Tuesday 7th October 2025
Blog Page 796

Oxford’s dependence on EU funds revealed

Greg Ritchie
-
0
Oxford’s dependence on EU funds revealed

The European Union provides over half of the external research funding for several Oxford departments, Cherwell can exclusively reveal.

The findings raise further concerns over the post-Brexit future of Oxford’s world-leading research, though the University stressed that they are “determined to maintain and build on” their European links.

The data, obtained by a Freedom of Information request sent by Cherwell, showed that EU funding to University departments in 2016/17 had increased by more than eight per cent over two years.

However, there was a wide disparity in different faculties’ reliance on European funds.

The Faculty of Linguistics, Philology, and Phonetics has the highest reliance on EU income. Over the last three financial years they received more than £1.5 million in EU funds, equivalent to 75 per cent of their external research income.

In the social sciences, the Centre of Criminology’s figure was 53 per cent while the Department of Sociology’s totalled 43 per cent.

Professor Melinda Mills, head of the Department of Sociology, told Cherwell: “The ERC has been essential to social science funding in the UK and Europe since we receive an almost equal amount as the other sciences. This is often not the case with national science foundations where the social sciences receive often less than 10%.”

She continued: “It is our hope that the UK continues to participate in the next European framework programme and in particular allows the freedom of movement of academics to work at Oxford in these innovative projects.”

The Department of Economics and the Department of Politics and International Relations had smaller but still significant figures, with 26 per cent and 14 per cent respectively.

A spokesperson for the Department of Economics told Cherwell: “In the long-term, it is important for the Department of Economics, as for the University of Oxford as a whole, that agreement is reached on the UK’s continued participation in EU funding for research.”

The humanities, too, are subject to large EU research funding. The figure for the Medieval and Modern Languages Faculty is almost 40 per cent while the History and English faculties’ budgets showed 34 and 24 per cent respectively.

Science departments also show significant reliance on European funds. The sub-department of Physical and Theoretical Chemistry’s EU income came to 42 percent of their external research income, with Organic Chemistry’s being 30 per cent and Chemical Biology 38 per cent.

The Department of Physics received a particularly high amount of EU income. EU funding for Theoretical Physics amounted to 56 per cent of their external research funding, while Atmospheric, Oceanic & Planetary Physics had an average of 31 per cent.

The Department of Computer Science – which vice chancellor Louise Richardson described in 2016 as “the department most dependent on European Research Council funding” – received over £8 million from EU grants over the last three financial years. Meanwhile, the Mathematical Institute’s funding stood at 27 per cent of their external research funding.

Despite these figures and the UK’s impending exit from the European Union, the tens of millions coming into Oxford departments from the EU are secure for now.

According to EU and UK government officials’ joint report on the end of the first phase of Brexit negotiations, British participation in programmes funded under the EU’s research framework looks set to be supported until 2020.

However, the future of the University’s research funding is less clear beyond that.

Professor David Marshall, head of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, which has secured millions from EU research funds over the last five years, told Cherwell: “The current grants should not be affected, assuming that the UK government keeps its promise to underwrite awards already made.

“I have no reason to assume this will not be the case.

“In the future, the implications are serious. Despite reassurances that the UK government is committed to funding science, and indeed that the science budget is now protected in real terms, this does not match the experience of those of us working in fundamental ‘blue skies’ science.

“A lot of funding is now being channelled through innovation and overseas development calls… So the reality is that the funding for basic blue skies science is diminishing and we are increasingly dependent on the ERC to provide this.

“In terms of EU programmes, obviously it will be difficult to remain engaged at the same level without direct access to EU funding (we briefly experienced this following the Brexit vote when UK involvement became toxic due to fears it could jeopardise bids).

“Collaboration is key to much of what we do, so withdrawal from EU programmes is a real issue. That said, we do manage to collaborate with programmes in the US and elsewhere through the Natural Environment Research Council and other funding, so while the situation will become significantly more challenging, this will not be the end to collaboration with the EU.”

A spokesperson for Oxford University said: “The University has strong research collaborations and partnerships across the European Union which we are determined to maintain and build on.

“It was encouraging to see December’s Phase I agreement state that the UK will continue to have full access to Horizon 2020 research funding until the closure of these programmes in 2020.

“This means that our researchers will be able to continue to apply for European funding until the end of 2020.

“However, the University is actively working for continued access to European research funding beyond 2020 and, more importantly, the free flow of knowledge and ideas that research partnerships can inspire.

“We are therefore working towards a Brexit settlement which will allow the University to continue to participate in future EU Framework programmes and conduct world-class collaborative research; host European Research Council grants; co-ordinate and host collaborative European projects and infrastructures; recruit and retain the best staff regardless of nationality; and recruit the best students regardless of nationality.”

The latest figures on British participation in Horizon 2020, the EU’s research and innovation programme, showed that the University of Oxford receives the highest share of funding not just in the UK, but across the whole of the European Union.

Commenting on the publication of the data, Oxford University’s Head of Brexit Strategy, Professor Alastair Buchan, said: “The European framework programmes have been vital to research at Oxford, and have helped establish the University as one of the very best in the world.

“The benefit of this to the UK cannot be overestimated, and the current high standing of UK universities is undoubtedly at risk as a result of the UK leaving the European Union, whether our exit be hard or soft.”

