Friday 15th May 2026
Blog Page 752

Students raise safety concerns over ‘extremely frightening’ Park End queue

-
0
Students raise safety concerns over ‘extremely frightening’ Park End queue
Students have criticised the queue for last week’s ABBA-themed club night organised by ATIK, with some calling the experience “extremely frightening”.
One student who queued for the event, which promised on its Facebook page that guests could “dress up and dance the night away”, recalled that a number of people began to experience panic attacks while waiting because of the pressure of the queue.
They told Cherwell: “I’ve been in the standing area at lots of concerts but the queue at Park End was much, much worse than any of them – bouncers were having to push against the metal barriers with all of the weight just to keep the crowd upright, otherwise we would have toppled sideways.
“It was an extremely frightening experience; several people were experiencing panic attacks. The only relief seemed to come when a few people gave up and climbed out of the queue.”
Some party-goers criticised the bouncers managing the queue. One told Cherwell: “One bouncer was being very unhelpful and laughing”.
An anonymous post on Oxfess said: “To the people who helped to stop the bouncer grabbing me when I had my hands up in surrender in Park End last night, a huge thank you.”
However, not all the blame was pinned on the nightclub staff. One student present said: “The staff there appeared to be trying their best, but I think more work needed to be done further back in the queue to prevent it getting so wide.
“The bottleneck when the sprawling queue reached the metal barriers was causing the problem.”
Atik did not respond to Cherwell’s request for comment.

Don’t confuse free speech with hate speech

-
6
Don’t confuse free speech with hate speech

The Oxford Union has long claimed that it is the ‘last bastion of free speech’, but its state today makes a mockery of that very idea. Yesterday, with two days’ notice before the event, it was announced that the Union would be hosting Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former chief strategist.

Bannon is on record attacking the free press in the United States and whipping up hatred directed towards minority groups. He has not just pandered to but also legitimised the far-right in America, culminating in the election of Donald Trump as president in 2016.

All this begs the question: why invite him? Of late, the Union seems to have relied on shock factor to draw in its audiences. Earlier this term, there was controversy surrounding their decision to invite Alice Weidel, the leader of Germany’s far-right AfD in the Bundestag. Before that they hosted Anthony Scaramucci and Ann Coulter. All of this has been done under the guise of ‘free speech’ and ‘constructive debate’, but in reality such events contribute to neither.

There’s been a growing trend recently of drawing a false causal link between preventing hate speech and limiting free speech. This has got to stop. The marked difference between hate speech (using a platform to attack and oppress minorities) and free speech has long been noted, and it falls on us, as members of a liberal democracy to uphold it. It’s a nonsense to suggest that we’re obliged to platform hate speech but also to listen to it, and expect minorities, sometimes whose very right to exist is being questioned by these speakers, to sit by and listen. There would be no contradiction in a position that refused to platform the far-right and also uphold free speech; the issue of free speech has always been about state coercion, and not voluntary organisations.

It’s not like we don’t know what Steve Bannon thinks. When he comes to the Union, Bannon will repeat the same talking points as ever, denigrating minorities and stirring hatred, and all we’ll have achieved is that we’ll have given a platform from which to spout them. His platform already exists and he’s already used it extensively. We know what he’s going to say and thus far constructive debate has failed to effectively combat him, no matter how ridiculed he has been.

Even if we hold that the value of listening to these people is in challenging them, the format of a Union speech is not conducive to effective argument. If it were possible to defeat the far-right in a one-minute question posed by an undergraduate to a speaker, I reckon our world would have substantially fewer problems today.

Sadly, however, this is not the case. We’ve seen time and time again how we can laugh some of these people out of the chamber, but as soon as that video goes online their supporters will class it as a victory anyway.

Liberal democracy thrives on debate and can only be sustained with the protection of the rights to free speech and free thought. This, however, must be squared with our commitment and responsibility to protect minorities. Allowing people like Bannon to attack them does not come under our commitment to these values, and his views are fundamentally opposed to everything we stand for.

