making friendships.

I: I mean it is the most played sport in the country, so everyone plays it. You can play it anywhere and at any time. And yeah, it’s a really good team sport.

H: Yeah, I think the main difference to other sports is how easy it is to just pick up with your mates. You can just go down to the park with mates, and use jumpers for goalposts, whereas other sports tend to need a lot more equipment. It’s also one of the most enjoyable.

How did last season go for your respective teams?

I: We did well, finishing second in the league and reaching the semi-final in the cup. But there’s always more to build on. That’s what we’re doing looking to do as we start the season.

H: Last year was very up and down for the men. We had a few good results in the league but had quite a bad run towards the end, which meant we were relegated, but we did win both of our Varsities against Brookes and Cambridge.Overall a mixed season – some good results and some we hope to improve on.

Do you find high turnover in a University squad a difficult thing to deal with? Losing and gaining players each year

R: I think it’s a good thing. I mean, it’s annoying to lose stability but with new players you bring new playing styles and it’s a really good socially too, as you meet new people and form new friendships. The Women’s Blues are lucky to have retained most of our squad this year though, so not too much to deal with.

H: I think it’s kind of a bit of both; it’s obviously very difficult when you’re trying to establish your playing style and you are reliant on a system of players coming in and out. Also, on a personal level you’re obviously friends with a lot of the guys going, so its sad to say goodbye. But on the flip side of that there’s the opportunity for new friendships and you can keep it fresh. We have had a lot of turnover this year, only having kept around nine Blues from last season. We are going to have a lot of new faces from either 2s and 3s, or new freshers.

Reflections on last year’s Varsity; how did it go? Did the cancellation affect you or the team’s performance?

H: I think it’s a weird one. It definitely impacted the team in the sense that our starting 11 for the actual varsity was quite different to the one we had planned for the original date. Obviously we were able to win the game in the end, so we can’t complain too much. But yeah, it was definitely a strange one. 

I: The cancelation was really frustrating, and it threw the work that we had put in throughout the season off kilter a bit. It did effect the result, and it was a difficult loss to take, but hopefully this year we’ll build on our last performance. 

Have you guys played last year beforeand are you returning Blues?

R: This is my fourth year and I have played the last three Varsities, winning 2 of 3. 

I: This will be my Third Varsity, and I am a returning Blue.

H: This will be my fourth year on the blues. We’ve been lucky enough to win the last three that I’ve been here. So,fingers crossed we can get over the line and get the fourth one.

The men’s team has won seven of their last eight Varsities, and the women six, which is a very impressive record. Is this encouraging, intimidating, or going to effect the team’s mentality going into the game?

R: I think we saw last year as a minor blip, and something to build on. We don’t want that to happen again. So we’re going to flip it and get the trophy back on Oxford soil.

H: We just think of it as any other game in the season, and we want to approach all the games with the same mentality. If we win our games this season, then Varsity will just be a continuation of that.

I: Yeah, I think the success we’ve had in the past doesn’t actually play that much of a factor mentally. Teams are so different year on year, so you can’t really look at it and say we’d been playing the exact same team – it’s a different group of players, different managers. So we just have to take each Varsity on its own merit and prepare the same way we prepare any other year. 

Any specific goals for this season?

R: We’ve entered the County Cup for the first time so we’re looking forward to playing some women’s football outside of the University. It’d be great to advance into the final of this.

I: We’d love to win the league and get promoted because it’s something we’ve come quite close to the past few seasons. We are also looking to advance pretty far in the Cup.

H: Yeah, I think for us, it’s pretty clear given them you got relegated last year the goal is simple just to go back up when you get promoted. Obviously when lastly, as well.

What was the team’s best win so far? 

I: I think the Varsity two seasons ago. It was a really great game. Our coach’s wife gave birth in the middle of it, so when he turned up at halftime unexpectedly it really made it a great celebration all around. Always big to win on penalties.

