South Central Ambulance Service said that one person was being treated for non-life threatening injuries.
Shortly before 3am today a 24-year-old man from Oxford was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder in connection with the incident. He is currently in police custody.
Residents, who were evacuated from the street, have gradually been allowed back into their homes. Some police are still at the scene but most of the road closures have now been lifted.
Negotiations between police and the gunman continued yesterday and went into the early hours of the morning.
Heavily armed police were seen at the scene along with sniffer dogs, ambulance services, and fire services. At one point, fire services unrolled a hose onto Paradise Street to use in the standoff.
Earlier in the day, an Ambulance crew carried a stretcher through the cordon, but it was not used afterwards.
Residents and onlookers gathered at a local pub on Paradise Street and said that the event had “brought them together”.
Residents have been sitting outside this pub for most of the day, they say that the event has brought the street closer together pic.twitter.com/S0n864b1J1
One resident told Cherwell: “ I woke up and there was a lot of shouting and dogs were fighting outside. I came outside and there were police cars everywhere – some marked and some unmarked. One up round the castle and round the road here.”
Pembroke College, which is near the scene, warned students to avoid the area.
In an email, seen by Cherwell, the Deputy Home Bursar said: “Due to an ongoing security incident, please be advised to avoid the Westgate Centre and the area around the Castle.”
Local pubgoers said that they heard the shots at about 2.30pm. They said that there were a couple of shots which had followed earlier shots on the scene.
There is no suggestion of this being a terror-related incident.
A local resident told Cherwell: “I woke up at 12:30 and there was a lot of shouting and dogs were fighting outside. I came outside and there were police cars everywhere, some marked and some unmarked, one up round the castle and round the road here.”
An officer confirmed to Cherwell that an operation is in progress.
Armed response officers are at a residential property in Paradise Square following a report shortly after 1.15pm today that a man had access to a firearm.
Shots were fired from the property and police returned fire.
It is undoubtedly positive that Somerville JCR passed a motion to create gender-neutral toilets – what has been underwhelmingly less positive is the implementation of this motion by the college. The signs, depicting a man and a woman, fail to legitimise those transgender and nonbinary individual and demonstrate a deeply entrenched cisnormative and hetronormative ideology that continues to pervade society.
The lack of understanding amongst college officials about the signage on the gender-neutral toilets illustrates a complete misapprehension of the intentions of the motion, that sought to ‘include the excluded’. Instead, what the new signage has done is reinforce the notion of gender as a binary concept, delegitimising and ostracising those who don’t identify with either gender, and leaving them as excluded as they were before.
Indeed, as a consequence of being detachable, the signs offer the JCR motion little or no legitimacy – it is as though College is caught between seeking to appease the JCR and their fear to support the motion, despite it being democratically supported by its students. It is seemingly afraid that through adopting more permanent signage, it will lose the custom of those who rent rooms in college during the vacation. The college has decided, that between the additional revenue it gains from renting rooms and the needs of its students, it would rather alienate its students. This demonstrates a global consensus that extends beyond the confines of an individual college – that making money is more important than the needs of individuals within a community.
When the JCR motion was proposed there was some concern that the new toilets would make students feel uncomfortable, with the potential for a man and a woman to be in neighbouring cubicles.
This is an issue of socialisation: it is all we had known previously, and as such it appeared to be an issue. In reality, my friend from home who happened to be visiting me as the new gender-neutral toilets were implemented didn’t realise that he was entering the old ‘female’ toilets. And so it will be for the freshers that arrive hereafter. For them, a man and a woman using cubicles beside each other will be the norm.
One hopes that everyone will feel more comfortable discussing traditionally gendered issues, such as periods, increasing our understanding and ability to sympathise with one another. More importantly, it will mean that for those questioning their gender identity, they are more able to determine who they are, without fear of being marginalised as a consequence of socially constructed gendered signage.
On a fateful Tuesday night last week, a friend and I ventured into deepest Cowley to witness the OUFF summer showcase at the Ultimate Picture Palace. After the president of OUFF (Oscar McNab) spoke, promising a drink for whoever asked to meet the filmmakers first, the lights darkened. Two hours later we emerged, ready to inflate our own senses of self-importance by thoroughly criticising some fascinating films.