Brains transplanted into wrong bodies at Uni hospital

Dominic Weatherby
-
0
Brains transplanted into wrong bodies at Uni hospital

Two brains were mistakenly transplanted into the wrong bodies during a post-mortem at the John Radcliffe Hospital.

The mishap was one of 278 ‘serious incidents’ which occurred in mortuaries across England, Wales and Northern Ireland from 2014 to 2016, according to a BBC Freedom of Information Request (FOI).

The John Radcliffe, one of four Hospitals in Oxford’s NHS Foundation Trust, collaborates with the University for research purposes and is the most popular base for clinical medical students.

A spokesperson for Oxford University Hospitals told Cherwell: “This very regrettable incident, for which Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and individuals have apologised to the families, was an error in the labelling of two brains during a specialist examination as part of the autopsy process.

“The mistake was promptly recognised by staff working in the mortuary at the John Radcliffe Hospital and rectified.

“This incident was reported to the Human Tissue Authority and the Trust also commissioned an external expert to carry out a thorough investigation and review processes in the mortuary in order to help us ensure we prevent anything like this happening again in the future.”

A medical student said: “From the time I’ve personally spent with corpses or body parts, it can be easy to forget that these were once living breathing people with families.

“When dealing with such sensitive material we should always be respectful and treat the body parts in a manner that their owners would have desired.

“In these incidents I feel that people have perhaps not been as meticulous or thorough whilst carrying out their work as they would have been if they were dealing with a living patient.

“Death can be distressing and when these types of incidents occur it simply makes things even worse for those involved.”

Rosa Curson Smith, a second year at Hertford College, told Cherwell: “whilst this may seem like an amusing mix up to those not involved, it presumably caused deep upset for the families of the deceased.

“Oversights like this should be avoided when operating on the dead as well as the living .”

A St Peter’s student added: “It is key that doctors and medical staff are open and honest to those close to the deceased individual about the mistakes made.”

Tyron Surmon, a student at Corpus Christi, said: “How could they not have done it right? “The operation was a no-brainer.”

Queerfest cocktails reduced to half-pints

Seb Klavinskis-Whiting
-
0
Queerfest cocktails reduced to half-pints

Wadham College has reformed its alcohol policy at Queerfest and Wadstock, following complaints of drunkenness at events last year.

Reforms will apply to Wadstock, a music festival, and Queerfest, the closing party of Wadham’s Queerweek.

The changes, ratified by college committee members, will scrap drinks promotions at the events. Cocktails will also be limited to half pints , with a maximum alcohol content of 6% ABV (alcohol by volume).

The recommendations were drawn up by the Domestic Bursar and the Wadham Bar Steward in response to complaints of drunkenness at college social events, particularly Queerfest.

Committee members cited a lack of provisions for those attending, such as an absence of food as well as a lack of contingency rooms for those who “due to intoxication would [have been] better off spending the night in the College”.

Several intoxicated students leaving the event were refused service by taxis, and were driven home by sober volunteers.

A spokesperson for Wadham College told Cherwell: “Oxford Colleges have a responsibility towards their students over the consumption of alcohol at their events and licensing law must be strictly applied.

“A decision was made by Wadham College members, including Wadham SU and MCR representatives, at Liaison Committee, that at Wadstock and Queerfest cocktails will be served in half pint glasses with alcoholic content clearly displayed (to a maximum of 6% alcohol by volume) and that no drinks promotions would take place.”

Wadham SU’s Bar and Social officers, who mixed the drinks in question and ran the cocktail bar, declined to comment.

Nicole Dominiak of Corpus Christi College, who attended last year’s Queerfest event, told Cherwell: “I didn’t find the drinking too much of a problem.

“The main thing for me was that there wasn’t enough food provided for people there, especially for people who had drunk too much.

“I’m not sure how much these recommendations are actually going to have an effect though since it seemed like most people had just been pre-drinking before they got there anyway.”

Queerfest is the final event of Wadham’s Queerweek, a series of talks and seminars celebrating LGBTQ+ culture and diversity.

Last term’s event was advertised as a space “to rejoice in a radical spirt of queerness, defiance, diversity and self-expression for six utopian, space-age, magical hours.”

Wadstock is a one-day outdoors music festival centred around student performers, taking place in Trinity term each year.

They are both organised by Wadham SU, though permission to hold the events require the approval of the college Dean, Liaison Committee, and Governing Body.

Around 850 ticket holders attend each of the events.

The reforms also proposed combining Wadham Student Union’s Cocktail Bar with the Marquee bar operated by the college.

This would mean Wadham having a single bar run by college, with two Personal Licence holders on duty, with the sale of alcohol supervised throughout events.

The closure of the separate student-run bar, operated by elected student bar officers, will not impact Wadham SU’s finances, as students were assured that all profits from cocktails sold would go to the Student Union.

The college would take the profits from the sale of other drinks at the combined bar, such as beers and ciders.

Dick and Dom: life out of da bungalow

Samuel Juniper
-
0
Dick and Dom: life out of da bungalow

The opportunity to meet one’s childhood heroes is one that can only cause excitement. So despite the fact that I found myself sat mid-afternoon with two 40-year-old TV presenters in an empty room in a Cambridge nightclub, there was something thrilling about the prospect.

Not many people will recognise the names Richard McCourt and Dominic Wood. When I told my friends I’d met them, the overwhelming response was: “Who?” And yet at their peak, the duo were unstoppable. They had over one million viewers every Saturday morning, they won two Baftas, and their show was just the second children’s television programme to be mentioned in the House of Commons.