H: Yeah, I think it would have to be one of the varsity matches. Probably the Brookes Varsity match last year because we went down to nine men and managed to somehow win. I think that probably has stuck with me as the most exciting game I’ve played.

And the worst defeat?

R: Last season we drove three hours to Lincoln’s pitch in the middle of nowhere and lost five nil. They were the bottom of the league and that loss meant we didn’t get promoted.

I: I would say unfortunately it was the last Varsity because it was just a difficult one to take and the circumstances were far from ideal.

H: It would have to be when we lost a way to Cambridge in the league last year. It was the first time we lost to them in quite a long time so that one hurt.

What’s the best thing about being captain, or co-captain?

R: I really like being a co captain. It’s really nice to be leading and working as a team at the same time.

I: Yeah, we’ve definitely been enjoying it. I also think being a bigger part of the club and being able to sort of understand what goes into building a team. It’s been fun to give motivational speeches and work with the team on and off the pitch.

H: I think for me, it would be the people and the friendships you make with your teammates. I feel like as Captain you engage with people on a different level that you wouldn’t when you’re just a player. It’s a bit of a deeper level that relationship.

Ones to watch on the team?

I: We’ve made some exciting new signings that will be playing for us this season from other universities. We also have Maddie Kowalenko and Bells Wordsworth returning from their years abroad, who are both former Blues. Our team also has got four captains in it, with Maddie and Jess Cullen, so that’s pretty strong.

H: Similarly, we’ve got quite a few freshers coming into the squad. We also have two returning captains, Finlay Ryan-Phillips and Luke Smith. And then a few blues players have looked really sharp in preseason, like Noah Fletcher and Tom Deighton.

Where can our readers watch you play?

R: We play every Wednesday, and if it’s home it’s at Iffley road. If you check the Instagram that week, you can find out where we are playing.

H: Yeah, definitely. I think we’ve got six home games starting on the 18th of October, so pretty much every Wednesday there’ll be games.

I: Yep, and Varsity dates are yet to be confirmed but both Brookes and Cambridge will be next season, alongside a big Alumni day celebrating 150 years since we won the FA cup.

Populism over policy: a tool for public division

By
Amelia Bryan
-

In the last decade, global politics has witnessed a transformation marked by a departure from the focus on policy of the Blair years towards a landscape of hostility and divisive slogans. The rise of populism has caused a shift towards dog whistle slogans, inflammatory rhetoric and the idea of a secret elite.

On the 3rd October, Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, spoke to Conservative Party members and MPs at the annual Conservative Party conference in Manchester. Her speech made waves across the political spectrum for its divisiveness and generation of passion-filled opinion.

Braverman decided to place culture war issues at the heart of her speech as she railed against the ‘hurricane’ of migrants and asylum seekers crossing the channel, as well as referring to what she called ‘bogus asylum seeker’. The public have worries when it comes to more people entering the country, such as an overwhelmed NHS and a lack of social housing. These statements are purposely used to exploit these fears, provoking an ‘us versus them’ attitude towards a group of people most of whom are trying to escape persecution or inhumane living conditions.

It is natural to be concerned about the backlog of asylum applications, which reached 132,000 at the end of last year. However, the reason for this phenomenon is not completely because of the sheer numbers of applicants, as the government likes to portray. A main driver of this is an increase in the amount of time it takes to process these applications. Perhaps the government might have more success in making the process quicker and easier rather than in trying to stop people crossing the channel altogether.

In a move condemned even by members of her own party, Suella Braverman called the Human Rights Act, introduced under Tony Blair’s government, the ‘Criminal Rights Act‘. This government sees this piece of legislation like they see the European Court of Human Rights – a looming institution that obstructs their plans and that we could be better off without. 

To continue with the populist playbook, Braverman portrayed the Labour party as an elite out of touch with regular people, holding ‘luxury beliefs’ whilst ‘sitting in their ivory towers’. This language is similar to the dogma employed by former president Donald Trump in the American 2016 presidential election, when he referred to Washington DC, and particularly Democrats, as ‘the swamp’, railing against the ‘deep state’.

