Wednesday, May 14, 2025
Blog Page 872

UK should follow Canada’s cannabis lead

Maxim Parr-Reid
-
0
UK should follow Canada’s cannabis lead

Now, I’ve never been a ‘stoner’, but I can’t help but notice that, following the example set by US states such as California and Colorado, Canada has decided to legalise marijuana for recreational use. I think it’s time Britain followed suit.

I see cannabis legalisation as one of those issues where it’s ‘only a matter of time’ before popular support for such a move forces the government into action. Rather than wait for its hand to be forced (by a petition etc.), this government should take the initiative (and take cues from other countries and states that have already legalised cannabis usage). We live in a country where drugs which kill a great many—be they alcohol or tobacco—are perfectly legal to buy. Why is it that we balk at the idea that cannabis could be in the same category as these other drugs which have been legal for time immemorial? Because, the fact of the matter is, were these other drugs discovered tomorrow, there is not a chance they’d be as easily available as they are—in fact it’s easy to imagine such things being totally banned on health grounds, given the sheer number of things which are prohibited. Drugs will always have a presence in our society, but we have the power to influence this presence.

As the Americans discovered in the 1920s with Prohibition, criminalising something only spurs those black marketers who seek to capitalise on supplying such things illegally. With legalisation, we can do much to supply this demand, and determine the strength of the marijuana on sale, as well as investing the money such legalisation may raise into the NHS, because cannabis would surely incur far lower spending than drugs and alcohol do currently—given that there are seldom very few examples of deaths from it. Drugs have the potential to do an inordinate amount of damage to our society, but this damage is largely down to the warped and mutated varieties of drugs that end up in circulation. It’s true that cannabis (in the mutated form of skunk) can act as a gateway drug to stronger and nastier drugs such as cocaine and heroin. I think we have a duty to control the flow of cannabis and shape the strains that are available, rather than trying to stem the ultimately incessant supply of whatever form of marijuana drug-dealers formulate next, this we can do.

Several American states, as well as Canada, Portugal, Uruguay, and other nations such as the Netherlands have already taken this step before us—there are clear blueprints and roadmaps for Britain to follow if we are to legalise marijuana and follow Canada and four US states. It has been estimated that Canada could generate more than £2 billion in tax revenue from a legal cannabis trade. Surely it is better for the government, rather than gangs, to have a monopoly on the supply of marijuana and its profits? More than anything else, we must end the inconsistencies in our drugs policies. Alcohol and tobacco are legal and more or less ubiquitous in our society in terms of accessibility and availability—the same being true even of solvents.

If all these things can be legal and readily available to us, then why not cannabis? Just as alcohol and tobacco have become assimilated so easily into our society, so too could cannabis. The drug (in a state-controlled form less harmful than stronger versions such as ‘skunk’) could be bought in the same way we buy tobacco. We live in a very turbulent age: of this we can be in no doubt. Vexed questions such as Brexit negotiation and legislation, and of war with North Korea, pervade our society, and too often rob us of the sleep we need at night. Rather than have our days be dogged by these dilemmas (and their attendant difficulties), let us conquer them with cannabis. Even though the road ahead is long and arduous, there does exist a drug that could be of use to us in these trying times. So let us legislate legalisation in our nation, the legalisation of marijuana.

A chance encounter with Alexandra Shulman

Megan Husain
-
0
A chance encounter with Alexandra Shulman

It’s Saturday morning, 9.30am, and I’m frantically pointing at the back of a woman’s head on the platform at Paddington—“It’s her!” I aggressively whisper to my friend. As we get to our seats and I explain that I’ve just seen the woman we’re going to hear at the Oxford Literary Festival—Alexandra Shulman, the editor-in-chief of Vogue.

Moments later I am nervously heading down the train towards First Class where I find her and ask for an interview for Cherwell. Luckily, she nods knowingly when I mention the paper, and amazingly tells me to meet her later at the Randolph Hotel. I back out of the carriage, with a flurry of awkward “Thank you”s.

No one has ever walked from Oxford train station to the Randolph at such a speed. I wait in the foyer for a good 20 minutes, and eventually am ushered in and allowed a short interview with Shulman in one of the tea rooms. She decisively explains to the waitress that “We’re just going to do a brief recording!” and marches on through.

During our interview Shulman remains calm and talks in a very measured manner, despite having only 30 minutes to go before speaking at the Sheldonian Theatre. We first start discussing her new book Inside Vogue: A Diary Of My 100th Year, a record of her day to day life as editor during Vogue’s centenary year.

She has written other books, but this one seems particularly special to her: “I really enjoyed doing it because I’d never written a diary for publication before and the great advantage to it is that you don’t actually know what’s going to happen, and you don’t have to create what’s going to happen.”