Indeed, for my generation, Dick and Dom are little short of legends. It is, therefore, with a certain trepidation that I ask them my first question. Every week, Dick and Dom in da Bungalow invited a handful of primary school children onto the show to take part in their games, songs and features.

As an eight-year-old, I myself applied to be on, filled with hope that I would get my fifteen minutes of fame. Why was it, then, that I didn’t make the cut? “We saw your application photo and we didn’t like it. We didn’t trust you,” Dom tells me. “Your CV wasn’t good enough,” retorts Dick, a crushing blow given how much of my childhood was dedicated to networking events and volunteering for local charities. “You had something weird and dark in your eyes that we didn’t trust, so we wouldn’t let you in,” says Dom. Dick reassures me nothing has changed: “And we still don’t trust you
now.”

If anyone has made it this far without a working knowledge of the show – what were you doing with your Saturday mornings in 2003? – then let me offer a quick introduction. Only the hardcore fans will remember ‘Yum Yum Yak’, ‘DCI Harry Batt’s Interrogation Game’ and ‘Prize Idiot on the Job’, but it is almost to impossible not to know about the game that plagued Key Stage One teachers across Britain throughout the midnoughties: ‘Bogies’. In simple terms, the game involved McCourt and Wood finding a suitable public space – be it a yoga session, a performance at the theatre, or a lecture at Bournemouth University – and shouting the word ‘bogies’ progressively louder, until their ejection. With scores measured on the ‘bogeyometer’, the game made no secret of its juvenility, but this was probably the main reason that the show developed such a cult following: it was simple, it was gross, and it was brilliant.

In fact, my own brother was kicked out of the Fitzwilliam Museum as a ten-year-old, after engaging in a game with his friend. When I told her that I would be interviewing Dick and Dom, my mother – still dismayed at the public embarrassment that it caused her on the Cambridgeshire parents’ dinner party scene – demanded that I hold them to account for this.

Dom reveals that he has been accused of “corrupting a whole generation… and that’s you now.” “So, all you lot reading this, you are corrupted by us,” adds Dick. “Apologies.” Indeed, Conservative MP Peter Luff complained in Parliament about the show’s “lavatorial content” nearly thirteen years ago. “You can join me in playing How Low Can You Bungalow?, a test to see your response to grossly embarrassing personal situations, largely of a lavatorial nature,” he said to Culture Minister Tessa Jowell, “Pants Dancers in the Hall of Fame, photos of children with underwear on their heads; Make Dick Sick, a game which I think speaks for itself; and finally Bunged Up, in which you play a character in a sewerage system avoiding turtle poos coming from various lavatories. “Is that really the stuff of public service broadcasting?” Are they proud of those accusations? “Not really,” Dom replies, but I sense that it isn’t something that keeps him awake at night.

Ultimately, Dick and Dom managed to make a very successful career out of acting like children, and it is clear throughout my time with them that they haven’t changed much. But I must admit that there is something strange about meeting them aged 40 and 41. Dom is now married, and has a ten-year-old son – and Dick is his godfather. “He’s very generous with them. It is very adorable, they’ve got some lovely Amazon vouchers [from him].”

“I don’t have children,” says Dick, who remains a bachelor. “He hasn’t got any children, but you can bet your bottom dollar when he does I’ll be about 90 – but I’ll still be happy to be an old, old godfather,” replies Dom. This back-and-forth between them is a feature of my chat with them: rather than just being an on-screen duo, Wood and McCourt are best friends in real life, too. And when so much of your success has depended on two personas so similar to their own, there is little room for reinvention.

As a result, it’s no surprise to hear that it won’t be a case of new year, new Dick and Dom. “Uhh, no. Very much the same. Stagnant, same, similar, boring dull,” says Dom. “It’s like a stagnant pond with like those kinda things…” replies Dick. “Duckwater!” “Frogspawn in it.” While my chat with them is hardly the most serious interview I’ve conducted – how could it be when my journalistic career has featured a job asking drunk second-year PPEists about the geopolitical questions of our time? – I can’t help but notice the pair’s frantic attempt to turn their answers into something absurd.

The pair spoke to The i last year, but very much as McCourt and Wood rather than Dick and Dom, and their comments were perhaps more interesting than might be expected. “The rules have changed,” McCourt said in that interview. “There’s not many things you can get away with. “Things like Bogies could be seen as anti-social behaviour. We did a game [Eeny Meeny Macka Racka Rari Dominacka Shickapoppa Dickywhopper Rom Pom Stick] where we put stickers on people’s backs without them noticing. “I don’t think these days you’d be allowed to be seen to be upsetting people.” “There’s not enough silly any more,” says Wood. “Everybody’s too serious.”

It is an intriguing idea that Dick and Dom are in some ways a relic now. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of the show making it onto Saturday morning TV in 2018. While their comments might seem like a throwaway, it must say something about their attitude to entertainment that not being “allowed” to upset people is a negative. The generation that grew up with them are constantly labelled ‘whinging snowflakes’ by the press, but perhaps this is a sign that while those they entertained have grown up, Dick and Dom have not.