Next in Braverman’s line of attack was the LGBTQ community, particularly transgender people. The speech mentioned the so-called ‘gender ideology’, a sentiment echoed in the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s speech in which he proclaimed that ‘a man is a man, and a woman is a woman’. The debate around transgender rights should be nuanced, hearing both from the trans community and women. People’s lives should not be used to get applause at a party conference.

Suella Braverman is not the cause of the problems in this country or responsible for their rise; she is a symptom of a much larger problem. A problem facing democracies all around the world as well as the one here in the UK, and especially as we learn they might not be as stable as we think. It is essential in today’s political landscape that, while this language is provocative and deepens divisions, unity can be found still. It is crucial that respect returns to the centre of our discourse so progress and consensus on these issues can be found.

Image credit: UK Home Office // CC-BY-2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Oxford student societies call for Israeli hostages to be released

By
Cem Kozanoglu
-
Image credit: Jess Buckle via Pexels

Seven Oxford student societies have released a joint-statement today calling for the “immediate unconditional release of 200+ Israeli hostages illegally held in Gaza by Hamas terrorists, including at least 10 British citizens”. The signatories include the Oxford University Conservative Association, Oxford Labour Club, and the Oxford University Liberal Democrats, the student societies of the three biggest political parties. 

The call concerns the 200+ Israelis that were taken hostage by Hamas in the first days of the Israeli-Hamas conflict that began on 7 October. Yesterday, on the 23 October, two hostages were released, bringing the total number of captives freed to four. One of the freed hostages, Yocheved Lifshitz, 85, said that “the story’s not over until everybody comes back.”

The other four societies demanding the release of the Israeli hostages include the Israel Society, the Jewish Society, the Chabad Society, and the Newman Society. The Oxford Israel Society commented: “We are glad that support for the return of the hostages is so broad across the student body. We hope to see them back home, and the perpetrators of these horrific crimes brought to justice.” 

On Facebook, the Oxford Israel Society stated: “The call follows a letter by the Oxford PalSoc and other groups which described the massacres of Israeli civilians on 7 October as ‘the result of Palestinians’ long-brewing and well-founded anger in response to Israel’.”

The Palestine Society letter called for “an immediate end to Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza” and was undersigned by various student societies*, including the Oxford Arab Society and South Asian Society. 

The full quote referenced above reads: “The events of the past several days did not take place in a vacuum: rather, they are the result of Palestinians’ long-brewing and well-founded anger in response to Israel forcing them to live in an open-air prison for decades.” They further stated that “peace and justice require addressing the root cause of ongoing violence: Israeli settler-colonial occupation and apartheid.”

Commenting on the Israeli hostages, the Oxford University Conservative Association stated: “There are many things in geopolitics that are complicated and know better. Over the past few weeks, we have all been shocked by the violence and barbarism of Hamas against the Israeli people, as well as the lack of response by many in our own country who ought to know better. 

“It is now imperative that peace be achieved through the rooting out of the terrorism that has proved a scourge for both the Palestinian and Israeli people.”

The Oxford Palestine Society has been reached out to for comment.

*List of signatories of the Palestine Society letter: Rhodes Scholars for Palestine, Oxford Arab Society, 26 members of the Black Association of Rhodes Scholars, Oxford Bangladesh Society, Oxford Iranian Society, Oxford Pakistan Society, Oxford South Asian Society, Oxford South Asian Ambedkar Forum, Oxford Syria Society, Oxford Sudanese Society, Oxford AhlulBayt Islamic Society, Conveners of the Oxford Critical Theory Seminar, Divest Borders Oxford, and Marxist Society, Socialist Appeal Oxford.

The rituals of our farcical politics

By
Raghav Chari
-
Image Source: Jess Taylor/CC BY-NC 2.0 via Flickr

Politics in the last decade has been characterised by the continual disrespect shown to political norms. Politicians, in their headlong rush to score electoral points, have abused and misused the institutions and rules that govern our democracies. They have wrung out the normative power we had placed in our government and reduced it all to meaningless rituals. And so, we wonder, why is there no decency left in politics anymore?

