Monday 9th June 2025
Blog Page 812

Pro-life students have a right to speak out at Oxford

Anna Branford
-
8
Pro-life students have a right to speak out at Oxford

Respectful, open discussion is vital to freedom of speech. Everyone should have the opportunity to make their views heard, and everyone’s voice should be valued in the discussion of contentious social issues. These were all points I raised to the 40 attendees of last Wednesday’s ‘Abortion in Ireland’ event hosted by Oxford Students for Life.

Despite this, what happened next was an affront to all of the principles established before the talk took place. Less than one minute into Breda O’Brien’s presentation, a group of protestors jumped to their feet with such ferocity that it was impossible for us to have any form of meaningful enagagement with them.

I was particularly taken aback that fellow students, organised and spearheaded by Oxford SU’s WomCam no less, could employ such a form of protest given how hard we had worked to ensure that any pro-choice attendees would feel like they had the freedom to speak and challenge our guests.

It was a clear affront to the principles that we had so clearly emphasised were invaluable to the discussion. So unprecedented was such a protest, and so blatant was the attempt to deny our speaker her right to freedom of speech, that it was unclear how we should respond.

Attempts were made to vaguely mitigate the circumstances in which we found ourselves. Some of the pro-life women held up signs at the suggestion of Georgia Clarke, our Secretary, proclaiming “I’m a woman, where’s my right to speak?” and “Is this what dialogue looks like?” Breda tried to communicate by writing a message to the protestors on the projector screen, but even this form of speech was ignored as protestors blocked the projector and relentlessly contin- ued their chanting from the front.

Freedom of speech is not just some abstract, nebulous concept to be discussed by political philosophers in their ivory towers. Rather, it is a necessary protection, a fundamental right enshrined in law and international obligations such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Such legal protection is essential for enabling the existence of groups like Oxford Students for Life. We exist to create a space in which questions about the beginning and end of life can be discussed in a respectful and open environment. We come at the issues from a pro- life perspective, and aim to foster dialogue and share views which are often unheard. Safeguarded by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we have every right to “impart information and ideas” and that is exactly what we hoped to do on Wednesday evening.

Our beliefs may be considered radical, but so have many beliefs at some time that we now consider nor- mal. Repealing Section 28 was seen as radical. Votes for women, a concept which is now assumed by all as a fundamental right was one of the most divisive debates of the 20th century. The idea of freedom of speech can sometimes be reduced to empty rhetoric due to overuse, but it is vital to democracy and progressive movements. The belief that human life should be protected from conception to natural death may currently be considered radical, but that doesn’t mean it has any less of a right to be heard.

Despite the portrayal of the pro-life movement as extreme and out of touch with public opinion, a recent ComRes Poll shows that among 18- 24 year olds, 59% would like to see the 24-week limit period reduced, while only one percent would which to see it extended to birth. Such statistics would imply that there is still much discussion to be had on the question of abortion and that the debate is by no means over.

Moreover, the upcoming referendum in Ireland and the current push for decriminalisation in the UK means that it is as important as ever that the right to free speech on issues such as abortion is not infringed. WomCam says the question “is not up for debate”, but if our MPs are to debate the matter in Parliament, then the right of citizens to discuss it must be upheld. To suggest otherwise would be to set a dangerous and worrying precedent, where the established view would become unquestioned. History tells us that for progress to be made, the opposite must be done with increased fervour.

Given the protesters’ agrant disregard for freedom of speech, the committee and I were astonished and deeply disturbed when the Oxford SU put out a statement the next day endorsing the protest.

In their statement following the protest, the SU wrote: “Oxford SU is an organisation dedicated to representing the interests of Oxford students.” Yet the SU attempted to deny the right to free speech to the very students they claimed to represent, and this paradoxical sentiment should be viewed with a highly critical eye.

WomCam of course have a right to freedom of expression and protest. But all would do well to remember that a right to freedom of speech does not mean the right to prevent other people from speaking.