The most memorable film of the night was undoubtedly Cracked Screen. It was directed by Trim Lamba, a recent Oxford alum, and has received great critical acclaim, picking up several awards.
The entire film was shot on Snapchat, which made it extremely intimate, as if it was playing out on the surface of a smartphone. The acting was so engaging and the format so immersive that the film felt completely real. Lamba’s film highlighted the fact that big budgets and extensive camera crews are not always necessary to create brilliant film. In the case of Cracked Screen, the piece was genuinely engaging, not in spite of its small budget, but because of it.
After the movie’s big turning point everyone in the audience was frozen and silent, and as that film was the last of the night, the silence continued after the credits rolled.
Given the film’s heavy end, I wonder whether it was the most effective film to conclude the night with. It didn’t exactly leave you with warm, fuzzy feelings.
Of course, OUFF was under no obligation to make the audience leave humming show tunes. In fact, none of the films were particularly uplifting, with the trend being towards darker, introspective pieces.
The only particularly humorous film was Wandering Eyes, which started out as a seemingly sinister drama and turned into a romantic farce.
It was often tonally inconsistent, as the audience couldn’t tell whether or not they were supposed to be laughing or concerned throughout. But once the laughing began, it didn’t stop.
Hugh Tappin contributed immensely to the hilarity; somehow, regardless of what he was actually saying, he managed to make all of his lines incredibly funny both in Wandering Eyes and Various Faces. The latter mostly felt like an excuse to film some really gorgeous shots of Oxford at night. The opening shot was one of the more memorable of the entire evening — just 30 seconds of a guy walking towards the camera in and out of streetlamp light. Beautiful, if indulgently long.
Ambiguity reigned in Various Faces, as the main character (Adam Goodbody), who walked about Oxford at night with a gloomy face, encountered a silent girl who disappeared – presumably either dead or an ex, a question viewers may have found themselves asking more than once over the course of the night.
One of the best documentaries of the night, Everyone Listens to Turbo Folk, seemed significant and wide in scope but felt incomplete: there was almost too much to cover.
Director Una O’Sullivan managed to talk to an impressive range of Serbian people from different musical backgrounds, but for a movie with “Turbo Folk” in the title there was surprisingly little turbo folk and a lot of folk, pop, and alternative.
Despite this fact, it was obviously with difficulty that she attempted to entice her subjects into discussing turbo folk. In one memorable scene, she went to a radio station and asked the hosts about it, they were scandalized, responding “We would never play such trash on our station.”
The director was, therefore, not only impressive in her stylistic control, but in the fact that she actually found people willing to discuss turbo folk. As a viewer, it’s very easy to criticise and pick holes in student films. But it is impossible not to be impressed by their success in producing such content on such low budgets in such short time. There is truly so much more to praise from the line up of exciting and inventive films.
The OUFF summer showcase uncovers a whole world of creativity, imagination, and skill that should not be underestimated. It seems that many students at Oxford are not only engaged in the trends throughout film today, but are also more than capable of bringing their own original and aesthetically pleasing little wonders to the screen without the big budgets or huge support that the mainstream industry receives
Jordan Peterson is a charlatan. Let’s be completely honest about what he represents. Through watching his speeches and reading his book, it becomes clear that everything he says is either incredibly vague, or flat out wrong. While I am in favour of inviting individuals who I disagree with to speak at the Union, I do not think we should be inviting a man to speak who has nothing of worth to say, and who actively harms debate.
The Oxford Union term card helpfully proves my first point here, stating that Peterson became famous for “criticising the Canadian government’s move to enact Bill C-16, which made misgendering a form of hate speech”.
Anyone who bothers to Google “C-16 makes misgendering illegal” can find out that this is a blatant lie. One must consider whether the Union is either incredibly sloppy with their research or is purposely misleading members with harmful falsehoods. Let me make this clear: the very thing that Jordan Peterson became famous for is a lie that the Union is now publishing in their term card. C-16 was a law specifically targeting sustained harassment of trans people. Simply using the wrong pronouns would never be considered a hate crime, unless it was coupled with harassment of a trans individual.