I hold that a political action has two aspects of power. Any action has functional power in that it accomplishes a certain task. An election has the functional power of, well, electing an MP and putting them in Parliament. The other aspect is that of normative power, wherein the action establishes and/or affirms certain norms of political behaviour in the status quo. So, the normative power of an election is to affirm the continual commitment of the status quo towards representative democracy. Each election is an iteration of faith in democratic norms; their regularity establishes them as something that is normal in the system. Alternatively, something like a no-confidence vote holds normative power by expressing irregularity. Its rarity makes it a symbol denouncing the normatively irregular actions of the government. It marks the actions of the government as not acceptable and abnormal within the status quo. Political actions hold power by virtue of being performed. The performers of these political actions, who are mainly politicians, control the ability of signalling normative power, and the affirmation or breaking of political norms.

To misuse, overuse, or underuse political actions can rob them of their normative power. In a banana republic, where elections are held irregularly and at the whim of political elites, holding an election will not convey as strongly to the people the reaffirmation of democratic ideals. Similarly, in a country where a no-confidence vote is tabled every week, no matter the political situation, people will view it as a partisan tool intended to show blind opposition to the government, and will not see it as signifying normative irregularity.

Such misuse has been prevalent across the world for some time now. The most recent and obvious case is the impeachment proceedings against Joe Biden. The normative power that impeachment holds arises from it being an exceedingly rare action. For the 250 years since American independence, it was used only a handful of times, as an absolute last-resort measure. In the last few years, this has been turned on its head. The first impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump still retained much normative power since it remained a rare action, and with actual purpose. The impeachment failed, due to a lack of numbers. The second inquiry, however, struck a massive blow to its normative power. The Democrats went into it knowing that the numbers had not changed, and that success was out of reach. Yet they went into it all the same, to score political points. The first impeachment inquiry was started with the explicit intention of removing a normatively irregular president from power. The second was started so Democrats could show Trump the finger. By this misuse, it devalued impeachment as a whole. From holding significant normative power, it has now devolved to a trick politicians can use to score political points on partisan lines. When impeachment proceedings begin against Joe Biden, they will further devalue the process as a political sham.

Nor is this plague of indecency restricted to the USA. An old example of political actions being misused are PMQs. Normatively, they should represent the ideal that a Prime Minister is merely first among equals; that they can be called to account by anyone. The use of PMQs should be to ask important questions and speak truth to power. Rather, it has become a place of high political theatre, an opportunity for party leaders to advance their partisan agendas. Not much normative power remains in PMQs. Another, more recent example, has been the devaluation of party rebellion and the replacement of PMs. The Tories have gone through five PMs in seven years. When a PM is forced to step down, it should serve as a stinging rebuke to that PM’s tenure and policies. It should mark that period as normatively irregular. Yet the revolving door of PMs and frequent rebellion has ironically made it so that each tenure is considered less irregular than the last. A ‘musical chairs’ of PMs becomes normalised. If Rishi Sunak is booted out of office tomorrow and replaced, few will see his tenure as being highly irregular or unacceptable. How can it, when all the others were removed the same way?

In a democratic polity, society must be able to trust in the system and the government. Setting norms and affirming them is vital to building that trust and creating appropriate expectations among the public. A political system that correctly uses political actions utilises their normative powers to build this very same trust. A system that misuses political actions will destroy those normative powers, and hence trust. When politicians use impeachment as a partisan tool, they look self-serving and disrespectful of political norms. Their words ring hollow, and their actions seem petty; drawing suspicion, not trust. The functioning of government itself is brought into doubt. Things like PMQs become merely performative actions, conducted by both parties in the hope of invoking non-existent normative powers.