I try to move onto the political: “If you became health secretary tomorrow, how would you solve the NHS crisis?” Dick makes a low, farting noise. “We’re not intelligent enough for this,” he replies. What would they do if they met Donald Trump? “Just turn him upside down and slap him like a human piñata,” says Dom. “[I’d] see what comes out,” Dick replies. “What do you think would come out of Donald Trump, sweets or money?” “Chocolate coins! That covers both, doesn’t it?” How do they think they will find the heteronormative atmosphere in Cindies tonight? “I don’t know. But it’s lovely to be here.”

Their responses – an attempt to get away from anything remotely serious – firmly remind me that I am interviewing Dick and Dom, not McCourt and Wood. While at no point did I try to make this anything other than a light-hearted, jokey chat with them, it is difficult to escape the fact that I’m speaking to two men whose relevance is much diminished. I suspect that this is in part due to their refusal to grow up.

A career in children’s television, followed by a decade of spin-offs, charity shows and occasional appearances must be a bizarre existence, and behind the characters that they assume in public, there must be a real Richard McCourt and Dominic Wood: the middle-aged, slightly balding men getting by thanks to club appearances on a Tuesday night in Cambridge.

However, what is all too apparent is that Dick and Dom, the duo whose antics made us howl with laughter as children, are an odd pairing. They still crack me up, but in a strange, nostalgic way when I think of a simpler time – one without problem sheets, deadlines and the stress of living in the real world, and one in which putting your pants on your head and doing a dance was not only acceptable, but encouraged.

The two characters sat in front of me embody my childhood: they are carefree, stress-free, and, most saliently, remnants of my past.

It’s time to talk about hangover anxiety

Fin Kavanagh
-
0
It’s time to talk about hangover anxiety

It was something I had never personally experienced before coming to Oxford, and like all new emotional experiences, you don’t quite know what it is or how to explain it.

It was after a particularly bad case in my first year that I asked a close friend about it, to which they smiled and responded: “so you had ‘the Fear’ then.” I found some relief in finally being able to put a label on what I’d felt, but more so in knowing I wasn’t the only one who had felt this darker side of the morning after the night before.

Most us are familiar with the physical symptoms of a hangover. The dry mouth, ringing ears and pounding headache that come after a particularly heavy Thursday at Bridge can leave us curled up in the foetal position the next morning with the covers right up to our ears.

You curse the ten-pound minimum card payment, and wonder what on earth possessed you to drink all six of those Jägerbombs yourself.

Many of us are less familiar with the psychological symptoms of a hangover (the Fear) however. It’s part of the going out experience that you never really get told about growing up.

For many of us, ‘the Fear’ might be the closest we come to experiencing aspects of social anxiety. More officially termed “hangover anxiety”, it is the emotional state caused by the dehydration and adrenaline rush that comes with removing alcohol toxins from the body.

The less biologically savvy among us may be more familiar with the distress, paranoia and deep regret we can feel as a result of this chemical imbalance. It is often twinned with memory loss or periodic black outs, so we may have no idea what happened the night before, but what we are certain of is that we must have messed up in some way.

Whereas our fully hydrated brains would approach this situation rationally, we can’t but help succumb to ‘the Fear’ in our delicate state. A minor error in judgement that we can vaguely remember we soon inflate and then immediately catastrophise: people will talk, they’ll tell others about it, everyone will find out, and they’ll all hate me.

So you lie on your front staring at the ceiling, too afraid to look at your phone because of the anticipated barrage of messages about what happened the night before. You work yourself into a frenzy, thinking and rethinking over whatever you said or did. By early afternoon however, it’s usually a distant memory. There is no angry mob baying for your blood. No ceremony of public humiliation. You find that everyone else is just getting on with their day, with just the occasional passing comment about how you look like rubbish.

Any of this sound familiar at all? You’ll be glad to know you are not alone. A 2012 survey of 1,410 students found that over half the participants had experienced agitation, confusion and regret after a night of heavy drinking. And despite articles about it in the much-reputed Tab, Huffington Post and Cosmo, it does feel a bit strange we still aren’t widely recognising this part of the whole going out experience.

When debriefing over lunch about what happened the night before, we are happy to talk about how X climbed the pole at Bridge, or how Y dropped their chips on his way back, but no one brings up that existential crisis they thought they were having in their bed not three hours before.

We sweep it under the rug and act like it never happened, often happier not to confront it than show emotional vulnerability to friends and mates.

What’s the solution then? The obvious advice of “drink less” is one that not many of us can claim to listen to. We enjoy going out and we have reason to. The endorphins released can do wonders for our mental health, self-confidence and in creating lasting memories with some of those closest to us.

It’s just unrealistic to say we’re going to give up the Wetherspoon’s pitchers, the exotic cocktails or the surprisingly strong Bop Juice. If a student manages to complete ‘Dry January’ then much respect to them – they’re made of stronger stuff than most.

But if we decide to ignore this advice, however unhelpful it may be, it does come at the cost of experiencing the very opposite effects the next morning, where we can often feel our most worthless and isolated. Wasting precious library time overthinking the apparent mistakes we perhaps made the night before. Did I drunk text my ex? My mum? Oh God, is that a drunk email to my tutor?? Goodbye Oxford. In my own opinion, like with most issues surrounding our mental health, the answer lies in conversation. We just have to talk about it, however uncomfortable it makes us and however it goes against every fibre of British-ness in our beings.

In speaking to a friend about my experience with ‘the Fear’ I was able to both name and normalise something I didn’t fully understand at the time. I may have made myself vulnerable for a minute or two, but it was definitely worth it.