Jordan Peterson’s claim to fame is a lie attacking trans people for wanting fair protection against hate crimes. Peterson has lied about many other issues, from claiming that Google was manipulating search results for the word ‘bikini’ to include fat women (spoiler: they weren’t), to saying “there are far more female physicians than there are male physicians” which is provably false. He also likes to channel his bigotry through false and inflammatory statements like “the idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.” Not to mention the fact that he says his awakening that socialism was evil came from reading The Road To Wigan Pier, despite Orwell arguing for socialism in that book, not against it. Do we seriously want a liar who can’t even read the books that he said changed his ideology to come and speak at the Union?
While Jordan Peterson lies about an incredible number of things, his statements that aren’t false frankly say nothing of substance. Let’s examine the summary of principles from the end of his book, 12 Rules for Life: “What shall I do to strengthen my spirit? Do not tell lies or do what you despise. What shall I do to ennoble my body? Use it only in the service of my soul. What shall I do with the most difficult of questions? Consider them the gateway to the path of life. What shall I do with the poor man’s plight? Strive through right example to lift his broken heart. What shall I do with when the great crowd beckons? Stand tall and utter my broken truths.”
Now, we can read into these statements whichever way we like. But ultimately, Peterson is doing what many of us have done in our essays – overcomplicating statements in an attempt to make them sound profound. These can literally be summed up by saying: don’t lie, look after yourself, take problems as opportunities, set good examples, and do speeches at the Oxford Union.
Time after time, as you read Peterson’s work and watch his speeches, you realise that he purposely acts as if he’s saying something enlightening when he’s no different to any other self-help guru, repeating the most basic of lessons. When Peterson says “You can’t make rules for the exceptional”, that’s true by definition, not some deep statement on our potential.
His mantra – “Meaning is an expression of the instinct that guides us out into the unknown so that we can conquer it” – is so incredibly ambiguous that I can’t even begin to talk about it. Why should we invite an ‘academic’ to speak when the majority of their work consists of boring self-help nonsense that actually says nothing and helps no one?
When the lies have run out and the statements can’t be made vague enough, Peterson instead defaults to basic ad hominem insults. Comparing trans activists to Mao in his famous Channel 4 interview but being unable to explain how their ideologies are the same, complaining about “crazy women” and “harpies”, and claiming everything he disagrees with “Postmodern Neo-Marxism”. Peterson leans on his background in psychology to throw psychoanalysis at his opponents, not bothering to dismantle their argument, but instead explaining how the insults he spews at them are the real reason they support their beliefs.
This is not someone who contributes to the intellectual debate we want at the Oxford Union. This is someone who hurts the very ideals it stands for. A liar, a name caller, and someone who has nothing of worth to say. As paying Union members, we should be insulted that this man is coming to speak at the great institution.
Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) have stood by their decision to invite a controversial speaker alleged to have made “anti-semitic” comments.
Richard Seymour has previously expressed support for the proscribed terrorist group Hezbollah, while also claiming that the anti-semitism problem within the Labour party was a “witch-hunt”.
Last week, the OULC co-chairs contacted Seymour to clarify his views on Israel, Hezbollah, and anti-semitism within the Labour party. His response was deemed satisfactory for the invitation not to be rescinded.
However, concerns are still being raised by both members of OULC and the national party, with a spokesperson for Labour Against Antisemitism describing the decision to invite Seymour as “alarming”, and OULC members telling Cherwell they felt “scared to speak out” about their concerns.
In his response, seen by Cherwell, Seymour expresses his regret for several of his comments regarding the nature of anti-semitism; qualifies his “unconditional, but not uncritical” support for Hezbollah as being in the context of the Lebanon War; and says that he has changed his mind since he wrote that “Labour doesn’t have an ‘anti-semitism problem’” and that the allegations form a “witch-hunt”.
Seymour said: “It would be wrong to infer that these [blog] posts attested to broader support for Hezbollah’s overall ideology or its wider regional role. Certainly, at no point did this ‘support’ extend to any antisemitic affiliations or statements on the part of Hezbollah or any of its leaders or members.”