Is it any wonder that trust in government has fallen to record lows across developed democracies? Political actions have become meaningless rituals. The public feels that governments are unresponsive to their concerns, because all the actions that should hold normative power have been made impotent. Perceptions of corruption have soared, because politicians have wrung out whatever use they can make of normative actions for their partisan use. Once a norm is breached, the race to the bottom is inevitable; neither side is willing to take the high ground and respect the norm, for fear that they will lose out on scoring political points.

A few actions still retain some normative power. The defection of an MP, for instance, holds significant normative power. When a single MP defected from the Conservatives to Labour over Partygate, it sent shockwaves through the system. The action had the functional power of changing the strength of the parties in Parliament by 1. It had the normative power of being a striking denunciation of Boris Johnson’s behaviour, and a strong symbol to the people of the corruption present in his government. It is through the maintenance of these norms, and by respecting the proper use of political actions, that normative power can be protected.

It is imperative that political actors protect the normative power that remains. Such powers are still crucial signals to the public about the health of our democracy, about the trust worth putting in our government. Where the norms have been breached, it is necessary for parties to build those norms again, so people can put their faith back in decent behaviour and meaningful actions. Otherwise, normative politics will become ritualised, a farce conducted by political elites in a failed attempt to convince everyone that they are still trustworthy and decent. 

Image Source: Jess Taylor/CC BY-NC 2.0 via Flickr

Oxfordshire County Council votes for LTNs despite vocal opposition

By
Selina Chen
-
Low traffic neighbourhood (LTN)
Image credit: Jack Fifield, Wikimedia Commons

Oxfordshire County Council voted last Tuesday to make the East Oxford Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) permanent.

According to the Council’s report, this includes three LTNs in Divinity Road, St Clement’s, and St Mary’s areas introduced in May 2022, followed by protests and vandalism. Currently, motorised vehicles are forbidden, with some new exemptions, to improve conditions for residents, pedestrians, and cyclists.

Emily Kerr, Oxford City Councillor for St Mary’s Ward and Green Group spokesperson for transport, said in a press release: “Since the introduction of the East Oxford Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, cycling is up 20%, car use is down 10%, road collisions have halved, and children are walking, scooting and cycling to school at unprecedented rates due to the huge improvements in road safety.”

But opponents of the decision were vocal leading up to Tuesday’s vote. According to a joint report by Oxford Bus Company, Thames Travel and Stagecoach West, the companies support the promotion of sustainable modes of transportation, such as buses, above car use but oppose LTNs as a solution. Now, “a local bus journey in parts of East Oxford today takes so long to achieve that it is not a credibly relevant choice to any but the most physically infirm.”

A comment submitted by Magdalen College School to the Council echoes the bus companies’ joint report: “Prior to the LTNs, our buses took on average 7-9 minutes to travel from Headington School to Magdalen College School. When the LTNs were introduced, the buses started taking 35-55 minutes to make the same journey.”

LTNs have also impacted the bus companies’ operations. Shortly after the Council’s vote, a bus company employee told Cherwell that LTNs have meant longer working hours and thereby higher company costs. “It’s been a nightmare for the company,” the employee said.

While issues for buses persist, other stakeholders’ voices were heard. Thames Valley Police (TVP) submitted a comment detailing the impediments police vehicles face due to physical restrictions. The Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service and South Central Ambulance Service agree that they also experienced similar delays in response time.

In lieu of bollards, the emergency responders recommended the use of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras, which was adopted by the Council following a consultation period this summer. The newest plan includes exemptions for emergency vehicles, bin lorries, postal vans, and taxis.

The change attracted controversy from local residents: the Divinity Road Area Residents Association advocated for doubling down on the LTNs. They called for the continued use of bollards and a ban of taxis to protect pedestrians and cyclists, a spokesperson stated in a speech to the Council.

Meanwhile, other residents spoke out against LTNs: A Facebook group called “Anti LTN & Bus Gates Oxford” has garnered over 1,300 members with many posting about their objections. An Oxford resident told Cherwell that until pre-existing traffic congestion is solved, LTNs will only exacerbate the problem. 