The Union’s bizarre fixation with inviting increasingly shocking speakers has got to end. The decision not just to host Bannon but also to delay announcing his visit until two days beforehand demonstrates a cynical desire to stifle criticism of their actions and also shows how genuinely out of touch the society has become.

People like Steve Bannon thrive on publicity and legitimisation; we should give him neither.

Union Standing Committee vote to continue with Bannon event

Eve Webster
-
1
Union Standing Committee vote to continue with Bannon event

The Standing Committee of the Oxford Union have voted to host the Steve Bannon event tomorrow as normal, after a cagey meeting.

The society’s governing body voted by seven votes to six to continue with the event, and defeat Secretary Nick Brown’s attempt to disinvite the controversial American speaker.

In the meeting, a number of committee members criticised both Bannon’s invitation and Union President Stephan Horvath’s decision to reveal the invitation to the committee 48 hours before the event.

Horvath told committee members that if it is felt that Bannon was “inadequately challenged “at tomorrow’s event he would resign form his position.

Union’s treasurer-elect, Amy Gregg, called the manner in which Horvath disclosed the invitation to the committee as “highly irresponsible”.

Horvath defended this decision to delay the announcement telling the committee members that it was taken to minimise “public disruption”, citing the wide-spread reaction to  the Union hosting Marine Le Pen in 2015.

Others, including ex-Union President in Trinity Term 1967, Stephen Marks, advocated against the event saying that it will give controversial speakers such as Bannon, a “veneer of credibility”.

Marks, also a Labour Councillor, told the committee that it ought to be ashamed of itself, calling Bannon’s invitation “a gob in the face of the people of this city who have expressed concerns”.

Stephen Horvath has been contacted for comment.

Oxford Dictionaries announce Word of the Year 2018

Angus Brown
-
0
Oxford Dictionaries announce Word of the Year 2018

The word ‘toxic’ has beaten out runners up, including ‘big dick energy’, ‘incel’, and ‘gammon’, for the title of Oxford Dictionaries’ Word of the Year 2018.

Defined by the dictionary as “poisonous; relating to or caused by poison; very bad, unpleasant, or harmful”, the organisation believes the word represents “an intoxicating descriptor for the year’s most talked about topics.”

Justifying its selection in a press release, Oxford Dictionaries said: “In its literal sense, toxic has been ever-present in discussions about the health of our communities and our environment with ‘toxic substance’, ‘toxic gas’, ‘toxic environment’, ‘toxic waste’, ‘toxic algae,’ and ‘toxic air’ appearing as common collocates in our corpus data.

“Even ‘toxic slime’ has made the headlines – not to mention the continued discussion around the toxicity of plastics.

“But, it’s not just the physical that has been described as toxic this year.  Alongside the literal sense of the word, data shows that people have reached for the word to describe workplaces, schools, relationships, cultures, and stress.

“Politically, the #MeToo movement has shone a spotlight on ‘toxic masculinity’ while, more broadly, the word has been applied to the environment for debate fostered by the Brexit vote and by the rhetoric of leaders across the globe.

“Online, social media platforms, from Twitter to Facebook, have come under fire for the toxic impact they have on our mental health.”

Contestants on the shortlist, including ‘big dick energy’, ‘incel’, ‘gammon’, ‘overtourism’, ‘techlash’ and ‘cakeism’ were also considered, but President of Oxford Dictionaries Casper Grathwohl argued: “Reviewing this year in language we repeatedly encountered the word ‘toxic’ being used to describe an increasing set of conditions that we’re all facing.

“Qualifying everything from the entrenched patriarchy to the constant blare of polarizing political rhetoric, ‘toxic’ seems to reflect a growing sense of how extreme, and at times radioactive, we feel aspects of modern life have become.”   

Oxford Dictionary’s Word of the Year in 2017 was ‘youthquake’ while ‘post-truth’ topped the list in 2016. The organisation has selected a Word of the Year every year since 2004, with the inaugural winner the noun, ‘chav’.