Regarding his claims about a “witch-hunt”, he said: “my first reaction, which was to think of [the allegations of anti-semitism within the party] mainly as just another way to attack the leadership, is one I can no longer cleave to.”
Co-chairs of OULC, Anisha Faruk and Ray Williams, told Cherwell: “In light of Richard Seymour’s positive clarifications, which we have passed onto Cherwell in full, and having met with Oxford JSoc, we believe that Seymour’s address can go ahead without infringing on our absolute commitment to making our members feel safe and opposing anti-semitism.”
President of Oxford University Jewish Society (JSoc), Jacob Greenhouse, told Cherwell: “I am happy with the response, I do not know what he will say on the day but from the email it is clear that he is rather sorry about the anti-semitic comments we believe him to have raised and does not believe those views anymore.”
However, he stressed that he has asked OULC to ensure that Seymour is challenged on his views at the event itself.
A spokesperson for Labour Against Antisemitism, Euan Philipps, told Cherwell: “It is alarming that, given the current anti-semitism crisis in the Labour Party and the OULC’s own problematic recent history, that they did not carry out appropriate background checks before booking this speaker.
“Richard Seymour has a track record of making controversial – and occasionally offensive – comments that tread a fine line between sensationalism and antisemitism. His recent attempts to minimise the issue of anti-Jewish discrimination in the Labour Party are a case in point.
“We hope that every effort will be made to provide a counter-argument to Mr Seymour’s position and that more care will be taken by the OULC in future.”
“Jewish students feel uncomfortable being themselves and expressing their views… I’m an OULC member, and I feel scared…
An OULC member told Cherwell: “OULC’s approach to anti-Semitism and its Jewish members is essentially the same as its party overlords. Antisemitism: not an issue worth elevating to the same level as other forms of discrimination, followed by intense suspicion of anyone who raises issues.
“How high is the arrogance of these people, who think they can dismiss accusations of antisemitism as essentially insignificant? Who are these people who think they don’t need to take extra care to ensure their speakers don’t purport the same prejudice as the leadership of their party?
“Jewish students feel uncomfortable being themselves and expressing their views… I’m an OULC member, and I feel scared to speak out against this.
“I absolutely condemn the invitation to this speaker: what were they thinking? But it is, of course, part of a deep problem, which no statement in the quiet days of the vac can properly address.”
In March, OULC released a statement slamming the Labour Party’s “consistently inadequate” responses to anti-semitism.
It went on to say: “Our club has tried to learn from its mistakes and so must our party. We will continue to do all that we can to make sure that the Club remains a friendly and safe environment.”
In response to the OULC member’s statement, Faruk and Williams told Cherwell: “We are saddened that an OULC member feels that they cannot openly bring up concerns they have within the club. Having learnt this, we will set up an anonymous complaints procedure so that future concerns can be voiced and will publicise our current disciplinary procedure much more extensively.”
They added that they did not take the decision over whether to rescind Seymour’s invitation “lightly”, and it came only “after proper consultation with Oxford JSoc who support our desire to scrutinise unacceptable comments made by Seymour when he comes to speak.”
Dear Oxford. This is truly alarming. A glorious university like Oxford should have no place and offer no platform to a man with these views. Hope to read you’ll be changing your mind urgently.
— Emma Sinclair MBE (@ES_Entrepreneur) May 7, 2018
OULC has faced scrutiny for their internal problems with anti-semitism in the past. In 2016, co-chair Alex Chalmers resigned in protest of what he perceived to be a large portion of club members having “some kind of problem with Jews”.
After a year-long investigation, the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the party voted to clear the two student members under investigation for alleged anti-semitic behaviour – a decision Oxford JSoc labelled “utterly shameful”.
Seymour will speak at the launch of Look Left, the Labour Club’s termly magazine, on Tuesday evening.
A “dirty protest”, involving urination and vandalism, has been staged in the Somerville College bar’s toilets, which were recently made gender-neutral.
The door of a cubicle in what was previously the male bathroom was inscribed with the words: “We want our fucking urinals back”. The vandalism was accompanied by a puddle of urine left on the floor.
College members received an email from the decanal team the following day, which stated: “The College authorities take this matter exceedingly seriously and will not tolerate such behaviour.