Anna Branford is Co-President of OSFL (Oxford Students for Life)

Lowering the voting age is unnecessary and wrong

Jordan Bernstein
-
0
Lowering the voting age is unnecessary and wrong

There were a few things that worried me about the debate on a private member’s bill to lower the voting age to 16. It’s one of those things where, if you disagree with it, it’s hard to put into words why. My disdain for the idea was already growing before I reached 16, and meant that I was less concerned than some of my friends when I narrowly missed out on the opportunity to vote in the 2015 general election. I cared about politics, I cared about the country, and for anyone that asked about my opinion, I had something to contribute. But it just wasn’t my time.

In many ways, the concern sounds legitimate. Where there is not universal suffrage, surely our society is undemocratic? If we are excluding people from the right to vote, then it should be for good reason. And of course, the schoolchild’s favourite recourse in a debate: “what about my human rights?”

The truth of the matter is that 16-18 year olds are on average less informed than their contemporaries in other age groups – they’re likely to have had less education and less experience of life. And before I’m horrifically misquoted out of context, there are of course some 16 and 17 year olds who know their stuff, some who don’t Twitter away their days keeping up with the Kardashians or bunking off school. Indeed, the United Kingdom Youth Parliament (itself a waste of time and an example of the ill-considered screeching without logic that we would do well to rid our politics of entirely), serves to show that those without the right to vote can be incredibly aware.

But awareness is not how we dole out the right to vote. We don’t make people, as long as they are citizens, pass a test in order to vote. What carnage would ensue then? We would be depriving those without access to education, without the time or impetus to watch the ten o’clock news and Question Time, of the opportunity to have a say in how the country is run.

Saying that awareness automatically entitles one to vote, mind, also works the other way. Why stop at 16? Why should a genius toddler who has already obtained an A* in politics A Level be barred from his rights?

But embedded within the idea is also the more sinister undertones of identity politics. The idea that just because our politicians are not voted in by teenagers means they have no incentive to better their lives. And, of course, this is fundamentally misconceived, since not only do we see parties actively putting forward agendas for, among other things, lower tuition fees and free school meals, but we also assume that no one else is voting with them in mind.

We assume that only 16 and 17 year olds care about tuition fees, when those at university certainly care, and those beyond often do feel morally bound to vote against their own economic interest – if this weren’t true, a Labour government would be unthinkable. This is not even to mention that, through parents and guardians, a 16 or 17- year old is more isolated from the effects of government policy, often still being wholly dependent and having most aspects of their life controlled.

Yet there is also a greater danger of a progression towards soundbite politics. Perhaps the most key factor in any election – the economy – is likely to be pushed aside in favour of the quick-fix solutions that parties rightly or wrongly believe will appeal to the new and younger electorate.

Slightly older teenagers, with ideas about social inequality formed through a university applications process and widening of friendship circles, or with the feeling of pride or dismay at the idea of a certain amount of money being taken from their first paycheque, will have a more considered outlook. These are the people that are more likely to make balanced decisions in an election, even if they do not always do so.

At any rate, the dividing line will always be viewed as arbitrary by some. But the solution to an allegedly unrepresentative democracy isn’t to enfranchise those who on average display poorer judgement and knowledge.

All Souls starts new scholarship in attempt to tackle colonial legacy

Henry Straughan
-
0
All Souls starts new scholarship in attempt to tackle colonial legacy

All Souls is launching a new scholarship for Caribbean students in an attempt to atone for the legacy of slavery which helped establish its wealth and prestige.

The college’s fellows have agreed to launch an annual scholarship scheme, funding graduates from Caribbean countries to study at Oxford. The college will also give a five-year grant to Codrington College, a higher education college in Barbados.

The scholarship is reportedly intended to recognise and commemorate the suffering of slaves who contributed the college’s success. In 1710 former fellow Christopher Codrington, a slave owner and sugar cane plantation tycoon, endowed the college with £10,000 – a sum worth around £1.5m in today’s money.

The sum, left in Codrington’s will, was used to commission the architect Nicholas Hawksmoor to design the Codrington library, which was opened in 1751 and bears his name to this day.

All Souls is now one of Oxford’s richest colleges, with an endowment approaching £300m, despite admitting no undergraduates. It was one of many Oxford colleges to be implicated in the Paradise Papers revelations, with the college investing funds offshore in the Cayman Islands.