Still, the Council’s public consultation, conducted last year after a six-month trial period, attracted some more positive responses. Residents told the Council that led to “improved access and safety for pedestrians and cyclists” and “reductions in noise and pollution from traffic”.

Dinner date with yourself

By
Phoebe Walls
-
alt= "Dinner"
Image credit: Adrienn via Pexels.

When one of my closest friends first introduced me to the phrase “date yourself”, I found it ridiculous. I have always enjoyed my own company but wouldn’t have considered simply going somewhere alone to be on a date. It’s easier than ever in the  digital age to download a dating app and swipe your way into the pub with a stranger. Hardly any of us would consider turning up alone for dinner instead.

Last Trinity – freshly heartbroken – I spent many afternoons in Christ Church meadows burning my shoulders and watching couples intertwined. I found the company of friends or a crowd on a night out or in the library a welcome distraction from the racket of my own thoughts and tears. Yet this breakup was food for thought and my friend’s advice to “date myself” came to mind. A few months later in Germany I rediscovered my love of solitude. Spending time alone is not embarrassing, it’s enriching. 

I’ve enjoyed plenty of dinners by myself. Once a man stopped a wasp falling into my glass in Oxford and then showed me a poem on his cracked screen. We ended up having a burrito before he got his train back to Bristol. This fleeting and platonic connection gave me more confidence to do more by myself. The next day I stumbled into spoons alone and befriended some random interns from Yorkshire. If I’m not chatting to strangers to the people I meet I like keeping to myself but writing poems about them. There’s a section of my notebook reserved for sketching strangers. 

It’s easy to rely on the company of family, friends or lovers to make yourself happy or fill a void. Lots of young people describe feeling awkward sitting in public alone. A table for one can make you question if people are staring, wondering if you have no friends. The reality is that everyone is far too wrapped up in their complex, inner lives to judge you or even notice. 

In Oxford with jam packed terms it’s easy to fill every day with social events. As an extrovert I treasure time with my friends but used to be prone to bouts of loneliness during term time weekends. The libraries are strangely packed by 9 am yet college can feel eerily quiet. Learning to love your own company offers inner peace. 

There is great value in the turmoil of putting yourself out there, whether that’s dating or cherishing arguably the greatest love stories of all: friendships. Invest in the relationship you have with yourself like you would a friendship, offer yourself time and compassion. 

“Me time” often implies lazing around at home but why not challenge yourself to do what you would normally save for friends or dates for a change? Choose your favourite restaurant, bring your book or simply soak up the people watching. 

So instead of scrolling into the endless void of tiktok for hours on end when your friends are busy, go out anyway. Romanticise the mundane and spectacular moments of your life. You can’t break up with yourself so learn to enjoy the company of the one person you are stuck with forever. 

There’s no shame in a table for one.  

Image credit: Adrienn via Pexels.

Grabbing lunch out without going broke

By
Kobi Mohan
-
Image Credit: Kobi Mohan

There is a world in which I am the person who casually cracks out their carefully crafted packed lunch in hall – a symbol of impeccable organisation and competency, the envy of all around me. Unfortunately, that world is not the one I occupy – on more days than I care to admit, I wander about town, lunch box empty and stomach growling, in search of lunch out. However, without a keen eye on prices, this lifestyle can easily get the best of one’s finances. With this in mind, I’ve tried to string together a list of lunch options that have kept my finances in the green whilst also meeting my basic nutritional needs.

Rozana’s Hummus Falafel Salad Wrap £4

After a long morning of sitting and staring at the ceiling of the Rad Cam or people watching in the bod/rad cam/Exeter marquee/newly opening Exeter college library (!), I feel I need to treat myself to a warm and nourishing meal. Rozana’s humous falafel salad wrap (with both garlic and chilli sauce) is that meal. No complaints from me, it’s just good. Who doesn’t love hummus and falafels?