“Somerville prides itself on being an inclusive College and we expect all of our members to treat each other and the College with dignity and respect.”
The email also urged members of the college to contact the deans with any information regarding the incident.
Students also received an email from JCR president Niall Macklin, titled “I can’t believe you’ve done this.” The email requested that the perpetrator “refrain from being a barbaric idiot.”
Niall’s email further read: “If you have a problem with the changes please use the wonderful democratic process that is the JCR general meeting and not dirty protests.”
The incident follows complaints addressed to college officials made by JCR members, in particular LGBTQ+ officer Eilidh Wilson, over the new gender-neutral signs attached to the toilet doors over the vacation.
Rather than stating “gender neutral”, as requested, the signs display traditional, binary symbols and make no reference to those who identify outside of the gender spectrum.
The motion to make the toilets gender neutral, passed by the JCR last term, made no request to remove the urinals. It proposed to “ask college to replace the signs in the college bar and the dining hall with signs that say ‘gender neutral toilet with cubicles’ and ‘gender neutral toilet with cubicles and urinals’.”
Over the Easter vacation, however, the urinals were boarded up and the new signage was attached to the doors with velcro, provoking heavy criticism from the student body.
A Somerville student told Cherwell: “We can’t really be sure if this was a genuinely transphobic act or whether it was someone just being a bit stupid and inconsiderate after too many pints.
“Either way, the urinals shouldn’t have been removed, we never asked for that. But to show your discontent with the clueless way college have dealt with the issue by doing this is very inconsiderate and could make some people feel really attacked.”
LGBTQ+ Officer, Eilidh Wilson, told Cherwell: “It has been pointed out that the sentiment behind the act of vandalism may not have been one of hatred of transgender people or hostility to gender neutral toilets but rather frustration at the removal of the urinals.
“This seems especially likely considering that the request of the JCR motion that was passed last term mentioned nothing about the removal of urinals. I personally supported keeping the urinals but college made the decision to remove them after the motion was passed.
“Regardless of the motivations of the perpetrator/perpetrators, this act of vandalism comes on the back of an extremely important change to make college, especially the toilets, an inclusive space for trans people.
“It has upset many LGBT students in college and has been received by some as a sign of intolerance and an alarming lack of sensitivity to the experiences of trans people.
“Whoever is behind this is seriously failing to see the bigger picture: the loss of a urinal is
simply not as important as trans rights.”
Since the incident, transgender flags have been hung over what was the urinals in a mark of solidarity.
Trans flags were hung where the urinals used to be in a show of solidarity. PHOTO: EVE WEBSTER
Term is now in full swing with most colleges close to stumbling upon their final crews for Eights. Whispers of improving weather forecasts and the chance of a shot at glory have drawn part-timers back into boats, and the final push towards Eights week is approaching.
Progress at Peter’s
It would appear St Peter’s have some grand plans. Rather than participating in the occasional external regatta somewhere fairly local, they’re planning to travel to Nanchan, China for the 2018 World Leading Universities Regatta. It will be a big step up for these boys – with advertising reading that they wanted competitive 2k scores we expect most college rowers are in with a shout, judging by their standard of rowing.
Keble crash
Keble are turning into the gift that keep on giving. Our sources inform us that their coach was seen digging them out of the bank at Godstow with a spade. Has their infamous cox made a return? Other rowers are calling on OURCs to take action over the now-infamous bow ball incident – but it looks as though bureaucracy may get in the way of a proper punishment, once again.
Trouble at Teddy
Teddy Hall landed themselves in hot water this week after trying to snake their way round the sabbatical officer. After the Hall had posted about subs for their M2, the Row Sab quickly pointed out that the outing was in restricted times for first crews only. An attempt to edit the post was snuffled out by the cunning officer, who left them red-faced in front of the college rowing community.
Hungry like the Wolf
This could be a strong year for the Wolfson women. They have a number of returning Blues, and while a headship bid is more or less out of the picture for this year, it could be within sight for next: a strong showing looks increasingly likely. This may be thwarted by
Keble W1, who have improved every time we’ve seen them. Last year’s headship winners Wadham have been looking a little rusty – it looks unlikely that they’ll finish as head for the fifth year in a row.