What did I learn? I learnt that a hangover is often more than just a headache and a dry mouth, and can leave us unnerved and emotionally vulnerable in a place still alien to a lot of us. For Freshers, it’s only the second term in Oxford. You’d be lying if you said you’d completely settled into every aspect of your life. Does knowing this make it any more bearable if or when you experience it again though?

It honestly depends on the person. Maybe, maybe not. I personally find knowing that there may well be someone in the room next door, going through the same thing, a little bit reassuring. And, I’m also more inclined to give them a knock and offer them a cup of tea, knowing full well the ensuing chat will probably do the both of us the power of good. All through the simple and everyday action of talking – it’s easier than you think.

When movie marketing becomes maddening

Matthew Vautrey
-
0
When movie marketing becomes maddening

It seems somewhat bizarre that a director would spend months carefully crafting the tone of a film, only to have a marketing department deconstruct clips into an attempted viral video; yet increasingly audiences are complaining that the film they see is not what was promised. The sheer number of film releases today means finding an audience is becoming increasingly competitive, and a trailer could make or break its chances.

For a studio, misleading trailers often present an opportunity to salvage what they think will be a potential box office bomb. This doesn’t necessarily mean the film is bad – they may just be worried that their film won’t naturally appeal to a large commercial audience. Take Tim Burton and Johnny Depp’s adaptation of Sweeney Todd, where the trailers almost entirely neglect the fact that the film is a musical in order to capitalise on a more widely appealing theme of adventure.

Recently, the fantastically suspenseful It Comes At Night made back eight times its $2.5 million budget, by any accounts a successful box office performance, but the disparity between audience ratings (44%) and critic ratings (88%) on Rotten Tomatoes is telling; some will likely have been expecting a zombie horror romp given the trailer, so could be understandably upset by the sizeable amount of its 90 minute run-time taken up by sitting at a dining table or chopping wood.

Less cynically, sometimes there is no sneaky ploy to deceive audiences. Trailers are often needed before a film has fully finished shooting, and particularly in post production there can be changes made to the tone of the movie itself. Zack Snyder’s Justice League suffered from this when Joss Whedon took over from him to finish the project, and brought his more light-hearted style with him, resulting in a rather inconsistent tone. And while the promotional material for Kingsman 2 heavily featured Channing Tatum’s stetson-wearing agent, he doesn’t feature for the majority of the film due to scheduling conflicts.

But, paradoxically, a misleading movie trailer is often in itself a good trailer. Designed to be captivating and likeable, trailers that sacrifice representing their film have more scope for making something that excites an audience regardless of if they go to see it or not. Whether you liked Suicide Squad or (hopefully) thought it was boring and generic, the trailer synced to the soundtrack of Bohemian Rhapsody probably deserves an Oscar in itself. Granted, it failed at a trailer’s main purpose – being an informative teaser – and falsely positioned the Joker as the main antagonist, but was as much a part of the films cultural impact as the film itself. If viewed as a standalone hype piece it epitomises the fact that the use of deception shouldn’t always be frowned upon.

Controversial costumes are an issue of imbalanced privilege

Tarini Kumar
-
5
Controversial costumes are an issue of imbalanced privilege

A recent spate of controversies surrounding insensitive costumes worn to college bops has sparked much debate around what is and isn’t appropriate to wear. Just last week, an able-bodied LMH student was reprimanded for dressing up as Steven Hawking for a ‘Dress as your degree’ bop.

Many criticised the lack of sensitivity in the specific prop choices he made, such as his decision to sit in a wheelchair. This criticism seems to insinuate that there exists a more ‘appropriate’ way to dress as Hawking.

So often, particularly in cases such as these, people try to assign ‘levels of appropriateness’ – as though there exists some hierarchy Steven Hawking costumes, within which the perfect getup can be picked out so as to ‘appropriately’ imitate him. Yet doing so overlooks the main issue, the true grievance, of such acts.

This was not an isolated incident as former bops have seen cultural appropriation dressed up as fashion and outfits deliberately chosen to shock. The most infamous of these is the ‘middle America’ costume, worn by a student at a Christ Church bop last year and a Harvey Weinstein costume appearing at an LMH bop.

Costumes are, by nature, like caricatures: they exaggerate and magnify certain aspects of a person or a group such that they become parodies, amplifying and endorsing existing stereotypes.These are the same stereotypes that are used in daily life to denigrate and humiliate the people of that group.

These costumes act as a funhouse mirror, in which people see what their identity represents to most of society, reflected back at them. To don an outfit which reduces whole groups to mere accessories, to spare parts, is audacious and, frankly, entirely unfair. This is especially the case at college bops, where you will likely come into direct contact with individuals who have been, and continue to be, seriously affected by such stereotypes.

Ultimately, the issue is one of imbalanced privilege. When someone is able to assume a particular appearance without ever having faced the struggles that come with it, and use it as a “costume”, they are in a position of power. To use that privilege in this way is not only unfair, it makes light of wider issues. In the case of LMH, it denegrates the struggle those with disabilities frequently face in a society that discounts or ignores them.

Of course, many argue that simply wearing an item of clothing traditionally belonging to a minority group doesn’t constitute mocking it – the line between cultural appreciation and appropriation is undoubtedly blurred.