Sainsbury’s Meal Deal £3.50

Yes, I am not like other girls, I love me a Sainsbury’s meal deal. I feel like the options for sandwiches and snacks are just better, and if you miss Magdalen Street and hit up one of the other slightly further flung branches (eg. St. Aldates Sainsbury’s) of this underrated meal deal provider, you will, as I do most days, be able to get your hands on some real lunch gems – salmon cream cheese sandwiches, Starbucks chocolate fraps, yoghurt and granola pots, chocolate twists and more.

Alternative Tuck Shop £5.10

This is more of a special lunch for me- it either serves as a therapy lunch after a morning of uninterpretable lectures and failed attempts at essay-writing, or as the nice lunch I have with a friend to convince them I do not have Greggs for lunch most days of the week. Their avocado and cheese sandwiches with lemon pepper dressing on olive focaccia in particular are pretty damn good. Hearty, filling, nutritious (I think?)- they’re just what you’ll need to prepare for an afternoon return to whatever hovel you have chosen to complete the day’s work.

Italiamo’s Calzone £4

Calzone for lunch anyone? Italiamo’s calzones provide a warm, cheesy, saucy respite from a busy day, and were definitely a staple for me in first year. Back then they were £3.15 with their 10% student discount added, but, unfortunately, times having changed and economic crises abounding, this calzone lunch now inches slightly ahead of a standard meal deal on price. Still, they remain a delightful tomato-y alternative to the meal deal humdrum.

Greggs’ pastry bakes £1.80

To be honest, I have had my fair share of Greggs lunches. When you’re cold to the bone after weeks of refusing to turn on the heating at home and feeling a bit downtrodden, Cheese and Onion bakes do, in fact, hit the spot. Warm, cheesy, flaky goodness, maybe with an orange juice and a snack added on the side – it’s really not that bad! And if you’re a truly committed fan and have the Greggs loyalty app then prepare to make some killer savings (Buy 9 pastries and get the 10th one free? Bargain alert!).

Oxford City Council could join nationwide calls for ban on disposable vapes

By
Faris Firoozye
-
Image Credit: Kaihsu Tai / CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The Oxford City Council is holding discussions on whether it should support a ban on disposable vapes. A recent motion was proposed by Green Party councillors Lucy Pegg and Rosie Rawle at a council meeting on 2 October. 

Disposable vapes are known to be one of the more popular forms of e-cigarettes with 1 in 9 people between 11-18 experimenting with e-cigarettes with 69% choosing disposable vapes according to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).  Oftentimes containing up to 2% nicotine they are known to cause both respiratory health problems and nicotine addiction to teenagers they market them to. Moreover, single-use vapes have a detrimental environmental impact with 5 million vapes being thrown away every week, an astonishing fourfold increase from last year. 

This move to ban disposable vapes comes from increased calls from ministers in Westminster to ban single-use in the UK due to public health and environmental reasons. The Scottish Government has already agreed to carry out a consultation on banning disposable vapes.

 In July, MPs pressured the government to introduce restrictions on the packaging and marketing of vapes that seemingly are targeted at children. Germany, New Zealand, Australia and France have all instituted bans or restrictions on both or either flavoured e-cigarettes and disposable vapes. 

The Oxford City Council in a recent press release also called attention to the fact that vapes contain critical raw materials such as lithium and copper which are critical for green technologies. The Council stated that “the disposable vapes thrown away over the past year contain enough lithium to create 5,000 batteries for electric cars”.

Green Party councillor Rosie Rawle meanwhile stated in the press release: “Vaping can be an effective public health intervention to reduce tobacco smoking, however, this could be achieved without the excessive reliance on environmentally damaging disposable vapes.”

Between 2020 and 2022, there has been a seven-fold increase in disposable vapes as well as an astonishing 50% year-on-year increase in the proportion of children using vapes of all kinds.