Normal People Review – ‘a novel that speaks to the current climate’

-
0
Normal People Review – ‘a novel that speaks to the current climate’

Sally Rooney’s second novel – a years-long tale of two on-again, off-again lovers who can’t quite seem to ever get it right, but whose lives would be thrown entirely off course without each other – in many ways builds on her first. There’s the same interrogation of masculinity, the millennial experience, one’s social responsibility as a relatively privileged white student, the integrity of the relationships we form in our modern society of message histories and sexting.

Again, there’s the protagonist who drifts into eating alarmingly little, and again there’s a scene or two in a supermarket. But where Conversations with Friends seemed at times to veer towards being ever so slightly bleak in its vision of a student’s life and loves, this second novel is a much more compassionate, much more tender novel. This has to do in large part with its protagonist Connell, a complex and contradictory, but ultimately authentic and sympathetic figure, through whom the text unpicks the nuances of contemporary masculinity, as seems the necessary task of feminist fiction being written today.

At the beginning of the novel, the story seems to be more Marianne’s than Connell’s. It is through her eyes we admire the popular, athletic, covertly book-reading Connell from afar: from behind the pages of a book, as indeed Marianne herself does every lunchtime, every day. For she begins as the novel’s outcast. For anyone who lacked somewhat in popularity points during their time at secondary school and had an especial knack for cultivating particularly inconvenient, unlikely crushes on those at the other end of the social spectrum, it comes as a glorious fulfilment when Marianne and Connell – whose mother works as a cleaner in Marianne’s house – one day strike up a conversation containing the all-important admission: “I like you.”

A secret, sexual relationship follows, but Marianne must refrain from letting on, from telling anyone, because Connell is too embarrassed – or rather too scared – to admit to his friends his dalliance with the infamous Marrianne, regarded as strange by her peers. The scenario is a reversal of their social inequality – Marianne with the cleaner and mansion, Connell with the working single mother and terraced house. It’s a compelling romance, and both characters tug sufficiently at the sympathies of the reader.

Once they arrive at university, however, the tables are turned, as Marianne becomes the popular one, surrounded by an army of questionable friends (there is a particularly penetrating account of a toxic friendship in the form of the ever-disquieting Peggy), and Connell the outcast. For me, this is where the novel really found its footing. With the shift in the narrative perspective from focusing more heavily on Marianne during the school years to Connell once at university, we are presented with a more complex and more authentic character for the focus of our sympathies. If what makes Elio and Oliver of Call Me By Your Name so compelling is their capacity for contradiction, for being more complex than the logic of a novel would usually allow, this is also the case with Connell. It is really his coming to terms with his male identity which serves as the psychological focal point to the novel.

In one particularly vivid instance he becomes uncomfortably aware of his capacity to hit Marianne, if he wanted to, despite her perceiving him as “big and gentle, like a Labrador”. Connell deals with depression himself, and there’s a wonderfully touching account of his seeking student support. There’s another especially profound moment when, discussing his male privilege with Marrianne and Peggy, Connell says, “It’s not that enjoyable to have.”

Indeed, the novel as a whole digs deep into questions of the state of modern masculinity. It is significant that it is Rob (Connell’s seemingly one-dimensional jack-the-lad school friend, who takes to showing his male friends the naked pictures of his girlfriend on his phone) who, entirely beyond the pages of the novel, descends into a depression which results in his suicide. After his funeral Connell remembers Rob’s embrace after he scored a goal for the school football team one day, and there’s an intensely moving account of the effects of male socialisation on young men’s ability to deal with and convey their emotions effectively and healthily, their feelings “forced into smaller and smaller spaces, until seemingly minor events [take] on insane and frightening significance.”

There’s also the ominous figure of Connell’s inappropriate and ultimately assaultive teacher, Miss Neary, who looms throughout the novel. But where, were the roles revered one would hope allegations would be made, outrage vented, during school Connell’s friends merely make light of Neary’s inappropriate advances. They use them as a means of bolstering Connell’s image, his perceived masculinity, when really – and Rooney ensures the reader is aware of this even if none of the characters ever feel ready themselves to admit it – he is a vulnerable figure.

It’s issues like these that the novel raises that make it pressingly important in today’s climate where the mainstream feminist discourse all too easily falls into vilifying all men as unfeeling (note this is exactly what male socialisation does in denying men their feelings), as a threat immune to the vulnerabilities of women – when really it is sharing these vulnerabilities that makes us all human. The novel teaches that if we continue to deny men their feelings there’s little reason to be surprised when they become monsters. It is, then, a necessary novel. A novel that speaks to the current climate.

There’s an entire sub plot I haven’t touched on, largely because to me it felt superfluous. Marianne’s dead father, and now her brother Alan, are abusive figures which has something to do with the fact that she develops, during the latter part of the novel, an uncomfortable relationship with submission in her sexual and romantic encounters. It’s somewhat unsettling and doesn’t add all that much to the novel, beyond showing that – yes – although Connell is lovely, some men can be abusive too. The subplot seems underdeveloped and unresolved, and yet as a reader I’m not entirely sure I wanted to read any more about it.

As a whole though, the novel succeeds in all the areas one could ask of it: it delivers convincing, compelling characters, Atwood-ian, thought-provoking deconstructions of the social structures at play within our society today, and an at least partly satisfying conclusion. I would argue the blurb’s claim to “exquisite[ness]” would be better suited to the flyleaf of an E. M. Forster novel; however, the novel remains a compassionate and ultimately helpful contribution to modern fiction, and modern feminism too.

Labour councillor suspended for anti-semitism to rejoin party

-
3
Labour councillor suspended for anti-semitism to rejoin party

An Oxford Labour councillor suspended from the Oxford Labour group after posting anti-Semitic and homophobic remarks on social media will be readmitted to the group when his suspension ends.

Earlier this year, Cherwell revealed that Ben Lloyd-Shogbesan shared posts comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, praising Gaddafi, and suggesting gay marriage was a “perversion”.

He also shared a post that claimed cancer was “only a deficiency of vitamin B17” and advised people to “avoid chemotherapy, surgery, or taking medicines with strong side effects”.

Lloyd-Shogbesan resigned from the group and was subsequently suspended over criticism of his posts.

At the time, leader of the Labour group and the council, Susan Brown, said that the material shared by Lloyd-Shogbesan was “inappropriate and offensive”.

She added: “In suspending councillor Lloyd-Shogbesan from the group, we disassociate ourselves from his actions and have told him there can never be a repeat of them or any other behaviour by him which brings the party and the group into disrepute.”

Other councillors criticised Labour’s decision to suspend him, one calling the move “extremely disappointing”.

An investigation by the city council’s standards committee found that he had not broken the code of conduct because he made the posts prior to his councillorship.

The national Labour Party reached the same conclusion as the Oxford City Council Standards Committee inquiry, agreeing to take no further action.

Lloyd-Shogbesan will be readmitted to the party after 1st January, following a suspension period of three months.

Lloyd-Shogbesan said: “I have never held anti-Semitic, homophobic or racist views and fully support the city council’s position on equality, diversity and inclusion.

“This has been a humbling and educational experience and I remain fully committed to serving the community of Oxford to the very best of my ability.”

Liberal Democrat councillor Andrew Gant said Labour had “taken the wrong course of action”, and “[Lloyd-Shogbesan’s] behaviour is incompatible with continuing as a councillor.”

Oxfordshire Green Party councillor Craig Simmons said: “If this had been someone from another party they would have certainly been forced to resign – hounded out by the Labour majority.”

The walls that stare – what college portraits tell us about Oxford

Greg Ritchie
-
0
The walls that stare – what college portraits tell us about Oxford

They say a picture paints a thousand words. So what do the thousands of portraits hanging around Oxford colleges tell us about the University, and the people and ideas which inhabit it?

Cherwell sent Freedom of Information (FoI) requests to every Oxford college and Permanent Private Hall, asking for details on all of their portraits hung in communal areas. In addition to a breakdown by gender and ethnicity, colleges were also asked to provide their policies for the hanging and commissioning of pieces of art, as well as for details on whether they had or were planning to pursue a ‘diversity drive’.

The responses showed that at least ten colleges do not have a single portrait of a BAME person hanging on their walls. Women of colour were the least represented group, featuring in less than 1% of total portraits.

Other than those from formerly women-only colleges, most responses showed that less than 10% of portraits’ subjects were women.

Interestingly, there is a significantly higher proportion of women and BAME portraits located in college dining halls – the traditional centre of college life and height of portraiture esteem – than there are in other areas of colleges. This might be a result of recent moves to diversifying the portraits in their main halls, forcing the old paintings out in the process.

Many colleges did not fully respond to the request. For instance, a Hertford college spokesperson told Cherwell that they “do not keep independent lists with the breakdown information you have requested”, before directing us to ArtUK’s website (which listed 44 pieces of artwork as being located within the college, all of which of white men). In addition, Cherwell are yet to receive responses from a significant amount of the most ancient colleges, including Christ Church, Magdalen, Jesus, Oriel, and St Edmund’s Hall.

Diversifying the University’s iconography has long been on the agenda for student activists. Common Ground Oxford is a campaign group set up to to take down the “structures of racism, classism, and colonialism [which] pervade Oxford University in a variety of ways”. Indeed, one of their main resolutions is to campaign for the “the decolonisation of Oxford’s curricula and iconography”. How does the group get people to take portraits and statues seriously, and not dismissed as the whims of ‘snowflake’ students?

“Iconography is often placed at the centre of debates about colonialism in order to justify the dismissal of decolonial arguments; to try and frame the debate in terms of naïve students who cannot cope with the cold, hardstone of historical reality,” a spokesperson for the group told me.

“In truth, however, physical manifestations of the legacy of imperialism in a space like Oxford are so important because they promote a whitewashed version of history.

“Common Ground’s focus on putting Oxford’s imperialist and classist past in the context of present-day inequalities is borne out of a recognition that all aspects of Oxford life which perpetuate colonial narratives permeate the attitudes of all those who study here. At a world-leading institution, it’s crucial to beg the question: is this the view of the world we want to be imparting to our future leaders; academics; teachers; influencers?”

But do ‘diversity drives’ signify real progress? Common Ground don’t think it will ever be the full solution: “We’re looking to decolonise, rather than simply diversify: there’s a need for fundamental, not superficial change.

“It’s clear that projects to diversify Oxford’s iconography are a move in the right direction, but in order for these to feel less tokenistic a wider shift needs to take place: one towards diversity not for the sake of good public relations, but for the sake of a richer academic experience in all senses.”

It is notable that many portrait diversity drives are only temporary in nature. Last month, Magdalen College unveiled 25 portraits of its staff and students to showcase the college’s diversity and “more accurately” represent the college community. Featuring cooks, cleaners, teachers, and researchers, as well as members of the college’s current student body, the new portraits were taken by award-winning photographer Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert.

Of these portraits, half are of women – a stark contrast to before this project, when the vast majority of paintings in the college’s hall represented its overwhelmingly male founders and historic supporters. Paintings of Elizabeth I and Elizabeth Fricker (the college’s first female fellow) were the only two portraits of women hanging in hall.

However, while acknowledging that the project is a step in the right direction, Femi Nylander – a member of the campaign group Rhodes Must Fall Oxford – raised issue with the fact that the exhibition is likely to end in a year, stressing that “Oxford still has a long way to go in terms of diversity and dealing with its own past.”

Not all diversity drives seem as transitory, though. St Peter’s is an example of a college making rapid changes to its portraiture. While stressing that the previous composition of portraits was a “perfectly understandable and in no way to be demeaned historical accumulation of absolutely significant people”, the college’s Master, Mark Damazer, admitted that it “didn’t take great powers of observation to look around the College and to see that there are lots of other sorts of people here, and it didn’t represent the College in its full range of excellence.”

He told me: “We brought into the Hall two oil portraits of women. And then we added to it at the same time group photographs of contemporary women fellows at St Peter’s. And having done that we’ll now unveil in January the next stage of this, which is to do with people of colour and disability… Then there is an oil portrait going in of the first black professor at the College, Professor Dapo Akande, which we’re commissioning at the moment and will come in the spring.”

For Damazer, the location of the portraits are of equal consideration as the subjects: “I think it’s very important that these images should be in places where they are seen by the largest number of people, and in a shared common space, and not either temporary or in corridors.

“It must reflect the importance of their contribution and the diversity of the college, that they are somewhere in a significant space and are important.”

What’s more, he maintains that this was not merely the result of student pressure, but rather something embraced by the college at large: “When we discussed this collectively together in Governing Body, there was not a single voice of dissent about any of this at any stage.

“Every single member of the Governing Body – these would have been various different discussions down the years – have been utterly without any conceptual ideological friction, absolutely none.

“I’ve got a very amicable Governing Body, but even I had expected one or two objections. Now it’s true to say that we had to work out who they were going to be as it were, but even that wasn’t that difficult. In other words, the idea that this was a project that needed to be done – though far from the only thing one should do to reinforce diversity and plurality, by the way – was completely commonly held and supported by everyone.”

St Peter’s approach is exceptional by Oxford standards, but it isn’t the only college which has conceded it must do something about the problem. Almost half of Oxford colleges have policies and plans to diversity their portraiture in the coming years, and that number is only increasing. While Rhodes may not have fallen, the incredible campaign has energised a wider discussion about the role iconography plays in the University’s traditional structures, and built towards a growing consensus towards decolonisation.

Of course, the battle is far from over. As Common Ground stress, there is still a need for more meaningful change – and the onus is on the University and its colleges to lead that process.

“Oxford has a social role which it doesn’t fully acknowledge, which contributes to the intersectionality of these issues,” their spokesperson told me. “Colonialism, institutional racism, and institutional classism all pervade the city of Oxford. As long as each issue is not fully addressed, all three are perpetuated.

“It should not be controversial to acknowledge that there are a series of institutional and social biases in the world, and that we should be doing our best not to replicate that in the way we portray ourselves.”

Of course, if the intonations of wizened dons and irate breakfast-show hosts are anything to go by, decolonisation is still a controversial issue. But for how much longer will these tub-thumpers hold the ear of those with influence? When you speak to both the campaigners and the college authorities they rally against, one really detects that there is a growing consensus on Oxford’s need to confront its colonial past. Naturally, important divergences on the best way to go about that objective persist; the holistic decolonisation which groups like Common Ground and Rhodes Must Fall are fighting for is some way off yet.

But that doesn’t stop me from believing that when another student replicates this investigation – perhaps in a decade, maybe two – she will be confronted with faces quite different from what I have described today: faces less white, less male, less haggard. An Oxford that is at least trying to understand its history, and which aspires to welcome all those who walk its halls.

Oxford Union officers revolt against Steve Bannon invite

Jack Hunter
-
2
Oxford Union officers revolt against Steve Bannon invite

A row has erupted at the top of the Oxford Union over President Stephen Horvath’s last-minute announcement to host Donald Trump’s former right-hand man Steve Bannon.

Union secretary Nick Brown has called an emergency meeting of Standing Committee – the society’s governing body – to vote on cancelling the event on Friday, which has already prompted several student protests calling on the invite to be withdrawn.

The move follows claims that the Bannon event had been kept under wraps by the President for several weeks in advance. Three Union insiders told Cherwell that a majority of Standing Committee were not informed of the decision to host Bannon until the event was made public on Wednesday morning.

Following Wednesday’s announcement, student campaign groups announced demonstrations against the decision to host Bannon, who has been accused of promoting populism, anti-Semitism, and white supremacy. By Wednesday afternoon, over 170 people had marked themselves as “going” to a protest outside the Union on Friday.

Brown’s motion reads: “I, Nick Brown, hereby requisition an emergency meeting of the Standing Committee for 3pm on 15 November in the Macmillan Room. The purpose of the emergency meeting will be to discuss and vote on whether the Standing Committee should direct the President to disinvite Steve Bannon.”

The motion was signed by Brown, the Union’s treasurer-elect Amy Gregg, and Standing Committee member Anisha Faruk.

Earlier in the term, German far-right leader Alice Weidel cancelled her Union event, after widespread opposition from student groups.

Announcing the Bannon event earlier today, Horvath said: “I am sure there will be people who challenge the value of free speech in relation to this invitation. The event with Mr Bannon provides an opportunity for our members to hear from an individual who has been at the centre of a rise in right-wing populism, as well as to critically question and debate the ideas and rhetoric of Mr Bannon.

“It is only through listening to the opinions of others that we can fully understand those opinions. Whether we are inclined to agree or disagree with them, there is a profound intellectual value in critically thinking through why we agree or disagree instead of just rejecting them out of hand.”

Oxford-based anti-racism groups quickly condemned the event. In a statement, Ian McKendrick from Oxford Stand Up to Racism said: “We condemn the Oxford Union invitation to Alt-Right guru Steve Bannon to speak on 16 November.  The Oxford Union is once again giving a platform to a far right speaker, and by doing so legitimising racism.

“Bannon is attempting to build an Islamophobic international of far-right groups and is looking to fascist Tommy Robinson here in Britain as a key figure for his movement.”

He added: “We call on the Oxford Union to stop giving credibility to racism and fascism and cancel the invitation to Steve Bannon.”

The Union’s Facebook event page was flooded with criticism from students. One wrote: “Absolutely no words!!! What next? You will be inviting Hitler too??”

On Twitter, one student said he would resign his Union membership over the Bannon event.

Stephen Horvath told Cherwell: “I briefed all staff members and committee members necessary for the running of this event. For example, The Chair of the Consultative Committee (as the person in charge of logistics), the President-Elect (as the person with the most experience of security and logistics), the Junior Treasurer (as the person with the most experience of successfully inviting American political figures to the Union), and the Director of Press were made aware of this event in advance so that appropriate security measures could be put in place for the benefit of those members wishing to attend this event.

“On the advice of our security team, the announcement was scheduled for Wednesday morning. This is consistent with other high-profile speaker announcements such as Secretary Kerry or President Nixon, and it is worth noting that, unlike these figures, Mr Bannon does not have government funded security.”

He added: “At the end of October, all sitting Officers (including Nick Brown) were notified that an event would probably be taking place on Friday 16 November with a high-profile American political figure. No Officer used a motion of Standing Committee to direct me to reveal their name.”

Mojo Preview – ‘gloriously worded script but male dominated’

Cesca Echlin
-
0
Mojo Preview – ‘gloriously worded script but male dominated’

Jez Butterworth’s play Mojo first opened in 1995 at the Royal Court in London. Set in Soho in 1958, at the heart of London’s club culture, the plot follows Ezra Atlantic Club’s dispute with competing Camden clubs over rising star ‘Silver Johnny’ (Stevie Polywka) and its catastrophic consequences.

Playing Dumb Productions are bringing Mojo to the BT this week with dynamism and flair. In this preview, I watch from the start of the play and it opens with real oomph. The addition of a live drum set (played by Josh Jones) on stage sets scenes with urgency and proves valuable for later transitions. In my mind there is nothing worse than a rickety scene change, and the ongoing beat of the drums keeps the energy going from one scene to the next.

Director Louis Beer has set the BT in traverse for this production. As such, the actors are forced to work hard, moving consistently as to vary the audience’s sight lines. This was achieved particularly well in the first scene – a duologue between nightclub employees Potts (Harold Serero) and Sweets (Henry Wyard). The two form a hilarious comic duo as they chat, at times anxiously and at times delightedly, about the club they work at. Butterworth’s writing shines here, with some great lines – Sweets is mortified when he hears that star Silver Johnny has been seen without his signature silver jacket, but Potts declares it ‘a jacket-off atmosphere.’ Butterworth’s most successful comic writing thrives off of pedantry and word play such as this. These two characterisations work well together; with Serero’s self-important Potts counteracting Wyard’s blissfully dim Sweets. Both have developed particularly sophisticated physicalities, and the addition of physical tics reveal the drug-fuelled dark side to London’s club culture.

Like in so many of his other plays, Butterworth’s luxuriously worded comic scenes counteract a much darker plot line. This is partially revealed in the preview by way of nightclub senior manager Mickey’s (Dom Weatherby) entrance. He brings with him catastrophic news affecting the state of the nightclub. As such, I left the preview edging to know what happens next.

Butterworth’s plays prove a great opportunity for students, the sophistication and layered nature of its writing allowing one to bring out particular details. This Playing Dumb Productions has certainly done with consideration. One thing I think is important to discuss – the male-dominated nature of this play is palpable. The six characters in this production are originally male, with Amelia Holt being cast gender-blind as Baby. Jerusalem, Butterworth’s most famous play, is similar in this regard. Whilst I think it is true to say that Butterworth is fascinated specifically by the nature of masculinity, and perhaps, this is thinking optimistically, even the consequences of an absence of women, I think it is important we continue to reflect in this way. Perhaps I would have encouraged more actors to be cast in a gender-blind way.

What Playing Dumb Productions has created is a popping and witty rendition of gloriously worded script. Comedy done well can be a real treat and, as such, I encourage you to go and see this, running at the Burton-Taylor Studio until Saturday.

Merlin: The magic of kindness

Simone Fraser
-
2
Merlin: The magic of kindness

In 2008, a new fantasy-drama premiered on BBC One. Starring Colin Morgan as a young Merlin, serving and eventually befriending Arthur Pendragon, Merlin is loosely based on the English legend of Camelot and Arthurian mythology. It was popular, and for good reason. For five years, Merlin was a semi-regular part of the Saturday night routine of countless children, teenagers, and adults – including me.

I enjoyed it for a lot of reasons – it had exciting fantasy scenes and creatures, the leads were charismatic and likeable, and the witty and sarcastic exchanges made the show genuinely funny for people of all ages. Admittedly though, a lot of the key themes went over my head – but in retrospect, Merlin was not simply a generic show, but one with an important and pertinent message, especially relevant in the modern day.

A key feature of all five seasons is how Merlin hides his ability to practice magic from all but his primary confidant and mentor, Gaius. Even though Arthur is his closest friend, it isn’t until the climax of the entire show that Merlin is finally able to reveal his true self.  Until then he had to hide a key part of his identity to avoid persecution and punishment caused by the prejudices of Arthur, and more importantly his father, King Uther. It’s difficult to look at this as anything but allegorical when you consider the parallels between this kind of treatment and the kind of struggles that LGBTQ, ethnic minorities, and other oppressed groups go through in many places in the modern day.

Although at the time I had no idea of my own status as an LGBTQ person (although looking back I definitely had a crush on Katie McGrath, who plays Morgana), when I did begin to realise, looking back at shows like this definitely helped me to be kinder and more understanding – both to others and to myself. Ultimately, the key message of Merlin is that friendship and acceptance are far more powerful and important than division, and he forms important and loving bonds with a range of characters completely different from himself.

Yet Morgana’s tale also cautions the watcher about the negative consequences of failing to be compassionate. In the first season and most of the second, she is kind, loyal and loving to Arthur, Gwen, and Merlin. However, during the second season she discovers that she has magic – something that King Uther would destroy her for if he knew. Unlike Merlin, who is able to operate under a system of concealment, Morgana breaks from those she loves, going on to be the primary villain of the show. The real tragedy is that had Morgana been treated with benevolence, instead of hated for something she couldn’t control, the vast majority of the devastation and heartbreak throughout the show would not have occurred.

Consequently, Merlin did not just entertain me and countless other children and adults for five years, it also taught us to be kinder, more accepting people. Through highlighting the pain and destruction caused by prejudice to people with something they can’t control- in this case magical ability- Merlin warns us of the harm attitudes like this can have to individuals and society as a whole. Possibly the most powerful line comes from Morgana: “you don’t know what it’s like to be an outsider! To be ashamed of how you were born, to have to hide who you are.” Yet the reality is that many people watching the show really did know what it was like to be an outsider.

Maybe the real magic of Merlin was that without ever discussing the complex issues permeating society, it gave everyone who watched it a very clear message – to be kind.

1...751752753...2,587Page 752 of 2,587

Support Student Journalism

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

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

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

Website by Jamie Ashley