Green and mean
On the men’s side Jesus have been looking strong. After a meteoric rise last year, the boys in green look set for a solid push into Division One. Lower down, Trinity look fast. While this prediction could come back to bite, there’s every chance that they might be able to climb rapidly this summer, with several weak crews ahead of them.
The weekly chopper, Cherwell’s new college rowing column, is brought to you by the teams behind The Isis Chopper, the Radley Chopper, and our own team of informants.
Second-year Medicine students were trashed outside Examination Schools on Thursday, despite the University launching a fresh crusade against the post-exam ritual.
The ‘What a Waste’ campaign was publicised for the first time on Monday, and reminded students that the practice can lead to disciplinary action and fines of up to £300.
However, there was one noticeable change in the University’s approach to trashing, as the gates leading out from Exam Schools onto Merton Street were locked and guarded by security staff following the Psychology for Medicine paper.
Despite the fact that students wishing to be trashed were forced to come around the side of Exam Schools onto Merton Street, the University Proctor, Cecile Fabre, told Cherwell: “The University’s policy in this area has not changed.”
She said: “Anti-social post-examination celebration, or ‘trashing’, has long been – and continues to be – against University regulations, and students breaking the rules are liable to significant fines.
“Through the What a Waste campaign, we are asking students to consider the social, environmental and personal impacts of trashing – as well as reminding them that it contravenes the University’s Code of Discipline.
“While the Proctors appreciate students want to celebrate after exams, we urge them to do so considerately and away from the exam halls.”
A student who attended the trashings and asked to remain anonymous due to the threat of fines told Cherwell: “For some reason that was not shared with anyone their to trash the medics, the gates were locked, and the medics emerged from around the corner.
“The lack of transparency from the uni as to its inconsistent policy feels pretty unprofessional and condescending to students who just want to celebrate with their friends.”
The news follows a Cherwell investigation, which revealed that the University spends over £25,000 a year on trashings between overtime for security staff, cleaning areas outside exam halls, and hiring barriers.
A University spokesperson told Cherwell: “inconsiderate, entitled behaviour passed off as ‘trashing’ can damage Oxford students in the minds of the community and the wider public.
“Getting through examinations is a milestone but we urge our students to find ways to mark this which are far less damaging, costly and – frankly – annoying to community neighbours, the City Council and fellow members of the University.”
The investigation also dispelled the myth that trashing started recently, after reports from alumni revealed that it has occurred since the mid-1970s.
The match was England vs Italy in the 2007 Six Nations. It was a relatively irrelevant game for most fans, and went according to script. England, who would come a disappointing third in the competition overall, put in an uninspiring performance to overcome a mediocre Italy outfit – few batted an eyelid at the result. But for a young Nigel Owens, the game was unforgettable: it was his first at the Six Nations level.
When I talk to him, he tells me about the experience. “I remember refereeing Martin Johnson for the first time as a young referee doing my first ever game at the European level, and with his presence and stature in the game, you are actually thinking ‘well I’m telling Martin Johnson off here’.”
The moment seems to have surprised him, as if he did not have the right to be telling off this giant, in both senses, of the game. But a lot has changed since then. Owens now has nearly 400 professional refereeing appearances, and is no longer surprised or amazed by the people he comes face to face with as part of his job.
“It feels like anything I guess, you just do your job. It doesn’t matter who the player is or what the size of him is.” He says that the retiring politeness of rugby players towards their often much smaller referees is unsurprising when you are involved in the game. “If you’re ever really involved in rugby, you will know that the referee’s decision is final and the players tend to respect that. The values of the sport allow the referee to tell the players off no matter what their size is.”
“Like anything, this is just me doing my job and rugby has always been that. So that’s why some people looking from the outside in will think that that is something special, and maybe it is something special, but for me it doesn’t make any difference at all if you’re facing a 6ft 8 player or a 5ft 8 player.”
Owens refereed his first match in 1987 (the match was between the under-15s teams of Carmarthen and Pembrokeshire – he was 16). At that point, rugby was still an amateur sport and hadn’t entered its modern professionalism. I ask Owens what else has changed in the game since that amateur era.