On reading the book there’s a refreshing sense of honesty. It doesn’t feel too tampered with or overworked. One day she’s berating the impossibilities of the Rihanna photoshoot ever going ahead but in a few weeks’ time, everything’s worked out. Shulman explains how this was one of the key elements of interest to her: “It was rather fascinating to see how I’d think something one day and then realise maybe a week later or two weeks later or six months later how wrong I was, or how things turned out differently. It becomes quite addictive actually.”

When appointed editor of Vogue in 1992, there was concerns that she did not have enough experience in fashion and wasn’t Vogue editor material. This has been completely undermined—she has had an extremely successful career and is the longest standing editor of British Vogue. However, you still get a sense that she isn’t ‘high fashion’, but rather extremely down-to-earth, and a very real person.

During her talk at the Sheldonian later in the day, Shulman explains how she was given the editor job in part to bring an “every-woman approach” to the magazine and this is clear even within her book: exasperation at trying to find a chicken for an evening meal at home is juxtaposed with glamorous dinners in Milan.

She explains why she took the conscious decision to include more of her personal life: “One of the things I wanted to do when I decided to do the book was to show that I was going to have this year which was going to be quite star-studded and very hard work, but that everybody in those positions has a personal life and a home life. I wanted to balance the high and low within it so I was very aware of making notes about every-day life—what we were eating, or a discussion at home, or something that was going on in the park. It was meant to be a kind of counterpoint.” A life lived at the centre of British fashion still involves taking out the bins.

We swiftly move on to discussing her experience of the 25 years that she has spent at Vogue. I ask her what changes she has seen in the fashion world, especially with the development of technology and am met with an exasperated laugh: “Just so many. It’s really unrecognisable. It’s hard for me to remember what it was like in 1992, but when I think back, and also when I actually read about things that happened, or were happening in the early 90s, I realise that the way the fashion industry operated was not completely different, but very different really. Obviously digital has changed both the way we publish and the way that we consume fashion to a large extent.”

Shulman is the only Vogue editor whose tenure has spanned the rise of digital technology. She concentrates on the way in which fashion has now become much more accessible. “The amount of general fashion literacy in this country has hugely increased, so that there are so many brands that people know about, there are so many more stores, the idea of fashion as kind of entertainment, rather than something for a limited group of people is something that I think has really grown a lot.”

I pursue this, asking if she feels that this is a positive step forward and she is unusually enthusiastic. “I think it’s great. I think everybody’s intrigued by fashion now, even if they’re not interested particularly in the clothes, they’re kind of interested in the characters behind them.”

Shulman herself is undoubtedly intrigued by other people. Throughout her book she gives us sharply observed descriptions of celebrities and designers and during the talk at the Sheldonian she explains how her degree in Anthropology has made her far more interested in bringing the subject of fashion to personality of people.

Shulman hit the headlines recently with the announcement of her decision to step down from the editorial position this summer. After 25 years in such a highly stressful job, one can understand her desire for a break. When asked about the worst bit of her job, she unequivocally says “The relentlessness of it, there’s never a gap. It’s slightly fish and chips tomorrow—you do magazine and then there’s another magazine, and then there’s another magazine, and now there’s a website, and there’s another website, and you know another story. Whereas what’s been lovely with this book, and in fact with every book I’ve written, is that you’ve done it and it’s there and you can actually step back and enjoy it for a bit.”

In her talk she compares resigning to the relief of having this “incredible golden rucksack that I carry around, lifted.” But, that is not to say that she will not miss Vogue.

She continues, explaining the best elements of her job: “Definitely working with my staff who are really fun, and always have been. I’ve always hired people I like so I’ve been surrounded every day by people I enjoy spending time with and who are funny and talented. And the other best bit is having a soap box in a way. Everything in it isn’t me or my opinion, but if I really want to say something I can.”

We move on to discussing how she sees the world of fashion changing in the future and she seems very engaged by this question, taking a second to reflect before explaining the complexities surrounding the industry at the moment: “I think we’re in a real period of flux. There are lot of industry discussions about things like ‘see-now buy-now’ fashion where you change the idea of a fashion show being not for the press but being for the customer, so that you use your whole PR and marketing spend at the point where people will go into the shops.”

The ‘see-now buy-now’ model was taken up by brands such as Burberry and Ralph Lauren last year—pieces from their collections were available in stores and online the following day. Shulman, though, is not entirely convinced of this change and the speed of the turn-around from catwalk to clothes rail: “At the moment the main idea is that you show clothes to the press and buyers and there is a period of time where we are able to help create a desire in a way.”