Parul Sehgal of The New York Times writes, “what cannot be disputed is how profoundly we exist in one another’s imaginations” – we are allured and deeply interested by that which is different from us, constructing fantasies of what it would be like to be entirely unlike ourselves. To shut ourselves off from interacting with one another in this way would be wrong and ultimately counterproductive, but with this interest needs to come real knowledge of and respect for the big picture.  It is not wrong to admire other cultures, it is wrong, however, to cherry pick aspects of it for a party.

Activist Bell Hooks writes, “Ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture” – people so often use this fascination, this interest in other cultures to feel transgressive or to be provocative and funny, anatomizing it to extract and adopt only the parts deemed desirable, disregarding the rest.

I’m not suggesting that people are always intending to be cruel or provocative, or to commit any sort of great theft of culture, but obliviousness to this wider context is just as hurtful and, at this point, inexcusable; it’s not acceptable, nor is it really fair, to claim ignorance.

Kenan Malik terms appropriation more a “messy interaction” than any sort of a crime, and maybe so – but it’s about time that people learned how interact, to use an oft thrown around word, appropriately.

Fashion in 280 characters or fewer

Skye Humbert
-
1
Fashion in 280 characters or fewer

There’s a new breed of fashion commentator – and no, it’s not the next round of budding freshers writing for Cherwell Fashion, such as myself (I know, I’m excited too) – it’s a social media phenomenon. High fashion twitter has been undercover too long not to be recognised for what it really is: bitchy, overbearing and bloody addictive.

If by any miracle you’re new to social media, fashion or just being opinionated in general, here’s what it is: HF Twitter is a circle of accounts, often hidden behind an icon of Daphne Groeneveld or Megan Fox, that comments on upcoming trends, reviews recent editorials and collections and promotes a glamourous yet unrealistic view of life all in 280 characters or less. In fairness to the community, it means I can keep up with the new SS18 collections far better via the endless colour co-ordinated photosets than by spending £4.50 on a magazine. I experienced practically the entire Victoria Secret 2017 show through a 30 second video, a picture of Candice Swanepoel retweeted 1000 times and, ironically, a singular thread explaining the evil machinations of the Victoria Secret Corporation.

But as with everything to do with social media, anonymity is dangerous. The come backs can be hurtful, unfair and personal and some of the debates are worse than talking about Brexit on a crew date. The world of HF Twitter gets bitchy. And I mean really (really really really) bitchy. I had my own dose of condescension when I outed a girl for calling a £150 La Mer eye cream ‘essential’. She told me ‘I agree if you don’t care about getting bags under your eyes you shouldn’t buy”. She’s right about one thing: the bags under my eyes are simply not worth spending £150. Those of us on a student budget cannot relate. That I can get over, but more than that, the community is free to join, but quickly becoming exclusive. Still, it’s a guilty pleasure of mine to sit back and enjoy reading quote tweet after quote tweet and threads venting about other threads. If you have a thick skin and are still intrigued, simply make a twitter account and follow the right people: look for handles with the brands ‘Dior’, ‘Gucci’ and ‘Prada’ paired with the words, ‘angel’ ‘fairy’ or ‘hoe’.

When you love fashion, and want to talk about it, it’s almost too easy to get sucked in. It’s even easier to forget that these accounts are run from an age range of 12+, with unsurprisingly no credentials or experience. The best part is when a HF Twitter account truly believes they’re the glamazons they aspire to be and begin coaching on how to achieve this. Trying to clear some chronic acne? Well, by following the right accounts, you can get fully unqualified dermatological treatments including, but not limited to: ‘drink lots of water!’, ‘use Mario Bedascu rose water daily!’, ‘eat greens 5 times a day!’ They might even tell you which face wash is best for your star sign! Of course! It all seems so obvious now! It’s tiresome trying to ignore the not only fake but almost damaging health tips, especially when these accounts are run by girls, (and guys!) who’ve hardly hit hormonal acne. Somehow, they dream of becoming both the editor-in-chief of Elle magazine as well as doing nothing all day as a rich socialite, eating breakfast in bed and living in sweet, sunny Sorrento, Italy.

Now, I’m not shitting on dreams here and I’m not even one to say you can’t have it all – I’m just trying to keep a level head when ‘10 tips to an easier life’ are being relayed to me through incredibly abstract and probably toxic gifs from Sex and the City. Maybe it’s all a matter of attracting the lifestyle you try to project: if you retweet a picture of your icon wearing haute-couture then you might truly be able to afford haute-couture one day, right? It’s nice to feel glamorous. It might be even nicer to have your followers believe that you’re glamourous. Does it work? Should someone let them know? Probably not…but I digress.

Yet despite my criticism, I’m hooked. As an avid follower of the community, there is a lot to respect. High Fashion twitter definitely calls it as it is. Taking no nonsense when Kylie Jenner released her £300 makeup brushes, unearthing Naomi Campbell’s vindictive actions towards fellow models and employees, and withholding applause for the Balenciaga’s SS18 collection which literally sells ‘refugee’ clothes as luxury items. HF Twitter doesn’t sit around supporting everything it sees, and sometimes finds itself a venue for worthwhile discussion. With instantaneous access to commentary, you can vouch on someone saying what needs to be said. And if you’re passionate, why not?