Codrington also established Codrington College in St John, Barbados – an Anglican theological college affiliated with the University of the West Indies which claims to be the oldest theological college in the Western Hemisphere. All Souls intends to give £100,000 to the college over five years.

A spokesperson for the college said: “All Souls is pleased to be funding scholarships for graduate students from the Caribbean, and to support Codrington College in Barbados in this way.”

Common Ground, a student-movement that states its aim as examining “Oxford’s colonial past in the context of present-day racism and classism”, told Cherwell: “Actions which the University take are often characterised by ‘one step forward, two steps back’; small, often tokenistic, changes have consistently been used by the University to bolster its reputation and justify further inaction.

“Thus while we welcome what All Souls have done, we are cautious about endorsing such action until we are sure that it represents only the first step in a process heading towards broad and systemic change in Oxford.”

The move by the college comes after student protests in June last year over Codrington’s legacy. In one protest, Oluwafemi Nylander, a prominent member of Rhodes Must Fall Oxford and campaigner against colonial commemoration at Oxford, stood shirtless outside the High Street entrance to the college, with a chain around his neck and ‘All Slaves College’ painted on his chest in red paint.

Concerning the wider debate over the need for Oxford to address and atone for historical injustice, Common Ground told Cherwell: “[we] want to encourage all members of the University to openly discuss, engage with, and question Oxford’s links with colonialism and it’s disturbing past. Public spaces are, and will always be, political. The people we display and celebrate are expressions of our present day values. The statues we have here in Oxford are not only reflections of the past but indicate our values today.

“Common Ground believe these steps are not enough. We accept these are good steps in the right direction but we want to draw attention to the fact that more needs to be done. We want to push for change such as the re-naming of the Codrington library, and the re-locating of his statue to somewhere like a museum where it can be understood in its colonial context.

“The explicit glorification of a figure such a Codrington is in the context of disproportionally low numbers of black students at Oxford, problematic admissions procedures, and a Eurocentric curriculum. All Souls could, for example, actively work to give much more support to the study of Caribbean history across Oxford and work towards decolonising the archaic Oxford curricula.”

Under All Soul’s new scheme, one scholarship per year will be available to a Master’s or DPhil student who is a resident or national of a Caribbean country. The scholarships will provide the tuition fee and living costs for the student.

Smoking area chic

Chloe Dootson-Graube
-
0
Smoking area chic

In the past couple of weeks, Cherwell has been the site of a great debate: to smoke or not to smoke? As Exeter College plans to ban smoking in its quads, student journalists have taken to soapboxes, answering in the positive and the negative. And naturally, the first question that comes into anyone’s minds, is what relevance at all does this have to fashion? Allow me to weigh in on this business about ciggies. The fashion of smoking areas has a long and storied history. The cigarette, since its inception, has always been an integral accessory. Where would the flapper, the Parisian flaneur, Kate Moss, and the other chain-smokers of haute couture be without a fag in hand? The obvious answer is, evidently, exponentially more healthy, but let’s put aside the deadly impact and look at the real point. Smoking is a key accessory and the smoking area is the arena into which fashion is thrown to battle it out. For example, I will wear moon boots to Cellar this evening to assert my dominance. This is how it works. This is the thought process of the fashionably minded upon entering the club.

The smoking area, I argue, is a central place in the development of fashion. It is the runway of the club, if you will. Taking a somewhat more upmarket example, look at how much attention the pictures from the previous Met Ball of the rich and famous, tall and beautiful models smoking in the bathroom received. The clothes were just as much talked about as the smoking. Is smoking therefore something of a social currency in fashion? Well, it is a widely known social fact that unless thou art well-adjusted and confirmed in thyself to the point of happiness, smoking makes you look cool, especially when paired with say, a cool hat and some funky shoes.

Smoking is certainly a problematic activity, both in terms of its catastrophic health effects and its elitist role as a status symbol. Furthermore, it can certainly be argued that if we were to look at the world in microcosm (the smoking area), smoking itself isn’t actually relevant or necessary to fashion at all. The smoking area is a utopia: one does not have to smoke to enjoy the cool night air (or, indeed, the pleasantly heated sprinklers that perch on the ceiling of the top floor of my hometown club). If one does smoke, then it is a veritable promised land with an edenic supply of smoking paraphernalia, but far more importantly, compliments on your outfit and top tips from the style icons around. Whatever you do, my final advice is this: always bring a lighter. There’s nothing more timeless than being a hero.

Lady in the Sheets review – ‘powerful and horrible but comic for all the wrong reasons’

Amber Sidney-Woollett
-
0
Lady in the Sheets review – ‘powerful and horrible but comic for all the wrong reasons’

Lady in the Sheets is honestly nothing like anything I’ve seen before. And I can say this, for certain, with my hand on my heart, just as the play’s women wear their hearts on their sleeves. In a potent clash of cultures, generations and sexuality, Lady in the Sheets bewilders, discomforts and surprises its audience. This hour-long drama has to be seen to be believed and you will certainly not experience a moment’s boredom during such an eclectic performance.

The set and costume designer, Alice Camilleri Burke, creates an intimate environment which becomes essential for the confessions of the four women to follow; half of the audience are on pillows and cushions at the front so that we too feel on a level with the women. Each flat contains a central object or set of objects which pertain to the character and personality of the individual (or individuals) residing within it.

The first half of the play essentially comprises of the build-up to Flora’s story which triggers all four women to share their experiences of denegation and abuse at the hands of men. On entering the theatre, the women immediately begin to chat and interact with audience members so you are disorientated from its start as we are not properly introduced to any of the play’s characters. Esme Sanders plays Flora, the carer to the eighty-five year old Auntie-ji (Charithra Chandan). Esme Sanders’s portrayal of Flora is a wonderful depiction of a young women exploring the world around her and her sexuality for the first time, she charms the audience and it is her story which feels the most genuine. Charithra Chandan too is excellent and could be said to be the play’s only truly comic actress.

Though much of Lady in The Sheets is uncomfortable to watch because of its serious themes, further discomfort is generated by its ostensible comedy, which leaves the actors begging for laughs from the audience. Taiwo Oyebola, a mother of a baby who won’t let us forget it, seems to have swallowed her lines without totally grasping their meaning. In many ways it is the acting which lets down the play, particularly in its first-half, as the women attempt to engage with one another, peeking through window-panes, it becomes comic for all the wrong reasons. Simultaneously, it is hard to understand the connections between these women, and often the narrative seems to disintegrate as it feels like they’re all yelling to tell their own story without caring for anyone else’s.

‘Boys’ by Charlie XCX becomes the play’s haunting soundtrack where the conversation and confessions from the women totally subvert the chorus – “I was busy thinking about boys.” Though, yes, these women are ‘busy thinking about boys’, they are drawing upon their experiences of sexual assault, physical intimidation and even rape. The parallel drawn between this song and the stories of the women makes for a chilling comparison as anyone could be listening to this song and not thinking about what it might mean to someone else. For me, it is the echoing lyrics of Charlie XCX which truly define this play as piece of tragi-comedy and in many ways might constitute its saving grace. By forcing the audience to actually see the lasting impact of the ‘boys’ on these women, we realise that male abuse is facilitated by cultural tropes and narratives we tell ourselves about girls crushing on boys.

It’s hard to know what exactly to credit this play with. I can’t deny it was powerful and horrible and thought-provoking. When I’m judging literature I give it 10 points if it makes me feel something, under that criteria I would have to give this play an 11 even if I remain ambivalent to the success of much of its delivery. Lady in The Sheets should leave the laughs at the door and stick to what it does best; offering us thee comforter for a moment only to tear it away again.

Stop pissing in Uni Parks, says OUAFC

Matthew Roller
-
0
Stop pissing in Uni Parks, says OUAFC

OUAFC has told college footballers to stop relieving themselves outdoors in University Parks, or their team will face a ban from the premises.

The club’s sabbatical officer, Omar Mohsen, asked college captains to discourage their teams from public urination following complaints by the pitches’ groundsmen and the University’s Director of Sport.

“It feels slightly surreal to be writing this email, but I have been told to tell everyone not to relieve themselves in the relatively open spaces of Uni Parks, and instead use the toilets
provided,” Mohsen wrote in an email leaked to Cherwell.

“Apparently, if the wrong people see you doing it and report you, colleges can be banned from the premises, and football in general may be threatened with not being allowed to use the facilities of the Parks.”

While the prospect of whole college football teams being banned may seem unlikely, there is a recent precedent for it. After anti-social behaviour during the club’s ‘Welcome Drinks’
event, Durham University’s Castle AFC were banned from participating in the rest of the 2017/18 college football season. Complaints were made after players exposed themselves to members of the public after stopping a car at a zebra crossing, and made inappropriate
comments to two female students in a college bar.

University Parks plays host to several games a week, with Teddy Hall and Regent’s Park  both considering it their home ground, and the University third team, the Colts, often
play there.

Passing on Mohsen’s message, Corpus Christi captain Jack Counsell reminded players at his college in an email that “only bears shit in the woods, and only dogs piss in the park.”

Exeter Reserves captain, James Sharples, told Cherwell that he planned to “explain the rights and wrongs of public urination” to his side ahead of their next fixture at the venue.

OUAFC did not reply to Cherwell’s request for comment.

One awkward conversation is worth a thousand unwanted sexual advances

Susannah Goldsbrough
-
0
One awkward conversation is worth a thousand unwanted sexual advances

“It’s going to drip, drip, drip out.” The words of Labour MP Jess Philips on BBC Radio 4 Today last Friday may have been specifically referring to the allegations surrounding former defence secretary Michael Fallon, but they could equally apply to the way in which a wave of sexual misconduct revelations has slowly enveloped Westminster over the last week. Every day we wake up to another prominent name splashed across the front page. A cabinet minister has resigned, two Labour MPs have been suspended, and many more on both sides of the House are the subject of internal party inquiries. “He brushed her knee.” “She had to buy his wife sex toys.” “They didn’t believe her when she said she’d been raped.” We’ve heard the snippets of news bulletins, glanced at the front page headlines, read the angry tweets. Our minds are awash with allegations: some ridiculous, some uncomfortable, some criminal.

And so the drips begin to lose their individual outlines. As they fall, they blend together, to form one great, rushing torrent. That torrent has proved vital − horrible, ice-cold, and profoundly disturbing, it has shaken our comfortable feminist complacencies, and made us question what conception of normal governs our workplaces. That torrent has been entirely necessary. But now it’s time to start separating out the drips again – and hold those responsible to account.

The worst cases have at least the advantage of clarity. Sexual assault is a crime, and demands a legal response. We can hope that one effect of the public revelations will be to give more victims the courage to report crimes, reducing the number of cases like Bex Bailey, who spoke out about not going to the police after being raped at a Labour Party event in 2011, because she feared she would not be believed.

But it’s not the worst cases that are the most difficult to know how to respond to. It’s the greyer areas − the knee brushes, the text messages, the unwanted gazes − that are more difficult to categorise. The media has swept every sordid story into a helpfully vague pile labeled ‘sexual misconduct’.

To some, these incidents are disturbing. To others, they are nothing. To a few, they are flattering. But the time has come to reach some kind of consensus. Difficult and context-dependent as it may be, the parameters of acceptable behaviour need to be established, to put an end to the public punishment of people who do not know what crimes they have committed.

People are always going to get it wrong when it comes to sex. So much of sexual communication is conducted in innuendo and implication that moments of awkwardness and misunderstanding are just inevitable. Everyone will have experienced that cringing, bone-aching embarrassment that means someone has misread your signals.

The occasional unwanted advance or humiliating rejection is simply the inevitable consequences of the fact that we’re not very good at communicating who we fancy. And that’s okay, most of the time. An advance is made and rebuffed– the moment is uncomfortable, but swiftly dealt with and swifter forgotten.

Problems start to arise when those initial, tentative advances cross a line from a little embarrassing to deeply uncomfortable or upsetting. So what constitutes a reasonable first statement of sexual attraction? For me, a touch on the arm is perfectly fine, a brush of the knee might well be acceptable, and a hand on the bum is an absolute no-no. But that’s just me. You might be different, and this is where it becomes so difficult to establish rules that everyone should adhere to.

The best solution might be a set of loose guidelines rather than cast-iron instructions. For instance: use verbal indicators to, as far as possible, establish that your advances are welcome before making a physical move. Or maybe that kills sex appeal, I don’t know. But it’s these kinds of slightly awkward and fairly boring conversations that we need to start having over the next few weeks, so that eventually the number of women in pubs and bars, in nightclubs and at bus stops, in Hollywood and Westminster and everywhere in between, who find themselves heading home after a day at work or a night out with that slightly stomach-sick feeling that means something that happened to them today should not have happened, begins to reduce.

“You’re equating a silly text message or a grope with rape, and that belittles rape.” Petronella Wyatt this time, former deputy editor of The Spectator, also speaking on Today this week. Initially, her words sent me into an incoherent rant at my radio, but the more I think about it, the more I think she may have a point.

The torrent of revelations that hit the press last week was long overdue, and served a vital purpose as a shock-impact, forcing society out of its complacent stupor on sexual harassment in the workplace. But if we don’t start to acknowledge that the definition of what constitutes acceptable behaviour has never really been properly and publicly updated, we risk doing a disservice to the sufferings of the victims of crime.

Women need to start defining what they are comfortable with when it comes to sexual advances, and everyone needs to accept that awkward encounters are an inevitable part of sex.

In-form Blues put six past Northumbria

Thomas Browne
-
0
In-form Blues put six past Northumbria

Tom Stileman took his try-scoring tally to nine in three games as his hat-trick helped the Men’s Blues to seal a comprehensive victory over Northumbria University.

The table-topping BUCS team had endured the long journey down from the north on a chilly Monday night, but the opening encounters were lightening quick with flowing and expansive rugby aplenty.

After an unbeaten run at Iffley Road, the hosts were determined to continue their impressive form, having lost only one game so far all season.

The visitors went into the clash sitting at the top of the Bucs Super League, and with only one defeat – a 53-50 thriller against the University of Exeter – this season, it was no surprise that they brought a high pace and intensity to the match with a desire to play attacking rugby.

Following a strong opening few minutes with clever tactical kicking from the Oxford half-backs, captain Conor Kearns slotted an early three points to give the home side a lead that they never relinquished.

Then, a try in the corner for winger Stileman, and a fantastic attacking move from Rob Quinlan, took the score to 15-0. Even though the visitors were missing some key players, the Blues could not have expected such a strong start.

A final three points before half time took the score going into the break to 18-0 with the home team looking comfortably in the lead despite some missed chances.

At the start of the second half, Stileman, who scored four in the win against Bristol RFC, managed to grab two more tries after some powerful carries down both the midfield and the wing.

The visitors scored in the far corner midway through the second half, eventually managing to break through a strong defensive backline led by Kearns and centre Alex Hogg, who barely missed a tackle between them.

And despite that score, the Blues turned the screw and were able to punish the Northumbrians in the scrum.

The first pushover try was dotted down by flanker Roberto Talotti, part of an exceptional Oxford back row which also contained former England U20 Sevens skipper Will Wilson, and ex-Saracens man Andy Saull. The trio were outstanding at the breakdown all evening, and it is vital that they remain fit and firing for the rest of the Blues’ season.

Only a few minutes later, a penalty try was awarded, and Kearns slotted home the conversion to complete the scoring.

The match finished with a resounding scoreline of 40-7, a menacing show of intent from the Blues for the rest of the season.

Indeed, with the Varsity Match looming, it seems as though the Dark Blues are in pole position for Twickenham glory. Their opponents, Cambridge, only recorded their first win of the 2017/18 campaign last Wednesday, scraping past Moseley 27-24.

While Varsity fixtures are rarely one-sided, the signs are positive for Oxford, especially after another confidence-boosting win.

Intruder and Seven Princesses review -‘Twisted and ghoulish delight’

Charles Britton
-
0
Intruder and Seven Princesses review -‘Twisted and ghoulish delight’

I’m not the greatest celebrator of Halloween. I’m not a huge fan of the horror genre and the holiday goes over my head so easily that not even copious amounts of sugar can salvage my attention. Had Intruder and Seven Princesses come out just over a week earlier, however, I might have revised that opinion. This pair of expressionist horror plays from Maurice Maeterlinck plunges its audience into a grim hour steeped in fear and unease, all whilst remaining thoroughly intriguing, a twisted and ghoulish delight.

Immediately apparent is the horrific atmosphere the cast and crew manage to evoke. Everything, from the uncanny, jagged stage design which moves as characters’ anxieties start to enflame, to each of the characters’ various tics and twitches, works to unnerve the audience. The sheer physicality of characters, such as the Three Daughters from Intruder or the Grandmother from Seven Princesses shambling across the stage, is impressively disturbing.

The script is similarly jarring, punctuated with unsettlingly humorous non-sequiturs, synchronised coughing, and haunting repetition. The structure of both plays lurches from periods of outright hysteria to relative calm. No single event feels concrete, as the viewer is forced to question what constitutes reality within the world of the play, or whose reality is being projected. We are forced to ask whether there is truly any danger, whether it is coming from outside, or from inside. Even the transition from one play into the other is cleverly choreographed so as not to release the viewer from this immersive feeling of dread. It may be a cliché, but my heart was genuinely pounding the whole way through. The spectator is never allowed to feel comfortable for too long.

If anything contributes to the horror aesthetic the production constructs, it is the sound design. Not only do characters change their pitch, projection, and intonation for just about every line, causing their tones to clash with each other, but the producers also saw fit to possess the sound system and subject the audience’s eardrums to the most grating sounds imaginable. This is especially impactful in Intruder, where the audience seems to be being shown a representation of the Blind Grandfather’s psyche, made more terrifying by the fact that he is hearing contradictory information. The production opens with a warning of strobe lighting and loud sounds, and it surely merits that.

Intruder and Seven Princesses also has to be the first production in history that looked at the Burton Taylor Studio and decided it was too big a space to perform in. The production is staged in one corner of the studio, transforming the expected intimacy of the BT into a claustrophobic horror-scape where every scream, wail, and laugh is amplified, hopefully not your own.

The plays do fall short in a couple of areas, however. Moments where the lighting is completely cut are effective, making me wish there were more instances like this, or that they were held for longer, perhaps in silence.

Most of my praise until this point has been more relevant to Intruder than Seven Princesses, undoubtedly the stronger piece of the two. Intruder is scarier, more engaging, and makes more effective use of sound effects in every way. One gets the impression that the producers recognised this, too, as the stage is designed with Intruder in mind. Seven Princesses also has few interesting technical flourishes going for it, barring a clever technique of division between the sleeping princesses, represented by the characters looking through a window at the audience. Moments of meta-theatre, where the audience is made to feel complicit in the violence they are witnessing, close both plays, but it is simply not as impactful the second time round. Intruder is definitely the main attraction, but most of the issues of Seven Princesses arise from Maeterlinck’s script, rather than from the production itself.

In this case, it seems, to be deeply disgusted by a play is a testament to its quality. Intruder and Seven Princesses are a terrible pleasure to witness. Productions like this are few and far between, so if Halloween failed to scratch that horror itch, Intruder and Seven Princesses’ scythe will be more than happy to accommodate. A word of advice to the brave of heart looking for a truly frightening experience: sit in the front row. Just do it.

Campaigners tell Oxford: “pay your taxes” after fossil fuel investments leak

Mia Millman
-
0
Campaigners tell Oxford: “pay your taxes” after fossil fuel investments leak

Oxford University is facing fierce criticism for fossil fuel exploration investments, following the revelations in the Paradise Papers earlier this week that showed Oxford has invested tens of millions in offshore funds.

A student protest calling on the University to “pay your taxes!” took place earlier this afternoon. Campaigners accused Oxford of “lying to its students, faculty, and the world”.

Over 50 students gathered to protest against the University outside the Oxford University Endowment Management (OUem) headquarters. Following several speeches from protestors, including a Labour city councillor, they delivered a symbolic financial transparency form to OUem.

The protest was organised by third-year students Tom Zagoria and Lucas Bertholdi-Saad, both of whom are former co-chairs of Oxford University Labour Club (OULC). They were joined by representatives from Oxford University Climate Justice Campaign (OCJC), Oxford SU Campaign for Racial Awareness, and On Your Doorstep, as well as other students. 

Speaking to Cherwell during the protest, a representative from OCJC, Julia Peck, said: “Our separate movements – climate justice, racial equality and the Labour Party which represents a socialist vision for living together as a society – are looking for a university that does not act like a corporation but instead acts like the beacon of education social progress that it is supposed to be.”

Peck added: “It was a really fantastic opportunity for different Oxford groups implicated in the newest revelations to come together and demand some transparency and, more importantly, a fundamentally different role in the University.”

Bertholdi-Saad, one of the organisers, told Cherwell: “This is the start of a longer campaign. We really want to hammer home this message and bring this message through the common rooms, through the University democratic structures – those which still exist – and make sure that the change happens permanently.”

The protest was organised following the publication of the Paradise Papers earlier this week which revealed revealed the Guardian had made investments in multiple offshore funds. Coller International Partners V – one of the University’s two off-shore funds – invested $1bn in Shell.

Xtreme Coil, one of Shell’s business partners, also received funding from Oxford. The firm specialises in “innovative and efficient drilling rigs”. Other Shell ventures that received funding are invested in “production and exploration” technologies.

Over half of Oxford’s colleges were found to have placed money in offshore funds. The full list includes All Souls, Brasenose, Christ Church, Corpus Christi, Exeter, Jesus, Lincoln, Magdalen, Merton, Nuffield, Queen’s, Somerville, St Antony’s, St Catherine’s, Trinity, University, Wolfson, and Worcester.

Photo: Meghan Shea.

As part of the protest, organisers held a “teach-in” to educate those present about the meaning of these papers. Speeches were then given by the organisers, as well as representatives of the other campaigns, before the symbolic financial form was given to OUem.

A representative for On Your Doorstep, Alex Kumar, told the crowds: “This is a story about a university that can afford to invest tens of millions of pounds in offshore funds and deep-sea drilling, but cannot afford to invest in basic human dignity within its own city.

“It has become clear that it’s down to us now to provide the University with the moral compass it has clearly been lacking.”

The Paradise Papers revelations follow pressure for both Oxford and Cambridge to divest from fossil fuel companies.

In a statement earlier this week, OCJC sharply criticised the University, saying: “The Paradise Papers revelation is shocking and infuriating, but it is in line – unfortunately – with the current Oxford administration’s practices of denial and obfuscation and the University’s colonial, exploitative history.”

Speaking to Cherwell before the protest, Zagoria and Bertholdi-Saad said: “It is disgraceful that the University has been pumping money into private equity partnerships based in tax havens, in order to invest in areas such as fossil fuels.

“These revelations are symptomatic of a system in which the wealthiest institutions can act with- out scrutiny and without regard to global inequality or the urgent need for climate justice.”

The report also revealed that Jesus College and Magdalen College invested in another corporation – Dover Street – which has indirectly invested in controversial retailer BrightHouse. BrightHouse has been accused of selling electrical goods to people with learning disabilities at high interest rates.

Oxford SU, along with hundreds of academics from Oxford and Cambridge, have previously called on Oxford to divest from fossil fuels.

In a statement, Oxford University told Cherwell: “As charitable trusts, Oxford University’s endowment is exempt from UK tax. The taxpayer therefore does not lose a penny from our investments. The investments generate some £80 million a year which is spent on key academic priorities in Oxford.

“These include the majority of our scholarships and bursaries for students, vital research across medicine, the sciences, social sciences and humanities and our globally outstanding teaching. That is £80m for UK education and research which the taxpayer does not have to fund.”

1...811812813...2,508Page 812 of 2,508

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 James Ashley