Whatever is likely to happen in the fashion world in the future though, she is clear that things will settle down and regulate themselves eventually: “I think at the moment everyone’s going to test different things but we’ll come to a kind of compromise solution. I think that probably like everything there’s been a huge explosion of what’s out there, a huge explosion in the amount of stuff there is, and some people are going to probably fail or fold because we just need don’t need so many brands.”

It is now about 11.38. Her Q&A at the Sheldonian is at 12, and her assistant is hovering at my shoulder. I quickly ask about any advice she may have for students trying to get involved in fashion or journalism.

“For fashion I guess just make as many contacts as you can. I’m afraid that all important work experience, internship, networking, is really helpful. And for journalism definitely read as much as you can. I mean read really good journalists, don’t just read short form journalism. I think the important thing if you want to write any kind of journalism is you’ve got to tell a story. So even if it’s a little thing, it’s got to have a beginning and an end.”

And so my story comes to an end. Alexandra is whisked away by her assistant and I’m left sitting in the tea-room, still slightly star-struck at this chance encounter. After having spoken with her for a short while, I’m even more excited to go and hear her in the Sheldonian; she clearly has a lot of more interesting things to say.

Only the Liberal Democrats can stop a Tory majority

Akshay Bilolikar
-
0
Only the Liberal Democrats can stop a Tory majority

Here we go again. Two years since the nation rejected the prospect of a Labour government and one year since the divisive referendum over our country’s place in the world, Britain will return to the polls on June 8 to cast her verdict on Theresa May’s “Plan for Britain”. The view in Oxford, where 70 per cent of electors voted to remain in the European Union, is not one that is replicated throughout the country—on current polling, the Conservatives are likely to increase their narrow majority and reduce Labour to its lowest number of seats since 1935.

The reality for progressives at this moment is that the Labour coalition of urban liberals, blue-collar workers, and ethnic minorities has been splintered to within an inch of its life by the slow-burn effects of globalisation and the political earthquake of Brexit. Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, the Labour party languishes twenty points below the Tories in the polls; in any case, the Conservatives are yet to mobilise their arsenal of black magic to attack the Labour brand over socialism, the SNP, and Corbyn’s ambiguous relationship with the IRA.

In any case, it’s not entirely clear whether Labour under Corbyn is the progressive force it claims to be. On Brexit, which threatens to dramatically restrict our ability to make a fairer and more tolerant Britain, Labour has acquiesced to the Tory right over issue after issue. The referendum, which dealt solely with the question of EU membership, has been hijacked by Tory hardliners to push restrictions on immigration and pull Britain out of the single market—and Labour has made no serious effort to oppose this. Election or no election, our tired political system seems hopelessly unable to vocalise the wishes of progressives across the country.

Resigning ourselves to the high likelihood of a Conservative majority would, however, be a dereliction of our democratic duty. There are practical steps to be taken to blunt the edge of the Tory victory. The Conservative majority in 2015 was not built on gains from Labour; in net terms, the Conservatives actually lost a seat to Labour. Rather, the Tories were able to form a majority because of their 27 gains from the Liberal Democrats and the total collapse of Labour in Scotland. With a Conservative revival north of the border, the only viable route to denying the Tories a majority lies in the revival of the Liberal Democrats.

It’s a fightback that has already begun. Since 2015, the party has defied expectations to win council by-elections across the country and overturn Zac Goldsmith’s 23,015 majority in Richmond Park. Meanwhile, the party has been working hard to scrutinise the government in parliament; it was Liberal peers who caused the government’s Lords defeat over a “meaningful vote” on the final Brexit deal. There’s much evidence that the Liberal Democrats pose a credible threat to the Tories: Lynton Crosby is reported to have personally warned May that the party could lose almost all its London and south west gains to deprive it of a majority.

No political party is perfect. The Liberal Democrats in coalition made decisions which, to many voters, felt like a betrayal. Due electoral punishment was delivered. Two years on, however, and the Conservatives now have all but free rein to transform Britain far beyond the mandate of 2015. What matters now is not the past, which cannot be changed, but the future. This involves being smart—looking for Tory weaknesses on our electoral map—and ruthlessly challenging their hard Brexit vision. With only the Liberal Democrats in serious contention to defeat the Tories, there’s no better option for the progressive voter today.

 

Is May’s snap election in the national interest or political opportunism?

Alex Yeandle
-
0
Is May’s snap election in the national interest or political opportunism?

Whilst the announcement of a snap election this morning might have taken politicians, journalists, and the public by surprise, the impetus behind it is not new.