“The game is now faster and more in-play time. The other thing that has changed is the discipline of the sides. There are now procedures that inspire professionalism and accountability, you don’t see twenty years ago the old dirty games where there’s a big fight and players hitting people on the ground. A lot of that is gone from the game now and so that has changed as well over the years.”
Just as the players have professionalised, so has the officiating. Technology has entered the game in the form of a review system and the multiple cameras which film even the lowest level matches mean that every fan and viewer can play the referee. Sometimes, of course, the technology still abandons the referee. Owens, in a now-famous moment, had to be handed a phone from the sidelines in a 2012 match between Munster and Glasgow to communicate with the Television Match Official (TMO).
Owens says that the new technology has made the refereeing job more complicated.
“It’s added more pressure on me as a referee. The pressure on refs now is f
ive times more than it was five years ago, and 10-15 times more than it was twenty years. The pressure on refs is huge – you can’t comprehend it until you do it.”
Despite the increased pressure, Owens still has a dispassionate view of his unusual job. “You are just there to do your job, so all I need to do is referee to the best of my ability to keep learning and that’s all I am focussed on doing. So if people want to criticise, that’s out of my control. As long as I work my hardest and do my best that is all that matters to me.”
Despite the increased scrutiny, Owens still relies on trusted friends rather than media pundits. “People that I trust will give me the feedback that I will take on board if I need to. Those are the people I will listen to, more than people will say and what they will write.”
Owens is not a normal referee. When he talks to me he is in an official mode. He is direct, impatient, and makes an interviewer nervous about putting a word wrong.
You feel the presence which allows the small Owens to talk down to some of the biggest personalities in international sport. However, when he is off the pitch, he uses his personal experiences to encourage and help others.
Owens publicly came out in 2007 during an interview with Wales on Sunday. At the time, he said: “It’s such a big taboo to be gay in my line of work, I had to think very hard about it because I didn’t want to jeopardise my career. Coming out was very difficult and I tried to live with who I really was for years. I knew I was ‘different’ from my late teens, but I was just living a lie.”
Ten years on and he thinks that the taboo has decreased in rugby. He tells me: “rugby itself is an environment that has a huge amount of diversity and its inclusiveness is something that the sport can be proud of. In rugby, in my case in Gareth Thomas’ case, and I know many many club rugby players who are out as gay and are just one of the normal boys at the club. Rugby is a sport that you can be yourself in.”
The picture of rugby as an inclusive sport is one that may be hard to accept. Only recently, Australia full-back Israel Folau caused controversy by claiming that God’s plan for gay people was “HELL”. Owens attacked Folau for the comments, but doesn’t think that they say anything wider about the sport. “Rugby is breaking down those barriers, you have individuals in society and all sports and all walks of life and there are individuals
in rugby who don’t like people for their religious beliefs or sexual orientations. That is down to an individual not the rugby culture itself.”
Owens has also made the choice to speak publicly about his experiences with his mental health. He has talked about a suicide attempt when he was 26 and his struggles with eating disorder bulimia nervosa. He says that the experience is often difficult. “It’s not easy to talk about it. The only reason I am talking about it is because I know it is helping people.
“Talking about the mental health has helped me I guess, but I accepted and dealt with mental health issues before I started talking about them open and publicly. By speaking about them, it has made me realise that I was far from the only one with mental health issues and also what a huge problem it is. Particularly among men and boys as well, people don’t seem to talk about it and how important it is that I am sharing that story and how much it is helping other people as well. I don’t talk about it for my own good, I talk about it because I know it helps other people.”
Owens has been speaking at an event before I talk to him. He says that “a woman came up to me and said that her son had just come out to her a couple of weeks ago and it was a huge amount of help to her in realising what her son was going through or had been through. That’s the reason I do it.” Owens has opened himself up to vulnerability and has put himself in a position that must often be painful or uncomfortable. Yet, he does it because he has seen a problem and wants to use his experiences to address it. It is an act of social awareness that can only be praised.