But where does this community stand in the world of fashion? What do they offer? How much do we care? Well, there is something unbelievably satisfying about being able to criticise an industry that is asking to be criticised. Fashion is not about how you look, but whether you look good. And this world of commentary does just that: they questioned Dolce and Gabbana’s AW17 collection, plastered with the supposed ‘favourite’ teen icon Justin Bieber, and saw straight through Kendall Jenner from the start – her lack of talent, experience and evident problems with using the same facial expression every time she is on the cover of Vogue. In some small ways, these accounts can go against the trends they’re told to like, the collections they’re told are good and the models they’re told are enough to show diversity on the runway. Suddenly there’s an opening to share your opinions, which is arguably what the fashion industry thrives on – although this space has been limited previously to the most elite people in the business. Commendably, these accounts even stand by their tweets and the opinions they share, they’ll defend them to the point of being blocked. Even Nietzsche said, “he who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the heat of dispute”: HF Twitter is always ready for a fight.

It’s not obvious yet how this small corner of the industry will affect the world of fashion, or what kind of legacy it will leave, if any – except the odd tweet that gets over 30k likes. High fashion will remain unobtainable to the masses, but the conversation is undoubtedly more accessible. Maybe they’re doing a better job than Vogue, Vanity Fair and dare I say it … even Cherwell?! What took me almost a 1000 words to say they’re doing in 280 characters or less.

Life on the streets

Bessie Yuill and Jeevan Ravindran
-
0
Life on the streets

It’s hard to walk down any street in central Oxford without seeing a rough sleeper – in fact, you could say it’s impossible. As students, we’re constantly told that we should be doing something about it – but there’s always a tendency to think about the politics and not the people involved. It can be easy to feel overwhelmed by the magnitude of the issue, and forget that rough sleepers are just ordinary people. The only thing that separates them from us are four walls.

We decided to look beyond the faceless statistics, and speak to some individuals about the stories behind homelessness in Oxford. Everyone we talked to was open about how they had ended up sleeping on the streets. Andy, a Big Issue seller, told us that he had been homeless for the past nine years, after divorce and time in prison had stripped him of a support system.

His story is not uncommon: relationship breakdown is one of the most common causes of homelessness in the UK, and insufficient rehabilitation after prison sentences can also sabotage any kind of second chance in society. Just a two-minute walk away, we met Justin, 43, on George Street – he blamed his homelessness on a lifetime of difficulties, which began when he was just eight. Marion, who regularly busks on Cornmarket Street, described marital upheaval as well, and said he made a conscious decision to leave, rather than uprooting his young children.

The fact that his departure was voluntary, however, reportedly prevented him from receiving help or benefits, as he was classed as ‘intentionally homeless’. He came to Oxford to stay with a friend, who later also lost his home. In a time of cutbacks and austerity, it’s chillingly easy to see the way in which safety nets can fall through when people are struck by sudden disaster. One idea which is emphasised by many national homelessness charities is that we’re all “just one pay check away from homelessness”. The council was an object of scorn to those we interviewed, and it’s easy to see why.

Support in Oxford has been noticeably depleted in recent years, as a result of central government cuts – although the city council is not necessarily to blame, homelessness needs to move up the local and national agenda.

Lucy Faithfull House was closed in February 2016 and bulldozed in 2017, and Marion acknowledged the impact of this decision. “All of them are going to be gone,” he fatalistically predicted, “it’s going to get worse before it gets better.”

He even suggested that rough sleepers would end up pitching out in council offices – both as a practical solution and a karmic form of protest. Andy also noted that the shift from three shelters to two had left many people worse off, saying that the issue of homelessness “has no bounds. Race, colour, sex.”

He was more optimistic, however, about the positive changes that selling the Big Issue had brought about in his life. The worst thing about homelessness, in his view, was being “dumped on the street” with no structure or support at all.

Justin also described a feeling of being trapped by circumstance, highlighting the fact that being unable to pay for a phone severely hindered any attempt to look for a job. At the end of our interview, he asked us to look at the time and date on our phones for him – a striking reminder that the barriers of money and technology meant that something as simple as the time of day was unavailable to him. He also stressed that any impairments to his speech completely ruled out sympathy from passersby, let alone potential employers, since everyone would assume substance abuse before they believed anyone was legitimately unable to talk.

Marion, on the other hand, said that the worst part of everyday life on the streets was looking out for his own possessions, in an occasionally “ruthless” atmosphere. He felt that some people had no sympathy, since they assumed all rough sleepers had sabotaged themselves by choosing a certain lifestyle – the same justification members of the council made, in his opinion.

Choosing not to help the homeless because of stereotypes around drinking or drugs is certainly an argument which you regularly hear from students, even if it does come from a place of concern. When asked, Andy and Marion both spoke highly of students who volunteered in Oxford: Marion said the majority of students were “good as gold”, while Andy also conceded that students were “mostly all right”.

Volunteers, like those working through On Your Doorstep or drop-in cafe The Gatehouse, were clearly appreciated, but not all student interactions were described as positive. When Justin was asked, he described a violent encounter – being kicked by a student repeatedly, for no reason he could explain to us. He was clearly upset about the experience.

Simeon Cope is a man who has also seen the cruelty and kindness of the streets. Vikki Cope, his wife and a well-known local poet, passed away in November at the age of 43. She had been homeless for more than 20 years, and had contracted pneumonia after a heart bypass. Her case demonstrated the inadequacy of health services for homeless people – an inadequacy which results in both the unacceptably low life expectancy of the homeless UK population.

In 2011, the NHS estimated that, among rough sleepers, the average life expectancy was 47 for men and 43 for women, a statistic which is startlingly low compared to the life expectancy of 77, among the general population.

However, students who knew Simeon brought a silver lining to his situation. He was dealing with his grief while still homeless, struggling to find his next meal while mourning his wife. A JustGiving page was set up for donations, in the hopes of finding him somewhere to stay while he tried to regain employment in the wake of this loss.

Although the page exceeded its original goal, complications around a lack of guarantor mean that students are currently seeking to raise £2,400 to secure him a place for five months, since the housing company won’t accept a shorter term. Simeon is still regularly begging outside of St John’s.

It is not just fundraising and volunteering that enables us to help people like Andy, Marion, and Simeon: it is also important that we stay politically involved. As stated, the council shut down one shelter in 2016, and the government continues to refuse help to rough sleepers, disallowing them on meaningless criteria such as the requirement to have a “local connection” to the area, or spend 6 months sleeping rough to obtain this connection.

Until recently, the government has made little effort to improve infrastructure for homeless people. The Homelessness Reduction Act which was passed last year offers some hope for change, but has not been seen yet. As part of the Conservatives’ 2017 election manifesto, Theresa May also promised a ‘rough sleeping taskforce’ which would act to help house all rough sleepers by 2027. Those of us who care need to make ourselves heard on these issues and make sure these promises are fulfilled.

Above all, however, the problem lies in a lack of empathy. This is clear in the recent case of Conservative council leader Simon Dudley, who demanded police use legal pressure to clear Windsor of its “epidemic of rough sleeping and vagrancy” before the royal wedding in May: homeless people are seen as a problem to be dealt with.

The difference in lifestyle between formally dressed students on their way to a £200 ball and people who struggle to find enough to eat every day could seem impossibly vast. It could be easy to see the numbers as a faceless issue in the same way as Simon Dudley: something to be swept away to avoid feelings of guilt or shame.

Homelessness is an economic, political, and social issue, but first and foremost, it is a personal one. This simple idea can be lost amidst intellectual discussions which create distance between the larger issue and homeless people themselves. We should be listening to the stories of rough sleepers, and engaging with them as people, instead of a faceless, political issue.

Beautiful Things preview – ‘brilliantly captures a microcosm of London life’

Alex Jacobs
-
0
Beautiful Things preview – ‘brilliantly captures a microcosm of London life’

Set in South East London, Beautiful Thing revolves around five characters living on a council estate. Fifteen year old Jamie (Lee Simmonds) lives with his erratic mother Sandra (Emelye Moulton) and her latest in a long string of boyfriends, Tony (Callum Coghlan). Their endlessly infuriating next door neighbour is Leah (Francesca Amewudah-Rivers), who has been kicked out of school and instead spends her days lounging around and listening to Cass Elliot records. Across the hall, Ste (Chris Dodsworth) lives with his abusive father. The situation eventually gets so bad that he starts to spend the night top-and-tailing with Jamie, but this soon starts to develop into something much more than a friendship.

I was shown the first act of the play, which swiftly draws its audience into the characters’ lives. The in-the-round staging echoes the play’s microscopic examination of its characters, and is used imaginatively and effectively by Isobel Hambleton and Daisy Collarile to create tableaus with the actors which I could almost picture as a photograph series, as well as complementing the naturalistic feel of the play. I also imagine Hambleton’s directing will work well in the Pilch, and the black box theatre seems to be an excellent choice of space for a play which relies on the strength of the bonds between its characters rather than any sorts of bells and whistles with the set.

The touching nature of the domestic relationships is excellently portrayed, and all of the characters are depicted with nuance and care. A particular standout is Simmonds, whose expressiveness and broad emotional palette bring depth to a complex character wrestling with his identity. He provides thoughtfulness and sensitivity without excessive angst. Amewudah-Rivers and Simmonds also play beautifully off each other, recreating all the humour and freshness of young adults.

Leah and Jamie’s relationship feels vibrant, the quick fire dialogue between them echoing typical fifteen year old chatter. Dodsworth as Ste portrays a wonderful mix of teenage swagger and vulnerability. Although the romance between Ste and Jamie was only just starting out in the section I was shown, the naivety and fire of an adolescent love affair was brought out well, and I could tell this would blossom beautifully in the second half of the play. The delicacy with which their relationship unfolds is delightful to watch, and has been handled well by both Hambleton and the cast.

Simmonds and Moulton should also be commended for drawing out the complexities of Jamie and Sandra’s relationship. Moulton’s portrayal of a mother who is simultaneously trying to act as a mature adult figure for her teenage son and also enjoy her life on her own terms comes to blows with Simmonds’ Jamie, who is trying to forge his own path in struggling to find his identity. The depth of the love which the two of them have for each other is clearly visible, even in moments when they become physically violent. Contrasted with Jamie and Tony’s awkward, fumbling conversations as step dad and son, played for good comic effect by Simmonds and Coghlan, their intense relationship is both touching and turbulent without being over-dramatic, and feels very authentic.

Beautiful Thing brilliantly captures a microcosm of London life, encapsulating the feeling of the domestic situation being magnified and set against a backdrop of a much bigger society. The tender yet volatile nature of family dynamics and teenage relationships is excellently brought out. Moments of sensitivity are set off by brilliant flashes of comedy, refusing cliché or melodrama to create a highly enjoyable piece of theatre.

1...795796797...2,524Page 796 of 2,524

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