Speculation about an election has been rife since May took office, with the Labour Party on ‘election footing’ since September and the Lib Dems joyful at a chance to tap into the angry vote of the 48 per cent. Let us be in no doubt that this is an incredible U-turn by the Prime Minister, who, up until this point, had insisted, time and time again, that a snap election would not take place. The debate as to whether the PM is violating the spirit of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act will be hard for the Labour Party to press once it votes for an election in parliament tomorrow, but the incentives behind May’s move will remain entirely relevant. Is May actually concerned with the national interest of Great Britain, or are there more cynical reasons at play?

The first option is that May is being totally genuine. In her speech on Tuesday morning, she talked about how opposition parties are trying to subvert the will of the people in parliament, how Britain is uniting but Westminster is not, that, with a strong refreshed mandate from the British people, she can plough through and get the best possible Brexit deal.

This does raise the question, however, as to what the role of opposition parties ought to be in negotiations with the European Union. For all the stick it got at the time, the Labour Party allowed the Article 50 bill to glide through parliament and has made clear that, while it wants to influence Brexit, it has no desire to stop the process.

May’s promise to build a consensus around Britain’s future has clearly fallen on deaf ears, but this is arguably a fault of her own, not the opposition. Maybe calling this election will be seen as a display of weak leadership, an attempt to subvert the views of the millions of Remainers in the UK and to hold a firm, unchallengeable, single-handed grip over one of the biggest political decisions in generations.

May knows that Brexit will be tough. She faces an unprecedented project of reshaping Britain’s relationship with Europe, rewriting and amending 40 years’ worth of EU law and working out trade deals around the globe. At the same time she has to balance a tricky domestic agenda: trying to improve the desperately struggling NHS, push through grammar schools reform, and ensure fiscal policy is in place to protect Britain’s financial sector from the pending uncertainty that it faces.

May will not be able to please everyone, and perhaps this is key to her decision. Go too soft on freedom of movement or European court jurisdiction and lose ground to UKIP. Sever European relations too aggressively and lose support to the Lib Dems. Try to compromise and build consensus and look like you’re going back on your previous words. By 2020, May will surely have made more enemies than she has now, be it on the political left or right, economically open or closed, culturally progressive or traditional. She knows that right now is likely the peak of her popularity, and calling an election allows her to cash in before it starts to fade away.

May’s mind might also be on the recent refocus of the Labour Party. Looking beyond the disastrous voting intention polls and the fact that ‘Don’t Know’ is a more popular potential Prime Minister than the Labour leader, be in no doubt that the recent policy blitz, unveiled by Jeremy Corbyn in preparation for the upcoming local elections, is popular. Proposals for an increased minimum wage and universal free school meals are supported by large majorities of the public and this will perhaps be concerning for the Prime Minister. Perhaps May believes that, if given until 2020, Corbyn would be able to successfully shape Britain’s political narrative to his policy agenda, building on a quite possible post-Brexit economic downturn and sustained anti-establishment anger. Maybe Corbyn would, in the long run, transcend his image of incredulity and mount a credible challenge to the Conservatives on the grounds of winning the hearts and minds of voters.

Finally, but no less importantly, the Conservative party faces verdicts on the multiple allegations of fraudulent election spending.

With dozens of cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and the very real possibility of nullified constituency results and criminal sentencing of MPs and their agents, the Tories will be keen to make the most of their popularity before the potential public outcry reaches its peak. With a working majority of 17, a dozen simultaneous by-elections would be dangerous territory for May. With a working majority of 100 they would become effectively meaningless.

We will never know for sure what led the Prime Minister to make, as Nicola Sturgeon calls it, “one of the most extraordinary U-turns in recent political history”. We won’t know whether May is genuinely enmeshed within a power struggle over Brexit and needs to tighten her grip over proceedings, or whether she is truly interested in exchanging her party’s current support-by-default for seats before it diminishes.

Either way, it appears that a Conservative landslide is likely, that the Tories will continue to dominate British politics, and that May will be in Number Ten for at least another five years.

A turning point in French politics

Romain Civalleri
-
0
A turning point in French politics

The upcoming French elections have been held by some media, such as the Economist, as a turning-point in Western politics, with the two major parties that have alternated at the head of the state since the start of the fifth republic in 1958 predicted to lose to one of the three underogs: Marine Le Pen, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and Emmanuel Macron.

The striking element, common to the success that these three campaigns have had so far, is an intense criticism of the French political landscape. Marine Le Pen, just like her father, has always thrived by criticizing French politics for being a system in the hands of an establishment, coining the phrase “UMPS” to describe how the UMP (rebranded The Republicans last year) and the Socialist Party kept alternating in power, with very little difference in the decisions that they took. It is however unlikely that she would win, given the strong support for a ‘popular front’ against the FN that is shared by the left, the centre and a portion of the right.