Deliveroo strikes in Oxford city centre

By
Lili Waters
-
Image Credit: Jakub Trybull

Assembling in Central Oxford last Friday, around 30 Deliveroo delivery drivers took to the roads to demand better pay and working conditions. A demonstration also took place outside the Carfax Tower. The drivers turned off notifications for incoming pick-up requests and drove slowly in order to cause maximum disruption.

In April of 2021, through the red smoke of their flares, Deliveroo drivers made similar demands outside the company’s London headquarters. Apart from raising public awareness around the few protections for food delivery drivers, these protests were largely unsuccessful.  

The primary demand of the riders is a pay raise. Amidst the cost-of-living crisis, the strikers have emphasized that Oxford is an expensive city. Since the pandemic, Deliveroo fees have decreased while costs to riders have increased. Labeled as self-employed, couriers must pay for their own fuel, bikes, motorcycles, helmets, backpacks, and any other supplies needed to safely complete deliveries. 

The strikers have multiple further longstanding demands, including extra compensation for long waiting times in restaurants, rough weather, late night deliveries, and mid-route changes to delivery addresses. Their demands reflect the de-prioritisation of riders in Deliveroo’s current system. The strikers want protection, and some are calling for government regulation of the food delivery industry. 

Hailing from a variety of international backgrounds, the strikers came together to plan the strike over a two-week period under the leadership of Deliveroo rider Nelson Martins from Timor-Leste. Many of the riders, including Martins, have been with the company for several years. Couriers from Just Eat and Uber Eats accompanied the strikers, making similar demands of their own companies.  

Many of the riders who spoke to the press chose to remain anonymous. One said “[W]e are scared of getting our names out because Deliveroo might close our accounts.” The riders say that, in the past, those who spoke up or complained to the company about unfair pay saw their accounts terminated.

The drivers are not direct employees of the delivery companies and so there is little regulatory protection for their position. In the past, protests of a similar nature have had limited success.

Deliveroo told BBC that in most cases drivers earned “significantly more” than “the National Living Wage plus costs” and Just Eat said its drivers were provided “regular incentives” to earn more. There is a significant disconnect between the perspectives of the drivers and their respective companies.  

Oxford research shows promise for repairing brain injuries with 3D printing

By
Emily Henson
-
Cottonbro studio via Pexels

Researchers at the Oxford Martin School have developed a method of 3D printing cells that mimic the brain’s architecture. The research, published Wednesday 4 October, is the first to introduce the technique. Although nearly 70 million people are affected by brain injuries annually, existing treatments have only a limited effect.

Published in Nature Communications, the method involves using the patient’s stem cells as a “bioink” to print a structure that can become neural tissue in the brain. When tested on mice brain slices, the tissue was able to integrate and function with the host cells. The use of a patient’s stem cells removes the risk of rejection from the body. It also allows for greater practical use as cells can be harvested easily.

The aim of research going forward is to enhance the printing process to better mimic human brain structures. Beyond injuries, this could aid drug evaluation and further understanding of brain development and cognition. Senior author Dr Linna Zhou said: “Our droplet printing technique provides a means to engineer living 3D tissues with desired architectures, which brings us closer to the creation of personalised implantation treatments for brain injury.”

The technique uses human induced pluripotent stem cells. These cells are typically taken from blood or skin and are reprogrammed to be used as any type of cell. The immature cells are then differentiated into two variations, each used to print one layer of the tissue.

The Oxford Martin Programme on 3D Printing for Brain Repair aim to create low-cost medical technology to address the expanding problem of brain injury. Globally, 5.5 million people suffer a severe traumatic brain injury every year. Research is divided over the effects of traumatic brain injuries, with some evidence pointing to an increased risk of cognitive decline as a result. 

Senior author Professor Zoltán Molnár said: “It would be naïve to think that we can recreate the entire cellular progression in the laboratory. Nonetheless, our 3D printing project demonstrates substantial progress in controlling the fates and arrangements of human iPSCs [stem cells] to form the basic functional units of the cerebral cortex.”

1...737475...2,439Page 74 of 2,439

Explore

Follow us

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2024 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy