Tuesday 22nd July 2025
Blog Page 819

Bike crashes and thefts soar, new figures reveal

0

Over 2,000 cyclists have been injured in crashes on Oxford’s roads in the last ten years. New data from the journey planner CycleStreets has shown that city’s main roads are becoming more dangerous.

Particularly hazardous areas include Botley Road, Abingdon Road, Woodstock Road, Banbury Road, and Barbelo Road.

The figures revealed that there were 2,004 collisions resulting in injuries between 2005 and 2016. These are only the reported collisions, leading to fears the real number is much higher.

Labour councillor Louise Upton told the Oxford Mail: “As many collisions go unreported, this already distressing data is likely just the tip of the iceberg. It shows the urgent need to improve Oxford’s cycling infrastructure and, in particular, the need for segregated cycle lanes.”

Josh King, a second year Mansfield student, told Cherwell: “A joyful cycle ride in Oxford continues to become more like navigating a minefield blindfolded. With unclear bus lanes, dodgy traffic stops and lack of cycle lanes, and more traffic by the day I now feel myself pondering what it will say in my obituary every time I go to lectures.

“The council ought to do more on this issue, segregating cyclists from traffic on all major roads.”

Cyclox chairman Simon Hunt encouraged people to sign a new charter to improve safety, which was launched last night. The charter is named after Claudia Comberti, a 31-year-old geography PhD student at Oxford University who died after coming off her bike in Botley Road in May.

Crashing is not the only danger cyclists have to fear. Police have told Oxford cyclists to take extra precautions to secure their bikes amid a sharp rise in thefts.

According to new figures, reports of bicycles being stolen in the city have soared by 70 per cent in a year. A total of 2,339 reports of bike theft were made to Thames Valley Police from June 2016 to June 2017, an average of six thefts a day.

King said: “I feel increasingly unsafe and uncomfortable to lock my bike up on the High Street anymore.”

Wadham set to field all-male Uni Challenge team despite female-only trials

0

Wadham appears to have decided against enforcing a gender quota on its 2018-19 University Challenge team, after some suggested the idea would be “patronising”.

The college initially held mixed trials for the team over the last three weeks, but when the number of female-identifying attendees was seen to be unexpectedly low, they introduced female-only trials.

However, as the all-female trials were poorly attended, the Wadham SU committee then considered positive discrimination to balance the gender of the team.

It was suggested in the SU meeting that a woman should be placed on the team, even if they did not perform well enough to place them in the top four entrants – perhaps allowing women who made the top six to be in the team.

According to the minutes of the meeting, Jack Wands, Wadham SU President, suggested that a woman should be put on the team, saying: “When we were invited to enter a team we were encouraged to represent the institution as a whole”.

However, others argued this would not be a fair method for either male or female students. One student said: “We should run a team on a meritocratic basis or submit no team. It would not be good for the welfare of the woman entrant to be there knowing she was let in to fill a quota. This is national television.”

Another added: “It would be embarrassing and maybe tokenistic that the team was not selected on a meritocratic basis if this affects performance.”

A majority of committee members voted in support of a motion stating that Wadham would put forward an all-male team if a female applicant failed to make it into the top six entrants. The ultimate decision on whether to field an all-male team will be decided in a women-only vote at the next SU meeting.

Greg Ritchie, one of the social secretaries, told Cherwell: “I think quizzing, like darts and snooker, tends to attract more men than women.

“It is bad when an all-male environment deters women from applying. To this end, I think we’ve done everything reasonable in our power to encourage a diverse team that reflects Wadham, such as ensuring trials were advertised on the women’s Facebook group and holding women-only trials.

“As Wadham SU agreed, putting a woman who isn’t of the necessary standard on the team is not fair on other contestants, the woman herself, or the wider movement for gender equality in University Challenge.”

Verity Babbs, who attended the women’s trials, told Cherwell: “Having the women-only trials was an excellent idea on the part of the organisers, as it was noticeably a different vibe to a previous trial, where I had been the only woman.

“I think the extra trial was encouraging for women who might have felt intimidated to go to previous mixed trials.”

Babbs added that she did not resent the decision against positive discrimination: “I don’t think anyone would be comfortable feeling like they were on the team only to fill a quota space – I think the idea of a quota is patronising to the women who took part in the trials.”

Last month, St Hugh’s was criticised for fielding an all male team in the 2017-18 edition of the television show. Critics of the college, including the pro-vice-chancellor of the University of Brighton, questioned why a male-only team was being fielded by a a college that was formerly all-female.

On the programme, presenter Jeremy Paxman joked: “On the basis of tonight’s team, we could be forgiven for thinking they [men] had rather taken it over.”

The college also faced complaints related to the selection process which was believed to be unfair, as one of the team members selected had not taken part in the college’s internal competition, but was chosen because he was rumoured to be a “good quizzer”.

One unsuccessful female applicant for the St Hugh’s College team said: “It feels like the ‘application process’ was irrelevant.

“As a woman who initially applied, I was pretty gutted to not even be asked about it and only found out who had been picked when they went to do the recordings.”

Update (13/11/17): An earlier version of this article was updated to clarify that a final decision on a quota will be made by an all-women vote rather than by the SU social secretaries.

‘A Familiar Friend’ review: “a masterful intensity”

2

At first thought, the idea that the story of Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie would be vaguely relatable to student life seems absurd. But Josh Bourne manages to take one of our childhood tales and vividly re-imagine it so it slots into our daily lives. Indeed, the crux of this play’s success lies in its use of contrasts and conflict; imagination vs realism, childhood vs adulthood, excitement vs mundanity, with the idea of childhood extended to encompass university life, including liberal drinking and drug usage. This carefree attitude is embodied in Chloé Delanney’s Peter Pan.

Here, the small intimate setting of the Michael Pilch studio proves to be very useful in creating the atmosphere of a student room. The staging team clearly have an eye for detail with the inclusion of fairy lights in jars, potted plants and a photo collage which adorn Wendy’s room. These down-to-earth, realistic props are contrasted by the other end of the stage which is decorated with fairy-tale esque trees and a clock on the branches. The contrast between the childish and the adult is something that frequently dominates – perhaps epitomised by the scene in which Wendy makes a phone call about her future career, whilst Peter lounges on, a bed carefree and oblivious.

This attention to detail extends to the costumes which are modern and well thought through. Instead of a girly fairy costume, Charithra Chandran’s Tinkerbell wears a sassy, on trend wrap-dress which perfectly expresses her feisty, protective demeanour. Peter Pan carrying a fanny pack on his shoulder, and an oversized patterned shirt, gave a nonchalant hipster aesthetic. Jess Brown’s Wendy moves from an innocent blue dress to a black dress and heels which reflects her move to becoming a ‘grown up’. It is a consciously millennial play in terms of styling and props. Yet, some moments were strikingly surreal with childlike wonder – such as a fight scene which used a mop and a hoover to create physical humour.

However, the theme of drug-related mental health issues still pervades the entire play. Indeed, the underlying darkness from the casual use of ‘Fairy Dust’ adulterates and corrupts the innocent and childlike moments, turning them into something much more concerning.

The themes tackled (suicide, drug use and mental illness) could have threatened to make the play too monotonous but the vital injection of humour makes the tragic ending even more potent. Recasting Captain Hooke as Mr Hooke the ‘management consultant’ was pure genius. An evil pirate turning into a corporate drone who read PPE at Balliol could never go wrong. Alec McQuarrie’s performance as Hooke was a treat, although he came off far too likeable to be a villain in the traditional sense. But the lack of a villain figure certainly didn’t affect the play because such characterisations are often unconvincing. Humour definitely worked to the play’s advantage. Scenes were frequently full of witty, self- aware jokes on Brexit, tutorials and croquet dates. The loftiness of heavy themes is contained through these little references which bring it back down to earth and prevent any preachiness or melodrama.

The climax of the play was Chloé Delanney’s masterful and visceral breakdown, which bought all the issues to a head. The sheer energy and physicality in her performance was astounding as she bounced through varying moods of youthful euphoria and hopeless depression, with the emotional intensity making the audience feel almost uncomfortable. The use of voice-overs during the breakdown scene could have easily been clichéd, but Delanney’s acting dominated to prevent it.

The constant reminder of needing to grow up is a pressure that I am sure all finalists in the room felt. The feeling of encroaching internships, grad schemes and careers in overflowing email inboxes was illustrated by the frequent interruptions by Hooke and Smee. The actors’ sharp RP accents and even sharper suits were a constant reminder that Grace had to make a decision eventually. The spotlighting and phone sounds employed added to the sense of repetitive annoyance and persistence. Adulthood was further explored through the romantic relationship of Peter and Grace. We see a real intimacy between the characters during their conversations, but it is always clear that Grace must leave Peter.

All in all, A Familiar Friend was an experience which utilised the best of cast, crew, sound, costume, lighting and props to marry contrasting and conflicting themes. It’s an original exploration of staying true to our childhood dreams or moving forward into a more practical vocation.

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

8

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

0

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

0

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

0

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’

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

0

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

0

“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.