However, the idea that the right and the left have become two sides of a same coin has deeply permeated the French electorate. Indeed, since Mitterrand had to abandon his Keynesian program two years into his presidency to turn to a much more pragmatic austerity phase from 1983 onwards, both socialists and republicans have had very similar approaches to economic policy, embodied by the El Khomri law presented by the Hollande government supporting a neo-liberal simplification of the employment-related legislation. It is important to note that the article was passed by decree by the government, despite massive popular uprisings and parliamentary opposition.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon is the product of this disappearance of a properly militant left. He proposed to indebt the country by up to 100 billion in order to finance initiatives in new technologies and sustainable development, as well as stated, in a highly contradictory manner, that he would refuse to pay back the debt that France incurred over the years from international financial institutions. Finally, his will to cap the revenues of the highest earners to twenty times the salary of the worst paid employee clearly shows that he pictures himself as the renewal of the left, of its true values and its militantism. It thus seems that Mélenchon has been gaining in momentum to the point of having a non-negligible probability of reaching the second round of the presidential elections, as a consequence of branding himself a more genuine socialist.

In this landscape, Macron can be seen as the embodiment of the centrist liberalism that has guided French politics for 60 years. However, there are two sides to his campaign. The first is that of the liberal ex-minister, with a history of dealing with the patronal elites. The second side is almost populist: he inscribed himself in the popular opposition to the idea of a political class. He has proudly held his experience as a private banker as a sign that he has been in touch with the reality, and the structure of his new movement, En Marche, is based on popular support and aims at presenting people with no former political experience to most local elections. The fact that Macron did not even have a programme a few weeks ago shows that he wants to be elected as this central, liberal pragmatist.

This election has shown a polarisation of French politics, as well as increasing levels of populism, leading some people like Mélenchon to argue that a whole new political system, a Sixth Republic, is necessary. It is highly probable that the next French Parliament, elected in June, will have to prove its ability to work despite the absence of clear cut majority. This entails that career politicians will have to actually participate in a democratic debate rather than playing the political game of perpetual virtue-signalling conflict between opposition and majority,. The Nuit Debout initiative, inciting Parisians to debate together on the streets, has shown that a significant portion of the French population feels like the people themselves should be placed back at the centre of democracy, which is impossible under the current constitution. Quite paradoxically, this election, highly influenced by the deep and increasingly well perceived problems of the Fifth Republic, may be the one that saves it by giving it an opportunity to reform itself. Populist movements have clearly signalled that the French people has had enough of its elites. Some things never change.

Yangon University is modelled on Oxford, but there are no dreaming spires

Mia Millman
-
0
Yangon University is modelled on Oxford, but there are no dreaming spires

Walking around Yangon, though there are the affluent areas and fast food restaurants that exist in nearly all big cities, these areas are few and far between. Poverty pervades in this former capital city to a greater extent than in many of its Southeast Asian counterparts. The military regime, though removed in 2013, has had lasting effects on Burma (also known as Myanmar) and especially on its education. In Oxford—in the UK in general—we take our right to an education for granted. For certain periods during the last 50 years, university education in Burma was neither a right nor a luxury—it did not exist.

Universities, especially large ones, provide an opportunity for political discontent to manifest and for groups to mobilise. Oxford has been at the heart of student unrest many times in the past. The University of Yangon, too, is a prime example of this: in 1988, the 8888 Uprising—which occurred on 8th August 1988 (8/8/88)—began as student protests at Yangon University. It was during these protests that Aung San Suu Kyi became established as a source of hope and possible future leader of the country. In the aftermath of the uprising she co-founded a pro-democracy party, of which she remains president, that governs Burma today. This infamous uprising protested against the socialist autocracy which, with General Ne Win as leader, had ruled the country since 1962. The immediate response to the uprising by the government was a massacre of protestors. Officially, several hundred died as a result of the 8888 Uprising. Unofficially, the number was in the thousands.

The immediate impact of the uprising was clearly devastating, but the long-term impact can still be felt today. In response to the uprising, to prevent further mobilisation, the government shut down both Yangon and Mandalay University. The exact length of time for which the universities were closed is ambiguous, due to censorship. It appears that the universities were shut twice: once for roughly four years, immediately after the 1988 protests, and again just before the turn of the millennium. A quick Google search suggests that the second closure was brief, but speaking to people residing in Yangon tells a different story. Of the many people I asked, very few could give me a specific answer. The majority of the conversations I had went something along the lines of: “When did they reopen the university?”, “Not long ago”,“How long ago?”, ”Not long”.

The clearest answer I received suggests that, while the university has officially been open again since roughly 2000, they only reopened the accommodation. It was only just before Obama’s first state visit in 2012 that the university began running graduate lectures and classes again. It took even longer for undergraduate courses.

Though the main Yangon University central campus temporarily reopened in the 1990s, protests in 1996 again led to its closure and it remained intermittently closed for some time after that. Even at the bare minimum, using official figures which are likely to be an under-estimation, there are at least five school year groups who were not given the opportunity of a university education. International options at the time were equally scarce with the political regime barring most opportunities to leave and study abroad. Only the rare few in financially and politically privileged positions would have been a afforded the opportunity.

There was no option to look around at university open days, to have the dilemma over what course to apply for, to worry that you would not find the right university or that, when you found the right one, they would reject you—there was no university. By 1988, there were more than 50 universities established in the United Kingdom. Oxford had been established long, long before that. In 1988, Oxford was little different to what it is today. Oxford students still had their tutorials, went to bops, and were coerced into attending their JCR meetings with the promise of free food.

The University of Yangon, when established in 1848, was modelled on the University of Oxford. It had been one of the most prestigious universities in Asia. And yet in 1988, and the years that followed, it lost its prestige. There were no tutorials and no opportunities for formal education beyond school, not in that university nor anywhere in Burma. Yangon University was modelled on Oxford, but it had neither the same dreams nor spires.

Though Yangon University has been intermittently closed since 1988, it is no longer one of just two universities in the country. Even before the uprisings, the military regime converted the faculties into separate state-run universities which operated from the central campus, essentially functioning as a single university. After the closure however, when the government felt it safe to at least partially reopen, these faculties acted as separate universities. As the government refused to reopen the central campus out of fear of students mobilising once again, they opened these universities—now much smaller—in outer regions of the city. The university buildings were constructed quickly and in areas where there was little else other than these buildings. By keeping students separated, they prevented them from mobilising.

Decentralising the university, along with other actions by the government, has had lasting effects upon the quality of the education. When talking to people from Burma, though I could find little consensus on when the university reopened, one thing was clear—the education today still is not as good as it was before 1988.

The government didn’t just employ this tactic of fragmentation with universities–the same was done with places of worship. Burma is a religious country with 87.9 per cent of people being Buddhist, the majority of whom actively practice the religion.

Despite the large number of practicing Buddhists, the tradition and its places of worship are fragmented throughout the city and country. This is at least partly to prevent groups being able to mobilise against the government. To see such blatant disregard of crucial aspects of society, of education and of religion, purely for the purpose of maintaining power is something hard to stomach. Regardless of whether we agree with our current government’s agenda, their actions are not solely motivated by a desire to repress discontent–they aren’t that self-destructive. The same cannot be said in Burma.

We can’t know for certain exactly how much of an impact the university closure had on the city, as well as the rest of the country, but it is not insubstantial. For many, the best education still lies abroad and, though getting a visa may be easier than in the 1980s, the financial burden of an international education means that only the richest have access to a good education.

There is some good news. Following the dissolution of the military regime in 2011, there has been increased autonomy and investment in Yangon University. In 2013, they even started welcoming back undergraduates for the first time since the 1980s. The university may remain fragmented but it is slowly being restored. The benefits of improved education will take time but the effects will be lasting. Who knows, in the future the university modelled on Oxford may hold a similar prestige.

For now, Burma remains a product of the past governments’ failures. Education is still considered a luxury and a novelty—it is an opportunity which large portions of the adult population missed out on completely. Yangon University had been deemed a ‘bastion of academic freedom’. Though the doors of the university are now reopened, opportunities for education are still limited.

Education is such an ingrained aspect of all our lives that the concept of its non-availability is unfathomable. We complain about endless reading lists and essay crises on a daily basis, but we all had the opportunity and privilege to choose them. We should be grateful that it is an essay deadline that we’re missing rather than the opportunity to study at all.

Oxford pollution levels break health rules

Theo Davies-Lewis
-
0
Oxford pollution levels break health rules

Air pollution levels in Oxford breached international health rules at the beginning of 2017, an investigation by The Times has revealed.

The levels of nitrogen dioxide, which can cause cancer, exceeded both European Union and World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines.

While levels of nitrogen oxide are supposed to be kept below 40 micrograms per cubic metre of air, the average level of nitrogen dioxide between January and the end of March was 48 micrograms per cubic metre in the city.

The latest figures have led to more calls for a crackdown on diesel cars—which are among the leading producers of nitrogen dioxide.

A number of solutions have been proposed in Oxford, including the introduction of “driverless cars”. Reports earlier this moth suggested that driverless cars could be operating in Oxford city centre from as early as 2017. Oxbotica, a spin-out company from the University’s Robotics Institute, has begun to trial the vehicles in London and plans to continue the experiment in Oxford. Oxford is one of 26 areas of 146 that reached nitrogen dioxide levels that breached EU legislation and WHO guidelines. The Oxford Mail revealed in November that the amount of harmful nitrogen dioxide in the most polluted part of the city—St Clements—rose three per cent between 2014 and 2015, from 65 micrograms per cubic metre to 67. However, roadside levels of nitrogen dioxide have dropped by an average of 35 per cent across the city in the last ten years in Oxford.

Jonathan Grigg, professor of paediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London, and founding member of Doctors Against Diesel, said there was “overwhelming proof” of the harm caused by air pollution, saying: “diesel fleets should be removed from the roads as soon as possible.”

Professor Grigg added: “Exposure over a very long time has an insidious effect. It suppresses the lung growth of children; it’s involved in the onset of asthma, a decline in lung function as you age; and there’s emerging evidence of it causing cognitive problems and also reduced growth of foetuses.”

Speaking to Cherwell, Dr Christian Brand, Senior Research Fellow and Associate Professor at the Environmental Change Institute, responded to the findings, saying: “Generally, I think we have less of an air pollution problem than is often advertised—especially when compared to London, Paris, or Delhi, Beijing.

“Exceedance occurs only in a few hot spots with high traffic flows of diesel buses and London style, Hackney carriage taxis. While annual hourly means of NO2 concentrations are 20 percent above legal limits at 48 micrograms per cubic metre, it is worth remembering that the two roadside monitoring stations measuring these levels are near bus stops—with buses queuing and diesel engines idling.

“So, a pragmatist could just move the local AQ monitoring stations away from bus stops and further up the high street and St Aldate’s—just not next to bus stops.”

Dr Brand added: “The other point to make is that one of the best ways to reduce population exposure to nitrogen dioxide and other key pollutants is to shield pedestrians and other road users from the pollution.

“For example, some public transport stations have plexiglass tunnels, shields and sliding doors that only open when people are alighting or boarding. I am not suggesting this is pretty or feasible but certainly an option.”

A spokesman for the University told Cherwell: “The poor air quality in the City is a concern for the University, which has set in place measures in its Transport Strategy.

“The University has taken action to encourage staff and students to travel to work by sustainable modes and has taken steps to enable staff to travel on business within the City by pedal cycle, electric bikes and mass transit options. The University is also replacing diesel fleet vehicles with Ultra Low Emission equivalents.”

The Oxford Student Green Party issued a statement, saying: “The Oxford Greens have consistently worked to reduce Nitrogen Dioxide levels in the City, by discouraging driving in the centre and calling for sensible organisation of bus routes.

“This is merely further evidence that authorities have failed to treat a life-threatening problem seriously. With the problem growing ever more prominent, Oxford’s people have a chance to make this a significant issue in upcoming elections.”

The findings from the investigation come as the government prepares to publish its plans to improve air quality, after the High Court ruled last year that the current plan was inadequate—ordering a replacement to be produced by 24 April.

Life Divided: Unpacking

Rosa Thomas and Jamie Onslow
-
0
Life Divided: Unpacking

Rosa Thomas: For

Unsurprisingly, if you ask most people at Oxford, they would not put unpacking six times a year at the top of their list of favourite university traditions. I’ll admit it, perhaps packing doesn’t have the hedonism of trashing, the sophistication of matriculation or the rich history of Merton’s ‘Time Ceremony’, but I’m willing to bet that the process has had much more of an effect on your time at Oxford than you might think.

For one thing, packing provides a glimmer of hope that you may, just for once, have your life organised. For the other seven weeks of term I find myself living in a constant state of chaos. By second week clothing will be rammed in my desk drawer, pens will be in biscuit tins, and, my socks will never be seen again. I become accustomed to a life where seeing the floor is like meeting someone who likes Lola Lo’s; rare and fascinating. But, for the first blissful days of term everything is perfectly organised.

Unpacking is my sole chance in eight weeks of madness to have my life together, find the things I’ve lost and remember that normal people do not keep their tutorial notes inside a spare pillow case on the floor. The pillow case may be a rather extreme example. However, I do refuse to believe that every Oxford student manages to keep their rooms in perfect, regimented order, all term.

You may complain about packing, but I’m guessing you’ve found more than a few important old essays in the great 0th week unpack. The process doesn’t just allow you to organise your life, it makes Oxford feel like home. It’s hard to deny that your college room feels quite different every time you’ve finished unpacking. I may be a university cliché, but after taking out my fairy lights, sticking up my photos and unloading my varied cushion collection, term doesn’t feel quite so daunting, and home never feels quite so far away.

Jamie Onslow: Against

Each time I return to Oxford after the vac, my feelings of almost pant-wetting excitement are tempered by the knowledge that before I can gaily dive into the fun-filled bonanza that is life at our university, I must first go through the ordeal of unpacking. The first item to be unpacked is, in fact, myself. As is common practice, at the end of every Oxford term the head porter rubs me down with goose fat and pushes me into a tight-fitting wooden box. Any remaining space is filled with items, read yet mostly-unread, from my reading list.

The lack of light within the box precludes actually reading anything, and I instead absorb books through my feet and into my bloodstream, much like a phagocyte might absorb a suspicious-looking amoeba. However, just as a foetus knows when the time is ripe to slide forth into the world, as soon as term begins I instinctively slither out of my box. I writhe around naked on the floor, temporarily blinded by intense daylight, with half-absorbed Russian classics protruding out of my legs.

Luckily I am not alone, as much like the hatching of baby turtles, all undergraduates emerge from their boxes simultaneously, and thrash around on main quad until they can walk. Much as a new born calf soon hobbles to his feet, or a butterfly emerges from a cocoon, I am soon ready to undertake the more serious task of unpacking the various items that I use in my daily routine. As 0th week comes around I often consider staying within the oaky confines of my box. However, it is common knowledge that throughout history few have achieved greatness from within the confines of a greasy box, and so I reluctantly nibble my way out, ready for some learning.

OxFilm: your script

Una O'Sullivan
-
0
OxFilm: your script

Getting the right script is a crucial first step in making any student film. It’s common for student filmmakers to decide that they want to make a film, and then immediately jump to the camera they want, the budget they’ll have, and the cool shots they want to incorporate—the story comes after, and it frequently shows in the final product.

So, first things first, write a script. It doesn’t need to be a summer blockbuster material—it can be as wacky as you want, but make sure it’s been redrafted enough times to have reached the necessary degree of polish. Remember, this script will end up on a screen, so if you feel like adding throwaway lines or a half-hearted conversation about the weather to fill some space, think again—every line counts!

While you’re at it, consider your poor audience in the cinema. Do they really want to sit through an avant-garde realisation of the experiences of a greenfly? Would you? Even if you don’t want the audience to enjoy your film—there could be other emotions you want to provoke—writing a script that tells a compelling story is essential to kickstart your project. Without a good script, there’s no point in filming.

Blind Date: The only way to cope with these inadequacies was to drink more”

Life Team
-
0
Blind Date: The only way to cope with these inadequacies was to drink more”

Priya Khaira-Hanks, 2nd year, English, St Catz

My evening with Jamie started and ended with gossip—at the beginning, we chatted about Gossip Girl, and, a few hours and drinks later, were exchanging juicy details about certain mutual acquaintances. Jamie also divulged to me what really happens at Christ Church: coming from a mere proletarian college, I was astounded that, instead of Freshers’ week, first years are told the dark secrets of privilege and made to sign a confidentiality agreement, promising never to let slip who drowned in champagne at that ball in the nineties. We exchanged our fatal flaws—for him, country music, for me, cheese—and the fact that neither of us can drive. The only way to cope with these inadequacies was to drink more, and I ended up embarking on an impassioned polemic about Holly and Phil on This Morning. And, if ranting about daytime TV isn’t winning date etiquette, I’m not sure what is.

First impression? Punctual!

Chat? 76% banter, 24% French Revolution

Personality? Destroyed my anti-ChCh prejudice

2nd date? Holly Willoughby is a hard act to beat

Jamie Horton, 2nd year, History, Christ Church

The fortune cookie I opened at dinner prior to the date (something about a lettuce wrap) didn’t provide me with the encouragement I was hoping for and so I ventured with some trepidation to Turf. Nevertheless, I was soon put at ease by Priya’s friendliness, and I really felt like I was making progress when my confessed admiration for country music got me likened to her mum. Sensing my bad boy image was under threat, I panicked somewhat and claimed to be running an Escobar-style drug cartel from my college room. Her lack of surprise that such an operation existed inside Christ Church said a lot. Whilst we were bonding over our lack of ability to drive, I felt the time was right for a high-risk, high-reward gambit. Unfortunately, the revelation that I lived next to the busiest bus route in Europe (Wilmslow Road, Manchester) proved not to be the winner I hoped it would be.

First impression? This might be quite fun

Chat? On point

Personality? Genuinely lovely!

2nd date? Not holding my breath

 

If you would like to go on a Blind Date, get in touch with the life editors

1...871872873...2,494Page 872 of 2,494

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