It is also an act which has made Owens well-known. He had already gained a reputation on the pitch for his quick-witted one liners, and his often repeated phrase that “this is not soccer”. However, Owens rise to prominence has not been without criticism. Former Leicester utility back, Austin Healey, recently said that Owens may be “too big to referee”. The Welshman is quick to attack when I repeat the suggestion that he is a celebrity. “I wouldn’t say I’m a celebrity referee. I disagree with that statement. I am not a celebrity but I am well-known.”
“I am well-known, I guess, because of my ability as a referee being able to ref games has made me well-known. I haven’t become well-known because I want to be well-known, it is just a by-product of me being good at what I do. Because I was the first open gay in professional rugby to come out, and because I spoke about it publicly, that also has made me well-known within other parts of society.”
I ask him specifically about Healey’s criticism, and he again rejects the idea that he is now a celebrity. “I don’t talk about the mental health issues and the sexuality and the depression because I want to be a celebrity. I talk about it, no matter how painful it can be, because I know it helps other people.
“My style of refereeing is just my natural style of who I am, so I don’t say these things in order to be funny or to be well liked or well known. I won’t say something funny because I want to get some YouTube clicks on it. I don’t do it for that, I do it because it’s just who I am. People like Austin Healey want to do an article because they want to make themselves a celebrity – well, that is entirely up to them. It’s not why I do it.”
Owens also seems to be personally offended by the idea that he has become a worse referee in recent years. “I would say that I reffed the World Cup final two-and-a-half years ago, and I was the World Rugby referee of the year, and refereed the 2015 final and the England-France game which was seen as one of the great games of the Six Nations ever.” Perhaps Owens’ steel façade actually covers an individual who is, unsurprisingly, affected by criticism.
Yet, like many sports personalities, Owens is himself problematic. When I ask him about the ‘lad culture’ problem in rugby he starts by addressing it directly. “If it means acts of violence, sexism, drinking, and shunning sensitivity when you’re in a group of mates, then I haven’t come across that in rugby myself and if it does exist in rugby, then it’s certainly changing with the inclusiveness of the sport and society in general and quite rightly so too.”
But he then tries to escape facing the problem with a semantic game. He starts debating what the real meaning of ‘lad culture’ is, rather than facing up to its dark and inherent existence within the sport. “If six mates were having a beer somewhere, is our conversation and the way that we swear ‘lads culture’ because we wouldn’t do those things in front of [our] wives or girlfriends? I am not sure what ‘lads culture’ really means then in that sense. Or can it be defined in different forms acceptable and not acceptable forms?”
Owens’ linguistic excuse for rugby starts to fall through and you get the sense that he is avoiding the issue. “It’s the same, I suppose, as if I’m speaking in front of a group of men or at a dinner with men and I use the odd swear word. I guess that is ‘lad culture’, because if I was speaking in front of the WI or a group of women I would not use the swear words. I would not use it in front of children. So, [it depends] what is defined as ‘lad culture’ I suppose, and that is down to what people define it as.”
He tries to make back some ground by saying: “What people need to differentiate between, I believe, is what is right and wrong, and what is acceptable or not, and what is banter or and not. ‘Lads culture’ is used sometimes as an excuse by people, ‘lads culture’ is irrelevant. What should be prescient are the morals of right and wrong. There’s nothing wrong with ‘lad culture’, or the women’s culture or ladies culture: I think what people should judge people on is what is acceptable and what is not and what is right and what is wrong.”
But it is clear that, like many in the game, he does not see that rugby has a problem. While his – and many others’ – attitudes stay the same then rugby cannot truly modernise. If you take his view of rugby, it is a utopia and that is simply not the truth.
Nigel Owens is a complex man with contradictions in his personality. While he evidently has views which many would see as problematic, he has also acted to help others and has not shied away from discussing his own experiences so that others can feel happier in themselves. He is a breath of fresh and positive air to rugby, and yet sees rugby as a game which doesn’t need that fresh air. He brings modernisation to a game that he sees as already modernised enough.
There is no suggestion that Owens should escape scrutiny for his more contradictory opinions. But he is a great referee, a great inspiration for those who have suffered in silence, and, ultimately, a great man – there is no doubt that Owens does more good than harm.
in rugby who don’t like people for their religious beliefs or sexual orientations. That is down to an individual not the rugby culture itself.”
